POLICE! wtf!!!

[shane3]

The seat belt would have to have some slack in it to let you move around and see what’s next to you as well as to do an over the shoulder check, and if the case is that all seat belt have to be tight and hold you in place, why aren’t all cars fitted with 4 point harnesses?
Any way I have been told it’s illegal to use a harness on the public roads even when it’s safer to use, then a seat belt alone.

[Hunter]

6 points is bloody excessive for such an offense - you get less for doing 30 km/h over the limit in QLD!

Cops don't exactly curry favour with the public when they go around doing stupid things like this. I'd much rather the cop go and enforce something else, maybe like the 'keep left unless overtaking' rule!

Anyway, as everyone else has said, if you do engage in a legal battle, expect the police to fight hard. They don't like to lose in court (in case it sets a precedent). Get a good solicitor, make sure you're clear and precise about the whole situation.

[bob 351]

Originally Posted by EFGTHO

Good thing Dave is that the missus was there as a witness

2 against 1 ;)

rotfl since when has that made any difference still rotfl still stick it up them dave

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by one

You were travelling less that 25km/h, seatbelt not required. Australian Road Rules part 16 rule 267

Not in Victoria. The only exception is reversing.

As for the number of demerit points. Police don't set that, the politicians do, so many here barking up the wrong tree........

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by Redrum

Not in Victoria. The only exception is reversing.

As for the number of demerit points. Police don't set that, the politicians do, so many here barking up the wrong tree........

But he would have obviously known the demerit points it carried,and chose to hit him with it for no other reason than payback,lets all bow and scrape so as not to recieve a fine..

[superpursuit83]

I would do what Clontarf says first, nicely ask the issueing station for some leniency. Also can anyone point out where the 2" law is written... And I mean is it in any of the teaching or training books, is it in the test, or does your training book have a reference to Australian Standards on seat belt wearing? If all else fails then off to court you go, and be real nice to the judge....

Good luck.

[XFshep]

this is absolute crap. keep us posted.

[Laminge]

AFF Where online mind readers gather to share experiences....

[Tony xa]

Here in Wa at the moment its double demerit points so it would have been 3 points but because of and on all public holidays we recieve double demerits .
This rule seems harsh but does seem to work just it got someone for something that didn't realy deserve it .

[TUF514]

Originally Posted by Laminge

AFF Where online mind readers gather to share experiences....

haha.

im thinking of starting up a website - copsbehavingbadly.com.au

id be up for a massive bandwidth bill.....

IMO the points system should be scrapped, and fines be issued only.

I remember years back when, even if you buggered up, more often than not, the cops would give you an ear full but let you go on your way.

When i was a young fella, my mum had a flat and a copper actually changed her tyre for her. Where did these guys go?

Seems like the job of cops these days is to fatten up the bottom line for the states.

It really is sad because so many people hate cops and thats not how it should be.

Im the sort of bloke that would help anyone i could, within reason, but if i saw a copper stranded somewhere or in trouble, id drive by in ignorance as they do.

Sorry if im ranting, but they have brought it on themselves as far as im concerned.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by EFGTHO

Good thing Dave is that the missus was there as a witness

2 against 1 ;)

And the cop was using his "best" judgement from not all that close i would say mayb 6-7 metres away id say wat a fool

[woodsy109]

I would go to the police station and calmly tell a supervisor the circumstances. Even if it doesn't go well with cancelling the ticket, you can still make a complaint against the officer for his conduct. Complaints are made quite often and they are always taken seriously and dealt with by a supervising officer.

[ebxr8240]

http://www.notguilty.com.au/web/

[GREGXR8]

Originally Posted by Laminge

AFF Where online mind readers gather to share experiences....

lol thats good. and what the **** does rotfl mean?

[Blue Oval Mopar Man]

Yes laminge , another cop bashing thread!

While I do admit, cops have one of the hardest jobs in the world , I do respect them for that, but these spineless little power trip retards deserve everything bit of criticism they get ! If old mate was actually doing something wrong then fair enough, but to make up some stupid rule just to fullfil your need to have your power felt is pathetic !

[Deadman]

Originally Posted by gregxr8

lol thats good. and what the **** does rotfl mean?

rotfl

although mostly these days it is abreviated to rofl (no "t").

[Laminge]

Holy Cow

Don't tell me the police are now imposing their own point system and making their own road rules, whats next on the list....

Ohh the death of law enforcement is beginning...

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by Falchoon

Anyone know what a solicitor's hourly rate is? Bet you it's more than $150. And then there's possibly pay docked (presuming you have a job) when you have to take the day off to fight it in court. So you could end up hundreds of dollars worse off AND still have to pay the fine (maybe a bigger fine) if the court rules in favour of the Police. The 6 points was harsh, probably because it was the Cristmas period it's double would it normally would be.

So you would rather take the 6 points, lose your licence, possibly lose your job because of not now having a licence which then in turn would mean you also lose half of whatever you make a year (average wage of $40,000) $20,000 isn't much to lose is it ?? :togo:

What I am trying to say is that this will be the best way to go if it goes to court, rather than try to put forward your own defence. If you were to defend yourself in court you would need to first be up on all the rules and regulations as well as any precedents pertaining to and having any relevance to the charges being put forward by the police prosecutor on behalf of the arresting/issuing officer.

Thats what you pay for.

And by no means am I assuming that he could not defend himself, but that it's best to take advantage of someone elses expertise and experience at such a time.

[TwistedEL]

That's harsh, sorry to hear it. If it was me I would also be heading into Freo station to have a chat to a senior officer about it. The worst they will do is ignore your plea and tell you that you may elect to have the matter heard in court if you so wish.

I didn't realise double demerits extended that far.

[Green X]

When it happened you should have asked for the officers

Full name
Rank
Badge number
And
Station

Then inform him you will be making a formal complaint in writing against him, will be calling to speak to the officer in charge of his station about the incident and you will also be challenging the ticket in court.

The see how quickly he changes his tune.

The Old man is a cop and I have been pulled over when he was in the car with me and have the cop start giving me a hard time and making up C**p. Should have seen the Cop do a back flip when the old man disputed what this guy was trying to get me for as the old man shown him his badge. LMAO.

Another good one is a Ex Assistant commissioners that the old man knows, was pulled over randomly and the officer went throe his car and was giving him a hard time, Finally tried pinging him for having the rego sticker 10mm out of the Correct position.

That was the end of his fuse

"Ok son time to go to school
My name is …… I am a retired assistance commissioner give me your
Name
Rank
Badge number

I will be calling some of my friends first thing in the morning and will be having a discussion about you attitude towards the Public and your future in the force, now I suggest if you want to keep you job you better go and get a attitude agistment quick smart otherwise this is not the career for you son."


To bad most of the Top brass like that are long since retired and now the ones that are left are a bunch of yes men for the government.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by dumpieez_xb_ute

IMO the points system should be scrapped, and fines be issued only.

I remember years back when, even if you buggered up, more often than not, the cops would give you an ear full but let you go on your way. points indicate a pattern of behaviour, facilitating additional enforcement for consecutive acts, its the blatant disregard for those laws and abuse of a privilege, evidence the driver has no intention of complying with the rules they agreed to in the license application which results in that license being revoked. Be thankful they expire after 2 years. People need to realise a license is a privilege, not a right. These are public roads, used by all manner of people requiring laws and rules to minimise harm to others. Not a private track or property.

When i was a young fella, my mum had a flat and a copper actually changed her tyre for her. Where did these guys go? Probably policing crime, the job they are paid to do, as well as speed cameras and the like. When my car was stolen, they came and took a report. They do do other things. The RACQ or other such groups change tyres. Do you stop and help every motorist on the side of the road? Some, well I do too, but I see them daily, and I have things to do, i cant be a pseudo RACQ at the expense of my other priorities, neither can police.

Seems like the job of cops these days is to fatten up the bottom line for the states. issuing tickets has always been one of their jobs

Originally Posted by XRQTR

What I am trying to say is that this will be the best way to go if it goes to court, rather than try to put forward your own defence. If you were to defend yourself in court you would need to first be up on all the rules and regulations as well as any precedents pertaining to and having any relevance to the charges being put forward by the police prosecutor on behalf of the arresting/issuing officer.

Thats what you pay for.

Not to mention how easy it is for a layman to talk themselves into any number of fines and charges. Such as an argument of the seatbelt may be loose, but the points are too high. The court has no choice but to impose the penalty despite a judge agreeing with you. The points are established legislation, the court must adhere to them.

Seriously, get a solicitor. Anyone who represents themselves has a fool for a client. The system is far to complex for initiated parties, not simply due to the complexity of laws.

As for all this info regarding going to the station to chat with the senior officer, I wouldnt recommend it. Anything you say there, may jeopardise any case you have, no statements, whether written or conversation should be made without a solicitor.

[Panda]

I've had a quick look at the WA Legislation and I can't find the 2" bit - here's the blurb from here - Western Australian Legislation

232. Driver to wear seat belt
(1) A person shall not occupy a seat position with a seat belt fitted in a motor vehicle and drive upon a road unless the person is wearing the seat belt, and it is properly adjusted and securely fastened.

Points: during a holiday period 6; otherwise 3

Modified penalty (in each case) 3 PU

(2) It is a defence in proceedings for an offence against subregulation (1) for the person charged to prove that ¾

(a) the motor vehicle was travelling backwards at the relevant time;

(b) the person had a medical certificate at the relevant time and, if required to do so, the person produced the medical certificate;

(c) at the relevant time, the person ¾

(i) was engaged in work that required the person to alight from and re-enter the motor vehicle at frequent intervals; and

(ii) was not driving the motor vehicle at a speed exceeding 25 km/h;

or

(d) the alleged offence took place during the hours of darkness and, at the relevant time, the person was driving a taxi that was carrying one or more passengers for reward.

[Regulation 232 amended in Gazette 8 Mar 2002 p. 948.]

Panda

[TUF514]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Not to mention how easy it is for a layman to talk themselves into any number of fines and charges. Such as an argument of the seatbelt may be loose, but the points are too high. The court has no choice but to impose the penalty despite a judge agreeing with you. The points are established legislation, the court must adhere to them.

Seriously, get a solicitor. Anyone who represents themselves has a fool for a client. The system is far to complex for initiated parties, not simply due to the complexity of laws.

As for all this info regarding going to the station to chat with the senior officer, I wouldnt recommend it. Anything you say there, may jeopardise any case you have, no statements, whether written or conversation should be made without a solicitor.

Right.

I think you missed my point in that, a few years back, cops were people you could talk to and rely on. People that had an ounce of understanding.

That is not the case anymore.

Now i hear this bs thrown around all the time - " Its a privilege not a right. "

What exactly do you mean by this? How is it a privilege?

I have paid thousands upon thousands of dollars taxes in my time, to which alot of that goes into the roads.

I pay my licence fee.

I pay big taxes in my fuel to help fund the roads.

I challenge you and say that Yes, as a tax payer and a contributor to the roads, that it IS my right to be there.

Get off your high horse mate and check out the grey areas.

You read like a damned politician.

[GREGXR8]

Originally Posted by Deadman

rotfl

although mostly these days it is abreviated to rofl (no "t").

thanks

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by nugget378

But he would have obviously known the demerit points it carried,and chose to hit him with it for no other reason than payback,lets all bow and scrape so as not to recieve a fine..

He committed the offence and received the penalty. Isn't that part of the reason police are employed, to enforce road safety rules/laws?

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Green X

When it happened you should have asked for the officers

Full name
Rank
Badge number
And
Station

Then inform him you will be making a formal complaint in writing against him, will be calling to speak to the officer in charge of his station about the incident and you will also be challenging the ticket in court.

The see how quickly he changes his tune.

The Old man is a cop and I have been pulled over when he was in the car with me and have the cop start giving me a hard time and making up C**p. Should have seen the Cop do a back flip when the old man disputed what this guy was trying to get me for as the old man shown him his badge. LMAO.

Another good one is a Ex Assistant commissioners that the old man knows, was pulled over randomly and the officer went throe his car and was giving him a hard time, Finally tried pinging him for having the rego sticker 10mm out of the Correct position.

That was the end of his fuse

"Ok son time to go to school
My name is …… I am a retired assistance commissioner give me your
Name
Rank
Badge number

I will be calling some of my friends first thing in the morning and will be having a discussion about you attitude towards the Public and your future in the force, now I suggest if you want to keep you job you better go and get a attitude agistment quick smart otherwise this is not the career for you son."


To bad most of the Top brass like that are long since retired and now the ones that are left are a bunch of yes men for the government.

All the above details asked are on the penalty notice. If people wish to make statements like you recommend, it does not influence my decision on issuing a fine etc. If people wish to try and pull some sort of influence from their friends etc it won't get far. I gave a fine to a speeding motorists last week. He stated "he has two mates who are magistrates"....... I said I have to act impartial and this makes no difference.

[samftr]

so is it decided yet that the said officer had acted in a way that may indicate some form of retaliation for 'not being let in' or is this a legitimate punishment for a legitimate infringement?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by dumpieez_xb_ute

Right.

I think you missed my point in that, a few years back, cops were people you could talk to and rely on. People that had an ounce of understanding. I find generally they still are, maybe its attitude. Im aware there are individuals who are absolute monkeys, but they always existed, even back in the day. And its hardly exclusive to police. It might be unfair that youngins are often targeted, and in many cases it is unfair, however the blatant disregard for common decency is no longer as it was in the days you speak of. Police are just keeping up with the times. You reap what you sow, unfortunately, many undeserving people get caught in the same net.

That is not the case anymore. You didnt answer my question. Do you, stop and help every car you pass that is broken down? Every one. Do you go out of your way, to perform someone elses job? Do you pay for other peoples RACQ membership? Thats who changes tyres mate, not Police. I understand the point, service to the community, but there are limits to what can be expected of them. You can take personal responsibility for yourself and have RACQ membership if changing a tyre is beyond your capabilities. I remember when that ability was a requirement for a licence. Im sure there are still officers who would gladly change a tyre for someone, but I dont thinkits fair to expect them to do it, its not their job, they arent paid to do it, or assume that risk.

Now i hear this bs thrown around all the time - " Its a privilege not a right. " What exactly do you mean by this? How is it a privilege? It is a privilege, not a right, thats why it can be revoked. Are you arguing the tax paying drink driver should just get a fine? Of course he should get a fine, and lose his licence, if persistent, jail the idiot before they ruin someones life. He still paid taxes and no longer enjoys the privilege of being on road.



I have paid thousands upon thousands of dollars taxes in my time, to which alot of that goes into the roads. Among other things. And abide by the rules, and youll be able to enjoy the fruits of that. Fail to comply often enough, or seriously enough, you lose the privilege.

I pay my licence fee. And agree to be bound by the terms and condition set out in it. Including penalties for non compliance with road rules

I pay big taxes in my fuel to help fund the roads. These merely facilitate the opportunity to have roads, not guarantee you any right to use them

I challenge you and say that Yes, as a tax payer and a contributor to the roads, that it IS my right to be there. Without a license, only in someones elses vehicle. Yet you would still pay all those taxes. The fuel levies are factored into bus fares too.

Get off your high horse mate and check out the grey areas. What I said above, is gray. You want black and white. You paid for it, its yours. No, its not, you have the opportunity to exercise a privilege, abuse it, you lose your entitlement to the privilege

You read like a damned politician.

Failure to wear a seatbelt doesnt simply effect the person failing to wear it. There are crews who clean up the mess, and people in other vehicles who witness it, usually the first on the scene. They have rights too. Thats the thing with rights, they are often a trade off because yours and theirs are mutually exclusive.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Panda

I've had a quick look at the WA Legislation and I can't find the 2" bit - here's the blurb from here - Western Australian Legislation

[B]232. Driver to wear seat belt
(1) A person shall not occupy a seat position with a seat belt fitted in a motor vehicle and drive upon a road unless the person is wearing the seat belt, and it is properly adjusted and securely fastened.


(2) It is a defence in proceedings for an offence against subregulation (1) for the person charged to prove that ¾

...

(c) at the relevant time, the person ¾

(i) was engaged in work that required the person to alight from and re-enter the motor vehicle at frequent intervals; and

(ii) was not driving the motor vehicle at a speed exceeding 25 km/h;

Properly adjusted would be the portion in question. The definition of properly adjusted, as in, what that actually means in a measurable form, could be a result of a hearing that established it as 2" (caselaw, youd need to find the case). It could also be in the definitions section of the act, however I doubt it.

The last bits, in reference to not exceeding 25km is part 2 (ii) of a two part caveat, it requires the part above it at the same time (i). Was he doing deliveries or some such and for employment purposes?

[Gonz]

Gday dave,

mate, ive pm'ed you some info, good luck with it!

Gonz.