Another Bike running from the cops

[duckman]

Saw this in the Herald today:

A speeding motorcyclist who drove dangerously on a notorious stretch of Northland road has been fined $5000.

Police abandoned their chase of motorcyclist Mark Patrick Draper after he was clocked by police travelling at 160km/h on his motorbike near Waipu.

I wonder how most of us would manage a $5000 fine ??
I know that would hurt my wallet !!!

[Jackrat]

Heck,five grand,my bikes not even worth that much.
Well not in cash anyway.

[MikeL]

Presumably the $5000 was for dangerous driving and not for exceeding the speed limit by 60 kph for which the fine would have been a lot lower. But was the riding deemed dangerous simply because of the speed? For that sort of money I would hope the fellow was doing something suicidal apart from just puttering along at a speed which in my recollection of roads near Waipu (flat, good surface etc.) may well have been a relatively low risk for an experienced rider, although obviously unwise in retrospect.
Or indeed was the rider simply unfortunate enough to have financial assets such that he could afford to pay such a fine? Is this an example of means-tested fines??

[mangell6]

Him and his mate couldn't hide properly, thats all.

Hiding behind a truck trailer, not so bright at all.

[Jackrat]

Him and his mate couldn't hide properly, thats all.

Hiding behind a truck trailer, not so bright at all.

So what are ya saying,He got away an then got found afterward???
Man thats a dumb tax,not a fine LOL

[igor]

So what are ya saying,He got away an then got found afterward???
Man thats a dumb tax,not a fine LOL

finally something we agree on.

Q. Why did he get the $5000 fine
A. He must of had 2 or more previous convictions of this type and was charged with Dangerous Diving third or subsequent. Max Penalty is $6000 / 2 years prison / 12 months disqualification. but I can't find that legislation mentioning that.

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 7

7.Drivers not to be reckless or dangerous—

(1)A person may not operate a motor vehicle recklessly on a road.

(2)A person may not drive a motor vehicle on a road, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven on a road, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.

Penalty Land Transport Act 1998 Section 35.

35.Contravention of section 7, or section 22 where no injury or death involved—
(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)Operates a motor vehicle recklessly on a road; or

(b)Drives or causes a motor vehicle to be driven on a road at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person; or

(c)Without reasonable excuse, contravenes section 22 by failing to stop and ascertain whether any person has been injured, after an accident where no other person has been injured or killed.

(2)If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1),—

(a)The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and

(b)The court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.

(3)The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 81

81.Provisions relating to mandatory disqualification—

(1)If any provision of this Act (other than section 63) requires a court to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period not less than the specified minimum period, the court must order that the person be disqualified accordingly unless for special reasons relating to the offence it thinks fit to order otherwise.

(2)Nothing in any provision referred to in subsection (1) or in section 68 restricts any other duty or power of the court to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driver licence or to impose any other penalty.

(3)This section is subject to section 94 (which relates to community-based sentences).

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 94 (they don't have to disqualify u if, lot of people unaware of this)

94.Substitution of community-based sentences— (in other words u do PD which is now called community work)

(1)This section applies if—

(a)The offender has previously been ordered on conviction for an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(b)The court, having regard to—

(i)The circumstances of the case and of the offender; and

(ii)The effectiveness or otherwise of a previous order of disqualification made in respect of the offender; and

(iii)The likely effect on the offender of a further order of disqualification; and

(iv)The interests of the public,—

considers that it would be inappropriate to order that the offender be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(c)The court considers that it would be appropriate to sentence the offender to a community-based sentence in accordance with [Part 2 of the Sentencing Act 2002]

(2)Despite any provision of this Act that requires a court (in the absence of special reasons relating to the offence) to order a person convicted of an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence, the court may instead make an order referred to in subsection (3) if this section applies.

(3)If the court sentencing an offender determines under this section not to make an order of disqualification,—

(a)The court must impose a community-based sentence on the offender; and

(b)The imposition of such a sentence does not limit or affect the power of the court to impose any other sentence for the offence that, in accordance with the provisions of the [Sentencing Act 2002], it may impose in addition to the community-based sentence; and

(c)In determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the offender in respect of the offence, the court must take into account the gravity of the offence and the fact that the offender would otherwise have been liable to disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence.

(4)This section does not apply if the offender is not entitled to apply for or hold a limited licence, or if section 63 or section 65 applies.

Cf 1962 No 135 s 30AC

Also under Section 129 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (now this really hurts if its ya second offence with-in 4 years)

129.Confiscation of motor vehicle after second offence—

(1)This section applies if,—

(a)on or after 26 July 1996, a person commits an offence (the ``first offence'') against any of sections 32(1)(a) or (b), 35(1)(a) or (b), 36(1), [36A(1)(a) or (c),] 56(1) or (2), 58(1), 60(1), 61(1), or 62(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (which relate to driving offences); and

(b)within 4 years after the date of the commission of that offence, the person commits a further offence (the ``second offence'') against any of those provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998.

(2)For the purpose of subsection (1), it does not matter whether or not the second offence is of the same kind as the first offence, but it must be an offence that arises from a different incident from the one that gave rise to the first offence.

(3)If the court by or before which the offender is convicted of the second offence is satisfied that any motor vehicle owned by the offender or in which the offender has any interest was being driven by, or in the charge of, the offender at the material time, the court must order that the motor vehicle be confiscated.

(4)Despite subsection (3), the court must not make an order under that subsection if it will result in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a conviction for an offence against a provision of the Transport Act 1962 that corresponds to an offence specified in subsection (1) must be treated as a conviction for an offence specified in that subsection.

Cf 1985 No 120 s 84(2A), (2AA)

So to all those who think about running away and ya been nabbed with-in the last 4 years ya get to give ya bike to the government. But u all nu that didn't ya's cause ya all so smart here

[marty]

igor - dangerous/reckless don't have 3rd/subsequent provisions, only eba and disqual/suspended charges.

the large fine may have been covered under the Failing To Stop provisions, which carry a maximum fine of $10000.

minimum 6 months disqualification is mandatory for dangerous, but discretionary for FTS

what does have 2nd provisions though is an 'unnecessary display of speed or acceleration' and 'operating a vehicle in a race'. a 2nd conviction for those offences WILL result in your vehicle being confiscated and sold (you get nothing from the sale - the HP is not even paid off)

[igor]

igor - dangerous/reckless don't have 3rd/subsequent provisions, only eba and disqual/suspended charges.

the large fine may have been covered under the Failing To Stop provisions, which carry a maximum fine of $10000.

minimum 6 months disqualification is mandatory for dangerous, but discretionary for FTS

what does have 2nd provisions though is an 'unnecessary display of speed or acceleration' and 'operating a vehicle in a race'. a 2nd conviction for those offences WILL result in your vehicle being confiscated and sold (you get nothing from the sale - the HP is not even paid off)

beauty ya cleared that up

wonder why i couldn't find it

that legislation is just so easy to read. penalities listed away from the offences, pain in da bum

[mangell6]

The article said that the Police lost sight of them but found the bikes parked behind a truck trailer.

[igor]

The article said that the Police lost sight of them but found the bikes parked behind a truck trailer.

and, sorry u lost me

Thasnks for the expolnation Marty

$10000 fine and he got half price. must of been a hanging Judge cause they only ususlly give out $250 for those kind of offences

why did he get the 12 months suspension if he only allowed to give 6 months ????? any ideas

[marty]

the 6 months is a MINIMUM sentence. if the judge imposes nothing else, he must impose the disqualification. a longer period may be applied. a longer period sometimes is imposed if it's the bad guys 100th offence

[igor]

the 6 months is a MINIMUM sentence. if the judge imposes nothing else, he must impose the disqualification. a longer period may be applied. a longer period sometimes is imposed if it's the bad guys 100th offence

having bad brain fade i new that

[marty]

this is part of the report commisioned by the police to overview pursuit policy. it has looked at a number of reporting methods, formal and informal. it runs to 15 or so pages, but i thought this was quite relevant. noter these are for pursuits that are logged at comms only, since the comms centres were centralised - not every failing to stop is called in, sometimes it's not practical to do so, sometimes the failing to stop is short (less than 1km), and there is insufficient time/radio space



"For example: there were 4,076 pursuits in the 7-year period, and average of
582 a year; most pursuit offenders have substantial criminal and traffic
offending histories (the apprehended pursuit offenders over the 7 years had
accumulated over 60,000 criminal convictions between them; the proportion
of pursuits abandoned by Police has increased markedly since 1996 (with a
corresponding decrease in offenders apprehended); road spikes were able to
be deployed in very few pursuits; that 34% of pursuits involve damage (a
crash of some form) to an offender's vehicle and 6% to a Police vehicle;
and both Police and offender crashes are trending downwards."

[Coldkiwi]

perhaps he was hoisting a wheelie at the time then to cop a $6000 fine? easy to do and then amble up to 160kph if you're not looking I imagine (I'm no expert, my front only got lofted properly yesterday accelerating over a rise.. but I do read enough mag's )

I agree about a stupid tax... get away then hide behind a truck?? not so clever.

[wkid_one]

By the sounds of the article etc - that fact he hid meant piss all....the cops had is rego anyway. He was most likely going to recieve a luverly visit from Polizei anyway...

Can't understand the point in running if they (or the public) get a look at your rego......talk about just adding to your problems.