Radars detectors legal?

[rwh]

no, these are policy instructions to the cops, not the public. Bear in mind that they are policy, not law. The police can (and do) ignore them if they wish.

Right - so it only applies if I'm a cop and not a cop. That makes it so much better.
[edit - misremembered what it said. Must think next time]

Richard

[Ixion]

No it means that as the public they do not apply to you, but you can take notice of them. As a cop they apply to you but you may take no notice of them.

So if they apply to you they don't apply, but if they don't apply, they do.

[Bike-aholic]

Eliminating laser can be done but that damm radar is a different story.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6INz8OUQas[/youtube]

[Swoop]

"Only members of NZ Police are permitted to operate speed-measuring devices for speed enforcement purposes"

thye must surely have a police officer sitting in them operating the speed measuring device.

If they do not have a police officer in them then how can they legally gather evidence of a speeding occurance?

Sorry to muddy the waters but this is of interest to me.

I have always been led to believe that a "contractor" (for want of a better description) has operated these devices. Most certainly non-sworn staff.

[spudchucka]

"Well, Sir, my radar shows you don't 101kph. So that's 25 demerits. If you have concerns about your speedo being accurate enough what i suggest you do is to keep the speed down to 90kph. That will give you a safety buffer. Thank you for your contribution to the national revenue"

Soon you'll qualify as the new Lou. You just need a little more bitterness to go with that cynicism.

[denill]

Originally Posted by Ixion
"Well, Sir, my radar shows you don't 101kph. So that's 25 demerits. If you have concerns about your speedo being accurate enough what i suggest you do is to keep the speed down to 90kph. That will give you a safety buffer. Thank you for your contribution to the national revenue"

Soon you'll qualify as the new Lou. You just need a little more bitterness to go with that cynicism.

So Spud, That will NEVER happen???

[spudchucka]

It certainly won't ever happen in my world, I'd be willing to take his chocolate fish wager.

Want a prediction ? Bet anyone a choccy fish that once detectors are banned the 10kph tolerance disappears overnight. 101kph, ticket.

+1 kph tickets, (while possible now), will not become a common event regardless of whether detectors are banned or not. Simple wear and tear on tyres can result in a few kph incorrect readings on speedometers. Which is one of the reasons they have a tolerance in the first place.

[lealand]

Its not that hard for a lad to hide one with a bit of Kiwi DIY ;-)

[denill]

It certainly won't ever happen in my world, I'd be willing to take his chocolate fish wager.
+1 kph tickets, (while possible now), will not become a common event regardless of whether detectors are banned or not. Simple wear and tear on tyres can result in a few kph incorrect readings on speedometers. Which is one of the reasons they have a tolerance in the first place.

Yeah, that makes sense - BUT you're not the Commisioner of Police. The rools have very little to do with commonsense.
Hence the general public's disatisfaction that you have probably picked up on by now.

[MaxB]

One thing that might help get a bit of confidence in the Police might be in-car datloggers/cameras that tell when the speed detecting device (eg radar) is used and maybe a GPS unit for location. At the moment the cop has to stand up in court, tell what happened and eveybody is supposed to believe him, even things that may have happened years ago.

In other countries like Germany they have 2 cops per traffic car and an in- car video linked to a calibrated speedo. When they pull over a boy racer they can make the shitbag sit in the patrol car and make him watch his offending. They issue many more tickets for careless/dangerous use and there is virtually no chance of getting away with it once stopped especially as there are 2 reliable witnesses. They still issue speeding tickets but the main focus is on driving behaviour and improving skills, not just slowing down the idiots. Banning radar detectors here will make fuck all difference. I reckon they have it right and we do not.

[pete376403]

. At the moment the cop has to stand up in court, tell what happened and eveybody is supposed to believe him, even things that may have happened years ago.

Not quite. the person who counts ie the Magistrate / Judge / whatever DOES believe him because the Police, like the Pope, have been deemed to be infallible. ( Hey, may not be too long before we have a Pope who is also Police Commisioner)

[MaxB]

Not quite. the person who counts ie the Magistrate / Judge / whatever DOES believe him because the Police, like the Pope, have been deemed to be infallible. ( Hey, may not be too long before we have a Pope who is also Police Commisioner)

Fair enough. But for trial by jury I'll bet you or a colleague have sat in court wondering how the hell a jury came to a verdict based on the evidence you just heard. Doesn't some of that come down to a perception of the police?

Also public opinion outside the legal system can lead to changes within it.

[scumdog]

Yeah, that makes sense - BUT you're not the Commisioner of Police. The rools have very little to do with commonsense.
Hence the general public's disatisfaction that you have probably picked up on by now.

The Commisioner of Police has got fuck-all to do with making laws or issuing edicts on how they be administered.

[denill]

The Commisioner of Police has got fuck-all to do with making laws or issuing edicts on how they be administered.

And neither will you.

So you're not in a position to say how the law will be interpreted in the future.

[scumdog]

And neither will you.

So you're not in a position to say how the law will be interpreted in the future.

And you ARE in that position?

BTW: Where did I say I was in a position to say how the law will be interpreted in the future?


(So why DID you mention the Commisioner anyway?)