Busted? Help!

[Mikkel]

Which works in two ways because it also exposes the lying twats that make vexatious complaints about honest hard working cops.

Indeed, that would be an added bonus. I've never had a bad experience with a member of the law enforcing community. I may not necessarily have agreed with a ticket being issued, but I couldn't honestly say I wasn't in breach of whatever...

Of course the down side is the 'soft' cops wouldn't be able to knock any speed off/ignore offences when they pull somebody over....

Soft cops are a myth and you know it

I think people in Denmark still get off with a warning every now and again. Only if a ticket is issued will the records be kept for evidence. I mean, the video is running all of the time, it's not like somebody sits down and check the entire tape after each shift.

Also, in Denmark there's certainly no quota system. I have been led to believe that is the case in NZ, at least with HP.

The 'what do you mean' bit? - you mentioned in your earlier post on Denmark having video cameras in their Police vehicles about the patrol vehicle speed being recorded - I was just making comment the patrol vehicle is not always moving.

Ah, in that case it'll just be recorded as 0 km/h - easy eh

And yup, you pretty much summed it all up in your last paragraph.

In which case we have to be thankful that NZ isn't suffering from a higher degree of corruption than it is!

[Ixion]

I have a mate who is a policman in a country that has camera patrol cars. He says they are fairly unpopular in the local force because the bosses have reduced staffing to 1 officer per car (not a problem here) and the 'contacts' have to take place in front of the camera.

I am told the unit itself has a small monitor with a target box on the screen. The microwave unit is calibrated so that when a vehicle enters the box the displyed speed is correct. The recording is all that is required for a ticket.

Video here would cut down the number of he said/she said cases in court.

I used to think that it would be a good idea for the radar gadgets to produce a hard copy output. Then I had a wee think, about the number of times I've been stopped and let off, either completely or at a reduced tariff. Which would not be possible if there was a hard copy or video record. Sergeant Snake would be certain to review them, and any plod who turned a bit of a blind eye would be in the shit. So I think I prefer things the way they are. I'm pretty sure there is the occasional cop who fakes the reading. But I'm also pretty sure that the nnumber of such is much less than the OK bastards who will cut you a bit of slack (eh, Mr DMNTD ?)

[Swoop]

And as far as in-car videos go? Bring 'em on, my only regret would be I would not be able to release the resulting recordings on u-tube etc.

Is there some sort of "exclusive" agreement somewhere? Perhaps the NZ bringing out a yearly DVD compilation? A possible earner for the force there!


Oops, almost forgot... (p/t).

[Patrick]

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.

Or you can use the 28 day suspension as punishment already given is sufficient, no need for further time off licence??? (As I am seeing from ther courts lately..)

I don't stop, ticket and suspend totally innocent speeders though...

Even drunk drivers can't lose their licence on the roadside right? Last I heard it was taking up to a year to serve the suspensions as well.

Yep that's right. They can get their keys taken off them but as far as I know they do not have and instant loss of licence.

I certainly know who the dangerouse drivers are. All drunk drivers are dangerous but not all speedsters are.

Skyryder

Uh, things have changed - over 650 now!! - booze-bus, station. wherever.

OR if they blow over that and go for blood,

Or if they refuse blood (if they refused breath or it was not available),

OR if they go straight for blood and it comes back over 130.

IIRC.

Also, if they have convictions for EBA within 4 years, there is a list of rasons when ya licence is goneburger at the roadside for pissheads...

The DSR can display both the fastest target, and the strongest target.

But it can't tell which is which. And it can't even tell how far away the target it is displaying is.

Its not being anti-radar, anti-police or pro-speeder.

Its just the laws of physics.

Yes it can... when the fastest speed of 142 flicks off and the closest speed says 142... it is the same then...

[Pex Adams]

Hospital personally I think you should take a serious look in the mirror and ask yourself this...
'I know the truth, I was doing way more then what the officer booked me for. Am I willing to go to court when I know this, or should I bite the bitter pill of the punishment and swallow???'

I know if I were in your position I would be thinking really hard about the morals, and what sort of person you are, and want to be.

[breakaway]

If you had murdered the officer you'd be the subject of a massive manhunt, living in fear, not knowing when you'd get a knock on the door that'd be the beginning of a few hours of community service

Fixed

[hospitalfood]

ok, posts and opinions keep coming which is great.

assuming the radar is calibrated, and all the other rules the officer must follow are being followed, and the radar did lock on one of our bikes.

there is still no way to know which bike it was !
also, with the + or - 3 km/h accuracy spec of the radar unit ( while in mobile mode, which it was ), one of us doing 142 has definatly not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. the bike the radar allegedly got a reading from could have been traveling at 139. so it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt that even one of us was travelling over 140 ( I dont think either of us was ) yet we have both lost our licences for 28 days.

some of you think I should just take it, personally I dont think either of us should just take it.

[Patrick]

ok, posts and opinions keep coming which is great.

assuming the radar is calibrated, and all the other rules the officer must follow are being followed, and the radar did lock on one of our bikes.

there is still know way to know which bike it was !
also, with the + or - 3 km/h accuracy spec of the radar unit ( while in mobile mode, which it was ), one of us doing 142 has definatly not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. the bike the radar allegedly got a reading from could have been traveling at 139. so it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt that even one of us was travelling over 140 ( I dont think either of us was ) yet we have both lost our licences for 28 days.

some of you think I should just take it, personally I dont think either of us should just take it.

Even at 39km over, it is still 50 demerits... so they might still have ya by the short and curlies...

[davereid]

ok, posts and opinions keep coming which is great.

assuming the radar is calibrated, and all the other rules the officer must follow are being followed, and the radar did lock on one of our bikes.

there is still no way to know which bike it was !
also, with the + or - 3 km/h accuracy spec of the radar unit ( while in mobile mode, which it was ), one of us doing 142 has definatly not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. the bike the radar allegedly got a reading from could have been traveling at 139. so it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt that even one of us was travelling over 140 ( I dont think either of us was ) yet we have both lost our licences for 28 days.

some of you think I should just take it, personally I dont think either of us should just take it.

You don't have to prove you were not speeding. The police have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were.

Lets assume you were not speeding at all !

If the court agreed, they would not convict you.

But due to the nazi law now in force, you have already been without wheels for 28 days.

I bet they don't offer you $20,000 to cover your inconvenience !

Thats why its really a "legal system" not a "justice" system.

So, in this case, even if innocent, you have already paid a major price.

So, while there will be those who say "just cough up" I suggest you deny, and defend all speeding accusations.

The system cheerfully offers to penalise you massively without bothering with inconveniences like getting a conviction.

You deserve to get off a few that you did.

The system can only survive its current massive conviction rate if you pay the ticket. Simply requesting a hearing, and requiring disclosure would bring it to its knees.

Last night on the telly, cops bragged about 400 tickets given to boy racers in one night.

Hmm if all of those biy racers said, nah, see you in court, the system would take years to get it dealt to.

When the system is sensible and fair, then play the game fairly. But right now, its facist and corrupt. So play the entire hand out. Even if you lose, the system loses more, and we all win in the end.

[hospitalfood]

I agree with you, its not a personal thing with me where I hate cops, I dont hate them at all and they have a job to do.
I just dont think we have been treated justly !
I have let it go before and paid up etc, when it has been unreasonable ( not all have been, sometimes it was a fair cop ) but I have had enough of doing it.

it does come down to economics, and making revenue. If they make easy money through tickets they wont stop, the system will continue with the profitable ticket quota. regardless of weather it is just.

[geoffm]

The cops don't have to prove traffic offences, merely having the cop say "He is guilty" is enough to send you down. if you take it to court, all that will happen is you get court costs as well. If you have a spare $20k, you might look at taking it to appeal or a higher court, where the rules of evidence are occaisionally used. Bob Jones did this, but he has enoug hmoney to make it more of an even battle. I can't recall if he won or lost.
G

[Soul.Trader]

When the system is sensible and fair, then play the game fairly. But right now, its facist and corrupt. So play the entire hand out. Even if you lose, the system loses more, and we all win in the end.

Yeah, damn those facists! Out there handing out tickets to people who knowingly breach the law!

[Soul.Trader]

I just dont think we have been treated justly !

You poor wee thing, being treated so unjustly. All you did was blast past a police officer. What right does he have? Sounds like you need to go have a cry on your boyfriends shoulder.

[davereid]

Yeah, damn those facists! Out there handing out tickets to people who knowingly breach the law!

Handing out a ticket - thats the way it works. No problem there.

But giving a policeman the power to see the alledged offence, make a road side decision as to guilt, and roll out the punishment... hmm, thats facist allright !

[@mmie]

Were you stopped by a highway patrol, a mufty or a normal police car? Was the car coming towards you, tailing you or did you pass it?

This is a totally valid question, I no people who have gotten away with just cruising away at the same speed, if not increasing it a bit more and just ride off and watch the flashing lights fade away in you mirror. If for some reason they do manage to catch up then just claim inocence & say you hadn't checked your mirror. If he was tailing you then that is different and basically your screwed!

I have to agree with alot of the posts, you could try take it to court but by the time you get your day the 28 days will be up, I just hope for your sake the demerits aren't going to kill you.

Safer riding next time. Slow & easy wins the race (hmm)