More bullshit

**Lou Girardin** · 25th July 2006, 08:09

Originally Posted by MSTRS

We want pictures ... we demand proof! Well, the ladies on here do anyway

Too late! Freud strikes again.

**Swoop** · 25th July 2006, 08:16

Very interesting to see that if this is about "reducing the road toll" - i.e. dangers on the roads, then the cop doing the u-turn in front of 2 bikes is contributing to the dangers on the roads.

The other issue is the fact that some other office-dwelling maggot has signed the form letter FOR the cop... He must have either been back out on the roads or down at the local Dunkin Donuts celebrating another kill...

**yungatart** · 25th July 2006, 08:37

It seems that the only way to beat this inane behaviour by the cops is for all road users to study not only the road code, but the law as well.One wonders if the said policeman saw an opportunity with a young guy on an L plate riding with two school uniform wearing kids on scooters... would he have been so quick to pick up a forty y/o?

**terbang** · 25th July 2006, 09:41

Originally Posted by WINJA

fuck the pigs , those cunts should all be ashamed of themselves

After all the indoctrination they recieve... Impossible!

**Lou Girardin** · 26th July 2006, 16:17

I stand to be corrected, but I have never seen two speed restriction signs in succession for the same speed limit.

**Deano** · 26th July 2006, 16:20

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

Those blanket letters are pretty much the only thing you will get from PIBS about the infringement. It is pretty rare to receive and individual one due to the sheer volume of letters asking to be excused from a fine.

Yet there seems to be no such lack of resources allocated into the issuing of the sheer volume of individual speeding tickets...

**Ixion** · 26th July 2006, 16:20

Well, I have, but I assumed the second one was a "repeater". Cos I thought that they had to be every X metres in non built up areas . Or something. Or maybe something else. Could be something in it, I'll take a not in future.

(They could be repeaters and still have the effect described, of course - would just mean that if the restricted area was so short there was no repeater the cops couldn't ping you. Hmmmm )

**marty** · 26th July 2006, 16:25

sorry d50 - the 2 sign thing is not a reality in rural settings

**Indoo** · 26th July 2006, 16:29

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

I stand to be corrected, but I have never seen two speed restriction signs in succession for the same speed limit.

I've seen it on occasion in some rural towns which seem to stretch on forever. However theres defeinately no policy regarding 2 signs or anything. Theres only an internal guideline that unless the circumstances are exceptional tickets won't be issued with 250 metres of a change of speed sign. I'm guessing exceptional would be someone showing no signs of slowing down for the 50kmh zone within that 250 metre grace period etc.

It has no legal standing though, you can't defend a ticket in court because you were within 250 metres of a change of speed sign, by law as soon as you enter a 50kmh zone you have to be doing 50kmh or less. The only thing that stops you from getting a ticket for doing in excess of 51kmh as soon as you enter a 50kmh are Police internal guidelines - as far as the law is concerned your fair game.

**Lou Girardin** · 26th July 2006, 17:10

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

It could be a guideline, i was told it was law when i was on STU.

Police are actually pretty leniant on a lot of things in traffic in that they could issue tickets for 51 and our radars and lasers are always calibrated slower than the actual speed to make up for claims of faulty speedos. I noticed this when i was looking at the calibration certificates for a STU car when i was at court two days ago.

How much slower were your certificates?
Because in my day there was a 2 km/h tolerance on them.

**MSTRS:Me** · 26th July 2006, 17:23

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

However although i do not claim to be a traffic expert I did do a short secondment to traffic and one of the things if i remember correctly is that there are two speed signs in place where ever there is a change in speed. So basically you drive (or ride) past the first one and by law you cannot actually be given a ticket for breaching the speed limit until your about 150 metres from the second sign. ( I think normally they are about 800 metres apart).

Those blanket letters are pretty much the only thing you will get from PIBS about the infringement. It is pretty rare to receive and individual one due to the sheer volume of letters asking to be excused from a fine.

You can challenge the ticket in court which is the next step.

As far as the U turn goes i wasn't there but if it happened as it did the officer needs a kick up the bum.

2 speed signs? 800m apart? Not in the real world as it relates to this area - Fernhill would be lucky to be 800m long.
Form letters are just bullshit. One size does not fit all. Regardless of what your chemist might tell you.
Too late - paid up before getting all the skinny on the tolerance zone.
I wasn't there either, but 3 people were telling the same story. The prick in the patrol car needs more than a kick up the bum. But as usual, that won't happen. He got his quota so he's a good boy.

**Scouse** · 26th July 2006, 17:45

Originally Posted by MSTRS

The prick in the patrol car needs more than a kick up the bum. But as usual, that won't happen. He got his quota so he's a good boy.

Would it have helped if Senior Sergeant Bryan Healy had sent you a box of tissues with his reply letter ?

**scumdog** · 26th July 2006, 18:23

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

I stand to be corrected, but I have never seen two speed restriction signs in succession for the same speed limit.

Meeeh, from my knowledge the 250 metre thing is just a 'gentlemens agreement", the law says you have to comply with the speed limit posted AS YOU CROSS THE LINE.

Some drongo appealed his ticket because he believed he was only 247 metres inside the line - and screwed it up for everybody.

**MSTRS:Me** · 26th July 2006, 19:05

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

Did any of you see that article in the paper today about Constable Erwood (think his name is) and being charged for excess blood alcohol.

What do you think about that? Did anybody read the full story in the weekend herald? thats a tough one..

Tis a toughie....but the law says there is a limit after which you may not drive. It is good to see that an exception is not being made (at least in regards to being charged). The nod,wink and secret handshake shall no longer be used to excuse??