Do I pay this ticket?

[Ixion]

No, that is true. You don't get the points added until you admit guilt (usually by paying the fine), or are convicted.

But when the points are added they are backdated until the date of the offence.

And if they take you over the 100 the 3 months suspension doesn't start until they collect your licence.

So paying or not paying doens't help reduce anything.

[Swoop]

No. Just most of it correct. And as fore the speelling.... hoo gives a rats ass (or is that arse?). Its the new standard out there... no one can spell any more.

Does this mean that next time I get a ticket & it has the wrong date, wrong time, wrong street, wrong name, wrong speed, wrong car, wrong rego, wrong driver, wrong spleeling . That I should just pay it cos the orificer needs to keep his quota up ?
Oh thats right they don't have "quota's" what was I thinking [/QUOTE]
But they do have to send younger officers on english courses...
Or would you like your ticket via TXT message?

[spudchucka]

I have more stories if you want, it's up to you if you want to believe them.

How about you post the Court record numbers, that way I can look up the judgements and have a good read of all the juicy details.

[Badjelly]

This is an assertion based on logic alone, no evidence is necessary. If speed alone caused accidents Apollo XI would never have made it to the moon.

OK. I think a quote from The Hunting of the Snark is appropriate here:

“But, now that you’ve stated the whole of your case,

More debate would be simply absurd.

[CookMySock]

[...]My main point of objection is that the ticket should be correct at the time of issue, and if the ticket is wrong, it's shouldn't be valid, and therefore should be contested.
We all know that the choice to break the laws of the land is down to the individual, but if we are to maintain respect for the enforcement authorities, then at least let them do the courtesy of issuing a correctly worded ticket.

Exactly. The cops can sharpen up their act, or else the good ol' kiwi tradition of "wriggling out of it" shall apply.

There are two types of "wrongs" and they are "things that are wrong" and then there is "getting caught doing something wrong." Long may we carry on the tradition of getting off scot-free on things.

To be clear, I am not about infringing upon your rights or others. I will have my fun, some of it dodgy or borderline legal, and that is the way of it. What I WILL NOT do, is do it at someone elses' risk, expense, or emotional cost. Everyone has the right to live their lives in peace, as do I. It's about freedom, but not at someone elses' expense. Yes, frightening people on the road is bad, particularly, you will note, when it is done to you, but popping a wheelie on clear road, or doing 125km/hr isn't (mostly.)

Have a good time.

DB

[CookMySock]

I have more stories if you want, it's up to you if you want to believe them. The phantom seat belt wearing incident, dropped 9pm the day before the hearing. $50 in costs against the city council as yet again they cocked up a parking ticket. A ticket for 123 dropped 3 days before hearing as the police lost the paperwork. 12 speed camera tickets dropped despite all sorts of threats.

OH YES, lets wiki them up !! They dissapear on the forum, but on the Wiki they last forever!! LOL

You just type them in, and I'll format and spellcheck for ya. Do it !! lol


DB

[Tank]

ANYWAY ......

Back to the original poster.

Mitch001 - after 143 replies since your original post, what did you actually do with the ticket?

and I saw you online this morning - so don't you go ignoring us.....

C

[Sanx]

Yeeeeappp, agree totally - and I accept that speed isn't the only factor to take into account. Sorry (esp. to Sanx). Having some hormone issues at the moment (obviously quite serious ones) - no excuse though, my brain should still be the dominant organ.

Chamomile tea coming out.

The phrase I used was "speed suitable for the conditions". Exceeding this is inherently dangerous. Exceeding an often arbitrary limit is not, unless that speed also is unsuitable for the conditions.

So taking your suggestion that I try my "theory" on a dark wet diesel-covered corner ... dark, wet and diesel-covered are conditions. Conditions exist define the safe speed - the same hypothetical corner would obviously be safer to take faster if the road was dry, well-lit and hydrocarbon-free. A speed limit does not define a safe speed - as the late Paul Smith of Safe Speed regularly said, "Safe driving cannot be measured in miles-per-hour".

I'd suggest you read through Safe Speed and then apply some of the things you see to the figures published on the LTSA's website. In particular, correlate the year-on-year average fall in open road speed and the yearly road toll. The LTSA used to claim that for every 1kph reduction in average speed, x number of lives would be saved (I can't remember the number, though 12 springs to mind). They don't claim that any more, as the figures show it to be a complete mockery. In fact, despite ever more strict road policing, lower speed limits and improved car safety (more cars have traction control, ABS, airbags, etc.) the road toll has stayed pretty static since the current government's obsession with speed started in 2002. According to the ACC's statistics, however, hospitalisations due to RTAs has risen markedly.

Lower average speed = no reduction in road toll + more hospitalisations.

Does that look like a vindication of the 'speed kills' philosophy?