Wanker Cop

[idb]

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

I've never waxed.......

[marty]

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.

so what are the set limits for driving with cannabis/meth/opiates? what are the set limits for driving while otherwise mentally impaired?

[scumdog]

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.

Harden up! I've used that "reasonable grounds" to remove keys/disable car when somebody has been in a real rage, drugged and/or emotionally "out of it", how do you set a limit on that???

Done it with drunk drivers that technically are legally below the breath-alcohol too.

Never had a complaint.

[spudchucka]

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.

So my experience as a front line cop dealing with drunks week in and week out means stuff all and I have little to back up my position????

[chris]

so go fuk yourselfs

Thanks, nice comment.
As I see it, you were a designated driver, you had been drinking and were prepared to drive whether the policeman had been there or not. In my opinion you were being irresponsible.

[Lou Girardin]

And that would just be another scandal for Lou and Co to bleat about!

No Spud, if some cop tried that on me we'd be meeting again in civil court.
There's no authority to take keys purely because someone has alcohol in their system. They must be impaired. Otherwise you'll be forbidding people who've just used their inhalers. Unless, of course, you are able to judge someone's driving ability in the few metres that you see them as they drive into the checkpoint.
Cops bending the law is one of the reasons your public approval is in freefall.

[Ixion]

No Spud, if some cop tried that on me we'd be meeting again in civil court.
There's no authority to take keys purely because someone has alcohol in their system. They must be impaired. Otherwise you'll be forbidding people who've just used their inhalers. Unless, of course, you are able to judge someone's driving ability in the few metres that you see them as they drive into the checkpoint.
Cops bending the law is one of the reasons your public approval is in freefall.

Well, personally I rather agree with you. But, I think the original comment (from Mr BykeyCop I think) was that they took keys only if the test was a "youth fail". Now it could be argued that the test shows a level of blood alcohol that Parliament has deemed has some capability to impair driving. If it did not there would be no justification for it being an offense in youths.

So a cop could argue that the "youth fail" in itself is evidence of some degree of impairment. Not enough for it to be an offence but enough to raise concerns about capability. And thus justify the seizure.

But, got to say, that if I was left stranded in some small town 300km from home,having committed no offence, I'd be thinking lawyers also. I suggest it's pretty dangerous territory for the police to be straying into. Need to remember that it is Parliament and Parliament ONLY that makes law. Not judges, not police. No matter how justified they may think they are in "extending" the law.

[Wolf]

I've never waxed.......

I seldom even shave if I can avoid it.

[idb]

So my experience as a front line cop dealing with drunks week in and week out means stuff all and I have little to back up my position????

I wondered who would take it personally.
I can't recall mentioning you or your occupation.

In fact I'd suggest that a front line cop or emergency worker would have more backing-up material for their opinion than most.

[Ixion]

I seldom even shave if I can avoid it.

Be a bit of a wste of time wouldn't it, if the old stories are to be believed ?

[WINJA]

MUST BE HARD TO BE A COP WEEDING OUT THE SHIT DRIVERS , SOME BITCH CUT ME OFF THIS MORNING ON MY WAY TO WORK I HAD TO SWERVE AND I DROPPED MY ELECTRIC SHAVER INTO MY CORNFLAKES WHICH SPLASHED MILK ALL OVER MY HERALD, FUCKEN MILK ALL OVER MY SPEEDO AND WINDSCREEN

[Bonez]

MUST BE HARD TO BE A COP WEEDING OUT THE SHIT DRIVERS , SOME BITCH CUT ME OFF THIS MORNING ON MY WAY TO WORK I HAD TO SWERVE AND I DROPPED MY ELECTRIC SHAVER INTO MY CORNFLAKES WHICH SPLASHED MILK ALL OVER MY HERALD, FUCKEN MILK ALL OVER MY SPEEDO AND WINDSCREEN

So it's true-you do drive a Suzuki Swift

[Clockwork]

I don't have a problem with the act/regulation being used for the matters you have cited. My concern is with Bykey Cop's admission that it was being used to "forbid" adult drivers who breach the youth limits for blood/alcohol, just because some individual (presumably with rank in the Police Force) has taken it upon him/herself to deem any driver within this situation, impared and presumably unsafe.

[Clockwork]

......
Done it with drunk drivers that technically are legally below the breath-alcohol too.

Never had a complaint.

With all due respect SD..... If you did it to me..... you'd get a complaint!!

Just because some people wont/can't stand up for their rights does not mean they should be forfeited.

[Lou Girardin]

Well, personally I rather agree with you. But, I think the original comment (from Mr BykeyCop I think) was that they took keys only if the test was a "youth fail". Now it could be argued that the test shows a level of blood alcohol that Parliament has deemed has some capability to impair driving. If it did not there would be no justification for it being an offense in youths.

So a cop could argue that the "youth fail" in itself is evidence of some degree of impairment. Not enough for it to be an offence but enough to raise concerns about capability. And thus justify the seizure.

But, got to say, that if I was left stranded in some small town 300km from home,having committed no offence, I'd be thinking lawyers also. I suggest it's pretty dangerous territory for the police to be straying into. Need to remember that it is Parliament and Parliament ONLY that makes law. Not judges, not police. No matter how justified they may think they are in "extending" the law.

No. Fail youth is simply a statutory level for under 20 year olds. It has no legal standing in ascertaining the fitness or otherwise of an over 20 yr old to drive.
In fact, it can be argued that the adult limit is not an indication of impairment.
The limit is the same for men and women, yet it has been shown that women have a lower tolerance for alcohol than men.