Get some of your ACC levy back

[GTRMAN]

It is.



I ride a troll bike up Victoria Street. I see a bloke driving the other way chatting on his cellphone. I snap a u-turn in 5.3 metres, and he's mine.

I drive a troll car up Victoria Street. I see a bloke driving the other way chatting on his cellphone. I keep driving. The guy has learnt that he can get away with it.

That's when the cone work pays off.

Teardrop rastus?

[rastuscat]

Teardrops indeed. Quite cool fun chucking a heavy bike around.

[The Reibz]

That's when the cone work pays off.

You smoke cones bru?

[rastuscat]

If you had a camera in your car that could snap the guy on the cellphone like a speed camera you would have him in both cases without doing a u turn.
In time perhaps speed cameras will be able to snap cellphone users as well as speed. A far more dangerous practice than 10km over the limit in my opinion
but they have not upped the penalty for that over the holidays.

Interesting point.

Presently the law makes it hard to use photographic evidence other than speed cameras, red light cameras and some local body transit lane cameras. For each of these there is an ability to simply post a ticket out to the owner of the vehicle.

If I were to photo, for example, a bloke on a cellphone, I yhen have to write a letter to the owner demanding the name of the driver. Sounds easy. But when I get no reply, I then have to go and chase down the owner, who may have moved (especially in Christchurch where half the population has moved). Et voilà, one simple cellphone offence has createdat least 2 hours of paperwork and potential subsequent enquiry.

Folk often tell us we should just use cameras and post tickets out. Unless its an owner liability offence, that can't happen.

Enforcement I can do. Law changes are beyond me.

Just sayin.

[GTRMAN]

Its not his own bike so he can take a greater risk. The idea of road cone training was for pursuit purposes
as opposed to road saftey based on what he said.

Actually road cone work is invaluable for teaching tight turns such as u turns in narrow streets. Granted rastus may be using a work bike but are you saying you are unwilling to see how tight you can make your bike turn because you are afraid of dropping it?

[GTRMAN]

Teardrops indeed. Quite cool fun chucking a heavy bike around.

That it is, can get a little unnerving when you start grinding the crash bars though

[Kickaha]

But wouldnt the same situation apply with a speed camera clicking a company car or does the employer pay and get reimbursed by the employee.

In our case the company contacts the person the vehicle is assigned to and asks for the details of who was driving at the time and the ticket is sent to them to sort out

Get caught with say a cell phone driving and the company takes disciplinary action as well as you getting hit with the fine and demerits

[Gremlin]

Its not his own bike so he can take a greater risk. The idea of road cone training was for pursuit purposes
as opposed to road saftey based on what he said.

I enjoy practising those types of skills, and it's usually on my own bike. Knowing how the bike reacts at various speeds, with certain inputs and loading, is key to controlling a bike. All very well knowing how to ride at 100kph, but what about 10kph? The slower the speed, the less the gyroscopic force is from the wheels and the less stable the bike is.

Granted, most of it is for events, but being able to do 2up u-turns one after another is a necessary skill for me. 10kph up a hill with the pillion moving around, just into speeds requiring the clutch, through to 100kph while bike and people weigh close to half a ton.

No pursuit purpose for me (well, other than being chased by cyclists now and then), but road safety? Absolutely. We are doing roles to make situations safer, and adding danger would be the exact opposite.

[rastuscat]

But wouldnt the same situation apply with a speed camera clicking a company car or does the employer pay and get reimbursed by the employee. If its a demerit point offense how are the demerit points passed to the employee?
A lot of paperwork too I would have thought.

In the case of speed cams, red light cams and transit lane cams legal liability is with the owner. They have to do a transfer of liability to whoever was driving. If they dont, and the fine just gets paid, the offence is recorded against them. Some just dont care, but it matters.

For example, Josephine Average is 47. She owns a red RX7 which her 18 year old son Knobend Average drives. The RX7 is registered to Josephine. Knobend has a heavy foot, and keeps getting flashed by a camera. When the tickets arrive Josephine goes and pays them with money she has beaten out of Knobend. She's a good citizen and wants to make sure he pays his fines. Instead of transferring liability, she logs into her internet banking and voila, fine paid.

Problem arises when she applies for insurance for the WRX shes bought for her 18 year old daughter Primrose. Insurance company asks about tickets for Jo or Primrose, Jo honestly says no. But on her record are all of Knobends tickets.

That's why there have been no points for camera offences in NZ. The gubbermint regards it as unfair to allocate points just in case the owner wasn't actually driving, even if they pay the fine.

In Oz they allocate points, and double them at certain times, on camera offences. It places the onus on the registered person to transfer the liability to the actual driver.

It leads to anomalies. Say a husband has had enough tickets to almost lose his license. He gets snapped again. When the ticket arrives he transfers liability to his wife who hasnt had tickets for years. See? Points shared around are points avoided, and once again, its the honest folk who get nailed.

It's a minefield, cameras and points. All other offences like stop signs, cellphones, seatbelts etc are just too bureaucracy-bound to make it practical to enforcexwith cameras. The only practical way is to stop the offending driver to establish identity for the purpose of commencing action.

Long reply sorry, but it's a complex field.