40 k over & you walk!

[spudchucka]

The Land Transport Amendment Bill 2004 is still at the select commitee stage.

Heres a link to more info relating to it.

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/legislation/...ill/index.html

The answer to the question is no you will not lose your licence if caught at >40 kph over the speed limit. The threshold is still >50 kph for the time being.

[Deano]

[QUOTE=Jackrat]Iv,e checked it out on the net,Hay fever meds, will give a pot reading, so anybody take meds, for that will need a card from their doc,.
[QUOTE]

Will they need a card or can they just tie up the court system some more further down the track.

Cool, I suffer from hayfever - do you know if it gives a reading for P, coke, opiates or heroine as well ?

[merv]

Its still at 50 in the current act http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libra...a1998-110/s.95 and there is an amendment bill under consideration to reduce it to 40 above permanent speeds posted and 50 for temporary speeds, so its not law yet.

What doesn't make sense to me are the words "(which speed was detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment)".

Spud does that mean if you guys use a Hawk or a Laser etc that it doesn't apply?

[Deano]

What doesn't make sense to me are the words "(which speed was detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment)".

Spud does that mean if you guys use a Hawk or a Laser etc that it doesn't apply?

Sounds to me like they can use a subjective assessment to determine if you are travelling 50km/h over any limit. Bastards.

[spudchucka]

Its still at 50 in the current act http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libra...a1998-110/s.95 and there is an amendment bill under consideration to reduce it to 40 above permanent speeds posted and 50 for temporary speeds, so its not law yet.

What doesn't make sense to me are the words "(which speed was detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment)".

Spud does that mean if you guys use a Hawk or a Laser etc that it doesn't apply?

I haven't bothered to read the Act so I can't comment with any certainty. However the words "detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment" suggest they are reffering to detecting speed by means other than the equipment that has been approved. Hawks, Stalkers, Lasers & speed cameras are obviously "approved devices". I can only assume that it is reffering to an officers own assessment of a target vehicles speed, or perhaps by tailing a target vehicle to obtain a speed reading from a patrol vehicle speedo. If I get a chance I'll have a read of the Act and comment further, what section did you take those words from?

[merv]

If I get a chance I'll have a read of the Act and comment further, what section did you take those words from?

As per my link above its clause 95 (1) (c) of the existing Act and that wording is carried over to the new Bill. Not being a lawyer myself it looked totally the opposite of what I thought it should have said.

The clause says:

95. Mandatory 28-day suspension of driver licence in certain circumstances
(1)An enforcement officer must give a person a notice under this section if the enforcement officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person has
...
(c) Driven a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit by more than 50 km an hour (which speed was detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment).

[marty]

that wording has always been in the legislation. it is confusing, and to the layman looks as though it means that radars cannot be used to measure speeds, but i assure you, plenty of flash lawyers have trawled thru the speeding legislation, and most of them are unable to get their clients off speeding tickets based on innacuracy of the equipment. the bottom line is that if you are caught on radar then you are nailed. it is not a subjective test, hence you will not be roadside suspended for dangerous manner, but you can be suspended for dangerous speed.

[spudchucka]

Typical legislation written in a very confusing manner / language.

After reading both the old and the ammended section I can't offer anything more than Marty has said in the previous post. I'm back at work on Thursday and if I get a chance I'll bounce it off one of the bosses and see if they can make any sense of it.

[What?]

95.1 (c) refers to using a patrol car's speedo rather than a radar, laser or time-lapse device to measure the speed of the accused.
It simply says, "if the cop says you were speeding, then you were speeding."

[Slim]

95.1 (c) refers to using a patrol car's speedo rather than a radar, laser or time-lapse device to measure the speed of the accused.
It simply says, "if the cop says you were speeding, then you were speeding."

Oooohhh!!! That sounds dangerous!

They can't possibly mean that a cop standing on the side of the road can say, "That vehicle was doing more than 50km over the speed limit!", get on the radio to a police vehicle with the rego & get them pulled over surely?!?!? I take the explanations of tailing to get speed from certified patrol car speedo as reasonable, but there doesn't appear to have been any limit put on it, if you know what I mean.


Thanks Spud for clearing up my original question.

[geoffm]

Oooohhh!!! That sounds dangerous!

They can't possibly mean that a cop standing on the side of the road can say, "That vehicle was doing more than 50km over the speed limit!", get on the radio to a police vehicle with the rego & get them pulled over surely?!?!? I take the explanations of tailing to get speed from certified patrol car speedo as reasonable, but there doesn't appear to have been any limit put on it, if you know what I mean.


Thanks Spud for clearing up my original question.

Cops can already "estimate" (or guess to be accurate) your speed and nail you for it. Nothing new there. Since all cops are honest, infalliable and expert at judging speed, this is always upheld by the JPs if you take it to court. It is only if you want to go to the Appeal court that revidence gets involved, at which point your legal bill is at least 100 times that of the fine.
Geoff

[Jackrat]

Heard one on the radio that should impress everybody.
Remote cameras mounted in cats eyes on the motorways.
Guy on Waikato was bleating about them this avo', He reckons they should try educateing us instead of booking us.
Guess he's been asleep for his whole driving life.

[Devil]

Heard one on the radio that should impress everybody.
Remote cameras mounted in cats eyes on the motorways.
Guy on Waikato was bleating about them this avo', He reckons they should try educateing us instead of booking us.
Guess he's been asleep for his whole driving life.

I find this idea of these cameras amusing, especially since at this stage its just an idea (yeah I know they exist, but I mean about bringing them here).

After the kerfuffle about hidden speed cameras, are they going to try it on again with these??

[Mongoose]

I find this idea of these cameras amusing, especially since at this stage its just an idea (yeah I know they exist, but I mean about bringing them here).

After the kerfuffle about hidden speed cameras, are they going to try it on again with these??

The whole *Keep the camera in view* was a soft soap approach by the then Poli's to get the dang things in in the first place. I think that was a certain J Banks, yeah the one wot all you Dorklanders love, that was in charge of that. A wanna be cop that did not qualify so became the boss by other means.
Mind you, motorists the world over are pretty dum at times, way back when i was in the UK they used to have signs up telling you that a camera was operating on that stretch of road and still got the money rolling in.

[Lou Girardin]

Approved vehicle surveillance equipment are our beloved speed cameras. They do not have a 'go to jail speed', you have to have Plod present to take your keys.

40 km's over, it takes how long to reach that from a 100 on a bike?
Still, it'll be all OK when the Police aren't allowed to chase people.