Querying a speed ticket - should I expect to receive proof of the radar reading?

[TheDemonLord]

Definitely the grey area.

Also, did you mean former? Because that's what you've been arguing for.

Oops - you are right I did mean the Former - and fair enough about preferring a Grey Area, my issue is that in this instance - it opens the public to being abused by dodgy cops.

[Big Dog]

Oops - you are right I did mean the Former - and fair enough about preferring a Grey Area, my issue is that in this instance - it opens the public to being abused by dodgy cops.

So if a system was implemented that allowed you to opt into it:
- You must have your GPS tracker on when moving or lose your vehicle and license.
- You will have immunity from prosecution for any speed below automatic loss of license.
- You will get taxed 50 cents per kmph over the local limit + tolerance x kms travelled (accumulated for the month ) no demerits.
- You lose your license for 14 days instead of 28 every time you exceed 40 over.
Would you opt in?
Why?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[TheDemonLord]

So if a system was implemented that allowed you to opt into it:
- You must have your GPS tracker on when moving or lose your vehicle and license.
- You will have immunity from prosecution for any speed below automatic loss of license.
- You will get taxed 50 cents per kmph over the local limit + tolerance x kms travelled (accumulated for the month ) no demerits.
- You lose your license for 14 days instead of 28 every time you exceed 40 over.
Would you opt in?
Why?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

No I wouldn't, because that is not what is being argued here - what you have described is nothing short of Orwellian. What I am talking about is the police having sufficient objective evidence to back up any ticket issued, as opposed to issuing a ticket just on the Officer's word (which is open to abuse)

[buggerit]

No I wouldn't, because that is not what is being argued here - what you have described is nothing short of Orwellian. What I am talking about is the police having sufficient objective evidence to back up any ticket issued, as opposed to issuing a ticket just on the Officer's word (which is open to abuse)

Orwellian is what you will get if you demand the level of proof you are talking about, probably have the accountants
salivating at the thought of it.

[Big Dog]

No I wouldn't, because that is not what is being argued here - what you have described is nothing short of Orwellian. What I am talking about is the police having sufficient objective evidence to back up any ticket issued, as opposed to issuing a ticket just on the Officer's word (which is open to abuse)

Sure the example I give is in the extreme but for it to be completely objective it mustn't be prone to human error or operatator bias.
The only way to make it completely objective is to remove the human.


Sure the laser could be linked to a DB and have a camera mounted reasonably easily but then we might as well save the money by taking the humans out all together and invest in more camera vans.
The result would be the same, eventually.

A key policing philosophy should in my humble opinion be to use their discretion to attain the best probability of a reduction in offending.

I don't know all the details but a fellow I went to school with found himself in the ER of Auckland hosptial for the duration of an M.O.T officers shift instead of getting a series of fines he wasnt going to pay, his father would have to.

I don't for a second think a fine will stop me speeding... but it might make me more aware of my speed.


P.S. Your sworn testimony is evidence also, however you have more to gain by misrepresenting the truth than a police officer in the specific case of a speeding ticket (as opposed to a case of covering their own arse) on the other had it is an accepted fact that our brain modifies our perception of reality so as to have the best view of our selves. Or more simply if we fuck up it is human nature to transfer the blame to the someone or something else. Much like the stereotype of the fallen rider who gets up and kicks his bike and calls it a P.O.S because it failed mechanically... really it was not maintained by the rider.

[Scuba_Steve]

Orwellian is what you will get if you demand the level of proof you are talking about, probably have the accountants
salivating at the thought of it.

No it's not, that's just absurd! Stop throwing out red herrings. He like I just wants the legal system to obey it's own rules & for the cops to provide some proof of offending; it's not to much to ask, but it would just interfere with their scam & extortion.

[Big Dog]

No it's not, that's just absurd! Stop throwing out red herrings. He like I just wants the legal system to obey it's own rules & for the cops to provide some proof of offending; it's not to much to ask, but it would just interfere with their scam & extortion.

Perhaps if he had asked for the proof roadside I would agree with you.
Sure this one case is complicated by the fact he recieved his notice after the fact in the post, but he does not deny the offending or that he was told why he was pulled.

In all reality though without photo or video evidence you still only have the word of the officer that you were the vehicle in the frame when the lock was achieved.

What does that mean? Should we increase surveilance and logging and make it so he has to log his farts too?
Or should we encourage those officers seen to make a difference and who display the personal charachteristics that put them beyond reproach to stay in the job and manage those who fail to meet that standard out of employment?

There seems to be good officers moving on. That should be our concern, not wether one speeding ticket is properly noted in the the right font with the right date style in the correct brand of notebook.

[rastuscat]

Oops - you are right I did mean the Former - and fair enough about preferring a Grey Area, my issue is that in this instance - it opens the public to being abused by dodgy cops.

FWIW, I've been in the job for 27 years, and I've witnessed very, very few dodgy ones.

Some seriously incompetent, some plain lazy, but not many really dodgy ones.

[scumdog]

FWIW, I've been in the job for 27 years, and I've witnessed very, very few dodgy ones.

Some seriously incompetent, some plain lazy, but not many really dodgy ones.

RC, it's hard going convincing some on here but I agree 100%.

My 'revenue gathering' is below expected level because if I have any doubts I don't stop them.

I've NEVER had a defended ticket so I guess me method works...

[BMWGSER]

Ever wondered why this road has its speed limit dropped top 90KPH?
Because People kept crashing on it all the time. Been on a Safer Journeys workshop today and the
Engineers wanted to drop it to 80 KPH like Dome Valley up north, but it did not happen.
So when You have to travel on this road watch Your speed as the Highway Men /Women
Will take Your money if Ya want to speed.
Just pay the infringement fine and stop speeding on Statehighway 1and 2 /27 .
Pay the fine sooner than later as Demerit points start counting down as soon as You pay the fine .
Keep Safe

[russd7]

personal experience tells me there are a lot more cops out there who use discretion than not. I cant say that i have ever come across any law enforcement that i would have considered dodgy or even revenue gathering, the occasional arrogant one but hey arrogant assholes are every where.
i have never felt the need to dispute any ticket i have had as most were for below the speeds i was actually doing.
seems to me the attitude test works most of the time, be a dick then expect less leniency, show some respect and receive it in return.

[bogan]

FWIW, I've been in the job for 27 years, and I've witnessed very, very few dodgy ones.

Some seriously incompetent, some plain lazy, but not many really dodgy ones.

Cop school 101 bro, dodgy fuckers hide from you fuckers.

But on the subject of discretion, the only ticket I've ever got was from a guy who didn't use discretion... coincidence, or bad police work?

[rastuscat]

You'd be surprised how much discretion gets thrown around, poor;y disguised as laziness.

I see things most days that even I would write a ticket for, but they are in a place I can't get to, they are on the other side of a traffic island, etc etc.

Dopes that mean they didn't do it?

Don't forget, whether you get a ticket depends on a long list of things, including, but not exclusive to

1. How bad was the infringement?
2. Is it one of the ones that pisses this particular cop off?
3. How bad a day is the cop having?
4. How badly did you treat the cop?
5. Is there a victim?
6. Is there a sale on at the local Dunkin Donuts?

So many variables.

[buggerit]

personal experience tells me there are a lot more cops out there who use discretion than not. I cant say that i have ever come across any law enforcement that i would have considered dodgy or even revenue gathering, the occasional arrogant one but hey arrogant assholes are every where.
i have never felt the need to dispute any ticket i have had as most were for below the speeds i was actually doing.
seems to me the attitude test works most of the time, be a dick then expect less leniency, show some respect and receive it in return.

+1, maybe if you generally have issues when dealing with the Police, maybe the problems you.

[Scuba_Steve]

What does that mean? Should we increase surveilance and logging and make it so he has to log his farts too?
Or should we encourage those officers seen to make a difference and who display the personal charachteristics that put them beyond reproach to stay in the job and manage those who fail to meet that standard out of employment?

There seems to be good officers moving on. That should be our concern, not wether one speeding ticket is properly noted in the the right font with the right date style in the correct brand of notebook.

No it doesn't, stop running strawmans & red herrings. Drink driving requires the cop to do more than "yea bro he was drunk" it's not too much to require some sort of evidence of an offence having been committed especially when tools are involved like speed lasers... Any position of power needs accountability. You & I are also allowed to bring cases against people too & are afforded the exact same abilities (under law) but I guarantee if you walked into a court room & accuse someone of something with nothing more than "oh yea man he did it, see I wrote it on a piece of paper" it'll be thrown out unless the defendant admits it.

FWIW, I've been in the job for 27 years, and I've witnessed very, very few dodgy ones.

Some seriously incompetent, some plain lazy, but not many really dodgy ones.

Really? Chch has had a few Rob Gilchrist, Ron Greatorex, Gordon Meyer, Trevor Hinkley to name a couple oh & of-course the many "Officer A's" that appear from time to time (seems to be a popular name dodgy cops)

Ever wondered why this road has its speed limit dropped top 90KPH?
Because People kept crashing on it all the time. Been on a Safer Journeys workshop today and the
Engineers wanted to drop it to 80 KPH like Dome Valley up north, but it did not happen.

We had 1 of those roads, was 100km/h with no real issues but a couple people managed to crash (at well under that) so they made it 80km/h & people managed to crash (again well under that) so they made it 60km/h & people have stopped crashing continued to crash but now the slowest drivers on the roads are "speeders"