Oh dear! - Page 2

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

why not? if he's going to turn a blind eye to the multitude of other offences committed in school zones (I see far worse than going 10kph over on a daily basis, usually by drivers that are near stationary, eg. drivers on phones, drivers failing to give way, drivers obstructing traffic, etc).

oh so bowling over school kids is OK? Got kids have ya?

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

Agreed. As a non-drinker of 30 years, one schooner would be enough to make me a dangerous driver but still “legal” on the breatho.

Can’t wait until it’s a VR test that identifies “impaired” drivers without splitting hairs as to why they are so. Drunk, stoned, methed, angry, tired, or just too vague; have a universal assessment and then responsibly get them off the road and into a safe place...

Not bagging you here but I reckon it should be zero for everyone, heavy vehicle drivers have to be, L & P platers have to be. But I am lucky I have a wife who doesn't drink, but if I am out on my own I simply don't have an alcoholic drink - it ain't that hard. When at Bathurst or a boys trip I can knock them back with the best

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officemanager

Quite agree with your comments but then again have you ever heard of the term entrapment.
I would have thought seeing police presence on our roads serves better for road safety than a sneaky cop engaging in fine revenue.

Cheers.

I think you will find that 'entrapment' doesn't exist in Australian law - it is a phallacy

burnz · 08-05-2019, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I get the revenue raising thing - but how about everyone stop speeding and just send a cheque off to the Government yearly for about $2000, save the drama then

I can't believe people are just so happy to fill the Governments pockets

and for the record my last fine was December 28 1999 in Wodonga, and I travel a lot, I have been to many places all over Australia, both privately and with work

and then what??
they lower the speed limit more, increase fuel taxes, land tax, rego??
at what point do we say F.U.

ronwest · 08-05-2019, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I get trucks being close behind scare people, but they don't bother me, I just plan for it in my driving by leaving a bigger gap in front of me. They can see a lot further down the road than I can, they have quicker reactions and better brakes

Sorry, I've read that a few times.

Are you saying that truck drivers have quicker reactions and better brakes than a car driver?

e: oh, are you being specific to you? In that case the reaction times may well be true (I don't know you) but can't agree with the better brakes on a truck, if that's what you're saying?

b0son · 08-05-2019, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

oh so bowling over school kids is OK?

must be if you only want a *subset* of laws enforced.

Citroënbender · 08-05-2019, 04:58 PM

While we’re arguing the fine print, there’s time for pedantry.

Quote:

phallacy

I presume that refers to a fellatious argument?

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 05:18 PM

sorry type fallacy hahahahaha

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronwest

Sorry, I've read that a few times.

Are you saying that truck drivers have quicker reactions and better brakes than a car driver?

absolutely, on average, certainly are

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronwest

e: oh, are you being specific to you? In that case the reaction times may well be true (I don't know you) but can't agree with the better brakes on a truck, if that's what you're saying?

absolutely better brakes, particularly now with discs, more rubber on the ground, better braking system - air versus hydraulic. Many years ago I was involved in a test where we tested stopping distances of motorbikes, cars, medium rigids, heavy rigids, heavy combinations and multi-combinations and the trucks won, bikes were pretty close

Itsme · 08-05-2019, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

why would they? There is no law that says he has to wear one. If you believe there is please find the law

(be careful where you go here, I am a OHS professional who teaches OHS law)

In Victoria it is law for police to wear hi vis when they are out of their police cars when performing their duties.
Trevor you should know this if you teach OHS law.

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officemanager

In Victoria it is law for police to wear hi vis when they are out of their police cars when performing their duties.
Trevor you should know this if you teach OHS law.

show me where the law? I know the Act and Regs back to front, the only time that PPE is mentioned is in the Regs in relation to noise, lead and asbestos. You reckon I am wrong, you prove it. I am 100% confident

It would be policy for the VicPol and it would sit inside their internal policies and procedures, like all organisations. It could 'possibly' sit in S25(1c) of the Act but would be unlikely

Itsme · 08-05-2019, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I think you will find that 'entrapment' doesn't exist in Australian law - it is a phallacy

Only expressed his actions as entrapment, did not say it was law here.

Itsme · 08-05-2019, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

show me where the law? I know the Act and Regs back to front, the only time that PPE is mentioned is in the Regs in relation to noise, lead and asbestos. You reckon I am wrong, you prove it. I am 100% confident

It would be policy for the VicPol and it would sit inside their internal policies and procedures, like all organisations

You prove me wrong if you can?

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 05:46 PM

I don't have to, I know I am right

I just posted this above as an edit "It could 'possibly' sit in S25(1c) of the Act but would be unlikely", but there is no where else

I am absolutely 100% confident, in fact 1000% sure there is no mention of police wearing hi vis vests in OHS law

wodahs · 08-05-2019, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FTe342

Well there will be less of your # 1 hate in NSW commencing in a week or so.

All drivers found to be over the 0.05 limit have their license cancelled for 3 mths immediately plus an on the spot fine

How long before the other states follow suit

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT450

How long before the other states follow suit?

Come on down to Vic we have had that for a while and add to that mandatory interlock devices plus a change of behaviour course and at .05 your gone the limit is , in reality .049.
The dollars for doing it just doesn't warrant even thinking about taking the risk.
GT450

same here in WA last i looked
.05 road side loss of license and the lock out devices

GASWAGON · 08-05-2019, 06:02 PM

Take his 'badge' off him and sack him.

As said, thers much more important things to do than fine drivers in 'modern, very capable cars' for only 5 k's over the limit!!!!!

Bill M · 08-05-2019, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

why would they? There is no law that says he has to wear one. If you believe there is please find the law

(be careful where you go here, I am a OHS professional who teaches OHS law)

Police officers would be more likely disciplined by their supervisors than a Workcover inspector.

A snippet from the AFP regulations which I don't think would be at variance with State regs -

Quote:

40.1 High Visibility Vests
High visibility vests are an important item which assists members being seen by others in
environments where the member's safety is at a heightened risk, such as when performing
traffic or crowd control/escort duties and route security (particularly at night). All operational
AFP members will have either a personal or station issue high visibility vest which may have
one of the following identifiers on both the front and rear of the garment:
Australian Federal Police
Forensics
Chaplain
Media
AFP staff (orange vest).
Given occupational health and safety considerations, and unless wearing a high visibility vest is
deemed to be operationally inappropriate, AFP members will wear a high visibility vest when:
performing duties out of a vehicle and/or where operationally required to do so
airside at an airport
performing duties on/near roadways
directed in special circumstances (e.g. large carnival or demonstration-type activities).

ronwest · 08-05-2019, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

absolutely, on average, certainly are

absolutely better brakes, particularly now with discs, more rubber on the ground, better braking system - air versus hydraulic. Many years ago I was involved in a test where we tested stopping distances of motorbikes, cars, medium rigids, heavy rigids, heavy combinations and multi-combinations and the trucks won, bikes were pretty close

Unless we're talking about different things there's no way that I believe that a fully laden semi will pull up quicker than a car.

This is the first link in a google search (there will be many more but I haven't got the inclination to disprove the unbelievable)
https://www.ckflaw.com/blog/how-long...-to-accidents/

Oh ok, one more from https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Dr...-vehicles.aspx

2. Travel at a safe following distance

Do not follow a heavy vehicle too closely, as you want to see what is ahead (e.g. debris and other cars). Keep in mind the following when travelling behind a heavy vehicle:

Allow for time to stop safely. The table below shows comparisons of stopping distances for cars and trucks when travelling at the same speeds. Vehicle Speed Stopping distance (metres)
Car Truck 60km/h 73 83 70km/h 91 105 80km/h 111 130 90km/h 133 156 100km/h 157 185
If driving in weather conditions such as the wind and rain always leave more than the recommended following distance.

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill M

Police officers would be more likely disciplined by their supervisors than a Workcover inspector.

A snippet from the AFP regulations which I don't think would be at variance with State regs -

That does not sit in OHS law as claimed by officemanager

**fordomatic** · 08-05-2019, 06:49 PM

Owned performance cars for 15 years and never had a speeding fine, there is a time and place, simple. I really don’t understand the hate

Itsme · 08-05-2019, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

That does not sit in OHS law as claimed by officemanager

I did not say it was OHS law, I said it was law for Victorian police to wear Hi Vis, I just mentioned you should have known this since you are tied up with OHS experience.

JasonACT · 08-05-2019, 07:03 PM

More than that, it was Big Trev making the statement he should know for that very reason:

Quote:

why would they? There is no law that says he has to wear one. If you believe there is please find the law

(be careful where you go here, I am a OHS professional who teaches OHS law)

and

Quote:

show me where the law? I know the Act and Regs back to front, the only time that PPE is mentioned is in the Regs in relation to noise, lead and asbestos. You reckon I am wrong, you prove it. I am 100% confident

So I'm now very confused.

Blue Roo · 08-05-2019, 07:07 PM

This proves my point. The way that the Police use Speed Cameras is nothing more than Revenue Raising. And this has not been the first time that the Queensland Traffic Branch has been caught out.

Blue Roo · 08-05-2019, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordomatic

Owned performance cars for 15 years and never had a speeding fine, there is a time and place, simple. I really don’t understand the hate

Come to Queensland. You will soon find out why the hate.

Citroënbender · 08-05-2019, 07:10 PM

It would be nice if the occifer per the original photo, had to return to site in uniform plus a hi-vis vest, and hold up a good-sized sign that said "SORRY" for the same amount of time he lurked.

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officemanager

I did not say it was OHS law, I said it was law for Victorian police to wear Hi Vis, I just mentioned you should have known this since you are tied up with OHS experience.

I made it very clear my expertise sits in OHS law, if you understand that then you will understand that to know ALL law would be ludicrous. I have a pretty good working knowledge of Vict road law, but there is much more law than that.

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonACT

More than that, it was Big Trev making the statement he should know for that very reason:

and

So I'm now very confused.

I was referring to OHS law in particular, that is the confusion I think

JasonACT · 08-05-2019, 07:21 PM

I've lived in QLD for a decade previously. Seen a thin cop (do they still exist?) hiding behind a thick concrete light pole with his speed camera. Seen cops hiding in bushes in Canberra too, many times. Seen a cop car in my rear-view on the Canberra parkway hiding on the dirt side-road behind a metal guard rail out of sight. None of which is meant to give the public a warm fuzzy feeling we're being protected... That's my 30 years of driving experience.

Trevor 57 · 08-05-2019, 07:22 PM

There is lots that sits in all sorts of law, in particular exemptions from some law for Police, using mobile phones whilst driving for example.

There is no exemptions for Police in OHS law, although Section 32 could be interpreted to mean Police, but it isn't that clear

ronwest · 08-05-2019, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonACT

I've lived in QLD for a decade previously. Seen a thin cop (do they still exist?) hiding behind a thick concrete light pole with his speed camera.

To be fair, I think that the leaning on a pole also helps to stabilise the radar gun.

I don't have any real issue with cops catching speeders (I accept it's revenue raising and there ain't no quick way to replace that revenue)

I reckon I've just about paid for a police car in fines but have only been booked illegally once (in ~2 million kms).

What struck me about the cop in the article is how ridiculous and humiliating it is.

His boss seems to agree.

e: typo