Victory for spycar

28 Feb 2012 03:25p.m.

jan wrote:

mike is right. Also from what was written about this woman, she had previously parked illegally there and around before. Her whingy comments of being afraid of the spy car and the pictures taken could of been useful but because of her previous parking infringements, it was declared she was just of a nervous disposition. Had this case gone to court with someone else to fight it, there might of been a victory. Still broken yellow lines means NO parking. Maybe the spy car should have moving evidence rather than a still picture. The picture could of been taken when the blinker light was on the off phase of the blink. Streets in wellington are narrow or and busy the no parking lines are there for a good reason. On a side note para parks are apparantly governed by a law, but those mothers and pram ones aren't they are only courtsey parks so use them in stead of the para ones if you come across them.

27 Feb 2012 11:13p.m.

Mike wrote:

I dont even live in Wellington nigel. It wouldn't worry if they introduced a spy car locally as I dont break any parking laws so even if they had one locally - the effect to me would be Zero.

Nigel would want to ban the TV news reporters as they too can take pictures in public to record events, and call it saving Humanity as news reporting in NZ is a crime against humanity with how protestors and criminals are regularly given more rights/coverage than a spy car taking pictures of illegally parked vehicles. Police speed cameras are regularly mufti - so according to nigel they are a crime against humanity and should also be banned. Tourists also take pictures in public, so nigel would want all Tourists banned!

Get real! The car is clearly marked. Nothing is hidden. Only public spaces with illegally parked vehicles are photographed to aid any prosecution of illegal parking.

Next nigel will want the NZ police to have photographic evidence banned, as it unfairly targets criminals!

Do the Parking Crime. Pay the Fine.

What we have instead is a bunch of whingers who want their rights to break the law to be protected. Next we will have all the people parking in disabled parks picked up by the spy car wanting their right to park in the 'handicapped' spaces illegally, protected ...

The number of times I've seen illegally parked vehicles - tallking several thousand I've noticed and thought wouldn't it be nice if something was done about these law breakers? Parking infringmetns are for a reason, to aid traffic flow, help the public. What if we only have one car parked on the yellow lines? What if we have 2? What if we just fill the street with illegally parked on the yellow lines. What if we just have people park in the middle of the road so no traffic can move? A meter maid previously could ticket the exact same crimes, just now the spy car is faster and takes better evidence with pictures so its 'progress' and 'efficency' that many are against.

27 Feb 2012 04:16p.m.

nigel wrote:

If you happen to be a Wellington City Council sycophant Mike you may want more spy cars and cameras in the toilets, to make sure people don’t break wind. But I can assure you the constituents of Wellington City do not want any spy cars at all, they are intrusive heavy handed enforcers whose only purpose is to raise revenue and spy on people. It may surprise you that people are the antecedent to law and take precedence over the law. Photographing people in this way is more harmful to society than the law they are breaking, and since people are the antecedent to the law their rights are ascendant. In short it comes down to degrees of harm, combined with the fact that this car is merely a cash flow machine for the Council, masquerading as some kind of righteous law giver, making the whole thing is as unethical as a Middle Eastern Dictator going to a convention on Democracy! The Council should all grow beards, including the women and pin medals on their chests. The car is a rip off and a good lawyer could have it taken off the road for crimes against humanity and make you refund the money Mike!

27 Feb 2012 12:15p.m.

Mike wrote:

Break the law - consequences.

If you want to park illegally, thats breaking the law.

The spy camera just allows its driver more evidence in faster repsonse times than previously. It is now standard to take multiple pictures of any alledged illegal parking - not a matter of intimidation, but a matter of making a clear cut case of illegal parking which the court agreed with.

If Ann had not parked there, then why not have indicator on showing that just moving across - ie to let the car by as claimed. The story to me sounds bogus as it did originally. If she had pulled left to let the car past as claimed she would have been further back so she could just turn the wheel and move back onto the road. She would have needed to reverse to go back onto the road. Also why pull over for the spy car? Its not like a police/ambulance/fire vehicle? I've even pulled across over the curb to let those past with lights flashing. She said it herself, she was looking for a park, so she parked behind the last legally parked vehicle - standard practice amoung many an illegal parker. Where I previously worked was one staff memeber did this everyday instead of walking an extra 50 mtrs.

As for costs, $132 doesn't cover. Ann says she has had significant legal expenses, so take her costs, similar for the council to prepare a case, plus go to court. $132 doesn't cover the costs and she got off lightly.

If she is so intimidated by cameras, what about every traffic light camera flashing those travelling through illegally on the red lights? Or the ctv cameras that help make our cities safer? She was illegally parking - pay the fine and costs as a consequence of her illegal actions.

Should have a couple of similar vehicles not less.

26 Feb 2012 10:19a.m.

nigel wrote:

Oh what piffle Mr Richard MacLean, a rort is a rort is a rort, how else can TV 3 present it and why should they spend any time in trying to justify the existence of your rortmobile, there is no other side to it, you are ripping people off? You have no excuses for your Spycar, it is reprehensible behaviour from the reprobates that comprise Wellington City Council!

25 Feb 2012 05:32p.m.

Richard MacLean wrote:

TV3's coverage of this court case is a disgrace. The coverage is biased and selective and designed only to save TV3's blushes (the written judgment of the Court paints an entirely different picture to the one being portrayed by Campbell Live).
cheers
Richard MacLean - Wellington City Council.

25 Feb 2012 11:19a.m.

alan wrote:

The council were always going to win regardless of the law and its all about the money they can screw out of everybody

25 Feb 2012 06:32a.m.

Smiler wrote:

This lady is innocent of any wrongdoing. Shame on WCC

25 Feb 2012 02:16a.m.

dave wrote:

screw the law. Just don't pay it. They cant do crap about it and if they do, take it to the human rights court. Sure the video and photos show that you are not in the camera and if they can't then how can they be sure?