All charges dropped

[Jack Miller]

I fell foul of one of New Zealand's patched-up gangs a few months ago.
Like all gangs the Police has its share of good and bad members and a couple of the bad ones ticketed me at the end of a passing lane then demanded money with menace.

All gangs have their own ethics and this was in contravention of the highway robbery gang's policy that "vehicles should not be targeted within 250 metres of the finish of any passing lane"[1]

Furthermore, they deployed their RADAR in a devious way that did not give the full 3 second reading required for accuracy[2].

Finally, demonstrating the widely criticised arrogant refusal of front line members to accept any view contrary to theirs, be it from Gang HQ (which they call Bullshit Castle) or any other source,
and following the rising trend, especially amongst highway members, to ignore individual circumstances[3]
the members refused to listen to my explanation that if I had sped, which I doubted, it was because the vehicle I was passing had accelerated dangerously along with those closely following it
meaning I had not breached the Road User Rule[4]

With help from the District Court I was able to make the gang see reason and all charges have been dropped.

I considered asking the Court for a non-molestation order against the Police but decided against it. As a five year resident of Wanganui I have become used to encountering gang members in their variety of uniforms, patches, badges and other insignia. This is the first occasion on which insignia has been used menacingly, and ultimately it proved harmless.

[1] http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/...ide/index.html

[2] Police RADAR Operator’s Manual

[3] "My Individual Circumstances Were Taken Into Account... a significant decline ... most notable among those who have had roadside contact." Gravitas 2009-10 Citizen Satisfaction Survey

[4] “A person is not in breach of this rule if the act took place in response to a situation on the road not of the person’s own making ...” S1.8.1 Land Transport Road User Rule 2004

I have no affiliation to any gang.

[Jdogg]

Are the guidelines that you supplied a link to, still current since the Commencement Date is: 27/02/2007 and Expiry Date is: 27/02/2009 . Have they not been superseeded?

[White trash]

Awesome, just what KB needs, another cop bashing poster.

You should have just kicked those original "gang members" in the nuts when they originally pulled you over, that's what I woulda done. And if the gave me any lip, one woulda copped a glock just to show the other one I meant business.

[thepom]

Good on ya mate,I just served and I was doing 44 in a thirty and the ploice were hiding behind a road sign and a trailer.....

[Jack Miller]

Are the guidelines that you supplied a link to, still current since the Commencement Date is: 27/02/2007 and Expiry Date is: 27/02/2009 . Have they not been superseeded?

I sympathise with your question. The Police/LTSA have demonstrated a disingenuous sinking-lid enforcement policy by publicly positing something palatable (eg; we'll only target the top 15%); sinking below it (i.e.; targeting everyone); then subsequently changing the policy (without publicity) in a constant ratcheting down of the reasonableness and ratcheting up of the revenue. However, in this case, according to a letter from Paula Rose[1] dated 17 Dec, 2010 it is still policy. Her reasoning is:

"This policy was introduced to reduce the risk of vehicle crashes and the consequences of those crashes. The merging of vehicles at the ends of passing lanes is potentially hazardous. It requires vehicles to travel at similar speeds and merge "like a zip." Prior to this policy being introduced, there were reports of drivers in the process of merging suddenly braking and taking evasive action when they saw a speed camera vehicle ahead. These driver reactions led to higher risks of vehicle crashes than vehicle speeds alone. To minimise that increased crash risk, the policy was introduced to take the speed camera vehicles away from the immediate vision of drivers in the process of merging."

Note that the Police make no admission here that exceeding the speed limit is OK at the end of passing lanes. However, if the vehicle you are passing is at the head of a queue of vehicles who are not trying to pass it and has been travelling at less than the speed limit, and if the entire queue speeds up leaving you no space to re-merge, and if the passing lane end is approaching quickly you have no choice but to exceed the speed limit to remain safe. In this case section 1.8 provides a defense.


[1] National Manager - Roading Policy
NZ Police

[Jack Miller]

Good on ya mate,I just served and I was doing 44 in a thirty and the ploice were hiding behind a road sign and a trailer.....

Assuming you are law-abiding and were not of course actually speeding, and assuming they spent less than three seconds taking your reading (so you wouldn't spot them and slow down) I recommend you fight the ticket. According to information I obtained from http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com an accurate reading is impossible in less than three full seconds.

ps I have no affiliation to aussiespeedingfines other than as a satisfied customer.

[Jack Miller]

Awesome, just what KB needs, another cop bashing poster.

I prefer not to see myself as a "Cop Basher" merely someone who gives credit where credit is due. I applaud the Police's recent successful major drug bust and have considerable respect for those who walk into substance-fueled, violent altercations and restore the peace. As a rule, I even go out of my way to help them. For example, when two policemen appeared in hot pursuit of a man running towards me up Willis St I tackled the man and held him until the police arrived. I also sacrificed my time and income[1] to attend Court as a witness for them. Mind you, the result was disappointing. On that occasion the Court found that the custody the man had been escaping from was unlawful and immediately discharged him to innocent freedom. It appears that the Police had had no right to detain him and I had unwittingly aided and abetted an unlawful activity. C'est la vie

Notwithstanding that my personal experiences don't support it I believe that, like most groups of human beings the Police is mainly peopled with well-intentioned members trying to improve the world. Just as there is good and bad in each of us, so too is there good and bad in every human group, mainly good. If there is a sub-group within the Police where this balance is different I suspect it is in traffic enforcement. This view appears to be born out in in the Gravitas survey that singled them out for special mention.

[1]I am self employed and Witness Fees are a pittance.

[rastuscat]

...If there is a sub-group within the Police where this balance is different I suspect it is in traffic enforcement. This view appears to be born out in in the Gravitas survey that singled them out for special mention...

Hi Jack.

Whoops, must remember never to say that when boarding a plane.

Anyways, I'm in that sub group. The people I work with are an interesting bunch, but as you mentioned, we are a cross section of society.

What makes the difference is the work we are expected to do. I get to deal with a far greater cross section of society than your average popo. The "Real Police" spend 90% of their time dealing with the lower 10% of society. Road policing staff get to deal with a full range of the public.

That's because most people won't assault anyone, steal anything, or get drunk and make a total fool of themselves. Obviously lots do, but by far the majority of the population are law abiding citizens.

When it comes to road laws, however, the reverse is almost certainly true. Know it or not, most folk drive to an average standard, doing things subconsciously that they bag other people for doing. E.G. Lots of us bag folk for driving while using a cellphone, but sneak a call when we absolutely have to.

Lots of us drive at speeds over the limit. Note that I didn't say speed too fast for the conditions, or inappropriate speed, just that which is over the publicly published limit. I recognise the difference. It's law over the limit wich is easy to educate and enforce, so it's speed over the limit that gets enforced. Inappropriate speed is very subjective, and it's an objective level that is needed.

Anyway, as a result, the traffic popos get to deal with a far broader range of individuals. For this reason, the public finds it easy to climb on the backs of the road popos, and the adverse public comment is welcomed by all who feel self justification after having fallen foul of traffic law themself. Had a ticket? Doesn't it feel so much better to know that lots of people get tickets, and it's all about revenue collecting. It makes folk feel good to know that it's the popos fault, not theirs.

The same old advice gets out there though. If you don't want a ticket at the end of a passing lane for exceeding the speed limit, plan your overtaking in a way that means you don't have to exceed the speed limit at the end of a passing lane. Spooky really, to learn that the people who get the tickets are the people who have broken the rules.

So now, have your clearly educated and well written say in response. Sigh.

[scumdog]

Awesome, just what KB needs, another cop bashing poster.

You should have just kicked those original "gang members" in the nuts when they originally pulled you over, that's what I woulda done. And if the gave me any lip, one woulda copped a glock just to show the other one I meant business.

Are you really peasea????/

[Matt_TG]

Well, were you speeding???

How would you [1] feel if someone managed to kill [2] one of your family members [3] due to any reason that involved breaking the law (not neccessarily excessive speed) [4] then although they are not saying that they are angels but bragged [5] on an internet forum [6] [7]?

[1] Or anyone you are close to
[2] maim, injure, impale, root
[3] Or anyone you are close to
[4] I may have mis-spelt neccessarily
[5] Does anyone actually read the reference notes - it's not a fucking uni essay, it's a forum
[6] Hang on I covered this in [5]
[7] Aren't smiley's a PITA when interspersed with text

[Jack Miller]

Well, were you speeding???
How would you [1] feel if someone managed to kill [2] one of your family members [3] due to any reason that involved breaking the law (not neccessarily excessive speed) [4] then although they are not saying that they are angels but bragged [5] on an internet forum [6] [7]?

[1] Or anyone you are close to
[2] maim, injure, impale, root
[3] Or anyone you are close to
[4] I may have mis-spelt neccessarily
[5] Does anyone actually read the reference notes - it's not a fucking uni essay, it's a forum
[6] Hang on I covered this in [5]
[7] Aren't smiley's a PITA when interspersed with text

If you can't fault the argument attack the presentation eh? You missed the point. I did not break the law. Once cool headed Police members reviewed the situation they overturned the original hot-head's decision and withdrew the charges.

[Berries]

The Police/LTSA have...........

Just for info, seeing as you appear to want to be legally correct and all that, the LTSA ceased to exist nearly five years ago. Smilies on the other hand.........

[Jack Miller]

...adverse public comment is welcomed by all who feel self justification after having fallen foul of traffic law themself. ...

I didn't fall foul of traffic law. I fell foul of a biased enforcer who misread the situation, jumped to the wrong conclusion, and would not listen to an explanation on the spot. Eventually his superiors were made to understand and the charges were quite rightly withdrawn.

[Jack Miller]

Just for info, seeing as you appear to want to be legally correct and all that, the LTSA ceased to exist nearly five years ago. Smilies on the other hand.........

Except that it was more than 5 years ago that the disingenuous sinking-lid policy I was referring to started. Perhaps I should have said "Police/LTSA (now NZTA)"

[rastuscat]

Back to the original point.

Did you exceed 100 km/h?

Go on, be honest. It would be interesting to know if you are saying you were innocent, or if you are just self righteous about how you got caught.

Most of the arguing on KB is about how someone got caught.