Disclaimer
Figures and data cited in this article are drawn from publicly available sources including NZ Police reports, AA analyses, and Ministry of Transport statistics as of early 2026. A formal Official Information Act (OIA) request for comprehensive 23/24/2025 speeding fine breakdowns is currently pending, and updated data may alter reported totals.
This article reflects the author's opinion and analysis. It is not legal advice. Speeding ticket disputes depend on specific facts, evidence, and jurisdiction. Readers should consult a qualified lawyer or Community Law NZ before acting. Use information at your own risk—outcomes are not guaranteed.
-------------------
Speeding fines in New Zealand, often issued for minor exceedances of just 5-10% over the limit (e.g., ≤10 km/h), function less as safety measures and more as revenue grabs—raking in over $100 million annually from 1+ million tickets, the vast majority targeting everyday drivers who momentarily creep over while scanning for children, hazards, or traffic as responsible motorists normally do. These low-threshold fines carry disproportionate consequences like demerit points, risking licence suspensions and insurance hikes far beyond any proven crash risk (where data shows most serious incidents involve inappropriate speed, not minor deviations). Far from protecting roads, this system punishes normal driving discretion, prioritizing Police revenue over genuine safety.
The specific claims in that paragraph rely on these evidenced components from available data (note: exact 2025-26 national revenue/ticket splits are not fully public, but historical/recent figures align closely):
"5-10% over limit (e.g., ≤10 km/h)": Police speeding fines start at the lowest band of ≤10 km/h over (~5-10% on typical 100 km/h roads), with a $30 fine—this is the entry-level threshold for infringement notices (Police website confirms enforcement typically >10 km/h over, but ≤10 km/h common via cameras/discretion). This band captures "minor exceedances" as the bulk of low-end tickets.
"1+ million tickets": NZ Police issue ~1-1.2 million speeding infringements annually (e.g., 1.14 million in 12 months to Sep 2020 per historical MoT data; fixed cameras alone issued 371k in 2023 per AA). Recent Road Policing data (Jan 2009-Sep 2025) shows consistent high volume in lower bands.
"Raking in over $100 million annually":
-
Fixed cameras: 371,273 tickets = $29.9 million (2023, AA/POLICE data).
-
Total (incl. mobile/handheld like Stalker): Scales to $100m+ when factoring ~1M tickets (avg ~$100/ticket across bands; e.g., 2023 camera revenue alone $30m, mobile adds majority). OIA/police reports confirm revenue transferred to Consolidated Fund (not ringfenced for safety).
Revenue grab: Fines go to general government funds (Police explicitly states this), not road safety—AA/critics note eroded deterrent value ($30 = trivial vs 1999 wages), implying volume over risk-based enforcement. 15% of drivers report tickets (mostly low-level, NZTA 2025 survey).
Many speeding tickets issued using Stalker radar (and similar Doppler-based systems) in New Zealand and other jurisdictions risk being unenforceable due to failure to meet mandatory operational standards, particularly the complete "tracking history" required as the chain of evidence.
Core Requirements for Enforceable Radar Tickets
New Zealand Police's Speed Detection Equipment Operators Manual (2015)—binding via the Code of Operations—mandates strict evidential elements for radar (including Stalker systems) to ensure accuracy and eliminate errors like "largest vehicle" pickup.
Operator Certification
-
Must hold current Certificate of Proficiency as a Speed Enforcement Operator, issued by Police National Headquarters.
-
Practical training (minimum 20 hours) and Te Puna e-learning/test (80% pass) required.
Equipment Compliance
-
Current Certificate of Accuracy (<12 months old, per s 146 Land Transport Act 1998).
-
Daily pre-deployment tests logged: tuning forks (serial-matched, side-presented to antenna), self-tests, sensitivity adjustment.
-
Patrol speedometer certified (for moving mode).
Mandatory Tracking History
This is the "chain of evidence" proving the reading ties to the specific vehicle—without all three elements, courts deem readings unreliable.
| Element | Precise Requirements | Common Failure Points |
|---|---|---|
| Visual Observation | - Identify target vehicle (make/model). - Continuous monitoring. - Confirm within beam range. - Estimate speed manually. |
Multiple vehicles; oncoming traffic obscures ID; range >250-600m. |
| Audio Confirmation | - Clear Doppler tone (high pitch = fast). - Tone consistent with visual estimate. - Strong, non-fluctuating (no warbling). - Audio never muted. |
Muted audio; interference (rain/power lines); no tone logged. |
| Radar Verification | - Steady target speed display. - Matches visual estimate + tone. - Ground speed matches certified speedo (±tolerance, moving mode). - Lock reading optional but recommended. |
Pickup of larger/faster reflector; cosine error (>10° angle under-reads); no ground speed. |
Site and Deployment Rules
-
Stationary: Straight road ≥250m, rising away, >250m from limit change, safe stop area.
-
Beam aimed right-of-centre (12° cone widens with distance).
-
Overt operation; no hidden use.
-
Multi-target: Officer must distinguish via tracking history (risk of strongest reflector dominating).
International Context
In the US/Canada (Stalker's primary markets), courts similarly demand "tracking history" testimony under NHTSA standards—absent visual/audio lock-on, readings excluded (e.g., State v. Toman, cosine/multiple-target errors). Australia requires equivalent "pre-visual estimation" per ITS standards. No jurisdiction accepts "blind" radar pings without operator verification.
Evidential Gaps Void Enforcement
Courts require officers to testify to all elements; gaps (undocumented visual ID, missing logbook tests, multi-vehicle ambiguity) create reasonable doubt, dismissing charges. No stored image/video needed—officer's notes/logbook suffice if complete. Police withdraw ~20-30% pre-court when challenged on these.
Tickets lacking proof of full compliance are unenforceable—demand disclosure to expose gaps.
Use This Template To Dispute a Ticket