Aftermarket Exhaust and New Rules

[Antallica]

Originally posted by Marmoot
So, there is STILL the QUESTION on
(1) contradiction between "Significantly louder" and "louder", (which in one means an ambiguous amount louder, and the other means any amount louder) than standard.
(2) HOW LOUD is SIGNIFICANTLY LOUD?

What a load of crap for a law.........can't we sue those lawmakers as incompetent in making law???

You'd be taking the govt to court then wouldn't you.

I would have to agree.... I think there should be a massive revolt about the laws that are coming out.

[Coldkiwi]

there is

anyone invloved in the motor industry connected in any way with exhausts is into this one.. I think LTSA are being a bit coy when they say they have had 'considerable input' on this.

I'd wager they've been getting inundated by submissions along the lines of 'you don't have a friggen clue so just pull ya head in you monkeys!' Mine certainly was

[SPman]

Driver magazine (OK, cars, but they mean well) is also getting stuck into the LTSA and the Police over the way the country is being screwed by more and more restrictive, controlling, thoughtless, unneccesary legislation and stand over police tactics, over the past 5 years.

They have the Drive club and reckon they need 20,000 members, to become an effective lobby group in motoring matters. The AA have abrogated responsibilty for standing up for motorists, in their opinion.

[bikerboy]

Maybe a class action law suit on behalf of all N Zeders against the government.

The charge ? Misappropriation of tax payers money for the purposes of passing ASSinine legislation !

[SPman]

Ahhh....but its all in the name of "SAFETY"......:

All part of the Brave New "wrap everyone in cotton wool" World !....  

[Marmoot]

They can put 12 cops doing booze-bus in front of the place where I work....but when my friend's house got burgled and he called the cops at 11pm, they turned up at 7am in the next morning!!!

[wkid_one]

I myself question the proactive nature of the NZ Police.  They are screaming that they are unresourced and crime is outstripping the ability to proactive prevent it - yet they allocate the police a 'quota' to attack low priority crime (traffic).

I would hazard a guess that most people have horror stories of the police not attending to 'real' crimes in a timely fashion.   Yet - we never fail to see them on the roads.

The NZ Police now appear to have to justify their worth to the Government in monetary terms....not criminal.  They appear to have revenue targets.

Police provide a social service and are essentially only in existance because we as a society demand a minimum level of acceptable behaviour.  The are put in place by the people we VOTE in to office.  Does this mean we are at fault?  Given that they provide a social service - there should be no endeavour to run the Police force at a profit - which appears to be the motive in the shift in focus to revenue collecting activities.

The Government in NZ seems to be focused on making social services such as health and police turn a profit.  This is an impossibility - they should only be focused on maintaining the efficiencies. 

How can the police put on 185 new highway patrol cars - yet not attend to a robbery for 10 days?  Speeding is a relative low priority crime in the scheme of things - yet this appears to be the focus of the police.

Nor are they promoting a very 'public friendly' image in NZ - they don't appear to be working with society in a protect and serve (yes I know this is an American Mantra) manner.

Yes speeding/road toll is important - however in the scheme of things - only 400 people died on NZ roads in 2002 (including cyclists and pedestrians).  Is it not overkill to focus on something that is the lowest it has been in history - surely the police should shift their focus to a 'management' type focus to maintain this level.  Also, statistically speaking, the road toll is never going to be zero - as accidents are going to happen for a variety of reasons.  It has to be statistically accepted that so long as people drive - deaths will result from it.

NZ seems to place too much emphasis on traffic policing at the expense of every other form of policing - whilst this may not be the case behind the scenes - it is evident to the public in their actions and publicity.  NZ Police are now only recognised as traffic cops (it would be interesting to undertake a survey to this end).

When you pass a cop car now - you don't think 'I wonder who he is going to arrest' - you think 'fuck, what is my speed'

As you can tell - my last day at work - bored.

[Coldkiwi]

good point but we need a new thread mate

if I wait till i've passed the car before worrying about my speed he's probably already thinking about turning around!

[SPman]

Last years Victoria(Aust.) Police figures (from Two Wheels, May 2003)

Crimes against the person - Target 1,442,000 hrs   Actual - 928,000hrs

Road Traffic Enforcement - Target - 850,000 hrs,   Actual - 1,095,000hrs!

I'm experiencing a Deja vu feeling here! The LTSA pride themselves on following Vicroads tactics.  maybe to the extent of going where the money is!!!! Revenue from traffic fines in Victoria has increased 340% since 1999!

What are our figures? Quite a jump I would imagine! So it would seem we are not alone in having traffic take precedence over actual crime.!

 

 

Fuckheads!

[Marmoot]

I think it is around 125% (or 350%?) Couldn't remember.
Anyway, it is all about "measurable performance".
They can't measure crime-investigation, but they can measure traffic infringements.
That was probably why a few months back there was a move from Police minister to try making "speeding" classified as Crime.

What an utter bollocks....

[Kwaka-Kid]

is speeding not crime?

it kinda is isnt it? :S

[Marmoot]

OF COURSE NOT!!!!
As W1ck has put it: It is a mere BYPRODUCT of riding a bike.
Crime has to be committed, therefore deliberately.
Byproduct is not.

Beside, it is fun

[Kwaka-Kid]

Someobdy is just trying to get outta the responsibility of their worng-doing if you ask me :P feeling guilty there? or just dont want a ticket? or anything else, heh.

And Your Excuse is somewhat flawed if you ask me, as many things arnt deliberate but they happen and its still crime isnt it? i.e you slide off your bike on a corner going too fast and kill ya mrs on the back... Get done for man slaughter.  You didnt kill her deliberatly did you? (hah well actually :P) but jumping up and down in jail saying your not a criminal and you didnt commit a crime wont help you none

I Shall stop here before i get flamed even harder by the KBNZ crew

[Marmoot]

Sorry for being off topic. We shall get back to law discussion again

(But, there is a difference between accident and crime. someone among us seemed to have been consumed by our lawmakers propaganda )

P.S.
Is this the longest thread yet?

[bluninja]

Errr...aprat from traffic enforcement crime has to involve intent. if you walk out of the shop without paying for your goods they also have to prove that you intended not to pay. If you kill someone whilst acting in a manner likely to cause harm to others, then that's manslaughter...... but if you were acting in a reasonable manner and someone dies then you aren't responsible....eg someone runs straight in fornt of you on the road and there's no chance to slow or swerve, you hit them, they die, no manslaughter.

The thing here is that exhaust laws are not to do with public safety, they are to do with public nuisance. Whether your bike is on the road or not, legislation exists for council officials to come round and make you tone your noise down (from any source) if there's a complaint.....the police have always had the power to stop vehicles and ticket you if you are riding/driving stupidly, your vehicle is a danger, or you are causing a public nuisance. That's why this legislation is so arse.

TTFN