Speeding tickets. Why the angst?

[Oblivion]

WoFs are there as an aid for the people that arent mechanically inclined. Not everyone will remember, or be able to recognize what a road legal looks like, or maybe how to tell if your headlights arent orientated properly. They just try to help the lowest common denominator to get their car road ready.

[scumdog]

WHAT JACK SAID:
Quote Originally Posted by Jack Miller View Post
"Still not necessarily. The Road User Rule provides a number of exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit yet the Police sometimes still try and issue tickets in those circumstances".

WHAT I SAID:

"Hmmmm...

Drivers must not exceed speed limits

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit (being a permanent, variable, holiday, urban, rural, temporary, or other speed limit).

(2) The fact that a vehicle is driven at a speed that does not exceed the applicable speed limit does not excuse an alleged breach of a provision of any other Part of this rule.

(3) A driver who drives at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit is not in breach of subclause (1) if the driver proves that, at the time the vehicle was being driven,—

(a) the vehicle was being used by an enforcement officer engaged on urgent duty and compliance with the speed limit would be likely to prevent the execution of the officer's duty; or

(b) the vehicle was an emergency vehicle being used in an emergency and was operating a red beacon or a siren, or both; or

(c) the vehicle was being used (on a road subject to a speed limit of 60 km per hour or more) to convey a member of the Executive Council engaged on urgent public business, or to convey any other person authorised for the purpose by the Minister and engaged on urgent public business in the execution of the person's functions.

That is really going to get a lot on here off their speeding tickets eh..."

JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME ON POST #336 JACK, ALWAYS GLAD TO HELP!

[Taz]

It's already been invented. It's an Isuzu Piazza. Owning one was conclusive proof of stupidity.

How many do you have now?

[steve_t]

(3) A driver who drives at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit is not in breach of subclause (1) if the driver proves that, at the time the vehicle was being driven,—


the vehicle was being used (on a road subject to a speed limit of 60 km per hour or more) to convey a member of the Executive Council engaged on urgent public business, or to convey any other person authorised for the purpose by the Minister and engaged on urgent public business in the execution of the person's functions.

Gotta get to the rugby on time! Gotta get to the rugby on time!

[warewolf]

Yes, Victoria doesn't have regular WoFs, only at sale time. Used to be able to drive any decrepit PoS as long as you didn't draw attention to yourself. But more recently they are doing more on-road checks. NSW has an annual WoF tied to your annual rego. You can't renew the rego without a fresh WoF. Only one date to remember, only one renewal notice needs to be sent. The Kiwi system is a PITA.

Personally I believe there's a bit more to it than that. I check my own vehicles so that when they go for WoF its usually a formality. However sometimes the tester finds something I've missed, and if it is a safety issue I'm pleased when its pointed out to me.

I'm not so pleased when I take a vehicle in and point out something I believe is borderline and needs replacing to find out it wasn't replaced because it was within standards.

Yes, me too. I've had WoF inspectors fail a worn seat cover but pass a sticking throttle. He even had it stick open on him when he did the brake test - no fail 'cos it's not on his check list. (and yes, I was in the process of fixing it when the WoF was due, and thought he'd fail it which would give me a little motivation to attend to it. FAIL.)

[Jack Miller]

WHAT JACK SAID:
Quote Originally Posted by Jack Miller View Post
"Still not necessarily. The Road User Rule provides a number of exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit yet the Police sometimes still try and issue tickets in those circumstances".

WHAT I SAID:

"Hmmmm...

Drivers must not exceed speed limits

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit (being a permanent, variable, holiday, urban, rural, temporary, or other speed limit).

(2) The fact that a vehicle is driven at a speed that does not exceed the applicable speed limit does not excuse an alleged breach of a provision of any other Part of this rule.

(3) A driver who drives at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit is not in breach of subclause (1) if the driver proves that, at the time the vehicle was being driven,—

(a) the vehicle was being used by an enforcement officer engaged on urgent duty and compliance with the speed limit would be likely to prevent the execution of the officer's duty; or

(b) the vehicle was an emergency vehicle being used in an emergency and was operating a red beacon or a siren, or both; or

(c) the vehicle was being used (on a road subject to a speed limit of 60 km per hour or more) to convey a member of the Executive Council engaged on urgent public business, or to convey any other person authorised for the purpose by the Minister and engaged on urgent public business in the execution of the person's functions.

That is really going to get a lot on here off their speeding tickets eh..."

JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME ON POST #336 JACK, ALWAYS GLAD TO HELP!

Didn't miss it, just waiting for you to finish the job and find the others.

[scumdog]

Didn't miss it, just waiting for you to finish the job and fine the others.

C'mon Jack this is where you shoot me down in flames with all the other Road User Rules I omitted, the ones that inform you about the 'exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit"...

[Jack Miller]

C'mon Jack this is where you shoot me down in flames with all the other Road User Rules I omitted, the ones that inform you about the 'exceptions where it is not wrong to exceed the speed limit"...

Already done it in my other thread. Don't want to bore everyone else repeating it here.

[rastuscat]

Yeah, come on Jack, tell us where the law says it's okay to exceed the limit........

Just keep it to Rule and Section, I have already read the other threads where you left out the bits that didn't suit your argument.

[scumdog]

Yeah, come on Jack, tell us where the law says it's okay to exceed the limit........

Just keep it to Rule and Section, I have already read the other threads where you left out the bits that didn't suit your argument.

From his earlier post, don't you pay attention???

"the members refused to listen to my explanation that if I had sped, which I doubted, it was because the vehicle I was passing had accelerated dangerously along with those closely following it meaning I had not breached the Road User Rule[4]

4] “A person is not in breach of this rule if the act took place in response to a situation on the road not of the person’s own making ...” S1.8.1 Land Transport Road User Rule 2004

"

[rastuscat]

From his earlier post, don't you pay attention???

"the members refused to listen to my explanation that if I had sped, which I doubted, it was because the vehicle I was passing had accelerated dangerously along with those closely following it meaning I had not breached the Road User Rule[4]

4] “A person is not in breach of this rule if the act took place in response to a situation on the road not of the person’s own making ...” S1.8.1 Land Transport Road User Rule 2004

"

Ah, the old "It was someone elses fault" defence. Common on KB, and it means not having to take responsibility for anything that ever goes wrong. Unfortunately, until Jacko admits some fault he'll never be able to take control of his destiny.

Interestingly, I've just read the whole section, and only a very narrow minded interpretation would see Jackos claimed 127 km/h as okay. Like, the moons would have to be in perfect alignment with the 17 donut holes on my desk before that hypothetical nonsense would line up. Was it really someone elses fault that you were doing 127? Tripe.

I'm just off to blame someone else for something. Haven't decided what yet.

[rastuscat]

From his earlier post, don't you pay attention???

"the members refused to listen to my explanation that if I had sped, which I doubted, it was because the vehicle I was passing had accelerated dangerously along with those closely following it meaning I had not breached the Road User Rule[:

Probably couldn't hear his explanation for the whining........

[Jack Miller]

Probably couldn't hear his explanation for the whining........

No, they didn't hear because they're not used to listening, as I also pointed out with reference to the Gravitas Report, and as you & Scumdog continue to reinforce.

BTW, 127 was the cop's claim. I wasn't watching the speedo but doubt it was true.

[scumdog]

No, they didn't hear because they're not used to listening, as I also pointed out with reference to the Gravitas Report, and as you & Scumdog continue to reinforce.

BTW, 127 was the cop's claim. I wasn't watching the speedo but doubt it was true.

Ah well, whatever float your boat...

[bsasuper]

People who live on some streets around eden park stadium have been told they can not park vehicles on the road during the world cup so the roads will be clear, unless they pay for a parking permit at considerable cost.So if everyone payed for the permit, the roads are not clear, and the local council makes a lot of money.Speeding fines are the same.