BA_Turbs

The was an old man from Nuntuckit Who had a .... You all know the rest! Besisdes, I don't want to be banned!

"Jesus is alive and well and living in Mexico" from teh song of the same name by audio karate

Now that is some seriously funny shi*. Something about kids crapping in his car? It was so ridiculous (as was intended) that how can you help but laugh? 10/10

I'd love a Porsche. Give me left nut for one. The 928 can be had for much less than $125K if you are prepared to go a bit older. They can be had quite cheap (less than a T) if one scoures the Trading Post.

Already thought about that, I am going to use small yellow strob bulbs. Front set will go in the foglamps (and yes I will still have the foglamps for normal use) and the rear set will be put next to the the reversing lights bulbs. So when they are off you wont even be able to tell that they are there. I am in QLD. (if the laws are differnet) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fitting lights in that maner is different, and more comes under the same guidelines that determine if neons/blue wiperjets/green parklights etc are legal. Very different between states. Call your local RTA or TMU (HWP? - If you just speak to a general duties policeman, he probably won't know, and probably wouldn't care either). There are certain guidelines to the number of sets of accessory lights you may have and what colours they must be. Also, where they are on the car changes things (I.e. above or below the head lights, front or rear of vehicle etc).

I would more call ACA and Today Tonight a modern day Brothers Grimm. They are tellers of fantastic tales and far fetched

I wouldn't have a clue, but I will find out for you. By the way, those lights are stuck on with a big magnet, and the scratching to the paintwork is phenominal. Worth keeping in mind.

So we don't buy fuel on the 22nd. Are we going to sit at home and not drive to work that day either? Ignoring the fact that this concept has been around since before I had a drivers licence (fuel hits 70c a litre, lets all not buy fuel for a day), it pointless. Let's say that you use 60litres of fuel a week normally. You're still going to use 60 litres this week again, you'll just fill up the day before or a day later (or run out of petrol and have to be towed, 'cos you can't buy fuel). Oil companies aren't stupid, they will apply the same logic as I. The entire thing is a complete waste of everyone's time, including mine posting this.

Nor an English teacher! (know=no) VERY impressive bridge and full credit to them, but what was wrong with a peaceful drive through the lush green valley beneath I wonder?

10-4 Ruber Ducky. He probably walked up to the car wearing his Expensive Daewoo beanie and a Stone Brothers Racing shirt. His girfriend drives a loverly Lancer coupe' with Nismo stickers on it.

Seriously mate, you're missing the point, that's what I said in the first place.

The shuddering was possibly the car being in too higher gear fo rthe number of revs it was doing. If you have the manual, I believe the car will disengage cruise control before it does damage to your vehicle when the speed/revs get outside the safe range for the gear you are in. The latest (or next to latest, can't remember) generation of Mercedes' are just coming out now with "active" cruise control that will not only bring a car up to speed, but it will hold it there even on a steep descent. If you read through the owner's manual it explains quite well how the limitation of the cruise control system and what input is required from you, if any, when it is functioning.

Not really. This has been oversimplified. I have been accused of turning things into legalese ( ), but unfortunately in this arena, that's the way it is. If you were simply doing 20km/h over the limit, you would not be charged with driving in a manner dangerous, you would be charged for doing 20km/h over the limit (in the form of a penalty notice most likely). If however you were driving at 70km/h in a 50km/h zone and there was a bunch rallying, placard waving Hoff fanatics on the road, you could be charged with more serious offences, Manner Dangerous at the very least and most likely a conduct endangering life (Despite that, you would also deserve the Order of Australia medal).

No, unless you killed someone and were charged with Culpable Driving, then you definately WOULDN'T go to jail. There's no provisions under the Road Safety Act to sentence someone to a term of imprisonment for speeding offences. ............My point is, there are no provisions in the act for anyone to do jail time for speeding, IF THAT'S THE ONLY OFFENCE THEY'RE CAHRGED WITH. .......... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nope you are wrong. Case in point dude in a Bentley caught doing 231km/h along the Federal Highway (Road heading into Canberra from the north) just got 6 months in the big house. Was on the news and in the papers here about a month ago. All he did was drive fast all the way from Liverpool to South of Goulburn, scared some other road users who called the cops, who set up a radar trap to cath him. Apparently the magistrate did not buy his lawers line that the car was capable of over 300km/h so 231 was actually a very safe speed and well within the capabilities of the car. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, you've just confirmed exactly what I said, that is not a specific speeding offence. Like I said in my original post, for those speeds someone is not simply issued with a Penalty Notice for exceeding the speed limit, they are charged with a more serious offence. What I said is very correct, you can't go to gaol just for being charged with speeding. However, by speeding, you may be committing more serious offences. The offence this person has bene charged with is not a speeding offence, it can apply to almost any situation where there is a risk significant property damage or someone being injured. This may be through speeding, driving on two wheels, doing a burnout where there are pedestarians, driving the wrong way in traffic etc... This is what I was trying to articulate in my original post. PS - Keep in mind that all states are different. The states all got together when the Road Safety Act was formulated, drafted up a guide of it, then they all took it away and butchered it for their own use. In ACT I don't even know if Dangerous Driving is an offence under the Road Safety Act or their version of the Crimes Act.

Depends on the circumstances. If they are invoking their exemption under the road rules, then no. People seem to think police just flaunt Road Rules fo rthe fun of it though. The only ticket for 3km/h over the limit I've ever seen was sent out to a policeman, on duty, who drove past a speed camera with the emergency lights on, on route to a hold-up alarm at a bank. I've seen a lot of tickets (I sign the stat decs on the back of them several times daily), and that's the only 3km/h over one I've seen. Police drivers are very accountable now. It may have been different years ago, but they are now. I dunno what was going on with that prang in the picture, but until people try driving urgent duties, don't bag it. You think people drive bad now, try driving around/near/past them when you've got the lights &/or sirens going...