haha I am no lemming Biker, I had the cops try ping me on something (not the same scenario but it involved 'speed'. but not the excess of). I went to court and won. In court the cops saw their case wasn't holding water so they started making up stories. Yep, the cops WILL lie in court.
mlan24,
Nov 15, 10:24am
in court, if you making up stories and with evidences, i think it will stand. i read from http://www.southernrider.co.nz/wiki/index.php/Defending_a_minor_traffic_charge that "the prosecution MUST disclose all the evidence they intend to use at the hearing well before the due date so you have time to prepare your defence." in the disclosure, i have the following: reminder notice, infringement notice, convitction history, certificate of accuracy, temporary speed limit authorisation, traffic management plans,(has only three page, the missing page shows the 80kmh). i think i have a good chance of winning it.
kazbanz,
Nov 15, 12:55pm
Let us take a slightly different view on this. That particular bit of road due to its nature is worked on at times 24/7. Its also narrowed down to allow the work to procede. Therefore the "temporary speed reduction" the OP refers to is totallydifferent from say a grass cutting machine or even a reasealing of the road. The speed reduction on that section of road hasn't just apeared overnight its been there for about 6-9 months and is more a permenant speed reduction than temporrarryso saying --"Ohh I diddn't know" isn't a reasonable defence. You are tryng to paint a totally different picture than the reality of that location.
mlan24,
Nov 15, 1:27pm
i'm did not admit that i was driving at 97km/h human eye will see a moving object(ie a cat running across the road, worker in vest walking around) and flashing light (ie operating beacons) much easier than a fixed object(the temp speed sign). also i believe "Second rowing official falls foul of road rules" is relevent to mine, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm!c_id=4&objectid=10687208
ree6,
Nov 15, 1:30pm
Man, save your time and money for the big one, which I feel is inevitable.
kazbanz,
Nov 15, 1:41pm
You are missing the point and its exactly how the OP wants you to see matters. It is nota temp speed limitreduction same as say a bit of road resurfaceing. The entire road has been relaid and the speed limit is 70km/h on that section.There has been plenty of written notification in the local papers that this is the case as well as there being the normal sighnage makiing it clear that its a 70km/h zone. Another fact the OP wants us to forget is that the road works are behind 2.4m high walls and the reason for the 70km/h is that the nature of the road 24/7 is notsafe at faster than 70km/h. ALL THAT ASIDEeven say if its soposed to be a 80km/h zone which from spagetti junction right up and over the bridge it is and has been for a number of years. at 97km/h he's still 17km/h over the limit. Incidently Yes I know that section of the Mway very well and its pretty darnednarrow.
mlan24,
Nov 15, 1:54pm
the ticket issued on 10th May, before i went to south africa to support the all white (they did us proud) :-) i tried to deal it without going to court and wrote to the police to extend the ION due date, before i flight out, i took a few photo of the road in daylight, where there is not change to road surface. took them on the 8th Jun, this is the speed sign show in drawing number 4 http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/8863/20100608234.jpg this is the speed sign which mentioned in the note "made at time" by office, but it is not showing in any of the drawing plan. i guess i might go back to transport agancy ask for more. if they cant produced the related approval form, then it is not authorised. http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/1556/20100608235.jpg
but when i get back, there is a court fine letter in my letterbox, so i had no choice to filled out the court application.
mlan24,
Nov 15, 1:57pm
give me a good reason with evdience
kazbanz,
Nov 15, 1:58pm
how about a picture of the rest of that section of road! The tight downhill narrow bit
mlan24,
Nov 15, 2:00pm
i didnt took it.
ree6,
Nov 15, 2:41pm
Hope you're not relying on "evdience" in Court. Your attention to detail will have to be better otherwise credibility goes out the window.
easygoer,
Nov 15, 3:25pm
Are you only stating what you need to to back your claim or am I missing something here, what was the speed limit posted prior to the 70K temp sign, was it 80K or 100K, how far past the 70K sign were you still traveling at 97K
mlan24,
Nov 15, 3:47pm
you are exactly right, that was a typo. i will make sure every word that i have said will have some sort of evidence support it. ie i was out of the country with my passport showing the stamp. etc.
mlan24,
Nov 15, 3:54pm
it says in the offence details on 10/5/2010 at 23.4 at sh1 marys bay in st marys bay. but i dont believe that i was travelling at 97k
easygoer,
Nov 15, 4:21pm
I doubt you should be arguing the case on the point of the speed restriction being unlawful as suggested above, if you were in fact doing 97K then I would say you would have been ticketed for exceeding the 80K restriction and your defense would have to be to prove you were doing no more than 80 which is the posted speed, if you cant prove that then I guess you will need to pay the fine which in the long run will be the cheapest way out
yes, i currently have a demerit point of 40, the last offence was 5/3/09
easygoer,
Nov 15, 4:58pm
I don't agree that the charge should have been dismissed but stopping him from driving would have been too excessive for the crime given his position, he should have been fined however, he will be back home laughing about how he got away with that one
martinhb,
Nov 15, 5:13pm
At least your licence is safe. However yours maybe a pyrrhic victory as if you do argue successfully that your speed should be checked at the 80km/h limit, court costs and taking a day off work will more than cancel out.
mlan24,
Nov 15, 5:23pm
i have made an enquire about the court costs before i filled the application to proceedings, and the reply i got was the lost party pays it. so i am not sure why the court ordered Ryszard Stadniuk to pay it.
raymond00001,
Nov 15, 5:53pm
The document you quote expired on Expiry Date: 27/02/2009 .
Also it says "vehicles should not be targeted within 250 (two hundred and fifty) metres from the point where the speed limit changes unless there are good reasons to do so, such as protecting people operating at road works or to ensure the safety of children. (This does not apply within school zones.)"
mlan24,
Nov 15, 6:07pm
here is a pdf file which doesnt have an expiry date
There is no law stopping Fulton Hogan for example using a speed camera to monitor vehicle speeds, they are not able to issue enforcement notices with the data gathered
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.