$1300.00 in fines... You $%^#$

**Colapop** · 2nd November 2005, 10:59

Originally Posted by Toast

...though I still think the law should put pricks like this through some readily accessible kind of training...not blaming BC for that though.

Herein lies the the true crux of the matter as expressed so gutterally by mikey;
Is it the law that is at fault or the person paid to enforce the law?

Or as I suspect is the law that was applied in this case quite straightforward and the complaints levelled have no basis other than in sour grapes? ("I was only going 70k (in a 50k zone) on a bike a little bit bigger than allowed")

**Toast** · 2nd November 2005, 11:07

Originally Posted by Colapop

Herein lies the the true crux of the matter as expressed so gutterally by mikey;
Is it the law that is at fault or the person paid to enforce the law?

Or as I suspect is the law that was applied in this case quite straightforward and the complaints levelled have no basis other than in sour grapes? ("I was only going 70k (in a 50k zone) on a bike a little bit bigger than allowed")

I think that's still slightly missing my point (not saying that my point would not be contended with normally)...

but that last part still assumes that the law must be enforced to the letter...if he's doing 70k in a 50k zone with no other traffic, parked cars, entrances from other streets, pedestrians, etc....basically absolutely nothing that will make 70k more dangerous than 50k (accepting that there's 'danger' inherent in doing any and everything)...then fuck what some bureaucrat who had no idea that the specific situation at hand would have to be dealt with by a cop said...apply common sense...

in BC's case...the guy was being a c#$^ and endangering everyone (while under the notorious 'speed limit'), specifically BC...so fine judgement applied in smoking his ass

**Swoop** · 2nd November 2005, 11:13

Good on ya! NZ has enough un-curteous and dangerous drivers to start with.
Did he have his seeing-eye dog in the passenger seat with him???

**Patrick** · 2nd November 2005, 14:11

Originally Posted by mikey

when i do get caught for exceeding 70k on my learners an riding a slightly to big bike, if the cop tries giving me two 400 dollar fines ill take him to court. an like i said, he will be to busy out revenue gathering an ill get off, or the judge will haul his ass.

There it is again...two seperate breaches...it'll be your ass, not his, plus court costs, thanks for coming. (Oh, and don't forget the demerits...)

**WINJA** · 2nd November 2005, 18:21

Originally Posted by Bykey Cop

I'm in Wellington next week for a few days...

I'll be sure to look out for your

. Then there'll be

BC.

WHY DONT YOU PUT THIS KINDA EFFORT INTO CATCHING BURGLERS AND THIEVES

**mikey** · 2nd November 2005, 20:06

Originally Posted by Patrick

There it is again...two seperate breaches...it'll be your ass, not his, plus court costs, thanks for coming. (Oh, and don't forget the demerits...)

no you fuckwit.

he breached his licence conditions, doesnt matter how many times. might of been driving at 2am on his restricetd wit ha passenger, but its only one fine for the breaching of licence conditions.. not two.
i think i would know for some strange reaason. might of been in court when a policeman had done so. cop got his incompetent ass hauled.
i expect cops to know about the fucking law before they go writing tickets. 3 months of very basic trainging i guess

**Stevo** · 2nd November 2005, 22:19

Originally Posted by mikey

no you fuckwit.

he breached his licence conditions, doesnt matter how many times. might of been driving at 2am on his restricetd wit ha passenger, but its only one fine for the breaching of licence conditions.. not two.
i think i would know for some strange reaason. might of been in court when a policeman had done so. cop got his incompetent ass hauled.
i expect cops to know about the fucking law before they go writing tickets. 3 months of very basic trainging i guess

And here was me, mistakenly thinking you'd grown up a bit.
Now I've decided you have the whole Jekyll/Hyde thing going on. Esp when you were particularly mature around the time of SCs mishap, now reverted to the old Mikey.

**Ixion** · 2nd November 2005, 22:33

Hm. I'm by no means certain, but is it possible Mr Mikey is right? The licence conditions pertaining to a restricted or learner licence are a composite, which are all specified in the one legislative clause, and, provided each breach occured at the same time, the hapless rider has breached his licence conditions and is in jeopardy OF THAT CLAUSE . But I'm not sure if the police can identify each separate breach and separately charge it. It's like not having a WOF - you may have 10 things wrong with the vehicle but it's only one charge of not having WoF, or one charge of an unroadworthy vehicle. Not one for bald tyres, another for cracked windscreen, another for rust etc.

Having said that, I am pretty sure Mr BikeyCop was right in his case. The spectacles and the passenger are covered in separate clauses of the legislation. So he was in breach of two clauses not one.

But the example Mr Mikey gives (passenger, and 2am) , the breaches both come under the same clause. In other words I think you can only be charged with "being in breach of clause X of the ABC Act etc ".Even if there were several things you did wrong to bring you into breach of that clause.

But the spectacles are a different section. So Mr Bikeycop was right.

Now don't flame me - I'm not arguing that the plonker did not deserve all he got and more. Just wondering if Mr Mikey may (perhaps unwittingly) be correct under some circumstances

**Da Bird** · 2nd November 2005, 23:55

Originally Posted by WINJA

WHY DONT YOU PUT THIS KINDA EFFORT INTO CATCHING BURGLERS AND THIEVES

Caught a thief yesterday who robbed a young girl of her wallet - thanks for asking.

And attended another "South Auckland" gang brawl...

**Da Bird** · 3rd November 2005, 00:14

Originally Posted by Ixion

Hm. I'm by no means certain, but is it possible Mr Mikey is right?

No.

But the example Mr Mikey gives (passenger, and 2am) , the breaches both come under the same clause. In other words I think you can only be charged with "being in breach of clause X of the ABC Act etc ".Even if there were several things you did wrong to bring you into breach of that clause.

Not quite true.

Land Transport (Driver Licencing) Rule 1999

Section 18 (1) (a) (i) covers carrying an unauthorised passenger on a restricted licence

Section 18 (1) (a) (ii) covers the driving hours.

Two separate offences, 2 infringements able to be given.

BC.

**Goddess of Goof** · 3rd November 2005, 00:16

Originally Posted by parsley

So what's he supposed to do, pat the kid on the head and tell him not to do it again? It's his job to stop people who break the law. The fact that he enjoyed it a little more than usual is just one of the perks of the job.

We've all had run ins with coppers who are either jobsworthy or just plain wankers. But most of them are just average people doing a hard job under difficult circumstances. Good on ya!

True, very true. I've had to make tough decisions for people in past jobs, and I hated it - I knew I was inflicting financial stress on them when they had to pay fines and stuff....BUT sometimes there is no way round it except to stay on course....... everyone do their job and do it properly.....and we all know where we are.....

**Ixion** · 3rd November 2005, 00:37

Hm. Separate sub clauses. True. I guess a hot shot lawyer might still argue it. But I think you're toast Mr Mikey. Unless you get a real good lawyer.Sorry.(Well, not all that much, though I'm always sorry if one of our brethren falls foul of the law)

**inlinefour** · 3rd November 2005, 09:11

he gives retards a bad name

**spudchucka** · 3rd November 2005, 12:11

He has mental health issues, (by his own admission), and is living proof that re-integrating the mentally impaired back into the community is a failed strategy.

You should have him on your ignore list like I have otherwise you risk compounding his mental problems by indulging him in his own delusions.

**inlinefour** · 3rd November 2005, 13:20

Originally Posted by spudchucka

He has mental health issues, (by his own admission), and is living proof that re-integrating the mentally impaired back into the community is a failed strategy.

You should have him on your ignore list like I have otherwise you risk compounding his mental problems by indulging him in his own delusions.

Its fun to play with his mind though, weak as it is.