Querying a speed ticket - should I expect to receive proof of the radar reading?

[Jin]

I got stopped for speeding awhile ago then a few weeks later the ticket arrived in the mail. I then went online and requested full disclosure of what they have.

I have now received a copy of the infringement notice, brief notes made at the time by the officer, a certificate of accuracy for the radar and confirmation of training of the officer. What I really want is proof of the speed I was doing at the time rather than just accepting what the officer told me.

Do they keep logs of radar readings taken to substantiate tickets? If they do is there any reason they didnt include this in the documents?

The cover states that this is what is held by the Police Infringement Bureau and my request has also been forwarded to the issuing officer to supply to me directly items of disclosure that are held in the district. Should I expect to receive from that district radar proof?

[R650R]

Is this the same ticket you had another thread about or a new one?

The police need provide no other evidence should you take it to court other than the expert witness testimony of the cop himself and his record in his notebook of what happened. You do know you can get a ticket for speeding even without a radar gun or calibrated speedo???
At the roadside how did the conversation go, did you admit/agree/concede at any point that you were speeding??? If so you have confessed and have no defence.
I suspect with the ticket being mailed out you severely failed the roadside attitude test and he got tired of listening to you...

[Banditbandit]

That's all you get ...

If you were speeding just pay the ticket ...

[Jin]

Is this the same ticket you had another thread about or a new one?

The police need provide no other evidence should you take it to court other than the expert witness testimony of the cop himself and his record in his notebook of what happened. You do know you can get a ticket for speeding even without a radar gun or calibrated speedo???
At the roadside how did the conversation go, did you admit/agree/concede at any point that you were speeding??? If so you have confessed and have no defence.
I suspect with the ticket being mailed out you severely failed the roadside attitude test and he got tired of listening to you...
The police dont need evidence to issue money orders? Their word should be good enough? :scratch: Not buying it sorry.

At the roadside I did not admit or concede anything. I just kept my mouth shut and answered his questions. The only "attitude test" failure might have been me not getting off my bike and not removing my helmet. The officers notes refer to me as the "offender" and that i admitted the offence which is not correct.

I just had another read of the notes and it says "Log book filled out: Yes" so they should give me a copy?

[nodrog]

You have the proof you were speeding, the ticket. They dont hand them out for nothing.

[Erelyes]

The police dont need evidence to issue money orders? Their word should be good enough? :scratch: Not buying it sorry.

Buy it or don't, noone gives a shit. Legally, their word is evidence enough for any court. Unless you can prove to the contrary.

I don't remove helmet at breath testing checks, as there's no need. Any time you are lit up however, remove your helmet. You KNOW they're going to ask for your licence and that they'll want to make sure it's actually your licence.

You've already wasted a bunch of their time and now you're trying to waste a bunch of ours. Since you haven't unequivocally denied the offence in your OP, pay it and fuck off already.

[f2dz]

Like others have said, albeit bluntly, a policeman's word > your word.

Unless things have changed, I believe that you're legally entitled to be able to check the reading on the radar after you get pinged but once you've driven/ridden away there's no record of it.

You didn't mention that you weren't speeding so it comes across like you're just trying to get out of the ticket.

I'll admit I've tried this a few times also, and it's a bitter pill to swallow, but you'll save yourself time and stress if you just pay the infringement.

[pritch]

I then went online and requested full disclosure of what they have.


Full disclosure? For a speeding ticket? You've been watching too much TV. Pay the fucking fine. Learn from it, move on and work on your situational awareness.

While writing that the thought did occur, "There but for the grace of God go I." In the event that did happen though it's unlikely you'll be reading about it on KB.

Just as a matter of interest what is the speed at which you were alleged to be travelling?

[R650R]

The police dont need evidence to issue money orders? Their word should be good enough? :scratch: Not buying it sorry.

At the roadside I did not admit or concede anything. I just kept my mouth shut and answered his questions. The only "attitude test" failure might have been me not getting off my bike and not removing my helmet. The officers notes refer to me as the "offender" and that i admitted the offence which is not correct.

I just had another read of the notes and it says "Log book filled out: Yes" so they should give me a copy?

A police officers 'word' is evidence once spoken in court, his written notes are evidence. Unless you have some stunning evidence from reliable source to the contrary of the allegation expect to get an arse whipping in court plus court costs and have 'stupid' tagged on your licence every time they check it on computer which means zero leeway next time pulled.
You know there's a lot of false information out there on various social media forums of how to get away with speeding but it relates poorly to the real world, suck it up and pay, move on to another ride.

So what were the alledged circumstances, general speed, locality etc, traffic conditions.....

[Scuba_Steve]

The police dont need evidence to issue money orders? Their word should be good enough? :scratch: Not buying it sorry.


Welcome to NZ's biggest scam


You have the proof you were speeding, the ticket. They dont hand them out for nothing.

You're not really that ignorant are you??? If they're willing to screw over innocent people like shown in "I am innocent" then there should be no doubt that they'll illegally extort money from people for NZ's biggest scam


Buy it or don't, noone gives a shit. Legally, their word is evidence enough for any court. Unless you can prove to the contrary.

Legally it's not but when has the law ever stopped a good scam especially one operated by those overseeing the law

[nodrog]

Welcome to NZ's biggest scam



You're not really that ignorant are you??? If they're willing to screw over innocent people like shown in "I am innocent" then there should be no doubt that they'll illegally extort money from people for NZ's biggest scam



Legally it's not but when has the law ever stopped a good scam especially one operated by those overseeing the law

You cunts must think you're pretty hot shit if you think you're so important that the police have conspired against you for a couple of your dollars.

[Scuba_Steve]

You cunts must think you're pretty hot shit if you think you're so important that the police have conspired against you for a couple of your dollars.

wow, you really are that stupid...

Also FYI that "couple dollars" is over 60mil/yr & growing

[Grubber]

You cunts must think you're pretty hot shit if you think you're so important that the police have conspired against you for a couple of your dollars.

I agree.
If you attract that much attention from the police then you are doing it all wrong.
When i get a ticket i usually know i was speeding and i payup and get on with it.
We all know the rules.
They must find it hard to sleep at night whilst thinking up all these theories.:gob:

[R650R]

wow, you really are that stupid...

Also FYI that "couple dollars" is over 60mil/yr & growing

NZTA funds road traffic policing to the tune of 284 million in the latest available numbers.... http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/national-land-transport-programme/2009-2012/appendix-1.html

Seems like a loss making entyerprise of only getting 60mil in fines... As a revenue stream (if it was) it would only be a token drop in the ocean of overall govt spending....
Its kinda like a child saying the parent withholding their pocket money for the week due to not doing chores is fundraising the parents next overseas cruise trip....

[nodrog]

wow, you really are that stupid...

Also FYI that "couple dollars" is over 60mil/yr & growing

I'm not the fucken stupid cunt that was speeding and got caught.

I hate the new age supercop traffic enforcement generation, but I know the rules. I'm just not so high and mighty and definitely retarded enough to break the rules and have a sook about it when I get caught.

"I was caught speeding" whipedy fuckin do, man up and except it, last time I heard cry me a river was somewhere in the middle east.

cock goblins.

p.s. I think his ticket might be less than 60mil

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm not the fucken stupid cunt that was speeding and got caught.

I hate the new age supercop traffic enforcement generation, but I know the rules. I'm just not so high and mighty and definitely retarded enough to break the rules and have a sook about it when I get caught.

"I was caught speeding" whipedy fuckin do, man up and except it, last time I heard cry me a river was somewhere in the middle east.

cock goblins.

p.s. I think his ticket might be less than 60mil

And the whole fact the scam they run is illegal under NZ legislation doesn't bother you?
Why are you so happy to pay? & Hell if you like paying for nothing you can chuck 20$/mth my way; if you like I can even tell you "it's saving lives" or we can go old skool & call it "protection money" I don't mind whatever makes you feel better about paying it, it still achieves exactly the same thing.

[nodrog]

And the whole fact the scam they run is illegal under NZ legislation doesn't bother you?
Why are you so happy to pay? & Hell if you like paying for nothing you can chuck 20$/mth my way; if you like I can even tell you "it's saving lives" or we can go old skool & call it "protection money" I don't mind whatever makes you feel better about paying it, it still achieves exactly the same thing.

You only pay if you get caught breaking the rules.

if you are going broke from paying, I suspect you arent smart enough to work out why you are paying.

And nowhere does it mention that I am happy paying, in fact id be quite upset paying all the time. But I wouldn't be fuckin stupid enough to whinge about something that is a well known consequence of breaking the rules.

[Scuba_Steve]

You only pay if you get caught breaking the rules.

if you are going broke from paying, I suspect you arent smart enough to work out why you are paying.

And nowhere does it mention that I am happy paying, in fact id be quite upset paying all the time. But I wouldn't be fuckin stupid enough to whinge about something that is a well known consequence of breaking the rules.

That's bullshit, they'll even put innocent people in jail for things they did not do, so stealing some money & more so talking shit to do so is a drop in the bucket for them. I still can't get how people think just because they wear a gang patch suddenly "they must be right".
I don't whinge about an individual ticket I complain at the system at whole. Least they can do is make cops provide some evidence of accusation, if I wanted to bring a case against you I'd be expected to bring more evidence than "i said so" thus cops should be expected to do the same like required by law

[nodrog]

That's bullshit, they'll even put innocent people in jail for things they did not do, so stealing some money & more so talking shit to do so is a drop in the bucket for them. I still can't get how people think just because they wear a gang patch suddenly "they must be right".
I don't whinge about an individual ticket I complain at the system at whole. Least they can do is make cops provide some evidence of accusation, if I wanted to bring a case against you I'd be expected to bring more evidence than "i said so" thus cops should be expected to do the same like required by law

So those radar gun things they use are pretend? Next you'll be saying their communications network is provided by watties.

[Ender EnZed]

That's bullshit, they'll even put innocent people in jail for things they did not do, so stealing some money & more so talking shit to do so is a drop in the bucket for them. I still can't get how people think just because they wear a gang patch suddenly "they must be right".
I don't whinge about an individual ticket I complain at the system at whole. Least they can do is make cops provide some evidence of accusation, if I wanted to bring a case against you I'd be expected to bring more evidence than "i said so" thus cops should be expected to do the same like required by law

So you want all cops to wear body cameras and all cop cars to have cameras and radars front and rear? They'll become mobile speed cameras and you'll get your speeding tickets in the mail. But of course cops will still be allowed to pull you over whenever they feel like it for a "random" breath alcohol test.

[Jin]

Like others have said, albeit bluntly, a policeman's word > your word.

Unless things have changed, I believe that you're legally entitled to be able to check the reading on the radar after you get pinged but once you've driven/ridden away there's no record of it.

You didn't mention that you weren't speeding so it comes across like you're just trying to get out of the ticket.

I'll admit I've tried this a few times also, and it's a bitter pill to swallow, but you'll save yourself time and stress if you just pay the infringement.
Thanks for posting something actually helpful and not calling me a cunt. Have you actually gone to court to contest a ticket?

Are you sure there is no record of the radar readings?

For the record I probably was going over the limit but cant be sure as my eyes tend to be focussed on whats ahead and around me not what my speedo is reading. If I was speeding then it was not excessive and was safe and appropriate for the conditions.

For those that claim I should just accept it and pay up ill leave for you to do. If the officer claims i was doing a certain speed fine ill pay up as soon as i see some evidence confirming my crime aside from his word. Until then im innocent until proven guilty. Thats why all infringement notices say "alleged infringement".

[Flip]

Got caught speeding...... Man the fuck up and pay the fine.


or, Got caught speeding....... Became a bkwibiker bush lawyer......... Took the rozza to court........... Pay the fine and the court costs.

[Jin]

And the alleged crime was doing 102 in a 90 zone. A perfectly straight road no traffic bright sunny afternoon. Officer claimed this was a high risk zone :tugger:

[5ive]

FUCK THE POLICE

/s

If you don't know what speed you were doing, you "probably" were speeding. Pay up, it'll be cheaper than being proved wrong later on.

[nodrog]

And the alleged crime was doing 102 in a 90 zone. A perfectly straight road no traffic bright sunny afternoon. Officer claimed this was a high risk zone :tugger:

So What's your problem?

[Gadget1]

And the alleged crime was doing 102 in a 90 zone. A perfectly straight road no traffic bright sunny afternoon. Officer claimed this was a high risk zone :tugger:



Here's an article that may interest you: http://www.fastandsafe.org/Pages/Media/RadarEvidence18Feb05.shtm

[Scuba_Steve]

So those radar gun things they use are pretend? Next you'll be saying their communications network is provided by watties.

The radar guns 9/10 times they'll refuse to show you, the same ones that if they do show you provide no evidence of anything just a number on a LED display, those radars are you talking?



So you want all cops to wear body cameras and all cop cars to have cameras and radars front and rear? They'll become mobile speed cameras and you'll get your speeding tickets in the mail. But of course cops will still be allowed to pull you over whenever they feel like it for a "random" breath alcohol test.

Cameras would be a start, radars can be scrapped tho. Since LA introduced them complaints against police gang members has dropped 80%. I've even found my personal camera to help out on occasion, it's amazing how the cops story/attitude can change when you point out the camera recording everything

[Maha]

And the alleged crime was doing 102 in a 90 zone. A perfectly straight road no traffic bright sunny afternoon. Officer claimed this was a high risk zone :tugger:

Despite the officer's claim here, fact is, you have a fine to pay. Count yourself lucky the fine is not that bad, in all likelihood you've probably been over the speed limit on more than one/this occasion....right?

Where was this 90 kph zone? I have never seen one before, they seem to jump from 85-100.
I was caught doing 19 over the limit and got off, wrote in a gave a reason for the speed (which was 130 just prior) and they let me off the fine.
The issuing officer is just the stating point.

[Metastable]

You cunts must think you're pretty hot shit if you think you're so important that the police have conspired against you for a couple of your dollars.

Hey look, can't comment on NZ, but there have been documented cases on this side of the pond where police were falsely accusing people of excessive speeding which is an automatic tow truck trip to the car pound for 7 days minimum. They found out the cops were getting a kick-back from the impound lots/tow truck operators.

In Canada, you need proof of speeding, rather than an officer's best guess. Having said that I had an officer pull me over and say I was speeding when I wasn't. I saw him, way ahead and a cyclist was passing me for crying out loud (it was a park area), and he points at me and tells me to pull over. I was quite confused. Tells me I was speeding, gives me the ticket and then pulls over another car 2 seconds after handing me the ticket, again not using any speed measuring device. Damn straight I fought that ticket. He didn't show up at court. His disclosure was full of holes. He said he reduced the ticket, but he never checked off the ticket was reduced on the original ticket and never mentioned the speed on the disclosure when he pulled me over. IMO, he never took a radar reading, never did take any notes... he just made them up after I asked for disclosure, since he was just pulling over cars immediately one after another and never had any time to write anything. It was a joke.

Anyway to the OP - find out your laws. Do they need a speed measuring device or not? In some parts of the US they don't, in Canada they do (at least the places I have been to). From there you are a big boy and you can decide if you want to fight the ticket or not.

[Stirts]

Where was this 90 kph zone? I have never seen one before, they seem to jump from 85-100.

From the Coromandel/Tauranga exit 477 to almost the Ngatea turn-off is mostly 90kphr zone now.

[yevjenko]

Thanks for posting something actually helpful and not calling me a cunt. Have you actually gone to court to contest a ticket?

Are you sure there is no record of the radar readings?

For the record I probably was going over the limit but cant be sure as my eyes tend to be focussed on whats ahead and around me not what my speedo is reading. If I was speeding then it was not excessive and was safe and appropriate for the conditions.

For those that claim I should just accept it and pay up ill leave for you to do. If the officer claims i was doing a certain speed fine ill pay up as soon as i see some evidence confirming my crime aside from his word. Until then im innocent until proven guilty. Thats why all infringement notices say "alleged infringement".

No they don't need a record - the word of the police will be taken by the Justice of the peace sitting in the traffic court if you appeal. They should show you the speed reading on the display as a matter of course, but this is not a legal requirement. As others have pointed out there is no definite proof that it was you speeding and not someone else, but the justice of the peace don't give a rats arse. they are mostly retired bank managers who will follow the police line over yours any day in the event of the lack of evidence that you were not speeding. Here's the crux. If you do not have any evidence that you were not speeding (and GPS recordings have been deemed as not suitable for evidence) you WILL lose any case.

Pay the $120, take the 20 demerits and watch out for the tax collectors in stripey cars in future.

[Maha]

From the Coromandel/Tauranga exit 477 to almost the Ngatea turn-off is mostly 90kphr zone now.

Interesting, in a weird way. That's like having a Big Mac combo without the chips, too weird to work out.

[f2dz]

Thanks for posting something actually helpful and not calling me a cunt. Have you actually gone to court to contest a ticket?

Are you sure there is no record of the radar readings?

For the record I probably was going over the limit but cant be sure as my eyes tend to be focussed on whats ahead and around me not what my speedo is reading. If I was speeding then it was not excessive and was safe and appropriate for the conditions.

For those that claim I should just accept it and pay up ill leave for you to do. If the officer claims i was doing a certain speed fine ill pay up as soon as i see some evidence confirming my crime aside from his word. Until then im innocent until proven guilty. Thats why all infringement notices say "alleged infringement".

Can hardly call someone a cunt for wanting to get out of a ticket.

I don't know if they record radar readings but wouldn't surprise me if they don't.

If you're going to contest it I'll be interested to hear if you get out of it.

[Reckless]

From the Coromandel/Tauranga exit 477 to almost the Ngatea turn-off is mostly 90kphr zone now.


Interesting, in a weird way. That's like having a Big Mac combo without the chips, too weird to work out.

I traveled down that route last Friday to Waihi/Bowentown. Its 90k almost from the Bombays to after the Tuaranga turn off with a damn near continuous double yellow.
Very very few to 90k even granny and the kids are cruising along at 99. That stretch is very easy pickings for a cop.
If your travelling along at traffic speed it wouldn't be hard to drift to the 102. I'm guessing his limit was 100k so it puts you into the next 10k bracket.

LOL trafiic was down to 40-50k on the way back Sat arvo. Bloody pelted down just about all the way from Waihi to Bombays.
Character forming stuff it was for us two up, feeling that puddle in your crutch as the odd bit got in and trickled down then slowly warmed to body temp:)

[Kickaha]

Where was this 90 kph zone? I have never seen one before
Saw fucking heaps of 90kmh signs from Tauranga through to HD and then heading back up to Thames

safe speed zone or some such shit on the signs

[Virago]

It's been quite a few months since we had a "I was speeding and got caught - how do I get off it?" thread. Very entertaining.

[marmel]

No they don't need a record - the word of the police will be taken by the Justice of the peace sitting in the traffic court if you appeal. They should show you the speed reading on the display as a matter of course, but this is not a legal requirement. As others have pointed out there is no definite proof that it was you speeding and not someone else, but the justice of the peace don't give a rats arse. they are mostly retired bank managers who will follow the police line over yours any day in the event of the lack of evidence that you were not speeding. Here's the crux. If you do not have any evidence that you were not speeding (and GPS recordings have been deemed as not suitable for evidence) you WILL lose any case.

Pay the $120, take the 20 demerits and watch out for the tax collectors in stripey cars in future.

What he said^

Don't get too carried away with trying to prove a point or listen to some who have posted here who are probably sitting at home with tin foil hats on, if the cop turns up to the JP's hearing your chances of getting off are sweet f**k all and it will cost you extra for court costs and you will waste half your day whereas the cop is still getting paid to be there.

Next time you get stopped for speeding ask the cop if you can have a look at the radar/laser readout, 99% of the time it wouldn't be a problem.

[swarfie]

Saw fucking heaps of 90kmh signs from Tauranga through to HD and then heading back up to Thames

safe speed zone or some such shit on the signs

Don't know why you'd want to go on the main drags anyway....there's heaps of better backroads to take and not many tax collectors use them.:shifty:
I only travel on main roads when I absolutely have to and generally only in the cage :Punk: and then I'm happy to trudge along at the legal speed limit.....that's if you can manage even to do that with all the dickhead snails on the road. Generally a chance to do the speed limit on our main roads is a rare thing these days:yawn:

[nodrog]

The radar guns 9/10 times they'll refuse to show you, the same ones that if they do show you provide no evidence of anything just a number on a LED display, those radars are you talking?

is this your world?

http://image.internetautoguide.com/f/celebrities/fake-uk-policeman-erected-with-dummy-radar-gun-slows-down-local-speeders/18484500+w527+st0/fake-british-constable-speed-camera-police.jpg


..... Do they need a speed measuring device or not?.......

they had one.


Interesting, in a weird way. That's like having a Big Mac combo without the chips, too weird to work out.

that's fucken weird alright, the chips are the best bit.

[Jin]

Here's an article that may interest you: http://www.fastandsafe.org/Pages/Media/RadarEvidence18Feb05.shtm
Thanks thats very helpful and confirms my suspicions. If they have no proof of speeding then it should be contested. We are all innocent unless proven guilty and officer plods word is not proof. At least it shouldnt be. Ill wait to see if I get anything more then will probably contest it.


I traveled down that route last Friday to Waihi/Bowentown. Its 90k almost from the Bombays to after the Tuaranga turn off with a damn near continuous double yellow.
Very very few to 90k even granny and the kids are cruising along at 99. That stretch is very easy pickings for a cop.
If your travelling along at traffic speed it wouldn't be hard to drift to the 102. I'm guessing his limit was 100k so it puts you into the next 10k bracket.
Thats the one. Keeping our roads safe hiding behind a tree on a dry straight road in the middle of the day.

No one has been able to answer the question of whether radar readings are kept. Has anyone fought the law and lost? What was the court cost of contesting if anything?

[Jin]

You only pay if you get caught breaking the rules.

if you are going broke from paying, I suspect you arent smart enough to work out why you are paying.

And nowhere does it mention that I am happy paying, in fact id be quite upset paying all the time. But I wouldn't be fuckin stupid enough to whinge about something that is a well known consequence of breaking the rules.
Your mummy must be so proud of you :baby:

[nodrog]

Your mummy must be so proud of you :baby:

extremely

I'm surprised yours lets you off her tit long enough so you can post on the internets.

Sorry, I shouldn't be picking on your mum.


........ Has anyone fought the law and lost? .......

After all it must be tough for her having to raise a retard.

[The Reibz]

Just pay the ticket and have a beer you dumb shit

[haydes55]

Claim the speed limit is unjust, provide crash records that show how many accidents occurred between 90-100km/h on that stretch of road......... Then you have admitted you were above the speed limit that was posted on the road and you still committed the crime.... You lose the court case.

Claim the officer lied about the radar reading....... Laughter followed by you losing the court case.

Claim that speeding is safe in those conditions..... You pay the fine plus court costs.

I have a half hatched thought that logically makes a bit of sense...........
Claim the officers radar is accurate, admit his radar screen showed 102km/h, but deny your true ground speed was anywhere above 90km/h. The front profile of a motorbike consists largely of the front tire. If you were radared from front on, the only possible way the police officer got a reading higher than my actual speed would be if the officers radar was mistakenly aimed somewhere at the top half of the tire. The top of the tire travels at double the ground speed of the vehicle, the bottom of the tire is stationary on the ground. The officer has proof of the number his radar displayed, the officers word is enough. The officer knows the radar was pointed at you when it displayed the number. However, how could a police officer prove what part of the motorbike the radar/laser beam hit?

[Scuba_Steve]

No one has been able to answer the question of whether radar readings are kept. Has anyone fought the law and lost? What was the court cost of contesting if anything?

Court costs are 130 I think & no there's no requirement to keep records beyond what they wrote down. As mentioned there's no way to even verify the cops claim, it is literally a "because I said" conviction within a guilty until proven innocent system

[Akzle]

fight it oi. the more of the cops' time you waste, the less time he's spending collecting donut vouchers.
write HEAPS and don't bother replying unless they address EVERY point in your letters. find every minute little bitch manoeuvre. just waste their time. all of it.


From the Coromandel/Tauranga exit 477 to almost the Ngatea turn-off is mostly 90kphr zone now.

"safer speed area" :killingme


(they're fucking doing it (reducing speeds) farther and farther from auckland,
those fucking morons take traffic on holiday with them, and then drive into it. fucking dumbcunt motherfuckers cant drive for shit.)

[marmel]

fight it oi. the more of the cops' time you waste, the less time he's spending collecting donut vouchers.
write HEAPS and don't bother replying unless they address EVERY point in your letters. find every minute little bitch manoeuvre. just waste their time. all of it.



"safer speed area" :killingme


(they're fucking doing it (reducing speeds) farther and farther from auckland,
those fucking morons take traffic on holiday with them, and then drive into it. fucking dumbcunt motherfuckers cant drive for shit.)

Do you think the cops care about someone defending a speeding ticket, fuck no. They have about 13,000 staff and government coffers to back them up. The cop won't give a shit, he'll be getting paid anyway, the file will be all done for him by another department, all he has to do is turn up, spend 5 minutes giving evidence and piss off.

All this guy is going to get at court is even more fucked off than he is now and an extra $130 to really rub it in. Like it or not unless he comes up with a really good reason he is going to get convicted.

If every person who got a ticket decided to defend them it might be a different story but that's not the case.

Defending the ticket on any of the reasons set out so far in this topic is a complete waste of time, his time that is.

[Gremlin]

No one has been able to answer the question of whether radar readings are kept. Has anyone fought the law and lost? What was the court cost of contesting if anything?
If anything? Unless you win, you will be liable for court costs, usually $130.

No, there is no requirement to show you a radar reading.

It sounds like it will be your word against his, in which case I suggest you piss into the wind... at least you'll get something out of it. A mate went to court in front of JPs, had a full presentation, wrong lane, wrong colour bike, wrong colour gear etc. Still guilty. Had to take 3 days off work as it got deferred when it ran late, than an incident the next day closed court etc etc.

You might have a chance in front of a judge with good evidence, but to win against police in front of JPs? :laugh:

[Virago]

...For the record I probably was going over the limit but cant be sure as my eyes tend to be focussed on whats ahead and around me not what my speedo is reading. If I was speeding then it was not excessive and was safe and appropriate for the conditions...

Tell that to the judge. :killingme

You've admitted you were speeding. You're now desperately grasping for some triumphant technicality to get you off. Man up and just pay the bloody fine.

[Hugo Nougo]

Good on ya Jin, if you think you've got a got a case go for it, if nothing else you'll learn exactly how the system works.
I've got about a 50 50 win rate on the tickets I've contested over the year's, my advice would be to write in as per the instructions on the ticket, if you get off great if not no extra cost. Talk to a qualified person (lawyer) if you do want to take it further, citezen's advice is free, you will get no clarity here.
Anyway have a laugh at this, and fuck the pompous gits on here, especially the one that takes the time to post admonishing you for wasting his time!.

http://youtu.be/6w3BwLm0IiM

[Oakie]

I have a half hatched thought that logically makes a bit of sense...........
Claim the officers radar is accurate, admit his radar screen showed 102km/h, but deny your true ground speed was anywhere above 90km/h. The front profile of a motorbike consists largely of the front tire. If you were radared from front on, the only possible way the police officer got a reading higher than my actual speed would be if the officers radar was mistakenly aimed somewhere at the top half of the tire. The top of the tire travels at double the ground speed of the vehicle, the bottom of the tire is stationary on the ground. The officer has proof of the number his radar displayed, the officers word is enough. The officer knows the radar was pointed at you when it displayed the number. However, how could a police officer prove what part of the motorbike the radar/laser beam hit?

I think your science is wrong. The radar works by measuring the time it takes for the laser pulse to be reflected back off it's target ... and we are talking nanoseconds. So really simplified ... it fires a pulse which bounces back and you can tell how far away the target is from the time it takes to get the reflection. It then fires another (now milliseconds later) and again can tell how far away the target is now. Simple maths then to work out how far the target has travelled between the two readings and in what time to work out the speed. Wouldn't make a difference if the wheel is spinning backwards or forwards. Pretty sure they'd be firing their beam at the headlight as it has a nice reflector on the back, just right for reflecting laser pulses.

[Madness]

...the chips are the best bit.

Pretty hard to conceal a big-fuck-off cockroach in a maccas chip too.


Just pay the ticket and have a beer you dumb shit

You know, for a munter, you type some sensible shit sometimes.


I probably was going over the limit but cant be sure as my eyes tend to be focussed on whats ahead and around me not what my speedo is reading. If I was speeding then it was not excessive and was safe and appropriate for the conditions.

Oh, sweet Jesus.

Maybe you could try tilting your head sideways when you're riding. It might help your eyes focus on the speedo, both when the conditions are appropriate for breaking the speed limit and when they're not. Just a thought.

[EJK]

Welcome to KiwiBiker Jin :sunny:

[Akzle]

If every person who got a ticket decided to defend them it might be a different story but that's not the case.

the longest journeys start with a single step...

[Mike.Gayner]

If you were radared from front on, the only possible way the police officer got a reading higher than my actual speed would be if the officers radar was mistakenly aimed somewhere at the top half of the tire. The top of the tire travels at double the ground speed of the vehicle, the bottom of the tire is stationary on the ground.

The fuck? Don't leave school mate. With respect to the bike the tire is exactly stationery at all points. Your tyres are moving (relative to the road) at exactly the same pace as the bike. The radar doesn't magically pick a point on the tyre and say "measure this bit twice in a fraction of a second". The radar will measure exactly the point it's aimed at twice (or multiple times in fact), and the surface of the tyre it's measuring is stationery with respect to the bike.

[R650R]

And the alleged crime was doing 102 in a 90 zone. A perfectly straight road no traffic bright sunny afternoon. Officer claimed this was a high risk zone :tugger:

From what others have intimiated it sounds like the Maramarua area on SH2. BTW I got done there for the same 'low margin' of 82 in 70 zone at 4am in morning in Truck on a deserted road.

Although none of us like tickets that road is a high risk area (if that's where it was) and has claimed many lives over the years, partly because of the high traffic volume ( you are exposed to more chances of error by others) and that 'nearly home' factor where people relax and stop concentrating on road and cross centre line. I hate these lower limits they out in like these as they are a blunt tool to cover what is often a risk window only on certain times of day and holidays etc. But we see the sign and have to suck it up and play their game.

[Voltaire]

I was caught in a Police 'set up' once where they ticketed people who were blocking Campbell Road intersection when the

lights changed.

They picked on me out of a group of several cars and wrote me a ticket, the 'good' cop said that I could take it to court if I

liked.

I came back and photographed the intersection and this was before digital cameras, paid extra for fast development too

Wrote a letter and posted it saying I wanted my day in court.

Took a morning off work and went to the District Court.

Waited and waited and waited as all the wrongly accused came and went...

They delayed mine as the Cop had not turned up, apparently they had to come if you contested it.

The Police Lawyer came up and told me that I was really wasting my time as it was open and shut.

Well the JP got tired of waiting and I was told to state my case which I did.

JP thought it was reasonable and I was a free man.

Police Lawyer said that " I was lucky that the Cop was too busy fighting crime to attend" ( or something like that)

Lesson I got was, pay the fine and move on.:clap:, what a waste of time.

[Erelyes]

We are all innocent unless proven guilty and officer plods word is not proof. At least it shouldnt be.

First off, you ain't even read what has been said. Officer plods word is evidence. So what is your evidence that you were obeying the speed limit?

You know what happens in cases where one party has evidence and the other doesn't? They rule on the evidence provided.

As for the 'it shouldn't be' bullshit, did you even bother to rub your two brain cells together to think about what you're proposing before writing it? Say you're out on your bike, and as you're halfway through an intersection, a red light runner (who was clearly doing twice the posted limit) comes screeching along, tyres smoking, hits you just before stopping, knocking you and your bike over. Officer plod who was behind you pops his window down, drives past slowly, and says "Sorry guv... my word's not good enough any more, you'll have to sort it out between yourselves'. :facepalm:

Fuck it, go on then. Go to court, bitch. Get laughed at and lighten your wallet by the court costs. Fools and their money are easily parted :finger:

[Erelyes]

Talk to a qualified person (lawyer) if you do want to take it further, citezen's advice is free, you will get no clarity here.
Anyway have a laugh at this, and fuck the pompous gits on here, especially the one that takes the time to post admonishing you for wasting his time!.

And you were making sense up til the end there. CAB are generally not legally trained. So if he wants free legal advice then he wants a Community Law Centre not CAB. Reading your 'you will get no clarity here' makes sense in context of the sentence :bleh:

[Maha]

You Got Caught
Pay The Fucking Fine
And Ride Another Day

God there's some twatling dribble in this thread.

[Katman]

Just scribble someone else's name over the top of yours on the ticket, go to court and claim that "Katman got off a ticket like this once".

It's bound to work.

[thepom]

fight it oi. the more of the cops' time you waste, the less time he's spending collecting donut vouchers.
write HEAPS and don't bother replying unless they address EVERY point in your letters. find every minute little bitch manoeuvre. just waste their time. all of it.

I,m on you with this one.....another cop going to court means less tickets handed out to the rest of us....

[pritch]

No one has been able to answer the question of whether radar readings are kept. Has anyone fought the law and lost?

The cop will have written your speed on the ticket, and that's probably the only record and all the proof that's needed. In court it will be accepted as if it was written on a stone tablet. Unless you had some proof that you weren't speeding - and that does not seem to be the case, you will not win.

I successfully defended my last traffic offence notice in court, but it wasn't speeding. Usually there's nothing you can say to a speeding ticket. Nothing that makes sense anyway, and almost certainly nothing that will be believed.

One of KB's resident :Police: used the signature line, "Life is tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid". That seems appropriate here.

[rastuscat]

Consider this.

If I see someone driving while not wearing a seatbelt, I write them a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

My word is the only evidence.

How else can it work? And please don't tell me to video everything, as the legal system couldn't cope with all the stuff I see.

[Gadget1]

You might have a chance in front of a judge with good evidence, but to win against police in front of JPs? :laugh:



So, how do you explain the case of Bryan McHerron who won in front of TWO JPs in the Rangiora District Court? See my post #26 for further info.

[Gadget1]

Consider this.

If I see someone driving while not wearing a seatbelt, I write them a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

My word is the only evidence.

How else can it work? And please don't tell me to video everything, as the legal system couldn't cope with all the stuff I see.



Jin's case is about radar evidence though. See post #26 for further info on court rulings etc.

[rastuscat]

it's amazing how the cops story/attitude can change when you point out the camera recording everything

.......and it's equally amazing how fast a mouth shuts when we show them a video of them going through a red light, after they have spent 15 minutes lambasting us for revenue collecting, wasting their time, making shit up.

Video is good, just impractical within the current legal system.

[rastuscat]

Jin's case is about radar evidence though. See post #26 for further info on court rulings etc.

I'm hearing you, but the principle remains the same. If a cop says he saw something, it's generally not made up.

Why would we make it up? It's not like there s a shortage of people actually committing offences. What would be the motivation for taking the risk of losing your career by making stuff up?

[nodrog]

Consider this.

If I see someone driving while not wearing a seatbelt, I write them a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

My word is the only evidence.

How else can it work? And please don't tell me to video everything, as the legal system couldn't cope with all the stuff I see.

Clearly some sort of seatbelt indicator light needs to be fitted to the roof of all vehicles, linked through a satellite network which logs and collates all data. And this is overseen by an independent authority of nuns.

now we just need a solution in case the nuns are lying.

[nodrog]

I'm hearing you, but the principle remains the same. If a cop says he saw something, it's generally not made up.

Why would we make it up? It's not like there s a shortage of people actually committing offences. What would be the motivation for taking the risk of losing your career by making stuff up?

Apparently its worth it For a $80 ticket.

[rastuscat]

Apparently its worth it For a $80 ticket.

Is there a shortage of people using cellphones while driving? Do we really need to make that up?

If we were going to make shit up, it sure wouldn't be $80. I'd be making up some decent ones.

[Katman]

What would be the motivation for taking the risk of losing your career by making stuff up?

You should ask Colin Randle Mower that very question.

[Gadget1]

I'm hearing you, but the principle remains the same. If a cop says he saw something, it's generally not made up.

Why would we make it up? It's not like there s a shortage of people actually committing offences. What would be the motivation for taking the risk of losing your career by making stuff up?



Probably due to the generally word in "it's generally not made up". People get things wrong, people/cops lie, lawyers make a living out of the beyond reasonable doubt standard of evidence etc.

About risking careers, 64 cops were charged with offences in the years 2009-2011.

[Scuba_Steve]

Video is good, just impractical within the current legal system.

Could you elaborate on this? I can't see in this day & age with cheap small detailed cameras why we should still rely on dodgy testament from an "eye witness" with vested interest



Why would we make it up? It's not like there s a shortage of people actually committing offences. What would be the motivation for taking the risk of losing your career by making stuff up?

Quota's was 1 reason... Sorry KPI's. But then what risk??? as people have said, cop walks in other guys guilty regardless of facts or legislation

Plus there's always donuts & toasters which tend to be an incentive to do so :bleh:

[Big Dog]

3 possibilities.
1 you were speeding and knew it. Take your hand off it long enough to get your wallet out and pay a fair tax for your actions.
2 you were speeding and did not know. More fool you for not knowing. Take your hand off it long enough to get your wallet out and pay your tax and learn from the experience.
3 you genuinely were not speeding or have a legally defensible position for speeding. Write some letters, provide some evidence or accept you are back on point 1.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[rastuscat]

Could you elaborate on this? I can't see in this day & age with cheap small detailed cameras why we should still rely on dodgy testament from an "eye witness" with vested interest

What's the vested interest?

Remember that I'm leaving in 37 days, and I have no interest in making shit up.

I'll go into chapter and verse about video when I get the time, and motivation.

[Big Dog]

Ps, unless you are a benificiary it will cost you more in lost earnings to defend anything less than 40 over. 20 over of you are on minimum wage.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

What's the vested interest?

Remember that I'm leaving in 37 days, and I have no interest in making shit up.

I'll go into chapter and verse about video when I get the time, and motivation.
I'd have thought the vested interest would be in not getting decked by leather vest wearers that see the kit.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Jin]

Welcome to KiwiBiker Jin :sunny:
Thanks there are some real rays of sunshine in here aye. Surprised so many lurkers are getting butthurt over daring to question a speeding ticket. Some of the rep feedback is facinating too. Gems like "fuck off and die". :killingme


First off, you ain't even read what has been said. Officer plods word is evidence. So what is your evidence that you were obeying the speed limit?

You know what happens in cases where one party has evidence and the other doesn't? They rule on the evidence provided.

That is the issue I have and the point of this thread. What evidence? Because officer plod said so? Do you even understand what innocent until proven guilty means?


Consider this.

If I see someone driving while not wearing a seatbelt, I write them a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

My word is the only evidence.

How else can it work? And please don't tell me to video everything, as the legal system couldn't cope with all the stuff I see.
Yeah i get that. Problem i have is i dont believe that i was going that fast and no evidence was offered to me.


3 possibilities.
1 you were speeding and knew it. Take your hand off it long enough to get your wallet out and pay a fair tax for your actions.
2 you were speeding and did not know. More fool you for not knowing. Take your hand off it long enough to get your wallet out and pay your tax and learn from the experience.
3 you genuinely were not speeding or have a legally defensible position for speeding. Write some letters, provide some evidence or accept you are back on point 1.
Problem with writing a letter is that you are basically admitting guilt and asking to be let off. Doubt that would work and then that would be the evidence if i did decide to challenge.

[TheDemonLord]

Consider this.

If I see someone driving while not wearing a seatbelt, I write them a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

My word is the only evidence.

How else can it work? And please don't tell me to video everything, as the legal system couldn't cope with all the stuff I see.

Me personally - I have a great issue with this:

In any other situation, where 2 parties disagree on events and there is no supporting evidence produced either for or against - then it would be dismissed. The assumption being made by the law is that the Officer is always telling the 100% truth and hasn't been mistaken.

I don't see that an Officer's word should be given greater weight - if anything it is the Police making the positive claim (that an offence did occur) and so the onus is on the Police to provide objective evidence (of which an officer's word is not - it is Subjective) to support it.

If the system is such that Video evidence of crimes would cause it to break, then maybe the system is poorly designed and needs a kick up the proverbial.

[Scuba_Steve]

What's the vested interest?

Remember that I'm leaving in 37 days, and I have no interest in making shit up.

I'll go into chapter and verse about video when I get the time, and motivation.

Back when it was Quota's now it's KPI's either way you're expected to push so much extortion letters & I have no doubt you probably don't make shit up however many of your other gang members do even on criminal offences as "I am innocent" shows

But I'm more interested in why cameras shouldn't be expected so am hoping you will shed some light on that

[Jin]

Me personally - I have a great issue with this:

In any other situation, where 2 parties disagree on events and there is no supporting evidence produced either for or against - then it would be dismissed. The assumption being made by the law is that the Officer is always telling the 100% truth and hasn't been mistaken.

I don't see that an Officer's word should be given greater weight - if anything it is the Police making the positive claim (that an offence did occur) and so the onus is on the Police to provide objective evidence (of which an officer's word is not - it is Subjective) to support it.

If the system is such that Video evidence of crimes would cause it to break, then maybe the system is poorly designed and needs a kick up the proverbial.

:clap:

Exactly my sentiments

[Gadget1]

I'd have thought the vested interest would be in not getting decked by leather vest wearers that see the kit.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.



Yep, and I wonder how far off are the days of gun-wearing-camera-pointing-double backed up cops going for it to get the dollars in like overseas.

[short shins]

If you had taken your helmet off, had your papers ready for the officer, acted politely and and contritely you might have got a warning with a lecture.
Works for me most of the time, but then I am of a more mature age and I have not been pulled for some time. The only speeding ticket I have recieved in the last 2 years was from a man in a van (I was in my car) and I felt gutted that I was caught (arrived in the post).

[Gadget1]

Thanks there are some real rays of sunshine in here aye. Surprised so many lurkers are getting butthurt over daring to question a speeding ticket. Some of the rep feedback is facinating too. Gems like "fuck off and die". :killingme




Lol, I got one for putting "See post 26..." which was "see my boot up your arse." This place is hilarious!

[Voltaire]

Lol, I got one for putting "See post 26..." which was "see my boot up your arse." This place is hilarious!

Are the Red Reppers the ones who used to say " I'm going to tell Mummy on you":clap:

[Stirts]

Works for me most of the time, but then I am of a more mature age and I have not been pulled for some time.

I think this belongs in an entirely different thread :shifty:

[Paul in NZ]

Me personally - I have a great issue with this:

In any other situation, where 2 parties disagree on events and there is no supporting evidence produced either for or against - then it would be dismissed. The assumption being made by the law is that the Officer is always telling the 100% truth and hasn't been mistaken.

I don't see that an Officer's word should be given greater weight - if anything it is the Police making the positive claim (that an offence did occur) and so the onus is on the Police to provide objective evidence (of which an officer's word is not - it is Subjective) to support it.

If the system is such that Video evidence of crimes would cause it to break, then maybe the system is poorly designed and needs a kick up the proverbial.

Look I see where you are coming from and good onya BUT the problem you face is that you only think you were not going that fast. You know you were not actually looking at your speedo... So the judge sees a Police officer who states definitely that you were doing X and you who states 'I don't think I was going that fast but I didn't check"... um - not the strongest argument...

You will need a very good story or at least a much better story.

The situation you are in is not ideal but realistically its the reasonable option.

[Stirts]

I got stopped for speeding awhile ago then a few weeks later the ticket arrived in the mail. I then went online and requested full disclosure of what they have.

I have now received a copy of the infringement notice, brief notes made at the time by the officer, a certificate of accuracy for the radar and confirmation of training of the officer. What I really want is proof of the speed I was doing at the time rather than just accepting what the officer told me.

Do they keep logs of radar readings taken to substantiate tickets? If they do is there any reason they didnt include this in the documents?




At the roadside I did not admit or concede anything. I just kept my mouth shut and answered his questions. The only "attitude test" failure might have been me not getting off my bike and not removing my helmet. The officers notes refer to me as the "offender" and that i admitted the offence which is not correct.

I just had another read of the notes and it says "Log book filled out: Yes" so they should give me a copy?




Are you sure there is no record of the radar readings?

For the record I probably was going over the limit but cant be sure as my eyes tend to be focussed on whats ahead and around me not what my speedo is reading. If I was speeding then it was not excessive and was safe and appropriate for the conditions.

For those that claim I should just accept it and pay up ill leave for you to do. If the officer claims i was doing a certain speed fine ill pay up as soon as i see some evidence confirming my crime aside from his word. Until then im innocent until proven guilty. Thats why all infringement notices say "alleged infringement".

At roadside did you not consider at all to ask to see the radar reading? If not, then you should just pay up purely for that oversight!!

[Gadget1]

Are the Red Reppers the ones who used to say " I'm going to tell Mummy on you":clap:




Heh, I don't know but they probably still do it.

[Gremlin]

So, how do you explain the case of Bryan McHerron who won in front of TWO JPs in the Rangiora District Court? See my post #26 for further info.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying from my experience, and friends, you better have more than "I didn't do it". And no, I don't care about a single case.

I had a lightbulb moment standing in front of a judge pleading for a work licence after breaking the law too much. Changed bikes, haven't had another ticket (touches wood), no time/money down the drain... amazing. I feel like an infomercial. :laugh:

[Gadget1]

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying from my experience, and friends, you better have more than "I didn't do it". And no, I don't care about a single case.

I had a lightbulb moment standing in front of a judge pleading for a work licence after breaking the law too much. Changed bikes, haven't had another ticket (touches wood), no time/money down the drain... amazing. I feel like an infomercial. :laugh:


Fair enough, but there's been other cases where courts have ruled in favour of motorists in the same circumstances so it's not just one case. The McHerron was significant due to the two JPs involved. Thanks for replying though.

Sold via infomercial, where can I buy your transcript of the court case?

[TheDemonLord]

Look I see where you are coming from and good onya BUT the problem you face is that you only think you were not going that fast. You know you were not actually looking at your speedo... So the judge sees a Police officer who states definitely that you were doing X and you who states 'I don't think I was going that fast but I didn't check"... um - not the strongest argument...

You will need a very good story or at least a much better story.

The situation you are in is not ideal but realistically its the reasonable option.

I see your point, but I must disagree - your argument should simply be:

I was not speeding - The officer has provided no objective proof, with no proof of the offence I request that the charge against me be dismissed.

(maybe add some additional talk about the innacuracy of human perception and why we use tools to measure things etc.)

[nodrog]

You cunts are so fuckin retarded.

the proof of radar reading is on the ticket, as he recorded it, manually.

the radar and officer are certified.

You're a whinging little dick that needs a smack into reality.

This is the same as parents that think its normal to take a school to court over their precious kids being disciplined for being fuckwits.

[bogan]

That is the issue I have and the point of this thread. What evidence? Because officer plod said so? Do you even understand what innocent until proven guilty means?

Your actions (or lack thereof) are also evidence; why wait until now to question the proof; it was available for you at the roadside.

As far as I know radar readings/tickets are not timestamped and collated, which is what you seem to be demanding; ie, the courts have decided that for a traffic infringement (ie, not a criminal offense), an officers word constitutes proof of guilt unless otherwise proven.

[Maha]

You Got Caught
Pay The Fucking Fine
And Ride Another Day

God there's some twatling dribble in this thread.


You cunts are so fuckin retarded.

the proof of radar reading is on the ticket, as he recorded it, manually.

the radar and officer are certified.

You're a whinging little dick that needs a smack into reality.

This is the same as parents that think its normal to take a school to court over their precious kids being disciplined for being fuckwits.

AGREE! Refer to post above the above.

[Paul in NZ]

You cunts are so fuckin retarded.

the proof of radar reading is on the ticket, as he recorded it, manually.

the radar and officer are certified.

.


Yup ............................

[Erelyes]

That is the issue I have and the point of this thread. What evidence? Because officer plod said so? Do you even understand what innocent until proven guilty means?

Yes. And at this stage it's still an allegation, you're yet to be proven guilty. Like said, officer's word is not 'proof', it is 'evidence'.

So. Should you either pay it, or do nothing, that is 'proof' (as you basically admit liability). Obviously if you pay it, you get a defense vs any further proceedings.

However, should you choose a court hearing (denying liability) then you can let a judge decide guilt based on the evidence provided. Of course, you'd do well to provide your own evidence... as they tend to give reasonable weight to the evidence given by cops.


Me personally - I have a great issue with this:

If you have 'great' issue (rather than just issue) then you can either emigrate, secede, or write to your MP. :baby:


I don't see that an Officer's word should be given greater weight - if anything it is the Police making the positive claim (that an offence did occur) and so the onus is on the Police to provide objective evidence (of which an officer's word is not - it is Subjective) to support it.

Another person who doesn't seem to understand what having a society where cops must provide third-party evidence entails. Do you propose that a cop must also pull over another motorist and ask them to sign a statement that yes, indeed, the radar does say 102 and yes, indeed, this is a 90 zone? :tugger:

[TheDemonLord]

If you have 'great' issue (rather than just issue) then you can either emigrate, secede, or write to your MP. :baby:

Without regards to the rest of the thread, I am talking a situation where the courts takes an officers word as evidence with no other proof submitted which is not inline with the principle of Haebes Corpus and IMO is a very dangeous and slippery slope


Another person who doesn't seem to understand what having a society where cops must provide third-party evidence entails. Do you propose that a cop must also pull over another motorist and ask them to sign a statement that yes, indeed, the radar does say 102 and yes, indeed, this is a 90 zone? :tugger:

Radar Lock Time Stamp, combined with a GPS Timestamp - pretty easy, using technologies that already exist - that would back up what the Cop said.

[Scuba_Steve]

You cunts are so fuckin retarded.

the proof of radar reading is on the ticket, as he recorded it, manually.


& proof of the existence of lizard men is on teh interwebs, as someone recorded it there, manually :facepalm:

[Jin]

Nevermind deleted comment

[FJRider]

I got stopped for speeding awhile ago then a few weeks later the ticket arrived in the mail. I then went online and requested full disclosure of what they have.

Why did the officer not issue you a ticket when He / She stopped you ... ??? :scratch:


I have now received a copy of the infringement notice, brief notes made at the time by the officer, a certificate of accuracy for the radar and confirmation of training of the officer. What I really want is proof of the speed I was doing at the time rather than just accepting what the officer told me.

Highlighted IS the proof ... and it is policy for the offending motorist to be invited to View the locked readout speed on the radar unit. :angry:

Were you invited to view it ... ???? ... and DID you view it .. ????? :blink:


Do they keep logs of radar readings taken to substantiate tickets? If they do is there any reason they didnt include this in the documents?

The certificate of accuracy IS enough perceived/required proof ... to substantiate tickets issued in a court of law. :pinch:


The cover states that this is what is held by the Police Infringement Bureau and my request has also been forwarded to the issuing officer to supply to me directly items of disclosure that are held in the district. Should I expect to receive from that district radar proof?

What would you expect ... a Christmas card ... ?? :shutup:

[nodrog]

& proof of the existence of lizard men is on teh interwebs, as someone recorded it there, manually :facepalm:

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Tin+foil+hat+source+dumpaday+subscribe+for+more_13 3ead_5309858.jpg

[nodrog]

Nevermind deleted comment

you're never going to win in court with that sort of defeatist attitude.

[nodrog]

Are we up to the bit in the thread where the Lesbians turn up yet?

[bogan]

Nevermind deleted comment

Or was it... :bleh:


Your a real debbie downer piss off and have a tanty in some other thread

[old rig]

Are we up to the bit in the thread where the Lesbians turn up yet?

Fuckin hope so i can't go on much longer

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[Katman]

Are we up to the bit in the thread where the Lesbians turn up yet?


Fuckin hope so i can't go on much longer


<img src="http://ufoship.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/butch_lesbians.jpg"/>

You're welcome.

[rastuscat]

It seems everyones home from work and has the interweb lit up

[Akzle]

the risk of losing your career by making stuff up?
...

like that's happened. ever.

cops lie, plant evidence, and still get a fucken state funeral and called "men beyond reproach" (by other cops in the old white boys' circle jerk(ing young white boys) club)



About risking careers, 64 cops were charged with offences in the years 2009-2011.
and how many of those 64 are STILL gainfully employed as policy enforcement officers? (most, eh?)

Ps, unless you are a benificiary it will cost you more in lost earnings to defend anything less than 40 over. 20 over of you are on minimum wage.
thats where you seek tort damages awarded against the vexatious litigant!


Problem with writing a letter is that you are basically admitting guilt and asking to be let off. Doubt that would work and then that would be the evidence if i did decide to challenge.
then you're writing the wrong kind of letter. google this shit homie. like "how to get off a speeding ticket"


Do you propose that a cop must also pull over another motorist and ask them to sign a statement that yes, indeed, the radar does say 102 and yes, indeed, this is a 90 zone?
it's what they do in yankland...

[Akzle]

and it is policy for the offending motorist to be invited to View the locked readout speed on the radar unit. :angry:

Were you invited to view it ... ???? ... and DID you view it .. ????? :blink:




that's why you demand, roadside, that the radar be sealed as evidence.

[Akzle]

It seems everyones home from work and has the interweb lit up

fucken lit something up, but it doesn't taste like interweb.

[gonzo_akl]

I think your science is wrong. The radar works by measuring the time it takes for the laser pulse to be reflected back off it's target ... and we are talking nanoseconds. So really simplified ... it fires a pulse which bounces back and you can tell how far away the target is from the time it takes to get the reflection. It then fires another (now milliseconds later) and again can tell how far away the target is now. Simple maths then to work out how far the target has travelled between the two readings and in what time to work out the speed. Wouldn't make a difference if the wheel is spinning backwards or forwards. Pretty sure they'd be firing their beam at the headlight as it has a nice reflector on the back, just right for reflecting laser pulses.

Pretty sure that most police radars work by measuring the Doppler effect and not by measuring the change in distance between pulses. But it has been 20+ years since I've had anything first hand to do with them. Other radar system do indeed work as you discribed

[rastuscat]

Pretty sure that most police radars work by measuring the Doppler effect and not by measuring the change in distance between pulses. But it has been 20+ years since I've had anything first hand to do with them. Other radar system do indeed work as you discribed

It's doppler effect for Police radars.

Or Donut effect. I forget the details.

[Big Dog]

...

like that's happened. ever.

cops lie, plant evidence, and still get a fucken state funeral and called "men beyond reproach" (by other cops in the old white boys' circle jerk(ing young white boys) club)


and how many of those 64 are STILL gainfully employed as policy enforcement officers? (most, eh?)

thats where you seek tort damages awarded against the vexatious litigant!

then you're writing the wrong kind of letter. google this shit homie. like "how to get off a speeding ticket"

it's what they do in yankland...

In order:
They may be cops but they are also human. That weakness is also the strength, let us never surrender the humanity for absolute correctness.

Lets see some actual numbers and cases before we get too carried away, but even then 64 "out of how many again?" is hardly even a statistical variation. Compared to the rates of crime in other professions I'll take my chances and if I feel wronged after taking a proper look at the situation I will gather the evidence and do the needful. Until then... HTFU pills and pay the fine.

Pretty sure you can't seek tort damages for lost income on defending a driving charge without also showing that any wrong on the part of the police was intentional... a much steeper hill to mow than getting off the ticket.


Pretty much.


Dear god no! It is bad enough working in Auckland. Don't even suggest we morph into the states!

PS, can't be fucked doing the fancy formatting you do to put in the multiquotes from the same post shit. I cost to much an hour for that.:laugh:

[Big Dog]

It's doppler effect for Police radars.

Or Donut effect. I forget the details.

Of there is the simple effect called physics... by virtue of its contact with the road and the bike the tyres rotational speed is identical to the land speed (unless the ticket is for sustained loss of traction and you have a front wheel drive bike).

[Scuba_Steve]

Or Donut effect. I forget the details.

mmm donut effect :drool:

[scumdog]

...

like that's happened. ever.

cops lie, plant evidence, and still get a fucken state funeral and called "men beyond reproach" (by other cops in the old white boys' circle jerk(ing young white boys) club)


and how many of those 64 are STILL gainfully employed as policy enforcement officers? (most, eh?)

thats where you seek tort damages awarded against the vexatious litigant!

then you're writing the wrong kind of letter. google this shit homie. like "how to get off a speeding ticket"

it's what they do in yankland...

Ah, predictable clap-trap...I love it!

[scumdog]

& proof of the existence of lizard men is on teh interwebs, as someone recorded it there, manually :facepalm:

Fooo, good england bro!:Punk:

[scumdog]

But I'm more interested in why cameras shouldn't be expected so am hoping you will shed some light on that


Mainly because you tight-arses aren't speeding enough hence there's not enough money available to buy all the cops a camera - and have the suitable soft-ware to support the scheme.:bleh:

Not too hard to figure it out

[Scuba_Steve]

Fooo, good england bro!:Punk:

I know man, I learnt that England from teh interwebs :headbang:

[Akzle]

In order:
They may be cops but they are also human. That weakness is also the strength, let us never surrender the humanity for absolute correctness.

Lets see some actual numbers and cases before we get too carried away, but even then 64 "out of how many again?" is hardly even a statistical variation. Compared to the rates of crime in other professions I'll take my chances and if I feel wronged after taking a proper look at the situation I will gather the evidence and do the needful. Until then... HTFU pills and pay the fine.

Pretty sure you can't seek tort damages for lost income on defending a driving charge without also showing that any wrong on the part of the police was intentional... a much steeper hill to mow than getting off the ticket.


Pretty much.


Dear god no! It is bad enough working in Auckland. Don't even suggest we morph into the states!

PS, can't be fucked doing the fancy formatting you do to put in the multiquotes from the same post shit. I cost to much an hour for that.:laugh:


is it so wrong of me, to expect that when people are disignated as beacons of society, to uphold and maintain "the law" - that they're not going to be cunts, illegally and irregardless of any common decency let alone lawful end?
"just because they're human" doesn't wash with me.

most humans i know dont get to walk around with a gang patch and a belt full of weapons without some serious to-do.

pretty sure i can seek whatever i fucken want. whether i find it or not is another matter.... i put a bong down somewhere around here... i'm sure.

your own dumb fault for going to/being in/ not burning to the ground, auckland.

it's [ /quote] it's not that hard yo. or that fancy.

[Erelyes]

Without regards to the rest of the thread, I am talking a situation where the courts takes an officers word as evidence with no other proof submitted which is not inline with the principle of Haebes Corpus and IMO is a very dangeous and slippery slope

Usually that turn of phrase (slippery slope) means changing something is a bad idea (i.e. what you're suggesting), rather than keeping the status quo.....

[varminter]

For some reason I've read this all the way through. Now I'm losing the will to live.

[nodrog]

Honestly, where are the Lesbians?


Sorry Katman, I can not except those 2 don't have at least 1 penis between them.

its probably called Jin.

[Jin]

Why did the officer not issue you a ticket when He / She stopped you ... ??? :scratch:
Dunno, i didnt mind tho just wanted to get on my way

Highlighted IS the proof ... and it is policy for the offending motorist to be invited to View the locked readout speed on the radar unit. :angry:
That is not proof of the speed i was allegedly doing, just a statement that the equipment used to measure my speed works.

Were you invited to view it ... ???? ... and DID you view it .. ????? :blink:
Nope. Ive never been stopped before for a ticket. I thought they would keep a record of how fast I was going and would be able to produce it if they need it. How stupid of me :rolleyes:

The certificate of accuracy IS enough perceived/required proof ... to substantiate tickets issued in a court of law. :pinch:
Accuracy of the machine is irrelevant to what my alleged speed was. How do i even know he used it? Evidence please?

What would you expect ... a Christmas card ... ?? :shutup:
An apology will do :niceone:

[Jin]

Or was it... :bleh:
Lol you were quick. That was directed at that nogdog dude. Wonder who left his cage unlocked.

[FJRider]

Dunno, i didnt mind tho just wanted to get on my way

And you thought you had got away with it ... right .. ?? :beer:


That is not proof of the speed i was allegedly doing, just a statement that the equipment used to measure my speed works.

Not ONLY that it works ... it is also accurate.


Nope. Ive never been stopped before for a ticket. I thought they would keep a record of how fast I was going and would be able to produce it if they need it. How stupid of me :rolleyes:

Yes you were ... I'm betting it wont be your last ticket.

I note NO claim of innocence on your part ... just asking for proof from the officer ... you did commit the Traffic offense ... ;)


Accuracy of the machine is irrelevant to what my alleged speed was. How do i even know he used it? Evidence please?

YOU DIDN'T ASK TO SEE THE READOUT (next time ask) ... STUPID.


An apology will do :niceone:

unlikely ... pay the fine and move on ...

[Katman]

Sorry Katman, I can not except those 2 don't have at least 1 penis between them.


You can imagine all you like but something tells me they're not much interested in you being the meat in their sammich.

And besides, both of their hair is down to their shoulders. They must be women.

[Jin]

I note NO claim of innocence on your part ... just asking for proof from the officer ... you did commit the Traffic offense ... ;)
I dont need to claim i am innocent because no evidence has been produced that i am guilty of an offence. This is not a religious state we are not born sinners

[Madness]

nogdog

This cunt's actually quite good :corn:


They must be women or from Hamilton.

It's a tough call for sure.

[Virago]

Consider this.

If I see someone driving while not wearing a seatbelt, I write them a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

My word is the only evidence.

How else can it work? And please don't tell me to video everything, as the legal system couldn't cope with all the stuff I see.

Interesting point. While I'm firmly in the "just pay it" camp, my wife had an odd experience some months back.

Lit up by red 'n' blue, she pulled over. The female cop approached, but did not say what the pull-over was for, she simply took my wife's licence and went back to her car. My wife thought "I must have been speeding, but I didn't think I was". The cop returned with the licence and ticket, again not saying what for. She returned to her car and left. Five minutes later my wife got home, and looked at the ticket - failure to wear seatbelt.

The problem was, she had been wearing her seatbelt. The cop had seen her wrestling with a stabbing bra underwire, and had erronously assumed she was putting her seatbelt on while travelling.

The only reason my wife got off the ticket was because the cop's work partner was also "well endowed", and could visualise exactly what happened.

Sometimes the cop's word is wrong.

[Katman]

Sometimes the cop's word is wrong.

That's signature material.

[carburator]

Despite the officer's claim here, fact is, you have a fine to pay. Count yourself lucky the fine is not that bad, in all likelihood you've probably been over the speed limit on more than one/this occasion....right?

Where was this 90 kph zone? I have never seen one before, they seem to jump from 85-100.
I was caught doing 19 over the limit and got off, wrote in a gave a reason for the speed (which was 130 just prior) and they let me off the fine.
The issuing officer is just the stating point.

state highway 2 turnoff from Bombay - through to somewhere.. its a 90km zone that's patrolled a lot..

[marmel]

I dont need to claim i am innocent because no evidence has been produced that i am guilty of an offence. This is not a religious state we are not born sinners

I have changed my mind, I now think you should go and defend it.

You have no concept about the NZ legal system, no concept about witness evidence, police or otherwise and despite the fact it has been pointed out several times already that the cop using the radar, locking your speed and then writing it on a ticket IS evidence according to the justice system you seem to prefer to listen to the fucktards with a "stick it to the man" chip on their shoulder.

So go ahead, go to court, the cop will present his evidence, you can produce yours and see what the JP thinks.

[Erelyes]

An apology will do :niceone:

I'm sorry that your parents didn't teach you to face up to the consequences of your actions. Or teach you anything whatever about how our legal system works. Or, that if you asked a question to which you didn't want to hear the answer, you shouldn't have asked.

[TheDemonLord]

Usually that turn of phrase (slippery slope) means changing something is a bad idea (i.e. what you're suggesting), rather than keeping the status quo.....

Agreed - Some would say that the way Fines are handles atm means we are already on a slippery slope.


Honestly, where are the Lesbians?

You've been here the whole time :lol::lol:


FWIW - without referencing the actual details of the OP's issue:

Anytime the Police make a claim that an offence has occured, it is reasonable to expect objective proof to accompany that claim. If the proof has been lost, not logged correctly or for any other reason is unable to be verified/peer reviewed - then the claim MUST be dismissed. An Officer's word is not objective proof and should never be treated as such - it should always be backed up by evidence.

Some say that this would slow down the justice system or that it is impractical to implement - I say that with our current levels of technology it is easily implemented - The cynic in me suggests that the reluctance in moving towards this is: with increased visibility, the police officer will no longer be able to get away with certain behaviours, certain behaviours that they have become accustomed to getting away with, that benefit the NZ police, but not the NZ public.

[pritch]

irregardless

i put a bong down somewhere around here... i'm sure.



Hi Akzle, when you find the bong and light it up and want something to think about you might contemplate the fact that there is no such word as "irregardless"?

The word is regardless.

[Maha]

Hi Akzle, when you find the bong and light it up and want something to think about you might contemplate the fact that there is no such word as "irregardless"?

The word is regardless.

How irreverent of you to point this out of his normal irrelevant posts. :eek:

[Big Dog]

Agreed - Some would say that the way Fines are handles atm means we are already on a slippery slope.



You've been here the whole time :lol::lol:


FWIW - without referencing the actual details of the OP's issue:

Anytime the Police make a claim that an offence has occured, it is reasonable to expect objective proof to accompany that claim. If the proof has been lost, not logged correctly or for any other reason is unable to be verified/peer reviewed - then the claim MUST be dismissed. An Officer's word is not objective proof and should never be treated as such - it should always be backed up by evidence.

Some say that this would slow down the justice system or that it is impractical to implement - I say that with our current levels of technology it is easily implemented - The cynic in me suggests that the reluctance in moving towards this is: with increased visibility, the police officer will no longer be able to get away with certain behaviours, certain behaviours that they have become accustomed to getting away with, that benefit the NZ police, but not the NZ public.

FWIW: if the police did in fact implement all possible technical advances we would also never get any leniency.
Due to the amount of logging that goes on it is almost impossible to get away without a ticket once the lights go on.
Not that long ago it was more common to get a dressing down from someone who would have fit right in as a drill Sargent on Full Metal Jacket than a ticket.

Now that it is all measurable and logged to a degree we have terms like KPI and quota waved about.
Take that level to google style logging and footprinting and it won't be long till the fart tax is real and bikers pay more.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Akzle]

Hi Akzle, when you find the bong and light it up and want something to think about you might contemplate the fact that there is no such word as "irregardless"?

The word is regardless.

irregardless, steve, of your position on the english language and its abuses, your knowledge of pop culture is shit.

[pritch]

your knowledge of pop culture is shit.

Thank you, that's probably as it should be really. And you may have just invented a new oxymoron, "pop culture"? :innocent:

[FJRider]

I dont need to claim i am innocent because no evidence has been produced that i am guilty of an offence. This is not a religious state we are not born sinners

You were accused of a Traffic Infringement of the Land Transport Act. Which is not even a Traffic Offense (which is a little more serious). :blank:

NO criminal activity is involved ... nor is there any accusation of such. :msn-wink:

If you want to talk religion ... try a different forum. It has been done on this site though ... :lol:

It an attempt to reduce court time for Traffic Infringements ... the Government came up with a simple system ... If you get accused of a traffic infringement, you will be (usually) issued with a traffic infringement notice (the ticket) Should you pay the fine required ... it is an admission of guilt. Ignore the ticket and the case will be heard (even in your absence). If you wish to fight the allegation ... you may do that (good luck with that). All options you have are on the back of the ticket you were issued (by mail) ...

[Akzle]

All options you have are on the back of the ticket you were issued (by mail) ...

:laugh::laugh:

yeah. all.

like ALL your rights are the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. :laugh:

do you stand under that??

[FJRider]

:laugh::laugh:

yeah. all.

like ALL your rights are the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. :laugh:

do you stand under that??

We still are waiting for YOU TO REMAIN SILENT.


And ...


HE consulted US ... who is the fool here ... :killingme

[russd7]

From the Coromandel/Tauranga exit 477 to almost the Ngatea turn-off is mostly 90kphr zone now.

and in the couple of times last year that i travelled that road i got stuck in a line of traffic doing 60km/hr behind a bloody shopping trolly, unfortunately i was in a rental.

[Akzle]

and in the couple of times last year that i travelled that road i got stuck in a line of traffic doing 60km/hr behind a bloody shopping trolly, unfortunately i was in a rental.

fuken tourists.

[russd7]

fuken tourists.

oooii i was B o P born an raised, place has really gone to the pack since i left tho.

[TheDemonLord]

FWIW: if the police did in fact implement all possible technical advances we would also never get any leniency.
Due to the amount of logging that goes on it is almost impossible to get away without a ticket once the lights go on.
Not that long ago it was more common to get a dressing down from someone who would have fit right in as a drill Sargent on Full Metal Jacket than a ticket.

Now that it is all measurable and logged to a degree we have terms like KPI and quota waved about.
Take that level to google style logging and footprinting and it won't be long till the fart tax is real and bikers pay more.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Interesting notion - and I tend to agree that leniency would be diminished - although I believe for some offences compliance can be issued instead of an infringement. The question is would you rather diminished leniancy but knowing that each ticket was properly logged with appropriate evidence, or a larger grey area where leniancy is increased but the possibility of abuse is also increased.

I would prefer the latter

[Ender EnZed]

Interesting notion - and I tend to agree that leniency would be diminished - although I believe for some offences compliance can be issued instead of an infringement. The question is would you rather diminished leniancy but knowing that each ticket was properly logged with appropriate evidence, or a larger grey area where leniancy is increased but the possibility of abuse is also increased.

I would prefer the latter

Definitely the grey area.

Also, did you mean former? Because that's what you've been arguing for.

[TheDemonLord]

Definitely the grey area.

Also, did you mean former? Because that's what you've been arguing for.

Oops - you are right I did mean the Former - and fair enough about preferring a Grey Area, my issue is that in this instance - it opens the public to being abused by dodgy cops.

[Big Dog]

Oops - you are right I did mean the Former - and fair enough about preferring a Grey Area, my issue is that in this instance - it opens the public to being abused by dodgy cops.

So if a system was implemented that allowed you to opt into it:
- You must have your GPS tracker on when moving or lose your vehicle and license.
- You will have immunity from prosecution for any speed below automatic loss of license.
- You will get taxed 50 cents per kmph over the local limit + tolerance x kms travelled (accumulated for the month ) no demerits.
- You lose your license for 14 days instead of 28 every time you exceed 40 over.
Would you opt in?
Why?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[TheDemonLord]

So if a system was implemented that allowed you to opt into it:
- You must have your GPS tracker on when moving or lose your vehicle and license.
- You will have immunity from prosecution for any speed below automatic loss of license.
- You will get taxed 50 cents per kmph over the local limit + tolerance x kms travelled (accumulated for the month ) no demerits.
- You lose your license for 14 days instead of 28 every time you exceed 40 over.
Would you opt in?
Why?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

No I wouldn't, because that is not what is being argued here - what you have described is nothing short of Orwellian. What I am talking about is the police having sufficient objective evidence to back up any ticket issued, as opposed to issuing a ticket just on the Officer's word (which is open to abuse)

[buggerit]

No I wouldn't, because that is not what is being argued here - what you have described is nothing short of Orwellian. What I am talking about is the police having sufficient objective evidence to back up any ticket issued, as opposed to issuing a ticket just on the Officer's word (which is open to abuse)

Orwellian is what you will get if you demand the level of proof you are talking about, probably have the accountants
salivating at the thought of it.

[Big Dog]

No I wouldn't, because that is not what is being argued here - what you have described is nothing short of Orwellian. What I am talking about is the police having sufficient objective evidence to back up any ticket issued, as opposed to issuing a ticket just on the Officer's word (which is open to abuse)
Sure the example I give is in the extreme but for it to be completely objective it mustn't be prone to human error or operatator bias.
The only way to make it completely objective is to remove the human.


Sure the laser could be linked to a DB and have a camera mounted reasonably easily but then we might as well save the money by taking the humans out all together and invest in more camera vans.
The result would be the same, eventually.

A key policing philosophy should in my humble opinion be to use their discretion to attain the best probability of a reduction in offending.

I don't know all the details but a fellow I went to school with found himself in the ER of Auckland hosptial for the duration of an M.O.T officers shift instead of getting a series of fines he wasnt going to pay, his father would have to.

I don't for a second think a fine will stop me speeding... but it might make me more aware of my speed.


P.S. Your sworn testimony is evidence also, however you have more to gain by misrepresenting the truth than a police officer in the specific case of a speeding ticket (as opposed to a case of covering their own arse) on the other had it is an accepted fact that our brain modifies our perception of reality so as to have the best view of our selves. Or more simply if we fuck up it is human nature to transfer the blame to the someone or something else. Much like the stereotype of the fallen rider who gets up and kicks his bike and calls it a P.O.S because it failed mechanically... really it was not maintained by the rider.

[Scuba_Steve]

Orwellian is what you will get if you demand the level of proof you are talking about, probably have the accountants
salivating at the thought of it.

No it's not, that's just absurd! Stop throwing out red herrings. He like I just wants the legal system to obey it's own rules & for the cops to provide some proof of offending; it's not to much to ask, but it would just interfere with their scam & extortion.

[Big Dog]

No it's not, that's just absurd! Stop throwing out red herrings. He like I just wants the legal system to obey it's own rules & for the cops to provide some proof of offending; it's not to much to ask, but it would just interfere with their scam & extortion.

Perhaps if he had asked for the proof roadside I would agree with you.
Sure this one case is complicated by the fact he recieved his notice after the fact in the post, but he does not deny the offending or that he was told why he was pulled.

In all reality though without photo or video evidence you still only have the word of the officer that you were the vehicle in the frame when the lock was achieved.

What does that mean? Should we increase surveilance and logging and make it so he has to log his farts too?
Or should we encourage those officers seen to make a difference and who display the personal charachteristics that put them beyond reproach to stay in the job and manage those who fail to meet that standard out of employment?

There seems to be good officers moving on. That should be our concern, not wether one speeding ticket is properly noted in the the right font with the right date style in the correct brand of notebook.

[rastuscat]

Oops - you are right I did mean the Former - and fair enough about preferring a Grey Area, my issue is that in this instance - it opens the public to being abused by dodgy cops.

FWIW, I've been in the job for 27 years, and I've witnessed very, very few dodgy ones.

Some seriously incompetent, some plain lazy, but not many really dodgy ones.

[scumdog]

FWIW, I've been in the job for 27 years, and I've witnessed very, very few dodgy ones.

Some seriously incompetent, some plain lazy, but not many really dodgy ones.

RC, it's hard going convincing some on here but I agree 100%.

My 'revenue gathering' is below expected level because if I have any doubts I don't stop them.

I've NEVER had a defended ticket so I guess me method works...:msn-wink:

[BMWGSER]

Ever wondered why this road has its speed limit dropped top 90KPH?
Because People kept crashing on it all the time. Been on a Safer Journeys workshop today and the
Engineers wanted to drop it to 80 KPH like Dome Valley up north, but it did not happen.
So when You have to travel on this road watch Your speed as the Highway Men /Women
Will take Your money if Ya want to speed.
Just pay the infringement fine and stop speeding on Statehighway 1and 2 /27 .
Pay the fine sooner than later as Demerit points start counting down as soon as You pay the fine .
Keep Safe

[russd7]

personal experience tells me there are a lot more cops out there who use discretion than not. I cant say that i have ever come across any law enforcement that i would have considered dodgy or even revenue gathering, the occasional arrogant one but hey arrogant assholes are every where.
i have never felt the need to dispute any ticket i have had as most were for below the speeds i was actually doing.
seems to me the attitude test works most of the time, be a dick then expect less leniency, show some respect and receive it in return.

[bogan]

FWIW, I've been in the job for 27 years, and I've witnessed very, very few dodgy ones.

Some seriously incompetent, some plain lazy, but not many really dodgy ones.

Cop school 101 bro, dodgy fuckers hide from you fuckers.

But on the subject of discretion, the only ticket I've ever got was from a guy who didn't use discretion... coincidence, or bad police work? :sherlock:

[rastuscat]

You'd be surprised how much discretion gets thrown around, poor;y disguised as laziness.

I see things most days that even I would write a ticket for, but they are in a place I can't get to, they are on the other side of a traffic island, etc etc.

Dopes that mean they didn't do it?

Don't forget, whether you get a ticket depends on a long list of things, including, but not exclusive to


How bad was the infringement?
Is it one of the ones that pisses this particular cop off?
How bad a day is the cop having?
How badly did you treat the cop?
Is there a victim?
Is there a sale on at the local Dunkin Donuts?


So many variables.

[buggerit]

personal experience tells me there are a lot more cops out there who use discretion than not. I cant say that i have ever come across any law enforcement that i would have considered dodgy or even revenue gathering, the occasional arrogant one but hey arrogant assholes are every where.
i have never felt the need to dispute any ticket i have had as most were for below the speeds i was actually doing.
seems to me the attitude test works most of the time, be a dick then expect less leniency, show some respect and receive it in return.

+1, maybe if you generally have issues when dealing with the Police, maybe the problems you.

[Scuba_Steve]

What does that mean? Should we increase surveilance and logging and make it so he has to log his farts too?
Or should we encourage those officers seen to make a difference and who display the personal charachteristics that put them beyond reproach to stay in the job and manage those who fail to meet that standard out of employment?

There seems to be good officers moving on. That should be our concern, not wether one speeding ticket is properly noted in the the right font with the right date style in the correct brand of notebook.

No it doesn't, stop running strawmans & red herrings. Drink driving requires the cop to do more than "yea bro he was drunk" it's not too much to require some sort of evidence of an offence having been committed especially when tools are involved like speed lasers... Any position of power needs accountability. You & I are also allowed to bring cases against people too & are afforded the exact same abilities (under law) but I guarantee if you walked into a court room & accuse someone of something with nothing more than "oh yea man he did it, see I wrote it on a piece of paper" it'll be thrown out unless the defendant admits it.



FWIW, I've been in the job for 27 years, and I've witnessed very, very few dodgy ones.

Some seriously incompetent, some plain lazy, but not many really dodgy ones.

Really? Chch has had a few Rob Gilchrist, Ron Greatorex, Gordon Meyer, Trevor Hinkley to name a couple oh & of-course the many "Officer A's" that appear from time to time (seems to be a popular name dodgy cops)


Ever wondered why this road has its speed limit dropped top 90KPH?
Because People kept crashing on it all the time. Been on a Safer Journeys workshop today and the
Engineers wanted to drop it to 80 KPH like Dome Valley up north, but it did not happen.

We had 1 of those roads, was 100km/h with no real issues but a couple people managed to crash (at well under that) so they made it 80km/h & people managed to crash (again well under that) so they made it 60km/h & people have stopped crashing continued to crash but now the slowest drivers on the roads are "speeders"

[FJRider]

irregardless, steve, of your position on the english language and its abuses, your knowledge of pop culture is shit.

The word you search (in vain) for is irrelevant ... which in context ... your post is .... :rolleyes:

[TheDemonLord]

Sure the example I give is in the extreme but for it to be completely objective it mustn't be prone to human error or operatator bias.
The only way to make it completely objective is to remove the human.

It was an arguement made from false equivalence and you know it.



Sure the laser could be linked to a DB and have a camera mounted reasonably easily but then we might as well save the money by taking the humans out all together and invest in more camera vans.
The result would be the same, eventually.

A key policing philosophy should in my humble opinion be to use their discretion to attain the best probability of a reduction in offending.

I have no problem with there being a Human element - however the Word of the Human MUST be backed up by objective proof.

I do agree that office Discretion is vital - and that at times it is in the public interest for a blind eye to be turned - having evidence to backup a claim doesn't invalidate this as a possibility - it just means that when a positive claim is made, the same level of proof is required as for any other crime



P.S. Your sworn testimony is evidence also, however you have more to gain by misrepresenting the truth than a police officer in the specific case of a speeding ticket (as opposed to a case of covering their own arse)

Cool - so in that case, if I present sworn testimony, the officer presents sworn testimony And no other evidence what so ever - then the ticket will be dismissed as the evidence is not sufficient for proove the positive claim - because I suspect that doesn't happen and this is the crux of the issue.

[TheDemonLord]

FWIW, I've been in the job for 27 years, and I've witnessed very, very few dodgy ones.

Some seriously incompetent, some plain lazy, but not many really dodgy ones.

Do you know what the difference between Incompetent and dodgy is?

Intent.

And that is it - a Dodgy cop will pull you out of malice, an incompetent one will pull you out of stupidity. All I am saying is that let them present the same level of evidence that would be expected in any other crime when writing a ticket.

[Katman]

FWIW, I've been in the job for 27 years, and I've witnessed very, very few dodgy ones.

Some seriously incompetent, some plain lazy, but not many really dodgy ones.

You've probably been looking in the wrong places.

[BMWST?]

Thanks for posting something actually helpful and not calling me a cunt. Have you actually gone to court to contest a ticket?

Are you sure there is no record of the radar readings?

For the record I probably was going over the limit but cant be sure as my eyes tend to be focussed on whats ahead and around me not what my speedo is reading. If I was speeding then it was not excessive and was safe and appropriate for the conditions.

For those that claim I should just accept it and pay up ill leave for you to do. If the officer claims i was doing a certain speed fine ill pay up as soon as i see some evidence confirming my crime aside from his word. Until then im innocent until proven guilty. Thats why all infringement notices say "alleged infringement".

i havent read every post of this thread but i have been to court to argue against a speeding ticket at about 6 am xmas eve morning on the way to work.I was going 60 k in a 50.There was not anuy other car in sight,it was fine.it was light,my bike has a warant ,i was not drunk,it was a short area of undeveloped urban area(so NO side traffic) but i got a ticket,the magitrate accepeted that my arguments were fair,but were no excuse....he asked me if i knew i was "speeding" i said yes ,bang,fine

[Akzle]

.he asked me if i knew i was "speeding" i said yes ,bang,fine

dumbass.

deny deny deny.

[yevjenko]

And you were making sense up til the end there. CAB are generally not legally trained. So if he wants free legal advice then he wants a Community Law Centre not CAB. Reading your 'you will get no clarity here' makes sense in context of the sentence :bleh:
Sometimes they are. Quite a few lawyers volunteer at cab's, including my ex

[FJRider]

I dont need to claim i am innocent because no evidence has been produced that i am guilty of an offence. This is not a religious state we are not born sinners

An accusation usually requires/expects ... an admission of (or denial) of guilt. Neither have you given.

[FJRider]

dumbass.

deny deny deny.

No .. just no admission of wrongdoing.

ADMIT nothing. (to the cop)

[The Prez]

It's a funny thing that when a police man appears in court on a charge that he demands proof beyond reasonable doubt from the prosecutor. They are not prepared to simply accept the word of a prosecuting policeman as the truth. Seems to be one rule for you and one for them.

[Katman]

I was once issued with the dodgiest speeding ticket you could ever imagine.

Then the cop proceeded to lie under oath in court.

There are some out there who will do and say whatever it takes to make a charge stick.

[rastuscat]

I was once issued with the dodgiest speeding ticket you could ever imagine.

Then the cop proceeded to lie under oath in court.

There are some out there who will do and say whatever it takes to make a charge stick.

It's entirely possible that you are entirely correct. I ain't arguing that.

But it's more likely that, right or wrong, the ticket writer believed that you were doing what he wrote the ticket out for. As such, it's not a lie, as he believes it to be true.

Being wrong and lying are two different things.

[Katman]

It's entirely possible that you are entirely correct. I ain't arguing that.

Dude, I'm sure you have the ability to research the IPCA record of Constable Colin Randle Mower.

[Katman]

But it's more likely that, right or wrong, the ticket writer believed that you were doing what he wrote the ticket out for. As such, it's not a lie, as he believes it to be true.

Do some research.

You'll be appalled at the level of his lying.

[rastuscat]

Do some research.

You'll be appalled at the level of his lying.

I left the job a year ago. No longer do I care.

[chainsaw]

Nearly all defended traffic infringements are heard by Justices of the Peace. It will be a cold day in Hell when JP's say "We believe the evidence of the defendant over the evidence of Police". My education in this regard arose from an alleged failure to stop at a stop sign. There was another dude who drove from Chch to Nelson to defend his infringement which was imposed in exactly the same circumstances as mine. That afternoon, the only guy who walked away without a penalty was a bloke who actually caused damage by driving through a roundabout in the wet, losing control and crashing through a fence! There is no justice, just us.

[caseye]

Nearly all defended traffic infringements are heard by Justices of the Peace. It will be a cold day in Hell when JP's say "We believe the evidence of the defendant over the evidence of Police". My education in this regard arose from an alleged failure to stop at a stop sign. There was another dude who drove from Chch to Nelson to defend his infringement which was imposed in exactly the same circumstances as mine. That afternoon, the only guy who walked away without a penalty was a bloke who actually caused damage by driving through a roundabout in the wet, losing control and crashing through a fence! There is no justice, just us.

Wow, now that's a statement I can relate to. I first heard it in September 1979, you didn't reside in the Hutt for about 3 months way back then by any chance?

[rastuscat]

Nearly all defended traffic infringements are heard by Justices of the Peace. It will be a cold day in Hell when JP's say "We believe the evidence of the defendant over the evidence of Police". My education in this regard arose from an alleged failure to stop at a stop sign. There was another dude who drove from Chch to Nelson to defend his infringement which was imposed in exactly the same circumstances as mine. That afternoon, the only guy who walked away without a penalty was a bloke who actually caused damage by driving through a roundabout in the wet, losing control and crashing through a fence! There is no justice, just us.

I've lost fixtures for tickets I've written where the driver has turned up in court and lied their face off.

Other cops have too.

Just sayin.

[russd7]

I've lost fixtures for tickets I've written where the driver has turned up in court and lied their face off.

Other cops have too.

Just sayin.

this is KB, now we know you are just tryin to save face :lol::lol: