So what's this all about??

[biggles08]

It may seem 'unfair' and like 'harrassment', but like it or not, Police have the power to stop any motorist for the purpose of cunducting a breath test. (Road Transport (Safety and Trafic management) Act - for NSW) failure to submit to the test is an offence and the penalty is the same as blowing high range, ie: suspension of licence on the spot and a court attendance notice. A Police officer also has the power to ask the driver of a motor vehicle to state his/her name and address and supply their drivers licence to the officer. Failure to do either of these is also an offence. As for recording what riders are wearing etc, the reason given of identifying the rider in the event of a crash could very well be correct. obviously its not going to go on any computer system as people change their clothing all the time. It could also be used for if someone was seen riding say a green ninja 600 wearing a red/ black helmet and blue / silver jacket doing say 120 in a 60 zone but it was unsafe for the police to give chase, they can look at their notes for the day and find 1 or 2 people who match this description and have a chat with them. Probably nothing will happen as a result, but its surprising what some people will unwittingly admit to.

As for targetted harrassment, what is wrong with targetting certain road users in the interest of safety? Would you jump up and down complaining if they were pulling over every b double on the pacific hwy and doing drug testing? Probably not. They would be targetting bike riders as they are known for exceeding the speed limit in that area, or for committing any number of other traffic offences. To stop these persons and maybe scare them into slowing down is probably a good thing. I know not every rider rides like a maniac, but some do and we've all seen them. It is not a nice thing to go to an accident where a bloke on a nice new 900 has come off and managed to wrap himself around a telegraph pole. Remember it only takes 1 mistake or 1 error of judgement to stuff up big time. All the actions by police concerning traffic are to attempt to cut down on the amount of road trauma. Over 500 people die every year on Australian roads. That is more than any other un natural cause like murder, drowning etc. if anyone can suggest other ways of slowing people down go ahead, but its not as easy as it seems.

Any way thats enough of a rant for now...

Blaaa....Blaaaa.Blaaaa.....You should run for parliment Bud!?! FFF if you believe half of what you wrote...well lets just say we would have some really interesting conversations. For the sake of not boring anyone here I won't comment.

BUT...for the record....speed does not kill AND we all agree we don't want idiots on the road no matter what their vice is. I believe you have missed the point here somewhat and I still do not like police 'hiding' behind 'breathalysing' bikers to 'scare them into slowing down if this is what you are suggesting is ok. BS in my opinion.

[petro]

well I do agree with with just about all of that Quick_stix, but it is a bit lousy picking on rego lable holders and maybe fender elimentators.
Even though I put my fender back on just to save a fine

[Quick_Stix]

I agree with Petro on picking on rego holders and fender eliminators, but Police dont make the law, only enforce it. Its usually only brought up if its a safety issue ...or if the drivers a tosser.

And "Speed does not kill"... what the hell sort of education do they give you people in kiwi land if you really believe that.

And for the record, bikes have got to be pulled over the least of all motorists anyway. I have only stopped 1 bike for a breath test, and that was because the car behind him was waved in and he thought it was him (but I could be biased). Bikes, 90% of the time get waved through the RBT site because it takes too much time for them to take the helmet off and get out licences.

[MickLC]

....And for the record, bikes have got to be pulled over the least of all motorists anyway. I have only stopped 1 bike for a breath test, and that was because the car behind him was waved in and he thought it was him (but I could be biased). Bikes, 90% of the time get waved through the RBT site because it takes too much time for them to take the helmet off and get out licences.

Try riding home from the GP some time. As a motorcyclist I and every other bike near me have been targetted for bike checks, breathtests, radar etc....and they don't make you take your helmet off for the RBT, they just shove it in when you open your visor and you're expected to be able to get it in your mouth and blow on it

[biggles08]

And "Speed does not kill"... what the hell sort of education do they give you people in kiwi land if you really believe that.

Its all making sense now! I'm sorry I didn't realize you were one of the few 'good' police who only enforced the law without a regard to the consequence!?

Speed...the drug kills if you have too much, to quickly. Speed the phenomenon commonly utilized to describe moving oneself relative to the earth at a particular pace DOES NOT KILL. If we are discussing this, which I believe that we are, then surely this is all relative to any given situation. The problem of course is that we cannot rely on the general population to decipher what is excessive speed in a situation and what is not. Hence we 'dumb' it down to a set limit that all is expected to follow. For the record, I personally don't have a real problem with this if it is done in the correct manner and spirit with logical speed limits not done to entrap the Jo bloggs motorist/enthusiast. What I do have a problem with is the 'Police state' that uses this to justify an alternative motive...to attempt to generally control the population.

Let me ask you Quick_Stix, why is 70kph 'speeding' in a 50kph, yet in a 100kph zone it is fine....simple really isn't it, it's because the situation/road condition allows for the extra speed to be done in a relatively safe manner presumably. Therefor, what makes anything over 100kph dangerous (in NZ I'm referring to as we have no speed limit higher than this). Surely there are roads where a higher speed would be acceptable and could be done so in a safe manner.

So you are a police man (i presume) that would never give discretion to a motorist or biker because you are there to merely 'enforce the law' not make it according to your admission. So if my grandmother was traveling on a wide lonely road safely at 110kph in a 100kph zone and you would pull her over and without a second thought give her a ticket. If this is the case in my books your a bastard and a bad cop, if nothing but a consistent one.

I for one do not want to live in a country that has police to simply obey orders and not think for themselves...this is how 'absolute power corrupts.' Remind you of any particular point in history? The whole 'Speed Kills' campaign that has been trashed to death in NZ is a waste of my money as a tax payer when they should be using the millions of dollars on re-educating drivers and building better/safer roads so that we can legally go faster....once again SPEED DOES NOT KILL. (its the rapid stop that usually does )

Oh BTW, My bro in law is a coppa...good conversations we have...lol

[BikerBoy]

[quote="biggles08"][quote="Quick_Stix"]
once again SPEED DOES NOT KILL. (its the rapid stop that usually does )



Bahaha your argueing about semantics dude.

this is funny.

[biggles08]

I know...hence the

[Quick_Stix]

So you are a police man (i presume) that would never give discretion to a motorist or biker because you are there to merely 'enforce the law' not make it according to your admission.

regarding your grandmother, discretion is a major player in Policing. Without discretion, Policing would not work. people would receive unjust punishment for minor or first offences, as you point out this would be shit. Which is why you take into account the circumstances surrounding the offence. ie: 10ks over, no other traffic, probably would let it slide. usually the driver would slow down anyhow due to seeing the police car. I have let shoplifters off with a warning because they had never been in trouble before and were genuinely sorry for their actions, but other have been prosecuted in court because they are repititious thieving shit bags...the use of discretion at work.

As for the semantics, yes thats right, the sudden stop is the bit that kills, but its the speed the sudden stop comes from. A sudden stop from 20 would not kill, however one from 120 probably would...but anyway, we seem to agree on that point.

on the whole speed kills campaign, thats a whole other can of worms. I'll just say ride down the street at 50 and brake as fast as you can then do it at 60 and see how far past the stopping point from 50 you are. You would be surprised at the distance 10 ks less will give you.

[Black Magic]

My father was a police officer for 37 years. I do not have a personal gripe with cops, but I can tell you from personal experience that there are many that aren't all goodness and light.(Just as for the rest of the population.)

I do have a personal gripe with police pulling over ONLY bikes in 32 degree heat, making us all wait on the side of the road while they one by one recorded our rego, then one by one breathalysed us, then one by one wrote down our description, and then en mass sent us on our way.

The fact that the only gripe they could find with us was my rego holder says loads about the responsibility factor of the 20 or so bikers that were stopped.

I believe that it is a blatant campaign to discourage riders from using certain roads. The fact that there was a speed gun at the other side of the mountain just reinforces my view. I have many friends that are riders, and almost all of them feel the same way. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases people do stop riding these roads because of it.

I also feel that persecuting riders alienates us from the other road users and creates an atmosphere of 'us and them' that can truely be dangerous.

In over 20 years of driving I have had only one speeding violation, and have been put on a breathalyser once. I have never been fined whilst on the bike (yet), but why are we singled out so much more on bikes than in our cars? Most riders that I know are way more skilled, aware and hence more cautious than car drivers.

I am tired of the harrassement- and in my opinion THAT is what it is. But of course we are all entitled to our own view.

[biggles08]

on the whole speed kills campaign, thats a whole other can of worms. I'll just say ride down the street at 50 and brake as fast as you can then do it at 60 and see how far past the stopping point from 50 you are. You would be surprised at the distance 10 ks less will give you.

Nope I wouldn't....be surprised that is. Its simple physics and reaction time. But you are actually arguing my point exactly...its not the speed whatever it is that matters, its the dickhead who is doing it in the wrong circumstance!

If you have a 100kph speed limited road that obviously could be driven safely at 130kph+ due to the factors that matter (visibility, road condition, traffic density, pedestrian density, potential hazards etc) then why insist on keeping it a 100kph zone? Simple...they want to fix the real problem with a bandaid...sting everyone who drives over 100kph (you get money for the gov this way too) rather than teach the idiots how to drive properly (or remove them from the privilege of driving altogether).

In case you haven't gathered by now, I'm passionate about this issue. My partner is German and I have been there on a few occasions. The difference in the attitude of both the drivers AND the police is astounding. They have areas where it is safe to speed and hence they allow it (I passed a cop on the autobahn in a camper doing 140kph )- and in fact have lanes on the autobahn in which minimum speeds are required for safety?!?. But what I noticed the most was how everyone slowed down to EXACTLY 50kph when they came to a sign indicating that speed in that area. Its because they charge the general population with a little thing called "personal responsibility." If the speed limit is set to 50kph there must be a reason for it.

When there is a major accident in Germany, they don't jump up and down about how speed kills...they look at the actual reason the accident happened and go about fixing that reason....further to this they never hide behind what we do here "speed was a factor" rather, if this was the real reason for the accident ie excess speed, they point to the idiot who was speeding and blame him for making a poor decision regarding that speed. See the difference? Its subtle but important.

Like i said to start with, I believe we do need speed limits but more realistic ones BUT what we don't need is police pulling over innocent riders/drivers just to fufill their quotas for the day....this is not in the interest of safety and you will never convince me otherwise.

[MickLC]

So I assume the German government makes their revenue off motorists in other ways then

[biggles08]

So I assume the German government makes their revenue off motorists in other ways then

LOL...not from the motorists...ve hav vays of making you pay!

In reality, they have speed cameras and all the evils as such. Its just their general attitude is not swayed irrationally against the thought of traveling fast. Everyone seems a little more grown up

[Quick_Stix]

That whole "point the finger at the ediot" is a pretty irresponsible point of view from a government of a country. I dont know about germany, but here the government is responsible for the safety of the population. Maybe Germans still want to kill off the jews or are still upset that they lost the war, I dont know. To keep the roads as safe as possible, they have to account for people who can drive/ride fairly competently to those who have no idea. The safest way to do that is to impose speed limits which all drivers can safely manage, hence why 110km/h is the max throughout Australia. Yes education should be better, but I believe they are trying to do that, not that i agree with the strategies implemented.

The moron driving holds a major part of the responsibility in a crash, particularly if people die, but the government still has to be seen to be doing its best to make the roads a safer place.

If you have a stretch of road that can be driven at 130ks, why push the envelope of safety? What is the problem with sitting on 100? Is your life that important that you cant potter along at 100 with everyone else but must go faster? Are you some kind of cowboy that just has to rebel against the laws of society? If you obeyed the law, you wouldn't get fined. If they put the speed up to 130, you sound like you would want to complain about that too and winge why cant I go 150? believe it or not, speed limits are designed with SAFETY being the main contributor, NOT some person in an office thinking "oh if we make it 80, motorists will want to go 100 so we could make some money off this!"...

you say yourself, that when germans see a 50 sign they all slow down to 50 as "There must be a reason for it", and that the attitude of their driving is very different. it appears from this whole argument that you have the same poor attitude as everyone else. Instead of seeing a 100 sign and obeying it as there must be a reason, you are saying there is no reason good enough for this bit of road to be 100, I am doing more than this... then you cry when you get a ticket.

And as for pulling over a "quota" of vehicles per day, actually it is proven that this is an extremely effective form of reducing crashes and offences. if you got pulled over for speeding would you then slow down for at least a little while afterwards? Or if you saw police on the road every hour or so, wouldnt you think "geez theres alot of cops out today, I'd better watch how I drive"

(I dont know how this got to be about international politics...)

[Gosling1]

........ Its just their general attitude is not swayed irrationally against the thought of traveling fast. Everyone seems a little more grown up.....

Ian Gowanloch wrote a great article in Two Wheels many years ago about this very topic - just change the country to 'Italy', but the attitude of the local coppers was just the same - ie. while watching most motorcyles speed past their roadside position, they chose to ignore all but the most stupid of speeders. Those idiots were pulled over and booked. The rest were allowed to continue on, as they were not being stupid about their speed. Unlike some jurisdictions in Oz, with *zero tolerance*....

...... If they put the speed up to 130, you sound like you would want to complain about that too and winge why cant I go 150? believe it or not, speed limits are designed with SAFETY being the main contributor, NOT some person in an office thinking "oh if we make it 80, motorists will want to go 100 so we could make some money off this!".......

something to think about in the context of the speeds you mentioned above, and subsequent actions by safety-crats.....

The 4-lane sections of the Hume Highway between Sydney and Goulburn were designed for safe travelling at 130kmh. The speed limit is set at an arbitrary 110kmh. Ask yourself why this could possibly be ..........and the answer is as simple as revenue raising.

I have travelled that section of highway since 1980, at 130kmh, in total and absolute safety. If speed killed, I would have died a thousand deaths by now. It is safe at 130kmh, it was designed for vehicles to use safely at 130kmh, yet the speed limit is 110kmh. It is no coincidence that the difference is more than 15kmh either.......the speed limit on *this* particular piece of road has *nothing* to do with safety, and *everything* to do with raising revenue. Biggles is right on the money.

[Quick_Stix]

I have travelled that section of highway since 1980, at 130kmh, in total and absolute safety. If speed killed, I would have died a thousand deaths by now. It is safe at 130kmh, it was designed for vehicles to use safely at 130kmh, yet the speed limit is 110kmh. It is no coincidence that the difference is more than 15kmh either.......the speed limit on *this* particular piece of road has *nothing* to do with safety, and *everything* to do with raising revenue. Biggles is right on the money.

yes I know that road, i have driven it many times. but as i said before the limits are for the whole population. A little old granny who can barely see over the dash doing 130? her reaction time for anyhting out of the ordinary is already shot to shit by her age, how would you like her to be doing the same speed? What you are saying is that the safety factor on the hwy to goulburn is the same at 110 as it would be at 130? How is this possible when factors such as vehicle control / tyre grip and reaction time are considered? Why are trucks limited to 100 if it is not for safety?? I know many override these systems, but technically they should be limited to that 100 and therefore not get fined for any speeding offences on the freeway? What revenue is gained from from this?? And dont say from those that are caught everriding the system as that would not even be a drop in the ocean.

People need to get out of the mindset that all decisions are based on the government trying to raise revenue. Maybe if we banned A current affair and today tonight it might help...