That's the trouble with you rozzers. You always reckon you know what we, the public, mean.
Do you learn that at cop school? Or is it an entry requisite?
![]()
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
I hear what you're saying, cars these days with capable drivers can quite safely negotiate the roads quicker safely.
However there needs to be limits to limit the effects of accidents from inattentive, incompetent drivers/riders, who are unable to or refuse to adjust their driving to the conditions.
It's the only real way to keep some sort of control on the situation and really, is probably the fairest way to do it. For every driver and rider that genuinely could safely travel a bit quicker, and do adjust their speed to the conditions there are another 20 that don't.
The strategies are often questionable, but those strategies are'nt created by the guys ordered to carry them out.
For the record the last crash I went to was a good road handling vehicle, travelling too fast. Driver died. The one before was on it's roof after rear ending a truck, in-attention. Food for thought.
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands jamside down.
A cat glued to some jam toast will hover in quantum indecision
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat
Fix a computer and it'll break tomorrow.
Teach its owner to fix it and it'll break in some way you've never seen before.
Hey, I have yet another solution to the alleged revenue collection issue.
Tickets are triggered by the person actually doing the thing the ticket is for.
So (and this is a big SO), if that person were to not actually do the thing, they wouldn't get a ticket.
(Stunned silence. Tumbleweeds rolling along.)
Yes, there it is in white and black. Don't get "revenue collected" by not doing the infringement. Deprive us nasty Popos and Rozzers of the ability to collect your revenue.
Accept responsibility instead of directing blame, that way you regain control.
Wow, radical.
Read the attachment. It'll give you a smile. We had him on video breaking the traffic light rule. He fabricated a story. If he'd just stopped for the traffic light it wouldn't have all happened.
Great letter tho.
Now they dont want to let you pass either
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4478...-passing-lanes
Normally i'd agree with you, but you have to admit that some of your colleagues (i'm assuming) can be real arseholes.
I'm sure you've tried to pass someone and had them speed up, therefore putting you over the threshold if you decide to try and continue to pass.
There certainly are times when those of us who genuinely do make a concious effort to ride within the constraints of the law do safely break them, and will slow down quickly, yet still get pinged for it. There is nothing safe about riding on the wrong side of the road for 300m trying to pass someone, when you could have done so quickly and safely speeding up to the 'instant ticket' speed of 111. It's a bit slack that some police don't take simple common sense things like this into consideration and will ticket you even though it was obvious that it was only for a few seconds to get yourself around a rolling hazard.
I know these fucks are few and far between, but it's hard to back that up. I have never been pulled over and given a ticket, but I have been in a car when that has happened. Pretty non-proactive policing really-a warning would have been over the top.
For the most part I agree with what you are saying and totally support the line; "instead of fuck the police, how about you stop breaking the law!", but obviously sometimes the law gets taken a little too literally, and not really policed in the way it was intended when written (you know what I mean here).
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands jamside down.
A cat glued to some jam toast will hover in quantum indecision
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat
Fix a computer and it'll break tomorrow.
Teach its owner to fix it and it'll break in some way you've never seen before.
Neither story proves anything. His fear of being rear ended was not grounds for continuing, only how close he was to the yellow at the time it changed. The law only says you must stop for a yellow IF it is safe to do so.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands jamside down.
A cat glued to some jam toast will hover in quantum indecision
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat
Fix a computer and it'll break tomorrow.
Teach its owner to fix it and it'll break in some way you've never seen before.
Video is great. He went through the light as it turned red. It was a 4 second yellow phase, so he was easily 40 metres back at 40km/h, and had heaps of time to stop safely.
Better yet, there was no vehicle behind him at all. Imagine if we had no video, and he told his story to the court. We would have been telling the court that there was no car behind him, and the JP would have had to either believe him or me. If the JP had believed me (I was right, the video proves it), the numpty would have been on some internet site bleating about those revenue collecting, corrupt, lying Popos.
It's the world I live in.
I don't suppose it was doctored...
Truth is sometimes subjective, but if anyone makes a claim that x was the case and can prove it was so, and a counter-claim cannot prove otherwise, then that's that.
Too often we hear of, or experience first hand, a cop telling fibs when it comes to traffic matters. He can't prove what he says is true, and the traffic offender, who has a different story, can't either. The cop is believed. Whilst a cop and his word should be able to be trusted, the situation is wide open to abuse. That is wrong.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks