Criminal nuisance conviction for roading contractor after crash

[James Deuce]

The point of looking at America was that it if any govt was going to "protect" itself against lawsuits from bikers (as you argue the NZ govt will) then America would have done it already!

Have they banned bikes in france?
Motu - "France is a country of cowards,they also have beautiful tree lined roads - the trees are being ripped out because people are dying when they crash cars and motorcycles into them - it's the tree's fault you see"

I am currently awaiting a reply from the greens as i was under the impression they did support the use of bikes to reduce pollution and congestion.

Umm the US Government isn't involved in roading. Everything is private enterprise there.

[Mongoose]

Precisely.

Umm, precisely what? Jim

[James Deuce]

Umm, precisely what? Jim

What Funkyfly said which is quoted in my post , however I'm not "beating myself up over it", it is a fact that I screwed the pooch, and lived to learn from it.

[Mongoose]

What Funkyfly said which is quoted in my post , however I'm not "beating myself up over it", it is a fact that I screwed the pooch, and lived to learn from it.

So, let me sort this out in my own mind, you accept full responsibilty for that prang with no contributing factors by anyone else?

[Motu]

Have they banned bikes in france?

You're just loving this eh,so'k,it's prompted a good debate,but forget about converting people to your or my causes - we don't do that.I don't want to force anyone to my beleifs,just a bit of eye opening,something to think about - for those that can think anyway.

Oh,banning bikes in France? what the hell for? why do you think they would want to do that? They are removing the trees that kill people - the bikes can stay,France loves bikes.

[Funkyfly]

$1900 from AMI for 1 year comprehensive for a 1990 BMW 318ti worth $5000 is too much. That was the cheapest of all the mainstream insurance companies for a first time car buyer, no convictions of any type, and a law clerk who lives with her parents and garages the car to boot. It is not a fast car, not a turbo, and doesn't register on the stolen vehicle stats as a particular risk. Thankfully the National Auto Club will insure it for $900 per year, but that is still a significant percentage of the value of the vehicle.

Last week there was a television current affairs show that sent 5 relatively clean cut 20 somethings out to get insurance and I couldn;t belive the quotes coming back. They were all for substantially more than 50% of the value of the vehicle and excess ran to 1000s of dollars. As you said the ones asking for quotes for turbo vehicles were turned down.

A 22 year old I work with wanted to buy a 2.0L non-turbo Legacy wagon and AMI and State both turned him down without discussion. The NAC will do it, but he has a $4000 excess if the car gets stolen. It's listed for $6000.

Jim - "Insurance companies have made sure that full insurance is out of reach of most first car buyers"

It isnt out of reach, look at how many kids under 25 we have on the roads, that fact it can cost thousands relates to the higher risk they are, the same reason bikers pay more ACC than car drivers. Go to brittin and try to get insurance! see how many kids there are driving around in turbos and 4wd's

You see the news the other night, a group of youths had stolen over 500 cars, most were legacys and wrx's - they are far easier to pinch. thats wht the cost is high.

Like i said ANY insurance company will cover under 25's FULLY for a toyota collora.

You want to live in a city with high car theift - then be prepared to pay, why not come to taranaki, insurance is a lot cheaper here.

[Funkyfly]

You're just loving this eh,so'k,it's prompted a good debate,but forget about converting people to your or my causes - we don't do that.I don't want to force anyone to my beleifs,just a bit of eye opening,something to think about - for those that can think anyway.

Oh,banning bikes in France? what the hell for? why do you think they would want to do that? They are removing the trees that kill people - the bikes can stay,France loves bikes.

converting people? like you said its a debate.

Banning bikes in France?

You stated NZ is turning into a country of cowards, like France has become.

And that cowards fail to take personal responibility for their actions

implying these cowards in france fail to take personal responsibilty for there actions - thus cutting down trees that "kill people"

you comment this same evolution of NZ into a counrty of cowards will prompt govt to introduce silly bylaws restricting motorbike use.

Well France seems to be a lot further down the evolution chain than us as you mention.

Yet in this country (France) of cowards they have yet to ban motorcycles.

[Motu]

Um???? ahhh,well,ah,um?

[James Deuce]

Jim - "Insurance companies have made sure that full insurance is out of reach of most first car buyers"

It isnt out of reach, look at how many kids under 25 we have on the roads, that fact it can cost thousands relates to the higher risk they are, the same reason bikers pay more ACC than car drivers. Go to brittin and try to get insurance! see how many kids there are driving around in turbos and 4wd's

You see the news the other night, a group of youths had stolen over 500 cars, most were legacys and wrx's - they are far easier to pinch. thats wht the cost is high.

Like i said ANY insurance company will cover under 25's FULLY for a toyota collora.

You want to live in a city with high car theift - then be prepared to pay, why not come to taranaki, insurance is a lot cheaper here.

Most of the population lives elsewhere than Taranaki, and Insurance is dearer in the major centres. A Corolla of similar value was more expensive than the BMW 318 case that I quoted. We ended up looking for a the cheapest car to insure for her and that is what we found.

A vast proportion of those kids in Turbos are either on Mum & Dad's insurance or they have TPFT, or they have none at all. I suspect the latter more often than not.

[Funkyfly]

You're just loving this eh,so'k,it's prompted a good debate,but forget about converting people to your or my causes - we don't do that.I don't want to force anyone to my beleifs,just a bit of eye opening,something to think about - for those that can think anyway.

Oh,banning bikes in France? what the hell for? why do you think they would want to do that? They are removing the trees that kill people - the bikes can stay,France loves bikes.

A good debate for sure mate ( i hope i can still call you mate, Jim refuses to let me)

Forget about converting people? mate you have converted me, no long will i spout the virtues of enlighting councils as to prevention of futher court cases, the danger to my biking freedom is to close.

Cheers Motu, safe riding bud.

[Drunken Monkey]

The then current laws didnt cover what these thousands of kids were out there doing. So new laws were needed. If there was ALREADY a law on "breaking traction" they would not have needed to bring a new law in.

Spend an afternoon out on site working and what do I miss...

-Anyway-

That, kind sir, is a load of codswallop. There were already provisions within the law to prosecute people were who involved in illegal drag racing/burnouts/etc... The application was poor, and grumpy councillors and residents wanted a change made so they could prosecute more easily. Problem was, the laws were passed so quickly and without thought, they could be applied elsewhere their intended use, and that is a problem. Not only that, we do not have a specific 'breaking traction' law here at all (we have a similar one which may be applied along the lines of 'excessive acceleration')
Same deal with the dog attack - I was of the understanding there was no law change needed: the council admitted they were not enforcing existing law.

[merv]

The then current laws didnt cover what these thousands of kids were out there doing. So new laws were needed. If there was ALREADY a law on "breaking traction" they would not have needed to bring a new law in.

There is already a code stating road work signs need to be erected.

Damn you are hard to get through to. You are actually really supporting my case with this argument.

You say there is already a code for road signs, OK agreed, but the comparison is there isn't a law prohibiting use of motorcycles on gravel covered roads. So just like the boy racer situation, there are some laws, and some things aren't covered, but presto change of law and we have some more. Exactly the same scenario and I'm buggered as to why you can't see that. There isn't ALREADY a law against bikes on these roads.

You just keep harping on about the requirement for signs. We all agree with you about it that there is a contractual arrangement for signs to be provided, but the problem is enforcing it 100%, whether they are an ISO 9000:2000 certified business or not. That is not what will drive public opinion (read ratepayers) and therefore Council action.

Otherwise in the case of boyracers the contractors could have used better seal on the roads so it would not be damaged by the boy racers "breaking traction", but no, we now have the ability for the police to book someone for sustained braking of traction.

As another point one to watch is the recent outcry against the deaths of the Asians in their 4x4 on the beach - prohibition or restrictions were mentioned. Watch this space if too many more incidents occur. As a 4x4 user I will be pissed off if we are limited in where we can go for the sake of the few. People like you were spouting on about the lack of speed signs etc like that was an issue. Yeah right, if the sand was a bit lumpy why weren't all people saying "damn shame the Asians drove too fast for the conditions and misjudged it". I am sure Motu can pick up on this one further.

So you don't think over-reaction by bureaucrats occurs, is that what you are saying - just make them manage their contractors perfectly 100% error free? In your association with the Council, whatever that has been for 7 years, that's what you believe huh?

[merv]

Spend an afternoon out on site working and what do I miss...

-Anyway-

That, kind sir, is a load of codswallop. .....

..... we do not have a specific 'breaking traction' law here at all (we have a similar one which may be applied along the lines of 'excessive acceleration')

Excuse me you haven't read this then http://www.police.govt.nz/service/ro...cerdetails.php

To save you clicking on the link read this:

The "Boy Racer" Act - more details
The Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003 will come into force at midnight on Thursday 1 May 2003. Amongst other things it provides discretionary powers for "enforcement officers" (usually NZ Police officers) to impound vehicles operated in breach of what are colloquially called "boy racer" offences. The Act amends the Land Transport Act 1998.

The Act is aimed at combating the problem of unauthorised street racing, drag racing, wheel spinning and other stunts on roads, and the spillage of oil and other lubricants on roads without reasonable excuse. A "race" may be against another vehicle or racing against the clock but does not mean simple speeding – which will continue to be dealt with under existing legislation.

The following are the major offences and the maximum penalties.

You must not operate a motor vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road (unless authorised by law).

You must not, without reasonable excuse, operate a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction (unless authorised by law).

If you commit either of these offences the maximum is 3 months imprisonment, or $4,500 in fines, and a minimum period of disqualification of 6 months.

Here is the actual clauses of the 2003 amendment to the Act http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libra...EST_#JUMPDEST_

[Drunken Monkey]

I stand corrected.

[merv]

OK I was referring to it as "breaking traction" as I remembered it but the actual words are "loss of traction".