Would it be un-Australian to dob in the extreme idiots?
Submitted: Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 17:42
ThreadID:
100035
Views:
5076
Replies:
15
FollowUps:
15
This Thread has been Archived
Skulldug
The thread by Rockape about a truckie doing 123 kph in a 60 zone made my blood boil and I recall being harassed by tuckies and, in fairness, other drivers not willing to be constrained by the speed limit.
There have also been several recent posts about in-car cameras. I know one guy helped get a lunatic convicted following a road rage incident but I am wondering how the police would respond if people with in-car cameras started providing footage of stupidity on the road whenever they see (record) it? I'm not talking about every day things that are annoying but not really dangerous. Perhaps this is already happening?
Does anyone know whether the police would respond?
May be its not our way?
Skull
Reply By: Kris and Kev - Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 18:21
Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 18:21
Speaking from experience, the problem is partly that someone will ring the Police to complain about a driver and when asked if they would be willing to give evidence in court they say, no way, they do not want to get involved! Just go out and get the driver before they kill someone.
When asked for their name they usually hang up. That makes it very difficult for the Police to investigate. Sure they can try and get a patrol to go out on the road to catch the offender, but when asked they would deny any such behaviour. No action can be taken as there is no evidence. It starts to get the Police to get a certain attitude. Just like any average person would. Mind you I am not saying some Police do not have the right attitude.
I think nowadays it is un-Australian not to get involved. Not physically, just being prepared to help the Police.
Kevin
AnswerID:
502795
Follow Up By: patsproule - Friday, Jan 18, 2013 at 17:42
Friday, Jan 18, 2013 at 17:42
Exactly right. If you decline to give evidence then it is difficult for the cops. I have made a couple of police complaints and agreed to provide further detail if required. In both cases police followed up with me a few days late detailing actions taken against the drivers.
FollowupID:
779431
Reply By: Sand Man (SA) - Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 18:27
Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 18:27
123kph in any zone is exceeding the maximum that most trucks can legally drive.
I would definitely dob the mongrel in. He is safety hazrd to everyone.
At the very least it gives the Police cause to have the speed limiter checked.
too many Cowboys have the habit of disabling them.
Having said that though, my exerience is that the majority of truckies drive to the safe limit of their load and are courtious to other road users.
AnswerID:
502797
Reply By: Member - Arsenal Phill - Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 23:18
Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 23:18
Short and amusing story to me.
We were out on the roads, with our van. Fortunately I can tug along at 100km/h no probs. I was doing 100 on a section of road with that limit. We got to an overtaking lane and I promptly hugged the inside lane but maintained my speed.
I then had a call from a rigid, about a length back on the two-way. He said `Arsenal', you'll have to slow down so as I can pass as I am restricted to 100 !!!! What a chump.
I am now of a belief that some people just don't like being behind a caravan no matter what speed they are going!!!
AnswerID:
502821
Reply By: Pete G - Friday, Jan 18, 2013 at 00:19
Friday, Jan 18, 2013 at 00:19
On occasion I have taken the effort to report behaviour to both the police and the company, the latter usually with a very good response. That said one company owner replied to the the effect "if you have any problems with my "bleep'n" trucks
well report it to the bleep'n Coppers mate".
One problem is that if you are travelling then you are away from
home and a date in court means a lot of expense and inconvenience to go back some time after the event.
In most cases a visit from the Constabulary and them being spoken to is still a good result. It does happen and the police note this as intel(ligence) against the driver. I have even had a call back to let me know the outcome on one occasion. (Little Goldilocks was driving Mummies car on the freeway in peak hour at 110 eating her porridge, bowl in one hand spoon in the other. Happened to be a local vehicle and Mummy got a visit from the Highway patrol. The police rang me back and said Mummy was not amused and would deal with Goldilocks when she got
home with the car).
I am not making any excuses, however, regarding the truck on the
Moonbi's we do not have all the facts in our possession ie loaded/unloaded, whether he had a run away situation etc.. Certainly that vehicle (if fully loaded) at that speed would have been unstoppable in an emergency. The truck was subject to the "must use low gear"
sign and as such must not use the service brakes to control speed. The descent is very clearly marked with signage. Also that the truck owner (as distinct from the driver) may also be fined via the chain of control provisions.
Note also that the Newell has been closed and possibly the guy may have been green (ie not a regular) on the descent and has not appreciated the severity of the decline. Notwithstanding it still shows a total lack of professionalism. The tachograph card (monitor) records will flush out the truth - if it was working!!.
The speed recorded would be easily reached in a runaway situation. Chased a semi down the second
hill one day and watched puffs of smoke every time the brake lights went on. His Cummins was screaming like a GM (over-revved) when I went past. He still managed to hit 95 and had about a quarter of the way to go. There is an arrester bed at the bottom of the first
hill and another one at the bottom of the second
hill.
Regards
Pete G
AnswerID:
502824
Reply By: Member - Terra'Mer - Friday, Jan 18, 2013 at 18:14
Friday, Jan 18, 2013 at 18:14
After watching an overtaking car run the oncoming car off the road today i have decided to mount my GoPro to the dash, record idiot's regos and report them. I don't tolerate potentially fatal driving on the road.
I will also be using the camera while walking along side the roads around Australia to record idiots who try to make me mess my pants seeing how close they can get to me at 100km/hr on the shoulder, idiots talking on their phones while struggling to stay on the road or out of oncoming traffic and, just for interest sake, what it looks like when cars pass me on dirt roads covering me in dust, dirt and sometimes spitting gravel up in my face because they can't be bothered slowing down enough to loose the dust.
I'll share the youtube page with you in a blog when i have it set up
AnswerID:
502880
Reply By: Gronk - Saturday, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:39
Saturday, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:39
In response to the 1st question, I'd say the police would say officially, we don't want to be swamped with footage of people "supposedly" doing the wrong thing..
The same as security footage, it can't be used in a court of law without other evidence backing it up..
But......it could get the police to warn or monitor the bad apples.....IF they could be bothered to look at the footage in the 1st place !!
AnswerID:
502944