qualified lawyer please, can I beat this ticket?

[riffer]

I'm not a lawyer but I do know that if you exceed the speed limit, for whatever reason, and you are stopped and ticketed, your own moral code should dictate that you take it on the chin, accept it, pay the ticket, and move on.

No-one likes paying speeding tickets, and we all have our excuses, but at the end of the day, you probably knew you were speeding, you sped, and you got caught.

Do the honourable thing. Pay the ticket and move on, buddy.

Anything else sounds like wingeing. And the court's heard it all before.

[spudchucka]

Boring

So sorry, I wasn't aware that I was meant to be entertaining you.

Heres a thought, fugg off and find something thats not boring to read!

[zooter]

It was 5.45am, the reason the 80 zone is there isn't active at 5.45am, I was accelerating into the 80 a bit too fast, granted but I was accelerating away from the 60 zone ( roundabout ). The 60 zone starts before the roundabout to give you time to decelerate for it. They always have the same speed limit in both directions so there could be no argument if you were to do a Uturn in the middle of the disparate zone. Makes sign maintenance easier too.
The reason the cop was on that bit of highway was he had given up on staking out the 30 k's temporay restriction for roadworkers ( also redundant at 5.45am ) a few k's up the road. Probably returning to town for coffee and donuts.
All of which satisfies a few folks curiosity but doesn't answer the question about judges discretion to let me off if I can put forward a good enough argument on the consequences of conviction outweighing gravity of offence, details of which I don't wish to bandy around.
Btw if everyone went to court and self defended their BS speeding tickets the cops would have to give up on dishing them out like candy or the courts would be taking ten years to get to them. I'm not talking about the 120kph on the open road but the ones where you get pinged overtaking a truck or whatever. I've never had a speeding ticket in my life because I basically don't speed.

[spudchucka]

It was 5.45am, the reason the 80 zone is there isn't active at 5.45am

Like speedmedic said, there are no time of day restrictions on posted speed limits, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

I was accelerating into the 80 a bit too fast, granted but I was accelerating away from the 60 zone ( roundabout ).

What difference does it make what speed zone you were accelerating away from? Other than the amount you were exceeding the limit by?

The reason the cop was on that bit of highway was he had given up on staking out the 30 k's temporay restriction for roadworkers ( also redundant at 5.45am ) a few k's up the road.

And you know this because the cop told you, right? Or is that just a great big assumption that makes you feel better about getting nicked? And why is a 30kph temporary restriction invalid at 0545? Because the workmen aren't there at that time? What about the loose gravel on the road, heavy machinery that is often parked at the road side, damage that you are doing to the new road surface at open road speeds? Could they be reasons to impose a 30kph speed restriction at 0545?

Probably returning to town for coffee and donuts.

So you got a ticket from Chief Wiggum, huh?

All of which satisfies a few folks curiosity but doesn't answer the question about judges discretion to let me off if I can put forward a good enough argument on the consequences of conviction outweighing gravity of offence, details of which I don't wish to bandy around.

You are thinking of section 106 - 109 of the sentencing act, which is what pot heads have been trying to use to get off drug convictions, without much luck in most cases. You have been given a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 27 kph. The penalty is a fine and a few demerit points on your licence. If you defend the ticket, wasting huge amounts of money and time, the judge is just as likely to give you a bigger fine + court costs for wasting every bodys time.

Btw if everyone went to court and self defended their BS speeding tickets the cops would have to give up on dishing them out like candy or the courts would be taking ten years to get to them.

Pot smokers have tried that tactic too, all it does is piss the courts off. By the way, next time you are wondering why it costs so much to go to the doctor or why can't your poor old granny get her hip replacement, think about the amount of govt funds you are wasting by clogging up the courts with this sort of BS.

I basically don't speed.

I guess you were unlucky and got caught on the one and only occasion you ever decided to go faster than the posted speed limit. You must be the unluckiest person in the world!

[James Deuce]

Judges have the discretion to let everybody off everything.

You disobeyed a compulsory speed limit sign and got pinged. I don't understand the rest of your argument at all.

[AMPS]

The 250 metre thing is basically a gentlemans agreement that is not policy nor law. Judges / JP's seem to take it into account when folks are entering a slower speed zone but not the other way around.

By the way Zooter, I'd really like to hear how you intend to defend yourself.

Well, either the Police spokesman lied to the reporter, or the reporter lied to his readers or my alzheimers spiked while I was reading the story. But it was reported as new Police policy along with the banning of covert traffic enforcement.
Lou
PS The 30 km limit could have been there to protect the orange cones lined up in the kerb. There's been one doing that near home for 2 weeks now.

[scumdog]

Well, either the Police spokesman lied to the reporter, or the reporter lied to his readers or my alzheimers spiked while I was reading the story. But it was reported as new Police policy along with the banning of covert traffic enforcement.
Lou
PS The 30 km limit could have been there to protect the orange cones lined up in the kerb. There's been one doing that near home for 2 weeks now.

It had been a 'gentlemans agreement' for yonks and generally adhered to by both parties, however some jumped up plonker shat on the whole deal by trying to defend a speeding ticket on the grounds he was 'only' 247 metres from the 70km area (still in the 50km zone) when he got pinged for 70+.WTF???
He allegedly went and 'measured' the above distance - how you know 'exactly' where you are when you get pinged by the radar I'm danged if I know. :confused2

Big boss got ticked off by this,said "remember, this 250metre thing is not law it's only a guidline, if you want to ping somebody inside that distance it's their bad luck" - or something to that effect.

[750Y]

Ric says to the new inmate, "lets play mummy's and daddy's".

New guy says, "errr, no thanks".

Ric says, "I'll let you be the daddy"!

New guy says, "OK then".

Ric says, "right then, come over here and suck mummy's cock"!

lmfao,
that joke was really bad spud, but i am still laughing...

[jimbo600]

I'm sure there is meant to be some tolerance to the speed signs as to the proximity to the sign with allowance for acceleration/deceleration. What is it? I got pinged at 87 in a 60 zone maybe 200m before the 80 sign.
Also, do judges have any discretion with speeding tickets? I read of a court case once where a guilty defendant was discharged without conviction because the mandatory minimum punishment had other consequences which made the penalty too harsh to fit the crime. I don't recall what the crime was. In my case I think I can put up a sound argument along similar lines.
Please don't post on this thread unless it's the good legal oil. If you want to sound off start another thread. Cheers, Greg

The speed enforcement policy states that people should not be targeted within 250m of a speed change. This is written into their policy. However what is not written is that it only occurs when going from high to low speed. I imagine a defence lawer would get you off though. It doesn't count if there are roadworks or a school in the vicinity.

[scumdog]

The speed enforcement policy states that people should not be targeted within 250m of a speed change. This is written into their policy. However what is not written is that it only occurs when going from high to low speed. I imagine a defence lawer would get you off though. It doesn't count if there are roadworks or a school in the vicinity.

Policy is one thing, law another.

And zooter, did you 'measure' this 200m distance from the sign? or is it a guess?

You never know, could have been 125m.

[spudchucka]

lmfao,
that joke was really bad spud, but i am still laughing...

The joys of prison life.....its no joke

[spudchucka]

Well, either the Police spokesman lied to the reporter, or the reporter lied to his readers or my alzheimers spiked while I was reading the story. But it was reported as new Police policy along with the banning of covert traffic enforcement.
Lou
PS The 30 km limit could have been there to protect the orange cones lined up in the kerb. There's been one doing that near home for 2 weeks now.

Its a guidline, or perhaps could be considered best practice. It isn't a blanket permission slip that allows anyone that feels like it to take off at warp factor five before they reach the new speed zone.

Those cones are expensive and deserve the full protection of the law!

[marty]

Btw if everyone went to court and self defended their BS speeding tickets the cops would have to give up on dishing them out like candy or the courts would be taking ten years to get to them. .

how does the cops dishing out tickets have anything to do with the waiting time at court? they are 2 completly separate systems. the court cannot dictate to the police how many tickets/arrests/prosecutions it (the police) initiates. if the court cannot cope, then the justice dept needs to address it, not the police dept.

[marty]

someone with more knowledge of police policy than i needs to post this 'policy' on here. to the best of my knowledge it's not in GI's, and if jimbo is right, and it says 'should' not be targetted within 250m, then 'should' is not 'will not be'

[spudchucka]

someone with more knowledge of police policy than i needs to post this 'policy' on here. to the best of my knowledge it's not in GI's, and if jimbo is right, and it says 'should' not be targetted within 250m, then 'should' is not 'will not be'

If I get a chance tonight I'll find it and post a summary tomorrow.