BA_Turbs

The police said I would receive a summons in the mail and I never did. That was about 5 months ago... Unless the mailman is a slow walker... I might drop round show ya my T when I get your chip and injectors in (still waiting) If you do get a summons then Best of luck JB, id guess with a well documented case you may be in for a fine is all <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It might still be coming! Police have a 12 month statute of limitations to get the process issued. If the police were from a busy police station, there is a good chance it could be on its way. If you rememebr the person's name you dealt with, I'd ring up and find out. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I sure as hell wouldnt ring and remind them! If you dont get it within 12 months, there is nothing they can do and the matter "never happened". Why on earth would you call them and ask whats happening?!?!?!?!?!?! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Becuase you might want the matter finalised! These things don't just go away! There are checks and balances in place. If they decided at the start they were going to summons, then that's it, it coming. If they weren't going to summons you, then by ringing them its not going to change anyone mind.

The police said I would receive a summons in the mail and I never did. That was about 5 months ago... Unless the mailman is a slow walker... I might drop round show ya my T when I get your chip and injectors in (still waiting) If you do get a summons then Best of luck JB, id guess with a well documented case you may be in for a fine is all <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It might still be coming! Police have a 12 month statute of limitations to get the process issued. If the police were from a busy police station, there is a good chance it could be on its way. If you rememebr the person's name you dealt with, I'd ring up and find out.

Our work cars use a small bar only about 40 cm long that surves back at each end. It is mounted using the top two screws of the number plate and is purely for mounting lights on, would offer no protection in a prang. They can be bought at Autobarn for about $130.

Try Kim Stanley Robinson and the "Mars Trilogy" (Red, Green & Blue Mars). Not sci-fi per-say, more a social commentry based around the colonisation of Mars. Great books, makes me want to visit there one day...

But he WAS street racing, he admitted that his friend "wanted to have a go" or similar. So, is he going to be honest, or is he going to say he wasn't street racing. mickq, you are believe you are very well informed in such matters, what are your qualifications? Are you someone who has been through the system a number of times? Have you watched Blue Heelers a lot? The "buzz words" are there, but its not making much sense...

Good idea, make it up as you go.

Pitty the exess is like 1k, 1400 if under 25... I used to be insured with them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Amen, just means I won't be involved in an "at fault" accident...

Insured through SMB Fleet with Jardine Lloyd Thomas, who seem to do insurance for just about anyone or thing. Seems cheap though, 23 rating 1 cost of a whisker over a grand.

That suggests you will be sent a penalty notice. If you were going to be summonsed directly to court, nothing would happen to your licence until you got there and the matter was heard.

had the same thing happen to me about 12 years ago 150kms per hour in a main street in launceston trough the middle of town past eight cars and a cop car on the inside ,took the cops six blocks in a straight line to catch me they said the same thing YOU WILL LOSE YOUR LICENCE FOR THIS .but first they said who the f##k do you thing you are brocky.I said no GRICEY!! :popcorn: after all my last name is grice. they wrote every thing down said the summons will be in the mail . And never head any thing again. But that was then and this is now dont drive like that any more lost 1 point in ten years 60km in a 50km. hope this helps out :popcorn: . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you changed address fragle? There might be a warrant out for you if they were unable to serve the summons!

Just a quick question, If I recollected my side of the story and so does a police officer, Isn't it a case of dafermation/defermation... for calling me a liar if I in fact am telling the truth, and the Police change their recollection. After all his memory is made up of the same brain matter as mine.... so why should anyones word be taken as truthful without PROOF, I.e a radar read out and ticket, not estimations, afterall, there is lots of revenue to be made by such exaggerated estimations of motorists speeds, and if a policemans word is more truthful than that of anyone else in the public, then how is it JUSTICE within a democratic society. Especially when on the otherhand a Pervert who molesters a child can get off if cops don't have proof, and theie word isn't enough in those situations, doesn't this sort of contradiction make a mockery of the Justice System to a certain extent. Just a question please do not take it personally dude??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've asked about 6 questions there. The first is a civil matter, not criminal, so therefore I am way out of my depth, but no, you could not sue a police officer for giving evidence in court. He is just recounting his side of the story. Police swear an oath before they undertake their job and that gives presumably gives their evidence slightly more weight. Now before anyone carries on about police being able to get up in the box and start making stuff up, you really have to ask yourself... why? The money does not go into the individual's pocket, we don't get bonuses for more stats, and it generates significantly more work for us for a matter to go to court. I'm not saying a policeman has never lied in court, that's niave, but there is no benefit in risking going before the county court for perjury just so as Joe Bloggs gets a speeding fine. Also, a speeding fine and rape must both meet the same level of proof in a criminal court, "beyond reasonable doubt". That level may vary according to who is hearing it. A sex offender is always going to be heard in front of a jury. It is harder to prove an offence in front of a jury than infront of a magistrate, to that partly answers your question about sex offenders walking. Police can not pull evidence out of thin air, it must be there, if there's not enough to prosecute, there's not, unfortunately its that simple. That does not mean that a sex offender does not get monitored and observed covertly by police in an effort to protect the public though. Hope that answers, or at least partly, answers your question. As for this thread, what I have noticed is people jump on here all pumped up and emotional and leave out vital facts. I have heard defendant's recount their side of the story at court and it is nothing like what actually occurred, I know its different, I was there at the time. Phrases like "I didn't do anything and then the cop just started yelling at me"...etc. I'd be surprised if we were getting an unbiased account of the incident here.

To answer the question about taping conversation, if you are a party to the conversation, then you can tape it. It's that simple. If you are not a party to the conversation, you need a warrant to allow a LD or you need to ask the permission of the people you are taping. Magistrates and police are not in bed anymore. These days were long ago. I have heard all those stories and it is increadible how anti-police many magistrates are these days. This is mostly becasue magistrates are all former defence soliciters now! Your driving history has nothing to do with it. You could have commited this offence 500 times in the past but that does not even allowed to be mentioned until after you have been found guilty (if this ends up being the situation). Once that has transpired, the severity of your sentence is what will be affected by your history, not your guilt. There is no mandatory speed for stopping pursuits in Victoria, it is about 6,500 times more complicated than that. I don't know about Queensland Take it to court and then offer us an unbiased and honest account of what the magistrate says to you. I would very much enjoy reading that. You could try pleading insanity, it would seem appropriate for someone who has conducted a street race in front of a police car....

This thread is a blast from the past! We carried teachers cars around. A couple of teachers had very small cars, the smallest being one of those silly little Honda Cabriot things from the late 80s/early 90s (I think?). 8 of us Carried it around the front of the school and over the road and put it in the middle of a football oval. That was about as exciting as it got.

Reasonable man test? What planet do you live on? Since when is a "reasonable man test" relevant in court? I'll give you some examples: You get home from a night out. You have not have a single drink. You have 10 people with you all night and they all verify you have not drunk. You are in your lounge room, and decide to have some drinks. 2 hours later, there is a knock at the door. You answer. The police ask you to blow a breatho, as someone saw you driving a bit wonky and called them up saying you might be drunk. You blow, register over 0.05%, and are booked for drink driving even though you never drove with any blood in your system. Reasonable man test? It would fail that big time but you WILL be booked for drink driving and you WILL lose the case in court in the example I wrote above. Its happened. Why? Because in Victoria (and likely similar other states) the law states that the onus is on the driver to maintain sobriety for 3hrs after driving. And yes, that's true Reasonable man test? Totally irellevant and it makes me laugh. Many laws, and their application in court rooms, dont pass any kind of logic test. You can not have had much first hand experience with the judicial system if you seriously think logic and reason come into it. It generally DOES NOT. And the same applies to the legislation about entering intersections. Its not at all cloudy and there is no room for different interpretations. "A driver must not enter an intersection if the driver cannot drive through the intersection because the intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, is blocked. Penalty: 2 penalty units. Examples The intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, may be blocked by congested traffic, a disabled vehicle, a collision between vehicles or between a vehicle and a pedestrian, or by a fallen load on the road." A truck making leaving the intersection within green and yellow lights impossible would qualify as as a blockage caused by congestion. As such the vehicle should not have entered the intersection in the first place. Argue all you want, I know people who have been booked for just that kind of event, and when they protested or went to court, the fine was upheld and they then had to pay court costs on top of it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've either left out facts or are not telling the truth, becasue what you have described is not legal. The "reasonable man test" applies to everything. Ever heard the saying "believes on reasonable grounds"..? ANyway, this is so far off topic I can't even remember what the topic was. Believe what you want mickq, and get and tell all of these friends of yours to get better soliciters, a trained chimp could have defended in court that matters you are describing. Oh, and last piece of advice... Calm down, take a few deep breaths.

Wrong. The laws say that you should not enter an intersection unless you are sure you can clear it. This is done to prevent gridlock. That is what they will say if he argues based on the truck slowing him down: you knew the truck was slow, you knew the truck would take time to cross the intersection, yet you entered the intersection when there was reasonable evidence available to you at the time to suggest exiting the intersection prior to the red light might not be possible. I know at least one person done in a similar way, although in her case she proceeded forward waiting to turn right (as you do) and a car ran the light heading towards here meaning she couldnt do her right hand turn until after the light went red (either that or she had to stop in the middle of the intersection and stay there!). She was still fined for the above reasons. His best bet is the location of the red light camera detection strips. In general they are just past the "stop line" where cars are meant to stop before the intersection. Although the camera photos usually show the cars mid intersection (because they are travelling fast and there is a slight delay between detection and the first photo), the strips tend to be about 2m past the stop line. Chances are that when the light went red you were in the middle of the intersection or further, and the camera would not have been tripped. If they fine you, by all means try writing in, but dont expect to get let off. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mate, I completely disagree with what you are saying. I don't think given the "reasonable man" test anyone would ever get found guilty of this in court. I know I can't nominate case law or specific incidents, so I am not looking ot turn this into a fued, but I don't agree. What you are saying would depend heavily on case law because it is a situation where it comes down to your interpretation of the legislation. Also, with the number pictures, haven't been able to get a proper answer on that, there's every chance it is two and not three pictures as iTec said. Antony

No one is having a go at you for asking a reasonable and serious question stang, not even slightly suggesting that. Its the seemingly mandatory child-like responses that cause a moan.

Pffff Getting pulled over for 5k over isnt very fair either... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's basically what I'm saying

Red light cameras take a series of three images when they detect someone entering an intersection against a red signal. If you were already in the intersection before the light turned amber, then you have not committed and offence. If you entered the intersection against a red or amber signal, that is an offence. So in other words, the camera may have one or even two images of your vehicle being in the intersection against the red signal, but if it does not have the first, you are sitting pretty. Hope this puts your mind at rest

If it ain't bashing, then why all the insults as a response to a serious question? For anyone that has any sort of concept of police work and what it involves it is rare for a TMU member in Victoria to intercept you for speeding unless you were exceeding the speed limit by a bigger margin than 5 km/h. Speed cameras do not offer that discretion. Speed cameras are not even manned or operated by police in Victoria, so apples aren't being compared to apples. stang, if you weren't pulled over, then the police member can not prove ID of the driver, therefore you won't be getting a ticket. ID is the first point of proof for any offence. Speed cameras avoid this by putting the onus on the registered owner of the vehicle to nominate who was driving. If its a police vehicle, and you weren't stopped, no ticket. Thanks to all the :tosser:s for their valuable input.

SatNav Boy!

Please explain how someone in a stolen motor car is not a criminal? Theft is a serious indictable offence in Victoria. All sounds very criminal to me. A component of all registrations paid goes towards Traffic Accident Commision insurance. If you are walking along the roadside and are hit by an unregistered driver, do you want to run the gauntlet of the public health system rather than having the government pay for your private treatment through its near unlimted TAC budget? Don't think there aren't a shipload of unregistered drivers out there either, there are. Every single one of them is making your annual registration dearer by not paying theirs. Thank you for your informed view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure, someone stealing a motor vehicle is a criminal. So is a peadophile, rapist, bank robber, someone who commits GBH. How does the technology described above assist catching those other criminals? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not claiming too, but since you ask, stolen cars are frquently used in the commision of stick-ups. It seems you're suggesting any crime less than a peadophile, rapist, armed robber or someone commiting as assault is not worthy of police attention or any investigation. The crimes you have named are all investigated by detectives. Detectives have the resources, the training and generally the experience needed to charge offenders for these complex and serious crimes. They are not something investigated by general duties police working the van. Without the appropriate training in the handling of evidence, interview techniques, taking of complex and involved statements, to name a few factors, crooks walk on these crimes. Have a think about it before the fingers hit the keyboard.

Please explain how someone in a stolen motor car is not a criminal? Theft is a serious indictable offence in Victoria. All sounds very criminal to me. A component of all registrations paid goes towards Traffic Accident Commision insurance. If you are walking along the roadside and are hit by an unregistered driver, do you want to run the gauntlet of the public health system rather than having the government pay for your private treatment through its near unlimted TAC budget? Don't think there aren't a shipload of unregistered drivers out there either, there are. Every single one of them is making your annual registration dearer by not paying theirs. Thank you for your informed view.

Good quality camera on your phone though.

It was interesting reading when I read in the police journal. I remember thinking at the time "Great, but it won't happen in Victoria in my time". The number plate recognition software for starters, can you imagine how many more stolen & unregistered vehicles would be located "on the move". When police find a stolen vehicle, the department wants it to be dumped, not with a crook in it. Crooks in stolen carsd lead to pursuits, which leads to "negative publicity" for the department when things go pear shaped. (Side issue - when will people start to blame the crooks for not stopping? They are doing the wrong thing, not the police trying to do their job and intercept.) And imagine what the cost of a police car would be with all that stuff in it! We struggle to find police cars to use now, if they start costing three times the price, we don't get more funding, we get one third the cars. There are a truckload of other points made in the original post, but its too hot here for a thorough reply to the whole thing

It's a one-off loaner I believe. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was a year ago.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 100% correct. Before this there was a Saab something or other and there is also a Chyrsler PT Cruiser that is used. The idea is all about high visibilty, and someone said it was a loaner, that was correct also. I need to beg, plead and occaisionally cry to get paid overtime just to process crooks. I don't think anyone would allow that through the chequebook unless it was sponsored!