Police getting tougher on speed tolerance

[R650R]

You can see when riding the texters are back in force just doing it down low making it more dangerous.
The talkers are back also.

Now this would be fun

I don't think it ever stopped, sure a few would have changed but its not hard to spot people doing it.
I'm noticing a hell of a lot of kids using their cellphones while push biking, it will be interesting to see if when they get to car stage will the brain have adapted to do both or will our road toll surge in the next 5-10 years....

[rastuscat]

I don't think it ever stopped, sure a few would have changed but its not hard to spot people doing it.
I'm noticing a hell of a lot of kids using their cellphones while push biking, it will be interesting to see if when they get to car stage will the brain have adapted to do both or will our road toll surge in the next 5-10 years....

Funny. It's illegal to use a cellphone while using a vehicle, which includes cycles.

Imagine the uproar if we started hammering cyclists for texting while riding. It'd all be revenue collecting, quota blah blah blah.

When in fact it'd be due to trying to stop the cyclists from forming bad habits which they carry into cars.

Ah well.

[Murray]

Funny. It's illegal to use a cellphone while using a vehicle, which includes cycles.

Imagine the uproar if we started hammering cyclists for texting while riding. It'd all be revenue collecting, quota blah blah blah.

And go through red lights, crossings while people are crossing and they need to wear helmets (which seems to be overlooked these days).

No uproar from me - go for it

[Mike.Gayner]

A lady at work got ticketed for 72 in a 70 zone this week. Fucking pathetic.

[scumdog]

A lady at work got ticketed for 72 in a 70 zone this week. Fucking pathetic.

I'll say - she should have been doing 82!

[Big Dog]

A lady at work got ticketed for 72 in a 70 zone this week. Fucking pathetic.

5$ says you also were not relayed the full story.

Does the full story include other actions that are difficult to ticket for? Such as dangerous driving that does not actually violate the law?
Or did she just fail the attitude test?
Or was she really doing 82 and the cop cut her a break for Christmas so she got less demerits?
Is her vehicle already known to police?

E.g If I got a ticket for 72 in a 70 when really it was 150m into a 50k zone my first instinct would be to omit the shameful part when relaying to work colleagues. Because I would be feeling defensive. Especially if my job required me to keep a clean license.
Given a day or two to process I would like to think I would include that little tidbit.

A few years ago I got an auto ticket from a speed camera for 61 in a 50. My first instinct was "fuckers, I was pacing a police bike. I can't have been speeding." Given a few weeks to reflect and a more honest self had to admit, either I knew I was speeding, suspected I was speeding, or worst possibility did not know I was speeding.
All leave me at fault.
Going to total honesty I know I chuckled to myself about how my speedo said I was doing near 70, but that meant so was the cop so I should be safe.

I am not a dishonest person, but our minds play tricks on us all the time so that we can live with ourselves.
Precisely why eye witness testimony of the same event often varies wildly.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[rastuscat]

Excellent, any chance your crew can carry on with those checks?
Scariest part of riding or driving down here are the red light runners and tail gating

It's business as usual.

[rastuscat]

I am not a dishonest person, but our minds play tricks on us all the time so that we can live with ourselves.

It's a psychological self defence mechanism. One of a few, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms

It's completely normal to protect ones view of oneself by only relating details that make us right.

Then to accuse the accuser, by accusing the cop of being a revenue collector.

Sigmund identified it. It appears to play out most days where I work.

[Big Dog]

Very prominent in employee and employer relationships.

Or should that be slave and slave driver?
Capitalist and downtrodden
Or hard done by employer and useless lazy staff?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Edbear]

If the law maker has the authority and responsibility to make a law, they also have the same to enforce that law. If you choose to break that law, for whatever reason you want to use, you accept that it is your fault if you receive the stated punishment.

Because everyone has their own personal opinions and preferences, the law cannot please everyone. It cannot take into account everyone's preferences and will always be a compromise solution. That's life in a society, like it or not.

[rastuscat]

If the law maker has the authority and responsibility to make a law, they also have the same to enforce that law. If you choose to break that law, for whatever reason you want to use, you accept that it is your fault if you receive the stated punishment.

Because everyone has their own personal opinions and preferences, the law cannot please everyone. It cannot take into account everyone's preferences and will always be a compromise solution. That's life in a society, like it or not.

Aw come on. It's Christmas Eve. Let's all stop being so damn sensible.

[Edbear]

Aw come on. It's Christmas Eve. Let's all stop being so damn sensible.

Sorry, I will endeavour to be insensible as soon as possible...

[Akzle]

If the law maker has the authority and responsibility to make a law, they also have the same to enforce that law. If you choose to break that law, for whatever reason you want to use, you accept that it is your fault if you receive the stated punishment.

well, no.
see "no man is above the law" - thus the law is made by god, in whatever iteration you fancy.
no man can break a law.

the authors of legislation use the phrase "given the force of law", further, they are a internal rules for a private company, thus apply only to those in business with them, to be enforced by their policy enforcement division.

no contract= no business = fuck off, thanks for playing. do not pass go do not collect 200$

every man is above legislation, should he elect to be.

[scumdog]

well, no.
see "no man is above the law" - thus the law is made by god, in whatever iteration you fancy.
no man can break a law.

the authors of legislation use the phrase "given the force of law", further, they are a internal rules for a private company, thus apply only to those in business with them, to be enforced by their policy enforcement division.

no contract= no business = fuck off, thanks for playing. do not pass go do not collect 200$

every man is above legislation, should he elect to be.

Back away from the tab...

[Scuba_Steve]

well, no.
see "no man is above the law" - thus the law is made by god, in whatever iteration you fancy.
no man can break a law.

the authors of legislation use the phrase "given the force of law", further, they are a internal rules for a private company, thus apply only to those in business with them, to be enforced by their policy enforcement division.

no contract= no business = fuck off, thanks for playing. do not pass go do not collect 200$

every man is above legislation, should he elect to be.

Also under their own rules the "law makers" have no authority to make "laws" & even less to enforce it... But we'll leave that for another day