Jump to content


Platinum Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About smokey

  • Rank
    Gold Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

General Info

  • Location
    Australia VIC
  • Gender
  • Car Type
  • Occupation
    Police member (HWP)
  1. Think before running from police

    Cars don't crash because they are or are not stolen, so the example isn't irrelevant at all. All that aside, a serious question for those who believe police should not pursue vehicles: What is the alternative?
  2. Think before running from police

    I wouldn't either. It's irrelevant. How do you manage to come up with the assertion they broke the law? You do understand police have a general exemption under the Road Rules, right? Not having a RADAR is also irrelevant. I have other tools at my disposal that I can use for speed detection. I can also use (and have successfully prosecuted) my estimation of a vehicle's speed. No device needed. Are we actually talking about being pulled over by a police member, or being issued a fine as a result of a camera detection? No-body is saying there shouldn't be traffic police. (At least in my understanding). What we are all saying, is that they should actually focus on tasks and duties that catch DANGEROUS DRIVERS. Dangerous, meaning the 10 or so people I nearly get taken out by as I drive home from work every night. The people I see run red lights every day. The dickheads on the road who purposely try and cause accidents/try and create a dangerous situation due to the fact some people have a P plate on their windscreen (and hail abuse because of this). How about THIS becomes the FOCUS. How about taking dangerous drivers off our road becomes the focus, rather than trying to cause as much inconvenience as possible to a car enthusiast who is just trying to make his way home. Hey, I'm not saying don't defect anybody.. because thats YOUR JOB right? But how about changing the focus here to actually try and make a difference, rather than just trying to flex your ego. (That isn't personally directed at you. Just the majority TMU officers (which all seem to have this ignorent egotistical attitude). And every one of those offences you have mentioned have been the subject of some peanut accusing me of revenue raising, simply because I caught them doing it. Traffic lights are a classic example. Seatbelts are another one. The amount of times I've heard someone argue that they aren't hurting anyone else so I am doing nothing but revenue raising is ridiculous. It really is as simple as obeying the road safety laws. If you obey the laws, you won't be fined. On the subject of catching others, we can't be everywhere all the time. We can only deal with what we see. in the small community/town i live in the majority of people all tend to hold a similar veiw as far as im aware, that the local police are good people trying there hardest to do a very difficult job but mention the tmu and everyone starts a rant on those dam lazy revanue raisers and how they once screwed them or a family member for nothing other than the revanue, we all get to see it first hand every year when near by shepparton gets flooded by tmu chasing coin defecting and fineing all who dare drive through the city the week of spring car nats, and i think youll find that most people are polite to you and pretend to accept their tickets becouse were all well awear that you hold more power than your ego can handle and if we try to reason with you you will get your back up and ream us further. Having been based in a country town, I am well aware of the differences between country and metro policing. I am also aware of the effects that 1 ticket issued in a country town can have. You could almost see the ripples through the community as the word spread that "John got a ticket at that stop sign". I am also very well aware that the local General Duties members rarely issue tickets to motorists in their own town, for a variety of reasons. Instead, they leave it up to the HWP to come in from time to time and police the roads for them. It is an arrangement that works for the local members as well as the HWP. Yep. Know them well. As I said before, we can't be everywhere all the time, and we can't catch everybody behaving badly on the roads. The Ozone area is regularly looked at and will continue to be. There is policy that governs the placement of cameras. That said, my personal opinion is that cameras should be able to be placed anywhere, including at the base of hills, to catch those behaving unlawfully. Just because you are going downhill does not give you open slather to exceed the speed limit. Yep, absolutely. Probationary licence holders may only accrue 5 Demerit Points in any 12 month period. Young drivers are the most at risk of being involved in road trauma. They need to be driving in a safe manner, and be conscious of the road laws and their surroundings. Arguing that a P Plate "must have fallen down" tells me the driver either lying and they deliberately took the plate down, or they are just plain lazy with respect to their driving. This comes back to attitude. Driving a motor vehicle brings with it a great deal of responsibility. If a driver is not going to take that responsibility seriously, then perhaps they need to reconsider whether they should be on the road at all. Holding a driver's licence is not a right. It is a privilege. And one that can be revoked should it be demonstrated that a driver doesn't deserve that privilege.
  3. Think before running from police

    So there should be no enforcement? People should be able to do whatever they like without any risk of penalty or consequence?
  4. Think before running from police

    That's not a problem with the police, that's a problem with your attitude. Road laws exist to ensure the safe and equitable use of the roads by all road users. Police work to ensure those laws are complied with. As I've said before, if everyone simply obeyed the law, then there'd be no need for police patrols. Visible police presence can only do so much. There is a certain class of motorist out there (I have one in my family) who is hell bent on thumbing his nose at the law and doing anything he likes on the roads. These people only modify their driving behaviour for the short time they see or believe a police unit (or camera) might be around, and then they revert to there unlawful behaviour. The only way to catch these people is to hide, as you saw. I have seen first hand the effects of excessive speed when things go wrong. One that comes immediately to mind is a fatality about 12 or so years ago on Nepean Highway where an elderly pedestrian was crossing the road and was hit by a car doing around 150 km/h. We recovered items from the pedestrian up to 150 metres away. Of course, this is an extreme example. But the effect of just a 5 km/h increase in speed on your stopping distance is well documented. Speed limits are in place for a reason. Instead of whinging about getting knocked off for speeding by a small margin, wouldn't it make more sense to obey the law in the first place? Sadly, it seems the case that people these days refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions. Nobody else has their foot on the accelerator, yet not a day goes by when someone doesn't say to me something like "You're gonna make me lose my licence" or "This is just revenue raising". Seriously, I don't give a rat's if you're about to lose your licence. All this does is reinforce in my mind that you SHOULD be off the road because your attitude towards driving is all screwed up. That perception, I believe, is one held only by a minority of the community. MOST people try to do the right thing. MOST motorists I pull over accept their tickets and, whilst clearly not happy about it, accept that they made an error. I won't go in to speed tolerance suffice it to say that as a general rule, you won't see too many police members pulling you over and writing a ticket for being less than 10 k's over the limit. I'm interested to know who you would expect to police the roads if the roughly 1% of the workforce which covers traffic was reallocated to other areas of investigation? The community won't self regulate. If they did, then there'd be no need for my job at all. The van crews are already swamped with work so save for the odd ticket they write between jobs, who is going to do it? Who will attend the collisions? There was a suggestion floated a number of years ago that traffic enforcement could be privatised / contracted out. Maybe you would prefer that idea?
  5. Think before running from police

    Nope. At last count, I think there were about 150 HWP members throughout the state. I believe the total workforce is somewhere around 12,500. I'll do some digging around and see if I can find a number for General Duties members.
  6. Think before running from police

    To try and explain Yogi's statements further, think of it like this: Often, people take a crack at me (and all traffic members) by saying "Go and catch a real crook/murderer/rapist" etc etc. Quite simply, that is not my job. Sure, if I happen to be "johnny on the spot" and catch someone committing a criminal offence then I have the same powers as any other police member. However, I do not respond to these jobs as a matter of course because I am tasked with other responsibilities. In just the same way, if an injury collision happens, it is me that gets the job, not the van crew. Further, Detectives don't generally respond to ANY job unless and until a uniform unit has attended first and then requested the CI. They don't as a rule, pull cars over and issue tickets. Why? They have other duties to focus on. I am tasked with traffic duties. Every shift, I am given a number of tasks I need to perform, such as breath testing sites etc. Outside of these tasks, what I do (within the bounds of my traffic tasking) and where I go (within my patrol area) is largely up to me. On the subject of discretion, my job is traffic policing. I do this job because I hold certain values and beliefs. Most traffic members I know hold similar views. One of these views is that "education by enforcement" is a much better tool than warning people. People remember a ticket much longer than they remember a warning, and warnings are not recorded anywhere. So I have no way of checking whether any given motorist has been previously warned for any given offence. I didn't get in to traffic to issue warnings. If I wanted to do that, I would have stayed on the van.
  7. Think before running from police

    It doesn't matter how many times you ask, it's not going to happen.
  8. Think before running from police

    This letter from Acting Chief Commissioner Walshe contains some stats on pursuits. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/a-ban-on-police-pursuits-would-make-criminals-the-winners-20120111-1pveg.html
  9. Think before running from police

    Ah, roger. Thanks for the clarification. Experience from 11 years of traffic policing.
  10. Think before running from police

    I think you may be getting your fatalities mixed up, unless you are referring to one I'm not recalling. The "7 crammed in a stolen car" was the one in East Brighton? If so, there was no chase. The only vehicle involved in the collision was the one carrying the 7 passengers which, incidentally, had 7 seats.
  11. Think before running from police

    Hard to know as we are all different, and have different opinions and beliefs. However, you say that giving chase lead to the death of the passenger. I don't agree. Again, without commenting directly on the fatality in Dandenong, in any pursuit it is not the police who make the decision to begin the chase, but the offending driver. If nobody is running, there can be no chase. If the driver chooses to pull over when signalled to do so, then there is no possibility of pursuit, no increased risk to others. I don't know any of the details other than what has been reported in the media. In any event, I wouldn't be commenting anyway, as it is the subject of an investigation and inquest and any comment would be subjudice. We don't. Infringements for exceeding emmissions limits are issued by the EPA after testing. When we believe a vehicle may be too noisy/smokey, we send a report to the EPA. It is then up to the EPA to follow up. Any prosecution is handled by them. If you re-read my post, you will see it was the EPA who issued the infringement, not police. The circumstances were that we intercepted the car and, believing it was too noisy, required the driver to accompany us back to an EPA testing station (a lawful requirement which must be obeyed) which had been set up as part of a local operation. Once back at the testing station, the vehicle was handed over to the EPA who conducted their tests and found it to be too noisy. The $600 fine was issued by them. Incidentally, they also told me on the night that if the emmissions system is modified in any way, it is another $600 fine. But, if the vehicle is registered in a company name, rather than a private name, all fines are doubled.
  12. Think before running from police

    Whether or not a car was stolen is irrelevant (and in this particular case, is still unproven). There is a certain class of people in this state, and indeed throughout the country, who will criticise police regardless of what they do. "They shouldn't have chased"..."They should have chased"..."They shouldn't have shot"..."They should have shot" etc etc etc. What is impossible to argue though is this - it is impossible for police to chase someone who isn't running from them.
  13. Think before running from police

    Many people also get hung up on the old "standard" or "stock" argument as well. It doesn't matter whether a vehicle is stock, or modified, it must still comply with all of the required standards. The last "stock" car I pulled over copped a $600 fine from the EPA for excess noise. I stand by my original comment.
  14. Over recent years, and certainly since the introduction of the vehicle impoundment provisions (aka the "hoon laws") in the Road Safety Act, some of you have suggested that you would simply try to outrun police rather than stop and risk the impoundment of your beloved vehicle. What I would like you to consider is this: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/man-dies-after-police-chase-in-dandenong/story-fn7x8me2-1226240396285 Without commenting specifically on the reported incident, could you live with yourself if you killed your passenger, or even someone in another vehicle? Remember this: if you are doing nothing wrong in the first place, you have nothing to fear. However, if you make the choice to break the law, then at least be mature enough to stop for police and accept the consequences of your behaviour, rather than risk the lives of those around you by trying to evade interception.
  15. defect = a fine as well? (noob question)

    The first thing you need to do is lose the url for that website. It is so far out of date, it's not funny (it is still quoting the Road Safety (Traffic) Regulations, which haven't been in existence since around 1999!) In any event, offence code 2143 does indeed relate to using an unsafe vehicle, or one not complying with the standards for registration. The cost of the fine is $305, regardless of whether there is a major or minor NOU issued. As mentioned above, ultimately it is up to the police member. However, if they issue a major defect and don't issue the infringement notice, chances are they will be asked by their supervisor to explain. I note you said you were defected for road clearance, but then said that you only recieved a minor defect. That's interesting because VicRoads told us a few years ago now that road clearance issues were to be dealt with by major defects, with the vehicle to be grounded immediately. You say the police member was being a "douchebag". I say he went very easy on you. On the topic of RWC's. Only in exceptional circumstances do I NOT require a roadworthy. Again, there is nothing unusual in the box being checked.