Ticketed $150 for following too close on the harbour bridge

[cbfb]

Maybe you wouldn't have been so close to the car in front if some tosser wasn't pushing up your arse forcing you closer to the car in front.

Yesterday I had a cop car follow me from SH16 and up SH1 over the Harbour Bridge. He was sitting right behind me throught the 70kph and 80kph limits. I have 75 points on my licence and caould really do without this childish shit. Fortunately he turned off at Stafford Park.

I am amazed that the Police are so over resourced that they can fill the roads with cop cars to harrass road users in this way. It's like an Eastern block Police state.

Did you get any demerits?

*555 him for tailgaiting

I did one once for a cop turning in front of me without indicating.

[The Stranger:Me]

speed assessed as 70-74kmh and not within 28 metres of the vehicle in front.
are they having a laugh?

So, if I understand you weren't speeding and you were NOT within 28 metres of the vehicle in front?
Anyone know what the actual distance must be at that speed? Without counting out the 2 seconds I should have thought that (aprox) 7 car lengths was sufficient.

[CookMySock]

It's just a tax. Pay it - everyone else does.

[Jantar]

speed assessed as 70-74kmh and not within 28 metres of the vehicle in front.
are they having a laugh?

No, but you have that ticket as evidence that no offence was committed. To have been following too close you would have had to have been within 28 meters of the vehicle in front. As you were not within that distance (use your ticket as evidence) then no offence has been committed.

[Ender EnZed]

No, but you have that ticket as evidence that no offence was committed. To have been following too close you would have had to have been within 28 meters of the vehicle in front. As you were not within that distance (use your ticket as evidence) then no offence has been committed.

As far as I'm aware tickets aren't normally issued as proof of innocence so presumably the ticket was for being within 28m. Correct me if I'm wrong danchop.

28m at 74km/h is about 1.36 seconds.

Sounds like you were following too close.

[steelestring]

speed assessed as 70-74kmh and not within 28 metres of the vehicle in front.
are they having a laugh?

I have been done for this before... after he caught up to me on the straights in featherston..... but it was only after he found out that vehicle was redged and wof was up to date, I was licensed, Tested my blinkers and brake light... inspected my tires.... then had to find out if the vehicle was not stolen...
Then he pulled this crap...
After being tail gated and pushed along by the cop himelf on the wellington motorway and rimutakas... his tires squelling while cornering (he was deffinitely playing with me and made me feel uncomfortable)

THE STOP, did the checks and found nothing... (this took a long time) and then said... "You came close to the middle line a few times" I said.....ok (useing my lane?) "dont you think you were following that van back there in that bit a bit close?"
I didnt pass any vans on the hill.... I said no. I asked what 'bit' he was reffering too
He said.. "that bit back there" (What the F????) I said I was sorry and didnt know what 'bit' or what he was refering too and explained I had passed 2 cars only.
He said, "well.... I think you were following too close and by doing so you have broken the 28 metre rule"..... Bang $150
He was just grumpy...
Paid it... forget about it..

[steelestring]

It's just a tax. Pay it - everyone else does.

sure do

[danchop]

No, but you have that ticket as evidence that no offence was committed. To have been following too close you would have had to have been within 28 meters of the vehicle in front. As you were not within that distance (use your ticket as evidence) then no offence has been committed.

ive only realised the "not" part shouldnt have been there

[The Stranger:Me]

No, but you have that ticket as evidence that no offence was committed. To have been following too close you would have had to have been within 28 meters of the vehicle in front. As you were not within that distance (use your ticket as evidence) then no offence has been committed.

ive only realised the "not" part shouldnt have been there

So, lets assume for a minute I'm ignorant (unlikely I know, but remotely possible I guess). Is there a requirement somewhere at law to be 28m or more behind a vehicle at 70kph?
Because being aware of this ticket today whilst traversing the section of road in question I took particular note.
At 70kph and counting out loud one thousand and one, one thousand and two I found this equated to aproximately 4 subaru stationwagons. Now lets take a semi-educated guess at say 4.2m per subaru I was more like 17m behind the car in front. No way in hell is 28m equivilent of 2 seconds at that speed.

[Jantar]

So, lets assume for a minute I'm ignorant (unlikely I know, but remotely possible I guess). Is there a requirement somewhere at law to be 28m or more behind a vehicle at 70kph?
Because being aware of this ticket today whilst traversing the section of road in question I took particular note.
At 70kph and counting out loud one thousand and one, one thousand and two I found this equated to aproximately 4 subaru stationwagons. Now lets take a semi-educated guess at say 4.2m per subaru I was more like 17m behind the car in front. No way in hell is 28m equivilent of 2 seconds at that speed.

The law is 1 car length for each 10 kmh. One car length is deemed to be 4 m. Hence 70 kmh is 28 m. The 2 second rule is a guide, not law, but is more conservative than the law.

At 70 kmh you are travelling 20 m/s so 28 m is just under 1.5 seconds.

[marie_speeds]

So, lets assume for a minute I'm ignorant (unlikely I know, but remotely possible I guess). Is there a requirement somewhere at law to be 28m or more behind a vehicle at 70kph?
Because being aware of this ticket today whilst traversing the section of road in question I took particular note.
At 70kph and counting out loud one thousand and one, one thousand and two I found this equated to aproximately 4 subaru stationwagons. Now lets take a semi-educated guess at say 4.2m per subaru I was more like 17m behind the car in front. No way in hell is 28m equivilent of 2 seconds at that speed.

You too? I tried counting in my head to work out using lamp post as reference and coud not see how it equated to 28m when it seemed I was much closer than that. But then I got ticketed using a bus lane to make a left turn so my perception of distance is probaby not the best...

[Berries]

So, lets assume for a minute I'm ignorant (unlikely I know, but remotely possible I guess). Is there a requirement somewhere at law to be 28m or more behind a vehicle at 70kph?

Section 5.9(4) of the Road User Rule. You can find it on the NZTA website.

(4) No driver may drive a motor vehicle on any road following behind another vehicle at a distance behind that vehicle of less than—

(a) 16 m, if his or her speed is 40 km an hour or more but less than 50 km an hour; or
(b) 20 m, if his or her speed is 50 km an hour or more but less than 60 km an hour; or
(c) 24 m, if his or her speed is 60 km an hour or more but less than 70 km an hour; or
(d) 28 m, if his or her speed is 70 km an hour or more but less than 80 km an hour; or
(e) 32 m, if his or her speed is 80 km an hour or more.

[The Stranger:Me]

my perception of distance is probaby not the best...

Lets face it, you got an excuse cause guys are always lying about how long things really are. Must get confusing.

A hint though, when it gets to 20m - it's bullshit.

[The Stranger:Me]

Section 5.9(4) of the Road User Rule. You can find it on the NZTA website.

Thank you,
But fook me, if they started enforcing that one they'd make an absolute killing.
Not to mention that no one in Auckland would ever get to work - when are they going to start building all the extra roads?

[ajturbo]

i would fight this one.. what a cock of a cop....
and i am GLAD you left him with something to think about next time he pulls a quoter filling thing like that,