Ask Ponch

[XR6_ED]

If a cop car is doing 70 km/hr in a 60 zone and another cop car does inexcess of 70 km/hr to catch up to cop car 1 ,why doesnt cop car 1 book cop car 2 for speeding and cop car 2 book cop car 1 for speeding..When I confronted cop car 2 about there speed , I got a polite "Mind your own f#$%^n business"..These 2 were not responding to a "Call" etc etc ,they were just patrolling.,,,,,

[NT TURBO]

  XR6_ED said:

If a cop car is doing 70 km/hr in a 60 zone and another cop car does inexcess of 70 km/hr to catch up to cop car 1 ,why doesnt cop car 1 book cop car 2 for speeding and cop car 2 book cop car 1 for speeding..When I confronted cop car 2 about there speed , I got a polite "Mind your own f#$%^n business"..These 2 were not responding to a "Call" etc etc ,they were just patrolling.,,,,,

So report them to the local station commander.

[Guest XR6T Monster]

XR6_ED

I have to ask you this question. What the hell were you doing asking Police why they were doing about 10km/hr over the speed limit? Unless you were also doing 70km/hr behind them you would have to be pretty confident to judge their speed. Secondly, don't worry about what they are doing, worry about yourself. Mate, you are talking 10km/hr. How do you know they didn't start to get called to a job and it was called off within seconds? How do you know they weren't on their way to grab a quick coffee during a busy shift. 10k's mate. No wonder you got that reply. I would have given you worse.

[plonky]

  XR6_ED said:

If a cop car is doing 70 km/hr in a 60 zone and another cop car does inexcess of 70 km/hr to catch up to cop car 1 ,why doesnt cop car 1 book cop car 2 for speeding and cop car 2 book cop car 1 for speeding..When I confronted cop car 2 about there speed , I got a polite "Mind your own f#$%^n business"..These 2 were not responding to a "Call" etc etc ,they were just patrolling.,,,,,

Have a look at Rule 305 of the Australian Road Rules

Your question will be answered.

If someone asked me that, they would be leaving with a fistful of TINS. We are not there to set an example for mature, law abiding adults. We are there to catch those that break the law.

EG: If I am sitting at 60 in a 60 then the only cars I would be looking at are the cars next to me (multi lane road) I can see that they all appear registered etc etc.

Now if I was doing 70 in a 60, then I would constantly be catching up to the vehicles up ahaead and thus would be able to check on the vehicle from outside as well as see if they are talking on the phone or wearing a seatbelt.

Makes sense doesn't it

[plonky]

  xr6-t-9 said:

Ponch

In the FFFFFFccccckkkkknnnnnggggg foglight thread, I raised the point if being unaware of this particular regulation.

The front foglight bit is not stated directly in RTA Guides, which is what NSW drivers have to study to get a licence.

I concede that "...following all driving regulations..." may be in this guide, however, how is the average motorist (me) supposed to know about laws and regulations (fog lights in particular) that are not in the RTA guide?

The law has been quoted already in the fog light thread. The link is to be UTS/tertiary eduaction site that I did not know existed and woulod be hard pressed to find.

The law may have been around since 1909 and all NSW Police may know of it's existance.

How am I supposed to know?

How can I be fined for something so obscure?

Are the "fog lights" on XR's only fog lights by definition? Should they be defined as *beep* lights to get arounf this bizare regulation?

I have not driven in fog in the last year of XR ownership and have therefore not needed to use the foglights. Should FORD MO CO give me a refund for the fog lights because they are a useless item and against the law to use? - you don't have to answer this one....

Are traffic police taught to be lenient with these obscure laws?

Hoping you can help.....

XR6-T-9 (SLAPNUT)

I'm not a lenient person so I'm probably not the person to ask. As far as I'm aware the 'ignorance of the law' is no excuse and I will always issue anyway (I know I'm a real bas*ard....)

A fog light can be used only where atmospheric conditions/inclement weather are evident. They shouldn't be used in a street lit built up area during these conditions (that's what the street lighting is for)

There is a place for foglights but they're not really useful. I agree, Ford shouldn't have bothered but they did. I much prefer the 2005 Mustang that has driving lights in the grille (just like cars of old)

A foglight is determined to be a foglight if it is lower than the centre of the low beam and is independently operated.

There are two offences: There is one if the A.R.R's which relates to the rear foglight and there is one in the Road (Safety & Traffic Mgt I think) which related to the front fog lights. It may be vice versa (I don't have my Britts at home with me) so I can't be sure but it is in there.

The RTA handbook is useless. There are a number of anomolies in there however this does not exculpate the licensed driver from fulfilling his obligations to find out what is legal and what is not.

Particularly where there has been sufficient anecdotal evidence as well as media stories about the foglight issue, the Court will deem "wilful blindness" in the lack of knowledge.

The use of foglights would be an offence when headlights are normally being used (that is where a man sized figure cannot clearly be seen from a distance of 100m) During the day, it is possible to breach someone for using lights that 'dazzle' (a separate offence again) It can happen, especially out West where the types of lights on some utes are poorly adjust and very bright.

Hope this answers your question.

[siccar]

Hey Plonky,

I was in a servo in my area and my back wheels made a screech sound as I accelerated after filling up. I did not notice the Highway Patrol car up the other end of the station and he pulled me over saying I done a burnout.

I explained to him that I have a disabled drivers kit and cannot engage both Accel and Brake at the same time hence why it screeched so breifly. I did conceed that I accelerated more than normal but what I thought was well within what is considered safe. I also said that there was some petrol/grease on the ground that could have contributed to my lack of grip.

My question is:

Is there a set definition regarding a burnout or does it also come down to interpretation.

He did not see eye to eye with me and said I was doing a burnout. He then gave me a NEG driving charge advising he was doing me a favour. If it was a burnout I would of lost my car for 3 months he said. I did not have a prob with him as he is only doing his job but I do think it was a bit ripe.

[sharkey]

Plonky

Someone I know was driving out in the country on the weekend and saw a fire truck coming up behind them. They pulled over and let the truck pass. Several kms later they were climbing a big hill that had passing lanes. The fire truck was only doing about 60kmh (this was in a 100 zone) so they passed the truck. But there was a line of cars sitting behind the truck, not passing it.

The question is this; is it illegal to pass a fire truck in a situation like this?

[plonky]

  sharkey said:

Plonky

Someone I know was driving out in the country on the weekend and saw a fire truck coming up behind them. They pulled over and let the truck pass. Several kms later they were climbing a big hill that had passing lanes. The fire truck was only doing about 60kmh (this was in a 100 zone) so they passed the truck. But there was a line of cars sitting behind the truck, not passing it.

The question is this; is it illegal to pass a fire truck in a situation like this?

The offence is "Not give way to emergency vehicle", so your friend did the right thing by getting out of the way when the firetruck wanted to pass.

Your friend didn;t do anything wrong by overtaking the firetruck up the hill in the 100kmh zone if the firetruck is only doing 60 and your friend is doing the speed limit of 100kmh.

It is only an offence when you don't give way to the emergency vehicle.

Copy?

[plonky]

  siccar said:

Hey Plonky,

I was in a servo in my area and my back wheels made a screech sound as I accelerated after filling up. I did not notice the Highway Patrol car up the other end of the station and he pulled me over saying I done a burnout.

I explained to him that I have a disabled drivers kit and cannot engage both Accel and Brake at the same time hence why it screeched so breifly. I did conceed that I accelerated more than normal but what I thought was well within what is considered safe. I also said that there was some petrol/grease on the ground that could have contributed to my lack of grip.

My question is:

Is there a set definition regarding a burnout or does it also come down to interpretation.

He did not see eye to eye with me and said I was doing a burnout. He then gave me a NEG driving charge advising he was doing me a favour. If it was a burnout I would of lost my car for 3 months he said. I did not have a prob with him as he is only doing his job but I do think it was a bit ripe.

He gave out the correct breach, that for Negligent Driving. You have done what a prudent and reasonable person wouldn't have done (you said that you accelerated a bit harder than normal and you were aware that the surface may have been slipperier than normal)

A Burnout (I rarely give them out unless it meets the criteria) of a sustained loss of traction. There are more appropriate breaches such as "Drive Vehicle cause Unecessary Noise/Smoke - 2 pts and $206 or Negligent Driving 3pts and $176_

A burnout offence can be very painflu. If a person is convicted of two burnouts, then the vehicle they committed the offence will be seized and forfeited to the Crown. If it is seized for 3 mths, then the person who owns the car has to pay storage and towing.

The two convictions don;t have to be for the same person.

A driver that has one burnout on his traffic record and does a burnout in a car that was used to do a burnout by somebody else will have the car forfeited because the two burnout offences are added together, even though they are by different people.

[sharkey]

  plonky said:

The offence is "Not give way to emergency vehicle", so your friend did the right thing by getting out of the way when the firetruck wanted to pass.

Your friend didn;t do anything wrong by overtaking the firetruck up the hill in the 100kmh zone if the firetruck is only doing 60 and your friend is doing the speed limit of 100kmh.

It is only an offence when you don't give way to the emergency vehicle.

Copy?

Thanks Plonky