The police and the law...

[E36ShoppingTrolley 7]

Almost had this happen to me,

Intersection -> ice -> back end slid out with a cop following me

Cop's lights go on, pulls out of intersection his ass end slides out.. lights go off

thank god cops are rwd! my mate reported his car stolen, found it, drove downthe road and got cornered in by 5 cops, handcuffed, arrested and taken down to the station before he could say his innocence.

[mark247 39]

I was only supposed to be able to get diversion once, too but having a good lawyer changed that...i know friends who have used their diversions on other things you are not supposedy able to use diversion on.

I dont think they ever give you diversion for things such as Sustained Loss of Traction or any other charges with minimum penalties the judge must give, such as minimum 6 months loss of license.

What I think they usually do ( such as in my case ) is get the charges put down to something with no minimum penalty such as "careless driving" and then they give you diversion for that. For a charge to get 'downgraded' I really think you need to get a proper lawyer. I think if you represent yourself in a situation like this you are either going to get pinged for Sustained loss of traction or get the charges dropped entirely. In my case that simply wasn't possible, but Lindin might have a case for this if he genuinely is innocent, unlike me who admited to being a muppet and just wanted to not lose my license.

[pjay 8]

Assuming of course, you are completely not guilty - carry it through to the end. In my experience, the officer either doesn't show to an appearance or it gets thrown out. One case I had to go through of driving whilst disqualified took 12 months to climax and at the final defended hearing the officer just did not show up, I was in the right from the start as I did have a licence. As many other's have said, consult a lawyer.

If you are guilty stfu and obey the law.

[l0w320 0]

they ( the police) obviosuly dont take into consideration that your car is turbo and has a lsd etc etc its most likely going to loost traction in the wet with those road conditions.. there was nothing you could do about it and if the police cant see that then there f***kwits.... i feel for you its happened to me to..

[mark247 39]

they ( the police) obviosuly dont take into consideration that your car is turbo and has a lsd etc etc its most likely going to loost traction in the wet with those road conditions.. there was nothing you could do about it and if the police cant see that then there f***kwits.... i feel for you its happened to me to..

Turbo's dont spool up on their own bro.

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2132]

Turbo's dont spool up on their own bro.

hand cranked ftw

[Linden 0]

hand cranked ftw

Couldnt have been me officer, i was outside the car spooling up my turbo by hand!

[cliffdunedin 8]

they ( the police) obviosuly dont take into consideration that your car is turbo and has a lsd etc etc its most likely going to loost traction in the wet with those road conditions.. there was nothing you could do about it and if the police cant see that then there f***kwits.... i feel for you its happened to me to..

If the boost kicked in at 1000rpm he might have a case with that

[Grant 4]

they ( the police) obviosuly dont take into consideration that your car is turbo and has a lsd etc etc its most likely going to loost traction in the wet with those road conditions.. there was nothing you could do about it and if the police cant see that then there f***kwits.... i feel for you its happened to me to..

You sound like a genius. Please feel free to contribute more, the forum really misses this level of intelligence.

[Dr. M 10]

^ He was just adding sympathies in his own way mate. Surely less flaming = good for the forum?

[E36ShoppingTrolley 7]

^ He was just adding sympathies in his own way mate. Surely less flaming = good for the forum?

agreed. freedom of speech without getting flamed will mean more people will post which equals more active message boards!

[Grant 4]

agreed. freedom of speech without getting flamed will mean more people will post which equals more active message boards!

OK maybe I was a little harsh, but it was a pretty idiotic post, and calling the police f**kwits, without knowing both side of the story makes no sense. This is an abuse of your so called "freedom of speech"

Also I'm all for less posts/ a less active forum, if it means the idiots stay under their rocks.

For the record, I think the OP seems genuine, but as I have no advice or opinion outside of what has already been posted, I choose not to post rather than post crap like the one I responded to.

[OLLIE 26]

It sounds like the police grossly exaggerated ... you seem to have a genuine case, if you have all the facts and a lawyer you should fight it and win.

[l0w320 0]

OK maybe I was a little harsh, but it was a pretty idiotic post, and calling the police f**kwits, without knowing both side of the story makes no sense. This is an abuse of your so called "freedom of speech"

Also I'm all for less posts/ a less active forum, if it means the idiots stay under their rocks.

For the record, I think the OP seems genuine, but as I have no advice or opinion outside of what has already been posted, I choose not to post rather than post crap like the one I responded to.

f*** i was just having my 2c like everyone else... maybe you should stay under your rock and not post nasty re-marks if you dont have anything positive to post...

and i was just stating that those 2 factors being turbo and having a lsd contrubute to the whole situation ovbiously not saying he did or didnt spool up...

[mark247 39]

f*** i was just having my 2c like everyone else... maybe you should stay under your rock and not post nasty re-marks if you dont have anything positive to post...

and i was just stating that those 2 factors being turbo and having a lsd contrubute to the whole situation ovbiously not saying he did or didnt spool up...

It makes no difference that its turbo or has an lsd. If that is why it slid out it just means the driver cant control his vehicle. Thats no excuse. The police have a duty to stop dangerous driving no matter if its intentional or not. By the way Lindin im not saying this is what happened, im just telling our resident expert here how it is.

[dickhead 0]

The LSD point was not actually stupid at all, although i doubt many people on this forum have experienced rwd+turbo+LSD

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2132]

last i checked rwd's were easier to control with an LSD in them....

[dickhead 0]

last i checked rwd's were easier to control with an LSD in them....

true, but they step out alot easier under acceleration when its slippery, particularly with a reasonably powerful car

[Grant 4]

true, but they step out alot easier under acceleration when its slippery, particularly with a reasonably powerful car

and therefore if the driver of such a car is unable to drive it without being able to keep it in control the whole time, regardless of weather and road conditions, then maybe they should be riding their push bike.

It is not the job of the Police to determine what kind of car it is, how powerful it is, or what kind of diff it has. That is a completely moot point. Their only job is to determine if there was a sustained loss of traction. Nothing more, nothing less. It is irrelevant if this was done in a Fiat Bambina, or a Shelby GT500KR Mustang.

Again I'm not passing judgement is this case, and think that Linden seems genuine.

[Mike 1]

and therefore if the driver of such a car is unable to drive it without being able to keep it in control the whole time, regardless of weather and road conditions, then maybe they should be riding their push bike.

It is not the job of the Police to determine what kind of car it is, how powerful it is, or what kind of diff it has. That is a completely moot point. Their only job is to determine if there was a sustained loss of traction. Nothing more, nothing less. It is irrelevant if this was done in a Fiat Bambina, or a Shelby GT500KR Mustang.

Again I'm not passing judgement is this case, and think that Linden seems genuine.

I see that being the key word here. to me loosing the rear for a second or 2 is not sustained. If anything it would be careless or reckless driving, depending on what actually happened.

[Grant 4]

I see that being the key word here. to me loosing the rear for a second or 2 is not sustained. If anything it would be careless or reckless driving, depending on what actually happened.

I agree, which is why I think Linden seems to have a leg to stand on in this case.

My point was that this is the only job of the police, and the make, model or capabilities of the car is completely irrelevant.

The arguement that "officer, my car has a turbo and an LSD so I can't help but lose traction for 5 seconds at every intersection" is just stupid.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Grant

[*Glenn* 854]

Photo's 3 & 4 also show evidence of a petroleum based product that has affected the road surface coming round the corner. Add rain to that and you've got a recipe for loosing traction/control.

Edited September 1, 2010 by *Glenn*

[*Glenn* 854]

I darkened these to show it up more

The other thing you have to consider Linden when you go to court is, you may have been a target. What you considered overreaction by the police may have been their response to complaints they may have received by members of the public from previous times you have deliberately lit it up for fun. We are all guilty of doing this at some point in time and this time, when you got caught you were possibly not a fault. It's something that you have to consider that may be produced in court by the police officer. I suggest you stick to facts and don't try using excuses in court.... just my 2c.

BTW: Don't use your car as an excuse ie: my car is turbo'd, its got an LSD.... the judge will possibly hold that against you, especially after all the problems they are having down there

Edited September 1, 2010 by *Glenn*

[CamB 48]

I agree with Glenn. You should be arguing there was a "reasonable excuse" for any loss of traction.

Beyond that you are disputing whether there was "sustained loss of traction". If the cop saw you lose traction (sustained or not) you have to argue it wasn't sustained (ie was momentary, unintentional, corrected as soon as possible, etc). This is why you might need a lawyer (eg, has there been case law on what "sustained" is).

Edited September 1, 2010 by CamB

[Linden 0]

The other thing you have to consider Linden when you go to court is, you may have been a target. What you considered overreaction by the police may have been their response to complaints they may have received by members of the public from previous times you have deliberately lit it up for fun. We are all guilty of doing this at some point in time and this time, when you got caught you were possibly not a fault. It's something that you have to consider that may be produced in court by the police officer. I suggest you stick to facts and don't try using excuses in court.... just my 2c.

BTW: Don't use your car as an excuse ie: my car is turbo'd, its got an LSD.... the judge will possibly hold that against you, especially after all the problems they are having down there

The first part about being targeted is true due to the type of car i drive (loud, low, rims) but not due to previous instances or complaints, I have only recently put on 17's and the cop wouldnt have had a chance to check my plate before pulling me over as it was around a bendy road and 2 corners before he actually got to me and i was only driving about 40kms after the corner in question (its right in by the middle of town..

Yeh im not going to use anything about my car as an excuse and didnt on the night as this would backfire tremendously in my face and dig myself a bit of a hole.

Yeh that big trail is like tar or something similar thats been spilt..

Inputs great guys keep it coming,

I agree with Glenn. You should be arguing there was a "reasonable excuse" for any loss of traction.

Beyond that you are disputing whether there was "sustained loss of traction". If the cop saw you lose traction (sustained or not) you have to argue it wasn't sustained (ie was momentary, unintentional, corrected as soon as possible, etc). This is why you might need a lawyer (eg, has there been case law on what "sustained" is).

Theres case law on this, there is no definition for sustained and it is open to interpretation.

Apparently I also crossed the white line according to the officer (I didnt), the direction the cop was located and his view of the corner at the time brings into question weather he actually saw me cross it in the first place