Motorcycle safety campaign. Yeah right.

[yevjenko]

The human rights act 1993? which of 160 odd sections are you referring to? interestingly thesection on repeals had been repealed :-)

(Edited: Ah my bad. Misread your post)

sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

[FJRider]

The human rights act
read it





again....nice to know you care

If it's in Legislation ... it is legal rights ... any particular section ...???


And ..

Sorry ... wrong AGAIN ... I don't care ...



You've got so much wrong it's almost funny.

Try again ....

[skippa1]

. I don't care ... ...

I think it might, It's clearly eating you up and you're trying to mask it with laughter emoticons. Let it go man......

[Akzle]

The definition of reasonable in English law (which is what we have here, there being two legal systems, French or English)

oh dear sunshine. Bit to learn there.
Theres fuken ten kinds of law.
What enzud suffers is based on BRITISH ADMIRALTY REGULATORY LAW and the associated judiciary which is an adversarial system.

What i believe you mean by 'french' is an investigative/inquisitorial (no fault ><) JUDICIARY system?
they still, afaik, have statute (regulatory law)
Now. Go do some homework. Common law is not statute.

[Akzle]

The human rights act 1993? which of 160 odd sections are you referring to? interestingly thesection on repeals had been repealed :-)

(Edited: Ah my bad. Misread your post)

sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

try the bill of rights (act) or the jewnited nations charter of human rights. Or the ratified 1293 magna carta (in force via the imperial laws application act)

'freedom to travel'
'freedom of NON association' - what i like to call, 'tits or gtfo'
and aint no bobby given me tits.

[RUSS]

Section 116 relates to s115 (being safety of the vehicle or noise produced by the exhaust!) and s113 (being provision of rider identity; inspect, test and examine the brakes or any other part of the vehicle [therefore implying suspicion of unroadworthiness]; inspect Wof/Rego labels and verify that the driver is licensed to operate the vehicle.

116(1) LTA is the power of arrest. It's pretty clear. I think you may be skim reading. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM435107.html

[TheDemonLord]

Shit just got Real!

Personally - I'd be pretty pissed if I was stopped for a survey, - my after hours hourly rate would be a tear to many an eye, and 15 minutes of Me after 5 pm gets quite expensive

[GrayWolf]

I agree with you to a point but.....

I road test bikes at such a rate that the only safety gear I can be bothered grabbing is my helmet. (Although I've already got workbooks on).

Sometimes being really careful at what you're doing is enough to make up for deficiencies in safety gear.

For the man who is an what can only be described as 'aggressive' campaigner on safety, riding skills etc, You REALLY just shot yourself in the foot with that post.

[Kickaha]

For the man who is an what can only be described as 'aggressive' campaigner on safety, riding skills etc, You REALLY just shot yourself in the foot with that post.

His last sentence pretty much covers it

[rastuscat]

Actually ... they CAN ...

You must stop if signaled to do so by a Police officer.

If in the course of his duties ... he requires you to answer questions (nothing in ledgislation specifying ANY particular topics) ... you must answer.

To impede an officer in the course of his duties is an offence.

You must remain stopped untill he allows you to leave. To not do so is an offence. (35 demerits and a fine)

Even I have to disagree on that one, sorry.

There's a limit to what you have to say, though why you'd enforce it is beyond me.

You have to supply name and address, and "other details as to identity". You also have to tell if you own the vehicle, and if you don't, who does. The questions about the gear are purely discretionary.

I believe in these sort of campaigns, not least because, anecdotally, about 3 in 10 of the riders we stop don't have the correct licence for the bike they are on. It's not possible to tell if the rider has a licence without first identifying who the rider is, requiring a stop for that to happen.

Still, it doesn't happen that often.

[Katman]

For the man who is an what can only be described as 'aggressive' campaigner on safety, riding skills etc, You REALLY just shot yourself in the foot with that post.

I have never once jumped on the ATGATT bandwagon.

Perhaps you should learn to read.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I believe in these sort of campaigns, not least because, anecdotally, about 3 in 10 of the riders we stop don't have the correct licence for the bike they are on. It's not possible to tell if the rider has a licence without first identifying who the rider is, requiring a stop for that to happen.

Still, it doesn't happen that often.

I am glad to see you joining this discussion.
So what is the definition of a campaign? The lowering of the discretionary speed limit tolerance over the summer period was recognisable as a campaign, lots of publicity and attention and some kind of measurable outcome. (whether you agree with the validity of the measure or not, is not the question here)

Is this "campaign" confined to a particular policing area? Why? Why has there not been the same publicity around the campaign as say the speed limit tolerance? What is the aim? What objectives have been set so that the aim is reached? How is that measured? How will the public be made aware of this? If education is intended why do people have to be pulled over to do so? Have any other options been considered?

Just want to make a couple of things clear. I ride a class of bike permissible with my class of licence and I wear ATGATT so am not feeling threatened! I realise you are not the person who sets policy but you are uniquely placed to give us an insight as to how such policy is decided and implemented. I am not interested in flaming the police. I just want to understand how these things work.

[Akzle]

Even I have to disagree on that one, sorry.

There's a limit to what you have to say, though why you'd enforce it is beyond me.

You have to supply name and address, and "other details as to identity". You also have to tell if you own the vehicle, and if you don't, who does. The questions about the gear are purely discretionary.

I believe in these sort of campaigns, not least because, anecdotally, about 3 in 10 of the riders we stop don't have the correct licence for the bike they are on. It's not possible to tell if the rider has a licence without first identifying who the rider is, requiring a stop for that to happen.

Still, it doesn't happen that often.

i think we should extract your dna, and everyone else on the force have it forcibly injected.
If its compatible, then we'll be left with a better quality enforcement division.
If not, theyll probably start boiling, from the inside out as it forms some kind of corrosive acid inside them....

But still, ftp. Is it your anecdotal experience that a grade of license corresponds proportianally to the intelligence or ability demonstrated by the driving?

[scumdog]

Great, ANOTHER thread for/by whinging paranoid biker types, as if we need another one of those threads....

[rastuscat]

i think we should extract your dna, and everyone else on the force have it forcibly injected.
If its compatible, then we'll be left with a better quality enforcement division.
If not, theyll probably start boiling, from the inside out as it forms some kind of corrosive acid inside them....

But still, ftp. Is it your anecdotal experience that a grade of license corresponds proportianally to the intelligence or ability demonstrated by the driving?

No. But if we started enforcing intelligence the roads would be a lot less frequented down your way.....

I entirely agree that holding a license is bugger all indication of driving ability. It's no different to a Warrant of Fitness. Great for the test from which it arose, but bugger all indication of compliance after that.