TX REDNECK (R.I.P.) Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/900.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeBenGuzzi Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 stupid kiwis that sounds like a blatent overuse of power by some cop but maybe the business man is a prick and deserved it. who knows? I'd fault both sides of the equation until I knew more and not drive in NZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Nah, that is blatant abuse of power. Of course if he fished it doing a burnout in a busy school crossing zone...but I think that would have made the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antonio carroccio Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 That’s a weird country N.Z. I heard they do not have wild animals in there, except birds and some parasites or insects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helicopterjim R.I.P. Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 That’s a weird country N.Z. I heard they do not have wild animals in there, except birds and some parasites or insects. 74503[/snapback] .... and a few wild helicopter pilots!! But then that wouldn't concern any of you. I'll go away now....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O2 V11 Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/63.html This may help to understand what happened. The vehicle was impounded for 28 days, after which he could pay the fees and have the car returned. The so called "boy racer" and impoundment legislation is an attempt to keep wankers and their vehicles off our roads, making it safer for us. Another part of this is, if we are caught speeding in excess of 50kmh over the posted speed limit, you lose your licence immediately for three months. What this guy did, must have been quite a wheelie, not just a small skid off the line. At the same time what a tosser he was, in saying he thought this law was just for the kids and not for him. The only reason this made the news would have been the fact he was driving an upmarket Merc and not some piece of crap. Vehicle noise is becoming a major issue here in NZ, a huge number of young people have fitted out their cars with unacceptably loud big bore exhausts and "boom box" stereos. While they are not as loud as the straight pipe brigade, they are much, much more annoying. For city dwellers like myself, the sooner we get much tougher on the issue the better. Don't get me wrong on this one, I enjoy a nice exhaust note but not the noise that is put out by most of these cars. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 It seems like a good work-around to the law would be to register my vehicle under someone elses name. This topic is making me paranoid <_ ...i think i go put my stock mufflers back on src="%7B___base_url___%7D/uploads/emoticons/default_sad.png" alt=":("> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Barrett Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 It's not just NZ here in UK (England and Wales - Scotland has separate legislation) Section 59, Police Reform Act Under section 59, police constables in uniform, that have reason to believe, that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner that causes or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public, under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Careless and inconsiderate driving), or Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Driving on land other than a road), have the power to do the following: - Powers - The Power to seize and remove the Motor Vehicle - Power, if the Motor Vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle - Power to enter a premises to gain access to Motor Vehicle, on reasonable grounds that the Motor Vehicle is believed to have been involved in any of the following behaviour (in a manner that causes alarm, distress or annoyance) Where necessary, reasonable force may be exercised in the use of these Powers. Conditions for seizure A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle unless a first warning has been issued, unless a constable has proof that use of Motor Vehicle has continued or been repeated after the warning has been issued. There is no requirement to issue a warning where: - The circumstances make it impractical for him to give the warning - The constable has already given a warning for the use of that Motor Vehicle or any other, by that person or any other - The constable has reason to believe that a warning has been given by someone else - The constable has reason to believe that the person using the motor vehicle, is a person who has already received a warning under the same subsection (in respect of the same vehicle or the same or similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous 12 months The bit that concerns me is "The reason to believe" and there is no appeal or necessity for proceedings to be taken under either Section 3 or 34 RTA and a conviction to be obtained. Especially so that the power is devolved to PCSOs (Police Community Support Officers). I'm not sure that the power is always used proportionately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchbob Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 It was ever thus. It sounds as though it happened to the right bloke in New Zealand, though, from what I can make out. Fat cats with AMG Mercs can look after themselves, and if they can't, more fools they! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nogbad Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Sorry, I know these oiks are annoying, but I can't agree with summary powers like these. We are just throwing away our traditional freedoms protected by due process of law on the flimsiest excuses. We will live to regret it. It is a lot easier to cede your freedom than to gain it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex-Corsa Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/63.html[/url]This may help to understand what happened. The vehicle was impounded for 28 days, after which he could pay the fees and have the car returned. The so called "boy racer" and impoundment legislation is an attempt to keep wankers and their vehicles off our roads, making it safer for us. Another part of this is, if we are caught speeding in excess of 50kmh over the posted speed limit, you lose your licence immediately for three months. Yep that's correct in this way, these Schumacher wannabees is better to get banned, tghey are dangerous to public health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX REDNECK (R.I.P.) Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 The "Boy Racer Act" took effect in 2003 giving police officers discretionary power to seize on-the-spot any vehicle they claim had a sustained loss of traction -- without trial, warrant or due process. Police will now be on the lookout for this Mercedes because they will able to keep the high-performance Benz permanently upon a second conviction.. If the.guy was being a jerk , I can understand that he needs to be spanked. The part that bothered me was, no due process. This just seems too heavy handed I mean they wait 45 mins to decide to come take his car I wonder how much he'll have to pay for storage fees for 28 days ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchbob Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Nogbad, in principle I agree, of course, but what's the betting this guy had wound everyone up on countless previous occasions and that the police were watching for him? Just better a prat like that than a motorcyclist. Whatever he has to pay for storage fees I'll bet he can afford it. I hope he's well inconvienced. Sorry, my poor, former public servant with a lousy pension chip weighing the old shoulder down again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest golden goose Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Aftermarket pipes are pretty much the norm in California. And not strictly legal. The CHP uses this tool regularly on the backroads near SF and LA as probable cause to stop you, and, at their discretion, write you a "fix a ticket". Last I heard, that will cost you $75 off the top, a return to your stock pipes, a trip to the vetter, and a sign off. Multiple offenders have had their bikes impounded. Not common, but possible. Best advice is to go with aftermarket pipes that are not too flashy, removing aftermarket stickers and/or badges. The more they look like stock, and the sooner you shut down your bike after being pulled over, the better chance you have of skating. Every now and then, I have run the Angeles Crest on a weekend when the CHP is having a crackdown. Usually after a few squids have splattered. The ti Mistrals look stock, are quite loud, and when I have been stopped (harassed) they have never been noticed. I've been checked for turn signals and earplugs (though not after Jan 05 when the law changed), but the pipes didn't seem to get any attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grossohc Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Aftermarket pipes are pretty much the norm in California. And not strictly legal. The CHP uses this tool regularly on the backroads near SF and LA as probable cause to stop you, and, at their discretion, write you a "fix a ticket". Last I heard, that will cost you $75 off the top, a return to your stock pipes, a trip to the vetter, and a sign off. Multiple offenders have had their bikes impounded. Not common, but possible. Best advice is to go with aftermarket pipes that are not too flashy, removing aftermarket stickers and/or badges. The more they look like stock, and the sooner you shut down your bike after being pulled over, the better chance you have of skating. Every now and then, I have run the Angeles Crest on a weekend when the CHP is having a crackdown. Usually after a few squids have splattered. The ti Mistrals look stock, are quite loud, and when I have been stopped (harassed) they have never been noticed. I've been checked for turn signals and earplugs (though not after Jan 05 when the law changed), but the pipes didn't seem to get any attention. 74541[/snapback] What is it compulsory to wear earplugs!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now