Speeding ticket. Do I have grounds to contest this??

[peasea]

1950 is the date before which no speedo is required. But there is a little known out, though I doubt it would serve your need

from the Vehicle Equipment Rule 2004


So you have to have a speedo unless it's broken.

On that basis a busted speedo could be a fair defence. Like I say, a 'not guilty' plea should be entered in all cases in the hope that there's a loophole...

Too many people simply roll over and cough up. Not I.
Make them work for it.

[Ixion]

Problem is, the ticket is 'speeding', not 'defective speedo'.

The cop says "you wuz doing naughty speed". OP can't say "No I wasn't", cos he (a) probably was; and (b) doesn't know anyway.

And it's no defence to say "Well, I don't know what speed I was going, cos my speedo was bust, so I went the same speed as other vehicles, and if I was speeding so were they". A cop can quite legally look at a line of a dozen vehicles all going at the same illegal speed, and pick out one of them to give a ticket to.

BUT: There might be an option here. Assuming the cop did have radar, then , if the OP was indeed closely following a car, there is no way the radar can show which vehicle (car or bike) was going the fastest. So one could claim "I was not speeding, it was the car, he was going faster than me" . If the cop had no radar (disclosure will show if he did), then simply deny it "The officer is well meaning but mistaken. That is shown by the fact that the officer's estimation of the speed of the car in front of me must have indicated to him that the car was travelling at a legal speed. I was doing the same speed, as shown by the fact that I was not closing on the car"

Pretty lean grounds for a defence , though. Especially as OP probably WAS speeding. hardly worth it, unless the demerits are critical.

[Ting Tong]

Did you ask to see his machine (not being rude here). They generally don't guess - being that no evidence means they can't really charge you. It is your responsbility to ensure that your vehicle remains in a warrentable state and you don't use it if you don't. Seems harsh that you are responsible but life sucks like that.

All the Police need to prove is that they saw that speed on their radar, they dont have to lock it on or show you by law, it is only a courtesy.

[Nasty]

All the Police need to prove is that they saw that speed on their radar, they dont have to lock it on or show you by law, it is only a courtesy.

They do have to evidence that it is calibrated correctly though.

[scumdog]

They do have to evidence that it is calibrated correctly though.

But they do not have to show you that info there and then at the side of the road.

[Nasty]

But they do not have to show you that info there and then at the side of the road.

Thats interesting as I was told that they did have to carry the record of calibration in the vehicle .. oh well ... I was told wrong ... I don't get caught speeding enough to warrent the knowledge ... and I am not starting now.

[Cr1MiNaL]

Check your PMs, advice to be read...

You listen to this man Matt.

[Patrick]

If you took it to court, the question I would ask is "How can the prosecution prove what speed I was doing?"


Therein lies the problem. This is just dodgy and you could get off....

A Mate riding perfectly legally with his wife on his immac ST1100 had a Cop Car swerve across the road (coming towards him) to pull him over. Pretty dumb manoevre if you ask me. When questioned about it, the Officer said they were targetting m/cycles and "You are the first one I've seen all day"

This kind of thing shits me... Pretty dumb is an understatement. Have him charged with Dangerous driving...

It amazes me the way police can make all kinds of illegal manouvres to catch

No they can't....

Check your PMs, advice to be read...

I am picking I don't have to send him one now, SD????

Problem is, the ticket is 'speeding', not 'defective speedo'.

The cop says "you wuz doing naughty speed". OP can't say "No I wasn't", cos he (a) probably was; and (b) doesn't know anyway.

And it's no defence to say "Well, I don't know what speed I was going, cos my speedo was bust, so I went the same speed as other vehicles, and if I was speeding so were they". A cop can quite legally look at a line of a dozen vehicles all going at the same illegal speed, and pick out one of them to give a ticket to.

BUT: There might be an option here. Assuming the cop did have radar, then , if the OP was indeed closely following a car, there is no way the radar can show which vehicle (car or bike) was going the fastest. So one could claim "I was not speeding, it was the car, he was going faster than me" . If the cop had no radar (disclosure will show if he did), then simply deny it "The officer is well meaning but mistaken. That is shown by the fact that the officer's estimation of the speed of the car in front of me must have indicated to him that the car was travelling at a legal speed. I was doing the same speed, as shown by the fact that I was not closing on the car"

Pretty lean grounds for a defence , though. Especially as OP probably WAS speeding. hardly worth it, unless the demerits are critical.

Worth writing in to the bureau about, with this point in mind.... and about the fact he does not have any locked or viewed speed, just an "estimation..."

All the Police need to prove is that they saw that speed on their radar, they dont have to lock it on or show you by law, it is only a courtesy.

True

They do have to evidence that it is calibrated correctly though.

True

Thats interesting as I was told that they did have to carry the record of calibration in the vehicle .. oh well ... I was told wrong ... I don't get caught speeding enough to warrent the knowledge ... and I am not starting now.

They carry it, but there is no obligation to show it at the roadside.

I do, coz it aint a problem. It removes the allegation that I filled out the log book after the event, to cover the event. I also always offer to show them the readout. If it aint locked on, I don't bother stopping unless it is worth it.... and 10-15k over aint worth it...

A fair ask to view it, and if denied, state that it might be that it isn't filled out now but will be later... Bet you they show it then. And if they still didn't, even the judge would ask, "Why not????"

[vifferman]

It amazes me the way police can make all kinds of illegal manouvres to catch up to someone they "suspect" of exceeding the speed limit even by a little bit.

No they can't....

[rant mode]That's all very well, Patrick, but if there was no accident caused, and/or no other independent witnesses, basically the court are going to say, "Well, the cop has no vested interest in this case, no reason to lie, so we'll take his word over the 'criminal' who's probably willing to lie to get off this ticket".
That may be true in many cases, but in the instances where a policeman is at fault and the motorist is innocent, the motorist is still screwed. "Innocent until proven guilty" goes right out the window.

The thing that really pisses me off with this whole focus on 'speeding criminals' is that the focus has been lost. Road rules have been written and implemented for the purpose of trying to make road transport other than a disorganised shamozzle, and to keep road users as safe as possible. The current regime is serving to alienate the motoring public to some degree, and to make people feel more than a bit of antipathy towards the police.
from a personal point of view, I have deserved each of the three tickets I've been given, and they were far enough over the speedlimit (32, 22, 22km/h) to warrant that I wasn't just let off with a warning. However, I wondered whether if I'd been going say 12km/h over the limit in each case whether I would've still been pursued and ticketed. In the first instance, the policeman was hidden in a lay-by next to an overtaking lane. I'd been travelling behind a smoky 4WD at 80-90km/h for maybe 15 km or so, and
was a bit 'exuberant' when I first got an opportunity to overtake. As soon as I was past, I slowed to the speed limit again.
Traffic was heavy, so to catch and ticket me, the cop had to exceed the speed limit for about 10km, and pass maybe 30 cars on a very busy road (with no passing lanes). He was right to do so, given my overtaking speed, but who caused the most danger to the safety of other road users?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying my ticket was unfair, and the cop should've gone, "Nah - traffic's too heavy; I'll let him go". It just got me thinking about the whole philosophy behind traffic enforcement, and whether it was in touch with the intent of the laws it seeks to enforce. This isn't really a police issue - the Gubmint has screwed things up by focusing on enforcement (because it's easy) rather than education and engineering. Even their focus on the road toll is simplistic and flawed. It should be on the basis of incidents/injuries/deaths per vehicle mile traveled, not just "We want to get it below 300 deaths per annum" to have any hope of reflecting its effectiveness.
[/rant mode]

[peasea]

[rant mode] Even their focus on the road toll is simplistic and flawed. It should be on the basis of incidents/injuries/deaths per vehicle mile traveled, not just "We want to get it below 300 deaths per annum" to have any hope of reflecting its effectiveness.
[/rant mode]

You're absolutely right. Deaths per 10,000 vehicles and 100,000 people in recent years (the last time I checked) were the lowest for decades. Sure 400 people dead every year is absolutely tragic but it's been around that figure for six years with the exception of '03 when 461 were killed. The historical statistics make interesting reading at the ltnz site, if you have the time.

[peasea]

I've lifted this from an ltnz press release:

"The deadliest year on our roads was 1973, when 843 were killed. As recently as 1990 there were 729 road deaths in New Zealand. Since then annual road deaths have dropped by 47 percent, in spite of a 42 percent increase in the number of vehicles on the road and a 21 percent increase in population."

Motor cars that have disc brakes everywhere, crumple zones and air bags have probably helped.

[Ixion]

And the number injured has increased in proportion. Because modern medical treatment and helicopter ambulances and cell phones, mean many that in 1973 would have died now survive (albeit much smashed up)

[peasea]

And the number injured has increased in proportion. Because modern medical treatment and helicopter ambulances and cell phones, mean many that in 1973 would have died now survive (albeit much smashed up)

Absolutely.

Furthermore, the cost of fixing up those mashed survivours is horrendous and I (like many others) cannot understand why (according to the ltnz site) 24% of the dead last year weren't wearing seat belts!!! It doesn't get much more basic than making it click; there's 100 that could possibly have survived for a start. And then 28% of fatal accidents had alcohol as a factor.

....and they bang on and on about speeding...........

[jaykay]

If you intend to pay the ticket then why not have some fun on the way, without any risk or cost (apart from some time).

Firstly you do NOT have to pay the original ticket - a Reminder Notice has to be sent by law.

Then reply to the Reminder Notice (at the very last minute) with something like "without a copy of the original ticket to determine the validity of the allegation a hearing is requested".

It's quite possible for the Police to make a mistake in the proceedings or simply decide to move on to easier targets if you make life difficult for them. Rolling over and paying is not what I would suggest.

Remember it's much easier to fight the first 20 demerits rather than the last 20.

[scumdog]

Remember it's much easier to fight the first 20 demerits rather than the last 20.

And even easier not to accumulate any demerits at all .