IT IS fascinating to watch the controversy over the "zero tolerance" speed policy descend into technicalities.
I have already made it clear, in a previous editorial, where I stand in support of the policy, but most of all what I stand for is the reasonable principle, what police are allowed to enforce. Unfortunately, when it comes to law, sometimes the principle isn't enough. It is possible to shoot down an attempt to punish you, for a crime, if you can poke enough holes in the police methodology.
I remember, in my twenties, being snapped by a speed camera in Christchurch, but later receiving a very grudging letter from the police admitting they had not altered the speed camera's timer for daylight saving. While I was still in the wrong, the ticket was not factually correct and could obviously be challenged in court. I hadn't challenged it at all. I had committed a minor crime and fully expected to get a fine for it. I welcomed the acknowledgement, but I had basically got away with it.
With the speeding policy, the police said before the holidays they would pull over anyone who was over the speed limit, even to 1km/h over, but have since admitted their speed cameras are accurate to 4km/h.
I will concede it is a dangerous road to go down if we establish precedents for police action against crimes that can't ultimately be proven. But, to me, the policy is an example of reasonable policing, in good faith, against the crime of exceeding the speed limit at a vulnerable time of year. The intention was to set a tone and establish a norm for the holidays, and if it meant making an impression with a ticket, so much the better.
