Why you should load the car BEFORE heading to the pub

**Big Dog** · 19th December 2014, 10:59

That has always been the case. "Ignorance is no defence" is a line that was drilled into me during driving school, tax classes, school etc.

We were advised (esp around tax and traffic) you get prosecuted and it is up to you to show that you did not break the law.
Innocent until guilty only refers to did you do what you are accused of. Not did you break the law.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**scumdog** · 19th December 2014, 11:08

Originally Posted by Big Dog

One could argue that they don't know if you are smuggling drugs on your Harley. Should you get the finger because the local cop in the town you are passing through is a fan of Sons of Anarchy?
Or to enlist an American term: do they need probable cause?

It looks pretty unsafe. But then bicycles attached to cars usually do.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Two different scenarios BD!

Now if I had what looks like on of Azkles cannabis plants strapped to my back while riding past a cop than I could see the similarity..

And in the bikes-on-car scenario - I guess there was 'probable cause'.

**Paul in NZ** · 19th December 2014, 11:31

Originally Posted by R650R

No that's good, long loads should always be secured at the extreme ends to stop rotation on longer trip.
Especially kayaks as you cant really crank the main straps down too tight before you start damaging the kayak. I use two strops in middle on 5 min hops down to the beach but any further and both ends get tied.
I think your strop that broke would have been from existing damage, it doesn't take much fraying/abrasion for them to be derated.
I was following a lady in UK on motorway that had a huge Indian canoe on top of her car, got on the brakes as soon as I saw it twitching before it went 90 deg and slid of the back of her roof to ski down the road. I managed to miss it in the truck.... wonder if there was a biker behind me who run it over and started a thread about it lol.....
Had another guy coming towards me once, was already worried about the angle sitting in ute tray pointing at the sky, he went over the railway lines and it launched like an ICBM!!! Stopped to help, silly old git had borrowed it off his brother and forgot to tie it down at all!

I have taken to using those little doofers that wedge under the bonnet leaving a little loop sticking through the fender/bonnet gap of late. They really are bloody good...

**Big Dog** · 19th December 2014, 12:18

Originally Posted by scumdog

Two different scenarios BD!

Now if I had what looks like on of Azkles cannabis plants strapped to my back while riding past a cop than I could see the similarity..

And in the bikes-on-car scenario - I guess there was 'probable cause'.

A neighbours house got raided once. The lady over my back fence reported the Maori over my side fence for some suspicious plants.

Those suspicious plants were cherry tomatoes.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**Tazz** · 19th December 2014, 13:53

The retort saying they stopped in 10m and the cop was unfair is crackup. If anything the reporter might be fudging facts from both sides (as they do) but your kayak doesn't tie itself sideways like that all by its lonesome.

Originally Posted by jasonu

They did stop him but

"At this stage, I am waiting on advice from our Commercial Vehicle Investigation Unit on the best way to proceed," says Officer Lockwood. "They are the subject matter experts in regards to specific weight/dimension/loading offences."

I would have thought the cops would know this sort of thing on their own. IE max length, max height, is it securely tied down etc. Isn't that sort of stuff in the road code? Doesn't sound too difficult to me.

True. And with a generous weight of 25kg each the car couldn't be considered overloaded weight wise with just the driver in it otherwise loaded with 5 passengers it would also be breaking the law, so as long as the bikes were well secured it is only really a case of shock factor.

I'm sure it would have been within the max height, they are pretty generous.

**Big Dog** · 19th December 2014, 13:58

Originally Posted by Tazz

The retort saying they stopped in 10m and the cop was unfair is crackup. If anything the reporter might be fudging facts from both sides (as they do) but your kayak doesn't tie itself sideways like that all by its lonesome.

True. And with a generous weight of 25kg each the car couldn't be considered overloaded weight wise with just the driver in it otherwise loaded with 5 passengers it would also be breaking the law, so as long as the bikes were well secured it is only really a case of shock factor.

I'm sure it would have been within the max height, they are pretty generous.

The suspension can easily be overloaded in some smaller cars just by putting a bum in every seat.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**Tazz** · 19th December 2014, 14:25

Originally Posted by Big Dog

The suspension can easily be overloaded in some smaller cars just by putting a bum in every seat.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Man throw a decent fatty in and you can completely stuff up the handling of anything. In fact, the weight distribution of those bikes would probably be safer than a lard arse over one side of the car.

That said that sort of weight on the roof may cause other issues, but on the whole it looks a lot worse than it really is in my mind.

**FJRider** · 19th December 2014, 16:52

Originally Posted by Big Dog

That has always been the case. "Ignorance is no defence" is a line that was drilled into me during driving school, tax classes, school etc.

What about the "It's not my fault ... because it was an Accident " excuse ... that seems popular in this day and age ... ????

**FJRider** · 19th December 2014, 17:09

Originally Posted by Big Dog

... do they need probable cause?

NO ...

The random stopping of motor vehicles ... IS permitted under current New Zealand legislation ...

**Big Dog** · 19th December 2014, 17:38

Originally Posted by FJRider

NO ...

The random stopping of motor vehicles ... IS permitted under current New Zealand legislation ...

Unless the rules have changed that is for very narrow and specific checks.
Warrant
Reg.
WoF.
Drivers license.
Breathalyser.

Beyond that they need whatever the NZ equivalent of probable cause, no? (should that be probe able)

"Persuant to the misuse of drugs" bit is supposed to be preambled by "Because of the " we will be searching your person and vehicle" or have I been watching too much TV and think we live in a land of milk and honey where we still have rights?
Unless that has been changed "under urgency" my understanding is they need cause such as a smell of dope or a lifeless form bound and gagged in the back seat.
From my past experience as a passenger... failing the attitude test is pretty much probable cause.

Originally Posted by http://www.cab.org.nz/vat/gl/roi/Pages/Searchwarrants.aspx

When can the Police stop and search my car, and do they need a warrant?

The Police may enter and search your vehicle if you give them permission or if they have a search warrant.

They can obtain a warrant to search your vehicle if they have reason to suspect that (i.e. it is almost certain that) an offence punishable by imprisonment is being (or has been, or is about to be) committed and they believe that there is evidence of it in or on the vehicle.

Circumstances in which a warrant is not required -
The Police can:

enter and search your vehicle without a warrant in order to check for alcohol in an area where a liquor ban is in force.
enter your vehicle without a warrant if they suspect there is an emergency. An emergency means a risk to life or safety of a person, of if an offence is being committed.

The Police may also enter and search your vehicle without a warrant if they have reason to suspect that (i.e. it is highly likely that):

someone in the vehicle has committed an offence for which a warrant is not required for an arrest, and they are trying to flee to avoid arrest
an occupant of the vehicle (including someone who has just got out of the vehicle) is unlawfully in possession of an offensive weapon or disabling substances
a firearms offence has, is, or is about to be committed in the vehicle, or that there is evidence relating to a firearms offence in the vehicle
someone in charge of the vehicle is carrying arms, or in control of arms, and:
is carrying them illegally; or
because of their physical or mental condition, they can’t be in proper control of the arms; or
because of their physical or mental condition, they might kill or injure someone; or
a protection order or police safety order is in force against them, or there are grounds for one to be made against them.

The Police can enter and search your vehicle without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe that (i.e. it is almost certain that):

the vehicle contains evidence relating to a serious offence
someone in the vehicle is unlawfully at large (e.g. has escaped from prison or a warrant for their arrest is in force or committed an offence punishable for a prison sentence). In this case, they also have the power to stop your vehicle.
the vehicle contains illegal drugs (or substances for manufacturing them) or evidence that someone in the vehicle has, or is about to, manufacture or trade in illegal drugs and there is a risk that the evidence could be destroyed or hidden before a search warrant can be obtained
the vehicle contains stolen property

I don't by any means think you should be an egg like this guy... https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1013088138707679... if you ask me he would do well to provide the ky when they catch up with him.

**FJRider** · 19th December 2014, 17:50

Originally Posted by Big Dog

Unless the rules have changed that is for very narrow and specific checks.
Warrant
Reg.
WoF.
Drivers license.
Breathalyser.

Beyond that they need whatever the NZ equivalent of probable cause, no? (should that be probe able)

.

If the Cops opening line is ... Please blow into this (or similar) ... ALL bases are covered.

But the choice of ANY of those FIVE options you gave ... gives NO need of probable cause for a legal stop.

Stupid driving is not always the result of stupid people driving. Your vehicle or your driving should not attract the attention of Plod. If it will ... expect to be stopped.

**Big Dog** · 19th December 2014, 19:37

Originally Posted by FJRider

If the Cops opening line is ... Please blow into this (or similar) ... ALL bases are covered.

But the choice of ANY of those FIVE options you gave ... gives NO need of probable cause for a legal stop.

Stupid driving is not always the result of stupid people driving. Your vehicle or your driving should not attract the attention of Plod. If it will ... expect to be stopped.

Aye. But if their opening line is take off your clothes, lift your balls, squat and cough you took a very wrong turn somewhere.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**Big Dog** · 19th December 2014, 19:42

Personally I have only ever had a police officer enter a premise or vehicle at my request.

I did get stopped for warrant checks a lot on the Hayabusa. Oddly they rarely actually checked the WoF. Mostly they just oogled the bike. Talked about the bike they used to ride etc.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.