ANOTHER speeding clamp down

[DamianW]

as further illustration I have included a more extreme example............

I take your points Ulster and will follow this thread to see how it unfolds.

\\

[swbarnett]

Likening a speeding ticket to civil rights what a fuck head.

Sorry, but this is a civil rights issue. Admittedly the consequences of a speeding ticket are a hell of a lot less severe but the logic behind both laws are just as flawed as each other.

The law is the law. Yes, it's easier to accept it and walk away with little more than a bruised ego but the principle is the same. The severity of the injustice is irrelevant.

Ever heard of the the boiling frog?

[swbarnett]

There is no point in trying to have a rational debate on these issues as they can't even begin to see the other side as that might mean they are wrong and is never considered. SWB and the post above is case in point.

You do realise that name calling is a sure sign that you've lost the argument, don't you?

[FJRider]

The coincidence of a "Speeding clampdown" occurring ... each time a KB member/whinger gets a speeding ticket ... amazing ...

[BoristheBiter]

Sorry, but this is a civil rights issue. Admittedly the consequences of a speeding ticket are a hell of a lot less severe but the logic behind both laws are just as flawed as each other.

The law is the law. Yes, it's easier to accept it and walk away with little more than a bruised ego but the principle is the same. The severity of the injustice is irrelevant.

Ever heard of the the boiling frog?

What do you smoke of a morning? but OK i will play along with your silly game.

What is the flaw in speed restrictions and what civil rights have been broken? Remember that when you sit/get your licence you sign to agree to abide by the condition set done in legislation.

You do realise that name calling is a sure sign that you've lost the argument, don't you?

I will wait to see you answer to the above before I reply to that.

[swbarnett]

What do you smoke of a morning?

I don't smoke anything, ever.

but OK i will play along with your silly game.

Interesting that you consider my point of view silly simply because it's at odds with yours (or so it appears).

What is the flaw in speed restrictions

The flaw is that they are counter productive to their stated aim and distract the police from other driver behaviour that may actually be dangerous.

and what civil rights have been broken?

The right to go about our daily lives, doing harm to noone, without interference from the state.

Remember that when you sit/get your licence you sign to agree to abide by the condition set done in legislation.

I don't remember signing any such document. I signed my license but that's simply for I.D. purposes. Maybe things have changed or it's simply too long ago to remember.

And besides, many thousands of people signed ACC167. It's called extortion. Either you sign or you don't get what you're entitled to.

[Hashbandicoot]

Remember that when you sit/get your licence you sign to agree to abide by the condition set done in legislation.

Reading this started my curiosity going. I am new to NZ and have only recently obtained an NZ drivers license and so have started investigating which conditions I need abide by.

Under the Land Transport Act 1998:
"driver, in relation to a vehicle, includes the rider of the motorcycle or moped or bicycle; and drive has a corresponding meaning (Part One - Preliminary Provisions)

At this point I would like to stress I cannot find the "corresponding meaning" of drive in the Land Transport Act 1998.

I have searched for this definition in NZ legeslation and have yet to find it. Next time I am in town I hope to find some sort of legal dictionary in the library to give me a better idea. In the meantime I am using the following definition.

"DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Driver

Note the word employed.
"EMPLOYED. One who is in the service of another. Such a person is entitled to rights and liable to perform certain duties. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/employed

Again due to a lack of an online NZ legal dictionary I am using this definition as a substitute to support my point. Should anyone be aware of the actual definition I would welcome it.

Drivers to be licensed

(1) A person may not drive a motor vehicle on a road—

(a) without an appropriate current driver licence; or

(b) in contravention of the conditions of the person's driver licence; or

(c) if the person is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence, or the person's driver licence is suspended or has been revoked, or the driving is contrary to an alcohol interlock licence, a zero alcohol licence, or a limited licence
(Part Two, Section 5 Land Transport Act 1998)

So, if I am travelling from point A to point B on my motorbike, and I am not being employed by any person(s) to do so, by definition I am not driving nor would I require a driving license. I would also be exempt from complying with NZ Road Code rules (including speed limits) as I would not be a driver I would be a traveller.

[FJRider]

Reading this started my curiosity going. I am new to NZ and have only recently obtained an NZ drivers license and so have started investigating which conditions I need abide by.

Under the Land Transport Act 1998:
"driver, in relation to a vehicle, includes the rider of the motorcycle or moped or bicycle; and drive has a corresponding meaning (Part One - Preliminary Provisions)

At this point I would like to stress I cannot find the "corresponding meaning" of drive in the Land Transport Act 1998.

Pick one you might believe to be the correct one ... I'm guessing 2. To "Ride" is the corresponding meaning.

cor·re·spond·ing
[kawr-uh-spon-ding,]
adjective
1.
identical in all essentials or respects: corresponding fingerprints.
2.
similar in position, purpose, form, etc.: corresponding officials in two states.
3.
associated in a working or other relationship: a bolt and its corresponding nut.
4.
dealing with correspondence: a corresponding secretary.
5.
employing the mails as a means of association: a corresponding member of a club.

I have searched for this definition in NZ legeslation and have yet to find it. Next time I am in town I hope to find some sort of legal dictionary in the library to give me a better idea. In the meantime I am using the following definition.

"DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Driver

Pick one you believe to be correct .. I'm guessing b :

Full Definition of DRIVER
: one that drives: as
a : coachman
b : the operator of a motor vehicle
c : an implement (as a hammer) for driving
d : a mechanical piece for imparting motion to another piece
e : one that provides impulse or motivation
f : a golf wood with a nearly straight face used in driving
g : an electronic circuit that supplies input to another electronic circuit; also : loudspeaker
h : a piece of computer software that controls input and output operations

Note the word employed.
"EMPLOYED. One who is in the service of another. Such a person is entitled to rights and liable to perform certain duties. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/employed

Again due to a lack of an online NZ legal dictionary I am using this definition as a substitute to support my point. Should anyone be aware of the actual definition I would welcome it.

Employed does not always mean for payment.

Adj. 1. employed - having your services engaged for; or having a job especially one that pays wages or a salary; "most of our graduates are employed"
busy - actively or fully engaged or occupied; "busy with her work"; "a busy man"; "too busy to eat lunch"
unemployed - not engaged in a gainful occupation; "unemployed workers marched on the capital"
2. employed - put to useemployed - put to use
exploited - developed or used to greatest advantage

Drivers to be licensed

(1) A person may not drive a motor vehicle on a road—

(a) without an appropriate current driver licence; or

(b) in contravention of the conditions of the person's driver licence; or

(c) if the person is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence, or the person's driver licence is suspended or has been revoked, or the driving is contrary to an alcohol interlock licence, a zero alcohol licence, or a limited licence
(Part Two, Section 5 Land Transport Act 1998)

So, if I am travelling from point A to point B on my motorbike, and I am not being employed by any person(s) to do so, by definition I am not driving nor would I require a driving license. I would also be exempt from complying with NZ Road Code rules (including speed limits) as I would not be a driver I would be a traveller.

In most cases of Legislation ... it starts "The operator of any motor vehicle may (or may not) .."


But I'm sure your interpretations would be easily explained (and defensible) in any resulting Court case ...

[FJRider]

The right to go about our daily lives, doing harm to noone, without interference from the state.

Actually ..

World English Dictionary
civil rights

— pl n
1. the personal rights of the individual citizen, in most countries upheld by law,

No citizen in any society is permitted engage in any unlawful actions "As of right" ...

I don't remember signing any such document. I signed my license but that's simply for I.D. purposes. Maybe things have changed or it's simply too long ago to remember.

Old age can be a bitch at times ... eh ..

First the memory goes .. Then ... (bugger .. I can't remember what goes next)

[swbarnett]

Actually ..

World English Dictionary
civil rights

� pl n
1. the personal rights of the individual citizen, in most countries upheld by law,

No citizen in any society is permitted engage in any unlawful actions "As of right" ...

Interesting.

Perhaps what I'm referring to is a "human right". I certainly didn't sign anything when I was born (or since) to say that I agree to have my life interfered with by the state (or anyone else) when I'm just minding my own business.

[Swoop]

Wouldn't it be nice if they just clamped down on bad driving instead?
They could start with Holden drivers, here's a prime example

I hope the driver of that vehicle is dead.
We have all been told that "speed kills" and that vehicle was obviously going too fast for the conditions ("speeding").

IF the driver is alive, then the propaganda is wrong & the public has been lied to.

IF the driver is dead then everyone can be happy.

[BoristheBiter]

I don't smoke anything, ever.

It is a figure of speach becuse you have, IMO, some way of track ideas

Interesting that you consider my point of view silly simply because it's at odds with yours (or so it appears).

see above

The flaw is that they are counter productive to their stated aim and distract the police from other driver behaviour that may actually be dangerous.

They seem productive to me as everyone is always crying that have just got a speeding ticket, and their aim is to slow traffic down so when there is a crash the chances of survivil is greatly increased. So the only flaw stems from your opinion of what they should be focusing on.

The right to go about our daily lives, doing harm to noone, without interference from the state.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ have a good read. I think the one you are looking for is the right to go about out lawful business without fear of persecution or something like that, but if you are speeding you are lawful so you can be stopped. under the lad transport act you can be stopped anytime.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM435105.html

I don't remember signing any such document. I signed my license but that's simply for I.D. purposes. Maybe things have changed or it's simply too long ago to remember.

for ID purposes man how naive is that. no one ever reads the terms and condition.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM433613.html
have a read so you know what you have signed.

And besides, many thousands of people signed ACC167. It's called extortion. Either you sign or you don't get what you're entitled to.

Because no one ever rips off the system.

[BoristheBiter]

Interesting.

Perhaps what I'm referring to is a "human right". I certainly didn't sign anything when I was born (or since) to say that I agree to have my life interfered with by the state (or anyone else) when I'm just minding my own business.

If you are just minding your own business then yes you have the right to walk away from a police officer, but if you are driving/riding then you come under the land transport act and it is a privilege and not a right.

[swbarnett]

They seem productive to me as everyone is always crying that have just got a speeding ticket, and their aim is to slow traffic down so when there is a crash the chances of survivil is greatly increased. So the only flaw stems from your opinion of what they should be focusing on.

I agree with you that the faster you are going when you hit something the greater the damage is likely to be. However, slowing the fleet down doesn't lead to a reduction in the overall carnage. In fact, the opposite has been shown to be the case. Raising or removing the speed limit on the open road has actually led to a reduction in the carnage.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ have a good read.

I've read that. What I'm really saying is, if I'm minding my own business and not doing any harm to anyone what gives anyone else the right to interfere with my course of action at the time? Irrespective of what some self-important body of bureaucrats decide to put down in writing.

I think the one you are looking for is the right to go about out lawful business without fear of persecution

No, I'm not talking about "lawful". I'm talking about the right to do whatever we damn well please as long as it does noone any harm and we respect everyone eles's right to do the same. Under those circumstances noone has the right to interfere.

Because no one ever rips off the system.

And this is relevant how exactly?

[Tazz]

If you are just minding your own business then yes you have the right to walk away from a police officer, but if you are driving/riding then you come under the land transport act and it is a privilege and not a right.

So, out of interest, if you were at a gas station that is quite busy and a cop rocked on up to check your vehicle over, would you be within your rights to ask them to wait until you've filled, paid, and pulled up out of the way so someone else can use the pump or because you are with your vehicle do you have to produce all your ID right there and then?