Unsafe passing - any leg to stand on?

[dipshit]

Yeah I wuz behind some cages an a passing lane came up an the back cage pulled into th passin lane in front of me so I went between them real fast so I didnt get hit an the popo gave me a fuckin ticket wouldnt ya know, what a wanker!

You're the wanker.

[BoristheBiter]

No its not. It's statute.

What the high court orders in writing is law.

see you are wrong again, what the high court orders is not law it is a judgement taken from the laws of the land handed down by government.

The high court does not make the law they only set precedent.

[Ferkletastic]

No its not. It's statute.

What the high court orders in writing is law.

You're an idiot.

I had a debtor pull the copyrighted name bullshit with me when I used to do collections. Stated he was sueing me for half a million for using his name on a business document. I took great pleasure in pointing out the fair use clauses in the relevant legislation and asking him if he was willing to test his claim in court.

He got very meek at that point.

People with no legal knowledge using pseudo-legal speak and big words they don't understand will generally just gaurantee that the responder will open up with both barrells.

It was nice to have you not around spouting your inane bullshit for a few months.

[C.Linnell]

I am interested in the legal argument against DB's point though.

I didn't sign a contract saying I agree to abide by laws (or statutes, or whatever). Now, obviously that's never going to be an excuse (unless you're DB), but I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer explain why.

Perhaps living in a country is implied consent?

[Grubber]

Yeah I wuz behind some cages an a passing lane came up an the back cage pulled into th passin lane in front of me so I went between them real fast so I didnt get hit an the popo gave me a fuckin ticket wouldnt ya know, what a wanker!

Was reading through trying to get a good idea of all this and bugger me here it is.
Answer is....your screwedand you should be.
What the fuck were you thinking and why did you even feel you had to ask on here. Unbelievable

If you seriously think you have a leg to stand on...all i can say is...the rest of us should keep well away from you while your out and about.

[jasonu]

You're the wanker.

Maybe so but you are an even bigger wanker and your mother dresses you funny!

[steve_t]

Was reading through trying to get a good idea of all this and bugger me here it is.
Answer is....your screwedand you should be.
What the fuck were you thinking and why did you even feel you had to ask on here. Unbelievable

If you seriously think you have a leg to stand on...all i can say is...the rest of us should keep well away from you while your out and about.

Jasonu wasn't the OP and was taking the piss, me thinks.

[MarkH]

So I was pulled up 6 weeks ago for an unsafe passing maneuver and informed of $150 fine, no points. I deliberately awaited the reminder as they like to change things about. It now says $150 fine + 35 demerits. Also the infringement states that I did unsafely pass another vehicle traveling in the same direction.

I went between two cars who were moving in separate lanes. It wasn't on the motorway and no excessive speed. Do I have anything to challenge? It will tip me to 90 points if i pay.

Did the officer give a reason why your manoeuvre was unsafe? It sounds like straightforward lane splitting to me - if the speed is not excessive and there is plenty of room then why not?

In Auckland there are roads with 4+ lanes that are not the motorway, I often lane split when it is safe to do so. I'm always interested in the conditions in which a police officer will get sand in his vag and decide to pull over a biker for it.

[Grubber]

Jasonu wasn't the OP and was taking the piss, me thinks.

You are right. My sincerest appologies Jasonu.
In that case.....the OP is an absolute DICK

[MarkH]

No its not. It's statute.

What the high court orders in writing is law.

Don't do drugs, mmmkay. Drugs are bad, mmmkay.

Since when is a statute not a law?
The high courts interpretation of the laws (i.e. statutes) is what sets precedents, but the statutes themselves are the primary authority upon which the judgements in court are based.
The elected government of this country makes the laws (statutes) and the citizens are expected to abide by them. The police are expected to enforce them and the courts are expected to uphold them (unless they have good reason not to). There have been times that statutes have been overturned in court, but I wouldn't rely on that happening for a driving offence.

[KapitiLizard]

maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time) but jasonu is the one referring to this arrangement of lanes as a passing lane. In my understanding of the situation as portrayed..two lanes heading in the same direction on one side of the road... Lets argue that these lanes are of the wider variety. If CAR A is in the left most lane and CAR B the right lane. If CAR A were to be fully left inside that there left lane, and rider of motorcycle in question were to pass between these two CAGE's, but stay to the left of the white dashed lane divider, that would be considered a legal over take move would it not? IE Stayed completely within a designated lane and passed on the right of the vehicle it intended to pass..... Wouldn't this allow a leg to stand on? I agree if in the move the cycle meandered over the white divider the move would become a pass on the left or inside which is a no no....

IMO this is the closest to the law than all the other garbage posted by the many "legal experts" here. How do I know? Because I have been to court and the judge ruled in my favour as I was "passing to the right of the vehicle within the marked lane and doing so in a safe manner".

So, if you were riding at a speed significantly higher than the vehicle you are passing this is likely to be considered unsafe and you will be screwed. If you crossed the white line between the lanes which means you were passing the other vehicle on it's left you will be screwed.

Either way, good luck

[idb]

Don't do drugs, mmmkay. Drugs are bad, mmmkay.

Since when is a statute not a law?
The high courts interpretation of the laws (i.e. statutes) is what sets precedents, but the statutes themselves are the primary authority upon which the judgements in court are based.
The elected government of this country makes the laws (statutes) and the citizens are expected to abide by them. The police are expected to enforce them and the courts are expected to uphold them (unless they have good reason not to). There have been times that statutes have been overturned in court, but I wouldn't rely on that happening for a driving offence.

God you guys are killjoys...I wanted to see him try DB's defence!
I'll have to go back to burning ants with my magnifying glass for entertainment now!

[BoristheBiter]

I am interested in the legal argument against DB's point though.

I didn't sign a contract saying I agree to abide by laws (or statutes, or whatever). Now, obviously that's never going to be an excuse (unless you're DB), but I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer explain why.

Perhaps living in a country is implied consent?

You signed it when you filled out your licence applicantion to abide by the rules of the road.

DB argument is like saying i can murder someone because i never signed a contract to say i can't, its just complete BS and would not stand up in any court.

[C.Linnell]

DB argument is like saying i can murder someone because i never signed a contract to say i can't, its just complete BS and would not stand up in any court.

Obviously. But, curious person that I am, I want to know what they'd say in the court (since the judge wouldn't actually use the term "BS").

Any KB lawyers around?

[CookMySock]

DB argument is like saying i can murder someone because i never signed a contract to say i can't, its just complete BS and would not stand up in any court.

No its not the same. The example you make is a matter of Common Law. That is, imposing my will upon someone else to their detriment causes actual harm to some person. The effect would be similar if I stole their property or otherwise injured them or caused some other loss.

The example I make is about statute law - a made-up rule of a corporation concerning what you or I may or may not DO, and if we did break some rule, its about what financial penalty may be imposed. These are almost always more about the kings' income than about some real matter at law.

I didn't sign a contract saying I agree to abide by laws (or statutes, or whatever). Now, obviously that's never going to be an excuse (unless you're DB), but I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer explain why. Perhaps living in a country is implied consent?

It is implied consent, which is why you should revoke it in writing. Unfortunately, the po-po arent used to this, and will pull out a big stick and swing it at you.

The whole concept of statute law is based on the idea that YOU AGREE to be bound by a set of rules and guidelines. If you state outright from the beginning that you DO NOT AGREE then they have no say in the matter. All that is left is The Common Law - matters concerning injury to other parties (and matters of contract). There is only one court in the land that can proceed to discuss and make orders on any matter without your consent or even your presence, and that is The High Court, but the High Court is a Common Law Court bound by those principles, and therefore they cannot order payment to be made without the basic Common Law principles - those of Contract and Tort, and Contract and Tort is not related to some statute law fine.

edit: btw, lawyers wont help you. Their sworn duty is to uphold statute law, and it's what butters their bread. Why would they tell you the truth?