| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 103511 | 2009-09-26 06:46:00 | Just in case anyone was wondering... | johcar (6283) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 814079 | 2009-09-30 02:06:00 | here's the road code: www.landtransport.govt.nz You can be fined if you drive any vehicle that is not up to WoF standard on a road. A police officer can require you to stop for a roadside vehicle check at any time. There is nothing in the road code that says everytime you drive a car you have to check that it's up to WOF standard. It justs says if it's not you wil be fined. I don't think it would be a crime to unknowingly drive a car that is not up to WOF standard and crash into a pedestrian. Why? Because there is nothing in the road code that says every driver has to know how to maintain their vehicle up to WOF standard and because not everyone knows how to, and if they did, i'm sure all mechanics would be out of a job. The law defines legal breath and blood alcohol limits for drivers. You don't have to know how to check your breath or blood for its alcohol level, but it is still illegal to drive when your breath or blood alcohol levels are above the limit. Saying "I don't know how to check" is not a valid excuse. Likewise, it is illegal to drive an unroadworthy vehicle, which is why the police can pull you over for a roadside check and fine you if necessary. Although the law doesn't say explicitly "you must check your car for x, y, z before you drive", it is still your responsibility to ensure it is roadworthy regardless of when the WOF expires. Likewise it is your responsibility to ensure you are not over the drink driving limits before getting behind the wheel - the law doesn't tell you to carry a breathalyser with you and self-administer a breath test each time you want to drive. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 814080 | 2009-09-30 02:27:00 | The law defines legal breath and blood alcohol limits for drivers. You don't have to know how to check your breath or blood for its alcohol level, but it is still illegal to drive when your breath or blood alcohol levels are above the limit. Saying "I don't know how to check" is not a valid excuse. Likewise, it is illegal to drive an unroadworthy vehicle, which is why the police can pull you over for a roadside check and fine you if necessary. Although the law doesn't say explicitly "you must check your car for x, y, z before you drive", it is still your responsibility to ensure it is roadworthy regardless of when the WOF expires. Likewise it is your responsibility to ensure you are not over the drink driving limits before getting behind the wheel - the law doesn't tell you to carry a breathalyser with you and self-administer a breath test each time you want to drive. Well said somebody! As I said before, lance4k, please report back after you test that theory of yours - just don't test it on a smaller vehicle than your own. Get back to us when you've paid the fine (or are out of jail). No wonder we have so much carnage on the road if ignorant points of view like this are espoused as gospel. |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 814081 | 2009-09-30 03:03:00 | And to make another point the Rode Code is not the law as such. It is a general guide as to what the law is without all the fine print. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 814082 | 2009-09-30 08:51:00 | i think the minimum age for criminal responsibility in new zealand is 14, so if a 10 year old boy drives a car while over the alcohol limit the boy could say " i didn't know i was over the limit ", and the police won't be able to fine or arrest him because he's too young. Also if a person threatened someone with a knife to get drunk and drive a car that is not up to WOF standard, and the driver got pulled over by the cops, i'm sure the cops will arrest the person that threatened the driver and let the driver off a drink driving charge and driving an unsafe vehicle charge, just like if a man stole a women's clothing in public and the women was walking around naked showing her private parts which would be illegal, i'm sure the cops would let the women off because her clothing was stolen. So there are Valid excuses for driving a vehicle not up to WOF standard and there are Valid excuses for being over the alcohol limit. sure it may be illegal to unknowingly drive a car not up to warrant of fitness standard, but what we're talking about here is that if a car has a current warrant and the brakes fail because the pads were worn, and the car hit some cyclists, would the driver of the car be charged with dangerous driving causing injury? The law defines legal breath and blood alcohol limits for drivers. You don't have to know how to check your breath or blood for its alcohol level, but it is still illegal to drive when your breath or blood alcohol levels are above the limit. Saying "I don't know how to check" is not a valid excuse. Likewise, it is illegal to drive an unroadworthy vehicle, which is why the police can pull you over for a roadside check and fine you if necessary. Although the law doesn't say explicitly "you must check your car for x, y, z before you drive", it is still your responsibility to ensure it is roadworthy regardless of when the WOF expires. Likewise it is your responsibility to ensure you are not over the drink driving limits before getting behind the wheel - the law doesn't tell you to carry a breathalyser with you and self-administer a breath test each time you want to drive. |
lance4k (4644) | ||
| 814083 | 2009-09-30 09:05:00 | Dude go back to youtube, your views would fit perfectly with the comments on each video...meaning UNWANTED | hueybot3000 (3646) | ||
| 814084 | 2009-09-30 09:07:00 | Agree with Paul Holmes. Get em off the road | Phil B (648) | ||
| 814085 | 2009-09-30 09:42:00 | i think the minimum age for criminal responsibility in new zealand is 14, so if a 10 year old boy drives a car while over the alcohol limit the boy could say " i didn't know i was over the limit ", and the police won't be able to fine or arrest him because he's too young. Also if a person threatened someone with a knife to get drunk and drive a car that is not up to WOF standard, and the driver got pulled over by the cops, i'm sure the cops will arrest the person that threatened the driver and let the driver off a drink driving charge and driving an unsafe vehicle charge, just like if a man stole a women's clothing in public and the women was walking around naked showing her private parts which would be illegal, i'm sure the cops would let the women off because her clothing was stolen. So there are Valid excuses for driving a vehicle not up to WOF standard and there are Valid excuses for being over the alcohol limit. sure it may be illegal to unknowingly drive a car not up to warrant of fitness standard, but what we're talking about here is that if a car has a current warrant and the brakes fail because the pads were worn, and the car hit some cyclists, would the driver of the car be charged with dangerous driving causing injury? I find your contrived scenarios described above entirely hypothetical and offensive in the context of what happened on Saturday. There is absolutely no point in debating the merits or not of these silly scenarios. IMHO, even if the car was found to have faulty brakes (ie. not up to WOF standard), the driver would still be charged with driving a vehicle that is not roadworthy, as has been discussed and agreed by other members of this forum earlier. Please remember that it is the duty of the Police to establish the offences against the letter of the Law (regardless of circumstances) and the court's job to mete out appropriate punishment, taking into account mitigating circumstances - if any. Please note that the mechanical inspection of the vehicle was only completed today. I have no information of the results of this inspection. From my conversation with the Police following the 'accident', the answer to your question is "No, she will not be charged with dangerous driving causing injury". The charge is more likely to be "Careless Driving Causing Injury" (I suspect there will be four such charges, there being four victims). Subject to forensic examination of both the car and the woman and the cyclists, the latter two being tested for alcohol via blood tests as part of the standard battery of tests carried out on all parties to a serious crash. Whether the car had a WOF or not, the woman will be charged. The seriousness of the charges will be reflected by the findings of the investigations. If my friend in CCU does not make it (and we are all hoping he recovers fully, and quickly), then I am sure the charges will be of a more serious nature - not that "Careless Driving Causing Injury" is NOT a serious offence. I myself was the victim of a 'hit and run' a couple of years ago, where the driver did a u-turn in front of me (I was doing a similar speed to my friends on Saturday) and he drove off. When he was caught, he was charged with Careless Driving Causing Injury and Failing To Stop To Ascertain Injury. He was eventually ordered by the courts to pay reparations to the tune of several thousand dollars (which he did, to his credit) and he lost his licence for six months (he was a mortgage broker for one of the banks, so this would have hurt him - although I guarantee he probably managed to score a day licence). He broke my collarbone, acromion, scapula and five ribs and destroyed a $3K bike, along with clothing that I was wearing at the time. I am self-employed and was off full-time work for three months, so his actions caused pain to people other than me - financial pain to my family, which took over twelve months to recover from. The punishment took longer to impose than it should have and, IMO, he got off bloody lightly, considering the financial loss (despite the reparations) and pain and suffering I (and my family) went through. At least he will have a couple of pretty serious offences recorded against him for the rest of his life, but I would hazard a guess that what he did to me has affected me more than it has him. |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 814086 | 2009-09-30 09:46:00 | Agree with Paul Holmes. Get em off the road Wouldn't expect any less of an idiotic comment from a Westie (and who listens to Holmes anyway)... :groan: :groan: :groan: No offence, prefect - at least you seem to be a Westie with some grey matter!!! |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 814087 | 2009-09-30 10:11:00 | Motorists have to shell out some fairly serious moolah that they expect to be a complete waste of money (all going well) for safety widgets like crumple zones, seat belts air bags, door reinforcement, safety glass, and warrant of fitness checks etc. None of these make the car go better, they are mostly just a way of making the car go a little worse and use a little more fuel. Cyclists do not have a steel box around them, the law makes them wear helmets, isn't it time cyclists took a serious look at getting a similar level of protection if they wish to play where cars are operating? Either conform with the traffic, or avoid it by staying off roads and using dedicated cycleways paid for entirely by cyclists. Ah well, maybe they will have to just take their knocks. (I am slightly biased having been run off the road by a bunch of these clowns to the detriment of two tyres, 1 wheel and the front suspension. I found it of no consolation whatsoever that they were having a nice play and getting healthy exercise.) |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 814088 | 2009-09-30 11:01:00 | I for one would be happy to pay some kind of levy (= "government-applied tax to contribute to something completely irrelevant to road-related activities") if it meant that cyclists, in whatever form, were treated with common respect and received the recognition that they are extremely vulnerable road users (i.e. humans, just like those motorists holding a steering wheel, only not in a two tonne steel box) and deserving of a wide berth - the kind of respect that a child crossing the road gets. Unfortunately, I don't think the imposition of a financial liability on cyclists will change the attitudes of the ignorant bigots that have been posting comments on the Herald website. |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | |||||