A question for the constabulary

[Blown BA]

[BA_Turbs]

  Blown BA said:

I would like to think this may be more approriate.

You funny ba**ard.... :lol:

[geea]

  BA_Turbs said:

  Blown BA said:

I would like to think this may be more approriate.

You funny ba**ard.... :lol:

I dunno, ZapXR6T is from Sydney.

Geea

[curious]

Well I im exhausted. Mr MOTO has some valid points and like people who possess such intelligence and confidence and skill there is grounds for contradicton.

In one of your log winded and very thorough posts you state that you would possess more skill than a newely trained officer who has done a 2 week course. You are absolutely correct, frankly im am quite frightended by some officers ability as drivers. However you contradict yourself is stating you can stop quicker that most people. Are you talking about reaction time or are you challenging the age old laws of physics. Nearly all new modern vehicles are fitted with ABS, this requires the firm application of the brake and the system does the rest. I really hope you are using a non ABS vehicle as an example and talking about braking to the last point before lock up. If you can beat individual vehicle sensors and lock and release mechanism you are good.

Again another point is your ability to control front and rear wheel skid. Lets just say if your in a front wheel skid than your in a world of hurt and obviously dont possess decent enough skills to prevent it. I will beat you hands down if you adopt this method of driving through corners. Adopting the system of car control and preventing the vehicle to "brake out" will give you more time once you have negotiated the corner to apply max power. I would be impressed as I looked in the rear view mirror at your big power slides but you would be behind me and I would go home with the girl as I crossed the line first.

Another point you make is a good driver wont stop at a stop sign in optimal conditions etc. If this was the case with that particular intersecton then it would be governed by a give way sign. Engineers take factors in consideration when deciding how they will be governed. Stop means stop, not slow down cause you think your better than that. If a man was bashing you over the head with a base ball bat and you told him to stop you would want him to stop not slow down as he wallops you. that's how clean cut stop means. The driver may be good but also a risk taker which is a fault in a driver, this then contradicts good.

Your comments are good and interesting but at the same time you are human like the rest of us, do not belittle other members because you dont agree with them, if you wish to continue this then you should run for parliament.

As for illegal searches when looking for what I want. Reasonable suspicion. Radar detector detector going off when you pass has been argued and is case law as reasonable suspicion. Totally legal search. As Plonky says there is sufficent legislation there to use. You tell someone to open their boot to check that it has a spare, totally lawful, wow whats that in the boot, a dead body. Its called chance discovery, this then evokes other powers to seize the vehicle for obvious reasons.

[Buf-Phoon]

  curious said:

Well I im exhausted. Mr MOTO has some valid points and like people who possess such intelligence and confidence and skill there is grounds for contradicton.

In one of your log winded and very thorough posts you state that you would possess more skill than a newely trained officer who has done a 2 week course. You are absolutely correct, frankly im am quite frightended by some officers ability as drivers. However you contradict yourself is stating you can stop quicker that most people. Are you talking about reaction time or are you challenging the age old laws of physics. Nearly all new modern vehicles are fitted with ABS, this requires the firm application of the brake and the system does the rest. I really hope you are using a non ABS vehicle as an example and talking about braking to the last point before lock up. If you can beat individual vehicle sensors and lock and release mechanism you are good.

Again another point is your ability to control front and rear wheel skid. Lets just say if your in a front wheel skid than your in a world of hurt and obviously dont possess decent enough skills to prevent it. I will beat you hands down if you adopt this method of driving through corners. Adopting the system of car control and preventing the vehicle to "brake out" will give you more time once you have negotiated the corner to apply max power. I would be impressed as I looked in the rear view mirror at your big power slides but you would be behind me and I would go home with the girl as I crossed the line first.

Another point you make is a good driver wont stop at a stop sign in optimal conditions etc. If this was the case with that particular intersecton then it would be governed by a give way sign. Engineers take factors in consideration when deciding how they will be governed. Stop means stop, not slow down cause you think your better than that. If a man was bashing you over the head with a base ball bat and you told him to stop you would want him to stop not slow down as he wallops you. that's how clean cut stop means. The driver may be good but also a risk taker which is a fault in a driver, this then contradicts good.

Your comments are good and interesting but at the same time you are human like the rest of us, do not belittle other members because you dont agree with them, if you wish to continue this then you should run for parliament.

As for illegal searches when looking for what I want. Reasonable suspicion. Radar detector detector going off when you pass has been argued and is case law as reasonable suspicion. Totally legal search. As Plonky says there is sufficent legislation there to use. You tell someone to open their boot to check that it has a spare, totally lawful, wow whats that in the boot, a dead body. Its called chance discovery, this then evokes other powers to seize the vehicle for obvious reasons.

Curious

Well done and well said. As I have had more than my share of IT related frustrations tonight, I am absolutely not in the mood to pull apart and interpret and decipher these posts let alone put forth robust rebuttles. Let us just say that on this occasion I am lacking in intellectual rigour, stamina, and philosophical idealisnm to deal with it all . Call me lazy but ..............on this occasion sorry.

Chaps well done.

Ya killin me :lol:

BTW I now wear ban aids as an injury protection device on me paws

[plonky]

  Moto said:

  plonky said:

Curious is totally correct and people must remember that if one specific piece of legislation does not empower a search of a vehicle or person then another piece of legislation will.

EG:  Random Breath testing gives us the power to stop a car for the purpose of RBT.  Once that is done, we have no power under that SPECIFIC piece of legislation to detain a driver.  However, we have power under the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration Standards) to inspect the vehicle to ensure compliance.  If we so desire (have reasonable grounds) we also have pwoer under the Crimes Act/Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act etc etc to search people and cars

If you know where your power lays and you have reasonable grounds then you can search vehicles and cars.

This is why a good (meaning switched on) Policeman will always catch those that actively go out to break the law.

You miss one important point: the police need reasonable grounds.

This is especially relevant to the most common method used to search a car or person: suspicion of possessing drugs or weapons.

For a part of the population, that wouldnt be too hard to prove occurred in a reasonable manner. But for a fair chunk of the population, the police owuld be hard pressed to provide reason why they believe they had reaosnable grounds to do so.

Id be sure as hell to point this out clearly to any cop who tried to pull a cr@p stunt like that on me. If they continued with their cr@p, it woudlnt be the first time that the items discovered in a search were deemed inadmissable, and THEN it would be HIGHLY satisfactory to have the police hand the radar detector back to me.

Its happened before. As they say in the US "fruit of the poison tree". Not admissible in court.

The court system isnt dumb - if they see a respectable person before them, and police struggling to make up excuses about their illegal search, its not at all unknown for that search to be thrown out.

I think your logic is thawed. If you falsely use the suspicion of drugs or weapons as reason to search a vehicle, then you arent a good cop, you are a corrupt and dishonest cop. The rules exist for both of us. You dont have the right to break laws any more than the people you bust using dodgy methods.

The ends do NOT justify the means under the law.

Have a good read before you go on your 'anti Police' tirade.

I said "reasonable grounds" not once but twice.

You're obviously a typical lawyer who believes that by posting disparaging comments about the Police you fill people with false hope of an acquittal at Court by finding some 'technical' grounds to lay down as a defence. Maybe you're a specialist traffic lawyer similar to the one that advertises in Motor Magazine who only parts wiht enough information to build up clientele. Not every Police officer in NSW has less than 3 years service. You may be surprised to come across one that does know what they can and can't do and is not afraid to go to Court.

The adversarial judicial system is not about justice it is about law and intepretation of that law. If you are a lawyer, you know as well as I do anything is admissable as long as a Magistrate or Judge allows it into evidence becaue our system relies upon precedent.

The original thread was about radar detectors. They are illegal. I know from extensive experience a good radar operator will discover someone using one. If someone wants to use a radar detector then good on them. They know the risks, they know that they are illegal to use and possess then they shouldn't whinge when they get caught.

As I said before, there are a number of Acts which give us power to search vehicles as long as there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Stop watching American crime dramas - you should know as well as I do, that if you are lawfully searching for something and something else is discovered during that search then it can be seized and a prosecution will follow.

[plonky]

  Moto said:

  plonky said:

As for cops breaking the law, in most cases we are exempt from most legislation when we are doing our duty........apart from the military in a proclaimed warzone or under Federally sanciotned martial law, who else can legally shoot another human being.  It is not a power trip.....it is an extremely heavy burden to carry when your actions, however minor, can be examined in the High Court with the luxury of using a microscope to examine hindsight.

Oh please. You need to study the laws more closely.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN AUSTRALIA HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

Its not much different for police. The main difference is that police are actively allowed to carry weapons.

And we all may have to put up with having it examined in hindsight by the courts.

We are all able to kill if doing so will protect the life of ourselves or others, and if the situation is deemed to be such that a reasonable conclusion is the definite threat to life with no alternative actions being feasible.

This is no different from the reasons police are allowed to kill.

You seem to be on a rather high horse.

Self defence and defence of others.

You are correct however you seem to forget something. Since the section regarding fleeing felon was examined by the Crown Solicitor, there was advice received that it was no longer appropriate for Police to shoot a fleeing felon. However, the fleeing felon is now under the umbrella of self defence and defence of others.

The mere fact that we are armed, mandates that the community and the common law have expected Police to shoot another human being in self defence and defence of others.

Looking down from my 'high horse', I can see that the expectation is significantly higher upon Police (as opposed to any other section of the community) and the fact that we bear arms under authority of the Common Law shows that the Police are in a special (an onerous) position as opposed to the rest of the community.

Another example of 'police bashing' - a lawyers trick.

[plonky]

  Moto said:

  plonky said:

  jetute said:

Zapxr6t.... if you have a radar detector and it is concealed so the state revenue raisers cant find it...

State revenue raisers?

C'mon...you're kidding aren't you?

[snip]

I don;t make the fines attached to the offences. I issue tickets to those that blatantly choose to ignore what the majority want.

Speed cameras and increases in fines are a product of increased Government spending because too many people want the Government to provide things that, I believe, should have a bit more user pays so they are not abused.

Riight.

I can tell you one thing: the majority desires frequently have nothing to do with what the police are enforcing. Perfect example is the mega-low speed tolerance in Victoria. You would be quite hard pressed to find 2 out of 10 people in Vic who agree with this one. Even many police do. Even some of the insurance companies do. (AAMI comes to mind right away).

And the expenditure of the State Govtfrequently doesnt have much to do with the wants of the people. Another perfect example: Bracks in Victoria is wasting billions on unreasonable levels of pay increases to builders, teacher and nurses.

The main driver behind this is not what the people want - its payday. Bracks was heavily supported by the unions in his quest to become the premier, and not he is in that position, they are calling in all the favours. He now has to pay back the people who helped him get into power - nothing to do with the wants of the people in the state.

The pay increases forced by the nursing union alone will add up to $400M this year of taxpayer money being spent.

In Victoria and NSW, most people I speak to are opposed to Speed Cameras and the money they raise.

However, they still returned the Govts to power that set up cameras all of the States.

As I said, and I'll say it again - the majority (that we all know personally) may detest speed cameras but they still voted to return the Govts to power that put the bloody things in because of the promised increased State Govt spending the things that the electorate want.

If Bracks is looking for more revenue due to payback time for the Unions, then the electorate is still reponsible to return him to power or to kick him out.

[plonky]

  Moto said:

  plonky said:

  plonky said:

You've lost me on that one.....

The Government is elected by us to spend OUR money where we think it should go. If WE don't like it, WE vote them out.

Now obviously the people who pay State taxes in NSW and Victoria have elected to return Governments who spend OUR money in putting stationary speed cameras on the roads, and fund biased research programmes from Monash University and the like.

So therefore, the electorate have decided it is more important for the Government to spend OUR money on things that we believe should be supplied for by the Government. These include (Constitutionally obliged) State services such as Public Transport, Hospitals, Education and Law and Order. Because of such a huge increase in demand, the money has to come from somewhere and therefore cameras are sprouting up like heroin dealers waiting outside the (taxpayer funded) safe injecting rooms.

Brainwashed? I don't think so.....All I know is that my hard earned money that I make from all the extra hours that I choose to work (about 70 hours per week) is taxed by the federal, State and Local Govt. and is redistributed to a lot of people and a lot of programmes that I don;t believe should be getting it.

State Govts. put up speed cameras, rip off the investor by way of stamp duty (x 3 for a house in NSW), have a CPI increase each financial year of penalty notices (Infringements etc) payroll tax (another penalty for having a successful and expanding business) etc etc

Now I don't care whether you have a radar detector or not....if you think the detector will help you beat a good radar operator, then all power to you. As some of the people here already know, I'm not overly focused on speed enforcement to the minimum standard, because I work on the principle of congnitive consistency.

A good driver will always stop at a Stop sign, indictae when he changes lanes and will ensure his car is safe and compliant. That same good driver may also regularly drive at a speed which he deems safe to the road (the old 85th percentile)

A bad driver may not speed but he also doesn't obey Stop signs, doesn't think indicators should be used, or he may drive at an excessive speed all the time and rely upon his radar detector to give early warning.

This is the driver that I look for. The driver that has an inflated estimation of his ability and that will come unstuck when he gets it confused with his ambition. The serial speeder that uses a detector, or listens to the trucking channel to avoid be caught WILL be the same guy that disobeys Stop signs, traffic lights, doesn't use indicators when changing lanes or has inappropriate modifications on only one part of his car so it is unbalanced (such as mods to give huge power outputs but neglects brakes and handling)

Certainly not preaching, just stating facts and I don't give a toss how expensive the fine is. If it is deserved, they get it.

Hospital waiting lists in NSW. If you are a prisoner (even on remand) there are no hospital waiting lists - you receive priority treatment. This includes surgery for dental work etc

Sickness benefits - paid to losers that cannot work because they have a psychosis from cannabis abuse or have pancreatic cancer because of alcoholism

If you are in a Housing Commission house, you can report a break and enter to the Police, take the report number to Centrelink and receive an additonal two weeks rental assistance

It's a bloody disgrace!

Hmm...interesting.

You say the Govts are voted in by us to spend our money how we want it spent.

Which planet are you on? Its VERY common for State Govts to spend money where THEY want to, not where the people want it spent.

You actually destroy your own argument in the 2nd sentence:

"The Government is elected by us to spend OUR money where we think it should go. If WE don't like it, WE vote them out."

that's the point. By then its too late. They have mis-spent the money by then. So God knows how you got lost on that one when your own statement supports the fact that they can indeed mis-spend the money....you even point out the results of them doing it! (getting voted out)

And stamp duty on a house in NSW is VERY LOW compared to a house in Victoria!

"A good driver will always stop at a Stop sign, indictae when he changes lanes".

I disagree.

Not all intersections with stop signs require an attentive knowledgeable driver to come to a complete stop especially when the roads are empty and conditions good. Some have excellent visibility and there are many reasons why coming to a stop may not be necessary. Same applies to indicating.

Dont get me wrong....I tend to do those things automatically regardless as its ingrained in my driving, but that doesnt mean that someone who doesnt is always not driving suitably.

I have seen many drivers who DO stop at stop signs and DO indicate wheneve they change lanes, and do stupid things like changing lanes when a car is next to them or pulling a U-turn in front of traffic simply because they are not concentrating and do not have situational awareness.

Id rather drive with someone concentrating 100% and completely aware of the environment and his or her skills AND doign 40kmh over the limit in the right environment than with someone following all the rules but mentally asleep.

A good example is that some elderly drivers are oblivious to their surroundings. They may go through all the right motions, but have no idea whats going on around them nor the ability to react.

This concept that following all the rules makes you a safe driver is bullsh1t. I break them every day - speeding being the most common - and have never had an accident that was even closely related to it. As a result of my attention to driving and conscious improvement of my skills, I can handle a car at higher speeds than many "normal" drivers can. I can also stop faster, handle my car better, recover from rear, front or all wheel skids brought on purposefully or due to conditions that were not predictable and so on.

Id go head to head with any average Joe under common unforseen road circumstances without a second thought. And I would have a negative result of such an event about 1% as often as they would.

All the laws in the world are not a replacement for skill and common sense.

(Point of proof: if speeding were inherently dangerous for every person regardless, emergency services vehicles would not be allowed to speed because no skill level and rule set would compensate for the danger).

You say you race bikes. Good on you. It's hard to do and expensive (I did two seasons back in 1983/4)

A good racer wants to win. There is nothing worse than having points deducted or suffering a drive through penalty for disobeying a pit lane speed limit, having an illegal (unsanctioned/non homologated) modification to the car/bike or some other rule.

This is exactly the same as a good driver on the road will obey the road rules when it comes to safety issues. That means stopping at Stop Signs, indicating an intention when changing direction etc

There is a difference between good car control and being a good driver. Attitude is the main thing.

Everybody in Australia seems to think they are a brilliant driver. This is their first mistake. Some people have brilliant car control skills, that is a big difference between being a brilliant controller of the car to being a brilliant driver.

You may be brilliant out on a track with other drivers all going in the same direction, run off areas, crash crews, on site medical teams etc.

Try driving at high speed on country roads or city roads, when you have cars coming at you, in front of you, side streets, pedestrians,animals, changing road conditions, loud noises from sirens, the Police radio blaring at you and doing all of this in something that is essentially a slightly modified road car.

Compound that with the overriding threat of Departmental, civil and criminal action if it all turns to pooh.

Then you may realise what the difference is.

You have no argument with me about the stupid focus on speed reduction and speed detection in NSW. It is easy to enforce, easy to raise revenue from and very hard to beat at Court. It's a lazy mans work in an increasingly lazy POolice Force. Not everyone in the HWP is radar dependant and I make sure my troops are actively concentrating on general traffic offences and not speed offences unless it is totally inappropriate for the conditions.

If you make the effort to find out a bit about your fellow Forum members before flaming them, you may realise that we are all on (essentially) the same side.

If you just want to post "anti Police' stuff, then I suggest you go off to one of the "Performance stickers and Bodykits" forums where they slag the cops all the time.

PS> Last night I had to do a fatal over at Penrith where a young guy on a GSX1000R was racing another guy in a suburban street, and as he went into an ascending, positive cambered, decreasing radius corner, the bike stepped out and highsided him. He ended up beneath a taxi doing about 30kmh and was pinned under the cross member and dragged about 13.2 metres forward. He was still alive when I got there but died soon after.

When your time is up, it is up....no matter how good you are. I am alive after a bike acco in 2002 where I was found on the side of the road 4 hours after the crash. I was hit by a truck and the driver left the scene. My BMW was destroyed, I ripped off my right arm, punctured both lungs, crushed four ribs, broke my pelvis, hip socket and shattered my femur as well as all the bones in my left hand.

I know the difference between good vehicle control and being a good driver. I'm both!

[KEN 24T]