I've been stunting all weekend and didn't get caught if that helps?
Seriously though your "mate" should count himself lucky the cop wasn't having a bad day and decided to do him for careless or dangerous. Or an immediate roadside suspension.
Yep. Gloria Kong. They had her locked up at the end of the street I lived in. I worked at the Post Office at the time and it was all very exciting with the Police coming in and wanting to monitor phone lines "NOW" without saying why. And yes, make that three murders then. Forgot about that other one. The other two victims I went to school with at different times. I left Oamaru in '87. Probably just as well for all the other people I went to school with.
Grow older but never grow up
I'd just like to point out, I do agree with the sentiment of most of these posts, do the crime do the time and all that.
The thing that bugs him (and me) is what the fine was for and how it's totally subjective and such a bizarre reason and way out of proportion (imo) remember this is a small lift under acceleration, the bike was not high at all, definitely no clutched up on the pegs at 12 already travelling at speed kind of wheelie, I could understand being punished for that.
And can you really be done for reckless or careless for a slight lift? Especially with no traffic beside or in front of you, remember I'm not condoning this type of activity, definitely been a wakeup call for both of us, I just can't correlate the front wheel coming up a little bit to reckless or dangerous driving.
You'd never go hungry with Nigella Gaz.
If it weren't for flashbacks...I'd have no memory at all..
i really do sympathise with your 'Mate' being caught the very very first time, and only time in his life he's ever lifted the wheel of the ground. It's a massive coincidence that the one and only time there is an officer of the law but maybe these kind of odds will have a positive impact next time he buys a lotto and strikes such wild odds.
like i said if it was an accident, as you have tried to convince us it was, then he needs to learn to control his bike properly, as if this had happened when there was a car in front it would be one big mess.
OR you are just full of bullshit and pay the fucking fine and learn from it.
Section 37 of the Land Transport Act is the one that deals with Careless Driving. It's based on Section 60 of the old Transport Act.
It's very subjective, but over the years the courts have drilled it down to the question of whether the drivers actions are those of a careful and prudent driver.
Personally, I feel that if someone does a wheelie in the clear view of a marked patrol car it's careless, as they weren't paying enough attention to their surroundings. That's just my view.
The $600 ticket issued is inappropriate. It was never intended as a replacement for a Traffic Offence Notice for Careless Driving. Thing is, a charging document involves a shit load of paper work for the cop, so it's just easier to throw out a $600 infringement notice. Even if it's inappropriate.
Here's the bit of law that the $600 ticket relates to.
7.3Unsafe vehicles and loads
(1)A driver must not operate a vehicle in a condition or manner that causes or is liable to cause—
(a)injury to any person or animal; or
(b)annoyance to any person; or
(c)damage to any property; or
(d)distraction to the driver.
(2)A driver must not operate a vehicle that is so loaded, or has a load so unsafely secured or covered, that the vehicle or its load causes or is liable to cause—
(a)injury to any person or animal; or
(b)annoyance to any person; or
(c)damage to any property; or
(d)distraction to the driver.
(3)A driver must not operate a vehicle that is so loaded, or has a load so unsafely secured or insufficiently covered, that the load or a portion of the load escapes or falls from the vehicle or is likely to do so.
(4)A driver must not operate a vehicle if the vehicle or its load, or both, drag on or make moving contact with the roadway other than by means of the wheels or by means of an attachment used to prevent the accumulation of static electricity.
(5)A driver must not use a motor vehicle to tow a trailer designed for use as a human abode while any person is carried in that trailer unless the carriage of that person is required for the purposes of a roadworthiness test of the trailer.
Compare: SR 1976/227 rr 19(3A), 27(1)–(3)
Now, clearly when the pollies signed that one off, it was about loading of vehicles. Not the way they were being operated.
Just sayin
What's wrong with a lot of you ?
you think its ok to have to pay $600 for lifting your front wheel a bit....?
and if you think that is a bit harsh you are a soft cock..?
you sound like moaning precious wee Nancy's to me
trade your bikes in for a prius
or knitting needles....
tossers
Opinions are like arseholes: Everybody has got one, but that doesn't mean you got to air it in public all the time....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks