Robo Cop

I tend to agree with you. Carrying on like he did was not going to help his cause and no doubt the cop soon got the vibe for this bloke, perhaps if he came at it a better way he may of got off with a warning?


Coppers put up with a lot of crap from the public and have little recourse but to take it. Not a job I would like to have.

Yep totally agree, even New Zealand cops havn't that arrogant attitude, although they carry no guns on there person. Notice more English cops heading over there...

Long before radar and speed camera's police were trained in speed estimation , it would be very difficult to estimate within a 5 km per hr 'boundary' at h/way speeds but easy enough at suburban speeds , don't even need a stop watch , just the old counting seconds a vehicle takes between 2 points that mr Plod has timed previously to know if a vehicle is 'speeding'……..

Well put Baz!

I don't want to comment on what the officer or the accused have done,did or said!

Quite of on this and other forums, the lounge chair lawyers come out and make their case with the tiny bit of information available.

While it may or may not be the case here, I personally find it reprehensible that people find the need to whip out there camera's in an effort to intimidate public officers (police, fire, ambulance whatever) going about their lawful duties. Quite often all they manage to do is prove the case of their own ignorance (of the law and common sense and respect).

Camera phones do have a place - but I don't think that place is in this type of instance.

I would never have whipped out my on the shoulder VHS Video camera.

Cheers

Anthony

Pop. A slight variation of your comment. (None of us know what happening before the camera started filming) Having watched the clip, what struck me was that the truck driver made no assertion of what speed he was doing either on camera or in the title/commentary of the posted clip - only that he wasn't speeding. Hmmm.

My take otherwise, FWIW, is that cop was pretty restrained in the face of provocation. I mean, the truck driver reminded me of an adolescent who had just been caught smoking by his mum who smelled it on him. "Prove it", seems to be his only defence, that and being an arse which guarantees one is going to get a ticket.

Cheers
Mark

Pop,
I think that might be the Newell and he is on the southern side of Coonabarabran going up the hill. It might have been in the 40k zone at the high school. He wouldn't be real smart if he was exceeding the limit by a lot as the gents in blue have a field day on that piece of road.

I don't mind the estimation method if it is used in Western Australia as we don't lose points unless we are exceeding the speed limit by nine kilometres per hour but in Victoria I am told you lose points at one kilometre per hour.
I drive with my sat nav on all the time and drive to the speed limit on my speedo; gives me 3 or 4 k/h to play with as my speedo is out.
Was stopped by a breathalyser while in Richmond NSW house sitting and the first thing the young copper said was "my mirrors were too wide". I have Clearview mirrors on my Ranger. After I told him they were legal in W A he backed off and was quite ticked off when he didn't get a reading from my breath test.
I appreciate he was doing his job but he was stirring and I'm and old dude in my late 60's.
Some young blokes would have had a blue with him.

Vic has a 3km margin, Qld has zero.

Bludge said:

"It should be noted that the more experienced the police officer is, the more accurate their estimation will be and therefore the more likely the court will be to accept their evidence."

In 2015 if the officer's estimation is not validated on regular basis how do we know the officers estimation is valid. An experienced cop might have been estimating for 20 years but if his estimations are not validated it means nothing. Even electronic means of checking speed have to be validated at prescribed intervals for them to be accepatble as evidence - surely a cop is no different.

How often are police officers ability to estimate speed checked??

Garrycol,

"Bludge said:

I did not say that.. Its a quote from Harper Finch Lawyers web page as I indicated.

Garrycol, do you know that Police are not peer reviewed on their speed assessment abilities?

Many professions rely on individuals estimation.

With a radar gun check, Police don't check every car, they observe and will target once that they estimate is speeding. The Radar then backs up their estimation. (watch any of the Highway patrols shows on TV).

Same with drunks, breathalysers are only used on vehicle drivers. If you are drunk on the street a breathalyser is not used, but the Police officers assessment is used, although the polices are trained for sobriety testing.

I do not see why you would question this.

Because Police are fallible like anyone else - they make mistakes and has been shown in court often produce evidence to suit themselves - we should not take anything for granted.

Garrycol,, you are suggesting that this policeman (and every other cop) is guilty until proved innocent.. ok then

You said that not me.

Why do you say that? You don't know what happened prior to the start of the video, the speeding may have been blatantly obvious
The cop held it together and acted professionally throughout the video and stated his reasons for the ticket. What more did you expect him to do?
If his method was unlawful the charge will not stand up in court if challenged.

The truck driver better fits your descriptions me thinks.
Its a bit like mouthing off at a ref in a footy game......doesn't change the outcome of their decision but will make you a target next time

Alby..I have been pulled up a few times because I ride a Harley..No other reason!!
This cop said he was an expert at estimating speed...I say he is an idiot. He will lose in court.

Its nothing to do with safety anymore..its all about revenue raising..

Bigfish I get what you are saying about your bike, same goes for P platers and the heavily modified cars. You naturally become targets because of the higher profile you take on and will attract more attention than a granny in her Corolla.

I am not up to speed (pardon the pun) of whether he can lawfully issue a ticket on the basis that he did and the court will sort that out but I don't have a problem with the way he conducted himself.

Agree that the fines are out of kilter with the crimes. Parking fines etc are often more than what teh courts dish out for drug related and DUI fines these days.

As I crossed the Sydney Harbour Bridge this morning I saw a couple of motorcycle cops tending to a person involved in the head-on accident on the Sydney Harbour Bridge prior to the arrival of the ambulance.

Sydney Harbour Bridge Crash - SMH

Thanks goodness they were on the scene quickly - it may have saved someone's life...

Who knows what these two cops are doing this afternoon, possibly booking people for speeding?

The saying "walk a mile in their shoes" comes to mind...

Baz, The Landy

Landy,

I can see a problem with asking a few of our erstwhile posters to "walk a mile" (kilometer?..lol) in the coppers shoes.

They wouldn't be able to fill those shoes.

Cheers
Pop

yep you are dead right Pop as I have been saying.
Takes someone with life experience, perhaps even flipping burgers as you suggested to balance the life in a pressure cooker of a copper.

Bigfish ,so what if you get pulled up a few time on the Harley , 'no other reason ' ? Sure its not noise / modification etc ? Years ago I self imported a 72 1000cc sportster , drum brakes , high/low king queen seat ,3ft sissy bar ,,,, lost count of how many times I was pulled over , NOT once booked ever , no attitude given or gotten , just wanted to have a look at the bike as not many around ,,, now have the same happen with the FJ Cruiser , been pulled up 7-8 times in 2yrs by Mr policeman to 'have a squiz, haven't seen one before' , no drama's.

pulled up for a look at an FJ Cruiser??
Its nice to yarn with other enthusiasts, even coppers but Id get jacked off pretty quick if it happened regularly

fisho64,

Did you actually watch that video and listen to the dialogue?

It sounds like both you and the driver that was pulled over may have a hearing problem. The copper explained about 8 times what the alleged offence was and just in case there was a hearing problem, the offence was stated and pointed out on the infringement notice.

I guess that may be somewhat ineffective if the ability to read is also impaired.

According to you, if the coppers get called to a bunch of blokes half full of grog and dare to suggest that this mob tone it down and start behaving themselves it's the coppers fault.

Amazing!!!!!

Going by your last line I assume you have at some stage been in the situation cops frequently find themselves where you have had to deal with people such as this bloke who recorded the video or the aforementioned drunks spilling out of the local pub.
Hence your comment about policing not being a "real job".

Most times the posts speak volumes about the poster.

haha-who needs to learn to read mate?
I didnt say anything like "policing not being a "real job"

I said "to give them a chance to earn a real living in the real world" and hence see the impact of his "arbitrary" decision between donuts on a bloke whose entire days earnings can be gone because of the cop didnt get a shag that morning or whatever.
There is no doubt cops see the worst of people, and without the balance of seeing it from the other side a 17yr old has nothing to measure against except the public are a-holes

History has long shown the danger of cops "adjusting" the evidence to get the crim (Mallard, John Button, Micklebergs etc) and when they are able to punish someone because they reckon he deserves it for a minor offence-becomes easier to justify doing it later for something more serious.

As has been said by many before-justice should not only be done, but SEEN to be done.

If he doesnt have documentary proof, bad luck plod.
Why would they even bother to have or calibrate radar/laser speed guns-dont have to, looks good enough

"The starting age for a cop should be over 25 or so to give them a chance to earn a real living in the real world."

So this line doesn't insinuate that being a cop isn't earning a real living in the real world if the cop in question is, let's say 23 or 24 years of age??

Sorry, my bad.

no need for the apology, I understand you were just taking poetic licence to try and make a point rather unsuccessfully.

So, as has been written before about police having to deal with the worst of people (a very valid point), when a kid comes straight from school into the academy, what does he have to fall back on as a balance to what he sees daily?
Half his mates avoid him because of his choice, people shun off duty police at parties etc.

Soon he has grown up in the real world (after high school) only seeing the worst of people and likely becoming an a-hole copper-cos its all he knows...

Thanks for that enlightening bit of insight.

I feel much liberated now that I know from someone with first hand experience how that works.

I guess the fact that one of my brothers in law spent 40 years of his life in the job, rose to the rank of inspector within the forensic department of our police force and still wound up with a somewhat jaded view on the world was just a fault in his makeup.

The fact that he had the job of examining some rather, let's say messy crime scenes, shouldn't have influenced his opinion of how certain sections of "humanity" value what you and I would call our fellow man.

Mind you all this came along later in his career. The first part was what they called general duties.

Of course if he had taken a job flipping hamburgers at the local greasy spoon for 5 or so years this would have prepared him much more thoroughly for what was to come.

hopefully your BIL wasnt one of the multitude of officers in NSW WA and Vic who "adjusted" and "estimated" the available forensic evidence to produce the result that they thought the suspect deserved.

But its alright "hazard a guess" if its only the truckies job, not his freedom at stake.

I agree with the age and this should also apply to the drinking age and riding motorcycles with after market exhaust systems that anoy everyone. Had my own Harley but I knew how to operate the throttle correctly.

They invented radar guns for 1 reason. To take the guess work out of a speeding situation. Now these electronic whizz guns are supposedly high tech and completely accurate. However we often hear and sometimes been in a situation that we know a false reading has been given. Now Mr.I am an expert estimator is to be believed that there is no need for a radar . 10 years or 30 years I,ll bet your left one that he couldn't tell if a bloke was going 57 or 60klms/hr or 63k/hr. I am an experienced fisherman and I still get caiught out with what fish has hit my line! I,ve been a communications tech for 30 years and still get caught out with assuming I know what the problem will be.

Would you be happy with Mr.I am an expert if you know you where doing 58k/hr and he pulled you up and estimated you were doing 63k/hr...I think not. Good on the bloke for having a go at the cop.

I don't think a cop would be stupid enough to try to estimate a 3kph infringement. I'll bet the guy was well and truly speeding big time and the copper has issued a minor infringement for 10 over with the knowledge that estimation carries errors. Unless the driver can present evidence of his legal speed at the time, if it goes to court I think the beak will support the copper's trained estimate over the driver's claim.

(I have a dash cam that records speed and shows it as a graph in a playback app. I wonder if that would get me out of trouble in court. Or further into it:-))

I reckon the copper deserves a pat on the back for keeping his cool.

Cheers

Bigfish , I'm prepared to bet your left AND right one that any traffic cop with 10 years experience can estimate a vehicles speed within a 8klm parameter [5miles per hr ] ,,, nowhere in the video is the speed the vehicle was doing mentioned , for all anyone knows the truck could have been doing 50 in a 40 school zone…..

Your right Alloy...OR HE COULD HAVE BEEN DOING 35 IN A 40 ZONE!!! Its all about the revenue..

Well if you all listen to the video you would hear the police officer say you are being booked for 10km and under. So he could have been doing from 1kph to 10kph over the speed limit.


In the old days before radar they had to be behind you for 1/2 mile before he could book you. That's how we ended up with rear view mirrors so you could see the police behind you and slow down.

Actually it's all about reducing road trauma.

Lets say the coppers raised $135.0m in revenue from speeding fines for the govt in 2014 (Road safety camera fines, police on-the-spot fines and toll road evasion fines generated $256.9 million - note that includes fixed speed cameras that are operated by the Govt through private contractors and the cameras on private toll roads. It also includes all penalties handed out by the courts except terms of imprisonment..naturally).

OK now lets subtract the economic cost of 254 deaths in Victoria in 2014, the going costs for support of their families etc through TAC, plus the cost of road trauma to the 5214 of people injured in road trauma in 2014. I'm being fair because the social costs to our society are much greater but harder to quantify so we'll deal in the pure economic costs)

Whats the economic cost of road trauma for the year in Victoria -Overall it was $3 Billion dollars on 2014. But I'll be fair. Speed related trauma ALONE was worth only $1.012b so we'll work on that.

OK, maths was never my strong point but from a business proposition, the deficit in speed related trauma alone was $755.0m (or $2.431b in overall terms).

$1.012b
- $ 256.9m
---------------
-$755.0m (That's in the red!)

That's $442 dollars that every man, woman and child in the state has to contribute to meet the costs of Road Trauma. The emotional costs to those left scarred by road trauma, either injured or family is immeasurable!

So you see Fisho I have a little bit of a problem when you spout on in a very ill informed manner about revenue raising. You lose sight of the fact that speed limits, traffic rules, law and policy are driven by specialist committees made up of experts like coppers, the RTA, TAC, Govt and interest groups. You know the very people you call idiots...the very people who drag your broken carcass out of a wrecked vehicle, who provide what treatment or comfort they can if your alive, or what dignity they can to your remains if you're not. There the ones who knock on the door at your house, hold your wife and kids up as their world dissolves around them, organise the support services, clean up the mess you've left, prepare the coronial briefs and then relive the trauma at every court hearing, every TAC hearing, etc etc etc. And then they've got to go home, try and explain things to their family and sleep at night.

Whether you thinks it's OK to speed through a school zone or not, road policing is about outcomes and one of those key outcomes has been reducing the road troll from 1000+ in the late 70's down to nearly 200 in 2013.

By any definition, it's not about revenue raising, that's just a side issue because unfortunately it takes a pecuniary implication for many bleep s to get the message. If you didn't speed....If you didn't drink drive, if you didn't hoon or drug drive, coppers could probably be doing more useful things than managing the expectations of idiots who simply don't get it.

My thoughts.

Drive carefully

Mick

Nah, you got it all wrong Mick.

The fisher folk and the not-so-fast one have got it all worked out.

Ya see speed limits, excess alcohol or illegal substances in your system laws, them pesky red light cameras, laws that demand you drive with valid drivers licences and licenced vehicles etc, etc, etc aren't there to protect road users lives.
They were just put in place to give the coppers something to book all us law abiding citizens with so that the various state governments could pad out their revenue streams.

It is interesting to hear that considering we don't have all the facts of the event that some just automatically assume that the copper was wrong without even contemplating that the driver may of committed an offence

so, all you law abiding elite - in the smaller picture.

Out of curiousity what would you do if Robo cop pulled you over when you werent speeding, told you that you were and proceeded to write out a $250 fine for you?

I don’t consider myself as part of the law-abiding elite (whoever they are), although I consider myself law-abiding.

Against better judgement I’ll be tempted into a reply given it is a simple question.

If I was confident in my position, I'd state it factually and leave it at that. It is that simple, there is no point arguing your case at the scene, our courts serve that purpose with the introduction of an impartial arbiter.

No video for Youtube or ongoing discussion, after all the more you say the more likely you are to convict yourself.

But could I say this, go back and take a good read of what Mick O has written, he does so from a position of strength and knowledge. He presents a balanced view on the topic of road trauma and there is plenty of evidence that travel at inappropriate speeds causes accidents – our authorities are right to police it vigourously.



Baz – The Landy

point noted Baz, but regardless effects of road trauma etc which has noting to do with it, just doesnt make charging someone arbitrarily and erroneously ok at all.
Go to court?, great if you have deep pockets or a lawyer as a family member, but most working people are more likely to protest it but pay it as they know they are shafted.
And then its easier for the copper to do it next time he is in a bad mood, gets a bit of lip etc.

Fisho64 again, why do you keep assuming that the driver wasn't speeding and that the copper was not entitled to issue the infringement ?
I don't consider myself an angel by any means but always treat the cops with respect and cop it sweet if I was in the wrong.

Giving a copper some lip is never going to end up in your favour

Fisho



There appears to be no information in the public domain that indicates the police officer was erroneus in issuing the infringement notice for the alleged offence, or that the truck driver is guilty – presuming either is mere supposition.

But if I missed something no doubt it will be highlighted…

All we have is a video of one making the allegaton and the other disputing it. Having 1.5 million hits on a facebook page and half as many people offering support in the truck drivers defence gives no clear indication of his innocence or otherwise. All it tells you is that people are willing to form an opinion.

The police have alleged an offence has occurred and issued an infringment notice, the truck driver disputes it and is entitled to challenge it. This may require the police to prosecute its case in a court of law and the truck driver to offer a defence of the allegation.

If the truck driver can’t afford legal representation there is a safety net that provides legal aid to assist him.

And your more recent post appears to have a connotation leaning towards a view point that if you can’t afford to defend yourself in court against an alleged defence than you shouldn’t be charged at all…

Now that is a slippery slope to send society down, enforcement of laws based on the ability to pay!


Baz – The Landy

The police cant offer proof that the offence occurred, THAT is the slippery slope.
There have been plenty of cases of police "modifying" evidence, enough to show that its an ongoing problem.
IMO the police (justice system) need desperately to SEEN to do the right thing.
Plenty of police (more in times gone past admittedly) have justified stitching someone up cos they knew he was a ratbag anyway.
Checks and balances is what is needed

Alby, no where have I said (that I recall) he wasnt guilty, only that without proof that he is he shouldnt be charged.
Whether that be radar, a video etc

Fisho but if the law allows him to be charged based on a coppers judgement then he has performed within his duties
If his actions are not legally binding then I am sure the courts will sort that out

if so, then the law is an ass and in time a copper will get caught out "cooking the numbers-again!

Goes to show Slow one that you have scant regard for traffic controllers doing their job ,as for 'my word against yours' the magistrate will sort that out and you can be assured after watching the video the truck driver will be called a dick and be fined accordingly.

Did you read the speed I was doing or are you the same as her. Posted speed was 40 and that was what I was doing, so where is the scant disregard.

Your Attitude by saying 'your closer to 60 than to 40 says it all , many moons ago when I did a stint of traffic control we would sometimes after we've had enough of Richard Craniums , organise for a policeman to also be on the job site , you may call it revenue raising BUT when it's your arse about to be run over or abused verbally constantly there is nothing like the satisfaction one gets from seeing "I was only doing 40" when Mr Plods hand held radar clearly shows otherwise and the ticket book comes out …….

Yep! if you as a traffic controller decides to yell at me when I am doing the right thing, then you will get the same back. It ain't a one-way street fella. Also, I have had the gun pointed at me many times in roadworks and never been pulled up, so I must sorta have been doing the right thing I would say, especially when they weren't allowing any leeway on the Cunningham at Aratula and I could go through at 40 with no problems.

Slow one , as i said your attitude says it all , for all you know the traffic controller was letting Mr plod know that you were only doing 40 [in her estimation ] yet you give her lip about her age ..

I am older than her and there was no copper there. She just decided I was speeding and that has happened a few times over the years at different locations in different states.

If it is attitude as you state, then why is it that if I am at the head of the line and there is a long holdup I normally have a chat with the controller.

Slow one , That would be because every traffic controller is taught to move to the drivers window of the lead vehicle of the line stopped if the stoppage is to be more than a minute or two and so that vehicles behind can actually see that a controller is present.

Not sure of the point here.
Fact is, you don't act like a d!ck when dealing with someone in authority, whether that be your mum, a copper or a teacher. Unless, of course, you want things to escalate fairly rapidly beyond a simple reprimand.

Sounds like a perfect defence to me. Just tell the judge that first of all the copper with 10 or so years experience can't do his job and whoever put the speed limit signs in place located then too close together.

Case dismissed.

Simples.

Yeah...I had tears in my eyes

Oz troopy,
I agree with you 100% on the bypass. It is a shame the townspeople and the through traffic has to go through a small town that is on the busiest d-double route in Australia. I always like the sign limit compression braking down that long hill.

Even though I go through Coonabarabran, I then slip down to Mendooran and onto Brocklehurst to avoid the Hume.

Having another look at the video I believe you are right about the industrial estate on the other side of town.

Oz Troopy I had another listen and I believe he is referring to another officer on the other side of the road who also thinks he was speeding ( about 12 seconds in) and the officer in the video was on the trucks side and said the truck nearly hit him