Fine or no fine?

[scumdog]

I recall hearing that at the time of the introduction of instant fines for infringment offences, a number Ministry of Handsports traffic cops quit in protest, which ironically left only those with dubious consciences.

Bit of a double whammy there for the motoring public...

But not this member of the 'motoring public'.

Only paid 'taxes' to the tune of $400 or less over 35+ years.

[peasea]

Going to work in the rain 7.30 am in the recent wind that just hit Auckland blown all over the m-way was doing 111-112kmph spotted marked police car didn't try n slow down as I was swerving way too much... he pulls me over shows me speed of 121! issues me $175 ticket and 35 demerits (1km over the 20 demerit range) same time says my no plate is not displayed in the appropriate manner and fines me another $200 for it...im still asking him why he cant read it when I can...(were sitting in his cruiser as its raining.) total of $375 that morning. I took tickets and rode to work.

12 days later same place, same cop, unmarked honda accord this time. I wasn't speeding after my recent fines was pretty broke. Still pulls me over, recognizes me, asks for license. I give him same license he ticketed me on 12 days ago, (overseas valid license, I came back to NZ in feb so its valid till next feb). Says its not valid and gives me $400 for riding on an inappropriate license.

Leaves to go to an accident up at the Orewa lights, offers no explanations.. I'm standing there dumbfounded. Since I have had my license converted to a NZ full... did that 2 days later. Put that in my appeal letter too.

I'm appealing the following:
$200 number plate fine,
$400 overseas license fine and
also requesting the 35 demerits be reduced to 20 demerits as its over by just 1km! and cud have been error (weather,fog,inaccurate instrument calibration or wind even?). I've written to them, but feel i will mostly have to fight it out in court...

Resident and fellow knowledgeable members I really do appreciate your responses...


Cheers and thanks in advance.

Buy a gun and shoot the fuck.

[peasea]

Because the age-old principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt does not apply to motor offences. The Land Transport Act and its various amendments actually state what is required as proof of an offence, for instance:
Land Transport Act 1998 - Part 10 - Proceedings enforcing responsibilities
145 Evidence of approved vehicle surveillance equipment

1) In proceedings for a moving vehicle offence, an image produced by means of an exposure taken by approved vehicle surveillance equipment and showing or recording a motor vehicle on a road, the speed of the vehicle, the location of the vehicle, the colour or form of a traffic control device, and the date and time when the image was taken, or showing or recording any of those things, is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, sufficient evidence of that fact or event.
2) The production in proceedings for a moving vehicle offence of an image purporting to be an image referred to in subsection (1) is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, sufficient evidence that the image was produced by means of an exposure taken by approved vehicle surveillance equipment.

Which, roughly translated means that a cop can take a picture on his cellphone of you sitting in your car whilst parked, claim it's a photo taken with approved vehicle surveillance equipment and that you were doing 250kph, and it's up to you to prove that these things didn't happen. The legislation, contrary to the Bill of Rights, shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant. Again, it's something a good lawyer would probably be able to exploit, but I wouldn't want to have to pay his fees whilst he argued it.

Using the above section of the Land Transport Act, a photo simply showing your vehicle driving down the road can be treated as proof that you were doing almost anything. The truly odious part of the sentence is: or showing or recording any of those things. It means that, for instance, a photo of your vehicle on a road can be construed as proof of speeding, regardless of whether the image actually shows the speed of your vehicle as well. A cop merely has to state, under oath, that he observed you speeding and here's the proof and the magistrate won't even listen to any arguments to the contrary.

Worse still, magistrates will intrinsically believe a Police Officer in relation to motor offences where in any other case they'd demand actual evidence. The equipment in use by NZ Police contains absolutely no way of verifying anything after the fact:

• Radar and laser guns have no auditing capability, to show when they were triggered and what speed was recorded at what point.
• In-car radar systems are not connected to a camera of any sort, or have an audit log of their own, to show the same.
• Police vehicles do not have cameras in them recording constantly.

Despite the fact that such technology is available off the shelf and in use by other Police forces around the world, it has not become a mandatory requirement in NZ. This does allow the cops to basically get away with virtually any ticket they issue and, more serious in my view, instantly fosters a complete lack of trust in the Police by the general public. considering that motoring offences are the means by which most members of the public come into contact with the cops, is it any wonder that the Police's standing in the community has nosedived spectacularly since the counter-productive zealous speed-limit enforcement started?
Of course, such equipment is not going to help in every case, but the majority of incidences should require an element of proof by the Police instead of the defendant having to prove he did not commit the offence.

Section 146 of the Land Transport act also contains an interesting little snippet too:

In proceedings for [a speeding offence against any bylaws or enactment, any other offence against this Act, or an offence against the Road User Charges Act 1977], the production of a certificate (or a document purporting to be a copy of the certificate) purporting to be signed by a sworn or non-sworn member of the Police authorised for the purpose by the Commissioner or by a person authorised for the purpose by the Director, as to the testing and accuracy of any equipment or device to which this section applies that is referred to in the certificate, is, in the absence of [proof] to the contrary, sufficient proof that the equipment or device referred to was tested on the date specified in the certificate and was accurate on the date of the alleged offence.

It's a remarkable assumption to say that things like radar guns (especially in-car ones which are affected by the police vehicle speedometer calibration, tyre wear, tyre pressures and so on) are deemed to be accurate provided they have been tested within the previous twelve months. In the UK, items do have to be formally calibrated every twelve months, but the calibration must be confirmed by a series of manual calibration checks at the start of each shift, and proof of that must be provided. No competent engineer would trust a measuring device that was not calibrated on a regular basis, but it seems OK for the courts and government to expect the general public to.

Ever thought of charging for this in a court of law? You seem to have a handle on it. Bling sent.

[peasea]

But not this member of the 'motoring public'.

Only paid 'taxes' to the tune of $400 or less over 35+ years.

Yeah, but you've got contacts, right?

[scumdog]

Yeah, but you've got contacts, right?

D'you really think I've been this job all this time since I was 15?????

[Cr1MiNaL]

U used to sell before this ???

[Kickaha]

Only paid 'taxes' to the tune of $400 or less over 35+ years.

Once I catch up to you (in 7years) I'll let you know how I get on, I'm only up to $340 in 28 years, it's all about picking the time and place

[BMW]

should have asked when his cert was carried out on the radar.

But good luck fighting them. Some are complete wankers and some are really good!

[Cr1MiNaL]

should have asked when his cert was carried out on the radar.

But good luck fighting them. Some are complete wankers and some are really good!

Hi yes I have asked for various documents to be sent to me and hence theyre taking a while to write back to me. Hopefully Ive shown them reason and theyll just wave the whole thing. But otherwise Im ready to take this to court. I agree some officers are way kewl. didnt bust me for 62 in a 50 coz i was riding safely !! legends.

[Cr1MiNaL]

Now this is why you people should not listen to internet lawyers.
Since when is RADAR affected by a police cars tyre pressures, speedo calibration, tyre wear etc?? lol
All your information you painstakingly provided was interesting until that last paragraph, which discredited the rest.
RADAR has nothing whatsoever to do with the vehicle in which it is mounted. If you are referring to the "own speed" displayed on the units readout, i.e. the police cars speed at time of radar activation, then you are mistaken. The "own speed" is also calculated by radar reflection from innate objects in its beam. It is not "connected" to the speedometer/tyres/whatever.

[Max Preload]

Now this is why you people should not listen to internet lawyers.
Since when is RADAR affected by a police cars tyre pressures, speedo calibration, tyre wear etc?? lol
All your information you painstakingly provided was interesting until that last paragraph, which discredited the rest.
RADAR has nothing whatsoever to do with the vehicle in which it is mounted. If you are referring to the "own speed" displayed on the units readout, i.e. the police cars speed at time of radar activation, then you are mistaken. The "own speed" is also calculated by radar reflection from innate objects in its beam. It is not "connected" to the speedometer/tyres/whatever.

I think more a grammatical error than mistakenly stating the patrol speed displayed is from a mechanical device. And it's inanimate, not innate.

[peasea]

D'you really think I've been this job all this time since I was 15?????

Can't you get them overturned retrospectively? With full refunds....?

[scumdog]

Now this is why you people should not listen to internet lawyers.
Since when is RADAR affected by a police cars tyre pressures, speedo calibration, tyre wear etc?? lol
All your information you painstakingly provided was interesting until that last paragraph, which discredited the rest.
RADAR has nothing whatsoever to do with the vehicle in which it is mounted. If you are referring to the "own speed" displayed on the units readout, i.e. the police cars speed at time of radar activation, then you are mistaken. The "own speed" is also calculated by radar reflection from inanimate objects in its beam. It is not "connected" to the speedometer/tyres/whatever.

Aw c'mon dude - stop ruining myths, common fallacies and inaccurate technical information....you're shattering all their hopes.

[Max Preload]

Not quite sure what you mean here? The patrol speed isn't from a mechanical device, it also utilises the radar.

I know the microwave also give the patrol speed. I think you'll find he was merely formatting the message and it got a little muddled. Done it myself plenty of times, and that was a BIG post.

In any case microwave speed detection is not infallible - there have been cases where this has been demonstrated. Interference is a big problem in built up areas. I recall someone successfully arguing that the ticket he received was invalid by virtue of the fact the location of the PR100 camera was unsuitable due to the environment.

[pzkpfw]

(Where is the 'real' plate anyway?)

Back when I worked at motor-reg I learned if it's not a 'real' plate it's not really legal.

Those cars with painted-on 'plates' are illegal. Even magnetic stick-on (dealer) plates that looked just like the real thing were illegal.