First experience .. Vic law regarding passing emergency vehicle

[MercuryT]

Originally Posted by Officemanager

IMO Pusey is now getting his just deserts for being an a** h*** and a bit more for his anti social behavior and as for the truck driver well he will be dealt accordingly to law and get help for his mental issues.
Cheers

Unfortunately I reckon both have major mental issues.

[MercuryT]

Originally Posted by Romulus

^^^^^

And this is the exact reason why the Magistrate will apply law, not public sentiment, when it comes to sentencing Pusey. He'll spend more time in remand than a custodial sentence will earn. And that's a poor indictment on the legal process.

Yes I think that is correct.

[MercuryT]

Originally Posted by PG2

If he was a 'front line' nurse such as working in the emergency department he would have seen a lot of funky stuff. That stuff sooner or later will affect you I would assume.

That's actually really interesting.

My divorce etc is open knowledge on here, some my fault some not, but your point is something I've never considered (maybe stupidly)

My Ex is a Nurse and when doing Emergency rotation she became very difficult to deal with.

This isn't the place to take sides and I don't want that, but your post really hit home with me and vast character and behavioural change even if a Nurse in same place.

[whitelion65]

Originally Posted by MercuryT

That's actually really interesting.

My divorce etc is open knowledge on here, some my fault some not, but your point is something I've never considered (maybe stupidly)

My Ex is a Nurse and when doing Emergency rotation she became very difficult to deal with.

This isn't the place to take sides and I don't want that, but your post really hit home with me and vast character and behavioural change even if a Nurse in same place.

Yep!
If the military can’t deal with that kind of stress, how are nurses going to be magically immune?
Thank God for those prepared to fill both of these roles.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

A Porsche driver accused of filming and taunting a dying police officer after a horrific crash that killed four officers is facing new charges.

Police on Wednesday charged Richard Pusey with committing an act outraging public decency and behaving in an indecent or offensive manner.

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...elbourne-crash

[Full Noise]

https://www.police.vic.gov.au/furthe...-collision-kew

This doesn’t surprise me. In my opinion, It shows that they are still trying to give him the “burger with the lot”. I predicted that they would charge him with this on post 247.

https://www.fordforums.com.au/showpo...&postcount=247

I doubt that this will work as the understanding that I have is that he asked for permission to take a leak and was granted this permission. The bodycam footage will confirm this if true.

It’s also a human right to be able to relieve oneself. The police can’t leave you on the side of the road for fifty minutes if you need to take a leak. They can still hold you there if required but can’t refuse your request.

Interesting that Vicpol are still using a clever tactic of class warfare against this bloke by referring to him as the "Porsche" driver. How many other media releases refer to the driver of a vehicle by the name of the vehicle that they’re driving?

[Trevor 57]

I was on the road south from Turriff (in Vict) and a policeman had a truck pulled up and was talking to the driver, but the police car had its hazard lights on, not his red and blues

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

I was on the road south from Turriff (in Vict) and a policeman had a truck pulled up and was talking to the driver, but the police car had its hazard lights on, not his red and blues

Interesting this, Trev. Obviously a very sensible copper here.

Just for those who aren’t aware regarding some police procedures in Victoria.

When police pull over a heavy vehicle, their procedure is pretty much the opposite of what it is for a car. We all know that police use their vehicle as a block to create a buffer zone between them and the vehicle they’ve intercepted by pulling over well to the right, sometimes even having their vehicle protruding into the running lane to protect the officer as the “average” car driver will not be asked to get out of the vehicle unless there’s something wrong.

Often, when a HWP unit intercepts a car, they would have most likely already run the rego, have the registered owner’s details and may have run an IBR giving them a fair amount of info on their criminal history before they’ve even hit the angry lights. For reference, angry lights - red blue flashing lights. They can’t do this with a heavy vehicle as they tend to be registered to companies and most of the time, rego plates for the prime mover are not visible until the police unit is very close to the rear of the prime mover. Trailer registrations aren’t much use to them as the trailer could be owned by someone else.

With a heavy vehicle, the police pull over at the front and use the heavy vehicle as their block. There’s a few reasons for this. One that we’d like to think is that many of them are too lazy to walk the 30 metres or so to the cab of the truck but in reality, they want to keep a good eye on the cab of the heavy vehicle. The procedure that the HVU “Heavy Vehicle Unit” or “task Force” as they’re know as, when they pull you over, sometimes before they’ve even come to a complete stop, the officer in the passenger side exits their vehicle and pretty much runs to your door and kindly opens it for you giving you little time react. I’d love to see how all the bleeding hearts in the general population would feel if the police did that to them.

Myself and many others have a few tricks that we use to render some of their antics less than effective, but that’s not something that’s discussed on an online forum.

The police also have the option of using the “rear” angry lights only as well. I have been pulled over at night with a reasonable amount of traffic so when they use the “rear” angry lights, the cars in front of the police will not think that they are wanting “them” to pull over.

Also, the behaviour of the police is very different with a heavy vehicle compared to a car “before” an intercept. Sometimes the police will give the angry lights a “quick flash” to get your attention, then instruct you to pull over in a safe place over the UHF or simply use their left indicator or dot matrix sign to let you know where they want you to pull over. Ignoring their instructions will generally end up in a lot of pain. With a car, they can’t just assume that the driver will understand what they mean so the lights are used constantly and sometimes, a quick tap of the siren is also required.

Most of the time, the police are pretty reasonable, not all the time though. Once they’ve pulled you over, some will turn their angry lights off, some don’t. There’s various reasons for this, although, my understanding is that while an intercept is taking place, their angry lights must remain on.

This is why dash cam footage is so important these days.

I was travelling north on the Hume Highway recently, near Baddaginnie, one morning around 9:15 am, when I noticed another B-double pulled over well off the side with his four ways “Hazard lights” on. I did him the courtesy of moving to the right lane “as we all should do if able” and once I got past him, I noticed a bloody HWP car tucked in front of him with his angry lights on.

Whether I like it or not, I have just committed the offence of not slowing down to 40 kp/h past a stationary emergency vehicle even though the emergency vehicle was “not visible” to me before I’d passed it.

So… common sense would suggest that there’s no problem here but…
What if the officer is having a bad day?
What if the officer had been directed to “go hard” on this offence?
What if the officer has a past history with “the” heavy vehicle?
What if the officer has a past history with “the” company name on the trailer?
What if the officer is a snowflake and thought his/her life was in danger?
What if this occurs during operation Austrans?

Who do you think a magistrate will believe in court?

This stupid law needs to be altered as it’s not a one size fits all situation. Even NSW have changed it so that you are required to move over “if possible” and pass at a safe speed in speed zones over 90 kp/h.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Interesting this, Trev. Obviously a very sensible copper here.

Just for those who aren’t aware regarding some police procedures in Victoria.

When police pull over a heavy vehicle, their procedure is pretty much the opposite of what it is for a car. We all know that police use their vehicle as a block to create a buffer zone between them and the vehicle they’ve intercepted by pulling over well to the right, sometimes even having their vehicle protruding into the running lane to protect the officer as the “average” car driver will not be asked to get out of the vehicle unless there’s something wrong.

Often, when a HWP unit intercepts a car, they would have most likely already run the rego, have the registered owner’s details and may have run an IBR giving them a fair amount of info on their criminal history before they’ve even hit the angry lights. For reference, angry lights - red blue flashing lights. They can’t do this with a heavy vehicle as they tend to be registered to companies and most of the time, rego plates for the prime mover are not visible until the police unit is very close to the rear of the prime mover. Trailer registrations aren’t much use to them as the trailer could be owned by someone else.

With a heavy vehicle, the police pull over at the front and use the heavy vehicle as their block. There’s a few reasons for this. One that we’d like to think is that many of them are too lazy to walk the 30 metres or so to the cab of the truck but in reality, they want to keep a good eye on the cab of the heavy vehicle. The procedure that the HVU “Heavy Vehicle Unit” or “task Force” as they’re know as, when they pull you over, sometimes before they’ve even come to a complete stop, the officer in the passenger side exits their vehicle and pretty much runs to your door and kindly opens it for you giving you little time react. I’d love to see how all the bleeding hearts in the general population would feel if the police did that to them.

Myself and many others have a few tricks that we use to render some of their antics less than effective, but that’s not something that’s discussed on an online forum.

The police also have the option of using the “rear” angry lights only as well. I have been pulled over at night with a reasonable amount of traffic so when they use the “rear” angry lights, the cars in front of the police will not think that they are wanting “them” to pull over.

Also, the behaviour of the police is very different with a heavy vehicle compared to a car “before” an intercept. Sometimes the police will give the angry lights a “quick flash” to get your attention, then instruct you to pull over in a safe place over the UHF or simply use their left indicator or dot matrix sign to let you know where they want you to pull over. Ignoring their instructions will generally end up in a lot of pain. With a car, they can’t just assume that the driver will understand what they mean so the lights are used constantly and sometimes, a quick tap of the siren is also required.

Most of the time, the police are pretty reasonable, not all the time though. Once they’ve pulled you over, some will turn their angry lights off, some don’t. There’s various reasons for this, although, my understanding is that while an intercept is taking place, their angry light must remain on.

This is why dash cam footage is so important these days.

I was travelling north on the Hume Highway recently, near Baddaginnie, one morning around 9:15 am, when I noticed another B-double pulled over well off the side with his four ways “Hazard lights” on. I did him the courtesy of moving to the right lane “as we all should do if able” and once I got past him, I noticed a bloody HWP car tucked in front of him with his angry lights on.

Whether I like it or not, I have just committed the offence of not slowing down to 40 kp/h past a stationary emergency vehicle even though the emergency vehicle was “not visible” to me before I’d passed it.

So… common sense would suggest that there’s no problem here but…
What if the officer is having a bad day?
What if the officer had been directed to “go hard” on this offence?
What if the officer has a past history with “the” heavy vehicle?
What if the officer has a past history with “the” company name on the trailer?
What if the officer is a snowflake and thought his/her life was in danger?
What if this occurs during operation Austrans?

Who do you think a magistrate will believe in court?

This stupid law needs to be altered as it’s not a one size fits all situation. Even NSW have changed it so that you are required to move over “if possible” and pass at a safe speed in speed zones over 90 kp/h.

It seems very ambiguous - that's the problem with half assed legislation, its open to human nature (abuse).

It's easy to get legislation through but very difficult to repeal

[roKWiz]

Full noise wrote.... "I was travelling north on the Hume Highway recently, near Baddaginnie, one morning around 9:15 am, when I noticed another B-double pulled over well off the side with his four ways “Hazard lights” on. I did him the courtesy of moving to the right lane “as we all should do if able” and once I got past him, I noticed a bloody HWP car tucked in front of him with his angry lights on."

That sweeping bend at Baddaginnie used to be the money maker for Benalla HWP but after installing the wire barrier crap everywhere, now they have nowhere to sit. Came through there this morning.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

, when they pull you over, sometimes before they’ve even come to a complete stop, the officer in the passenger side exits their vehicle and pretty much runs to your door and kindly opens it for you giving you little time react..

Is that so they can offer their help to make sure you're filling out your log book correctly

[au2000]

They are starting to enforce the 40 kph rule, Epping yesterday passed a pulled over highway patrol unit with the party lights on, about 400 meters up the road was a unmarked unit, radar out the back officer standing there looking for those going over 40 k's

[zilo]

Originally Posted by au2000

They are starting to enforce the 40 kph rule, Epping yesterday passed a pulled over highway patrol unit with the party lights on, about 400 meters up the road was a unmarked unit, radar out the back officer standing there looking for those going over 40 k's

Typical vicpol behaviour, no wonder the community hates them.
They cause more danger than they suppress.

Can't blame everything on Porsche drivers...

[MercuryT]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

https://www.police.vic.gov.au/furthe...-collision-kew

This doesn’t surprise me. In my opinion, It shows that they are still trying to give him the “burger with the lot”. I predicted that they would charge him with this on post 247.

https://www.fordforums.com.au/showpo...&postcount=247

I doubt that this will work as the understanding that I have is that he asked for permission to take a leak and was granted this permission. The bodycam footage will confirm this if true.

It’s also a human right to be able to relieve oneself. The police can’t leave you on the side of the road for fifty minutes if you need to take a leak. They can still hold you there if required but can’t refuse your request.

Interesting that Vicpol are still using a clever tactic of class warfare against this bloke by referring to him as the "Porsche" driver. How many other media releases refer to the driver of a vehicle by the name of the vehicle that they’re driving?

I haven't read the articles but are you sure the new charges are for the urination that you are claiming?

Or for his mocking and comments about the dying/dead Police Officer? (or other)

Sorry if it's already answered but those links aren't working unfortunately for me.

I sincerely doubt it's for what you say however who knows (yet).

[jmack]

Originally Posted by zilo

Typical vicpol behaviour, no wonder the community hates them.
They cause more danger than they suppress.

Can't blame everything on Porsche drivers...

a couple of weeks back on the exit ramp to town it drops from 110 to 70 ,most people are still doing a bit more than 70 but the cops parked a marked unit with the lights on and no one in the car but they were hiding about 100m up the road in the bushes with a gun.even though i dont agree with the rule i understand it ,but this was just plain wrong

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by MercuryT

I haven't read the articles but are you sure the new charges are for the urination that you are claiming?

Or for his mocking and comments about the dying/dead Police Officer? (or other)

Sorry if it's already answered but those links aren't working unfortunately for me.

I sincerely doubt it's for what you say however who knows (yet).

I’ve looked into this and the main references that I can find generally relate to sex offences, lewd behaviour and the like. More recent examples would be offences such as up-skirting, I dare say would fall under this.

On page 27 of this document, it outlines what the interpretation of the law is but it’s dated 1979.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommissio...002.0279_E.pdf

In this document, page 12, paragraph 2, there’s an outline of indecent and offensive behaviour. There would be grounds to go Pusey here even if he was granted permission to relieve himself.

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fi...6_PwZwH1Yk.pdf

There’s probably something that I haven’t picked up on and am happy for anyone to correct me here, but I can’t find anything that specifically outlines an offence relating to the mocking of the police officer.

I’ll try to find out as much as I can but am interested in what you think regarding the new charges.

I genuinely believe that if Vicpol are trying this on in relation to the video Pusey took and comments made to the dying officer, they’re drawing a very long bow. Magistrate Joanna Metcalf has already told the police that while Pusey’s actions were repugnant, they weren’t illegal.

[Mulva]

I thought it was being over 40 with spikey hair...both outrageous and indecent.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

A Porsche driver accused of filming and taunting a dying police officer after a horrific crash that killed four officers is facing new charges.

Police on Wednesday charged Richard Pusey with committing an act outraging public decency and behaving in an indecent or offensive manner.

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...elbourne-crash

Those new charges are on my checklist of things I do on a daily basis

[M&Ms]

Looks like the police are blindly throwing darts at a board with the hope of a bullseye. The guy took a leak, big deal. You could similarly argue it was fate that kept him away from the truckie (who don't forget was the one who killed the officers), and he survived.
Agree with the other comments here, they're creating a class-divide in the reporting by calling him "The Porsche Driver," let's make all exotic car driver appear evil and reckless, regardless of many who work decades of long-as weeks with multiple sacrifices to get to where they are...
Sounds from the experience of others here that police practice has barely changed after this incident, money above all in South China...

[Citroënbender]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Those new charges are on my checklist of things I do on a daily basis

Be careful, remember what happened to Oscar Wilde.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

https://www.police.vic.gov.au/furthe...-collision-kew

This doesn’t surprise me. In my opinion, It shows that they are still trying to give him the “burger with the lot”. I predicted that they would charge him with this on post 247.

https://www.fordforums.com.au/showpo...&postcount=247

I doubt that this will work as the understanding that I have is that he asked for permission to take a leak and was granted this permission. The bodycam footage will confirm this if true.

It’s also a human right to be able to relieve oneself. The police can’t leave you on the side of the road for fifty minutes if you need to take a leak. They can still hold you there if required but can’t refuse your request.

Interesting that Vicpol are still using a clever tactic of class warfare against this bloke by referring to him as the "Porsche" driver. How many other media releases refer to the driver of a vehicle by the name of the vehicle that they’re driving?

Vic Pol is a joke, but that's no surprise, the rot starts at the top with that Andrew's character. Just look at the corruption within the ALP, says enough doesn't it. What's next, charging him for not wearing a clown suit on Fridays?

I get the feeling Pusey is going to get off with most, if not all charges.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Vic Pol is a joke, but that's no surprise, the rot starts at the top with that Andrew's character. Just look at the corruption within the ALP, says enough doesn't it. What's next, charging him for not wearing a clown suit on Fridays?

I get the feeling Pusey is going to get off with most, if not all charges.

I don’t think that he’ll get off all the charges, but I do think that when this eventually gets to court, Pusey could be released with time served. One thing’s for sure, never underestimate Vicpol when it comes to playing dirty. They are experts at it.

I do believe that Pusey has been denied his choice in legal representation though. With the amount of hype and hysteria that the mainstream media generated, anyone defending Pusey would have had to seriously consider the repercussions on their business and career if they were successful in getting Pusey bail and having a number of charges dropped. The fact that Pusey’s lawyer had no knowledge of his previous nursing experience is a clear example of this. With the amount of time that I’ve spent in court over the last four years, one thing that I’ve learnt is to be prepared for “anything” from your past, regardless of how insignificant it may seem, to be brought up, twisted, taken out of context and rammed up your backside sideways. You must be prepared for anything and Pusey’s lawyer missing crucial information like this is clearly unacceptable. It would be interesting to see how much time Pusey was actually allowed to spend briefing his lawyer.

What I find more disturbing is the media’s silence regarding the truck driver. So what we have now are crickets and tumbleweeds regarding the truck driver and public enemy number one status given to Pusey cleverly deflecting attention away from the truck driver. I can not think of a time in the last 40 plus years where the media have effectively, self censored, regarding any truck driver involved in a serious crash, regardless of whether it’s before the courts or not. I wonder why? (Sarcasm)

In my opinion, the addition of these ridiculous new charges says more about Vicpol and their attempt to settle a score with Pusey rather than going after the person who is ultimately responsible for the officer’s deaths.

My prediction regarding these new charges is that magistrate, Joanna Metcalf, will not have a bar of it. It will certainly be interesting when the time comes.

[Romulus]

I'm not saying he'll get off all charges, but the deaths of the 4 police officers is not Pusey's fault at all.

I agree, the media and the Vic government has it in for him, after all, it suits their narrative, Pusey is a rich Porsche driving white guy, a SJW and Leftists wet dream to target. As for the truck driver who is allegedly responsible for the deaths of the 4 officers, no mention of him, he's not a white male exerting white male privilege now is he?

Let hope Magistrate Mefcalf can see through the shenanigans being tried by the Victorian Police and their political masters. Their handling of the George Pell case demonstrates an absolute bias and utter incompetence.

[M&Ms]

And in NSW....

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...?ocid=msedgntp

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/n...ZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D

[Ben73]

Why don’t they ask people to move to the next exit or the next actual stopping bay when stopping traffic on a busy motorway?
If it’s not an emergency why risk their life to write a ticket?

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by M&Ms

And in NSW....

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...?ocid=msedgntp

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/n...ZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D

All that for a damn traffic offence. I hope it was worth it.

[roKWiz]

Yep, going to be happening more often. Agree, direct them to the next exit off the Freeway.

[DRU842]

The last time I was pulled over was on a three lane stretch of the Princes Highway at Kirrawee, marked with No Stopping signs so I slowed, while indicating left, about 200m and turned into a side street. I thought the officer was going to draw his gun as he flew out of the car, screaming he was just about to call in a 'pursuit', while I was explaining it wasn't safe for him to have his *** out in three lanes of 70kph traffic while it was raining. He told me I had to pull over when I was the lights regardless; wonder if his opinion has changed? Probably too safety conscious on my part after 25 years of chemical company training.

[Ben73]

You challenged his authority. Probably made him feel less powerful.

You can’t have people driving to a safe place, that takes more time. More time on a traffic stop means less tickets written throughout the shift. From what I’ve heard off someone who is related to a NSW HP officer, some of the supervisors have words with officers who don’t write enough tickets per hour.

[Fed]

They've been watching too many COPS episodes.