Ask Ponch

[whatever]

I believe Harley has a special arrangement with ADR(or who ever regulates bike design) because Harley to ADR to court and argue that noise is part of their safety design and won the case.

[ducatijb]

  whatever said:

I believe Harley has a special arrangement with ADR(or who ever regulates bike design) because Harley to ADR to court and argue that noise is part of their safety design and won the case.

What a load of sh!t,that would mean anybody or everybody would be taking EPA/ADR to court over the same matter although I partially agree that loud pipes save lives At least the preoccuppied driver can hear you coming

[plonky]

  ducatijb said:

Dear Ponch

On Wednesday I was once again pulled over to have the pipe checked on my bike(legal and ADR stamped)while heading up the Old PacifIc Hwy with a few friends While I am mainly well behaved around Mr Plod I started getting the sh!ts with this young copper who was a total smartar$e

While everything on the bike was being checked over a group of Harleys came barrelling along,shot gun pipes blaring .When I asked Mr plod why I was being harrassed and not the Harleys he told me to shut up or I would be booked as he had me for being 12 k's over the limit

Why is it that Harley's can be deemed legal with straight thru pipes and not even a hint of baffles

Probably because you were by yourself and there were more Harleys and riders than they would care to stop.

A lot of new Police these days (consider that more than 80% of NSW Police have LESS than 3 years service) become very intimidated by groups of aggressive people such as the Middle eastern loonies in South West Sydney, the Pacific Islanders in Western Sydney and 'bikie' style Harley riders.

The pipes that are used on Harley's are definitely illegal. I should know I bought a new Roadking in '97. They are super quiet with the standard pipes. I put the factory Screaming Eagle pipes on it to make it sound better. It did, but what I didn;t realise that most aftermarket pipes are stamped "For off road use only"

Oh well, it wasn;t as loud as 'bikie' Harley's.

The reason why he got on his high horse when you asked him about the Harleys was :

a, He was dealing with you at the time

b, he didn;t like being reminded that he was too scared to pull over a Harley

c, you reminded him of the fact that he was too scared to pull over a bunch of Harleys.

BTW did you get a ticket? Probably not.

[plonky]

  XR8Chic said:

OK... I might add a few more details to my questions.

Hypothetically speaking... a person pulls up next to an unmarked cop car at a set of lights.

The lights change, and the 2 cars accelerate. 302m past the set of lights the cop car turns on there siren and pulls the other car over.

The persons car was on the left front of the cop car during the 302 m of travel. (rear drivers door would have been equal with the front guard of the unmarked cop car)

The coppers statement clearly says that they used the radar on the persons car to get them at 30km/h above the legal limit.

(however, the coppers statement also lists the wrong car colour, the wrong lanes in which the cars were in, and the wrong direction of travel)

The 300m rule still should apply in this instance shouldnt it?? Because by my calculations its impossible for the car to exceed the speed limit and travel 300m in the distance that the police followed the car for.

(P.S It did get thrown out of court anyways due to the persons exceptional driving record for 10 years)

My understanding from the scenario given is that during the 300m of speed checking, the Police car was basically alongside you all the way.

This is not a radar ticket.

I radar ticket is where the Police vehicle is travelling TOWARDS the target or is STATIONARY and the target is approaching/receding.

This is called a checked speed by way of certified speedometer.

If the Police vehicle was travelling alongside during that 300 metres and neither gaining or losing distance then the operator car read off the checked speedometer exaclty how fast you were going OR can given an estimated speed that you were travelling between a particulalr speed but not doing more than another particular speed e.g. ( more than 60 but no more than 70)

The only rule that you are talking about with radar is that during the check there should be no vehicle within 200 metres behind the vehicle that you are checking.

The 300 metres you mention is the minimum distance for a checked speed (3/10ths of a km)

However, if there is a car within 200 metres behind a vehicle being checked, or the checked speed doesn't go for 3/10ths of a kilometre, then a speeding ticket CAN STILL be issued on the officers estimation and the evidence of the radar or the checked speedometer corroborates the officers estimation.

I can stand on the side of the road and issue a speeding ticket based on my estimation of the target vehicle. However, I have to rely on a lot of things to support that estimation such as the number of vehicles the target vehicle overtook, the sound of the vehicle, the time it took to get from one point to another etc

In regards to your statement that the matter was dismissed, are you sure? It may be the case where the matter was dealt with by way of Section 10 where the magistrate finds a conviction that isn't recorded and no fine imposed. This would be more likely if you had a 10 year conviction free traffic history.

[ducatijb]

Your right he looked like he just got out of school and no I didn't get booked,but its the 3rd time over the last 12 months or so I've been pulled over for so called loud pipes

This guy was actually pulling over all bikes that came along,just not Harleys I guess

[hambo_12]

A question for you Plonky.

A couple of years ago I was on my P's and I got pulled over by a highway patrol down a side street. He did the usual (drivers license, breath test), then asked me to pop the bonnet and he proceeded to give the WHOLE car one huge look over, trying to find anything that he could defect me on. He found nothing as the ute was pretty neat, so he complained about my tyres. And they were only 40 - 50 % worn!! I told him that's rediculous, so he went back to his car and talked to his mate. He then came over and booked me for not having my P plates displaying properly! They were there, but he said a part of the red P was being covered! Mind you this was about a 5 cm square covered! I wrote away to someone (I forget now), and they wrote back saying they "trusted" the police officers judgement. Surely this is a bit sus, he just wanted to book me for something, he couldnt let me go free....

What is your opinion and what would have you done??

[curious]

there is good and bad in every profession.

Ducati I dont know what NSW is like but here in QLD we do not have a certified noise measurement device except for Brisbane hoon squad

It would be tough convincing a magistrate without some supportive Db measurement indicator. As with Harleys I send them to get a roadworthy which means fitting the baffles, the day after they are ripped out.

As for riding in colours pull em over and wash their jackets, that will burr them up.

[plonky]

  hambo_12 said:

A question for you Plonky.

A couple of years ago I was on my P's and I got pulled over by a highway patrol down a side street. He did the usual (drivers license, breath test), then asked me to pop the bonnet and he proceeded to give the WHOLE car one huge look over, trying to find anything that he could defect me on. He found nothing as the ute was pretty neat, so he complained about my tyres. And they were only 40 - 50 % worn!! I told him that's rediculous, so he went back to his car and talked to his mate. He then came over and booked me for not having my P plates displaying properly! They were there, but he said a part of the red P was being covered! Mind you this was about a 5 cm square covered! I wrote away to someone (I forget now), and they wrote back saying they "trusted" the police officers judgement. Surely this is a bit sus, he just wanted to book me for something, he couldnt let me go free....

What is your opinion and what would have you done??

I'm afraid that I issue Not Display P Plates if the plate does not display the letter P.

However I issue this judiciously. However I do examine cars quite thoroughly to look for defects.

Examine your memory back to the incident. Were you being cheeky, doing something that you shouldn't be doing or driving around with a car load of mates being a bit of a hoon.

The condition of a license if quite explicit:

The Plates MUST be displayed at the front and rear of the vehicle

Of a type and designed approved of by the Authority

and must display the letter P.

I probably may be criticised for this but..........

[Falchoon]

  hambo_12 said:

What is your opinion and what would have you done??

Not questioned the cop's judgement! Sounds like he thought you were a smart so he found something to book you for. EVen if the cop is being rediculous yo've got to just grin and bear it, yes sir, three bags full sir.

[hambo_12]

I was not being a hoon. I was with a mate but we were only lapping. And if anything, we would have only been going 40 (lappin pace). I have / will never be a smart ass to a cop, Im not stupid. The only thing that really p!ssed me off was that, when he finished checking my car, he went back to his mate, and I could see them pointing and shaking and nodding their heads. I have nothing but respect for poice officers, without them, the world would not function. But when cops on a power trip cant let you go wihtout a ticket, Even if you have done nothing wrong, I start to doubt my trust in them...

I still have respect for other police officers, its just that I have lost all respect for this one police officer. I tmight just sound like I ws in the wrong, but I believe that I was picked on, so to speak, and that police officer wasnt going to let me go without giving me a ticket...

Edited 12/12/03 02:40 AM by hambo_12