Do I pay this ticket?

**scumdog** · 28th February 2008, 07:12

Originally Posted by kinger

And suppose the offender had already accumalated 80 points (with a multitude of failing to stay to the left as far as possible offences), this ticket could result in him his losing his licence, then, because he can't get to work, his job, then, because he can't pay his bills, his house.
With the potential to change your life, the least you should be able to expect is that the officer could be good enough to ensure it was correct in the first place, dontcha think?

I hear that bleat from time to time at the roadside.

I sympatheticly suggest they should have thought of all that before once again they got caught speeding........

**Sanx** · 28th February 2008, 07:34

Originally Posted by Planna

You are just lucky you didn't hit someone. At 110km/h in a car you are twice as likely to crash as at 100km/h (don't ask where I heard that statistic, I freely admit I can't remember - think it was on the Dominion Post website - if challenged I'll happily retract it).

Absolute unmitigated shite. There is absolutely no correlation between speed and accident rate despite the government having spent a fairly large sum of money with Transit and various consultants to try and prove it.

Originally Posted by Planna

You might think speeding isn't a big deal, but it's dangerous and illegal.

No - it's illegal. Safe speed is defined as a speed suitable for the conditions. A speed limit doesn't define safe speed. If you're actually stupid enough to think that driving under or at the limit automatically makes you a safe driver, then get off the roads.

Originally Posted by Planna

So, to take it that one step further, while you play your silly little games, you are putting my family at risk because there are less police out there to protect and help us.

**Sanx** · 28th February 2008, 07:42

Originally Posted by Soul.Trader

What you're illustrating, kinger, is the difference between legitimate changes, and illegitimate alterations to an infringement notice. Overhauling the offence after it has been given is obviously not going to go down well - thankfully, there's plenty of evidence that it's happened. If you're given a ticket for 11kph over, and you later receive a new infringement for 40kph over, you would obviously challenge it, and only expect to pay for the 11kph fine, if any. You have your copy of the infringement notice, as well as the officer's notes to support the fact that the ticket was issued illegitimately. Trying to draw a similarity between a genuine clerical error and a deliberate and illegal alteration is not really credible.

Actually, kinger made a very good point. There is no difference between changing a ticket because the name or address were wrong on the original or changing it because the offence was wrongly entered. You say that there is "plenty of evidence that it's happened". If one type of correction is allowed due to a clerical error, then another one should be allowed either. As there is absolutely no proof required in speeding cases other than an officer's assertion that he thought or observed the person to be speeding, an officer could probably get away with 'upgrading' the charge of a few tickets. However, I can't imagine why an officer would go to that bother. If he was so concerned about the tickets, he'd just go out and make up a few on the street

**pritch** · 28th February 2008, 07:43

Originally Posted by MGST

They wrote back, saying that the ticket is not a legal document so it doesn't matter if there are "minor clerical errors" on it, and quoted some case from 1993 about some similar thing where the court said the ticket stands, and they want me to pay it.

I don't have the time or money for lawyers etc, so I wrote a cheque for the ticket ( $120 ) .

Did you date the cheque 1993?

**scumdog** · 28th February 2008, 08:08

Originally Posted by Sanx

Actually, kinger made a very good point. There is no difference between changing a ticket because the name or address were wrong on the original or changing it because the offence was wrongly entered. You say that there is "plenty of evidence that it's happened". If one type of correction is allowed due to a clerical error, then another one should be allowed either. As there is absolutely no proof required in speeding cases other than an officer's assertion that he thought or observed the person to be speeding, an officer could probably get away with 'upgrading' the charge of a few tickets. However, I can't imagine why an officer would go to that bother. If he was so concerned about the tickets, he'd just go out and make up a few on the street

So....if a cop scored out the mistake on the original and corrected it there and then would that be OK?

Or on realising the errors he wrote out a brand new ticket (without the mistakes) there and then would that make it OK

And if he did it in his car how would you ever know? (If you weren't sitting beside him).

Oh, so many questions, so many questions....

**Badjelly** · 28th February 2008, 08:52

Originally Posted by Sanx

Absolute unmitigated shite. There is absolutely no correlation between speed and accident rate despite the government having spent a fairly large sum of money with Transit and various consultants to try and prove it.

That's a brave statement. As I read it, you're not just saying there's a lack of evidence for a correlation between speed and accident rate (absence of evidence) you're saying there is no correlation (evidence of absence). No correlation, however small, none! None at all! Zero! Care to show us your evidence for this zero correlation?

**cleopatraxxx** · 28th February 2008, 08:54

hey how do i post a thread please

**BIHB@0610** · 28th February 2008, 09:22

Originally Posted by Badjelly

That's a brave statement. As I read it, you're not just saying there's a lack of evidence for a correlation between speed and accident rate (absence of evidence) you're saying there is no correlation (evidence of absence). No correlation, however small, none! None at all! Zero! Care to show us your evidence for this zero correlation?

Agree Badjelly - if those statements can be backed up with evidence this guy could make a fortune working as a consultant. Wonder if he ever slows for corners, or rain, or oil on the road???? Frankly I'm growing weary of armchair wizards who bandy about rash statements and statistics without thinking first. Thankfully if my family ever comes across someone on the road who has just figured out there's a correlation between speed and accidents, they're in a nice, solid, European car. May the best man win.

**BIHB@0610** · 28th February 2008, 09:29

Originally Posted by Sanx

No - it's illegal. Safe speed is defined as a speed suitable for the conditions. A speed limit doesn't define safe speed. If you're actually stupid enough to think that driving under or at the limit automatically makes you a safe driver, then get off the roads.

Don't put words in my mouth. And don't question my intellect. As far as I'm concerned you can go and test your little theory - preferably in poor light, in the rain, following a diesel truck that's overfilled it's tanks. Then come back and post your findings.

**swbarnett** · 28th February 2008, 09:31

Originally Posted by Planna

Agree Badjelly - if those statements can be backed up with evidence this guy could make a fortune working as a consultant. Wonder if he ever slows for corners, or rain, or oil on the road???? Frankly I'm growing weary of armchair wizards who bandy about rash statements and statistics without thinking first. Thankfully if my family ever comes across someone on the road who has just figured out there's a correlation between speed and accidents, they're in a nice, solid, European car. May the best man win.

The assertion is that there is no correlation between speed and accident rate. Nowhere was it said that speed to high for the conditions does not correlate with accident rate. Speed alone is not a primary causative factor.

**Str8 Jacket** · 28th February 2008, 09:32

Originally Posted by Planna

Don't put words in my mouth you fecking tosser. And don't question my intellect. As far as I'm concerned you can go and test your little theory - preferably in poor light, in the rain, following a diesel truck that's overfilled it's tanks. Then come back and post your findings. Dick.

Settle Gretal! Take a breathe! I agree with you to a degree BUT I also get what Sanx is saying and agree with him to a degree as well. Everyone has their own story to tell.....

**swbarnett** · 28th February 2008, 09:33

Originally Posted by Planna

Don't put words in my mouth you fecking tosser. And don't question my intellect. As far as I'm concerned you can go and test your little theory - preferably in poor light, in the rain, following a diesel truck that's overfilled it's tanks. Then come back and post your findings. Dick.

Again you're talking about speed too high for the conditions.

**BIHB@0610** · 28th February 2008, 12:19

Originally Posted by Str8 Jacket

Settle Gretal! Take a breathe! I agree with you to a degree BUT I also get what Sanx is saying and agree with him to a degree as well. Everyone has their own story to tell.....

Yeeeeappp, agree totally - and I accept that speed isn't the only factor to take into account. Sorry (esp. to Sanx). Having some hormone issues at the moment (obviously quite serious ones) - no excuse though, my brain should still be the dominant organ.

Chamomile tea coming out.

**Str8 Jacket** · 28th February 2008, 12:20

Originally Posted by Planna

Yeeeeappp, agree totally - and I accept that speed isn't the only factor to take into account. Sorry (esp. to Sanx). Having some hormone issues at the moment (obviously quite serious ones) - no excuse though, my brain should still be the dominant organ.

Chamomile tea coming out.

Try alcohol. It works better. Go to your local tinny house if its *that* bad!

**sidecar bob** · 28th February 2008, 13:10

Originally Posted by Planna

Yeeeeappp, agree totally - and I accept that speed isn't the only factor to take into account. Sorry (esp. to Sanx). Having some hormone issues at the moment (obviously quite serious ones) - no excuse though, my brain should still be the dominant organ.

Chamomile tea coming out.

Yeah, they are quite serious, A bit more than a random bit of PMT, Cheers guys.