Jump to content
SAU Community

Road Fatalities Vs Anti-hoon Policing

Primordial

By Primordial,
in New South Wales

 Share

Recommended Posts

DRD-00F Grand Master

DRD-00F

Posted
Posted
Ok, i think i've said this a numberous times, it's all up the police office on duty, 4 out of 5 they will let you go, They are not there to pull you over and defect you because you have a hotted up car, that's not what HWP and street cops are designed and paid for.

You know, I told my boss today that I was defected, and he asked "Why did he pull you over?"

It was only today that I realised a reason wasn't even given... it wasn't a random breathe test, no drug search, and I wasn't speeding or misbehaving in any way... He pulled me over because of the car that I drive...

Sorry to argue Albert, but this officer of our laws, did EXACTLY the opposite to what you said, just 2 days ago...

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Sheng Grand Master

Sheng

Posted
Posted
I think I'll replace the GT-R badges with Volvo ones when I get my R35 :D ...

Let's not... :)

You know, I told my boss today that I was defected, and he asked "Why did he pull you over?"

It was only today that I realised a reason wasn't even given... it wasn't a random breathe test, no drug search, and I wasn't speeding or misbehaving in any way... He pulled me over because of the car that I drive...

Sorry to argue Albert, but this officer of our laws, did EXACTLY the opposite to what you said, just 2 days ago...

Ok, that's illegal, under the law enforcement act, section 99(2), says 'A police officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person if the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has committed an offence under any Act or statutory instrument' and also 'The arrest is made in circumstances sanctioned by Law; The arrester notifies the arrestee as to the fact of his arrest; A suffcient act of the arrest to detain the liberty of the arrestee, by words or action, or both; The arrester notifies the arrestee as to the reason(s) for his arrest.

In your case, the officer must state the reason(s) that why he pulled you over, and what he is going to do with your vechicle, i.e looking for little ones, child porn, black dildo etc...but let not go that far :D

So what i'm saying, what he did was un-lawful, and you could put up with a good fight in court if you have all the facts.

scathing Grand Master

scathing

Posted
Posted
LOL that would be a joke if they were aiming for zero deaths. People are goin to die. Thats just wat happens. Only way to stop this as far as i can see is to remove all vehicles from our roads. Hmm dunno how this would go down with the people tho??

As long as we use vehicles, people will die.

Why is it a joke?

If you aim for something considered unachievable, then "fair enough" is never "good enough". You keep doing your best to get closer and closer to that goal.

If you just say, "Oh, lets aim for 200 fatalities nationally a year, because people are sure to die)" then what's the incentive to save those other 199 lives if you manage to drop below that target?

Its accepting that half-arsed attitude that's half the problem with society these days.

If you aim for perfection and just miss, there's no dishonour in what you've achieved.

JAS-25T Grand Master

JAS-25T

Posted
Posted
Let's not... :thumbsup:

Ok, that's illegal, under the law enforcement act, section 99(2), says 'A police officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person if the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has committed an offence under any Act or statutory instrument' and also 'The arrest is made in circumstances sanctioned by Law; The arrester notifies the arrestee as to the fact of his arrest; A suffcient act of the arrest to detain the liberty of the arrestee, by words or action, or both; The arrester notifies the arrestee as to the reason(s) for his arrest.

In your case, the officer must state the reason(s) that why he pulled you over, and what he is going to do with your vechicle, i.e looking for little ones, child porn, black dildo etc...but let not go that far :)

So what i'm saying, what he did was un-lawful, and you could put up with a good fight in court if you have all the facts.

He wasn't arrested Bert. Just pulled over.

MaTBoY Grand Master

MaTBoY

Posted
Posted
LOL that would be a joke if they were aiming for zero deaths. People are goin to die. Thats just wat happens. Only way to stop this as far as i can see is to remove all vehicles from our roads. Hmm dunno how this would go down with the people tho??

As long as we use vehicles, people will die.

I think the police are aiming to have everyone drive drive the same car, all stock as rock, lol.

I can see the future already. Everyone drivin round in KIA Rio's or some sh!t. :thumbsup:

Hmm that would suck. Think i would go over seas if that happened.

Getting the vehicle death toll to zero seriously is the RTA's plan. They're been working away on their first plan for a few years, it's called 2012. Basically the idea is that one day technology will provide the ultimate solution, but in the mean time they can reduce the toll by changing people's behaviour and ideas. i.e. "No one thinks big of you"

The plan is broken into 3 parts.

Safer Roads

Safer Vehicles

Safer People

And about the driving around in kia rias... they're trialling an 'Intelligent Speed System" in some cars around wollongong right now, so maybe speed limited cars with Big Brother helping us behind the wheel is the future. Who knows...

DRD-00F Grand Master

DRD-00F

Posted
Posted
Let's not... :P

Ok, that's illegal, under the law enforcement act, section 99(2), says 'A police officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person if the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has committed an offence under any Act or statutory instrument' and also 'The arrest is made in circumstances sanctioned by Law; The arrester notifies the arrestee as to the fact of his arrest; A suffcient act of the arrest to detain the liberty of the arrestee, by words or action, or both; The arrester notifies the arrestee as to the reason(s) for his arrest.

In your case, the officer must state the reason(s) that why he pulled you over, and what he is going to do with your vechicle, i.e looking for little ones, child porn, black dildo etc...but let not go that far :D

So what i'm saying, what he did was un-lawful, and you could put up with a good fight in court if you have all the facts.

I probably wouldn't bother, as I don't know what he would have written down... He just came up to me and said I'm blah blah blah from bleh bleh bleh, could you please shut the engine off, step out of the car with your keys and hand me your license.

I made him repeat it a few times cause of the traffic buzzing by, and the fact that he was speaking straight into his helmet, I couldn't hear a word he said...

Either way, next time I get pulled over, make sure you're with me Sheng :D

Abo Bob Grand Master

Abo Bob

Posted
Posted
Why is it a joke?

If you aim for something considered unachievable, then "fair enough" is never "good enough". You keep doing your best to get closer and closer to that goal.

If you just say, "Oh, lets aim for 200 fatalities nationally a year, because people are sure to die)" then what's the incentive to save those other 199 lives if you manage to drop below that target?

Its accepting that half-arsed attitude that's half the problem with society these days.

If you aim for perfection and just miss, there's no dishonour in what you've achieved.

It's not a half arsed attitude, it's a realistic attitude.

As for being half the problem with society these days, I'd put it closer to 1%. :P

4teecal Collaborator

4teecal

Posted
Posted
In his case, same laws applies.

Can you explain how it applies when the power to stop the vehicle comes from S36A.

He was stopped for either breath test or a breach of regulations. He said he may not have heard the reason. Nonetheless he was not arrested. I can't see how S99 does apply.

Sheng Grand Master

Sheng

Posted
Posted

Ok. let's just disregard the Sections for now.

The police have this thing called 'Sanction by law', which means He/she must state the reason(s) for your arrest, Unless it's under a special circumstances, i.e, Johnney Shitbag robs a bank, police comes in and negotiate with him, sprays him, then cuffs him. So it's pretty obvious that he did something wrong. in Doof's case. he got pulled over, officers could at least tell him something like "Ok, mate, we are here to defect your car, or we are here to search your car, because i have suspicions that you have drugs in your car..."

Doof replies something like: "No worries officer, i have nothing to hide, do what ever you like.."

Ok now, you may ask "Well he(Doof) knew that he have lot's of defects in his car, which is a crime by the books. And the officers knew that he(Doof) knew that oh shit i have a lot of defects in my car, and I'm gonna get done.."

BUT.

Whatever the police know or has a suspicion of, does not encounter with What Doof knows. Doof might say "Oh, i didn't know i have those defects, and i didn't know i have those drugs under my backseat. " Office: " Yeah, but it's your car, you drives it, you own it." Doof:" Yeah, that doesn't mean i have to know everything about my car, people sit in it, people puts stuff in it, other people drives it, and officer which section says i have to check everything in my car before i drives. "

I hope this clears up a bit.

I'm not a defence lawyer nor a prosecutor. But rules are there, is not up to me nor the parliament to asking every office to do their job right.

ps please don't pm me to be your lawyer for your traffic offences lol.

For those of you did, i have pmed yous back.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • GTSBoy
      Unpeeling the Orange

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      The rain is the best time to push to the edge of the grip limit. Water lubrication reduces the consumption of rubber without reducing the fun. I take pleasure in driving around the outside of numpties in Audis, WRXs, BRZs, etc, because they get all worried in the wet. They warm up faster than the engine oil does.
    • Dose Pipe Sutututu
      Unpeeling the Orange

      By Dose Pipe Sutututu · Posted

      When they're dead cold, and in the wet, they're not very fun. RE003 are alright, they do harden very quickly and turn into literally $50 Pace tyres.
    • GTSBoy
      Unpeeling the Orange

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yeah, I thought that Reedy's video was quite good because he compared old and new (as in, well used and quite new) AD09s, with what is generally considered to be the fast Yokohama in this category (ie, sporty road/track tyres) and a tyre that people might be able to use to extend the comparo out into the space of more expensive European tyres, being the Cup 2. No-one would ever agree that the Cup 2 is a poor tyre - many would suggest that it is close to the very top of the category. And, for them all to come out so close to each other, and for the cheaper tyre in the test to do so well against the others, in some cases being even faster, shows that (good, non-linglong) tyres are reaching a plateau in terms of how good they can get, and they're all sitting on that same plateau. Anyway, on the AD08R, AD09, RS4 that I've had on the car in recent years, I've never had a problem in the cold and wet. SA gets down to 0-10°C in winter. Not so often, but it was only 4°C when I got in the car this morning. Once the tyres are warm (ie, after about 2km), you can start to lay into them. I've never aquaplaned or suffered serious off-corner understeer or anything like that in the wet, that I would not have expected to happen with a more normal tyre. I had some RE003s, and they were shit in the dry, shit in the wet, shit everywhere. I would rate the RS4 and AD0x as being more trustworthy in the wet, once the rubber is warm. Bridgestone should be ashamed of the RE003.
    • Kinkstaah
      Unpeeling the Orange

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      This is why I gave the disclaimer about how I drive in the wet which I feel is pretty important. I have heard people think RS4's are horrible in the rain, but I have this feeling they must be driving (or attempting to drive) anywhere close to the grip limit. I legitimately drive at the speed limit/below speed the limit 100% of the time in the rain. More than happy to just commute along at 50kmh behind a train of cars in 5th gear etc. I do agree with you with regards to the temp and the 'quality' of the tyre Dose. Most UHP tyres aren't even up to temperature on the road anyway, even when going mad initial D canyon carving. It would be interesting to see a not-up-to-temp UHP tyre compared against a mere... normal...HP tyre at these temperatures. I don't think you're (or me in this case) is actually picking up grip with an RS4/AD09 on the road relative to something like a RE003 because the RS4/AD09 is not up to temp and the RE003 is closer to it's optimal operating window.
    • Dose Pipe Sutututu
      RB20DE NEO smallbox clutch.

      By Dose Pipe Sutututu · Posted

      Either the bearing has been installed backwards OR the gearbox input shaft bearing is loosey goosey.   When in doubt, just put in a Samsonas in.
×
×
  • Create New...