Unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration

[Ixion]

The vital word (though as far as I aware this law has not been properly tested in court) is exhibition . There must be an "exhibition". A "showing off".

This is an example of a bad drafted law, intended for a specific purpose that has been perverted by a few cops as a general purpose clobbering device.

It was passed (and reference to hansard makes that clear) as a measure to dela with boi racers drag racing. It covers bikes, too, which is fair enough.

But the critical point was that the behaviour aimed at was the "boi racer drag". Accelerating as hard as possible , before an audience.

No audience, no exhibition.

[Swoop]

there were pictures of those fucking oxygen theives in my paper this morning.

mouth breathing lowlife scum .... ..... put to death.

I like the cut of your jib young man!
A honda rider as well, so obviously very intelligent!

[Edbear]

Hehehe, they only "chug" when u let em, we can coax a leettlee more out of em when its time to play

Tee Hee...!

Jus' gotta watch the corners a bit....

[SPman]

......

Lucky the cops are currently using their discretion in almost every single case, otherwise we would all be walking.

But - the legislation is there and, if the powers want to be even bigger arseholes than they already are, all they have to do is make the cops enforce it, every time, regardless! Then there'll be some complaints!
Fecking useless politicians!!

[MotoGirl]

That site is strange - or the law is:

And then in the FAQ section:


So with the definition of 'authorised by law' as given, it seems completely pointless, except as an additional charge where charges could already be laid: it's ok if you're not over the speed limit or driving recklessly etc.

Anybody else read that differently?

Richard

So it's OK to do it when you're alone (effectively race yourself) but you're not allowed to do it against someone else? That's ridiculous!

[MotoGirl]

The vital word (though as far as I aware this law has not been properly tested in court) is exhibition . There must be an "exhibition". A "showing off".
...
No audience, no exhibition.

Hmm, interesting. I guess it comes down to what defines "exhibition" and what actions actually constitute it. For example, does hooning off from the car beside you, which is full of 18yr old blondes count as showing off for an audience?

[Waylander]

I think you'd be safe there, not too many cruisers "flash" past. They chug.

Ahem.

[MotoGirl]

Ahem.

Let me rephrase, your one just "chu..."

[breakaway]

I just started riding, and I had NO idea such a law was in place.

/me backs off the throttle

[MotoGirl]

I just started riding, and I had NO idea such a law was in place.

/me backs off the throttle

You can't back off the throttle too much, otherwise there's no point in riding

[Ixion]

Hmm, interesting. I guess it comes down to what defines "exhibition" and what actions actually constitute it. For example, does hooning off from the car beside you, which is full of 18yr old blondes count as showing off for an audience?

I would think so. Indeed, that is the sort of behaviour that the law was intended to curb.

But note the actual wording of the law

Land Transport Act 1998
Part 3 Additional responsibilities concerning road transport (s 14 to s [22C)
[22A Persons not to engage in unauthorised street or drag racing, or other related prohibited activities on roads

(1)A person must not operate a motor vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law.
..
(3)A person must not, without reasonable excuse, operate a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law.

(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(ii)the vehicle operator does not contravene any enactment other than this section that applies in relation to the operation of the vehicle; or

The qualification in subsection (4) is often ignored by the police. So they CANNOT ping you for excessive acceleration so long as you do not exceed the speed limit.

But note, the qualification does NOT extend to the loss of traction clause. So, accelerate as hard as you wish PROVIDED you do not reach 51kph (in a 50 zone) , or screech the tyres. Or breach any other enactment!

But , I would think that if pinged, and the cop did not also issue a ticket for breaking the speedlimit, or some other offence, you would have a good defence.

[NordieBoy]

I don't like that "unnecessary exhibition of speed" bit at all.
That could catch you out when doing 50kph around a tight corner in a 50 zone.

[avgas]

Accelerating hard in a car and on a bike can be two different things if they're trying to reach the same speed, i.e. you'd have to accelerate harder in the car!

Hehe, "But officer, i was just testing the EXUP valves"

[Mr. Peanut]

I would think so. Indeed, that is the sort of behaviour that the law was intended to curb.

But note the actual wording of the law


The qualification in subsection (4) is often ignored by the police. So they CANNOT ping you for excessive acceleration so long as you do not exceed the speed limit.

But note, the qualification does NOT extend to the loss of traction clause. So, accelerate as hard as you wish PROVIDED you do not reach 51kph (in a 50 zone) , or screech the tyres. Or breach any other enactment!

But , I would think that if pinged, and the cop did not also issue a ticket for breaking the speedlimit, or some other offence, you would have a good defence.

I have read a letter regarding a court case where the judge stated that if there's ANYONE in the general vicinity whether it be a person on the street or
a car beside you then you're exhibiting.

<<<<< FUCKING POLITICS LAWS ET AL >>>>>

[Ixion]

I imagine the question of whether defendant was "exhibiting" the acceleration of his vehicle would be a question of fact in each case.

The general demeanour etc would be relevant also, eg revving the engine and so on.

But, there must be *someone* to witness the exhibition, I think, And the defendant would have to be shown to be aware that the observer was there .

So, for instance, hard acceleration into a 100kph area with no other traffic around - it would be hard to argue that was an "exhibition"

Unfortunately I don't think this aspect has been properly tested (ie a fully defended case, with a lawyer etc).