Thread: Speed Cameras

30 seconds googling 'Speed Camera Responsibilities' turned up this which is paraphrased from the Land Transport Act:


Speeding offences
Liability for moving vehicle offences

Section 133 of the LTA shows proceedings may be taken against any person who, at the
time of the offence, was:
• the person allegedly committing the offence; and/or
• the registered owner or one of the owners of the vehicle involved; or
• lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly owned or not regardless
of whether that person is an individual, or was the driver or person in charge of the
vehicle at the time.

Defences against proceedings
It is a defence to proceedings under section 133 of the LTA that at the time the offence
was committed:
• the person was not lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly
owned or not; or
• another person was driving the vehicle; and
• immediately after becoming aware of the alleged offence, the person advises the
enforcement authority in writing of these things, and
• the person gives the enforcement authority a statutory declaration:
- identifying the driver, by giving name and address or
- other particulars that may lead to identification, or
- establishing that they could not identify the driver, after taking all reasonable steps
to do so.

Fairly clear that the registered owner is liable for the ticket unless they can give the name of the driver.

Just one of the responsibilities of owning a vehicle in this country.

Suck it up princess!

Originally Posted by systolic

30 seconds googling 'Speed Camera Responsibilities' turned up this which is paraphrased from the Land Transport Act:


Speeding offences
Liability for moving vehicle offences

Section 133 of the LTA shows proceedings may be taken against any person who, at the
time of the offence, was:
• the person allegedly committing the offence; and/or
• the registered owner or one of the owners of the vehicle involved; or
• lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly owned or not regardless
of whether that person is an individual, or was the driver or person in charge of the
vehicle at the time.

Defences against proceedings
It is a defence to proceedings under section 133 of the LTA that at the time the offence
was committed:
• the person was not lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly
owned or not; or
• another person was driving the vehicle; and
• immediately after becoming aware of the alleged offence, the person advises the
enforcement authority in writing of these things, and
• the person gives the enforcement authority a statutory declaration:
- identifying the driver, by giving name and address or
- other particulars that may lead to identification, or
- establishing that they could not identify the driver, after taking all reasonable steps
to do so.

Fairly clear that the registered owner is liable for the ticket unless they can give the name of the driver.

Just one of the responsibilities of owning a vehicle in this country.

Suck it up princess!

• another person was driving the vehicle; and
• immediately after becoming aware of the alleged offence, the person advises the
enforcement authority in writing of these things, and
• the person gives the enforcement authority a statutory declaration:
- identifying the driver, by giving name and address or
- other particulars that may lead to identification, or
- establishing that they could not identify the driver, after taking all reasonable steps
to do so.

Did that That's why if you did not do it its illegal to say you did and I did not need to pay and have the erroneous infringement recorded against me , well done great research who knew!

Originally Posted by systolic

30 seconds googling 'Speed Camera Responsibilities' turned up this which is paraphrased from the Land Transport Act:

Speeding offences
Liability for moving vehicle offences

Section 133 of the LTA shows proceedings may be taken against any person who, at the
time of the offence, was:
• the person allegedly committing the offence; and/or
• the registered owner or one of the owners of the vehicle involved; or
• lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly owned or not regardless
of whether that person is an individual, or was the driver or person in charge of the
vehicle at the time.

Defences against proceedings
It is a defence to proceedings under section 133 of the LTA that at the time the offence
was committed:
• the person was not lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly
owned or not; or
• another person was driving the vehicle; and
• immediately after becoming aware of the alleged offence, the person advises the
enforcement authority in writing of these things, and
• the person gives the enforcement authority a statutory declaration:
- identifying the driver, by giving name and address or
- other particulars that may lead to identification, or
- establishing that they could not identify the driver, after taking all reasonable steps
to do so. ]

Fairly clear that the registered owner is liable for the ticket unless they can give the name of the driver or show that they could not identify the driver. ].

Just one of the responsibilities of owning a vehicle in this country.

Suck it up princess!

Fairly clear that you didn't bother reading it properly so I've made the relevant bit really obvious for you ... suck it up princess.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Fairly clear that you didn't bother reading it properly so I've made the relevant bit really obvious for you ... suck it up princess.

Obviously the authorities agree no pay

Thank you for your effort have you been practicing law long or are you still practicing, just having a laugh

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Fairly clear that you didn't bother reading it properly so I've made the relevant bit really obvious for you ... suck it up princess.

Fairly clear that it was either his partner or her daughter. It's not as if it was a fleet vehicle driven by 25 different staff members.

Originally Posted by systolic

Fairly clear that it was either his partner or her daughter. It's not as if it was a fleet vehicle driven by 25 different staff members.

So what? He doesn't know who it was, the exact number of options is irrelevant as long as its above 1.

If someone robs your house it doesn't matter if the police have 2 suspects or 25, if they can't prove who it was they can't just choose to punish one of them at random can they?

Originally Posted by GravelBen

So what? He doesn't know who it was, the exact number of options is irrelevant as long as its above 1.

If someone robs your house it doesn't matter if the police have 2 suspects or 25, if they can't prove who it was they can't just choose to punish one of them at random can they?

Well said that person (gender neutral)

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Fairly clear that you didn't bother reading it properly so I've made the relevant bit really obvious for you ... suck it up princess.

I think we have a new forum troll - even the resident troll is getting pissed off.
Fit for purpose? - Looks like @xtightg's purpose if to troll....

Originally Posted by Nickoli

I think we have a new forum troll - even the resident troll is getting pissed off.
Fit for purpose? - Looks like @xtightg's purpose if to troll....

Mmmm not sure, are you saying I am the troll and you will not fall for trolling (is that a word)

Or are you the troll and I have been trolled (is that a word)

Or are you to smart to respond to my trolling and telling others you've been trolled.

Ah is this a troll alert.

Thanks for your input I think

Originally Posted by xtightg

Mmmm not sure, are you saying I am the troll and you will not fall for trolling (is that a word)

Or are you the troll and I have been trolled (is that a word)

Or are you to smart to respond to my trolling and telling others you've been trolled.

Ah is this a troll alert.

Thanks for your input I think

Not sure if it is a case of unfamiliarity with the regular forum troll @systolic, or wilful ignorance on your part?
If you wish to continue down the philosophical, lots of rhetorical questions, "fit for purpose," wilful fuckwit path; any goodwill from forum members will quickly be eroded....and that is the friendly input...
When people talk about adding you to their "ignore" list, this generally indicates that they can't be bothered with:
a) your incessant whining
b) your persistent trolling
c) your inability to let shit go
d) your wilful ignorance
e) your blithe treatment of previous advice
f) Other
g) ALL OF THE ABOVE

If you wish to be a wanker, there are plenty of other places to whinge - maybe "Women's Day" may wish to print your story? Or Stuff.co.nz?

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Not sure if it is a case of unfamiliarity with the regular forum troll @systolic, or wilful ignorance on your part?
If you wish to continue down the philosophical, lots of rhetorical questions, "fit for purpose," wilful fuckwit path; any goodwill from forum members will quickly be eroded....and that is the friendly input...
When people talk about adding you to their "ignore" list, this generally indicates that they can't be bothered with:
a) your incessant whining
b) your persistent trolling
c) your inability to let shit go
d) your wilful ignorance
e) your blithe treatment of previous advice
f) Other
g) ALL OF THE ABOVE

If you wish to be a wanker, there are plenty of other places to whinge - maybe "Women's Day" may wish to print your story? Or Stuff.co.nz?

Okay you remind me of ANTIFA the fascist anti fascists, shut down free speach with abuse, threats, noise but no real input shouting and abusing from their perceived virtue signalling moral high ground.

The tail that wags the dog.

My gift to you.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/english-thesaurus

My mummy always said if you got nothing positive or constructive to say then say nothing.

And

Misery loves company.

Also

If someone resorts to abuse they had no argument in the first place.

And perhaps

Empty vessels make the most noise (perhaps we can use the number of posts a person makes, just kidding)

Originally Posted by xtightg

Okay you remind me of ANTIFA the fascist anti fascists, shut down free speach with abuse, threats, noise but no real input shouting and abusing from their perceived virtue signalling moral high ground.

The tail that wags the dog.

My gift to you.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/english-thesaurus

My mummy always said if you got nothing positive or constructive to say then say nothing.

And

Misery loves company.

Also

If someone resorts to abuse they had no argument in the first place.

And perhaps

Empty vessels make the most noise (perhaps we can use the number of posts a person makes, just kidding)

Fascist? Really? That was just a few home truths - are you really that thin-skinned? You probably should leave the internet alone if that is the case....
You completely missed the point: again, wilful ignorance. Please also point out how your "gift to me" changes anything pointed out?
How are you going selling your story to Woman's Day?
Why don't you start a support group? ...You could call it "Whiners Anonymous."
Nothing you pointed out in your "rebuttal" indicates that you aren't a troll.
As for nothing nice to say - a series of truths in relation to your whinging (which multiple posters have pointed out) reiterates advice you have already received: quit you bitching princess