“Revenue-Gathering” news (ie....news “about” revenue-gathering)

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Doubling of speed tickets defended

By HAYDEN DONNELL - The New Zealand Herald | 10:51AM - Thursday, September 15, 2011


The number of speeding tickets which have been issued in the past year
has almost doubled. — Photo: Sam Ackland.

THE NUMBER of speeding tickets handed out last year was nearly double the amount issued the previous year, police figures reveal.

Police gave out 627,948 tickets for speeding infringements in 2010, compared to 329,838 in 2009.

The 2010 figure was more than 200,000 above the four year average for tickets issued.

In the first four months of this year, the country's 55 cameras had captured 200,671 incidents of speeding.

National road policing manger Superintendent Paula Rose defended the rise in tickets issued and dismissed claims tickets are a form of revenue gathering.

She told Radio New Zealand changes including the reduction in police tolerance for speeding during holiday periods had made an impact.

"The previous year we'd introduced digital speed cameras so last year was the first full year of the new cameras in operation. We've also introduced better targeting to make sure where we are allocating our resources are really our areas of risk and where we have people speeding."

She said many tickets do not even cover the administrative costs of issuing the fines.

"We're not interested in revenue, we're interested in safety."

AA road safety spokesman Mike Noon said the figures showed the need to paint fixed speed cameras brightly and signpost the areas where they were operating.

He said making sure drivers knew about speed cameras would ensure they reduced their speed in high risk areas and reduce public perception fines were simply "revenue gathering".

"Issuing a ticket doesn't alter the fact that someone was speeding and therefore it was unsafe."

"The more tickets issued the more the system is failing. The best speed camera is one that doesn't issue any tickets."

Many of those being caught speeding in areas where high numbers of tickets were issued were average drivers, Mr Noon said.

"Where you've got a high number of tickets being issued I don't believe every driver is willfully speeding."

"You can give drivers a warning."

A recently released survey by Britain's Department for Transport showed speed cameras did not always reduce accident rates.

Data showed collisions actually increased at a number of locations after the introduction of cameras.

In one area, the number of accidents went up at 17 of its 89 speed camera sites.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10751934

[nitpicker1]

Dincha know that 100kmph is the maximum speed ya allowed to do?

'spose that means even when yr OVERTAKING someone doing 70 !

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Back in 2006 I was driving from Luggate to Mount Cook Village following the end of the Warbirds Over Wanaka airshow on Easter Sunday.

Somewhere up in the Mackenzie Country (north of Omarama) I got stuck behind a huge long line of campervans (road-maggots) who were crawling around curves at rediculously slow speeds, then speeding up on straights. After some time, we ended up on a long straight with nothing coming the other way, but the line of campervans literally was HUGE. However, I determined that I could get past the lot of them, so I put the boot down and went hard. By the time I got to the head of the train of road-maggots, I was up around 170km/h, but I got past them a couple of hundred metres before the end of the straight. As soon as I pulled in front of the leading campervan (road-maggot), I started braking to slow the car down, but as I rounded the curve at the end of the straight (with the speed dropping down through about 140km/h) I discovered a cop car parked on the other side of the road. Bugger....busted.....there was nothing I could do, so I didn't panic brake — the cop would have known from his radar how fast I had been going as I rocketed past the front of the convoy of campervans, although it would have been obvious to the cop I was slowing down. I was expecting to get pulled over, but as I passed the cop car, the cop (who had sergeant's stripes on) merely extended his arm out the window and waved it up and down, indicating to me to keep slowing down to the speed limit. I kept an eye in the rear vision mirror, but he didn't move. So I presume he had possibly hit his ticket quota for the month, or maybe he just felt sorry for me being stuck behind that huge long line of road-maggots and let it go after noticing I was slowing down again. Who knows?

Anyway, I took it quietly until I got onto SH80, then I put the boot down and charged up the Tasman Valley to Mount Cook Village.

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Title: Police  blitz on drivers using cellphones

10:20am - 25th October 2011

New Zealand Police will be running a ten-day blitz on drivers using cellphones while driving, timed to coincide with the two year anniversary of the introduction of legislation banning mobile phone use while driving.

Superintendent Paula Rose, National Manager Road Policing says that the campaign is timed to remind drivers of the need to remain vigilant and not to slip back into the old habit of talking or texting on cellphones while in their cars.

The latest Police figures show that the majority of drivers have changed their behaviour but more 15,000 offence notices have been issued nationwide over the last two years.

"Overall we are very satisfied that the majority of drivers have changed their behavior to comply with the law and reduce their risk on the road. But we have still issued many more infringement notices than we would like," she said.

In the first few months following the introduction of the new legislation Police focused on reminding drivers about the new legislation, and providing the opportunity for drivers to educate themselves about the risk involved.

Although the rules allow the use of hands-free mobile phones, Police recommended that drivers minimise the potential for distraction by switching phones off while driving, or pulling over to make or receive calls. It is only legal to use a mobile phone to make, receive or end a call when driving if:

• the driver does not have to hold or manipulate the phone to do so (i.e. phone is completely voice activated), or

• the mobile phone is securely mounted to the vehicle and the driver manipulates the phone infrequently and briefly.

The rule does not allow drivers to create, send, or read text messages under any circumstances.

"We are now two years down the track, we don't see any excuses for people still failing to comply with this legislation," said Superintendent Rose.

We will be taking a very firm approach and Police will be out nationwide doing their best to impress on drivers how serious we are about this issue.

Recent research by The Road Safety Trust which has monitored reported use of mobile phones while driving since September 2009, saw a drop from 34% to 16%.

This result is very pleasing but we could still do better and to those drivers still using hand held cell phones, Police urge you to stop - you are posing a road safety risk to yourself and others," she said.

Police will also be checking to ensure all vehicle occupants are wearing safety belts.

"These are two very simple things we can all do to make our journeys safer," she said.

We want every journey to be a safer journey for every road user."

ENDS

For further information contact:

Lesley Wallis -Communications Manager - Road Policing 04 4707111 or 0272209752

Please view the full news release online at:

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/29807.html


Title: Leave the phone alone

11:24am - 25th October 2011

Would drivers be so keen to use their mobile phone if they had to call a family to tell them a loved one had been killed in a road crash?

That's the question being asked of drivers in Central District during a two week operation to remind people that using a mobile phone whilst driving is both dangerous and illegal.

November 1 will mark two years since the introduction of legislation banning the use of mobile phones for texting and talking by motorists on the move.

The law change has modified a lot of behaviour, but more than 7,000 offence notices have been issued nationwide and there is a risk that people return to old habits after the initial publicity around new legislation dies down. In Central District 327 drivers have been fined $80 and received 20 demerit points.

The law does allow for hands-free mobile phones but the recommendation is for drivers to remove temptation and the potential for distraction completely by switching phones off while driving.

It is only legal to make a call whilst driving if:

• the driver does not have to hold or manipulate the phone to do so (i.e. phone is completely voice activated), or

• the mobile phone is securely mounted to the vehicle and the driver manipulates the phone infrequently and briefly

"Contacting a family to tell them that someone they love has been involved in a serious crash or killed by a distracted driver is a call that no police officer wants to make," said Central District's Road Policing Manager, Acting Inspector Jeanette Park. "Our message to drivers is simple - when you reach for your phone, think of the calls police officers have to make. Your call won't have the same urgency but it could cause the same heartbreak. Wait until you are safe and stationary."

The national operation runs from 25 October until 6 November and police staff will also be focusing on the use of restraints in vehicles.

"Seatbelts save lives and unrestrained children and pets moving around in the vehicle are a distraction which can be as potentially lethal as the use of a mobile phone. We just want to remind people that driving is not something to be treated lightly," said Acting Inspector Jeanette Park.

Media enquiries should be referred to Communications Manager Kim Perks on 027 234 8256.

Please view the full news release online at:

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/29806.html

[nitpicker1]

Seems to me it's about time earphone-and-cellphone-using pedestrians were rounded up and made to contribute to the revenue too.

I have had it up to the ears with having to pay particular attention and give way to plugged in twits with glazed eyes on roads and on crowded footpaths.

[Ferney]

I used to answer my cellphone when I was driving.  Haven't done it once since if became a driving offence. 

What I did do last month was go through a red light !  I had dropped grandson off at school on my way to work and was the first car waiting at the school lights.   There is always a staff member at each side of the crossing and they walk into the centre while the kids are walking over.  One of the teachers that I know waved to me after the kids had all crossed and when she had walked back to the footpath.   I started off without looking up at the lights and wondered why a police car was behind me with lights flashing.
The lights hadn't actually turned green !       I'll never make that mistake of taking my eyes of the lights again.  Not so much because of the $150 fine but because grandson and his friends saw it and what if a kid had run across late. 

[nitpicker1]

oops, Fernery  

Not so much because of the $150 fine but because grandson and his friends saw  
which could almost be worse than sitting through a green light while wondering what the heck all the cars behind are blasting their horns at


I need call redirect when away from base. I have a dinky wee thingy, Blueant V1 bluetooth headset, with one earphone and
voice control, it asks me if I want to answer or ignore the number that's calling.

It doesn't answer texts, they stay in the phone until I park up, (but the newest model reads your texts and emails to ya, you reply and it
prints the words you speak then sends off to the caller).

A few days ago I had a passenger who didn't realise what was happening when I said "answer" -  thought I was speaking to him. I almost had to take both hands off the wheel and use silent sign language to explain that I was answering someone on the phone.

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Seems to me it's about time earphone-and-cellphone-using pedestrians were rounded up and made to contribute to the revenue too.

I have had it up to the ears with having to pay particular attention and give way to plugged in twits with glazed eyes on roads and on crowded footpaths.

On Thursday morning, I was driving a passenger train from Masterton to Wellington. Nearing Carterton, I had just closed the throttle and made an initial brake application to stop at Carterton while approaching Andersons Line, which is a narrow dead-end road serving a handful of lifestyle blocks. The level crossing (which is protected by STOP signs) has poor visibility due to the landowners on either side of the crossing having huge hedges and several large trees on their properties right up to the boundary of the rail corridor. As I approached the level crossing at about 90km/h, I gave a long blast on the locomotive horn, then just as the train was about to rocket over the crossing, a woman out for a run, wearing headphones and texting on her phone while running, ran right across the tracks immediately in front of the locomotive without looking in either direction. She made it across (not by much) and didn't even turn her head, or stop texting. I doubt if she was even aware she was within about half-a-second of being mowed down by a train travelling at speed. If she had been cleaned up, the news media would no doubt have blown it up into a sensational news story, blaming the “dangerous” level crossing instead of idiot behaviour from the woman concerned isolating herself from her surroundings with loud music and texting while failing to look around her.

[nitpicker1]

Going Viral, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
Guy Rips Into KRON’s Stanley Roberts: ‘Why don’t they have you filming what’s going on in Oakland?’
By Andrew Gauthier on November 4, 2011 5:02 AM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIOILNg95JI&feature=player_embedded

KRON’s Stanley Roberts is used to shaming people on-camera for his popular “People Behaving Badly” series, but the tables were turned recently when Roberts began filming a loquacious young man who had been pulled over for driving alone in the carpool lane (video above).

“Why don’t they have you down there filming what’s going on in Oakland?” the guy asked Roberts, dismissing him with a hand wave. “They got your fat, lazy, non-relevant, non-factor ass out here filming highway patrol shit. That tells you how much you’re worth at your job.” Ouch.

And, with an Elmo t-shirt and a few finger wags, the video has now officially gone viral.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the new Antoine Dodson,” Gawker declared.

For his part, Roberts has been riding the video’s sudden popularity online. When buzz blogs started picking it up this week, he posted links on his Twitter and Facebook accounts.

“WOW I made it on http://FailBlog.org,” Roberts tweeted on Wednesday. “How cool is that!”

Here’s what KRON aired of the encounter…


http://thedailywh.at/2011/11/03/badly-behaving-person-of-the-day/

[Via The Daily What]


http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/guy-rips-into-krons-stanley-roberts-why-dont-they-have-you-filming-whats-going-on-in-oakland_b27979

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

From the Los Angeles Times....

Driver cited for wearing Google Glass may be first in California

By TONY PERRY | 4:47PM PDT - Thursday, October 30, 2013


A Temecula woman was ticketed by the California Highway Patrol for wearing a Google Glass computer headset while driving.
 — Photo: Peter DaSilva/Los Angeles Times.

SAN DIEGO — With every technological advance, society must answer certain questions.

One of those questions may have been answered Tuesday night on a busy freeway in San Diego County.

Yes, you can get a ticket for driving while wearing the new eyewear-like Google Glass wearable computer, which is now being tested nationwide for possible entry into the consumer market.

Cecilia Abadie, 44, who lives in Temecula and works at a golf store in San Diego, got just such a ticket Tuesday night after being stopped for speeding by a California Highway Patrol officer.

Quickly, Abadie posted a note on the Internet: "A cop just stopped me and gave me a ticket for wearing Google Glass while driving! ... Is Google Glass illegal while driving or is this cop wrong?? Any legal advice is appreciated."

The CHP on Wednesday said that the ticket was issued as a violation of California Vehicle Code 27602 that makes it illegal to "drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle."

While there is no official count, CHP officials in San Diego and at the agency's headquarters in Sacramento said they believe the ticket to Abadie may be the first issued for wearing Google Glass.

Google, in a statement, noted that its product is meant to help the wearer be in contact with the world and not to make them be distracted from something important like driving.

CHP spokesman Jake Sanchez, in the San Diego office, said that while there has not been a specific directive to patrol officers about Google Glass, discouraging distracted driving is a priority.

"Anything that takes your attention away from driving — putting on makeup, eating food, talking to a passenger, watching a video, talking on the phone — is dangerous," Sanchez said.

Individual officers have leeway in issuing a ticket for distracted driving, in this case in addition to a speeding violation, Sanchez said.

"It's every officer's own judgment on whether the law has been violated," he said.

Abadie's post garnered more than 200 comments, including many urging her to fight the ticket in court.

"Please please please, fight this in court. We need to get a ruling on this," said one commenter.

Abadie said if she fights the ticket, the result might hinge on whether the judge is a techie.

"It's all in how a judge will interpret it and I suspect their love or hate and understanding of the technology might help or the opposite," she wrote.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-google-glass-driver-20131030,0,27651.story

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

From the Los Angeles Times....

Driver not guilty of traffic violation for wearing Google Glass

By TONY PERRY | 4:07PM PST - Thursday, January 16, 2014


Cecilia Abadie wears her Google Glass as she talks with her attorney outside of traffic court. The traffic commissioner dismissed
a ticket issued her for wearing the glass while driving. — Photo: Lenny Ignelzi/Associated Press.

SAN DIEGO — A Temecula woman was found not guilty in traffic court Thursday of a charge of distracted driving for wearing Google Glass.

San Diego Traffic Commissioner John Blair found that wearing the computer-in-eyewear could be covered as distracted driving by the traffic code, but that police must prove that the eyewear was on.

Cecilia Abadie, 44, is believed to be the first driver in the nation to have received such a ticket. Google Glass is not yet on the market. Abadie is among those selected nationwide to test the product.

She was stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer on October 29th while driving north on Interstate 15 in northern San Diego County.

The officer issued the ticket as a violation of Vehicle Code 27602 that makes it a violation to drive a vehicle "if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen" is visible.

Abadie testified that the Google Glass was turned off.

Blair also dismissed a speeding ticket for lack of evidence. Abadie had been driving 80 mph in a 65-mph zone, according to the ticket.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-google-glass-20140116,0,4807156.story

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Dominion Post....

Lawyer gets speed camera ticket thrown out

By TOM HUNT | 6:00AM - Thursday, 21 August 2014


SUCCESSFUL PLEA (left): Barrister and solicitor Chris Ellis got off a speed camera ticket on legal
technicalities.  — ROBERT KITCHIN / Fairfax NZ. | THROWN OUT (right): The top photo is an
enlargement of the speed camera photo below. The top photo was ruled in court as inadmisable
because it had been manipulated and the the number plate could not be read in the original photo.

A PORIRUA LAWYER may have set a legal precedent with far-reaching consequences after getting a $35 speeding ticket thrown out by a court.

In front of justices of the peace at Porirua District Court yesterday, barrister and solicitor Chris Ellis successfully argued his way out of the  ticket, while never getting into a debate as to whether he was in fact speeding on State Highway 1 through Plimmerton, north of Wellington.

His submission was based on technicalities, including a claim that police manipulated evidence because they zoomed in on a photo of his number plate to read it.

He argued that the law required “an image” to show sufficient evidence of an offence. Neither of the two images provided by police showed enough evidence individually.

Ellis said his was a genuine complaint.

“A device goes off on the side of the road, and the next thing that happens is that a document is being offered to a judge by someone who has no idea how it was produced.”

“And if the judge accepts it as evidence, the burden of proof is instantly reversed.”

Ellis saw this as the thin edge of a problem that would grow as electronic surveillance widened “and we have legal provisions that treat digital images as gospel”.

Yesterday's case also rested on the precedent of a similar case he fought and won in 2012. He has challenged about 15 of his own tickets in the past 20 years, and usually offered to pay the equivalent of his fine to charity. About half his challenges were thrown out.

An experienced Wellington lawyer who regularly deals with traffic issues said yesterday's ruling was one against which police were likely to appeal “because of its potential for far-reaching consequences” for “significant” numbers of people in a similar situation.

Police were asked yesterday whether they planned to appeal, and how often they zoomed in on camera images.  A spokesperson said: “Police are currently considering the decision and have nothing to add at this stage.”

Auckland barrister Anton Heyns, also an experienced traffic lawyer, said the case would be unlikely to create a precedent, as it was in front of justices of the peace, who did not tend to set precedents.

A Ministry of Transport spokeswoman said district courts did not set a binding precedent on other district court cases. “They may, however, be persuasive.”

It did not see any immediate need to consider a law change.

Automobile Association motoring affairs general manager Mike Noon said it appeared Ellis was in fact speeding and he had not disputed that.

But the case raised a legal loophole that might need to be closed through legislation. “They [the laws] need to be doing the job they should be doing.”

Most motorists would simply acknowledge they were speeding and pay the ticket rather than taking it to court, he said.

He did not know how often police needed to zoom in to check number plates.

HOW HE DID IT

Speed camera in Plimmerton, north of Wellington, captures an image and prints speed, location, date and time on a “data strip”. But it does not show Ellis's number plate. When he asks police for proof, they provide a zoomed-in image, but without the data strip.

Ellis argues the chain of evidence is suspect: the speed camera has a fixed focal length so existence of the zoom-in proves the original image had been “digitally manipulated by persons who are not here in court”.

He mounts a challenge based on the Land Transport Act, which requires that “an image” be produced showing the vehicle on the road, its location, colour, and other details. He points out that the original image showed most of these things but did not identify the car, while the second image showed a number plate but offered no proof that an offence was being committed.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

• Speed cameras are issued to a vehicle owner. If you are not the driver, you can request the ticket is transferred to the driver.

• People can request from police a free copy of the speed camera ticket.

• If stopped by police using a radar gun, drivers can ask to see the reading. This will usually be offered, and refused only if there is a danger in doing so.

• Any ticket can be disputed to the Police Infringement Bureau.

• Any ticket can be challenged in court.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10405333/Lawyer-gets-speed-camera-ticket-thrown-out


Related thread:

• “Revenue Gathering” News

[guest49]

A PORIRUA LAWYER may have set a legal precedent with far-reaching consequences

 Crap.
Even another magistrates court isn't bound by this inane decision, let alone a higher court.  [All other courts are higher]

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

   (click on the picture to read the news story)

[nitpicker1]

   (click on the picture to read the news story)

  Gotta luvvit, especially this bit   
Lower drink-drive limits for drivers 20 years old and over will also take effect from December 1.

[Crusader]

FFS - I guess that means on gusty days when I have a tail wind I'll be getting a ticket. Get up to about 55Km/hr on my bike. However in saying that, I don't think the Police have a strenuous enough fitness test to have an average cop stop me though 

[hdrider]

Don't stress folks get this off face book and download the app to ya phone and let it roll.Never gone through a checkpoint in  2 years and im out everynight haha

https://www.facebook.com/policepointer

[hdrider]

not sure if this is 100 per cent but heres one mans opinion








Checkpoint Watch NZ

10 hrs ·

.

A re post from one of our members.

With regards to the recent on again/off again Police speeding
 rules.

I just had to repost this.

Take it for what it's worth.
 My name is Stan. I am a retired Sergeant
 of the Police force for 14 years. I was also a police prosecutor at times, so I
 know what I am
 talking about. I spent half my life in Magistrates
 Court during my time
 in the Force. I was only ever a very fair copper,
 and I am proud of my
 time in the job, looking after the interests of
 citizens, often to the
 detriment of my family and my health.
 I never booked any driver for a trifling offence
“ever”. People
 committing trifling offences commonly used to get a
 warning and a
 licence / vehicle check. It had to be serious
 before I booked anyone.
 I am so annoyed at what is happening these days, in
 what I call
“Indiscriminate revenue gathering” It is absolutely
 disgusting. The
 government and the Police Force need to hang their
 heads in shame. If
 you did a survey of current serving members of the
 police forces in this
 country, you would be hard pushed to find many who
 disagree with me.
 I know how the legal system works, and I know how to beat the
 system.

This is how to do it, and if about 10% of all drivers booked follow my

specific instructions, then the entire system will crash and become

unworkable to the extent, that the government will have no choice but to

stop issuing fines for every type of traffic offence. The whole lot of

them. Seriously.

I do not feel guilty about coming out with this information, as I

think it’s about time someone stood up for hard working, civil minded,

law abiding taxpayers in this country, who are being screwed.

This is very simple and very basic. The idea is to clog up the system

in the traffic camera office and the courts by drivers exercising their

rights to remain innocent until proven guilty.
 SIMPLE BASIC LEGAL STEPS TO FOLLOW…………….
1. Do not accept the alleged offence. There are numerous valid
 reasons

to dispute every single alleged offence. Often the charges are incorrect

or the evidence is illegally or incorrectly gathered.

2. Challenge it, tell them that you are going to defend the matter.

Make them earn their miserable $150 or $200 or whatever. They have to

prepare evidence and witnesses. Just the wages for the camera operator

or the Policeman on the day of the court, will be more than the actual

fine. You are also taking a camera operator or a member of the Police

Force off the street for the day. But it won’t get to that point…..read

on….

3. If a court date is ever set, and it does not suit you, do not accept it, ask
 for a delay to a time and place that suits you.

4. When they re set the date, delay it as often as possible. keep

pleading not guilty all through the process. You have every right to be

sick, or go for an adjournment if the day does not suit for any

legitimate reason. For example you may have pressing family or work

commitments which prevent you from attending a particular court on a

particular day.
 5. If it ever actually gets to court, (which is unlikely if
 everyone

does this) and if you are unwell that day, ring the court in the morning

and tell them that you cannot make it as you are sick. The camera

operator, and a police prosecutor will already be at court, and will be

greatly inconvenienced, by having to come back another day. The whole

time this is going on, the amount of paperwork involved at the traffic

camera office is huge. Several staff are involved, and it rapidly

becomes very costly, probably running into thousands. …..with me so

far…..keep reading…….

6. The court system is then placed under such a massive load by

people who wanted “their day in court” that it simply will not be able

to cope unless they open up about another 50 magistrates courts, and

this is obviously going to cost the government a lot more than any

revenue raised. If all the above fails, which is highly unlikely….and

you actually go to court and get convicted……you have a right of appeal.

Make sure you appeal the conviction. You don’t need to be a rocket

scientist to see what happens. They are not going to spend millions

chasing hundreds.

7 Tell everyone you know to challenge their alleged offenses, and the entire
 system will crash within a few weeks.

8. Please pass this on. AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE INNOCENT

UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY AND THAT THERE IS A VERY HIGH PROBABILITY THAT THE EVIDENCE
 USED AGAINST YOU IS WRONG. YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CHALLENGE

 ANY ALLEGED OFFENSE. THIS IS WHY COURTS EXIST…SO USE THEM……A LOT.

[Crusader]

Don't stress folks get this off face book and download the app to ya phone and let it roll.Never gone through a checkpoint in  2 years and im out everynight haha

https://www.facebook.com/policepointer

That seems to be just an Auckland Policepointer. Not much use to me here in Blenheim.

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Dominion Post....

Wellington gets new speed camera on SH2

By ALEX FENSOME | 2:55PM - Tuesday, 23 December 2014


SNAPPED: The new camera, operational from today, between Horokiwi and Petone.
 — ROSS GIBLIN/Fairfax NZ.

SPEEDING DRIVERS on State Highway 2 out of Wellington need to watch out. They're going to be caught.

The new police speed camera between Horokiwi and Petone went “live” today and has begun to check the traffic.

It was installed in October as part of am upgrade of the speed cameras nationally.

Acting Wellington District road policing manager Senior Sergeant Ian Martin said the camera would help cool speeds on a busy piece of road.

It should encourage drivers to slow down and obey the speed limit before reaching the tight curve close to the Petone exit.

“There are also a high number of cycle commuters sharing the road at this point,” he said.

The new camera joins another at the Thorndon on-ramp which went operational in November.

Across the country, 56 new digital cameras, capable of monitoring six lanes of traffic at a time, are being installed.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/64422031/Wellington-gets-new-speed-camera-on-SH2

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Billy-boy English is too incompetent to run a government surplus (in spite of claiming every year since 2008 that “next budget” will show a surplus).

So to compensate for the Nats' gross incompetency in running the country's financial affairs, they are using these new speed cameras to fleece unsuspecting motorists and line the government's coffers with revenue-gathering on our highways.

Thanks Nats tossers for being such wankers.

[reality]

Good to see NZ businesses being efficient and getting rid of excess labour