Suspended licence 28 days - Question regarding a possible defence?

**Katman** · 9th January 2011, 07:18

Originally Posted by davereid

114 in a 50 km/hr zone...

I accept there are some zones that are badly placed and should be 100 km/hr zones.

But it sounds here like this zone deserved to be a 50 km/hr zone.

At 9.30 the light is fading, but kids will still be playing, there will be joggers, pedestrians and dog walkers out.

They expect to be able to cross the road safely by applying judgment based on vehicles approaching at 50 km/hr.

There is no excuse for doing those kinds of speeds in those kinds of places.

Don't forget, approaching a blind brow.

**rastuscat** · 9th January 2011, 07:20

The policy says that if the reading is available to be shown, it should be shown. In this case, it wasn't available, so he didn't have to show it. The Popo will be giving evidence that your speed came as such a surprise that he didn't have time to lock it.

I regularly get policy quoted to me that doesn't exist. I know the policies, as I have to. I also know the development of the policies, and their historical background and context. And still I get spotty faced irks quoting policy to me that I know to be wrong. Most often, people have a brief knowledge of the policy, and quote it to me without knowing that it is only partly true.

E.g. I had a woman recently complain about me writing her a ticket for not producing her licence. She was getting a speeding ticket, and I also wrote her for not producing. She advised me that she would be speaking to her high ranking Police friends and that I was wrong, that she'd get off and I'd be in trouble. Steve Fitzgerald (RIP) was the Road Policing boss when it was made mandatory to carry a drivers licence. He told us that if we randomly stop someone for, say, breath testing, and they don't have their licence, they get a warning, as long as checks show that they have a licence. But if someone is stopped for a traffic offence, they get the ticket they were originally stopped for, and the ticket for not producing the licence.

I quote this merely as an example of people espousing partly correct policy. They quote the part that suits them.

Anyway, it's better if the cop has the reading to show you, but not fatal to his case if he doesn't.

One law that doesn't vary with policy is the law of physics. Not a good idea to do that speed in such circumstances, but at least you've acknowledged that. Maybe you'll get a summons for Dangerous Driving (nil diversion available) or maybe it'll just be exceeding 50 km/h. Depends on the cop and the road/traffic/weather/visibility. Time, place and circumstances, really.

Also notable is that policy is not law. Him breaking policy (if he had) would not make it okay that you broke the law. The courts would likely convict you anyway.

Donuts.

**mattian** · 9th January 2011, 07:26

Originally Posted by blackbobcat

Yeah.. regretting pulling over now... should have kept going...

but sadly whats done is done... cant change that.

I'm giving you credit where credits due. In a world where personal responsibilty for ones actions is a foreign concept for most people, you owned up, and did the right thing by pulling over.
You fucked up, but, hey... who hasn't?. Unfortunately you got caught. I reckon just suck it up and take your punishment like a man. Lesson learned. Put it behind you.

**Taz** · 9th January 2011, 07:30

Slow down rossi! Did you really need to get home 2 minutes earlier? The time it took to have a chat on the side of the road with the popo you still would have made it home faster at 50kph. You're screwed.

WTF did you stop??

**Kickaha** · 9th January 2011, 08:14

Originally Posted by The Baron

I just wanted to say, good on you for stopping. You did the crime and you did man up! There is honor in that.

He didn't really man up though, as now even though he admits his guilt he's trying to weasel his way out of it

**p.dath** · 9th January 2011, 08:19

You'll find this Wiki article about what happens in court interesting:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/Court

If it was me I'd just plead guilty. You know your guilty. You're probably not going to be successful defending any action Don't waste your money on a lawyer.

**Toaster** · 9th January 2011, 08:22

Originally Posted by blackbobcat

Ok so the other night (Wednesday - 9:30pm) i was pulled over doing 114kph in a 50 zone.

Yeah i was speeding... i know it... was just in a hurry to get home... dont really have an excuse.

Anyway the cop was coming the other way and picked up my speed but i was over the hill and long gone before he even had a chance to put his lights on... but i knew i had been caught... so i pulled over and waited for him to show up... bout 10 seconds later he flys over the rise... expecting to have a chase on his hands but guess it was his lucky day...

anyway he gets out of the car and the first thing he says is "i appreciate the fact that you pulled over" cause we both knew i cold have floored it and been gone before he even got turned around (i ride a Kawasaki ZX-10R - Ex Track Bike)

he then goes on to tell me that ive lost my licence for doing 114 in a 50 zone etc etc etc... tells me that at that speed i have had my licence suspended for 28 days and that i can expect to recieve a court summons in relation to the charges...

he let me ride my bike home though....

Now this is where it gets interesting... during the conversation he said that his radar picked me up doing 114Kph... but he didnt have time to lock the speed into the radar machine so he couldnt produce that slip of paper they can print out or show me the speed on the radar... he said that he didnt have to... he said that he only had to observe it...

Does anyone know if this is correct and is this a possible way to avoid conviction at my court summons... i thought the police officer had to be able to prove the speed...

also the police officer didnt specify what charges i would be up for... careless or dangerous driving or is there a seperate conviction just related to speed??

final question: i have never been convicted/ been to court before... havent had a speeding ticket in over a year i think... any idea in the likely hood of getting diversion or discharged without conviction or just a fine with no disqualification from driving??

ive got a lawyer but im just waiting for him to return my call regarding an appt

any assistance would be appreciated

Thanks

Good on you for pulling over. Its everyones lucky day when no-one is killed or hurt trying to evade the police.

The charge will be dangerous driving - speed, as opposed to dangerous driving - manner.

The officer only has to observe the speed and produce his brief of evidence and supporting calibration docs etc in court. That is his proof.

If you wish to argue that point - it is too late as you just admitted it in a public forum that can also be produced in court if you plead not guilty.

Given your clean history I would rather suggest a lawyer earn their money reducing the charge for an early guilty plea.

Hope this helps.

**Woodman** · 9th January 2011, 08:33

You were doing and admitted doing 114 km/h in a 50 km/ zone and you want to get off on a technicality?

No wonder the cops have bugger all tolerance.

Plead guilty and try for a reduction. It will cost less in the long run imho.

**Bassmatt** · 9th January 2011, 08:36

I love speeding.... on the open road. I try not to speed in 50 or 70 zones as there is usually a good reason for these limits
114 in a 50 is idiotic.
take it on the chin and be bloody thankful its not worse.

**Tink** · 9th January 2011, 08:44

I am just pissed he had to waste time chatting to you about speeding, when he could have been at a domestic violence incident, or something which is important.

SLOW DOWN, I have kids, and I shit myself when they are playing on the pavement, remember the lad that lost it, and killed a 4 year old. Sigh

**JMemonic** · 9th January 2011, 08:48

Originally Posted by rastuscat

E.g. I had a woman recently complain about me writing her a ticket for not producing her licence. She was getting a speeding ticket, and I also wrote her for not producing. She advised me that she would be speaking to her high ranking Police friends and that I was wrong, that she'd get off and I'd be in trouble. Steve Fitzgerald (RIP) was the Road Policing boss when it was made mandatory to carry a drivers licence. He told us that if we randomly stop someone for, say, breath testing, and they don't have their licence, they get a warning, as long as checks show that they have a licence. But if someone is stopped for a traffic offence, they get the ticket they were originally stopped for, and the ticket for not producing the licence.

rastuscat a legitimate question here, I understand the logic behind policy and the legislation on this, it actually makes some kind of sense, but didn't a judge in the last couple of years throw out a case or make ruling that the requirement of carrying a licence at all times whilst driving is harsh and unfair, and in essence gave a legal decision that the is grounds for a period that a licence must be provided to the police similar to how it used to be ie seven days to produce the licence at a police station or an officer?

**Katman** · 9th January 2011, 08:50

And let's not forget that this is precisely the manner in which we have so many incidents of "The fucking cager just pulled out in front of me".

When a car driver sees you 100 metres down the road in a 50kph zone they are not expecting you to be doing twice the legal speed limit.

**ynot slow** · 9th January 2011, 09:05

Were you speeding?Yes.
Did you stop ?Yes.
Good for you,are you guilty of speeding as charged?Yes.
In court if you don't piss around with a lawyer,after the judge has the officers' version you get a chance to reply to the charges,maybe put your views to hin then.Also the prosecuting officer may tell the judge that the officer comented that the defendant stopped promptly,when he could easily run,therefor the judge may give a bit of a break with fine and/or suspension.
Turn up with a lawyer and he may get pissed at your arrogance and really sting you,then you still have lawyers bill.