Busted? Help!

[davereid]

i had a good case, but my main point is :- fight !

if you get done, well you probably asked for it. but so what !
we all do the best we can to pay as little tax as possible.....but when it comes to tickets some get all moralistic and say dumb working class shit like "do the crime, do the time".......suckers !

i just got let off a $510.00 speeding ticket, thanks to good advice and support from fellow KB members ( one in particular ).

so wise up you losers who take it like a bitch, fight the revenue gathering quota system.

Good on you, you should always take every speeding ticket to court, even if you are guilty as hell, for reasons I have raved on about here for ages.

But its NOT because I am anti police, as I'm not.

But years ago, a cop would pull you up speeding.

He would remind you that, technically, 128 was speeding. But, it was a clear road, you were riding a super-bike in perfect condition, sober and aware, so "keep it down lad" was the penalty.

On the other hand, speed when it was dodgy, you would be assured of getting a ticket. And begrudginly, you would know you earned it.

Then they changed the rules - it was never safe to speed. You would always
always get a ticket, no excuses very few cops bucked the trend.

It wasn't the cops doing it, it was the politicians, so don't blame the cops, who by and large are good guys doing a hated job.

But, when they decided to play the rules like to the line, it obligated you to do the same.

If they are going to give you a ticket, because technically you are alledged to be speeding, and thats the law, then you have to say, technically I'm not guilty, and it will be determined in court.

The politicians have said, "play it to the line".
The answer has to be "Thats on the line - not over it"

[coop]

If they are going to give you a ticket, because technically you are alledged to be speeding, and thats the law, then you have to say, technically I'm not guilty, and it will be determined in court.

Interesting, have you ever taken one to court? Although it is breaking the law, do ya reckon that would stand up? (ie, driving to the conditions... 120kmh on Auckland motorway on a still night at 1am on Monday, for example).

In the least, it would put a major hold for your demerits to show up.

I occasionally work night shift, and go thru redlights after work (treat them as a give way), as some take all fucking night to change when I'm the only car there, and have always wondered if the same would stand up if I were to get caught.

[davereid]

You wouldnt get off a speeding ticket just because it was safe to be doing the speed.

Traffic light thing was actually one of the cases I defended albiet many years ago. The lights would change OK for a car, but never detected my scooter, so I treated the intersection as uncontrolled and got a ticket.

Judge agreed that the lights were either faulty, or mal-adjusted, and it was correct procedure to apply right hand rule.

Cop actually told me to either wait for a car, or hop off and push the pedestrian button !

[scumdog]

Cop actually told me to either wait for a car, or hop off and push the pedestrian button !

That's because the ass of a law does not say "If the light refuses to change from the red colour you may ride through at your choice"

Technically he was right.

Common sense say if no other vehicle in sight - ride through.

[vifferman]

Common sense say if no other vehicle in sight - ride through.

Aye. (Or "ae" if you're tangata whenua). [Or 'Aiiiiiyeeeeee!!" if you're a ninja wannabee]
I think sometimes people (including cops) leave their commonsense at home. (If they hadn't lost it years before).

[Max Preload]

Traffic light thing was actually one of the cases I defended albiet many years ago. The lights would change OK for a car, but never detected my scooter, so I treated the intersection as uncontrolled and got a ticket.

Judge agreed that the lights were either faulty, or mal-adjusted, and it was correct procedure to apply right hand rule.

I'm not sure where this 'right hand rule' comes from with regard to road safety - I thought it was to do with electromagnetism.

Either way, that is just completely wrong. If the signals were functioning correctly but just not detecting your presence, then applying the give way rule for an uncontrolled intersection would mean in addition to proceeding against a traffic signal, you'd be failing to give way to vehicles to your left which could well be on a green signal themselves. "If turning, give way to all traffic not turning. In all other situations give way to all vehicles crossing or approaching from your right". If anything it should be treated as at the very least a GIVE WAY.

Cop actually told me to either wait for a car, or hop off and push the pedestrian button !

That's because the ass of a law does not say "If the light refuses to change from the red colour you may ride through at your choice"

Is there not an infringement offence for alighting from a vehicle at a traffic signal?

[davereid]

...If the signals were functioning correctly but just not detecting your presence....

QED.
By not detecting my presence when they were supposed to, they were not functioning correctly.

In which case you may treat them as faulty, as they are faulty.

Which means they have become an uncontrolled intersection, and you apply the right-hand rule ie, you give way to traffic on your right...

Of course traffic on your left may have a green light, so the brain applies....

[Max Preload]

QED.
By not detecting my presence when they were supposed to, they were not functioning correctly.

In which case you may treat them as faulty, as they are faulty.

Which means they have become an uncontrolled intersection, and you apply the right-hand rule ie, you give way to traffic on your right...

Of course traffic on your left may have a green light, so the brain applies....

You are aware that many signals often operate on traffic volume in peak periods and a timer in off-peak periods...

[davereid]

You are aware that many signals often operate on traffic volume in peak periods and a timer in off-peak periods...

Yeah, it seems strange that an expensive and useful feature like vehicle detection would be turned off at night time when it could potentially be even more useful !

Of course if a light wasn't faulty or mal-adjusted, but it just wouldn't change because it had been programmed by a moron, you would either have to wait, or take the chance of a ticket.

[swbarnett]

That's because the ass of a law does not say "If the light refuses to change from the red colour you may ride through at your choice"

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there something in law that covers a "malfunctioning" traffic light? i.e. if it's broken, apply the right-hand rule.

If the light is not detecting you then, technically, it's broken.

[MarkH]

I would have to say that anyone that uses the right hand rule in this case (red light not changing for a bike) is frickin' nuts. You should use common sense and treat it like you are at a stop sign and give way to everyone. Since it is a case of the lights being faulty for YOU, but everyone else is getting correctly working lights then you need to give way to anyone that sees a green and rightfully proceeds through the intersection.

Even the simple rule of self preservation should tell you to give way to any car driving through the intersection. If no one else is anywhere near then ride through.