The police and their 104k/h sucks. Therefore I decided to...

**scumdog** · 5th June 2010, 10:18

Originally Posted by flyingcrocodile46

My dad had a saying.... ''Rules are written for the guidance of wise men and for the blind obedience of fools'' (this assumes that those enforcing the rules are the wise men and that those on the receiving end are the fools).

Ah well, I guess those that think rules (laws?) are only for 'guidance' are also happy to pay $$$ for ignoring said 'rules' they see as a mere guidance??

They ARE happy to do so?
Good, all is well.....

**FJRider** · 5th June 2010, 10:25

Originally Posted by Conquiztador

Not initially. The plan is to evaluate the result and figure out if this idea helped. So if there is a reduction in accidents then this will be considered again.

And if there is no reduction in accidents ... ie: speed related ... penalties for "speeding" will most likely be introduced. Accidents (four wheels or two) involving speed will be pointed to as being the reason for the extra attention.

**flyingcrocodile46** · 5th June 2010, 10:34

Originally Posted by scumdog

Ah well, I guess those that think rules (laws?) are only for 'guidance' are also happy to pay $$$ for ignoring said 'rules' they see as a mere guidance??

They ARE happy to do so?
Good, all is well.....

Yeah. Speeding cost me well over $3000 in the last two years and it has made no difference to my driving habits. it was like working a couple of days each year without pay.

It did however make a big difference to my attitude towards shit licking fucktards so I guess you could say that the education process that you fuckwits have embarked upon is really reaping the rewards for ya, eh!

**flyingcrocodile46** · 5th June 2010, 10:36

Originally Posted by Conquiztador

Not initially. The plan is to evaluate the result and figure out if this idea helped. So if there is a reduction in accidents then this will be considered again.

What about a bit of driver safety education for the moron cowboys who are running people off the road and/or killing them in the interest of making our roads safer. Any proposed study and evaluation on that matter???

**oldrider** · 5th June 2010, 10:46

I think maybe they are just trying to say stop killing yourselves and other people on our roads!

That in it's self is fair enough!

Ever since the ACC debacle raised it's ugly head does it make you kinda cringe every time there is a motorcycle death reported in the media?

It does it for me and when you check them out, they do seem to be so bloody needless!

It even makes me feel the need to be compliant but then they come out and dice their arguments up by claiming it's mandatory speed and speed alone that's causing it!

Bullshit breeds bullshit, respect goes out the window and the "them" and "us" wedge gets driven deeper into the void between the police and the public!

Politicians?............Forgive them father, they know not what they do!

**Spearfish** · 5th June 2010, 10:50

Originally Posted by flyingcrocodile46

Exactly. The whole reason we have traffic laws and speed restrictions is all for SAFETY. That is the underlying reason for which all traffic enforcement officers are employed.

An 80 year old behind the wheel of an old Mk2 Zephyr with cross ply tyres on the old 309 road in teh coromandel doing 70kph is a shitload more risk to the safety of himself and others than a Peter Brock in the latest model Holden commode doing 140kph at 3:00am on the motorway. Yet you will often see Peter getting his ticket but seldom (if ever) see the old maniac in the Zephyr get his.

The conditions/circumstances for which rules/laws are drafted are wide an vary greatly. When drafting laws/rules invariably they are framed to cater for worst scenario rather than the best (as it is either impossible or completely impractical to make fair rules for all circumstances). The intent of law makers is to provide guidance for the exercise of common sense and penalties for those who don't exercise common sense. It has always been the intent that those enforcing the law are to use their judgment and discretion and to apply the maximum penalty applicable to the offense in cases of the worst scenario and lesser penalty (or warning) to the milder rule/law breaches. Fines were intended as a penalty, not a fucking income stream.

My dad had a saying.... ''Rules are written for the guidance of wise men and for the blind obedience of fools'' (this assumes that those enforcing the rules are the wise men and that those on the receiving end are the fools). It seems that this scenario is ever less in evidence, as it is rare indeed to meet an intelligent traffic cop, particularly as they seem to be completely lacking the ability to exercise any common sense and discretion on their own right..... (I'm just doing my job)

. Fucking spineless morons don't even get the basic principle that they are there to police... how often are they killing and/or maiming people with their unsafe actions when pursuing someone for a fucking silly little traffic offence.

The Zephyr made it to being old tho, so did the driver.
Cant ban some vehicles just because you feel it costs you time on a trip, powers that be could develop the same view of bikes.
As for running from the popo over a "silly traffic offence", stupid is as stupid does.

**flyingcrocodile46** · 5th June 2010, 10:52

Originally Posted by Spearfish

The Zephyr made it to being old tho, so did the driver.
Cant ban some vehicles just because you feel it costs you time on a trip, powers that be could develop the same view of bikes.
As for running from the popo over a "silly traffic offence", stupid is as stupid does.

I wasn't advocating banning old cars and drivers etc. Not the point I was making

**scumdog** · 5th June 2010, 11:05

Originally Posted by flyingcrocodile46

Yeah. Speeding cost me well over $3000 in the last two years and it has made no difference to my driving habits. it was like working a couple of days each year without pay.

It did however make a big difference to my attitude towards shit licking fucktards so I guess you could say that the education process that you fuckwits have embarked upon is really reaping the rewards for ya, eh!

Wow, so I've saved myself at least $3,000 over the last two years eh?

VERY satisfying, nice to know SOMEBODY is paying the revnue/tax that I'm not paying!

**flyingcrocodile46** · 5th June 2010, 11:32

Originally Posted by scumdog

Wow, so I've saved myself at least $3,000 over the last two years eh?

VERY satisfying, nice to know SOMEBODY is paying the revnue/tax that I'm not paying!

Nice to see an acknowledgment that the revenue collection from traffic offences is the real priority. Cheers for proving that point.

**Blackshear** · 5th June 2010, 11:33

I was just coming home not 20 minutes ago, down my street. The lady in front was doing about 30k's, so I did a swift - but not overly so - overtake at maybe 65~km/h.
Looked in my rear view mirror 5 seconds after and noticed a cop was right behind me when I did it.

I don't know how, but I turned into my driveway and he carried on. Maybe not all of them give a rats ass about this ridiculous NO MARGIN FOR A FLY ON YOUR ACCELERATOR rule this weekend.

**Conquiztador** · 5th June 2010, 12:31

Originally Posted by Blackshear

Looked in my rear view mirror 5 seconds after and noticed a cop was right behind me when I did it.

THERE is one of my pet hates. People who have no idea what is going on behind them. Imagine if the mentioned cop had, at the same moment, been overtaking you...

**scumdog** · 5th June 2010, 12:33

Originally Posted by flyingcrocodile46

Nice to see an acknowledgment that the revenue collection from traffic offences is the real priority. Cheers for proving that point.

No, you missed my point.

My priority is to (a) avoid paying this 'revenue/tax' (easy) and (b) get YOU (and your ilk) to pay it for me, (even easier)!

A win-win eh!

**flyingcrocodile46** · 5th June 2010, 12:41

Originally Posted by scumdog

No, you missed my point.

My priority is to (a) avoid paying this 'revenue/tax' (easy) and (b) get YOU (and your ilk) to pay it for me, (even easier)!

A win-win eh!

If you consider (as you appear to) that a quota of revenue from traffic offences must be collected in any event, then you would indeed be on a "win-win"

**apes** · 5th June 2010, 12:52

if only they would start booking people for dangerous drive that might cause an accident then maybe we might see the quality of driving increase, especially if they gave the offenders the opportunity to avoid any points if they went on a driver training course after the first offence, but that might be a bit intelligent, and I can't remember the last time a police force (anywhere on the planet) was accused of demonstrating intelligence, in the medium term they might even raise more money to improve dangerous stretches of roads, in the mean time I will continue to safely overtake vehicles as quickly as required not to cause a danger to others