ANOTHER speeding clamp down

[BoristheBiter]

I agree with you that the faster you are going when you hit something the greater the damage is likely to be. However, slowing the fleet down doesn't lead to a reduction in the overall carnage. In fact, the opposite has been shown to be the case. Raising or removing the speed limit on the open road has actually led to a reduction in the carnage.


I've read that. What I'm really saying is, if I'm minding my own business and not doing any harm to anyone what gives anyone else the right to interfere with my course of action at the time? Irrespective of what some self-important body of bureaucrats decide to put down in writing.


No, I'm not talking about "lawful". I'm talking about the right to do whatever we damn well please as long as it does noone any harm and we respect everyone eles's right to do the same. Under those circumstances noone has the right to interfere.

This discussion is like a broken pencil..........................pointless.
You just carry on being highly indignant to all things government and we will call this closed.

And this is relevant how exactly?

You don't get sarcasm do you?

[BoristheBiter]

So, out of interest, if you were at a gas station that is quite busy and a cop rocked on up to check your vehicle over, would you be within your rights to ask them to wait until you've filled, paid, and pulled up out of the way so someone else can use the pump or because you are with your vehicle do you have to produce all your ID right there and then?

Under the law, yes (to producing your details) but i guess it would depend on the cop and/or your attitude.

out of interest you weren't at a mobile on Wairau road the other week then?

[Tazz]

Under the law, yes (to producing your details) but i guess it would depend on the cop and/or your attitude.

out of interest you weren't at a mobile on Wairau road the other week then?

Nope. Has only happened to me once in Chch and everything was legit. Cop was just a bit of a dick about it when I suggested waiting a tick for me to finish up and move to the side. Just got me thinking about it. Shoulda worded it so he thought it was his idea

[swbarnett]

This discussion is like a broken pencil..........................pointless.

The real problem is that (if I read you correctly) you're on the side of government control and who cares if a few citizens are disadvantaged, have their freedoms curtailed, for no good reason. Whereas I'm more of an idealist and believe in the principle of live and let live and a government that stays out of my life unless I do something that impinges on the rights of others.

You don't get sarcasm do you?

I do, just couldn't see the relevance.

[BoristheBiter]

The real problem is that (if I read you correctly) you're on the side of government control and who cares if a few citizens are disadvantaged, have their freedoms curtailed, for no good reason. Whereas I'm more of an idealist and believe in the principle of live and let live and a government that stays out of my life unless I do something that impinges on the rights of others.


I do, just couldn't see the relevance.

You have the same naive principles that Mashy does with his NOW idea in thinking that everyone is the most spectacular human and does right by society.

hence why you didn't get the point about ACC167, if people didn't try and scam ACC then this form wouldn't be needed.

If you don't want to drive under the conditions of your licence then don't drive and you will be allowed to go about your day.

[mashman]

You have the same naive principles that Mashy does with his NOW idea in thinking that everyone is the most spectacular human and does right by society.

hence why you didn't get the point about ACC167, if people didn't try and scam ACC then this form wouldn't be needed.

If you don't want to drive under the conditions of your licence then don't drive and you will be allowed to go about your day.

You rang fucknuckle?

Given that driving is illegal act without a drivers license, driving is illegal. Therefore TPTB are giving you a license to break the law. Those who make the law allow you to break the law as long as you pay them? That's bribery... and given that TPTB won't let you on the road without paying for a license, that's extortion, especially as you have contributed to those roads through your taxes. You give them the right to halt your progress, I'm becoming more of the opinion that I should tell them to get fucked given that they are breaking the law in more ways than 1.

You break the law every time you drive/ride Boris, having a license doesn't make it any less illegal... the sweet thing is, you don't actually know that coz you're too fuckin stupid to work it out.

Don't worry, your legal guardians will protect you... for a price.

[BigAl]

You rang fucknuckle?

Given that driving is illegal act without a drivers license, driving is illegal. Therefore TPTB are giving you a license to break the law. Those who make the law allow you to break the law as long as you pay them? That's bribery... and given that TPTB won't let you on the road without paying for a license, that's extortion, especially as you have contributed to those roads through your taxes. You give them the right to halt your progress, I'm becoming more of the opinion that I should tell them to get fucked given that they are breaking the law in more ways than 1.

You break the law every time you drive/ride Boris, having a license doesn't make it any less illegal... the sweet thing is, you don't actually know that coz you're too fuckin stupid to work it out.

Don't worry, your legal guardians will protect you... for a price.

Brilliant bit of logic that

[swbarnett]

You have the same naive principles that Mashy does with his NOW idea in thinking that everyone is the most spectacular human and does right by society.

Anything but. I just think that those that can play nice should be allowed to do so. And not pulled up for behaviour that "might" be dangerous under a very narrow set of circumstances that don't exist most of the time. And, in the case of a speeding ticket, seldom exist when one is issued.

hence why you didn't get the point about ACC167, if people didn't try and scam ACC then this form wouldn't be needed.

Got it. Seems obvious now that it's explained it. I agree that some kind of that form is needed. I was trying to make the point that just because someone signs a form doesn't mean they actually agree with what's in it.

[Edbear]

I reckon a very interesting experiment would be to trial a month with no speed limit, but emphasise that the cops will be targetting dangerous driving and there will be no mercy for causing accidents.

[Hashbandicoot]

...lots and lots of words...But I'm sure your interpretations would be easily explained (and defensible) in any resulting Court case ...

Were your definitions from a legal dictionary? From my limited research I am coming to understand that words have different meanings in terms of the law than in conversation. Somewhere there will be an established meaning and interpretation of drive based on precedents etc. which may be different from the linguistic meaning of the word.

I do take your point on being employed in a task does not neccessarily mean you are being paid for it. Who then decides if I am employed or not? I would like to think that decision resides with me, but it probably doesn't.

I think it is unfair on the average citizen that there could be a very real way to challenge speeding tickets and fines through the courts, the main problem being that the associated cost of doing so being far larger than the fine. I think it represents a flaw in the system that you are financially penalised for acting in a principled manner - i.e. challenging the law if you believe it to be unjust.

I tell you what though if I win the lotto I will deliberately go out and get a speeding ticket, take it to court and try and turn driving and travelling into a legal dichotomy. Then we can all fuck off getting licenses and paying rates and travel as fast as we damn well please, and in certain circumstances die as fast as we damn well please.

Oh and on the recurring discussion of "freedom" remember that where one man's freedom ends and another man's begins is hard to find. As an example let us say that when driving I am terrified of other road users travelling faster than the speed limit. As the Declaration of Human Rights gives me the right to 'freedom from fear' other motorists driving too fast are impeaching on my rights blah blah blah it all turns into a load of subjective bollocks.

So, out of interest, if you were at a gas station that is quite busy and a cop rocked on up to check your vehicle over, would you be within your rights to ask them to wait until you've filled, paid, and pulled up out of the way so someone else can use the pump or because you are with your vehicle do you have to produce all your ID right there and then?

Ask if you are being detained and under what act. If he cites the Land Transport Act and you don't want to try your luck with the (possibly hair-brained) driving/travelling idea then I would show him your ID straight away. Let people start queing up behind so they get a good view of a member of NZ's finest serving the community.

And because all of this is fast becoming way to serious, here is a daft picture of an owl.

[mashman]

Brilliant bit of logic that

Apply that to everything that you are required to have a license for.

And then if you really want to get pedantic:

Ask yourself, under whose jurisdiction do those who make their "laws" fall under.
You can follow that tree as high up as you like, but it's a trap, because you vote for it and therefore if you consider yourself to be bound by the "laws" of man, then you are subject to the "laws" of man by your own volition.
The actual basis for the "laws" of man are flakey at best given the Laws (notice capital L) she has been charged with protecting... coz I'd say those Laws have been violated repeatedly by her representatives and that she is delinquent in her duty.

PERSONally, I blame Akzle... but only for making me think about it.

[G4L4XY]

Well I succeeded in not getting nabbed on my wee trip to Tauranga and back last night he he he. Pitty too, would've been a real decent contribution to their doughnut fund.

[BoristheBiter]

rantings of a complete idoit.

Your stupidity is only overshadowed by your idiocy.

Anything but. I just think that those that can play nice should be allowed to do so. And not pulled up for behaviour that "might" be dangerous under a very narrow set of circumstances that don't exist most of the time. And, in the case of a speeding ticket, seldom exist when one is issued.

and chooses who plays nice? you? me? or what even is playing nice?
Funny thing is I have never been pulled over for doing nothing, and have only been through about 2 check points.

So under that idea we should be allowed to drink drive as most of the time it is only dangerous in a very narrow set of circumstances, driving on the wrong side of the road, what about cutting corners, insecure loads, badly maintained vehicles?
I have nearly been taken out while on the bike/in the car when fuckheads think they can handle a corner at speed and lose control or cross the center line.

I have seen far too much carnage on the roads to even consider your ideology when it comes to road policing even if i agree on what they focus on is not what they should be, it's just the easiest.

Got it. Seems obvious now that it's explained it. I agree that some kind of that form is needed. I was trying to make the point that just because someone signs a form doesn't mean they actually agree with what's in it.

Well that's ideology for ya.

[BoristheBiter]

PERSONally, I blame Akzle... but only for making me think about it.

WTF? akzle makes you think? you're more fucked up than I thought.

[mashman]

Your stupidity is only overshadowed by your idiocy.

And yours knows no bounds.

WTF? akzle makes you think? you're more fucked up than I thought.

Remember the you and thinking thing and how it doesn't work out so well for ya? I thought we had decided that you would stop it... or do you it to be a law before you'll take it seriously? Either way, thinking about such things is a side effect of seeking the freedom that is my absolute right and that no man or "law" of man has authority over me other than myself. Especially not your society.