Unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration

[MotoGirl]

I must admit to enjoying acceleration... Its just one of the wonderful things about a bike uh...

Absolutely! Acceleration is probably the main reason I ride a bike.
What allows me to pass that slow car? Acceleration!
How can I pass a whole line of slow cars? Extreme acceleration!

I must be an adrenaline junkie

[eviltwin]

i could accelerate to 50kph fairly swiftly and i personally wouldn't consider it excessive.

if i got pulled over i'd ask the cop to mark the distance it took for me to get up to speed then i'd go back and do it again faster (on video), if you could prove that your bike was capable of covering that distance 20, 30, 40, 50% faster! was it really excessive acceleration for the power of that vehicle?

i'm not driving a 2 tonne truck, or a mini, all vehicles have different power to weight ratios and therefore acceleration, and some will naturally accelerate faster than others. so is their argument that you were driving your vehicle excessively or excessively in comparison to other vehicles.

excessive by definition means 'inordinate', 'beyond normal limits', how do you define the 'normal' rate of acceleration for your vehicle. lets presume a normal rate of acceleration was 50% of throttle, i could get to 50kph at 50% throttle in about 1-2 seconds, i'm sure they would consider this excess, but in the relative scheme of things, is it?

[Patrick]

Circumstances will always dictate...

Accellerate hard in the CBD with people crossing the road everywhere, drunken idiots stumbling out between parked cars, wet roads etc, the "conditions" may mean that the speed limit is too fast... says summit like that somewhere in the road code too...

[MikeyG]

If you are accelerating off the lights and there is a merge from two lanes to one soon after the lights (fairly common) could it be argued that since most bike vs car crashes are a result of "I didn't see you" from the car driver accelerating hard to get ahead of the cars is in fact safer?

In situations like this I always accelerate hard as there are so many dipshits on the road that do not know how to merge.

[Bnonn]

Agreed. Accelerating to get ahead of danger could sensibly be used as a defense. So could questioning the definition of "excessive". Excessive compared to what? The law doesn't say, so how can they even prosecute at all?

It's also ridiculous that noise is equated with speed. I have seen any number of disgusting trash cars with fart cans that make three or four times as much noise as my bike (the FZ6 is fairly quiet, admittedly, but still though!) and yet could not do better than a 30 second quarter mile. Yesterday I was behind a lowered 1.3 L Mitsi which looked like it hadn't been washed in a decade. When it took off from the lights it sounded like a jet was taking off on full afterburn. Sadly for the pillocks inside it, it was actually making a pace only slightly quicker than a geriatric tortoise. I suspect it could have made 0-100 in slightly under a minute. Much as I hate cars like that, and the wankers that drive them, it would be absurd to smack such a vehicle with an excessive acceleration charge. Obviously it's an extreme example, but the principle still applies.

(Of course, I'd love for it to be slapped with violating noise regulations.)

[Max Preload]

the police person's opinion

and a dangerous precedent leaving the door for cops who had their lunch stolen at school by a person who later became a biker to punish people to match that profile.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not even close to excessive unless the front wheel is skipping across the pavement.

[CM2005]

i love northland, i turned my race bike around in a cops driveway the otherday, and he waved. then i accelerated excessively up a no exit road, and no probs. a super noisy pipe is going to make the dumbass coppa look at you too..

[ruphus]

But Mr Officer, I was accelerating hard from the lights so that the f**ktard in the cage behind me talking on their cellphone(or reading the paper, putting on makeup etc) wouldn't scone me in the back....

[craigs288]

Is it "unnecessary display of speed or acceleration", or is it "unnecessary display of excessive speed or acceleration"?

In both cases there could be a few points to question.

Obviously when your red light turns green, you "necessarily" must show some sort of acceleration (and therefore speed) otherwise you will remain stationary at the lights annoying motorists until one of our respected revenue collectors shows up to issue an infringement for obstructing traffic.

Obviously to get from 0km/h to 50km/h it is NECESSARY to accelerate and therefore increase your speed.

The term excessive is one that is questionable. It implies that you exceeded a clearly defined limit. In the following example I am excluding a wheelspin or wheelstand which is obviously loss of traction.

With speed it is easy. You land in court with a ticket for 70 in a 50 zone.
We all know that some roads have a limit of 50, and if the radar device says 70 then your speed was excessive because you obviously "exceeded" it by 20. Pretty clear.

Now, by the use of maths and physics, an officer could "radar" you at the lights doing 0km/h. And three seconds later "radar" you doing 36km/h. This would imply a constant acceleration of 5m/s/s. (5 metres per second per second). 5m in the first second, 10m in the second second, and 15m in the third second, for a total of 30m in 3seconds, which averages out to 10m/s which equals 36km/h.

Now while it is easily proven that you had a constant acceleration of 5 metres per second squared, for it to be "excessive" surely you would have had to exceed some sort of limit.

I'm not an encyclopaedia on the road laws of N'Zillind so perhaps one of our illustrious revenue collectors may care to enlighten us as to whether there is a law which clearly states the limit for acceleration. Is there one? If so, what is the magic number?

Or would it fall into the category of "the officers (in)discretion", which could mean "slap you with a fine(or baton), anytime, anyplace, anywhere, for any reason".

Here's an unlikely situation, that would involve silly behaviour.
Your traffic signal turns green and you take off slowly, necessarily displaying some acceleration and therefore speed, but obviously without a wheelstand or wheelspin and not exceeding the speed limit. However you failed to anticipate the obligatory 5 or 6 cars which run their red light and you ride your motorcycle into the side of the third car. Obviously they are at fault for failing to comply with a traffic signal.

But could you also receive a ticket for "excessive acceleration"? It stands to reason that if you had accelerated more slowly, the people breaking the law would have cleared the intersection and there would not have been an accident.

But could I also receive a ticket for coming up with such an unlikely situation, and then posting it on here, thinking I am funny but probably just coming across as a dick, who is at work and bored with nothing to do.

Before anyone rags on me for the comments I have made, I feel I should say I don't condone the sort of behaviour that would be considered dangerous. That dick who killed that woman deserves everything he gets and then some.

[marty]

for clarity, go to http://www.legislation.co.nz/browse_...t=pal_statutes and read it for yourself. it's not hard. would stop a lot of stupid questions being asked, and uninformed comment being given.


“(4)In this section and in section 96(9), the operation of a motor vehicle in a particular manner is authorised by law if,—

(a)in the case of a race or an exhibition of speed or acceleration,—

“(i)the speed of the vehicle is within the applicable speed limit or speed limits; and

“(ii)the vehicle operator does not contravene any enactment other than this section that applies in relation to the operation of the vehicle; or

[Sanx]

The offence is kindly brought to you courtesy of The Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003.

Worse than the fact that 'unnecessary' is an entirely subjective term are the powers granted to Revenue Collectors:

"An enforcement officer may seize and impound, or seize and authorise the impoundment of, a motor vehicle for 28 days if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person ... operated the vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road in contravention of section 22A"

So not only is the interpretation of 'unnecessary' entirely up to the officer involved, he has the power to seize and impound the vehicle - with immediate effect at the roadside - if he merely believes that the driver / rider commited the offence.

To get the vehicle back, one has to go to court and essentially prove one's innocence. But that's not a case of proving that you did not accelerate in an 'unnecessary' manner; you have to prove that the officer did not have reasonable ground for believing you to have done so.

The ability for an officer to seize a vehicle at the roadside infers that you are guilty. You have to go to court to prove that you are not. This in itself contravenes the NZ Bill of Rights - specifically section 25:

"Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights: ... (c) The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

The government, who rammed through this amendment under urgency, were warned by the Attorney General that certain schedules of the amendment breached the NZ Bill of Rights, but they ignored her - as they ignore every other law which doesn't suit their cause-du-jour. The ACT party, via Deborah Coddington and Stephen Franks did raise this during committee hearings but by ten it was to late. Even the Green Party, for whom being on or in any vehicle that isn't a bicycle is 'unnecessary' speed and acceleration, refused to support it.

So - it's an act that breaches the fundamental principles of NZ justice, and is open to flagrant abuse by any revenue collector with a grudge. And there's sod all you can do about it.

[Forest]

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/ro...erdetails.html

Point One, read it and weep.

Wave goodbye to another little piece of your freedom. Don't expect to see it again either.

What rally shits me is the following

You must not, without reasonable excuse, pour onto or place on, or allow to spill onto any road petrol, oil or diesel fuel, or any other substance likely to cause a vehicle to undergo loss of traction.
Pouring, or spilling a slippery substance on the road is an infringement offence with a fee of $600, or if proceeded with

Only a $600 fine for spreading oil or diesel on the road?

Fuck that shit! Anyone who screws with the road surface deserves at least a $6,000 fine.

[peasea]

The government, who rammed through this amendment under urgency, were warned by the Attorney General that certain schedules of the amendment breached the NZ Bill of Rights, but they ignored her - as they ignore every other law which doesn't suit their cause-du-jour.

So - it's an act that breaches the fundamental principles of NZ justice, and is open to flagrant abuse by any revenue collector with a grudge. And there's sod all you can do about it.

Quite right, it's an interesting government we have, led from the front by a person who signs other's artworks. Everything expands exponentially from there. Power corrupts and all that............

[terbang]

There is a big void between: Hard out acceleration right through the gears on an old Suzuki T90 with both 45cc smokers screeching away (ixion) to achieve all of 70 KPH and a tweak of the wrist on a Hayabusa in first gear. The bus will easily and silently achieve 70Kays within a few metres.

[Patrick]

Only a $600 fine for spreading oil or diesel on the road?

That one is more for the end of a cul de sac with little/no traffic...

Endangering Transport (pour diesel on a bend on a highway/main road...)carries harsher penalties and disqualification