Was this illegal or just plain disgraceful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

You may not be a kid, but you choose to ignore the road laws. Knowing the law and willfully ignoring it is much worse IMO.
I strongly disagree. Your circumstances and situation has nothing to do with getting fined for breaking the law. Next you'll argue that poor people, because of their circumstances, can steal or rob anyone with impunity because of their circumstances.

Traffic fines are completely voluntary. If you can't afford them then don't break the laws. So stop whinging like a kid and cop it sweet. It was your decision to break the law.


Peter.

---

Now we get in to a whole different area, and yes I do think the current system is flawed and well overdue for overhaul.
In terms of monetary value, I think fines need to be based upon income.
Last year I was working as a teacher taking home $1500 a fortnight and copped a $150 speeding fine, to be honest I didnt really care about the money, I could wear it not happily, but without a lot of stress. But now I'm out of work and living on $140 a fortnight, if I got the same fine, it goes from being 10% to 107% of my fortnightly income - same crime, vastly different penalty in terms of impact and severity.
Fines should be a percentage of the persons income so that the punishment is equal for all - cop writes you a fine, when you go to pay it you take in a pay slip and the penalty is a fixed percentage of your net pay.

More than that though, the whole points system is flawed and should be circumstance based.
Bruce Highway north from Anzac Ave up to near Gympie where it goes single lane, you can do 10kph over quite happily and more than safely - and lets not forget that most penalties and speed zones are based on 1960's and 70's cars with 4 drum brakes and no power assist or ABS.
Now you take that same car doing the same 10k over and place it outside a school at home time, same car, same excess speed but a vastly different amount of danger, yet the same penalty.

As I said in my earlier post, I've got 26 years on the road and almost every licence you can get. I also spent 2 years working for the Speed Camera section of the WA cops, so I've seen both sides of it - oh and incidentally, back when I was working there I had the same conversation with an inspector who had 30 years in the job and he agreed with everything I've just said here.

Anyhoo.....back on topic......

Bushmiller and I came up with an elegant solution on Sunday to salve the problem. It may happen sooner than we thought Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

Fines should be a percentage of the persons income so that the punishment is equal for all - cop writes you a fine, when you go to pay it you take in a pay slip and the penalty is a fixed percentage of your net pay.

---

And if you don't have an income?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bedford

And if you don't have an income?

---

Easy fixed, you get to spend a few hours picking up rubbish or cleaniing graffiti from alongside a road somewhere - could even make it the road where you were caught speeding.
This way the comunity actually gets to benefit from your misdeed.
Personally speaking, given that I am cash poor and time rich at the moment, I would jump at it if I could easily swap the monetary fine for a few hours of community beneficial labour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

Easy fixed, you get to spend a few hours picking up rubbish or cleaniing graffiti from alongside a road somewhere - could even make it the road where you were caught speeding.
This way the comunity actually gets to benefit from your misdeed.
Personally speaking, given that I am cash poor and time rich at the moment, I would jump at it if I could easily swap the monetary fine for a few hours of community beneficial labour.

---

I have read, and do agree, with most, nearly all, of what you have said. But I don't agree with 'revenue raising' .. think this belongs in the 'conspiracy theory' files.

But ... for all that you say ... you HAVE to remember ... It all starts with you. IF you don't speed, then the whole following sequential chain of events, fair or unfair, can not come about. Fines, punishment, community service, revenue raising, demerit points .... ALL ... start with our own choice when we speed, so we CANNOT blame anyone at all, unless we place ourselves on top of the list.

Just how I see it.

cool bananas ... greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutawintji

I have read, and do agree, with most, nearly all, of what you have said. But I don't agree with 'revenue raising' .. think this belongs in the 'conspiracy theory' files.

But ... for all that you say ... you HAVE to remember ... It all starts with you. IF you don't speed, then the whole following sequential chain of events, fair or unfair, can not come about. Fines, punishment, community service, revenue raising, demerit points .... ALL ... start with our own choice when we speed, so we CANNOT blame anyone at all, unless we place ourselves on top of the list.

Just how I see it.

cool bananas ... greg

---

In terms of revenue raising, I have seen it happen.
When I worked in the WA Camera section we would see the cameras all of a sudden get switched from main roads where they averaged up to several hundred speeders a shift, to residential streets where they were lucky to get 2 or 3. The reason was openly stated within the section that the amount of money raised by the camera's was a publicly known figure, that the public had a set amount they would tolerate before it became politically dangerous to the government, and when that figure was close the cameras were switched to areas where they would get little or no speeders.

In terms of speeding fines I agree with you, speeding is a choice, if you make that choice you shut up and pay the fine - and if you do not have ability to hold your car to the speed limit you should not be on the road.
In this instance, I am off with being written up while being told that were I a child I would get a warning - that is what angers me about this.
Yes I'm an adult and should know better, and I do know better. I know the road rules and I have the situational awareness that comes from being on the road 26 years, I obey the road rules and I consider myself at much less risk on a push bike than a child. I ride a push bike the same way I rode (before I had to sell it) my motorbike - that is treating every car like it wants to kill me.
The cop asked me why I was riding without a helmet, I told her I was unemployed and riding to try and lose weight for both health reasons and to improve my job prospects.
She could have done the decent thing and given me a warning, instead she wrote me up when she could have shown a little common decency and leniency.
Fair cop I was in the wrong, but what ##### me is the double standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

In terms of revenue raising, I have seen it happen.
When I worked in the WA Camera section we would see the cameras all of a sudden get switched from main roads where they averaged up to several hundred speeders a shift, to residential streets where they were lucky to get 2 or 3. The reason was openly stated within the section that the amount of money raised by the camera's was a publicly known figure, that the public had a set amount they would tolerate before it became politically dangerous to the government, and when that figure was close the cameras were switched to areas where they would get little or no speeders.

---

Hmmmmmmmmmm ....


Under the Westminster system of govt, which Australia follows ... it is absolutely verboten for the three bodies (govt, judiciary, police) to collude in any way at all.

In order to 'raise revenue' collusion would have to occur. Despite others within your section openly stating ... they are only stating their opinions, not actual evidence.

Also ... In busy traffic streams, peak hours, if the 'average' speed of traffic is over the limit it will not be presecuted because it would be counter productive. This is not the same as revenue raising.

my opinion only ... Greg

There are lots of flaws Greg.
When I started working at Camera section I took the trouble to read the ADR's in relation to speed monitoring and in particular vehicle speedos.
At the time, the ADR's stated that a vehicle speedo was considered accurate if reading + or - 10%. That means that in a 100 zone, with your speedo showing 100, you could be doing anywhere between 90 and 110 yet your speedo is accurate according to the ADR's.
When I first started working at Camera section the camera's were set to go at speed limit +9k, within 4 months that had dropped to +8. So on the freeway you would be pinged at 108, yet the ADR's stated your speedo was accurate if it showed 100 and you were doing up 110.
So in actual fact the WA Police were asking you to guard your speed to a higher degree of accuracy than allowed by the ADR's.

What you say about collusion I assume is correct (I don't know) but remember that in most states the police commisioner is appointed by the government, that same police commisioner gets his contract renewed, or not, by the same government.
While there may not be any blatant illegality, if a politician were to suggest to a commisioner that the camera's are better off on road A which has lots speeders but very few traffic accidents, rather than road B which has had a spate a bad accidents but would get very few speeders, then the said commisioner would be considered nothing more than human for heeding that suggestion.

In terms of the camera's I actually believe they should be hidden, I disagree strongly with the locations being made public. That said there is a certain amount of revenue raising done with them which is proven by the locations they are used in - don't take my word for it, see if you can get a list of last years locations via RTI and compare that with a list of fatal accident locations or the RAC's bad roads list. You won't see many matches.

Extract from ADR

5.3. The speed indicated shall not be less than the true speed of the vehicle. At the test speeds specified in paragraph 5.2.5. above, there shall be the following relationship between the speed displayed (V1 ) and the true speed (V2).


0 ≤ (V1 - V2) ≤ 0.1 V2 + 4 km/h

So you can not be travelling faster than the speedo displayed speed.

EDIT
This is the current ADR.
So don't use the old ADR as an excuse when pulled over....:;

Note that the first three words of my statement concerning ADR's are "at the time".
I have no idea what the ADR's state now, but at the time they stipulated + or - 10%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Anyhoo.....back on topic......

Bushmiller and I came up with an elegant solution on Sunday to salve the problem. It may happen sooner than we thought Paul.

---

Brett

Right on :wink:.

Regards
Paul

Been away for a while. Initially recovering from the euphoria of the BM GTG2 and then from going bush and milling a little timber for my work bench and several hundred other projects (yeah, yeah I know I've been told a million times not to exaggerate).

Some very interesting points have been made while I was not around (I might have to to disappear or at least stay a little quieter again).

My own belief is that rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. Now I am not really in the category of wise men and I have to acknowledge that Douglas Bader mentioned this thought a long time before me.

I heard a long time a ago that if you want people to travel at 110Kph you set set the speed limit at 100Kph and so on. If the law becomes pedantic it can penalise you for a minor infringement and raise revenue. If thirty are cars are travelling at 70 Kph in a 60Kph zone down the Paramatta road in Sydney during the rush hour it is unlikely the cops will pull you over. Do the same trick at night time and you might get pinged. (Don't pull me up on semantics here as I am trying to illustrate a point).

The point is that the law is a guideline at best and at worst it can be enforced to the Nth degree. It can be used as a revenue raising tool or it can be enforced with the spirit of the law in mind and the intention of the law at heart.

The irony is that because it is law, you have no grounds to stand on if they chose to enforce it. In fact the administrators would probably say it is not in the jurisdiction of the police to use discretion. No wonder the law has a reputation for being an ar*s.

I believe in practice many police do exercise discretion, but probably not enough of them and this is partly because of senior police being on their backs. Do I have facts to back this up? No: It's just a supposition.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I heard a long time a ago that if you want people to travel at 110Kph you set set the speed limit at 100Kph and so on. If the law becomes pedantic it can penalise you for a minor infringement and raise revenue. If thirty are cars are travelling at 70 Kph in a 60Kph zone down the Paramatta road in Sydney during the rush hour it is unlikely the cops will pull you over. Do the same trick at night time and you might get pinged. (Don't pull me up on semantics here as I am trying to illustrate a point).

The point is that the law is a guideline at best and at worst it can be enforced to the Nth degree. It can be used as a revenue raising tool or it can be enforced with the spirit of the law in mind and the intention of the law at heart.

The irony is that because it is law, you have no grounds to stand on if they chose to enforce it. In fact the administrators would probably say it is not in the jurisdiction of the police to use discretion. No wonder the law has a reputation for being an ar*s.

I believe in practice many police do exercise discretion, but probably not enough of them and this is partly because of senior police being on their backs. Do I have facts to back this up? No: It's just a supposition.

Regards
Paul

---

You are probably correct.

Perhaps it is also a matter of a few go to far, and everyone else suffers for it.

It is not so much that some go a few K's over, but one or two go more than a few K's over.

The law is the law, just that some one needs to enforce it.

G'day Paul,
Good to see you are safe & well at home.
The Parramatta Road at 70kph in peak hours is a big stretch as that traffic is normally bumper to bumper.
BUT understand what you are saying from my one & one speeding ticket back in the early 1970's in Melbourne when the ship I was on was in Williamtown dockyard for hull repairs..... week days the drive from the Marabonong accommodation to the dock the traffic sat on nearly 80kph in the 60 zone... on Sunday I had duty watch and got done for doing 65kph in the 60 zone at 6am with no traffic on the road and no discretion even for a member of the Royal Australian Navy on his way to his ship... did the crime & paid the fine.
Cheers, crowie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

The reason motorcyclists have more accidents than cars is because of asshole drivers who either don't see us because they have their head up their ####, ipod, or newspaper (and yeah when I worked at Camera section in WA I saw a woman doing 78/60 while reading a newspaper, this particular shot taken by the best operator in the section and I could read the masthead of the paper) or, they see us and don't give a ####, or they see us and deliberately use size and the fact that we're unprotected to intimidate us.
I was doing 105 on the Bruce Hwy south bound from the Bribie island road and had a rigid tipper literally 200mm off my back wheel - I still have his rego and when I see him there'll be an unpleasant (for him) conversation.
Motorcyclist block the road - which dream or movie did you see that in, yeah the bikies get an escort but any cop will tell you that that's for the protection of the general rather than the bikies benefit, and before providing that escort the cops go in mob handed to RBT, drug test, and do licence and roadworthiness checks on ever bike and rider.
Truckies get a police escort when they do xmas charity runs and so do hot rodders.

It's been scientifically proven that motorcycles create less congestion and less polution.
Motorcycles are also better trained and tested to a higher standard than car drivers - the sum total of my tests for C and HC licences was less than 40 minutes. I did a 5 hour assessment last year for my restricted bike licence and will do another 5 hours in a few weeks for my open licence.
We also pay more in rego in taxes since most of us have both car and bike, and our bikes are better maintained since a mechanical issue (such as sudden tyre deflation) could lead to an accident.

---

You are talking about Aussy, I am talking about France. As you can see, that's where I live. As for road condition of motos. There is no Control Tecnique, mechanical test, for bikes here and a lot of them are in a terrible condition.

The French are lovely people until they get behind a steering wheel and then so many of them go very offensive and will give way to no-one, especially motos. But so many bikers are so bad and yes, when they have a greevance they will and do block roads. There was an incident that did just that for a couple of hours in the cenret of Carcassonne a while back. Even the emergency vehicles were blocked. I was in Carcassonne when it happened and wondered what the hell it was all about? The reason was that the governement wanted to pass a law that cars had to have riding lights during the day so that they could be seen easily! Bikers saids it would make them more vunerable and blocked roads all over the country.

That law didn't happen and now the fashion is that almost all the new cars have high power led lights at the front anyway.

If you were to go at every driver who tailgated you here then you would be a VERY busy person.

I also agree with what has been said before. If you knew the law and decided to break it then you have no reason to cry out about the fine me-thinks..

As Bushmiller said, the police can either enforce the law to the inth degree or they can apply a little leniency.
In my instance, I accept that I was in the wrong, I just think that a degree of mercy and leniency could have been applied by the officer given my situation.
I will also state that in 26 years of driving, having received a few fines, this is the first time I have ever complained about one - ah well, between licences and industry tickets Queensland main roads get so much money off me each year that another $110 won't make much difference.

As for the mechanical condition of bikes, here it varies from state to state, and in Queensland aside from a pretty basic change of ownership road worthiness check there is no mechanical checks. That said, every motorcyclist I know keeps their bike in top condition because of the vulnerability issue - for example losing tyre pressure on a car can get exciting but is usually survivable, the same thing on a bike can at best cost some skin.

And John, turning in to an a-hole when you step behind the wheel is not soley a French trait, many Aussies suffer from that problem.

So what is the big solution you guys have alluded to, I'm curious given that I once had a discussion with a cop over parking the wrong way on a street - in my case I had no idea it was illegal and had parked that way outside work to save myself a 3 point turn at knock off as I had virtually no clutch.

Cheers
Paul
(Smidsy)

PS Sorry for hijacking your thread guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

As Bushmiller said, the police can either enforce the law to the nth degree or they can apply a little leniency.

---

IMO the stronger the enforcement of all our laws the better of we will be. If you want to be a law breaker then you deserve the punishment it entails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

In my instance, I accept that I was in the wrong, I just think that a degree of mercy and leniency could have been applied by the officer given my situation.

---

In your case, with all the experience you said you have, no mercy or leniency should be given, in fact because of your experience the fine should have been higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

I'm curious given that I once had a discussion with a cop over parking the wrong way on a street - in my case I had no idea it was illegal and had parked that way outside work to save myself a 3 point turn at knock off as I had virtually no clutch.

---

If you had virtually no clutch your car was unroadworthy and should have been taken of the road. With you're experience of the law you should have known that. Another law breaking event of which you seem to be proud of.

------

What amazes me that some of you guys seem to think that adhering to road laws is an optional exercise depending on how you feel or the time of day or whether it's a full moon.

If you take that attitude you might also decide that stop signs, give way signs or even traffic lights can be ignored. Or reduced speed at school crossings or what about pedestrian crossings.

I'm more and more convinced that the hoon laws should be made tougher and applied to lower speed offences. If your car gets crushed for disobeying road laws you may start to obey the law. Also mandatory loss of licence ought to be in place for a lot more offences than drink driving, with mandatory jail time if caught driving without a licence.

If these stronger measures get put in place, and strictly enforced, the emergency rooms at our hospitals might be half empty and more hospital beds and surgery would be available for those that need it rather then inconsiderate and stupid drivers.

Peter.

It seems that the laws are made for the average driver, but we all know we're better than average, so we shouldn't have to obey them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

It seems that the laws are made for the average driver, but we all know we're better than average, so we shouldn't have to obey them.

---

I'm sure that you'll keep saying that when a speeding drunk driver hits the car that your best mate was driving and kills him, like what happened to my mate.

It's easy to talk in the abstract or make fun of it thinking it will never happen to you BUT when you or your family are touched in a similar manner by these hoons that disobey the road laws I'm sure you will very quickly change your tune.

I'll now leave this topic, I've said my bit, but some of you with your attitudes disgust me.

Peter.

Sturdee, I think it's the inconsistency that aggravates people more than anything. Some examples from my experience, and I shall put them up as separate posts to avoid a great slab of text. My point is that the law cannot be universally applied because situations are not universally the same, and interpretation, common sense and above all local conditions must be taken into account to effect good policing.

1.
When living in the Southern Highlands in the late 90s I had been out for dinner, and home was about 2-3km away. I'd had some wine over a fair period, and finished with a very small neat Single Malt (purely as a digestive of course). I felt that I was ok to drive (didn't feel intoxicated at all). About 1 km from home there was random breath testing, and I was pulled over, and naturally I felt a little apprehensive. I explained what I'd had to drink, and that I'd just a few minutes before finished a neat Scotch, and would have residual mouth alcohol. The copper said that I could either blow now and he would make a small allowance for that or I could wait 20 minutes. I chose the former, and the breathalyser went amber (borderline, over/under). He asked me how far I had to go, "1 km" and he said "off you go then". Bear in mind that this is rural NSW, not a big city. On the public relations side of things I had an increased respect for the police after this.

2.
Once I was travelling at 128kph by the speedo in a 110 zone, when the cruise control was set to 120 (because I knew for a fact the speedo was 9% under in this vehicle), but I had come down a major hill and was going to let the next uphill take off the excess speed (this was a Motorway with virtually no traffic at the time, again in the Southern Highlands, just north of Mittagong). Then I saw the parked radar car up ahead and fully expected to be pulled over. However, he didn't budge. He clearly had his radar set to go off for cars doing +10 as determined by true speed, and I was doing only +8, even though the speedo said +18. In subsequent years I asked the NSW Traffic Commander about how they set radars (he was a client of mine) and he said it was "usually plus 10% of the limit plus 4kph" so in a 110 zone it would be +11 +4 = 15 (so I was still 7-9 kph under pinging speed, and in fact I could have been doing 135kph be the speedo and not been booked. Where's the sense in that???

25kph over by the speedo and not get booked!!!! EH???

3.
OTOH, one morning I had just dropped my son at school and so was critically aware that it was school time. I drove off, not exceeding 40, only to later learn that this street was (somehow) not a school zone. Turned left onto the main road which I knew was a school zone, still <=40. Stopped at the lights, then proceeded on at 60. This particular section of road has a 1km stretch of School Zone because there are two schools about 600-700 metres apart. The SZ is continuous, but if you have stopped at the major intersection, there is no immediate reminder on the other side, and there is a plethora of various roadsigns to take in. You are still 500 metres from the next school. About 70-80 metres after the intersection I was pinged by a mobile radar car - and I was just getting prepared for the next school zone (i.e. looking for the first sign). The car was hidden behind trees, as was a reminder sign. In my opinion this fine was completely unfair because of the length of the SZ without visible reminder signs. Clearly I was on full alert for SZs. The copper would have served the community better by standing out waving his arm downwards to remind traffic about this unusually long SZ. What is a better use of resources? Booking cars, unknown to them until some weeks later, and so they continue at the same speed, STILL ENDANGERING CHILDREN'S LIVES, or waving them down as a reminder so that they don't endanger lives????? The latter clearly makes more safety sense (I'd like to see a counter-argument to that one!), and is also a brilliant public relations exercise. It is also cheaper as the pictures does not have to be processed, notifications sent out etc.

I went to court on this one and received a reduced fine and less points knocked off, no court costs. I produced pics of the whole stretch of road, and apparently must have made a cogent argument as described above.

4.
This one is quite interesting. In the period before the Sydney Olympics there were major roadworks on the M4 and traffic was pulled back to 80kph from 110. I was obeying this, travelling in the right hand line slowly getting past a huge chain of perhaps 10-12 semi-trailers about 200-250 metres long (all involved in the roadworks). When I was just over halfway past this chain of trucks I caught a vague glimpse of my exit coming up (the height of the trucks was blocking my left hand vision) in the next 500 metres, about 22 seconds away. My current speed was not going to get me past the chain in time, and there was no way I was going to drop in between two of the these trucks who were virtually tailgating each other (as they do to conserve fuel). So, what to do???

I had a three choices:

1. Add a little speed to get past them safely and make a courteous exit (I was the lead car in my lane)
2. Put my brakes on for gawd knows how long to let 125 metres of trucks go past me so I could duck in behind them, and hopefully still make the exit. This would have caused enormous inconvenience to the huge stream of cars behind me (it was very very busy, and compacted because of the roadworks). This would also have caused great potential danger of an accident because it would only take one thickhead to drop into the stream of trucks because they would now be going faster, and we all know how impatient thickheads are. Of course added to this was that by the time the trucks went past I would then be faced with trying to drop in on all the thickheads who had subsequently changed lanes. THIS WAS NOT AN OPTION FOR A MOMENT.
3. Continue on to the next exit, quite some kilometres further on, retrace my steps etc through reasonably foreign territory.

So, I chose option 1 as the best all round choice. Wouldn't you know it - radar up ahead, and they pinged me. They flagged me to pull off to the right hand side of the motorway, thus inconveniencing the aforementioned traffic behind me, which I had tried so hard to avoid. Because of the roadworks the coppers with the radar gun had to stand right on the edge of the traffic lane and lean out into it to take their readings. This was clearly very unsafe practice. As a professional photographer at the time I had a car full of gear, and so proceeded to take pictures of their activities, the traffic stream etc.

Well, one of them took great exception to me photographing them, and I have a picture of him striding towards me. I knew my rights, and knew he couldn't stop me. The subsequent exchange:

• "What do you think you're doing"
• "Taking pictures to take to court of your ridiculously unsafe work practices, endangering not only your safety but that of the motorists. And I don't think I can do it - you and I both know I can do it, so if you don't mind I'll get on with it". (nothing like aggravating an already aggravated copper - legally:D:dev:)
• "HURRUMPH!" and walked off.

I still have all these pics, btw, but they are prints, and my scanner is busted.

And so I went to court which resulted in no fine, no court costs, points loss reduced from 4 to 1. I still have a copy of the statement that I read to the court.

5.
Travelling north of Singleton on the rather good road to Lake Liddell (at least it was at the time), I remembered it as being a 110 zone (coz it sure felt like it - divided road an' all). Wrong! Copper pursued me and pulled me over, only to ask THE most aggravating question of all: "How are you today sir?".

"Booked, at a guess" which at least got a grunt of laughter from him.....

Cheers
Brett

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

I'm sure that you'll keep saying that when a speeding drunk driver hits the car that your best mate was driving and kills him, like what happened to my mate.

It's easy to talk in the abstract or make fun of it thinking it will never happen to you BUT when you or your family are touched in a similar manner by these hoons that disobey the road laws I'm sure you will very quickly change your tune.

I'll now leave this topic, I've said my bit, but some of you with your attitudes disgust me.

Peter.

---

Think you may have missed the tongue in cheek there Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

5.
Travelling north of Singleton on the rather good road to Lake Liddell (at least it was at the time), I remembered it as being a 110 zone (coz it sure felt like it - divided road an' all). Wrong! Copper pursued me and pulled me over, only to ask THE most aggravating question of all: "How are you today sir?".

"Booked, at a guess" which at least got a grunt of laughter from him.....

Cheers
Brett

---

Reminds me of the time I got pinged outside Cunderdin in WA - fairly late at night and I had the hammer down, I didn't complain when he wrote me up for 133/110 because the speedo read 138.
Anyway, the cop walks up to the door and asks me if I have any excuse for speeding - when I replied "none good enough to get you to let me off" he laughed as he reached for the book.
He was pretty cool though - even let me get out and have a smoke (company non smoking car) while he did the formalities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

Anyway, the cop walks up to the door and asks me if I have any excuse for speeding - when I replied "none good enough to get you to let me off" he laughed as he reached for the book.

---

Have said the same on a few occasions.

At the end of the day, I'm peeved about this helmet fine because of the double standard, getting a fine when a child would have been warned.
That said, speeding fines I accept with probably not happiness, but good grace - you don't want a fine, don't speed. If you are incapable of driving to the limit then it's time to hand in the car keys. Its that simple.

Something that's becoming a new pet peeve of mine is the amount of old timers I see here riding unregistered motorised (both electric and petrol engined) scooters and push bikes on the footpaths - including today, a road going petrol scooter with no rego being ridden on the footpath by an old guy in a foam bicycle helmet. And not a cop in sight.

This one was a woman who parked like this for over 4 hours. Multiple near misses on cars coming around the corner. Busy main road and side street, endangered pedestrians as well. If you look at the angle you will see the rear of the car is actually angled out into the road further than the front.



Attachment 267697Attachment 267696Attachment 267695

There's still a lotta wine an lonely girls,
In this best-of-all-possible worlds


cool bananas ... Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutawintji

There's still a lotta wine an lonely girls,
In this best-of-all-possible worlds


cool bananas ... Greg

---

You're showing you age, Greg... Kris Kristofferson....

Haaaa ... thats true .....

Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

I'll now leave this topic, I've said my bit, but some of you with your attitudes disgust me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Think you may have missed the tongue in cheek there Peter.

---

Sorry, but no "tongue in cheek" smilie for I'm deadly serious in this matter and so far nothing has been said that would convince me otherwise.

Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Sorry, but no "tongue in cheek" smilie for I'm deadly serious in this matter and so far nothing has been said that would convince me otherwise.

Peter.

---

Ok, but to be clear, I meant AlexS was tongue in cheek.

Greg (Muta), you've got mail. At least, you will have.

Can't say too much = LLSS. :;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Think you may have missed the tongue in cheek there Peter.

---

Thanks FF, saved me saying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

I'm sure that you'll keep saying that when a speeding drunk driver hits the car that your best mate was driving and kills him, like what happened to my mate.

It's easy to talk in the abstract or make fun of it thinking it will never happen to you BUT when you or your family are touched in a similar manner by these hoons that disobey the road laws I'm sure you will very quickly change your tune.

I'll now leave this topic, I've said my bit, but some of you with your attitudes disgust me.

Peter.

---

You know folks I have to agree with Sturdee on this.
I looked at my profile this morning and it seems I have been here a few days past 9 years.

When I joined this was the best forum on the net, we could swap views and share opinions, and we could do so without it becoming personal, without taking it personally, and without putting the other person down. We could respect the other person without agreeing with their view, we could accept that someone having a different view does not make them a lesser person, and we could participate in a thread without resorting to personal attacks and put downs on someone who committed the henous crime of disagreeing. We did all this with a STRONG sense of fun, a STRONG sense of respect and WITHOUT getting personal.

What I have found in this thread is a moderator who criticises a post without actually reading it properly, and while quick to wrongly criticise remains strangely silent when called out about his error (I've moderated forums including one of 8000 members, and when you are known as a mod you are expected to stand out from the crowd and work to a higher level in terms of what you post) and personal attacks combined with a gross lack of respect for each other.

Using as an example my comment about driving a car with not a lot of clutch. The fact is that I was working shifts which precluded public transport, the same shifts also made it hard to get family or friends to give me a ride the 40k each way, and the clutch went bad pretty suddenly. So yeah I drove it for the two weeks it took me to find a place that could do the job and also give me a loan car to get to work.
Now certain people are going to slag me off no end for such a horrendous deed, but the fact that I drove it for two weeks incident (and accident) free is proof that I was safe - and most of the 30 cops I shared an office with knew the condition of the car and obviouslyl didn't have a problem with it either.
Did I enjoy driving the car that way - not particularly it was a pain in the butt. BUT, I made the best of what I had at the time, I felt just a little pride that I COULD do it (in terms of skill) and if I had to do it again I would.

The fact is that we do not all have the same perfect little lives with a plethora of spare vehicles, finances and friends able to provide taxi services. Not all of us have the finances to replace cars every few years, some of us have to make do with older cars that aren't quite perfect - we make the best of what we have. Some of us even prefer older cars with a little character - my ideal car would be a Hx-Hz Kingswood wagon.

This forum is not (at least it didn't used to be) about slagging people off, or making personal attacks on fellow members because they don't live up to or by your standard.
And the worst part of it all, is that the worst of it isn't coming from newbies with 10 minutes membership and less than 100 posts, the worst of it is coming from senior members with upwards of 5k posts - the very people that should be better, that should know better, and who should be looked up to around here.

Jason Plato (British touring car driver) when asked about an accident replied "my bucket of talent wasn't as full as I thought it was".
Well folks after this thread and being attacked and slagged off, my bucket of respect is a lot emptier than it use to be.

As with Sturdee I am out of this thread, have fun folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

You know folks I have to agree with Sturdee on this.
I looked at my profile this morning and it seems I have been here a few days past 9 years.

When I joined this was the best forum on the net, we could swap views and share opinions, and we could do so without it becoming personal, without taking it personally, and without putting the other person down. We could respect the other person without agreeing with their view, we could accept that someone having a different view does not make them a lesser person, and we could participate in a thread without resorting to personal attacks and put downs on someone who committed the henous crime of disagreeing. We did all this with a STRONG sense of fun, a STRONG sense of respect and WITHOUT getting personal.

You still can but personal attacks have and always will be stomped on pretty quickly.

What I have found in this thread is a moderator who criticises a post without actually reading it properly, and while quick to wrongly criticise remains strangely silent when called out about his error (I've moderated forums including one of 8000 members, and when you are known as a mod you are expected to stand out from the crowd and work to a higher level in terms of what you post) and personal attacks combined with a gross lack of respect for each other.

I have spent the last 35 minutes reading this whole thread through again and can find nowhere where a mod has criticised any one. If you point it out to me it shall be dealt with.

Using as an example my comment about driving a car with not a lot of clutch. The fact is that I was working shifts which precluded public transport, the same shifts also made it hard to get family or friends to give me a ride the 40k each way, and the clutch went bad pretty suddenly. So yeah I drove it for the two weeks it took me to find a place that could do the job and also give me a loan car to get to work.
Now certain people are going to slag me off no end for such a horrendous deed, but the fact that I drove it for two weeks incident (and accident) free is proof that I was safe - and most of the 30 cops I shared an office with knew the condition of the car and obviouslyl didn't have a problem with it either.
Did I enjoy driving the car that way - not particularly it was a pain in the butt. BUT, I made the best of what I had at the time, I felt just a little pride that I COULD do it (in terms of skill) and if I had to do it again I would.

The fact is that we do not all have the same perfect little lives with a plethora of spare vehicles, finances and friends able to provide taxi services. Not all of us have the finances to replace cars every few years, some of us have to make do with older cars that aren't quite perfect - we make the best of what we have. Some of us even prefer older cars with a little character - my ideal car would be a Hx-Hz Kingswood wagon.

This forum is not (at least it didn't used to be) about slagging people off, or making personal attacks on fellow members because they don't live up to or by your standard.
And the worst part of it all, is that the worst of it isn't coming from newbies with 10 minutes membership and less than 100 posts, the worst of it is coming from senior members with upwards of 5k posts - the very people that should be better, that should know better, and who should be looked up to around here.

In your first paragraph you say that people used to be able to disagree without getting slagged on, however reading through the posts, people are expressing their opinions not slagging anyone off and you seem to be the one arguing with some when they said you deserved the fine for not wearing a helmet.

Jason Plato (British touring car driver) when asked about an accident replied "my bucket of talent wasn't as full as I thought it was".
Well folks after this thread and being attacked and slagged off, my bucket of respect is a lot emptier than it use to be.

As with Sturdee I am out of this thread, have fun folks.

---

This thread will be closed in 24 hours as it is starting to act like the Oozlum bird.

I saw Smidsy's and 's post last night and thought long and hard whether, despite my desire to no longer debate this issue for I felt it might become personal, I should reply to some things mentioned.

However :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

And the worst part of it all, is that the worst of it isn't coming from newbies with 10 minutes membership and less than 100 posts, the worst of it is coming from senior members with upwards of 5k posts - the very people that should be better, that should know better, and who should be looked up to around here.

---

As I feel that this post was specifically aimed at me, and tried to put me down, I've decided to make some final comments in rebuttal. I don't need your admonition that I should know better.

I'm not the one that breaks road laws and then whinge that I've been unfairly treated when I get caught BUT you keep on how bad it is and how unfair it is because you want special treatment because of your circumstances.

So admonish yourself rather then others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

When I joined this was the best forum on the net, we could swap views and share opinions, and we could do so without it becoming personal, without taking it personally, and without putting the other person down......................... We did all this with a STRONG sense of fun, a STRONG sense of respect and WITHOUT getting personal.

---

At no time have I made this personal, neither have I put you down, but this topic is not a fun topic but IMO a deadly serious one. All I have done is disagree with you and use your own points in rebuttal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smidsy

The fact is that we do not all have the same perfect little lives with a plethora of spare vehicles, finances and friends able to provide taxi services. Not all of us have the finances to replace cars every few years, some of us have to make do with older cars that aren't quite perfect - we make the best of what we have. Some of us even prefer older cars.

---

I don't have a plethora of spare vehicles and finances to replace cars every few years. I am a simple pensioner who drives an 18 year old car and my wife drives a 15 year old car BUT both are in good mechanical condition. The first and only time I bought a new car was when I was 22 and single and worry free, since then it has always been second hand cars. So we're in the same boat.

Finally this is a deadly serious topic and should not be treated lightly. The death toll and serious injuries that can happen from accidents make it that way so I will always refute and oppose anyone and anywhere who thinks it's okay to not obey the road laws. If you don't like them go tell it to your member of parliament to get change but meanwhile obey them for your own, or your loved ones lives may depend on it.

And that was definitely my final comment.

Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

... when I was 22 and single and worry free, since then it has always been second hand

---

No one is taking the the road toll lightly tho we may be lightly discussing it.

Driving and the traffic laws are not always a subject for sepulchral tones ... it is possible to be lighthearted even when machine guns are chattering away at you. Your premise that the road toll can only be discussed as 'deadly serious' is false. Happy people are just as good at making decisions as miserable ones are.

I wasn't gunna post this cuz I thought it would reawaken old wounds from my previous conviction of parking in a wheelchair space. But now that you have definitely, finally and utterly, made your last post no problem of comeback ....

:))

cool bananas ... Greg