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

[rastuscat]

Could you elaborate on this? I can't see in this day & age with cheap small detailed cameras why we should still rely on dodgy testament from an "eye witness" with vested interest

What's the vested interest?

Remember that I'm leaving in 37 days, and I have no interest in making shit up.

I'll go into chapter and verse about video when I get the time, and motivation.

[Big Dog]

Ps, unless you are a benificiary it will cost you more in lost earnings to defend anything less than 40 over. 20 over of you are on minimum wage.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

What's the vested interest?

Remember that I'm leaving in 37 days, and I have no interest in making shit up.

I'll go into chapter and verse about video when I get the time, and motivation.

I'd have thought the vested interest would be in not getting decked by leather vest wearers that see the kit.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Jin]

Welcome to KiwiBiker Jin

Thanks there are some real rays of sunshine in here aye. Surprised so many lurkers are getting butthurt over daring to question a speeding ticket. Some of the rep feedback is facinating too. Gems like "fuck off and die".

First off, you ain't even read what has been said. Officer plods word is evidence. So what is your evidence that you were obeying the speed limit?

You know what happens in cases where one party has evidence and the other doesn't? They rule on the evidence provided.

That is the issue I have and the point of this thread. What evidence? Because officer plod said so? Do you even understand what innocent until proven guilty means?

Consider this.

If I see someone driving while not wearing a seatbelt, I write them a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

My word is the only evidence.

How else can it work? And please don't tell me to video everything, as the legal system couldn't cope with all the stuff I see.

Yeah i get that. Problem i have is i dont believe that i was going that fast and no evidence was offered to me.

3 possibilities.
1 you were speeding and knew it. Take your hand off it long enough to get your wallet out and pay a fair tax for your actions.
2 you were speeding and did not know. More fool you for not knowing. Take your hand off it long enough to get your wallet out and pay your tax and learn from the experience.
3 you genuinely were not speeding or have a legally defensible position for speeding. Write some letters, provide some evidence or accept you are back on point 1.

Problem with writing a letter is that you are basically admitting guilt and asking to be let off. Doubt that would work and then that would be the evidence if i did decide to challenge.

[TheDemonLord]

Consider this.

If I see someone driving while not wearing a seatbelt, I write them a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

My word is the only evidence.

How else can it work? And please don't tell me to video everything, as the legal system couldn't cope with all the stuff I see.

Me personally - I have a great issue with this:

In any other situation, where 2 parties disagree on events and there is no supporting evidence produced either for or against - then it would be dismissed. The assumption being made by the law is that the Officer is always telling the 100% truth and hasn't been mistaken.

I don't see that an Officer's word should be given greater weight - if anything it is the Police making the positive claim (that an offence did occur) and so the onus is on the Police to provide objective evidence (of which an officer's word is not - it is Subjective) to support it.

If the system is such that Video evidence of crimes would cause it to break, then maybe the system is poorly designed and needs a kick up the proverbial.

[Scuba_Steve]

What's the vested interest?

Remember that I'm leaving in 37 days, and I have no interest in making shit up.

I'll go into chapter and verse about video when I get the time, and motivation.

Back when it was Quota's now it's KPI's either way you're expected to push so much extortion letters & I have no doubt you probably don't make shit up however many of your other gang members do even on criminal offences as "I am innocent" shows

But I'm more interested in why cameras shouldn't be expected so am hoping you will shed some light on that

[Jin]

Me personally - I have a great issue with this:

In any other situation, where 2 parties disagree on events and there is no supporting evidence produced either for or against - then it would be dismissed. The assumption being made by the law is that the Officer is always telling the 100% truth and hasn't been mistaken.

I don't see that an Officer's word should be given greater weight - if anything it is the Police making the positive claim (that an offence did occur) and so the onus is on the Police to provide objective evidence (of which an officer's word is not - it is Subjective) to support it.

If the system is such that Video evidence of crimes would cause it to break, then maybe the system is poorly designed and needs a kick up the proverbial.

Exactly my sentiments

[Gadget1]

I'd have thought the vested interest would be in not getting decked by leather vest wearers that see the kit.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Yep, and I wonder how far off are the days of gun-wearing-camera-pointing-double backed up cops going for it to get the dollars in like overseas.

[short shins]

If you had taken your helmet off, had your papers ready for the officer, acted politely and and contritely you might have got a warning with a lecture.
Works for me most of the time, but then I am of a more mature age and I have not been pulled for some time. The only speeding ticket I have recieved in the last 2 years was from a man in a van (I was in my car) and I felt gutted that I was caught (arrived in the post).

[Gadget1]

Thanks there are some real rays of sunshine in here aye. Surprised so many lurkers are getting butthurt over daring to question a speeding ticket. Some of the rep feedback is facinating too. Gems like "fuck off and die".

Lol, I got one for putting "See post 26..." which was "see my boot up your arse." This place is hilarious!

[Voltaire]

Lol, I got one for putting "See post 26..." which was "see my boot up your arse." This place is hilarious!

Are the Red Reppers the ones who used to say " I'm going to tell Mummy on you"

[Stirts]

Works for me most of the time, but then I am of a more mature age and I have not been pulled for some time.

I think this belongs in an entirely different thread

[Paul in NZ]

Me personally - I have a great issue with this:

In any other situation, where 2 parties disagree on events and there is no supporting evidence produced either for or against - then it would be dismissed. The assumption being made by the law is that the Officer is always telling the 100% truth and hasn't been mistaken.

I don't see that an Officer's word should be given greater weight - if anything it is the Police making the positive claim (that an offence did occur) and so the onus is on the Police to provide objective evidence (of which an officer's word is not - it is Subjective) to support it.

If the system is such that Video evidence of crimes would cause it to break, then maybe the system is poorly designed and needs a kick up the proverbial.

Look I see where you are coming from and good onya BUT the problem you face is that you only think you were not going that fast. You know you were not actually looking at your speedo... So the judge sees a Police officer who states definitely that you were doing X and you who states 'I don't think I was going that fast but I didn't check"... um - not the strongest argument...

You will need a very good story or at least a much better story.

The situation you are in is not ideal but realistically its the reasonable option.

[Stirts]

I got stopped for speeding awhile ago then a few weeks later the ticket arrived in the mail. I then went online and requested full disclosure of what they have.

I have now received a copy of the infringement notice, brief notes made at the time by the officer, a certificate of accuracy for the radar and confirmation of training of the officer. What I really want is proof of the speed I was doing at the time rather than just accepting what the officer told me.

Do they keep logs of radar readings taken to substantiate tickets? If they do is there any reason they didnt include this in the documents?

At the roadside I did not admit or concede anything. I just kept my mouth shut and answered his questions. The only "attitude test" failure might have been me not getting off my bike and not removing my helmet. The officers notes refer to me as the "offender" and that i admitted the offence which is not correct.

I just had another read of the notes and it says "Log book filled out: Yes" so they should give me a copy?

Are you sure there is no record of the radar readings?

For the record I probably was going over the limit but cant be sure as my eyes tend to be focussed on whats ahead and around me not what my speedo is reading. If I was speeding then it was not excessive and was safe and appropriate for the conditions.

For those that claim I should just accept it and pay up ill leave for you to do. If the officer claims i was doing a certain speed fine ill pay up as soon as i see some evidence confirming my crime aside from his word. Until then im innocent until proven guilty. Thats why all infringement notices say "alleged infringement".

At roadside did you not consider at all to ask to see the radar reading? If not, then you should just pay up purely for that oversight!!

[Gadget1]

Are the Red Reppers the ones who used to say " I'm going to tell Mummy on you"

Heh, I don't know but they probably still do it.