Speeding ticket and demerit points
Discussion
It sucked having to leave, blame that on the wife! You Kiwi`s were always so friendly. But it was a great experience, one that me on the Venom won`t forget in a hurry( Venom has it,s own scrap book of its adventures in N.Z) THE HIGHS......Laurence 1/4 mile, THE LOWS......N.Z Cops and stone chippings!
I think the Venom gave more passenger rides in 18 months than in the previous 5 years of ownership! Say high to Jason & Sam (green/white fastback Mustang)for me if you see them. GOOD ON YA MATE!
I think the Venom gave more passenger rides in 18 months than in the previous 5 years of ownership! Say high to Jason & Sam (green/white fastback Mustang)for me if you see them. GOOD ON YA MATE! Just arrived from uk too-Got pulled my the cops. Only gripe was he did me for 130 in an overtake lane-I figured he'd give me a lecture and vowed to have a go myself but in fairness he wrote me the ticket and said "I wont lecture you, he car is capable of a lot more, take it easy".
First tickt in 6 years...small price to pay for 20 yrs dehind the wheel.
BTW mate cops aren't pigs-u blew your argument by sounding like a moron. You got caught-deal with it. It was 18 over the limit-dont give a 5hit where u were.
First tickt in 6 years...small price to pay for 20 yrs dehind the wheel.
BTW mate cops aren't pigs-u blew your argument by sounding like a moron. You got caught-deal with it. It was 18 over the limit-dont give a 5hit where u were.
Hi Burwoodman, how much was your fine?
My partner got done in the same way when the car we were overtaking sped up from 70kph to 110, so she went up to 130 to get by. There was no reason to argue or deny it. $230 fine, he said we should write the cheque out to Ms Clark!
He also pulled over the other car, I hope it was to ask why it was doing 110kph while being overtaken.
Dan
My partner got done in the same way when the car we were overtaking sped up from 70kph to 110, so she went up to 130 to get by. There was no reason to argue or deny it. $230 fine, he said we should write the cheque out to Ms Clark!
He also pulled over the other car, I hope it was to ask why it was doing 110kph while being overtaken.
Dan
lol, yeah I got nabbed on day 1 for speeding up by warkworth, was on my UK licence (which as someone's already said, you can be on for a year) & nothing came of it.
For amuzement, I was driving a yellow Evo 8 & it was a silver unmarked holden who did a big smokey 'u-ey' in the middle of the road to turn around. Lucky I had the radar in the car or they'd have handed my my b@lls! In the end it was just 20 points & a $180 buck fine.
For amuzement, I was driving a yellow Evo 8 & it was a silver unmarked holden who did a big smokey 'u-ey' in the middle of the road to turn around. Lucky I had the radar in the car or they'd have handed my my b@lls! In the end it was just 20 points & a $180 buck fine.
It really pisses me off when they set up speed cameras or lay in wait on overtaking lanes. It is blatant money making. If I overtake, I want to do it as quickly as possible and as safely as possible and if that means putting my boot down for the duration and slowing down again, so be it. We've all experienced the type of knob who drives at 85kph for km after km and then speeds-up when an overtaking lane appears! They should be nicked for driving too slowly in my opinion. Dawdlers cause as many accidents as people driving over the limit, if not more!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
jamieheasman said:
It really pisses me off when they set up speed cameras or lay in wait on overtaking lanes. It is blatant money making. If I overtake, I want to do it as quickly as possible and as safely as possible and if that means putting my boot down for the duration and slowing down again, so be it. We've all experienced the type of knob who drives at 85kph for km after km and then speeds-up when an overtaking lane appears! They should be nicked for driving too slowly in my opinion. Dawdlers cause as many accidents as people driving over the limit, if not more!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I also find the second in the queue also adds to the frustration.
Travels too close to the car in front doing 85 kph then pulls out at the start of the passing lane doing 87½ kph and takes the entire passing lane to get an overlap.
If you see a "Passing Lane 400m ahead" sign, drop back a bit, shift down a couple of cogs, and time your run at the numpty ahead. Then pull left as soon as you can to let the next guy through.
Owing to some recent developments in defending around 20 tickets for various people, I am now even more determined to legally disrupt the system as much as possible. A couple of years ago I caught the city council lying to the court - as a direct result of which I am in the High Court early April when the shit may hit the fan. I'm chasing a costs order against the council and when the judge sees the forged paperwork and fake sworn statements........it could get interesting.
Anyway the latest lies to emanate from the Police Infringement Bureau are letters to defendants saying they were just out of time with a request for a hearing, so the courts will now chase you for the fine. The big problem is that the letters were posted well within the dates specified. In one of the letters written to me it refers to a letter I wrote dated the 28th of the month, but it was actually dated and posted the 23rd. Other people have had very similar letters basically saying, sorry just too late, when I know they weren't.
So, I've devised a stragety which will really get them annoyed - all legal without telling any lies - (best leave that to the police and the city council). With any parking ticket or camera ticket that arrives through the post the authorities aren't concerned who actually pays it, only saying the registered owner will have to pay if no one else does. However they have only six months to get the matter into court, which they will try and avoid as it costs too much.
Always wait for the Reminder Notice (it's a legal requirement), and write back just before this is due for payment "Without a copy of the photograph (or original ticket for parking) to identify the person responsible the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". They will think you are trying to identify the driver when in actual fact you are simply deciding who should be responsible for paying the ticket. You will be given more time to pay.
For a camera ticket the next letter would be (again just before the due date) "Without further information to identify the person responsible and the alleged offence the allegation is denied and a hearing requested".........and the next reply "without all the information to identify the person responsible and the alleged offence the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". Hopefully at this point the alleged offence will be four months old, name someone (or a company) who you would like to pay the ticket (best to make it someone you are on very good terms with!). A notice and a reminder notice has to be sent out - if the final due date is under six months from the alleged offence start with "without a copy of the photograph etc etc". As soon as six month is up write back "the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". If they try and take you to court the shit really will hit the fan as it is illegal.
For parking tickets the next reply (at the very last minute) will be to name someone else. Again this can be anyone you want, you are NOT saying they parked the car just that you are making them responsible for paying the ticket. A reminder notice has to be sent, and the person so named starts with "without a copy of the original ticket etc etc", and eventually they in turn can nominate someone else to pay the infringement fee. This method works very well if a company gets involved at some point as there will usually be a few people who could be named very easily. Again as soon as the alleged offence is six months old whoever is named can deny the offence and a request a hearing as it can't take place.
No one can be charged with perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice as you never say someone else committed the offence, only that they are responsible for paying - and the police have told me they aren't concerned who pays the money. If the council annoy me any more I may name one of them, that could be serious fun.
Summing up, always reply by the due date (just), and don't tell lies. If anyone is lucky enough to actually get the authorities into court (all the ones I've been involved with have been dropped just before the hearing date, five so far), I have various strageties planned - just let me know. For anyone in Christchurch I can help at the hearing itself.
Anyway the latest lies to emanate from the Police Infringement Bureau are letters to defendants saying they were just out of time with a request for a hearing, so the courts will now chase you for the fine. The big problem is that the letters were posted well within the dates specified. In one of the letters written to me it refers to a letter I wrote dated the 28th of the month, but it was actually dated and posted the 23rd. Other people have had very similar letters basically saying, sorry just too late, when I know they weren't.
So, I've devised a stragety which will really get them annoyed - all legal without telling any lies - (best leave that to the police and the city council). With any parking ticket or camera ticket that arrives through the post the authorities aren't concerned who actually pays it, only saying the registered owner will have to pay if no one else does. However they have only six months to get the matter into court, which they will try and avoid as it costs too much.
Always wait for the Reminder Notice (it's a legal requirement), and write back just before this is due for payment "Without a copy of the photograph (or original ticket for parking) to identify the person responsible the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". They will think you are trying to identify the driver when in actual fact you are simply deciding who should be responsible for paying the ticket. You will be given more time to pay.
For a camera ticket the next letter would be (again just before the due date) "Without further information to identify the person responsible and the alleged offence the allegation is denied and a hearing requested".........and the next reply "without all the information to identify the person responsible and the alleged offence the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". Hopefully at this point the alleged offence will be four months old, name someone (or a company) who you would like to pay the ticket (best to make it someone you are on very good terms with!). A notice and a reminder notice has to be sent out - if the final due date is under six months from the alleged offence start with "without a copy of the photograph etc etc". As soon as six month is up write back "the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". If they try and take you to court the shit really will hit the fan as it is illegal.
For parking tickets the next reply (at the very last minute) will be to name someone else. Again this can be anyone you want, you are NOT saying they parked the car just that you are making them responsible for paying the ticket. A reminder notice has to be sent, and the person so named starts with "without a copy of the original ticket etc etc", and eventually they in turn can nominate someone else to pay the infringement fee. This method works very well if a company gets involved at some point as there will usually be a few people who could be named very easily. Again as soon as the alleged offence is six months old whoever is named can deny the offence and a request a hearing as it can't take place.
No one can be charged with perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice as you never say someone else committed the offence, only that they are responsible for paying - and the police have told me they aren't concerned who pays the money. If the council annoy me any more I may name one of them, that could be serious fun.
Summing up, always reply by the due date (just), and don't tell lies. If anyone is lucky enough to actually get the authorities into court (all the ones I've been involved with have been dropped just before the hearing date, five so far), I have various strageties planned - just let me know. For anyone in Christchurch I can help at the hearing itself.
Edited by jaybkay on Sunday 18th March 02:16
jaybkay said:
Owing to some recent developments in defending around 20 tickets for various people, I am now even more determined to legally disrupt the system as much as possible. A couple of years ago I caught the city council lying to the court - as a direct result of which I am in the High Court early April when the shit may hit the fan. I'm chasing a costs order against the council and when the judge sees the forged paperwork and fake sworn statements........it could get interesting.
Anyway the latest lies to emanate from the Police Infringement Bureau are letters to defendants saying they were just out of time with a request for a hearing, so the courts will now chase you for the fine. The big problem is that the letters were posted well within the dates specified. In one of the letters written to me it refers to a letter I wrote dated the 28th of the month, but it was actually dated and posted the 23rd. Other people have had very similar letters basically saying, sorry just too late, when I know they weren't.
So, I've devised a stragety which will really get them annoyed - all legal without telling any lies - (best leave that to the police and the city council). With any parking ticket or camera ticket that arrives through the post the authorities aren't concerned who actually pays it, only saying the registered owner will have to pay if no one else does. However they have only six months to get the matter into court, which they will try and avoid as it costs too much.
Always wait for the Reminder Notice (it's a legal requirement), and write back just before this is due for payment "Without a copy of the photograph (or original ticket for parking) to identify the person responsible the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". They will think you are trying to identify the driver when in actual fact you are simply deciding who should be responsible for paying the ticket. You will be given more time to pay.
For a camera ticket the next letter would be (again just before the due date) "Without further information to identify the person responsible and the alleged offence the allegation is denied and a hearing requested".........and the next reply "without all the information to identify the person responsible and the alleged offence the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". Hopefully at this point the alleged offence will be four months old, name someone (or a company) who you would like to pay the ticket (best to make it someone you are on very good terms with!). A notice and a reminder notice has to be sent out - if the final due date is under six months from the alleged offence start with "without a copy of the photograph etc etc". As soon as six month is up write back "the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". If they try and take you to court the shit really will hit the fan as it is illegal.
For parking tickets the next reply (at the very last minute) will be to name someone else. Again this can be anyone you want, you are NOT saying they parked the car just that you are making them responsible for paying the ticket. A reminder notice has to be sent, and the person so named starts with "without a copy of the original ticket etc etc", and eventually they in turn can nominate someone else to pay the infringement fee. This method works very well if a company gets involved at some point as there will usually be a few people who could be named very easily. Again as soon as the alleged offence is six months old whoever is named can deny the offence and a request a hearing as it can't take place.
No one can be charged with perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice as you never say someone else committed the offence, only that they are responsible for paying - and the police have told me they aren't concerned who pays the money. If the council annoy me any more I may name one of them, that could be serious fun.
Summing up, always reply by the due date (just), and don't tell lies. If anyone is lucky enough to actually get the authorities into court (all the ones I've been involved with have been dropped just before the hearing date, five so far), I have various strageties planned - just let me know. For anyone in Christchurch I can help at the hearing itself.
Anyway the latest lies to emanate from the Police Infringement Bureau are letters to defendants saying they were just out of time with a request for a hearing, so the courts will now chase you for the fine. The big problem is that the letters were posted well within the dates specified. In one of the letters written to me it refers to a letter I wrote dated the 28th of the month, but it was actually dated and posted the 23rd. Other people have had very similar letters basically saying, sorry just too late, when I know they weren't.
So, I've devised a stragety which will really get them annoyed - all legal without telling any lies - (best leave that to the police and the city council). With any parking ticket or camera ticket that arrives through the post the authorities aren't concerned who actually pays it, only saying the registered owner will have to pay if no one else does. However they have only six months to get the matter into court, which they will try and avoid as it costs too much.
Always wait for the Reminder Notice (it's a legal requirement), and write back just before this is due for payment "Without a copy of the photograph (or original ticket for parking) to identify the person responsible the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". They will think you are trying to identify the driver when in actual fact you are simply deciding who should be responsible for paying the ticket. You will be given more time to pay.
For a camera ticket the next letter would be (again just before the due date) "Without further information to identify the person responsible and the alleged offence the allegation is denied and a hearing requested".........and the next reply "without all the information to identify the person responsible and the alleged offence the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". Hopefully at this point the alleged offence will be four months old, name someone (or a company) who you would like to pay the ticket (best to make it someone you are on very good terms with!). A notice and a reminder notice has to be sent out - if the final due date is under six months from the alleged offence start with "without a copy of the photograph etc etc". As soon as six month is up write back "the allegation is denied and a hearing requested". If they try and take you to court the shit really will hit the fan as it is illegal.
For parking tickets the next reply (at the very last minute) will be to name someone else. Again this can be anyone you want, you are NOT saying they parked the car just that you are making them responsible for paying the ticket. A reminder notice has to be sent, and the person so named starts with "without a copy of the original ticket etc etc", and eventually they in turn can nominate someone else to pay the infringement fee. This method works very well if a company gets involved at some point as there will usually be a few people who could be named very easily. Again as soon as the alleged offence is six months old whoever is named can deny the offence and a request a hearing as it can't take place.
No one can be charged with perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice as you never say someone else committed the offence, only that they are responsible for paying - and the police have told me they aren't concerned who pays the money. If the council annoy me any more I may name one of them, that could be serious fun.
Summing up, always reply by the due date (just), and don't tell lies. If anyone is lucky enough to actually get the authorities into court (all the ones I've been involved with have been dropped just before the hearing date, five so far), I have various strageties planned - just let me know. For anyone in Christchurch I can help at the hearing itself.
Edited by jaybkay on Sunday 18th March 02:16
"No one can be charged with perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice as you never say someone else committed the offence, only that they are responsible for paying . . ."
Wouldn't this be evidence of attempting to pervert the course of justice
Richard Gee said:
In a month or 2 I'll have a clean licence again
GravelBen said:
Richard Gee said:
In a month or 2 I'll have a clean licence again
So you won't need to be creative on any employment applications when you graduate
My family had another brush with Auckland's fine constabulary this weekend:
This time, my wife, 5 months pregnant, 2 year old in the child seat, got stopped doing 104kph on the Northern (very quiet at the time) motorway.
Cop gives her a ticket (which she accepts gracefully) then upon seeing her UK drivers licence (she's a Kiwi but lived with me in London for 10 years so had changed her NZ licence to a UK one) takes great pleasure in telling her he can get her a $400 fine for driving on a foriegn licence and ran back to his car to confirm. She'd pointed out that she had already checked with the AA and that they had told her she had one year from arrival in NZ (November 06) to change back to an NZ licence.
Anyway, the cop gets back to the car, tail between his legs, no apology but tells her that "she's lucky - this time". Tough guy!!!
Anyway - does anyone here think it's worth mentioning this episode when paying the fine?
This time, my wife, 5 months pregnant, 2 year old in the child seat, got stopped doing 104kph on the Northern (very quiet at the time) motorway.
Cop gives her a ticket (which she accepts gracefully) then upon seeing her UK drivers licence (she's a Kiwi but lived with me in London for 10 years so had changed her NZ licence to a UK one) takes great pleasure in telling her he can get her a $400 fine for driving on a foriegn licence and ran back to his car to confirm. She'd pointed out that she had already checked with the AA and that they had told her she had one year from arrival in NZ (November 06) to change back to an NZ licence.
Anyway, the cop gets back to the car, tail between his legs, no apology but tells her that "she's lucky - this time". Tough guy!!!
Anyway - does anyone here think it's worth mentioning this episode when paying the fine?
Ewan Oozarmy said:
. . . Anyway - does anyone here think it's worth mentioning this episode when paying the fine?
Not when 'paying the fine'. What would a fines clerk do?
A separate complaint would but the only option . . . but to what end?
They could always argue (in line with the TV adverts) that she was "lucky this time" by not killing her unborn child and 2 year old by speeding.
Yes it's a annoying but pursuing it will achieve nothing but more stress.
Kiwi XTR2 said:
Ewan Oozarmy said:
. . . Anyway - does anyone here think it's worth mentioning this episode when paying the fine?
Not when 'paying the fine'. What would a fines clerk do?
A separate complaint would but the only option . . . but to what end?
They could always argue (in line with the TV adverts) that she was "lucky this time" by not killing her unborn child and 2 year old by speeding.
Yes it's a annoying but pursuing it will achieve nothing but more stress.
Sorry, I actually meant a letter of some variety discussing the police officer's un-necessary attitude - she'd already admitted speeding at 4kph over the limit - it was more to complain about his keeness to try and fine her for driving on an incorrect licence, which she actually wasn't.
This worries me that there are more and more stories of people being ticketed for doing speeds not in excess of 10km/h over the limit.... There's a REASON that buffer is there and it's because of the tloerance stack-up between theirs and your speed-measuring equipment.... many studies have shown that you can quite easily be done for 105-107km/h or so even when you're in a modern car travelling (what you think) is quite legally....
Revenue gathering and nothing more, I guess we should just see it as another tax.
Revenue gathering and nothing more, I guess we should just see it as another tax.
Gassing Station | New Zealand | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff