Another Bike running from the cops

[inlinefour]

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 !!!

One could buy a reasonable bike for 5 grand...

[marty]

fuckin hell honda - this thread is over a YEAR old - not too many crazies down your way at the moment huh?

[Sensei]

Yea I'm still here !!! 296k why wont my bike go any faster ??? May be it has a limiter . May have to get it looked at by shop to see if they can get 300k out of it
SENSEI :sly:

[WINJA]

EVERYTHING I READ HERE SO FAR SAYS ONE THING TO ME "NEVER EVER STOP"

[WINJA]

Yea I'm still here !!! 296k why wont my bike go any faster ??? May be it has a limiter . May have to get it looked at by shop to see if they can get 300k out of it
SENSEI :sly:

MINE FREEZES AT 299 .BTW IVE HAD IT FROZEN AT 299 WHEN A WELL KNOWN F1 RACER WENT PAST ME LIKE IM SITTING STILL

[Sensei]

Duh put into 6th gear 308k getting better >
SENSEI

[sAsLEX]

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)

peretty harsh for a very 'grey" law!! Sure some Boy Racers need to be taken off the road but in some areas they take this a bit too far. Mate got done for loss of traction turning sharply out of a gravel drive! Cop eventually dropped the charge but they are quick to jump on any young guys!!!

[mattt]

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

I'm going to print all this, paste it on my tank, and learn it by heart.

[WINJA]

Duh put into 6th gear 308k getting better >
SENSEI

THE BIKE KEEPS GOING THE SPEEDO STOPS AT 299. I THINK THERES DIFFERENT SPEEDOS SUZUKI SAY THEY READ NO HIGHER THAN 289 IVE SEEN 299 HEAPS AND MY MATE PUT A 600 SPEEDO ON AND IT READ 315 BUT I DONT BELIEVE A LIGHTLY MODED GSXR1000 DOES A GENUINE 315

[marty]

well you *would* know winja, being god and all

[avgas]

man i really need a better speedo, it goes round to 180, hits the pin, and flexes like mad. Im either gonna break or bend the pin/needle.
why would they limit 299? Isnt it a little past dangerous?

[scumdog]

AHA but thats where your wrong ol chap.

The thing is they have to prove IDENTITY of the rider.
When they come knocking on your door you tell them no officer it wasnt me, my bike is for sale and there have been several anonymous riders take it out today.
Speeding you say?? Holy crap well I'll be, i would never do such a thing. Next time i will get there licence off them and be sure to tell you straight away.
Now good day.

I said good day

Harupmh! THAT kind of cunning plan cost a few car owners $1,500 each for their 'silence' when they went to court down here for 'failing to identify driver' offence! - I kid you not.

We don't cotton on to lilly-livered modern liberal left-wing ideas down here!!

[Mr Skid]

Harupmh! THAT kind of cunning plan cost a few car owners $1,500 each for their 'silence' when they went to court for 'failing to identify driver' offence!

I'm not taking a position on 'doing a runner', but was wondering how much it would cost all up for taking the wrap for doing a runner?

I'm thinking loss of licence /solicitors cost of getting a work licence, possible vehicle confiscation, insurance premium increases etc.

Might $1500 be cheaper in some situations? It sounds like an expensive get out of jail free card, but one that might pay for itself depending on circumstances.

[Blakamin]

Harupmh! THAT kind of cunning plan cost a few car owners $1,500 each for their 'silence' when they went to court down here for 'failing to identify driver' offence! - I kid you not.

was about to mention that offence myself... your vehicle and you dont know who's in control?? your fault unless you reported it stolen.... they have to prove nothing..... you have to prove it wasn't you... and if you can do that but not name the person...thats when the $1500 happens

[Indo]

[QUOTE=SpeedMedic]Where do you get this from Blakamin? This is simply not the case.
Are you saying you would have to prove it wasnt you driving if somebody test drove one of your vehicles and they committed some crime while in possesion of it? /QUOTE]

Actually it is the case. Its called section 118 of the land transport act from memory. If an offence has been committed you have 7 days to provide Police with information as to who was driving the bike/car etc, failure to do so within 7 days can result in a $20,000 fine. Thats from the top of my head anyway.

And no judge is going to believe you when you say that some thief took your bike used it to do a runner from the cops and then kindly returned it back into your garage. Or that you lent it to some friend whose name is 'bob or something' isn't going to work either.

Doing a runner is fkin stupid in itself, but doing a runner when the cops have your rego you have to have a complete retard.