Desperately need help ...

[rastuscat]

When I read the OP I couldn't understand the Police decision.

And that's the key. If a decision doesn't make sense, it's because all the facts aren't on the table. It'd be interesting to see what the Police decision was based on.

[Akzle]

.

*friends don't let friends build with GJ Gardner

hahahaha. fuck those cunts. totalspan are also shit.

[Akzle]

For me it was just a case of making the threat to get the police motivated to proceed with my case rather than disputing any issue of fault that one poster believes on here. Lots of people complain about the police not being quick enough in processing their complaints so maybe if more people did what I did their cases would get actioned more quickly. I did give the police plenty of time by the way before making the threat.

i dont think you realise that the "I" in ipca isn't.
it's cops "investigating" cops, which basically comes down to a reacharound in the showerblock a shared bottla of JD and hangovers and/or regrets.

what it does do is make paperwork. and only drones and accountants and lawyers like paperwork.

which i like to think is the implied threat every time cops run my name, cos they usually can't get away from me fast enough when they realise i'll chain them to a desk for 6 months.

[pritch]

When I read the OP I couldn't understand the Police decision.

And that's the key. If a decision doesn't make sense, it's because all the facts aren't on the table. It'd be interesting to see what the Police decision was based on.

Ah yes. This probably wouldn't be the first time ever a lad had not disclosed to his mum all of the details, or had even offered her 'alternate facts'.

[FJRider]

When I read the OP I couldn't understand the Police decision.

And that's the key. If a decision doesn't make sense, it's because all the facts aren't on the table. It'd be interesting to see what the Police decision was based on.

Few cannot get the fact ... you can be "Dangerous Driving" and still within (or near) the posted speed limit. But in this case ... it may be a lane splitting gone wrong.

Might be this event ... http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...n-christchurch

[FJRider]

I remember years ago getting stopped for speeding by an MOT bike cop who added a charge of going through a red light about 3kms back from where he stopped me. I appealed the red light charge on the grounds that he should have stopped me for that 3kms back and that he did not chase me but followed me from that point. I actually ended up getting off the speeding ticket
and not the the red light ticket which I felt odd as that was what I was doing when he stopped me and not going through a red light. My reason for going through the red light was actually due to the lights not triggering for my bike which he should have noticed that I had stopped at the light anyway and no other traffic was present.

The Officer had what is known as "Discretion" to issue (or not) a ticket for a (usually) minor offence. He probably did notice the light triggering issue ... and chose to follow you and see if you continued to disregard the rules. Which you did do.

Had you kept within the posted speed limit ... you probably would not have been stopped.

After you complained ... he just charged you with the more serious of the two charges.

Lucky you ... eh .. !!!

[FJRider]

That story gives no indication whatsoever that its the same accident. Not all accidents get the attention of the media. Mine never did.

You have so many .... most readers would just say ... "fuck .. HER again" ...

[jasonu]

I remember years ago getting stopped for speeding by an MOT bike cop who added a charge of going through a red light about 3kms back from where he stopped me. I appealed the red light charge on the grounds that he should have stopped me for that 3kms back and that he did not chase me but followed me from that point. I actually ended up getting off the speeding ticket
and not the the red light ticket which I felt odd as that was what I was doing when he stopped me and not going through a red light. My reason for going through the red light was actually due to the lights not triggering for my bike which he should have noticed that I had stopped at the light anyway and no other traffic was present.

It was miles not km's when the MOT were running shit ya fucking moran.

[FJRider]

No if I had got done for speeding the ticket would have been higher as I think he clocked me doing 80km on a 50km road. The road was one of the 2 lane roads around Hagley Park in ChCh where its quite easy to let the speed get up.

You might need this link. As might the original poster ...

http://www.lawyerhelp.co.nz/traffic/...FZMGKgodJXYNLA

Nowdays ... running a red will cost you $150 and 20 demerits. But he was being kind with his discretion. I guess he figured you would have enough issues on the road in the future ... one less fine wouldn't bankrupt the country. And would get you another time.

[T.W.R]

It was miles not km's when the MOT were running shit ya fucking moran.

The MOT only came to be in 1968

[Luckylegs]

That story gives no indication whatsoever that its the same accident. Not all accidents get the attention of the media. Mine never did.

Not yours no... usually just the spca

[Luckylegs]

...I will also legalise weed and give Rothmans an exclusive licence...

Please include a clause that prohibits the sale of "soft packs", theyre an outrage

[FJRider]

... I have not had any problem with a traffic light not triggering for years so maybe it's all the steel plates I now have in my head ..

Possibly ...

[R650R]

Some definitions below, interesting.... actually very open ended. Seems a very difficult word to defend against.




Section 7(2): amended, on 22 June 2005, by section 6(2) of the Land Transport Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 77).

A person may not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.

35 Contravention of section 7, or section 22 where no injury or death involved

(b)
drives or causes a motor vehicle to be driven on a road at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person

Oxford dictionary Able or likely to cause harm or injury.


‘a dangerous animal’

Likely to cause problems or to have adverse consequences.

[husaberg]

It would have been the 1980s I got my ticket and the metric system came in when I was at school around 1970 (maybe earlier) which makes you the fuckin moron sport.

No real need for swearseys
Did you forget you were not logged in as Steve.............