Wanker Cop

[Aitch]

But I wouldd respectfully sugesst that they are misguided. What you are doing is penalising the driver when he or she has committed no offence. What next? Taking someone's keys if they happen to mention that they might have a beer or two later???

I really should proof read my posts......spelling is awful!

[Velox]

I'm with you 250. Any vaguely controvertial post seems to open you up for major assassination on this site eh!

Fair enough that maybe the cop had reasons why he didn't want to test you but why not just let the you them, if he can see that you're genuinely being a "responsible citizen". Hmmm - good PR skills mate! I don't think there's anything "irresponsible" about not knowing if you're over the limit, since it's often not hugely consistent with your ability to drive safely, but you can still get had up for it so good on ya for asking!


On another note - I read earlier today what SparkyBills had written and thought it was strange cause I hardly ever see bike cops in Wgtn, and then tonight I popped into town and was heading back up Kent Tce (wondering why the boy racers beside me were being so sedate and weren't trying to take me on) only to find a bike cop waiting on the end of a laser up the end. I just shook my head to say not this time mate, and headed off for a beautiful midnight blat up Aro Valley. So yeah - it seems they are out there!

[Clockwork]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're under he limit.... you're under the limit. Those of you who want to set yourselves a lower limit, be my guest but please don't try imposing it on me! The natural extention to your argument would for those that don't feel comfortable driving at 100kph to insist everyone else must slow down also.

In our patch, we are now taking keys off anyone who "Fails Youth", even if they are an adult, precisely for the above reason... if we let them go, knowing they have alcohol in their system, then they crash and kill someone, someone will want to know why we let them go.

To my mind the above quote reveals a gross abuse of authority.

[Dafe]

Just one of many assholes you were unfortunate enough to come across.
A good cop knows his job involves public relations. As far as I'm concerned, this cop is as good as half a cop!
I work in a public support role and although I'm a technician first and foremost, I put every effort into going the extra mile when dealing with the Joe Bloggs public, there is alot to be said for professionalism.
I would have told the copper that his attitude and mannerism is exactly why members of public no longer go out of there way to aid an officer in need of help.

[spudchucka]

I would have told the copper that his attitude and mannerism is exactly why members of public no longer go out of there way to aid an officer in need of help.

Gee, I wonder what he might have said back to you?

[scumdog]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're under he limit.... you're under the limit. Those of you who want to set yourselves a lower limit, be my guest but please don't try imposing it on me! The natural extention to your argument would for those that don't feel comfortable driving at 100kph to insist everyone else must slow down also.
To my mind the above quote reveals a gross abuse of authority.

Be aware, if you are insured and should you crash and be required to be taken away for an evidential breath test at the Police station your insurance is likely to be void - regardless whose is at fault in the crash.

As far as the insurance companies go there is no limit, if you have been drinking enough to fail the 'bag' or the 'sniffer' you've also failed when it comes to making a claim.

Above is not 100% but pretty much so.

[scumdog]

Just one of many assholes you were unfortunate enough to come across.
A good cop knows his job involves public relations. As far as I'm concerned, this cop is as good as half a cop!
I work in a public support role and although I'm a technician first and foremost, I put every effort into going the extra mile when dealing with the Joe Bloggs public, there is alot to be said for professionalism.
I would have told the copper that his attitude and mannerism is exactly why members of public no longer go out of there way to aid an officer in need of help.

I would probably have said the same thing to 250 - maybe couched in a nicer way but the message would have been much the same.

Oooh! - and not helping one officer 'cos another got a bit snarky fair spikes with maturity, must remember the same thing next time I get bad service at BP/Maccas/Warehouse/Postshop et al. - run around and tell everybody "they're all wankers"

[Ixion]

I would probably have said the same thing to 250 - maybe couched in a nicer way but the message would have been much the same.

But is not that the whole point ? Mr 250Learner sought the assistance of teh police. The policeman said , more or less, "piss off".

That's not a good response to a member of the public making what seemed to them a reasonable request. And it's not even good policing.

You would have said the same but politely. That would have been good.

Reading the comments from the police members, I can see why the policeman didn't want to oblige. But his attitude ended up doing the police/public image yet more damge. He came across as arrogant and unhelpful

If he had replied "Sorry Sir, I understand what you asking , but it's Police policy not to do this , because [explanation]. And if you have the slightest doubt about your safety to drive, then don't do it. Can I help you arrange a taxi ?"

Result then ? Good public image, Mr 250Learner not pissed off, good policing (getting the message across) and even, maybe, making the roads safer.

There was a time when the police were always polite even under provocation. Now most are still (personally I have only once been treated rudely by a police officer, and he was a senior one, not "coal face"). But there do seem to be some who have a bad attitude.

[spudchucka]

But his attitude ended up doing the police/public image yet more damge. He came across as arrogant and unhelpful

Here's the original post:

Was in wellington after the game on wednesday, being the sober driver I wasnt drinking much, but did have a few drinks
On the way to the car i saw a motorcycle cop pull up and just sit there doing nothing. I went up to him and asked if he could do a breath test so that i can be sure i am arite to drive home.
The claver idot said yes he has one but not for me to use

If you are on here and reading this I hope you feel special you brain dead moron
Up yours

250 doesn't explain with very much detail the actual words spoken. He asked to be breath tested and was declined. I don't see how you can conclude from this post what the cops attitude was or whether he was arrogant. I think that there is a great deal of stereotyping and assuming going on here.

But there do seem to be some who have a bad attitude.

hope next time he is out at night refusing to do anything but sit on the bike for 30min looking at people go past, that someone who is drunk gives him a nudge when he is heading home on the motorway so that he can learn the true value of prevention and the true value an extra ticket to your name has when you are laying in a hospital bed.

I'm sorry, who was it that has the bad attitude?

[Clockwork]

Be aware, if you are insured and should you crash and be required to be taken away for an evidential breath test at the Police station your insurance is likely to be void - regardless whose is at fault in the crash.

As far as the insurance companies go there is no limit, if you have been drinking enough to fail the 'bag' or the 'sniffer' you've also failed when it comes to making a claim.

Above is not 100% but pretty much so.

I don't doubt you for a minute SD. I woud fully expect an insurance company to do whatever it could to slime out of meeting a claim.

[WINJA]

As far as the insurance companies go there is no limit, if you have been drinking enough to fail the 'bag' or the 'sniffer' you've also failed when it comes to making a claim.

Above is not 100% but pretty much so.

THATS CAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANYS OWN TESTING FOUND THAT ANY ALCOHOL E.G. ONE GALSS OF BEER HAS SOME EFFECT ON DRIVING ABILITY

[idb]

Erm, how did he know that he was under the limit?

Quite right...I opened my keyboard without........something.

However there appears to be a bit of high horse climbing on here, and it's an easy position to take - because it requires no thought or explanation.

I don't want to get into the debate of whether you should have any alcohol at all before driving or not - what I'm saying is that both sides of the argument are populated by folks who have little to back up their positions.
The 'anti' side are just as guilty of taking an unthinking stance as the 'I know how much I can drink and still drive OK' side.
Possibly, taking an uninformed position on the moral high ground is worse because it is the safest.

Now, before you launch into me, I am not advocating drink-driving, I am arguing for positions to be reasoned.

Pheww...see how this goes...

[Da Bird]

>> >> >> >>

(1)An enforcement officer may exercise all or any of the powers conferred by subsection (2) if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that—

(i)referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> ath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f">ath>A person who is for the time being in charge of a motor vehicle is, because of his or her physical or mental condition (however arising), incapable of having proper control of the vehicle; and

(b)referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> ath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f">ath>In all the circumstances, the direction or prohibition or action is necessary in the interests of that person or of any other person or of the public.

(2)referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> ath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f">ath>The enforcement officer may—

(a)referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> ath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f">ath>Forbid that person to drive a motor vehicle for such period as the enforcement officer specifies:

(c)referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> ath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f">ath>Take possession of all ignition or other keys of the vehicle, and for that purpose require that person to deliver up immediately all such keys:

I have slightly edited the above to remove the irrelevant parts.

BC.

[scumdog]

Quite right...I opened my keyboard without........something.

However there appears to be a bit of high horse climbing on here, and it's an easy position to take - because it requires no thought or explanation.

I don't want to get into the debate of whether you should have any alcohol at all before driving or not - what I'm saying is that both sides of the argument are populated by folks who have little to back up their positions.
The 'anti' side are just as guilty of taking an unthinking stance as the 'I know how much I can drink and still drive OK' side.
Possibly, taking an uninformed position on the moral high ground is worse because it is the safest.

Now, before you launch into me, I am not advocating drink-driving, I am arguing for positions to be reasoned.

Pheww...see how this goes...

Phew alright! Waxing philosphical here idb! a bit heavy going for this lad on a Sunday night.

[Clockwork]

I believe this is where the abuse is applied

".... if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that....."

The Government has set the limit and I don't think it's reasonable for the local (or national) Police to to second guess it. Otherwise we might as well just not bother with a Parliament.