Ouch! - no more bike!!.

**Postie** · 3rd August 2006, 11:22

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

Ask for the photo/evidence?

ah ha, good idea.
thanks

**McJim** · 3rd August 2006, 11:41

Looks as though he didn't have the right to remain silent after all.

**Motu** · 3rd August 2006, 11:46

It was probably a Cop - they never dob their mates in....

**Edbear** · 3rd August 2006, 13:11

I'm with Blackbird on this one. ("Cept for the Harley bit, I think Scummy can get it up that high...

)170 in a 50 is pretty hard to justify, and yeah, I'd be interested in what type of mates he's got or if it was just him not wanting to admit it?

**madboy** · 3rd August 2006, 13:19

Originally Posted by Edbear

...170 in a 50 is pretty hard to justify...

It's also pretty hard to get caught doing that speed. Did no one here do economics, or even maths at school? Perhaps it's a shitter bike. Might be cheaper to sacrifice the bike than it was to take the fines, disq and insurance costs. There's a fair few thousand in itself.

**R1** · 3rd August 2006, 13:39

Originally Posted by madboy

It's also pretty hard to get caught doing that speed. Did no one here do economics, or even maths at school? Perhaps it's a shitter bike. Might be cheaper to sacrifice the bike than it was to take the fines, disq and insurance costs. There's a fair few thousand in itself.

Yeah i was thinking about the cost thing....How is it fair for say sum1 thats saved for years to buy a MV1000, and sum1 thats payed $500 for a shitta and they both have their bikes destroyed for simmilar offences.....It would seem realy unfair to me, i cant see how it would be any differnt from one guy paying a $500 fine and one paying a $38000 fine for the same offence...

**madboy** · 3rd August 2006, 13:47

"Fairness" in respect of our legal system is a subjective term highly influenced by whether the judge likes the defendent or not, has had sex in the last 2 weeks (with or without his/her spouse involved), and which direction his golf handicap is heading.

**McJim** · 3rd August 2006, 14:00

Please supply a reason with negative bling - don't need your identity - just a reason. Cheers

**Darryboy** · 3rd August 2006, 14:01

Not saying it's right in this case but I've seen plenty of ridiculous 50k zones that could easily be an open road. In fact there was one road that was an open road, there were no accidents yet it was still lowered to 50k for several months before being raised to 80.

**James Deuce** · 3rd August 2006, 14:09

Originally Posted by Big McJim

Looks as though he didn't have the right to remain silent after all.

He was in court, not being arrested.

**spudchucka** · 3rd August 2006, 14:20

Originally Posted by Big McJim

Looks as though he didn't have the right to remain silent after all.

Section 118 Land Transport Act 1998.

118.Owner or hirer to give information as to identity of driver or passenger—

(1)If an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that the driver of a vehicle has committed an offence while in charge of the vehicle, the officer may request the owner or hirer of the vehicle to give all information in his or her possession or obtainable by him or her which may lead to the identification and apprehension of the driver of the vehicle.

(2)If an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that a passenger of a vehicle has committed an offence in or through the use of the vehicle where that use relates to the commission of the offence or the aiding of the commission of the offence or the assisting of that passenger to avoid arrest in connection with or conviction for that offence, the officer may request the owner or hirer of the vehicle to give all information which may lead to the identification and apprehension of the passenger.

(3)A request under subsection (1) or subsection (2) may be made orally or in writing and the owner or hirer (as the case may be) must comply with the request within 14 days.

(4)If a vehicle has been used to flee a Police pursuit, an enforcement officer may request the owner of the vehicle to give all information in his or her possession or obtainable by him or her which may lead to the identification and apprehension of the driver, and the owner must give the officer that information immediately.

(5)Subsection (4) does not apply if the owner has been arrested or detained in relation to the suspected offence.

You'll note subsection 5 above, where the owner has been arrested for the offence in question it doesn't apply.

You'll also not below section 23(4)(a)&(b) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, which clearly states that persons arrested or detained under enactment have the right to refrain from making any statement, (eg: shutting their stupid mouths).

23.Rights of persons arrested or detained—

(1)Everyone who is arrested or who is detained under any enactment—

(a)Shall be informed at the time of the arrest or detention of the reason for it; and

(b)Shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c)Shall have the right to have the validity of the arrest or detention determined without delay by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the arrest or detention is not lawful.

(2)Everyone who is arrested for an offence has the right to be charged promptly or to be released.

(3)Everyone who is arrested for an offence and is not released shall be brought as soon as possible before a court or competent tribunal.

(4)Everyone who is—

(a)Arrested; or

(b)Detained under any enactment—

for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.

(5)Everyone deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.

**Bend-it** · 3rd August 2006, 16:16

Ok, instead of getting finicky and looking for loopholes in the letter of the law, I'd prefer to think of whether or not it's 'right'.

If person is responsible (a concept that seems to elude many these days) for the bike, then he can either own up to it, or say who did it. Or say the responsibility was taken off him because it was stolen.

The bike was taken off him basically because he was not responsible for it, as should be the case because it can be a dangerous machine!

He can defend the dangerous driving (riding) charge for all its worth, but it didn't even get there!

We're getting testy about this 'coz it's bikes and we're a bike forum. But if it was a case of child abuse or rape and we got someone who was aiding but not the actual purpetrator, I'll bet the sentiments would be different.

Different example, but same principle.

**Lou Girardin** · 3rd August 2006, 17:14

Originally Posted by Bend-it

, but same principle.

If we're going to talk principles, what about the principle of protection against self-incrimination? Or even the right to silence.
More protections given away because it's only traffic offences.