Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 1:29 pm**

aardvark wrote:
Nelso wrote:So are you justifying this sort of action? What would you have done in this situation?
You're not going to want to hear this, but since you asked.... Yep. I would have written the ticket aswell. Have written many a ticket for cars/trailers being one day out of rego. I can understand for cars etc that need a safety inspection but you're right, I am disappointed to hear you would issue a fine for a trailer one day out of rego.

At the end of the day I consider a couple of things:
1) I make sure my vehicles are registered, so should everyone else; and I usually do to. I have a twenty year record of it, until now
2) If I got caught with an unregistered vehicle I'd expect to receive a fine; I was half expecting a fine when he took my license to the car but figured it would be around the $50 mark, not $500+. If it was a reasonable amount I would have copped it on the chin and said fair enough, that's what I get for being absent minded but to slug someone more than an average persons wage for a week is a tad excessive don't you think? On this point, the law also says if you crash a motorbike on the road you should be charged with negligent driving. Do you expect to be charged with this after your recent accident on the dirt bike or do you think occasionally the event can be enough of a lesson in itself?
3) It's a job and I get paid to do my job; so did you charge yourself for the recent accident? I know that is below the belt
4) I'm not doing my job on the off chance I might meet some lovely people and make friends; fair enough, but do you deliberately try to put people off by speaking down to them when they are fully compliant and polite like the last three I have encountered?
5) Where do you draw the line? You think it's unfair to get a fine for being three days out, so when should a ticket be given out? After a week? A month? 3 months? If you said a month, then the person who got nicked for being a month out would complain that it's unfair and it should be three months and so on. the smart arse answer of course is 3 days! but I hear what you are saying. Honestly, I think a four or five day grace would be fine, especially for vehicles that do not need an inspection. What harm would that cause?

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 1:32 pm**

I had to split my post into two because I am a computer moron and don't know how to stop my post from going nuts when it gets too big.

continuing on: I know I'm being a little passive aggressive here referring to your recent crash but I'm only trying to make the point that sometimes good people make small mistakes and it might not be necessary to destroy their lives in order to teach them a lesson. As Gos said, I am talking about discretion here. It used to be used wisely in the past (and still is with general duties police) but seems to have been replaced in highway patrol with the catch phrase "I'm only doing my job" as they deliver their unjust infringements (Remember the Nazis were only doing their job too, but does that make what they did excusable?). This is an extreme example of the point I am making and is in no way intended to imply that police are Nazis.

If I had been doing something that was dangerous to the public or a blatant disregard for the law then I would gladly accept what ever the consequence is, but lately the law appears to be about getting money from the compliant members of society because it's much easier than dealing with the antisocial ones.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 1:41 pm**

The day the new laws about u-turns over solid white lines and use of mobile was introduced........
a Geelong Cop was spotted doing a u-turn over a solid white line while talking on his mobile

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 1:45 pm**

lol!

'I don't drink with coppers!' -best line from some movie I watched

seiko1 wrote:The day the new laws about u-turns over solid white lines and use of mobile was introduced........
a Geelong Cop was spotted doing a u-turn over a solid white line while talking on his mobile

and that's why.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:12 pm**

What happens to CTPI when the rego has expired?

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:25 pm**

jonoZRX wrote:What happens to CTPI when the rego has expired?

As far as I know its a trailer - it does not have CTP (its attached to the car that does and if the trailer caised a crash it would - in most instances - be attached to the car), only the $50 fee that makes it safe.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:29 pm**

Nelso wrote:figured it would be around the $50 mark, not $500+.

Coppers don't set the amount for the fine, the politicians do, or as I strongly suspect, some bean counter working for the government. In reality, you should have some moralistic and complete dislike of all accountants.

Nelso wrote:the law also says if you crash a motorbike on the road you should be charged with negligent driving.

Umm, no, it doesn't.

Nelso wrote:did you charge yourself for the recent accident?[/color] I know that is below the belt

It's not below the belt because it doesn't make sense.

Nelso wrote:I think a four or five day grace would be fine

Fair enough you're entitled to think what you want. However, how long have you known that the rego was due for? When did they send you a renewal notice? What did you do with it? Is your rego label attached to the trailer like it should be? Did you look at it? Have you checked it recently. Feel free to blame the copper, that's your right, but as far as I can tell it was your fauly.

Nelso wrote:good people make small mistakes

Yep, and fair enough. Had I caused damage to another persons property or injured someone, I would expect to suffer the consequences.

Nelso wrote:lately the law appears to be about getting money from the compliant members of society because it's much easier than dealing with the antisocial ones.

The compliant members of society don't receive fines

Besides, if you don't keep the supposedly "compliant" members in check, they turn into antisocial members.

If they abolished our road laws, or if every copper turned a blind eye to them, I'd hand in my licence. Our roads would become an absolute nightmare! I'm all for coppers using their discretion, but when the offence is cut and dry, why should they? If you think you've received a fine unjustly, then take it to court and let the learned magistrate decide.

clay wrote: 'I don't drink with coppers!' -best line from some movie I watched

and that's why.

And thankfully I have no intention of drinking with you because I suspect that would breach my other rule regarding several other types of people I wont drink with.

I often come on here for a good laugh and this thread has been no different. No one is willing to accept responsibility for their own actions and the combined years of policing knowledge, that everyone obviously has, should be documented somewhere so that those currently in control could have a manual they could refer to which would allow us all to live in Utopia! How many of you constant stream of complainers are prepared to put your hand up and make a difference? Become a politician, write letters to your local MP, contact the media... shit, there's plenty of ways to bring about change if you're prepared to give it a shot. So, let's see a show of hands? No one? No, of course not, it's far easier to let someone else decide how things should be done and then blame them when you fuck up.

I understand, you're pissed about a 500 buck fine. Shit, I would be. Here the fine is 250 odd bucks. But at the end of the day it's still your fault. Part of the responsibility of owning a car, bike, trailer, caravan etc is to make sure it's registered and roadworthy. Don't like that? Don't own the car/bike/trailer etc.

Most people here won't agree with my opinion and most of thosewho do won't have the balls to post here saying that they do agree with it. But you know what? I don't give a fuck. I tried hard not to get involved in this thread because I knew it would turn into this but such is life.... I guess I'm just a sucker for a good argument.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:34 pm**

aardvark wrote:And thankfully I have no intention of drinking with you because I suspect that would breach my other rule regarding several other types of people I wont drink with.

More assumptions. Gee, cops are good at that.

I guess that's where the no lenience stance comes from.

You assume everyone's a crook yeh.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:57 pm**

I guess I am really lucky. In SLC, Utah, U.S.A. as I was pulled over after a 5 mile chase by the UHP, (I did not know they were chasing me) and the cop looked at my age, (62 at the time) and let me off. Maybe there is an advantage to being old. He said I was doing 142 MPH. Jim Beam and a shot are always a positive tool to enhance any life experience.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:02 pm**

The problem isnt the fine for the trailer.
Its all the other bullshit.
Its when a blind eye is turned to violence, theft, anything that is small enough to shrug off but would be too much of a hassle to pursue.

I understand that experience probably dictates that most small crimes will go unsolved regardless of how much effort is put in, simply due to a lack of clear cut evidence or whatever.
But the way that you guys communicate that to us mere mortals is to give us the impression you just dont give a shit.

Traffic though... Now theres money to be had there. Its also plain as day, no he said she said for the most part.

Its not the fact that a crime was committed, more the fact that had he been blind as a maggot the fine would be similar (i know he would also lose his licence, but like that stops the people who have from driving anyway).

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:19 pm**

aardvark wrote:
Nelso wrote:the law also says if you crash a motorbike on the road you should be charged with negligent driving.
Umm, no, it doesn't. It must be a NSW thing then because the officer dealing with my accident informed me that they had no choice but to find a motorcyclist that loses control of their vehicle to be at fault and they have to be charged with neg driving.

Nelso wrote:good people make small mistakes
Yep, and fair enough. Had I caused damage to another persons property or injured someone, I would expect to suffer the consequences.
Same could be said about me and the trailer. If it had hurt someone or something then issue a consequence.

I tried hard not to get involved in this thread because I knew it would turn into this but such is life.... I guess I'm just a sucker for a good argument.

I apologise if I came across as having a go at you and I do appreciate you getting on here and giving us a different perspective. I considered it more of a discussion than an argument and my comment about charging yourself was a light-hearted dig about doing your job to the letter if you found yourself inadvertently breaking the law, but it's hard to get it across that way in the written word.

My issue is about the size of the fine for such a petty offence. True it is someone else who sets these fines but I think the enforcing officers need to use discretion and I think taking into account the severity of the punishment should be factored into that decision. You are absolutely right that I only have myself to blame for this and I am more that willing to accept an appropriate consequence, but in this instance I (and it sounds like the majority of others) feel the punishment does not fit the crime.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:03 pm**

Police are publicly encouraged to use their discretion.... the fine amounts aren't their fault anyway, but when they do use descretion
and get found out........they get the sack

The polies make sure it's get plenty of publicity when a cop gets the arse too, so in other words.......don't use descretion OR ELSE

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:21 pm**

clay wrote:
aardvark wrote:And thankfully I have no intention of drinking with you because I suspect that would breach my other rule regarding several other types of people I wont drink with.
More assumptions. Gee, cops are good at that.

And my assumption is somehow different from some lame assumption you've decided to make based on something you saw in a movie once? At least mine is based on real world experience.

clay wrote:You assume everyone's a crook yeh

No, I'll drink with some crooks. They aren't the type of people I was referring to.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:36 pm**

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:18 pm**

No, the line was from a movie.

seiko1 wrote:The day the new laws about u-turns over solid white lines and use of mobile was introduced........
a Geelong Cop was spotted doing a u-turn over a solid white line while talking on his mobile

And that's why it rings true.

I've seen coppers breaking the law quite often. Yet somehow they're above it.

They're hypocrites, egotistical and quite often impotent and useless. A lot of them anyway. There's got to be some good ones, I just haven't met them yet.

Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?

Re: Are cops trying to get everyone to hate them?