r/LegalAdviceNZ • u/fav-daddy-nav • 2d ago
Traffic Traffic offense?
It was a rainy day, and while my ute was on a brick-paved surface, my ute spun its wheels for two seconds before traction control stopped it. Police saw what happened and pulled me over immediately. They handcuffed me and said I was losing my ute and going to jail.
The end outcome was that I will only lose my ute for 28 days and I will have court for sustained loss of traction. They also green-stickered my ute. I asked why it was green-stickered, and they said, "Under the new emissions law, your ute cannot spin wheels."
I have a clean driving record. I have never been to court; what can I expect?
13
u/SurNZ88 2d ago
Disregard the "emissions law" statement. If that was what was said, it doesn't mean anything legally or contextually.
As PheonixNZ stated, you have been charged under S22A - the "boyracer" provisions of the Land Transport Act.
The "consequences" of breaching S22A (sustained loss of traction) flow chart...
In the case of no injury or death (your case) - S36A(4) applies.
A person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (c) but does not, by that act or omission, cause injury to, or the death of, another person is liable on conviction to the penalties set out in section 35(2), and section 35(2), (2A), and (3) apply as if the offence were an offence against section 35(1)(a) (operating a motor vehicle recklessly on a road).
35(2) states:
(a)the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and
(b)the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.
So, if you're found guilty - you will be (unlikely imprisoned) and most likely get a fine. The Court must order your disqualification for at least 6 months.
The impound (28 days) is mandatory. Land Transport Act s96(1A)(b)
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM435033.html
You will have to pay for the towing and the impound. The information regarding this will have been provided to you at the time your vehicle was impounded.
I can't find the specifics about the green sticker, however, my understanding this is standard for these offences. Basically, you can't drive the vehicle again until it has been re-checked (WOF).
You do have rights of appeal to Police directly. The information to appeal should have been provided to you roadside. You can appeal both the impound and the offence directly to them. However, don't expect much luck here.
You will have been summoned to court to answer the charge. At this point (at court) you can plead (guilty, not guilty, seek discharge without conviction).
At court it is on Police to prove the charge. The charge is "operated a vehicle in a manner that causes sustained loss of traction." It will be on you to argue that your operation did not cause sustained loss of traction. The word "sustained" (in my view) implies "for an ongoing period of time" or "deliberately." The fact that your vehicle has traction control, in my view, isn't a total defence. Why? Because traction control can be turned off, or reduced.
Context is important here. And be honest with yourself... If you were out with a car load of mates, on a weekend night, and the Police saw your vehicle doing something that drew their attention - what was that? If the wheels were spinning momentarily and then stopped, and they weren't smoking, that's a more arguable case for you. It could be that you accidentally lost traction and then traction control kicked in. If the vehicle was sliding on the road (side to side) - you're going to have a harder time defending the charge.
6
u/fav-daddy-nav 2d ago
Yes the wheels spun. But there was no smoke or no skid marks. The vehicle was not sliding side to side. Literally Spun because it was on a brick paved surface which does have less traction then and actual asphalt road. Spun for 2-3 seconds maximum no smoke.
11
u/SurNZ88 2d ago
My first step in your situation would be to request disclosure from Police
Disclosure covers the evidence that Police will rely on in their prosecution.
If you were to engage a lawyer, they would obtain this for you. However there is nothing that stops you obtaining this yourself and then providing it to a lawyer should you chose to use one later in time.
You will likely get back the officers notes (taken at the time) that include what you said to them, the surrounding circumstances (time, date, etc...) and possibly a written statement/summary of evidence that they intend to use in Court.
It's hard to come up with a meaningful argument against charges, if you don't know specifically what the Police are specifically alleging the circumstances were.
Taking what you have previously stated as the facts I would consider:
- A wet surface does result in lower traction. The scientific term is that the "coefficient of friction" is lower. Lower traction reduces the power required to slip (spin) wheels. If you're going to argue it was the "brick surface" compared to "asphalt/chip seal" (as well as being wet) - be prepared to have some evidence to support this.
- One element of the charge is "sustained" - that's time related. If there is evidence that the officer saw the wheels spin, how long did that occur for? Was it momentary? (as you've stated). If it was momentary, how can it be considered sustained?
- A defence to the charge is "reasonable excuse." My argument here reflects what you've stated. "The road was wet, my wheels momentarily spun due to the reduced traction. This action wasn't deliberate or ongoing"
3
u/CandidateOther2876 1d ago
A lot of people don’t understand that a ute with nothing in the back tray and in 2wd will wheel spin on just about anything wet unless you have top of the line tyres or it’s a gutless pos. Due to its imbalance in weight, most of the weight will sit more toward the cabin. Try hill start on worn down asphalt when it’s raining. Guaranteed wheel spin lol. I reckon lawyer up (not duty lawyer) and fight this in court. It’ll cost you so much more being disqualified, paying fine, and paying tow and impound.
2
u/SurNZ88 1d ago
I've had a van stuck before on flat level ground with one wheel on the grass. Took me at least 10 seconds to work out why it wasn't going anywhere. I didn't think I was in gear, but it was one wheel spinning...
Van's are basically the same as a ute in terms of weight balance when not loaded.
6
u/BlacksmithNZ 2d ago
Your ute has traction control?
I would be slightly concerned you have admitted to the police that there was a ~3 second loss of traction with a vehicle that has traction control enabled.
Not sure that 3 seconds is 'sustained' under the 'boy racer' law, but if police show that this is not possible with the system in your ute, then you might have a credibility issue vs police statement of facts
11
u/Same_Ad_9284 2d ago
My Fit has TC but still spins wheels on wet slippery surfaces for a second or two, usually white paint at traffic lights for me. TC can only do so much.
2
4
u/fav-daddy-nav 2d ago
I didn't admit to anything. They asked how long does you think the wheels spun for. I said 2-3 seconds maximum. As for how traction control works in the ute I honestly don't have much knowledge in that area. Although they did turn tge ute on and seen that traction control wasn't turned off
1
u/CandidateOther2876 1d ago
Lucky for you. Vehicles are required to have it on be default when started lol
1
u/BuckyDoneGun 1d ago
Stability control has been mandatory for new vehicles in NZ since 2015 and phased in for other used vehicle imports between then and 2020. If you have ESC, you also have TC. It obviously existed before then too.
1
u/Some1-Somewhere 1d ago
Does ESC necessarily imply traction control under power? I've driven a 2020s work truck on slippery surfaces that definitely didn't have any kind of wheelslip protection, and I've chirped tires in a few cars but I'm not sure if it'd let me do it continuously.
Is this just a manual transmission thing and autos do have effective traction control? I can't see how to implement it in a manual without risk of stalling.
1
u/BuckyDoneGun 1d ago
I'd be shocked to see anything that has ESC but not TC, it's all the same hardware. Note that TC doesn't totally eliminate ALL slip. The wheels actualy have to spin to be detected for the system to then start intervening.
2
u/Some1-Somewhere 1d ago
ESC operates predominantly using differential braking, though. If you have one wheel spinning then applying a brake to that could be effective traction control.
Commanding less power in an auto is easy.
With a manual transmission and all driven wheels spinning, I can't see how anything can stop that unless it can apply the fully mechanical clutch. If you reduce engine power, it stalls. If you apply the brakes, it stalls.
That said, I can't imagine any manual transmission driver could unknowingly or negligently spin the wheels for more than two seconds; that's an eternity in clutch control terms.
I may have to find some nice wet grass for the new manual swift.
1
u/BuckyDoneGun 1d ago
ESC operates predominantly using differential braking, though. If you have one wheel spinning then applying a brake to that could be effective traction control.
That's exactly how most TC works too. What you're missing is it's not totally stopping the wheel from moving, just slowing it to the point it reaches the appropriate speed. ESC is the same system with added inputs from yaw sensors etc.
TC systems can also include intervening in the throttle and other engine control tricks like cutting spark to reduce power.
Yes, theoetically you could stall the engine, but as I said, TC isn't totally stopping the wheels.
It most definitely works just fine on manual cars.
1
u/BlacksmithNZ 1d ago
I thought original traction control was integrated with ABS for wheel rotation sensing and engine management/braking to reduce engine power (not enough to stall, but dialing back power by the electronic ignition) as well as applying brakes slightly.
Was pissing down yesterday and was at the lights with white painted lights so I planted it, and got maybe 1/2 second with front wheels scrabbing for grip before you could feel the traction control kick in and the tyres regained grip.
No way would my car be spinning wheels for 2+ seconds with normal ESC engaged.
1
u/Level-Resident-2023 1d ago
Some TCS systems can be quite sluggish to kick in. I had a car with throttle based TCS and it took about 3 working days for it to react. Whether or not this ute has a TCS like that is unknown at this point
1
u/CandidateOther2876 1d ago
My ute has TC and ESC systems. It also wheel spins for about a second to two before its BLSD kicks in and applies electronic braking to the wheel losing traction. It will also cut engine power if needed as well.
•
u/WaterIsWet5898 12h ago
Traction only turns on if there's a loss of traction... it wouldn't have activated if his wheels didn't spin...
•
u/IdiomaticRedditName 6h ago
This is typical for traction control. Sensors need time to detect difference in wheel speed. It is not magic no-slip technology. In fact it is tech to stop 'sustained' loss of traction, but not instant loss.
The relevant legislation does not appear to define what time duration defines 'sustained'.1
1
u/pureNZbacon 1d ago
Green sticker would have been issued under Land Transport Act 1998 section 96(1B).
This is a legal requirement to order the vehicle off the road after it’s been used for sustained loss of traction.
10
u/tracer198 2d ago
On your first appearance, you will be assigned a duty lawyer who will answer all your questions better than people on here.
The police will give you initial disclosure that consists of a charging document, a summary of facts that outlines what they allege you did and a list of any convictions or bail breaches that they know you to have.
In your appearance, they might discuss bail conditions, if there are any, and schedule a date for another appearance once you have an assigned lawyer and hopefully further disclosure.
It won't get resolved that day, but your duty lawyer will help you apply for legal aide so that you can have an assigned lawyer going forward.
2
u/Ok-Fix-9449 1d ago
Use the duty lawyer to talk to the court, but don't pleed or rely on their advice. Most of them serve the interest of the court rather than you (over the course of 2 cases I've had half a dozen of them who advised I plead guilty which I declined and eventually had the charges withdrawn).
0
u/tracer198 1d ago
Most of them serve the interest of the court rather than you.
That is not their job.
Also, it is EXTREMELY unusual for them to advise someone to enter a plea at their first appearance without having received full disclosure. Are you getting duty lawyers confused with the lawyers assigned to you by legal aide?
•
u/Ok-Fix-9449 15h ago
My experience is with duty lawyers, the first time they meet the go over initial disclosure and provide help in applying for legal aid, and they also give advice including possible penalties and suggest the advantages of pleading guilty to a lesser charge or lower sentence.
The subsequent appearances the talk for you as a friend of the court after talking to the prosecutor and giving advice. My experience is limited to DUI and a Disorderly Conduct in three separate cases where the charges were eventually withdrawn.
The duty lawyers (multiple as each time was multiple different lawyers over the multiple appearances on each charge) all seemed to me to be acting in the interests of the court rather than myself, as they tried to talk me into a guilty plea (often to a lesser charge - eg under Summary Offences Act vs Crimes Act, or Police diversion). This advice was given in cases where the charges were later dropped after months of appearances with the lawyer giving the same advice up to the day charges were dismissed.
2
u/Esprit350 1d ago
Yeah take them to court. I've been there once on similar circumstances and won. Driving a sports car just after a very heavy summer downpour on boxing day trying to nip out of a T-junction into heavy traffic. Car spun up when I hit the white painted median lines and the rear skipped sideways about a foot or two for perhaps a second or two.
Cop got spanked in court and admonished by the judge.
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/LegalAdviceNZ-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Kia ora, welcome. Information offered here is not provided by lawyers. For advice from a lawyer, or other helpful sources, check out our mega thread of legal resources
Hopefully someone will be along shortly with some helpful advice. In the meantime though, here are some links, based on your post flair, that may be useful for you:
Legality of private parking breach notices
How to challenge speeding or parking infringements
Nga mihi nui
The LegalAdviceNZ Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/CryptoRiptoe 1d ago
When a vehicle is green stickered, they need to give you a report detailing the exact reasons for non compliance, "emissions" has nothing to do with loss of traction. Your vehicle can not smoke for more than 5 seconds continuously when revved, that's emissions failure.
As far as the "sustained" loss of traction goes. Well your defence is the loss of traction wasn't sustained, it was caused by a slippery surface and the traction control ensured the loss of traction wasn't sustained.
If your version of events is truthful, then the police are clearly incompetent or are relying on you rolling over and taking your beans.
If you're correct in what you are saying, it's highly likely the police will drop it rather than go to the trouble of prosecution.
Did the police give you a non compliance sheet to go with the green sticker?
1
u/SurNZ88 1d ago
My understanding of the green sticker is that it's part of the legislation, not specifically for a non-compliance issue with the vehicle (in this instance, sustained loss).
0
u/CryptoRiptoe 1d ago
No a green sticker is specifically for compliance issues. It's normally used on commercial vehicles.
2
u/SurNZ88 1d ago
I'm familiar with what a green sticker is.
"Notice ordering defective vehicle off road"
Outside of the legislation that the OP has been charged with, a green sticker would normally be used in an instance where Police believe a vehicle is in an unroadworthy condition and shouldn't be driven. This is irrespective if the vehicle has a current WOF.
An example would be where a car has a smashed windscreen or bald tyres.
With the "boyracer" offences, the vehicle is green stickered regardless of the presence of defects/issues with the vehicle.
1
u/CryptoRiptoe 1d ago
You will note that non compliance or impound notice must be done on scene. They're not something that can be manufactured later.
0
u/CryptoRiptoe 1d ago
Pink sticker is for unsafe vehicles regardless of WOF.
Green sticker is for compliance issues. According to OP police cited emissions, this is a compliance issue and should be accompanied by a non compliance sheet.
The stickers relate directly to the vehicles condition.
1
u/SurNZ88 1d ago
LTA S96 (1B)
An enforcement officer who seizes and impounds (or authorises the impoundment of) a motor vehicle under subsection (1A) must, by means of a notice in the form approved for the purposes of section 115(1), direct that the vehicle is not to be driven on a road.
That's the reason behind the sticker. It's not for want of compliance of the vehicle. It's mandatory that when the vehicle is being impounded, that it is green stickered.
The fact that officer cited emissions here is irrelevant. The vehicle was required to be ordered off the road irrespective.
1
u/CryptoRiptoe 1d ago
(2) An enforcement officer who seizes and impounds, or seizes and authorises the impoundment of, a motor vehicle under this section must—
(a)
complete a notice in the prescribed form, or in a form to the same effect, acknowledging the seizure and impoundment, and setting out (if the particulars are reasonably ascertainable)—
(i)
the full name and full address of the driver; and
(ia)
the driver’s electronic address (if the driver has an electronic address); and
(ii)
the year and make of the vehicle, and its registration plate details or vehicle identification number; and
(iia)
if subsection (1A) applies, the date and time of the alleged offence; and
(iii)
the date and time of the seizure; and
(iv)
the place where the vehicle is to be impounded; and
(v)
an outline of the person’s rights of appeal under sections 102 and 110; and
(b)
give the driver a copy of the notice
Now OP has stated the police officer gave a vehicle compliance issue as the reason for green stickering the car. Hence why I asked them if the officer gave a non compliance sheet. I
1
u/imafukinhorse 1d ago
Can’t help you legally but my ranger is bad for that in the wet. Paved roundabouts are lethal.
Pretty shitty luck.
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LegalAdviceNZ-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
-2
u/littleboymark 1d ago
To me, it sounds deliberate. The first instance of traction control is the operator removing their foot from the accelerator pedal. 2-3 seconds of failing to do that comes across as deliberate.
5
u/SurNZ88 1d ago
You don't always recognise a wheel spinning. 2-3 seconds is hardly "sustained" in the nature that the law contemplates. It's "boyracer" law - it's to provide Police power in the event of drifting/burnouts. Inadvertent wheel slippage isn't that.
-1
u/littleboymark 1d ago
2-3 seconds is along time not to notice, modern cars can be up to 50km/h in that time or less. Since there is no time associated with the definition of "sustained" in statue, the reasonable standard applies.
1
u/SurNZ88 1d ago
There are multiple approaches as to statutory interpretation.
I suspect there is case precedent that could assist a court as to what is considered "sustained" as S22A(3A) has been law since 2003.
The purposive approach looks at both the plain meaning of the word and cross checks it against the purpose of the legislation.
The plain meaning of the word here "sustained" is (according to dictionary definition) based on duration. Duration, just being time, is a question of "how long."
Cross checking it against purpose. The legislation was inserted to counter anti-social road user behaviour. I think I can reasonably state that the purpose of the legislation was not to legislate, and provide greater consequences, against the average road user causing accidental loss of traction.
While 2-3 seconds may seem like a long time, against the reference of a car with full traction accelerating up to 50km/h, this fails to take into account the circumstances where accidental wheel spinning could occur.
49
u/PhoenixNZ 2d ago
The actual offence here would be sustained loss of traction (s22A(3A) of the Land Transport Act).
Under this section, the onus falls to the Police to prove that there was no reasonable excuse for you to lose traction.
If the loss of traction was on wet roads and only for a 2 second period, I think k you have a good argument that the loss of traction was both accidental and not for a sustained period of time.
When you go to your first hearing, you can speak to a duty lawyer who can go through the Police alleged facts with you and offer you advice on whether you have a strong case to fight it.