Expensive wheelie

[avgas]

that sucks
how did he know he f****d mums?

[k14]

This is one of labours recently introduced policies, It was exercised about a year ago with a rather wealthy Tauranga buisnessman flooring his latest model mercedes out of an intersection when the lights went green.
The screeching tyres were claimed to be a loss of traction and hence his vehicle was impounded for 28 days and the driver was fined under the boy racer act.

Twas actually a New Plymouth businessman/council member. He got shat on, he was talking a whole load of bs and got what he deserved. How weak a defence is "I accidentally switched the traction control off". He's also an experienced tranz am racer etc so would quite have well known it wasn't switched on.

[scumdog]

Try this equation......


The screeching tyres were claimed to be a loss of traction and hence his vehicle was impounded for 28 days and the driver was fined under the boy racer act.

And the screeching occured as the tyres left ferkn' long black marks on the road too, don't forget the long black mark bit eh?

[WINJA]

Its pretty obvious when someone is fanging a car hard.

ACTUALLY YOUR WRONG , I CAN JUST SLIGHTLY OPEN MY THROTTLE AND MY BIKE WILL TEAR ARSE AWAY EFORTLESSLY , YET PEANUTS NSR250 WILL LOOK AND SOUND LIKE ITS BEING THRASHED BUT COMPARED TO MY ACCELERATION ITS STILL SLOW , AN EYE IS NOT AN ACCURATE INSTRUMENT ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS SOMEONE LIKE SPUD OR NODS EYES , THE PIGS ARE A PACK OF CUNTS ENFORCING THIS LAW

[pritch]

How weak a defence is "I accidentally switched the traction control off".

That was weak alright, and I don't doubt that he knew what he was doing.
I'm told, however, that his car develops over 700 horses so lighting 'em up wouldn't be hard.

[Ixion]

I am rather surprised that no lawyer has yet picked up on a critical word in the law . "Exhibition". There must be an exhibition of unnecessary etc. Which makes sense since the law was INTENDED to deal with boy racers, who always have an audience when they do these things. The other uses to which the law is being put are a perversion of the law. I argue that if there is no exhibition (ie there is no intent to "show off" your speed, acceleration etc) then the law does not apply.

I would be interested to see that argued in court. Any volunteers?

The section on loss of traction is being similarly abused. "Sustained" should mean more than a few seconds

[marty]

THE PIGS ARE A PACK OF CUNTS ENFORCING THIS LAW

as opposed to some people who are cunts all the time, so i guess that's +1 for the cops....

[Grahameeboy]

as opposed to some people who are cunts all the time, so i guess that's +1 for the cops....

[Ixion]

Does the cop have any indication of his speed?

Or is this another completely subjective law giving cops too much power?

As a wheelie can be done from a standstill and maintained whilst below the speed limit which is what my defence would be.

As far as Sect 22a of the LTA is concerned (the "boy racer laws") you have a valid defence if the speed limit is not exceeded (even a ssuming you are in fact "exhibiting" your speed or acceleration unnecessarily).
Land Transport Act 1998 S22A

(4)In this section and in section 96(9), the operation of a motor vehicle in a particular manner is authorised by law if,—
(a)in the case of a race or an exhibition of speed or acceleration,—
(i)the speed of the vehicle is within the applicable speed limit or speed limits; and

I think it is a cop out to cry "blame the boy racers" for abuse of the law. Parliament passed a law to deal with an agreed problem. Boy racers. The way that law is sometimes being abused is the fault of the police. They are the ones abusing it not the boy racers.

[scumdog]

I think it is a cop out to cry "blame the boy racers" for abuse of the law. Parliament passed a law to deal with an agreed problem. Boy racers. The way that law is sometimes being abused is the fault of the police. They are the ones abusing it not the boy racers.

This is a troll right??
So going by above: Mr Bignob in his Mercedes can hammer it, do a skid or whatever and the law shouldn't apply to him but if Snotty Bigears lets rip in his louder-than-fast Corolla FXGT he should be nailed?

Like is there a special licence one must sit to be an accomplished boy racer?

[Ixion]

Nothing to do with social status or vehicle type. Law is "unneccesary exhibition".

Meaning there must be INTENT to skid etc. An exhibition. Someone accidentally skidding is not "exhibiting". Nor is someone accelerating hard to (for instance) get up to speed to join a traffic stream.

Similarly with the traction bit. Someone squealing their tyres in a front wheel drive vehicle because they are starting off on a steep hill is not what S22A was intended for.

As far as I am aware there is in fact no law forbidding "hammering it" unless it is part of an "exhibition" of acceleration (eg a drag race - see where the legislators were coming from ?)

S22A was overtly advertised as being to deal with the problems of boy racers. Large crowds congregating to watch EXHIBITIONS of do-nuts, drags etc. Its extension beyond that is abuse of the law. IMHO.

[SARGE]

Nothing to do with social status or vehicle type. Law is "unneccesary exhibition".

Meaning there must be INTENT to skid etc. An exhibition. Someone accidentally skidding is not "exhibiting". Nor is someone accelerating hard to (for instance) get up to speed to join a traffic stream.

Similarly with the traction bit. Someone squealing their tyres in a front wheel drive vehicle because they are starting off on a steep hill is not what S22A was intended for.

As far as I am aware there is in fact no law forbidding "hammering it" unless it is part of an "exhibition" of acceleration (eg a drag race - see where the legislators were coming from ?)

S22A was overtly advertised as being to deal with the problems of boy racers. Large crowds congregating to watch EXHIBITIONS of do-nuts, drags etc. Its extension beyond that is abuse of the law. IMHO.

oh come on Ixion.. you cant tell me that SOMEWHERE in the traffic regs there isnt something pertaining to wheel stands in front of a cop...


acceleration aside.. most stunters can get on the back wheel with a FLICK of the throttle ..i didnt read that he was in the middle of a rolling burnout when his wheel came up.. he was being a cocky shit and decided that 'the cop's too busy to do anything .."

lets call it Vehicular Darwinism

[Lou Girardin]

I feel he has no comeback because if the front wheel is in the air then it is sustained loss of traction. That's the letter of the law.

Not the law of NZ. Where's the loss of traction?
If anything it indicates excess traction.

He should be disqualified for life though. Anyone that stupid shouldn't be allowed to walk and chew gum at the same time let alone ride a bike.

[onearmedbandit]

What could you be charged with if you had a car that (a), had enough traction, and (b), enough power, that could lift it's front wheels from a standstill? Not ever exceeding the limit, nor excessive acceleration (if you put the wheels down within say 5m and took your foot of the clutch). Dangerous driving? That's what I believed was the charge you could face for a intended wheelie. Dangerous driving due to the wheel(s) being off the ground, therefore less control of the vehicle. The fact it was intended makes it dangerous rather than just careless.

[imdying]

oh come on Ixion.. you cant tell me that SOMEWHERE in the traffic regs there isnt something pertaining to wheel stands in front of a cop...

Come on man, let him grasp at straws.

Depending on the situation, I'd either give dangerous or careless. Probably dangerous so the fishes lawyer can earn his grand by plea bargain me down to careless and a guilty plea.