qualified lawyer please, can I beat this ticket?

**vifferman** · 10th December 2004, 09:05

When I was learning to drive, many years ago (around the start of the Cretaceous Period, if I remember correctly) I was taught that the speed limits applied from where the signs were, so if I was going from a 70 km/h zone to a 50, then I needed to make sure I was doing 50 by the time I passed the sign. And conversely, if I was going from a 50 to a 70, then I shouldn't start accelerating till I got to the 70 sign. So that's what I did.

Has this changed somewhere along the line? I guess it must have, because from the behaviour of other motorists, it appears that ALL signs (including stop signs, traffic lights, etc.) are a vague suggestion only, and that you need obey them only if you feel like it. And then only vaguely. Or not.

**scumdog** · 10th December 2004, 09:34

Originally Posted by firestormer

When I was learning to drive, many years ago (around the start of the Cretaceous Period, if I remember correctly) I was taught that the speed limits applied from where the signs were, so if I was going from a 70 km/h zone to a 50, then I needed to make sure I was doing 50 by the time I passed the sign. And conversely, if I was going from a 50 to a 70, then I shouldn't start accelerating till I got to the 70 sign. So that's what I did.

Has this changed somewhere along the line? I guess it must have, because from the behaviour of other motorists, it appears that ALL signs (including stop signs, traffic lights, etc.) are a vague suggestion only, and that you need obey them only if you feel like it. And then only vaguely. Or not.

Summed up nicely, unfortunately to alleviate fall-out from disgruntled public the aforementioned 'gentlemans agreement' was instituted.

Imagine a lot of other legal items with that 'slack' i.e. "your lucky day sir, you blew 440, while the law says the limit is 400 we have a gentlemans agreement that you don't get prosecuted for less the 450...."
or "lucky break dude, you were only 200 metres inside the liquor-ban area with that bottle of bourbon and we don't arrest you if you're less than 250 metres inside the ban area..." "the red light had only been showing for 5 seconds when you went through the intersection and we only give tickets if it has been showing for more than 10 seconds.

**XP@** · 10th December 2004, 10:21

I have successfully used the excuse:

"I was not looking at my speedo because I was scanning the road whilst accellerating upto cruising speed. In this case an anticipated 80-83kmph as per the sign I was approaching. Taking in to account the road, and environmental conditions I estimated my speed to be reasonable and safe"
"The characteristics of a motorcycle include a narrower power band than a car. During accelleration up through the gears it is important to change gear at the correct time in relation to the revs. Depending on the gear ratio's of the motor cycle it is sometimes easier to accellerate slightly over the desired speed and then reducing speed to the required level. If the accelleration is not smooth then the motorcycle becomes less stable and therefore introducing unnecessary and unreasonable risks."

"In this case my speed was reasonable in relation to the proximity of the sign.
Looking at my speedo during the period of accelleration would have introduced more risks than I was prepared to accept."

If the cop was very hidden then you could also emphasise your scanning of the road a little more. but you have to be careful that they don't see your missing of the cop as lack of observation.
If you saw the cop and decided that for some (good) reason the risks involved in slowing were greater than the risks involved in speeding then you can argue that to good effect. (used that one twice)
if the judge can see you were "reasonable" in your actions then you stand a chance.
If you can prove the laws of physics ment that you had to speed then you should be ok. eg going round a corner and hit by a blast of wind so you opened the throttle to obtain the power to right yourself.

Which ever the case it is worth a good letter, I have had 4 speeding and 2 parking tickets waived from letters

On the other hand 2 have failed...

**scumdog** · 10th December 2004, 10:35

Jeez XP, no wonder you got off! If I had been the judge I would have let you off too - only in fear thet you might repeat that lengthy explanation again and bore me even more shitless!!

It was still a lot of clap-trap though, I mean just look at that burbble about the 'narrow power band.... etc' WTF and 'anticipating' the speed increase stuff !!! gimme strength, the judge must have been drunk to swallow that one.

..'speed reasonable and safe'? they didn't swallow that one when I got done for 156kmh, they must have found your judgement more accurate than mine!

BTW my success/failure rate for writing in to get off a ticket is about the same as yours - but that was about 20+ years ago.

**Stinger** · 10th December 2004, 10:57

I like it XP

Add to that argument the whole "even power" concept where deceleration would have caused increased oversteer again very dangerous.

**XP@** · 10th December 2004, 11:10

Originally Posted by scumdog

..'speed reasonable and safe'? they didn't swallow that one when I got done for 156kmh, they must have found your judgement more accurate than mine!

Reasonable is generally something close to the limit or close to the nearby limits...

When they tried to do me for 111kmph (in a 50 zone) I needed a little bit more than a nice letter. I used Des Deacon from wellington (look him up in the phone book) he found that their speed gun calibration was not up to date... it still didn't go to court, but cost me $500 in legal fees, worth it!

**Dr Bob** · 10th December 2004, 11:27

The codified law is all written by non-lawyers (okay maybe a few) ie. MP's The judges need to ascertain whether you have breached the 'intent' of the law. Situational factors are important, because if you were clearly not going to harm yourself, others, the road surface (unduly) etc. then you have not breached the intent of the law. If at 5:45am there is no other traffic on that stretch of roadway, then it is an important issue along with the circumstances you described about the roading context.

If interpretation of intent wasn't important then half the laws wouldn't include the statements such as 'with due care and consideration to other road users' or 'if able to be done safely'.

**XP@** · 10th December 2004, 11:31

Originally Posted by Dr Bob

The codified law is all written by non-lawyers (okay maybe a few) ie. MP's The judges need to ascertain whether you have breached the 'intent' of the law. Situational factors are important, because if you were clearly not going to harm yourself, others, the road surface (unduly) etc. then you have not breached the intent of the law. If at 5:45am there is no other traffic on that stretch of roadway, then it is an important issue along with the circumstances you described about the roading context.

If interpretation of intent wasn't important then half the laws wouldn't include the statements such as 'with due care and consideration to other road users' or 'if able to be done safely'.

Go Doc!
I hadn't thought about that angle before...

**Ramius** · 10th December 2004, 17:13

Originally Posted by 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.

Speaking from a collection officers view: Tickets that have hearing requested where the defendant pleads not guilty generally go in front of a JP and not a judge, where the JP generally hands out the maximum penalty.

Face it my friend, you were in a 60 zone doing 87, whether you were 200m out or not. You were still over the speed limit and there is no time restriction on speed zones, if there is a 50, you do no more than 50. (Exc LS Zones)

A lot of people complain to me that all the government are doing is revenue gathering, and I always come back with this, 'there is a speed limit, you were x km over that limit, if no one sped in this country, no tickets would be handed out and then there would be no cash collected'

**marty** · 10th December 2004, 17:23

Originally Posted by Dr Bob

Situational factors are important, because if you were clearly not going to harm yourself, others, the road surface (unduly) etc. then you have not breached the intent of the law. If at 5:45am there is no other traffic on that stretch of roadway, then it is an important issue along with the circumstances you described about the roading context.

If interpretation of intent wasn't important then half the laws wouldn't include the statements such as 'with due care and consideration to other road users' or 'if able to be done safely'.

what a load of crap. nowhere in the exceeding speed limit regs does it talk about 'with due care and consideration to other road users'.

**spudchucka** · 11th December 2004, 00:19

Originally Posted by marty

what a load of crap. nowhere in the exceeding speed limit regs does it talk about 'with due care and consideration to other road users'.

Its the "bush lawyer" syndrome, everyones a feckin expert.

**spudchucka** · 11th December 2004, 00:29

Originally Posted by spudchucka

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

The current "speed enforcement guide" states that vehicles shouldn't be targeted within 250 metres of a speed limit change, except in exceptional circumstances.

**Dr Bob** · 11th December 2004, 12:48

Originally Posted by marty

what a load of crap. nowhere in the exceeding speed limit regs does it talk about 'with due care and consideration to other road users'.

Thank you Marty for your most eloquent contribution. I would add that I only said that half the laws actually included such phrases, and of course with common law it is prima facie interpretive. As law is a social objectivication I would contend that the issue is best dealt with by discussing the philosophy of objectivity and empiricism, rather than defecation.