Do as I said, not as I do.

Totally agree Barry, well said.
I have friends who are coppers, and a relly was for a long time. There's NO way I could do the job. All too often it involves taking out society's garbage.

Yep, Barry, particularly last paragraph that said

======
More than half the police caught speeding were let off with an official warning.

"The warnings are issued to police members on the same criteria they are issued for members of the public," Mr Cornelius said.
======

Do you believe that half of those from “members of public” where let off with an official warning? Consecutively do you believe that “the same criteria” been used?

Serg

Most people are blissfully unaware, but ANYONE can apply for consideration for camera detected offences. If you have a good driving history and have all your points and the offence relates to a minor infraction, an official warning can be given in lieu of the fine.

All you need to do is ask!!

If I call for Police asssistance, I couldn't care less if they drove a few k's over the speed limit to get there quicker.

Going to a job lights and sirens shouldn't be the only criteria for them to be able to drive faster than the speed limit and not incur a fine. The system has gone mad, persecuting police for performing their duty is moronic.

If Police were to driving around 5k's below the speed limit to avoid fines, then some shmuck will bleat about that too!!

Rowie,

This is the biggest possible myth. They do not care about anything except of revenue. I have personal examples. I had zero demerit points for about 10 years. And they catch me with mobile – I pick it up to tell SWMBO that I do remember to pick up our kid and in fact doing it right now. Conversation lasts 10-15 seconds before red light. When they pull me over I admitted everything (silly boy! They twist your words on any opportunity to get on you!) reckoning that my good history will counts. Irony of this situation that I HATE mobiles, hate to use them and my conversation lasts 30 sec max – usually “OK, give you call back from land line”. I write a letter to them (3 in total, actually) and have provided all evidences. All responses was very much uniform “We acknowledge that we received your letter”. My father in law received infringement notice for doing 73 km/hr in 70 km/hr zone. He drives 25 y.o. rusty gas driven Commodore that can accelerate above 60 km/hr only downhill (and it WAS downhill). Letter was written and result was similar.

Also I have another situation when police revoke my shooting license because my shooting club has been burnt. I wrote 3 letters and result was EXACTELLY the same – i.e. “Acknowledge”. Would I bother myself to do it again shall I became in similar situation? Nope. Waste of time, energy and trees.

And don’t be so naïve – on duty they can over speed and they do over speed and I am OK with that. I am not OK with double standards.

Cheers
Serg

'....The drink-driving offences relate to off-duty police in private vehicles while all speeding offences detected were in police vehicles.'
Speed Cameras cannot differentiate between Police responding to an emergency (they don't always use lights and siren) and those just performing a general patrol (no-specific duty). Hence, the sensible solution to disregard those incidents where it was that Police were a duty that required them to exceed speed. You must also remember that Police are exempt from ALL road rules whilst in the execution of their duties. However, SOME bosses are very keen to ensure that members under their command are made to be fully account for every 'misdemeanour' regardless of how trivial. How many unions would stand for that degree of 'control' in other work-places? For all you other 'doubters' out there, what do you expect when some dirtbag of a druggie, completely off his face, forces entry into your home, threatens you, your wife and kids and screams demands for drugs, money etc. What do you expect to happen when you call 000 and cry out for assistance. Let's hope that in such circumstances (theoretically) that they arrive as quickly as possible and deal with the situation. Does it matter if they speed (I bet that would be the last thing on your mind) or would you prefer they complied with the speed limits etc and just dawdled along. In this day and age there is no such thing as 'them and us/double standards' just look at the clean out Christine Nixon has undertaken in VICPOL. The same thing happens in other States too. MOPF are VERY accountable and are expected to maintain VERY high ethical standards. Pity the same didn't apply to mechanics, plumbers, doctors, butchers, e-bay sellers etc etc. Have a nice day.

Hows it going Serg,

A couple of years ago I got let off with a warning , but it was the first time I had been booked in about 6 years.

The officer that booked me suggested that I write a letter.

I guess every myth has a small bit of truth in it.

Glenn.

Thanks for the follow up Serge.

I do take exception at your crack at being naive on this subject, as I am not at all. Plus, I have VERY good knowledge of what I posted and can auure you that it is not a myth at all.

However, I'm not about to get into a urinating contest with you on the subject.

I suggest you read my post once again more carefully, as everything I stated was true and correct.

DIO also raises some further points which I would now be writing if he had not mentioned them. Police members are a lot more accountable than most people are aware. Auntie Christine has made an enormous impact on that front. Most of it negative, but in many Govt officals eyes change for changes sake is an acceptable measure of effectiveness.

Rowie and Deo, and there are very good reasons for the police being very accountable and having to behave in an ethical manner.

As you are both no doubt very aware, many front line officers tend to spend most of their time with the bad guys. After a while, it's only human to (evn accidentally) behave in a similar fashion.
Corruption etc.. is then only a hairs breath away. Nobody should be in the police force for "fun and profit."

Briefly, the reason is that we, the law abiding public, demand it of our police.

(and strangely enough, we're not all dishonest, murdering, lying, thieving pedos, or even anti police. Despite the convict connection :))

A senior cop I know (well not exactly a constable:) told me he once nearly got caught speeding by a speed camera. And yes he would have had to pay the fine. But what made him nearly need a change of undies, was the thought of the "please explain" when he got back to work. (He also said that you'd need to have rocks in your head to be in Traffic.)

Serge, further to your previous post and in the interests of dispelling some of the errors and misinformation in your reply,

Zero demerits and getting caught using a mobile phone whilst driving (a pet hate of mine) is vastly different to zero demerits and being a few k's over the speed limit. (despite the Govt funded deceptive and misinforming ad campaigns, attempting to brainwash the public that speed is the most serious issue confronting the world as we know it today)

In my experience, the evidence fully supports the theory that poor concentration, poor driver education and training, alcohol, drugs and fatigue are responsible for the vast majority of road trauma including death, meaning speed IS NOT, I repeat IS NOT a major contributor to the road toll at all, hence why the enormous focus on speed is failing to significantly impact upon and reduce the road toll.

I fully agree with you that speed is given a disproportionate focus by Governments and enforcement bodies Australia wide and that revenue has become an unhealthy addiction for our respective State and Territory Governments.

However, back to the original topic. A warning can be issued and is available to MINOR camera detected offences to EVERYONE upon written request re same.

I think you will find that your father in law (FIL) was detected @ 76km/h and the alleged speed on the notice was 73 km/h, meaning he was travelling at 76km/h in a 70 km/h zone.

If you don't like the Govenment's level of intollerance, then petition against it in a meaningful way. Democracy permits you to do just that.

By your own admission the FIL also sounds lucky that he wasn't intercepted and had his "25 y.o. rusty gas driven Commodore" subjected to an inspection and potentially put off the road.

Knowing how busy most station van crews are, sauntering around at the speed limit to all but life and death situations would then draw further public complaint due to poor respnse times.

The public wants Police to apprehend the fleeing burglar or the gutless prick who king hits an innocent victim at a pub etc. Not life and death scenarios, but still situations where motivated and enthusiastic members will want to rush to a scene without lights and bells (in the hope of not announcing ones impending arrival) to fulfill public expectation and "catch a crook."

Yet, all the public choose to see as a Police vehicle drives over the speed limit is the "double standard" you so ignorantly allege. Such allegations are also the reason why the command enact obstructionate procedures and protocols which increasingly serve to obstruct operational Police rushing anywhere.

As for your subsequent comments re your shooters licence..... What on earth does this have to do with the topic at hand??

Rowie,

“As for your subsequent comments re your shooters licence..... What on earth does this have to do with the topic at hand??”

A first hand example of useless rights.

Generally I agree with you and I do know that we have rights to complain. However “been here, done this” without any success. With this shooting license I went even future and write to my member of parliament and result was exactly the same. So “petition against it in a meaningful way” does not work either. I know that in theory I can organize a party or movement etc, but my life is way too short to bog myself in such useless exercise.

Thus (came to the topic) I do not believe that public application for speed offences has rate of approval in vicinity of 50%, while in the referred article they said that police offenders been pardoned more then half times. We can endlessly argue (or better say speculate) that police offences have better ration “minor-major” then generic public ones, or that they better aware about rights and so on. But it still will not convince me that “the same criteria been used”, sorry.

Also I am in no way “anti-police” person, but honestly do believe that they should be much more accountable then general public for the same offences. Frankly we are lucky nation and in general have very good police officers in our police force – way better then many other nations.

And I FULLY agree with you on government attitude toward speed – no way even major problem on the road, forget about main!

Cheers
Serg

Just had a look at your image Mick. How often do you wash your car?? LOL & Cheers.

I try not to Barry, makes me look like I've actually been somewhere! If it's the Patrol you refer to, I had a coat or three of Autoskin on last year to protect the duco when off track. Looks terrible but did a great job. Cheers. Mick