Busted? Help!

[slimjim]

why the fuck did your mate stop too ? would have been only one of ya then !!!! and which one the one pussy enough to feel the tang of discomfort of breaking the law haha yup you's stopped , you's gota alot of walking too , bummer dudes

[Mikkel]

As I understand it, your speedo only has to be accurate within 10% for the purposes of your vehicle being road legal. That doesn't mean you're not accountable for the speed you were going, regardless of what your speedo says.

Indeed. We should actually just be grateful that the police has put in the 10 km/h buffer zone where almost no tickets are issued. It doesn't take many 10 demerit point tickets before it starts adding up to real trouble!



But seriously, consider the issue of statistical error on THEIR equipment. I know that there has been some pretty interesting cases back home where the court couldn't just dismiss the claim of the defendant. I read an article about it in the paper being published by the association of academical engineers in Denmark.

[Mrs Busa Pete]

2 of us just lost our licences. passed an undercover car at 142 ( radar reading )
instant 28 day loss of licence + fines ( $510 )

dont tell us, we know. we are bad boys.

wondering if it is ok to book both of us on 1 radar reading???

Pete got done the same way. he took it to court but lost so up to you.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Allow me to be the devils advocate here.

"But if you were intentionally doing 130 km/h then you are intentionally in violation of the road code. Whether you misjudge the extent to which you are breaking the law can not be the legal systems problem..." As such that argument could well be dismissed by the judge.

Bzzzzt, wrong, but thanks for playing.

the point of a criminal prosecution is that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime that is asserted.

So its important to just deny, let them try and prove, and if their major plank of evidence is incorrect (i.e. the radar reading) then its not beyond a reasonable doubt.

However i reckon it would cost you easy a couple of grand to defend, so its up toyou. Oh and get lawyered up.

[Ixion]

But but but - the problem is that is was 140 not 150. And the 28 day suspension is immediate. So, by the time the law dragged its ponderous way through the courts, even if you won the case, the 28 days would be up anyway. And you wouldn't have had your licence through that period. And no earthly court can reverse the clock of time to give you those 28 days back.

So, effectively, even if you are totally innocent, there is no way to defend yourself against that charge. An utter perversion of justice. Which is why it is so wrong and unjustifiable to take peoples licence at the roadside.

[Edbear]

But but but - the problem is that is was 140 not 150. And the 28 day suspension is immediate. So, by the time the law dragged its ponderous way through the courts, even if you won the case, the 28 days would be up anyway. And you wouldn't have had your licence through that period. And no earthly court can reverse the clock of time to give you those 28 days back.

So, effectively, even if you are totally innocent, there is no way to defend yourself against that charge. An utter perversion of justice. Which is why it is so wrong and unjustifiable to take peoples licence at the roadside.

Mmmmm! There's that unofficial 10km/h "tolerance" for exceeding 100km/h, maybe we could suggest a "tolerance" for this point...?

[swbarnett]

Mmmmm! There's that unofficial 10km/h "tolerance" for exceeding 100km/h, maybe we could suggest a "tolerance" for this point...?

Yes, this this is at least one area the cops seem to have seen logic.

It's a separate issue however than taking someone's license at the roadside. Punishment before conviction is just simply against the principle of innocnet until proven guilty.

[Edbear]

Yes, this this is at least one area the cops seem to have seen logic.

It's a separate issue however than taking someone's license at the roadside. Punishment before conviction is just simply against the principle of innocnet until proven guilty.

You have a point, but I doubt there would be much of an outcry to seizing the boy racer's cars at the roadside for dangerous driving/unsafe vehicles, etc. I mean if you're clocked at 140+ you don't have much of a leg to stand on...

[scumdog]

Who is going to start the KB legal fund for h/f???


PM me if you do - I have this large bridge in Auckland where more of your excess money would also be spent wisely when you buy it from me.......

Sorry, my cynic pills ain't as strong as they use to be.

[swbarnett]

You have a point, but I doubt there would be much of an outcry to seizing the boy racer's cars at the roadside for dangerous driving/unsafe vehicles, etc. I mean if you're clocked at 140+ you don't have much of a leg to stand on...

Even murderers get bail pending a court case.

[ManDownUnder]

So, effectively, even if you are totally innocent, there is no way to defend yourself against that charge. An utter perversion of justice. Which is why it is so wrong and unjustifiable to take peoples licence at the roadside.

...so you then seek remedial damages.... compensation. I agree it's not ideal but I understand "ideal" is a component of "perfect society" and we don't seem to have one of those...

There's also the wee issue of someone actually doing the crime, therefore time served is not entirely out of order, or am I foolishly seeeking out the spirit of the law rather than the letter?

[Morcs]

2 of us just lost our licences. passed an undercover car at 142 ( radar reading )
instant 28 day loss of licence + fines ( $510 )

dont tell us, we know. we are bad boys.

wondering if it is ok to book both of us on 1 radar reading???

Are you trying to compete with me Adam?

Bad luck. I just got stung for $950...

[jrandom]

2 of us just lost our licences. passed an undercover car at 142 ( radar reading )

Just out of interest, which road were you on?

I personally never blast past unmarked late-model sedans on the open road until I've had a squiz at their rear parcel shelf and ID'd them as civilians.

You'll probably just have to suck this one up, but if you're not broke you could try spending the money on a lawyer and seeing if arguing against the tickets based on two of you being caught on the one radar reading will stick.

Unfortunately for you, though, it might just take the cop in question saying "Well, yer 'onour, h'in my professional judgment as a traffic h'inforcement h'officer, they h'were definitely travelling at the same speed to within a kilometer per hour or so" to scuttle your defence.

After all, you were both speeding.

[Soul.Trader]

Bzzzzt, wrong, but thanks for playing.

the point of a criminal prosecution is that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime that is asserted.

Traffic infringements aren't criminal prosecutions, are they? And as such, they only have to prove a balance of probability, not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt. That's how I understand it.

[Ixion]

You understand it wrong.