Unsafe passing manouver

[duckonin]

Slopster page 3 post 38, your big mistake was and the cop will use this in court was you admitted to him you were speeding,he has got you good, at anytime never admit anything at all bite your tounge and let them do all the talking, they have to prove thier accusations...

In the disclouser he says "was speeding" unable to detect so why did he put that in there..Der...you told him you were speeding, all of his evidence will be based around this on fact, you made his job easy, you wouln't be going to court if the prick thought he was wasting the courts time..

hope I am wrong... I now stand in front of the wankers look at them hard as and say nothing to them this really pisses them off know end..

Best of luck on the case matey !!!!

[marty]

i'd agree with the 'sunk for admitting speeding', as it goes to the 'unsafeness' of the passing manouver.

however,

write and ask again for full disclosure, pm me with an e-mail address and i'll mail you a copy of a request for disclosure that got me off a council parking ticket for no WOF (and they NEVER pull parking tickets....) plus i have a little experience in discovery requests so know what tends to get a result

[scumdog]

hope I am wrong... I now stand in front of the wankers look at them hard as and say nothing to them this really pisses them off know end..

Best of luck on the case matey !!!!

So,,, another one knows how to piss cops off eh?

Well I wish somebody would tell ME it was meant to piss me off!!

But seriously apart from the above useless-after-the-event info you've been getting I suggest you ask for full disclosure as Marty said, the case sounds a tad 'iffy' if what you say is fact, good luck with it.

[slopster]

Well yes I did admit I might have been speeding. When I went past the policeman not when I overtook the truck. And I didn't give any indication of how fast I was going. Speeding could be 105kmh. Actually I don't know how fast I was going but it wasn't at the lose you licence end of the spectrum. I did ask for full disclosure and already posted everything they sent me which was just a copy of the ticket and a small entry from the officers notes which I've already posted.

[TOTO]

This morning on the way to the Suzuki trackday I got done for an unsafe passing manouver on SH1. I went past a parked police car and he followed me then pulled me over. He said that there had been a complaint about my overtaking. A truck I had recently overtaken showed up and the policeman went and talked to the driver about it then came back and gave me an infringement notice of $150 for an unsafe passing maneouver. I am confident that my riding is safe and that I had 100m visibility etc - it was a slight left hand sweeper and not a big margin for error but adequate. I told him this but he had already written the ticket and basically pointed out the info on the back of the notice explaining how to defend it. What I cant understand is how he can issue a ticket without even seeing the incident himself based on nothing but someone elses word. I should add that I 'might' have been traveling significantly quicker than I should have been when I first saw the police car which may not have endeared him to me but he said himself that I was lucky he didn't get a speed readout. I asked if there were any demerits with my fine and was told that they were given with all safety related infringments he wasn't sure how many but I can't afford to get too many.

How should I go about sorting this out. It seems I can either write in about it or request a court hearing. I don't really want to do that over a $150 dollar fine but I'm not just going to take it lying down.

Not a great day for me I binned my gsxr at the trackday afterward!

Any advice would be much appreciated

I think that whatever the cop told you is a lot of bollocks. I'll explain.

Maybe a year ago , I was following a guy on harbour bridge in a hilux that ws going left and right , clearly intoxicated. Phoned the police , followed the hilux to his house, watched him have difficulty opening the door and kept the police on the phone the whole time and told them he almost crashed on 4 places. They cam AFTER the guy had gone to his house. The police responce was: we can not do anything because we havent seen him commit the offence. When they talked to him , they could tell he's been drinking.
I think you've just found a cop whos had a bad day and hess blamed you for it. I say , make a complaint.

[scumdog]

I think that whatever the cop told you is a lot of bollocks. I'll explain.

Maybe a year ago , I was following a guy on harbour bridge in a hilux that ws going left and right , clearly intoxicated. Phoned the police , followed the hilux to his house, watched him have difficulty opening the door and kept the police on the phone the whole time and told them he almost crashed on 4 places. They cam AFTER the guy had gone to his house. The police responce was: we can not do anything because we havent seen him commit the offence. When they talked to him , they could tell he's been drinking.
I think you've just found a cop whos had a bad day and hess blamed you for it. I say , make a complaint.

I think the pertinent point in htis post was: 'Many a year ago'

Things have changed.

[TOTO]

Things have changed.

Interesting, maybe you are right. Can we have a police advise on this? Is a police officer able to give a fine based on acusations only ? Very interesting.

[scumdog]

Interesting, maybe you are right. Can we have a police advise on this? Is a police officer able to give a fine based on acusations only ? Very interesting.

I was meaning more the angle of speaking to and processing a drunk driver once he got home.

Use to be once he was on his property he could order you off it.

[TOTO]

I see. you are saing that the situations are not really comparable. Point taken.

[fireliv]

Ok so what you need to to do is make sure a court date get issued. As it is an infringment you will be appearing most likely in front of 2 JP's. Unfortunatly you wont be eligable to have a duty solicitor in court, but call up you local community law centre and get some free advice off them.
When you appear in court, enter a Not guilty plea and you will be remanded for a hearing date. Make sure you ask in open court for disclosure, telling them that you dont think what you have recieved is full disclosure.
Before the hearing try and get pictures of the area. Like you say it will come down to your word against his.
At the hearing you will get to question the truck driver as well, so try and think of some relavent questions that might help your case. Make sure you listen to what the witness says in evidence so that you ask questions that are in respose to some of that.
The other thing the JPs will want to know is about case law, which is any other cases that were heard in the DIstrict court before a Judge or any higher courts that are similar to your case that might help you. If you dont know/cant find any then dont stress. Again the community law centre might be able to help.
If not get your oown lawyer, costly of course.

Lets hope that the truckky wont wanna give evidence or the prosecutor thinks that there is no case cos then it will just get withdrawn
Good luck!

[homer]

It's your word against the truck driver's. If asked in court, the cop will have to state under oath (provided he's honest ) that he did not see the overtaking manouver in question.

Provided you state that you manouver was safe, that you could see clear road ahead, and that you did not cause any other vehicle to take any form of evasive action, it's hard to see how the courts could convict. The prosecution case would be based upon purely heresay evidence from a truck driver.

And of course, the truck driver's unlikely to turn up in court as a witness for the prosecution...

Id be going to court man
if they have a complaint they can only come to your house and warn you if they didnt actually see it .
or stop and warn you
by the way check the day and date and location on the infringement it could be incorrect and then still go to court with it
no good writing in about it . dont go and complain at the station either ,they can write a new notice then and there so it is then correct

[slopster]

Yeah I've been given a court date of 7 december. I cant believe how long this has dragged out. I'll keep you posted.

[steveb64]

Thing with taking it to court... what about costs? If you win the case do the police cover the court costs?

Also... given how a majority of truck drivers drive I'd be tempted to follow that guy around all day and then *555 him every time he runs an amber light or doesn't come to a full stop at the STOP sign

If you did - have a camera setup on your bike, so you can get video evidence. That'll stand up in court!

I think (IMO), that to get off, you may need to go to the corner where you passed the truck, measure it up, and draw a scale diagram, showing that you had visibility around the corner (from the RH lane). AND, call the truck driver AND the cop as witnesses. The cop may show, but I bet the truckie will lose more than $150 if he has to stuff around for half a day in court - or more... and likely won't bother...

[Max Preload]

At the bare minimum the cop's evidence is mere hearsay. Without the truck driver's testimony, it's a dead duck - he is the informant after all.

[ElCoyote]

It's your word against the truck driver's. If asked in court, the cop will have to state under oath (provided he's honest ) that he did not see the overtaking manouver in question.

Provided you state that you manouver was safe, that you could see clear road ahead, and that you did not cause any other vehicle to take any form of evasive action, it's hard to see how the courts could convict. The prosecution case would be based upon purely heresay evidence from a truck driver.

And of course, the truck driver's unlikely to turn up in court as a witness for the prosecution...

If it's any consolation the chances of the truck driver turning up for court is zilch. If he's employed the boss will veto it and if he's self employed he will not lose money especially with the possibility of the case being adjourned and having to do it again.