Operation Mataki - SH75 to Akaroa

[Drew]

Away from the camera. And it's not just a simple fine in the mail.

Depends if the guy who's decision it is to prosecute, can be bothered listening to bulshit excuses about proving who was on the bike and such.

Best you hope his missus doesn't slap his hand the night before.

[gloplg]

57 over the limit... in a 50. From a camera. On an unfamiliar bike. What's likely to happen?

Good luck with this MC!!!!!!!!!!

[rastuscat]

Depends if the guy who's decision it is to prosecute, can be bothered listening to bulshit excuses about proving who was on the bike and such.

Best you hope his missus doesn't slap his hand the night before.

107 in a 50 creates an enquiry file. It gets sent to the District the bike is registered to, and is dealt with under Section 118 of the Land Transport Act. The outcome is bad, at least 50% of the time. You might get lucky, or not.

Best solution. Invent a time machine, wind it back to just before you got flashed, and ride past the camera at a speed so as not to set it off.

Simple ideas, always the best.

BTW, out on SH75 again in a few days. See yaz out there.

[mulletman]

In a few days ? How about a few hours ago.....

[onearmedbandit]

Or, a better solution might be to register the bike to a far away district, a busy one might be best. They see the offence was at the other end of the country and shelve it.

[FJRider]

Or, a better solution might be to register the bike to a far away district, a busy one might be best. They see the offence was at the other end of the country and shelve it.

Considering the system is usually automatic ... the ticket will be mailed to the registered owner. Wherever that portion of civilization in NZ is ... they reside. Or how civilized that portion actually is.

[onearmedbandit]

Considering the system is usually automatic ... the ticket will be mailed to the registered owner. Wherever that portion of civilization in NZ is ... they reside. Or how civilized that portion actually is.

You think I'm serious... ???

[FJRider]

Depends if the guy who's decision it is to prosecute, can be bothered listening to bulshit excuses about proving who was on the bike and such.

Best you hope his missus doesn't slap his hand the night before.

As I recall ... in such cases the summons is sent to the registered owner. If they dispute the charge on the grounds they were not the person riding at the time the offence occurred. They have to supply information on who actually was. Subject to a $10,000 fine if they refuse to.

Then it gets messy ...

The onus is on the registered owner to prove it wasn't them (not ... until proven guilty). And to prove other persons have the ability to use the vehicle without their knowledge.

In the case of minor infringements ... the powers that be often don't persue the matter if it is disputed. (At their discretion of course)

For serious offence's .. that may not be the case. (in the pursuit of justice of course)

[rastuscat]

Considering the system is usually automatic ... the ticket will be mailed to the registered owner. Wherever that portion of civilization in NZ is ... they reside. Or how civilized that portion actually is.

Infringements count up to 50 over. Beyond that, they have to be dealt with by way of Traffic Offence Notice, or TON.

Section 118 of the LTA requires the registered person (RP) to supply the riders details, or information that could lead to the riders identification. It's not enough to just say sorry Popo, I don't know his name.

Tickets can be posted to the RP for speed camera offences up to 50 over, and red light offences. Parking offences too, and reg and WoF type offences, but those are called Stationary Vehicle Infringement Notices, or SVIONs.

The processes are very specific, but people often confuse the systems. If I had a donut for every time someone makes a complaint to me and just wants me to post out an ION, I'd be a lardy arse Popo who wouldn't fit on a bike. Matters not able to be dealt with by SVIONs and approved vehicle surveillance equipment (speed cams, red light cams, and in some towns bus lane cams), have to be dealt with by Section 118. It's a pain in the arse, and often they just get ignored due to the low chance of finding the offender.

In the real world, it can also depend on how busy the Popos are. Hit and miss at times.

[rastuscat]

As I recall ... in such cases the summons is sent to the registered owner. If they dispute the charge on the grounds they were not the person riding at the time the offence occurred. They have to supply information on who actually was. Subject to a $10,000 fine if they refuse to.

Then it gets messy ...

The onus is on the registered owner to prove it wasn't them (not ... until proven guilty). And to prove other persons have the ability to use the vehicle without their knowledge.

Our boy racer team deals with them a lot. The courts got sick of the little toads turning up in court and saying that they leave the keys in the car in the driveway, and that anyone could have been driving it.

Funny. The courts down here are taking Section 118 offences fairly seriously. For example, a car does a burnout, and the Popos find a group of toe rags gathered, with nobody admitting who was driving. The registered person gets a 118 request, says sorry, don't know who was driving. The reg pers gets charged with a S118 offence, and turns up in court protesting how unfair it all is. In Chur Chur the courts levy nasty fines and Section 80 disqualifications, just to wipe the smile from the face.

My original suggestion stands as the best. Invent a time machine, wind back to the minute before the camera flashed, and ride past at a speed that won't trigger it. Simple ideas always the best.

[rastuscat]

In a few days ? How about a few hours ago.....

Not me, must've been one of my troops.

[FJRider]

In the real world, it can also depend on how busy the Popos are. Hit and miss at times.

I am familiar with the "Failing to provide information" ... first hand I might add. Thanks to a "mate" that took my bike for a ride without my knowledge or permission. I wasn't actually even in the country at the time. And was easy to prove that. (Passport stamps don't lie) But it was still a long drawn out shit-fight in court.

It took a "visit" to the guilty person at 3 am ... with a few other mates ... to "persuade" him to own up.

[FJRider]

My original suggestion stands as the best. Invent a time machine, wind back to the minute before the camera flashed, and ride past at a speed that won't trigger it. Simple ideas always the best.

Doing the crime is never the issue ... getting caught doing the crime is.

Yes simple works ... don't do it or don't get caught doing it ...

[scumdog]

Funny. The courts down here are taking Section 118 offences fairly seriously. For example, a car does a burnout, and the Popos find a group of toe rags gathered, with nobody admitting who was driving. The registered person gets a 118 request, says sorry, don't know who was driving. The reg pers gets charged with a S118 offence, and turns up in court protesting how unfair it all is. In Chur Chur the courts levy nasty fines and Section 80 disqualifications, just to wipe the smile from the face.

t.

Saw a bunch summonsed to Court similar circumstances to above, all smirking, nudging each other, chock full of urban myth law etc.

After the first fine of $1,500 + disqualification was handed out the others couldn't wait to 'suddenly remember' who was driving, smirks went away too etc, sucks to be them...


Sometimes going to Court sucks.

Especially when I've got to share the same air as some who are there not by choice.

[gloplg]

Sometimes going to Court sucks.

Especially when I've got to share the same air as some who are there not by choice.

I was under the impression that Po Pos also had very little choice about appearing?????