As some of you know, I have an old sports car. Its 33 birthday is in just a couple of weeks.

12 years ago I bought 2 wrecks for $1,200, & built a good one from the two. It was no concourse beauty, but was pretty nice. It was my only car for 6 years, & still my main transport until recently taken off the road for a rebuild.

She was getting a bit battered with stone chips & dings from tree branches & stuff on the roads after our floods. When I acquired a genuine air conditioning unit from an ex US import, & had that fitted, I decided she deserved a full restoration.

After a bare metal paint job she got an effectively new engine, some new seats & some retiming, along with a new radiator & cooling system. I have spent something like the cost of a new medium hatch, but have a much nicer car, with a bit of character. It also looks a picture after all the work.You may be able to guess, I love that old car.

So today, at the shopping center the disabled parking was full. I parked way down in a near empty part of the parking, near a trolley return. I needed a trolley to lean on to walk that far.

I chose the end of a row, hard against a garden bed, leaving double normal space beside my car. When I returned a car had parked 30cm into my space, & left a dent in my door with theirs. I could see it was them, their door had my paint still on it.

I was wearing my heavy work boots. Tell me, would you have left the imprint of your boot in their door, in my place?

No! It'll come back and bite you. Get their details and go to the cops. That's what we pay them for!

Sheesh, Hasbeen. You're not 18 anymore :~)

No, I wouldn't, Hasbeen. I'd have driven carefully to a convenient distance, then collected every trolley I could find and launched them at the offending car at the best speed I could achieve.

Then I'd have collected them all like a good citizen and put them in the trolley return so nobody would have an accident.

I've had very similar experiences to yours. I've even had my motorcycle knocked over by an incompetent, nitwitted, fat tool that was incapable of turning his neck far enough to use the side mirror. He was in the process of driving away, not realizing I'd seen it happen when the can of baked beans shattered his window.

Some people should not be allowed on the road.

Vigilante justice - one would have to wonder what that type of person is capable of doing in other scenarios.

As RawMustard said call the cops that is what they are paid for.

>>As RawMustard said call the cops that is what they are paid for.<<

It is what they're paid for but it's not what they do. I'm pretty sure that taking this to the cops would not have achieved a damn thing.

I'd have keyed his car for fear of hurting my foot :)

Cheers,

Tony

I must admit I was surprised & somewhat disappointed to realise I am just a bit too civilised to do it. I thought I was tougher than that. I did not even bother to take the number of the offending car, knowing that talking to the police was a waste of time.

I know my painter charges $400 a panel, just the excess on my insurance, so the insurance Company would be no help either. So what recourse do we have against the kind of people who have no respect for others or their property. Actually Philip S, I think you may be quite wrong in your ideas. Perhaps we have surrendered too much to government & authority in this antiseptic world. Perhaps a bit more vigilante justice, is what we need to restore respect for others in some people. All to often such antisocial behaviour goes unpunished.

I do have some of the paint, so I'll try to fix it myself, how well that goes depends on how well it covers.

RawMustard I can only assume you have never put much effort into anything. I put a year of all my spare time into building something from 2 piles of scrap. Do you think I should simply except careless people degrading my effort. Pray tell just what age has to do with turning the other cheek to the antisocial folk who do this type of thing.

I knew a bloke who used to carry a tyre valve removal tool for just such events. He would simply remove two valves on one side & leave them sitting beside the flat tyres. He reckoned the resultant hassle for the offender was a suitable response. I used to think he was a bit evil, but now I'm starting to see his point.

Must drop into Repco parts store next time I'm in town. Perhaps I'm not too civilised for a mild response.

Hasbeen - Was it the drivers side door if so then they knew they did it, but if it was say the rear passenger side door it is possible that it was kids in there and the owner of the car did not know.

If the damage was substantial and the person knew they did it, one would have expected that the person would have driven away.

So I stand by my comment.

Although short of saying you could see a gun in the car I would not have held my breath waiting for the police to come.

I always used to keep a cheap camera in the car never know when it would come in handy.

Drivers door Philip, & I know it was the same car, it was white & had my rather unusual 1970/80s orange colour paint still on the door.

The police are a waste of time. When someone caught a couple of older kids keying random cars, in the same car park a while back, they held them until the cops came.

The cops took their names, without even checking if they were the right names, & told them not to be naughty in future.

Those kids had done a few thousand dollars worth of damage to 8 cars. I doubt they would do much to a slack careless slob, who could claim they didn't know they'd done it.

I can't see a photo of a bit of paint off would do much.

How about you suggest some way of getting these people to stop, unless the injured party personally takes action?

Hasbeen, well maybe, but first I would look, was it a female driver?
Seems to me this door opening step to the side and let them pass man, females SOME, have forgotten good manners are not just for men.
No Angele I would do my block but try to calm down, insist on photos and swapping details.
Getting the cash in the end is best out come.
But, lets be honest, I love old cars, more than rude drivers.

It's not vigilante justice, simply retribution taken personally because it's clear that the mechanisms provided by the state don't work.

The fat fool who knocked my bike over smashed an indicator, drove the indicator stem through the fairing, bent the brake pedal into the clutch cover, giving it a deep gouge, broke the brake handle, smashed a mirror and bent the handlebar. If I had called the cops it would have been a case of my word against his and he would have simply denied it and walked away. As it was, he nearly had a heart attack and learnt a valuable lesson about respecting other people's property and doing the right thing. He's lucky he stopped when his window smashed - the next can was going through it aimed at him.

Dear Hasbeen,

I'm with Antiseptic on this one. The trolley idea
sounds good. How could they prove who did that?

As for calling the police? Nah. I wouldn't waste my
time. What guarantee would you have that they'd even
come out for this sort of thing. Nobody was killed
and I think that's what it would take for the police
to even bother.

Hassie, my heart goes out to you - your car sound
wonderful - and the other car owner deserves some form
of retaliation. Trollies or a baseball bat, or keying -
anything!

That's a bit odd, Lexi.

Judging by your recent eulogizing of the late Margaret Thatcher and your general demeanour, I see a person who has a reasonably strong adherence to Christian principles....

......I thought you might have advised Hasbeen to turn the other fender.

(What do you reckon the Dalai Lama would have done?)

Given his history, I reckon the Dalai Lama would have carefully taken the registration number, gone into hiding and made a lot of carefully targetted announcements urging his followers not to take revenge on his behalf, then waited for the news that they had done so.

Passive-aggressive behaviour is still aggressive, even if it allows the perpetrator to pretend to innocence of responsibility.

Lots of people died because of the sainted Mahatma's passive-aggression and lots of Tibetans have died while the Dalai Lama holds himself very visibly "above the fray".

I don't reckon that's much of an example.

It sounds as though you're above mere vigilantism or retribution…

Fortunately, there's a concept known as Restorative Justice (occasionally Reparative Justice) where the emphasis becomes making-good and the effort is shifted from the crime itself to repairing the damage caused.

Which sounds precisely like what is required in this instance.

'Trolley bowling' sounds like fun, but may attract unwanted attention; keying is easier but too subtle; valve removal creates an immediate and effective time and disruption penalty for the 'perp' but would require too much bending over and we wouldn't want you getting lightheaded and dizzy when you stood up; voluntarily donating your canned goods via a window is giving away the shopping you went there for in the first place and risks putting your shoulder out… So use your knowledge of vehicle restoration.

For future occasions put an effective Duco stripper in a small plastic sauce bottle. Apply as required to the offending vehicle spelling out any descriptive words about the driver that occur to you or a free-form pattern if you're feeling artistic.

Restorative Justice achieved – it's made you feel good, little effort required and the antisocial offender who started it is left to repair the damage.

"I don't reckon that's much of an example."

Why am I not surprised....(even if I do suspect you to be the most intelligent poster on this forum:)

But go on, guys. After all revenge is a purely human trait.

Although seeing that our species likes to elevate itself to realms far above other species in its logic and conduct , I'm wondering why Hasbeen couldn't have waited for the driver and exchanged details.

A couple of thoughts
- Security cameras are a lot more prevalent than they used to be.
- My impression is the the law is a lot more likely to deal with a clearly deliberate attack than the original wrong. Get videoed letting down tyres or spraying paint stripper on some ones car and not being under age or some other mitigating factor and the damage gets a lot worse than a $400 bill.

I don't have neat answers to any of it either. I don't want a situation where I pull in next to a freshly damaged car and the owner decides upon their return that I was the one who damaged the car (in the heat of the moment) and returns fire.

At the same time I'd love to see the mongrels who put the full length wavering scratch (too much height change to be anything other than a hand held implement of some sort) down the side of my car punished in a way that inspired others never to do the same.

Its not fair that Hasbeen should wear the cost of repairs for the incident but at the same time I don't want yet more government intervention to try and sort out all that stuff.

R0bert

A smart one WmTrevor, but unless explained to the perpetrator would probably not be noticed. When looking to see if my paint was on their door, where it sat amid minor damage to their door, I saw similar chips out of it in at least 10 places. I don't think it had been washed in a few years, although not very old so I doubt they would notice much less than a smashed windscreen.

Poirot I was enjoying my day, the first time I have had this car out in a couple of weeks. This was the first day it has not rained, so I have been using a car which is already dirty, rather than dirty another. To chamois the water off the lower part of a car has become hard work for me over the last year or two.

My day had now been ruined. Waiting for, & accosting the perpetrator was only going to reinforce my pain, & lead to an argument, which would further spoil the day, & probably achieve nothing. Better to leave try to forget the thing for the moment, & try to repair the damage myself if possible. I really can't afford to spend any more money on it right now.

Unfortunately this means I will not be able enjoy this car for anything that requires it to share a parking area where people like this can cause me upset. That's a pity, as when I do many people come up, telling me their memories of a similar car. The sight of an old car looking nice is enjoyed by so many. I really would love a dollar for every time someone has said, "Gee I haven't seen one of these since". It would definitely pay for the repairs.

Hasbeen,
I know how you feel. I have had four cars stolen & severely damaged/ruined. The first a beetle just disappeared, the 2nd a VW1600, the third a Landcruiser that was just maliciously damaged beyond repair & another landcruiser had the ignition ripped out along with the cd player & the speakers, side panels & all.
The cops or rather Police (they were decent chaps) got the culprits of the two landcruiser jobs & pleaded with the young sheilah magistrate for the louts to pay restitution, they were after all employed by local council. This dumbcrap of a magistrate told the police that the hoodlums wouldn't have the means to pay me back so she let them off, no conviction no nothing. The 2nd land cruiser the magistrate let them off also even after the same craphead did 8 grand worth of damage to the sergeant's private car. Go figure Australian Law ?
In your position the best revenge is to spray brake fluid over their car when next you see it parked.

"""
RawMustard I can only assume you have never put much effort into anything.
""

On the contrary, Hasbeen. I fully restored a HT Holden Premier Station Wagon from the ground up and the same to an LC GTR-XU1 Torana. I'm fully aware of how much blood, sweat, and tears goes into to such projects.

My wife slammed the wagon into a pole at a shopping center 3 days after I'd finished it. My Torana was stolen and burned after being stripped for parts. I got it back two days later, I was in tears.

You have a path for redress of grievances. Get their details and put them through the ringer. If they don't comply, then you have a case for the cops to get involved due to property damage. It is vandalism after all!

It might not be to your liking, but that's the way it's done.

My neighbours kids throw their sh!t over my fence all the time. Should I just dump my whole garbage bin on his lawn as a form of revenge?

Dear Poirot,

We're all only human. And flawed. Especially
me. So forgive me if I don't rise to your
expectations.

What does Margaret Thatcher have to do with
any of this? I did try to maintain a balance
on that particular thread.

And as for the Dalai Lama?
He's someone I greatly admire - but I certainly don't
have his forebearance although I do try to settle things
peacefully, most of the time.

In the case of Hasbeen's car - The reality is
I probably, like him,
wouldn't have done anything either. Although in retrospect,
I may have made a note of the other driver's licence
plate - and referred the matter to my insurance company
to deal with.

Cheers.

Going to your insurer is an exercise in exasperation. It is only where the other person is found to be at fault (think court) that your insurer may pursue the offender for payment of the repair and you are refunded your $500 or so that you were obliged to pay up front.

The police are not interested and you are lucky to get them to record a complaint.

BTW, even where you are the totally innocent victim of car vandalism and an offender is charged, found guilty and the insurer gets its money from her or her insurance, that still has ramifications for your cost of renewal of policy, either with the same insurer or with another. They still regard you as having made a claim and increase your insurance premium, or may not even insure you. As I say, regardless of your innocence and that they were refunded in full by the offender or her insurer.

What happened to Hasbeen is infuriating. Unfortunately it is common.

<< No! It'll come back and bite you. Get their details and go to the cops. That's what we pay them for! >>

Oh, how I wish it was that simple, RawMustard!

But, much to my chagrin, having made quite a number of ‘minor’ complaints over the years, I have been forced into the conclusion that you just DON’T EVER GO TO THE COPS!!

They are a million miles away from what they are supposed to be.

<< Vigilante justice - one would have to wonder what that type of person is capable of doing in other scenarios. >>

Well unfortunately, Philip S, given that the cops need to just be entirely excluded from the scenario, you are left with the option of copping it sweet or taking some sort of vigilante action. And yes, it is of major concern as to what other people might be capable of if your retaliation comes unstuck!

I dearly want to be able to support the police and totally denounce vigilante action or any sort of unlawful retaliation, but I’ve moved way beyond that and I find myself in very difficult territory… because the police being what they are, are just completely unsupportable!!

<< It is what they're paid for but it's not what they do. I'm pretty sure that taking this to the cops would not have achieved a damn thing. >>

Tony Lavis, yes. And isn’t that the pits!

A slightly different but pertinent Should I, Would you!

At an overpass there had been an accident involving a couple of vehicles. I slowed down to pass the scene safely and all seemed well in hand, but for some reason the car in front came to a stop. That wasn't a problem for me as I was ready but the guy behind slammed right up the rear of my car.

We were both a bit out of sorts and he initially got a touch aggressive about exactly whose fault it was so I thought it might have escalated, but a bloke who had witnessed the crash sided with me defusing the situation.

He then apologised saying he had had a hard week bricklaying the fruits of which just jumped into the repairer's pocket. I calmed down enough to accept and we exchanged details. As his car was going nowhere I offered him a lift home and he was pretty grateful.

Then a police car pulls up and I was keen to file a report with them so there was no issue with liability. By the look on his face I knew something was up. I asked 'You been drinking?'. He replied 'Only one or two but I'm not keen to chance my luck as without a licence I don't work'.

I told him to jump in the car and we took off.

I would love to say this was purely altruistic since I did feel some empathy for the man as I've often had few on a Friday night after a big week especially in this industry. Plus I didn't want to see him lose his job over something that could have happened to any of us. But I also knew that if he got done for over the limit he would lose his insurance meaning I would get my money in dribs and drabs, if at all, and I've been down that path before.

So perhaps I let a bloke who might have been a habitual drink driver off, just so I wasn't out of pocket.

Good to see you back Antiseptic!

csteele,
Police are in tears about having to let the idiots & hoodlums off, they are utterly unsupported by the dumbcrap magistrates. The governments like to put cops where police would show too much sense & not reap the revenue that the cops bring in. That's why you'll never get a cop to support a victim because there's no revenue.
There's only one way to combat the me,me & I syndrome & that is two years national service & they leave the service at 21 as reasonably enlightened & responsible young adults. This pussyfooting & the mass production of the senseless over educated morons which are now becoming a serious burden has to be stopped & stopped now. Anyone disagreeing better come up with another workable idea.

Ludwig, you're sadly quite correct.

I've had a small problem lately, whereby somebody has acquired a set of plates that were last on a car registered to me that was disposed of a few years back. Due to a series of events, the sale wasn't properly finalised and the paperwork wasn't properly finalised at the time, but since it wasn't worth much I didn't think much of it until a couple of weeks ago when I started receiving toll notices and speed camera tickets for that rego, now attached to a different car! My first thought was to go to the police, so I duly hied myself off to Mt Gravatt police station to explain the matter and to get it resolved.

That was a mistake.

The large female constable behind the bullet-proof glass first accused me of lying, then informed I would be fined for not filling out the appropriate paperwork in the first place, then informed me that even if I could prove that I had disposed of the car and that the plates were on a different vehicle that the police would not do anything unless I could tell them who was driving: "how can I investigate if you don't tell me who was in charge of the vehicle?".

Naturally I was somewhat upset at this somewhat unexpected turn of events, so I asked to speak to her superior. At that point a further cohort of large female officers appeared and forcefully told me to "sit down and shut up, Sir", repeating this in ever more strident tones, hands on tasers, behind the glass. At that point I simply left, with one of them shouting at me, "good, go away" and me shouting back "what are you even here for?".

[cont]

I then spoke to a solicitor who told me all I have to do is complete an affidavit setting out the facts and submit it to the police camera office, which I have done, along with evidence that the plates were deregistered in 2009 and that they were on a different car when registered. They are obliged to accept the affidavit if they have no conflicting evidence, provided it is filed in time. The same applies to the tolling firms.

The steroidally-enhanced police-"women" at Mt Gravatt Police could and should have told me that and could have recorded a statement that the plates were being used illegally that could have been registered on the police database so that it red-flagged the vehicle for the automatic rego scanners fitted to patrol cars. I asked for that to be done and they refused, being more interested in trying to intimidate me into accepting being wrongfully accused of an offence, or find something else they could find to charge me. At no stage was any assistance offered, except from the nice civilian lady behind the counter who offered to call a constable. It was when the constable got involved that it all went downhill.

One of the more telling moments I thought was when I said "you people have sent this notice to the wrong person and the person you should be looking for is still driving around" and got the response "We're not 'you people', we're the Police", completely ignoring the salient point.

This is not a low SES, high crime area. It is a middle-class area with lots of families and students, smack bang in the middle of a sea of middle-class suburbs. I was polite and I am well-spoken, dressed in working clothes and I was asking for assistance.

They seem to be completely culturally alienated from the broad society.

Hasbeen…you will have to change your name to Fangio…what are you driving? When I retire my project will be a Triumph Stag, I have been collecting bits and pieces for a few years now and love the metal that becomes the apple of blokes eyes. I am running around in a Saab at present.

Many don’t understand how precious unblemished is. Sure you can fix it, but that’s not the point. The point is that it didn’t need fixing before a careless and preventable act blemished it. I wouldn’t have damaged the other vehicle and without witnesses sadly it’s your baby.

Just an observation on our reactions to situations as victims as opposed to observers.
When my kids were pre teen I purchased a car for my bride, late model, low klms, unblemished. I told the kids not to ride their bikes near it as soon as I got home. An hour later they did and a nasty scratch and dent materialized.

I am standing at the car yelling at the kids. My neighbour comes over consoles me about the damage then says “it’s only a car; kids have to play somewhere, more or less telling me to suck it up. A few months later footy season arrives as does a brand new car for my neighbour. A week later he knocks on my door and informs me that a football booted by my son has dented his pride and joy insisting that the kids stop playing footy…..amazing how perspectives change.

There is a reason that cops generally only socialize with other cops. The only thing I have to say about cops is that during WWII all cops from All occupied nations helped ship Jews to their fate. Cops are paid mercenaries. Why Anti they would give you a hard time given you present as a toe the line citizen is baffling. As Luddy said don’t go near them, stick with state revenue and the Roads Authority.

Hasbeen, I feel very sorry for you and your car. I love those shiny, well cared for, older cars.

I always think it better not to come down to a vandals level and retaliate with vandalism on their property. That only brands you as a vandal too.

RObert was correct in saying there are often cameras in many car parks now, so you may get a visit from the police yourself if you damage someone's car deliberately.

I would have written out my details and placed it on the windscreen, and hoped for the best.

I certainly wouldn't have gone down to the police station and started acting aggressive at the policewomen and then be surprised when they pulled their tasers and told me to leave, Antiseptic .
Would you have acted the same if they were big fat male police?

Suseonline,
There are no aggressive or big fat police, only big fat & aggressive cops. Police are those who are responsible & helpful.

Dear Individual,

Then I suppose here's something you
should not say to the police:

"Gee, that gut sure doesn't inspire confidence."

Suse, I realise that reading for comprehension is not your strong suit, but how did you get "acting aggressive at the policewomen" out of my post? The cropped-headed, bulked-up, taser-carrying police"women" acted aggressively toward me when I asked for assistance. As I said, "I was polite and I am well-spoken, dressed in working clothes and I was asking for assistance".

When they started threatening me I left, which was what they obviously wanted. It was clear there was no possibility of receiving any form of assistance and every possibility of receiving some sort of physical assault if I stayed.

It doesn't surprise me that you would regard that sort of thing as some sort of victory for "grrrl power", given your history on here. What a weird world you have inside your head.

Hasbeen,

Sorry but I had a wry grin when you related your parking strategy and how someone came to park close by.

I try to keep my vehicles well away from others for the same reasons and by employing the same cunning plan. Yet invariably when I return there is a car parked next to mine and usually too close. That is despite plenty of parks elsewhere.

I once returned to find a women perching a steel basket of groceries on the boot of my wife's new car that I had previously collected for her. When I yelled from afar for the woman to remove the basket she turned sullenly to say that the basket had to be put somewhere.

Some have a certain mentality, the egocentrism of entitlement and jealousy, and any plea to their better side is always in vain. The only thing this woman was concerned about was that I had taken her photo and that was 'an invasion of privacy and male aggression towards women'. She was blameless of course by definition.

Fortunately the basket was lightly loaded and no obvious damage was done. If otherwise, I had sworn to myself to make a formal complaint at the police station.

Of course I could have posted her photo on the Net, but I am not so petty and my default is to get on with my own life and be happy.

should not say to the police:
Lexi,
I gather you meant cops.

Success to some extent. After 2 hours, with a 3 hour break in the middle for paint to dry, my car now passes at least the 5Ft test. At five feet off, I can't see the mark, at least on a dull day. It may be more obvious in bright sunshine which highlights blemishes. Younger eyes may see it, but that's not my worry.

After some sanding to remove a couple of little lumps, another couple of coats of paint, a cut & a polish, I should only see it when I wash the car, so yes some success. With old timers disease setting in I can forget many things I ought not, so I may just forget this, within a decade or two.

Onthebeach, I am wondering about that parking strategy of mine. Do you think that by leaving a wider space we just may be attracting the poor driver who finds the extra space easier & therefor attractive? I may try to come up with a new one.

Sonofgloin A stag would be nice. I have driven a few, but decided I'd prefer something smaller. This one is TR7. Not the most admired of Triumphs, but I actually prefer it now, after 12 years. At the time, with 2 kids still at home, with school & their horsing around show jumping, there was not much money for toys for me.

Since they left home I did a TR8, replacing the 3.5L with a 4.6L tuned V8. It is really beautiful. Well it was when my son decided to help me avoid getting booked in such a powerful machine, by taking it to Nowra with him, a couple of years ago. My son is so considerate.

Good thing really, although I could afford to build it, I really couldn't afford the registration, insurance & maintenance on it.

Hasbeen>>This one is TR7. Not the most admired of Triumphs
Since they left home I did a TR8<<

Hb, I know it well, two litre about 110 hp and the nose is the wedge of the era. The TR 8 is the 7 on steroids, they put that fold running from the rear panel through to the door to change the look given they were too lazy to design a new shape. I had a Lancia Montecarlo for a while, two litre 120hp mid mounted and the wedge look.

Hasbeen,

I try to avoid shopping centres in busy times. I have a few parks with pillars either side. But even then some mongrel leaves a trolley next to me. Or against the car more likely.

What about the mentality of this jealous sod? Caught too, Yay! See link,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9903683/Lecturer-fined-28000-after-scratching-graffiti-into-cars.html

People park next to 'our' strategically separate parks for the same reason they gaggle together on highways, intent of sniffing one another's bum, or so it seems. They are stupid, easily led and can do no better.

Sorry about your pride and joy. We all think of poetic justice for offenders in carparks. Too much self-respect and pride to join them in the gutter by doing the same back though.

Anything mildly prestige I buy in white. No prizes for guessing why.

I'm not sure how it is these days, but when I lived in Paris in the 70s, there was hardly a car that was not dented. That is just how they drive, nobody worries about the odd dent. If you can't quite fit into the parking spot, you push the back car backwards and the front car a bit forwards and voila, you have space! If you don't want dents on your doors, fit some rubber strips. That certainly was the Parisian way at the time.

Antiseptic, one doesn't have to be very bright at all to pick out the likely scenario and consequences of you being 'polite' to policepersons of either gender.

Your' aggressive style positively leaps off the posts you write.
Nothing is achieved by complaining ( or asking for 'assistance') in an aggressive manner...

I am surprised! I was expecting perhaps a barrage of counter-views to my strongly expressed complete rejection of the police. Instead there were two agreements and no detractors.

What a terrible state of affairs. We’ve lost confidence in our police, at least when it comes to dealing with relatively minor matters.

<< When they started threatening me I left, which was what they obviously wanted >>

Antiseptic, yes I have got the same impression a number of times from the cops that their primary motive is to get you to give up, so that they won’t have to deal with your issue.

Welcome back Yabby!

>>I'm not sure how it is these days, but when I lived in Paris in the 70s, there was hardly a car that was not dented. That is just how they drive, nobody worries about the odd dent.<<

I was in Paris not too long ago: the French still drive like maniacs. I pity the poor French pedestrians: over there zebra crossings are suggestion rather than a rule - the Australian habit of leaping boldly out onto the crossing would result in fatalities. Meanwhile my French-acquired habit of waiting patiently at the edge of zebra crossings earns me dirty looks from motorists who think I'm just a slow crosser.

Cheers,

Tony

<< If you can't quite fit into the parking spot, you push the back car backwards and the front car a bit forwards and voila, you have space! >>

Haaa hahahaaa!

From what I've seen of your output here, suse, simply disagreeing with you would qualify as "aggressive" in your imagination.

Trust me when I say that as a man of nearly 50 I am not aggressive toward people I am asking for help. The police in question were determined to be obstructive from the outset, it had little to do with me and there was nothing I could have done differently that would have produced a different outcome. They gave me misleading advice as to the law and they refused to take a statement in relation to the misuse of the plates. They had already made their mind up that I was somehow trying to get away with something as soon as I mentioned the problem. The rest of it was simply misuse of their authority to intimidate me into going away.

I'm amused that you're "blaming the victim" though. speaks volumes for your own integrity.

Hasbeen I have a 20 year old BMW 7 series which is my own pet project. Bought cheap as an ex-limo with very low kms and very thin paint from polishing, she's gradually being brought back to life and until recently was being driven daily. The only reason she's off the road is that the aircon people managed to boil her while trying to regas, never noticing that the electric fan wasn't working, and did the head gasket in. Not happy Jan...

<< Your' aggressive style positively leaps off the posts you write. >>

I didn’t get that impression from Antiseptic’s post, Suse.

What I did glean was a strong sense of frustration and infuriation, which I share all the way.

Anyway, the police are supposed to be able to deal with angry, aggressive, frustrated people and calm them down, rather than work them up.

The police are supposed to be bound by a code of conduct, as are all public servants. Their code of conduct is their rule book! They must abide by it. And one of the most basic tenets of all codes of conduct is to treat people with due respect and courtesy.

But in the real world the code of conduct of the police is nothing more than words on paper!!

Oh for goodness sakes.
This thread has turned into a bash-the-police-fest!
I am sure there are many fine police in our society.

The only people who have real 'problems' with the police are those who have been, or are thinking of, doing something naughty...

There you go blaming the victim again. That claim is not qualitatively different to saying that a rape victim must have done something to deserve it.

some sections of the police in Qld have a serious cultural problem. The behaviour of those young women at Mt Gravatt Police was more than merely unacceptable, it was thuggish. I was genuinely fearful that if I pressed my right to ask to escalate my case to a senior officer I faced a real possibility of physical violence from those present.

I have never experienced that from a copper in my life. I will not be going near that police station in future, it is not a place where help is to be found.

There were several female officers and I saw only one male, who had just returned a traffic camera van and was in and out and didn't participate in the bullying. I wonder whether that had anything to do with it? There is a strong aggressive streak in some lesbian subcultures and these women were stereotypical "bull dykes" in appearance and manner. I'm only speculating now, but it was such aberrant behaviour there has to be something behind it. Perhaps it's overuse of steroids?

I can't believe the training is designed to produce this attitude.

No Suse, it’s not a bash-the-police fast! It is the unfortunate reality of the situation, and it is highly pertinent to Hasbeen’s question; ‘should I, would you?’.

<< The only people who have real 'problems' with the police are those who have been, or are thinking of, doing something naughty... >>

Oh how I wish that was true.

I suppose the main question in my mind is, if the person who damaged Hasbeen's car was aware of it, then why did s/he hang about if they were not prepared to make reparations? One would imagine that they would have bolted with the evidence once they'd felt the impact.

If by some weird chance they weren't aware of the extent, how would Hasbeen know if he didn't hang about - and how would it help Hasbeen's dilemma if he'd indulged in a little mild car park rage - which apparently he resisted?

Not car park rage, Poirot, simply teaching a lesson. Do unto others and all that.

The trouble is that some people simply seem unable to grasp that their actions have consequences. They're so used to getting away with minor infractions like opening their door into other people's cars that it's not even noticed when they do it.

Calling the police would only reinforce that, because they would not come.

After I closed my business I drove a truck for a while. It was a real eye-opener. There are a really large group of people who simply pay no attention to what is going on around them. They're not malicious, they simply don't care about how their activities affect others - they want to do what they want to do and everyone else can just put up with it.

It's a sort of narcissistic behaviour and it's incredibly prevalent in young women and in old men, although perhaps old men have the excuse that they're sensorily deficient and struggle to keep up with the flow of information.

And the other thing that puzzles me is that most here are fairly keen to damage the offending car as pay back....something which is only perhaps useful as a psychological mechanism, but which doesn't assist Hasbeen's material dilemma.

Picture the scene at the beach or at the sandpit. Junior has spent a whole hour constructing a whizz-bang sand castle. Along comes a playmate who decides to build one too - right beside Junior's impressive monument. Partway through the new construction, he inadvertently steps backwards, planting a foot squarely on the left turret of Juniors masterpiece, mashing it into oblivion. Now, understandably, Junior is bereft, he looks to the adults for guidance.

What do adults usually say to a small child in a case like this? Do they tell Junior that it was an accident and that his playmate should apologise and perhaps help him rebuild the turret - or do they tell Junior to make a bee-line for his playmate's castle and inflict equal damage as payback?

Strange old world.....

Poirot, your example of junior on the beach is well and good, but it's not relevant. Hasbeen's car is not a sandcastle that is ephemeral, the perosn who opened the door into it is not a child and they did not do it accidentally, they had evidence of having done it repeatedly, so at best they were wilfully careless.

In the case of the person who knocked my bike over, they were trying to run away after having caused significant damage to someone else's property, hoping it had not been seen being caused. One of the things that I was taught and I have tried to teach my kids is that you should take responsibility for your own actions. If you break someone else's toy, don't try to hide it and pretend someone else must have done it. Own up and try to do what you can to make amends.

Far too many people in our present society have not learnt that lesson. Swift retribution, which is what they should have got as kids when they behaved badly, is the only way they will.

It should be possible to rely on the police to provide that, but it clearly isn't, so what's left?

It's just a car man!

Jeez. If my car gets dints, I drive it around with dints. It still works. Nothing cracks me up more than people with those fock-ugly perspex stone chip protectors on the front of their cars. It's genius; I'll make my car look ugly, in case a stone may chip it a little bit that might blemish it slightly.

If your ego, status, masculinity, whatever, is defined by how nice and clean and shiny your car looks you've got big problems.

Who knows, maybe their kid got out that side and they didn't even realise. Maybe they're an oldie living in constant pain from a war injury and found it hard to get out of their car, and are hard of hearing and sight. People can be doddery, just look at most of the posters on here.

But, no, nothing less than an over the top retribution will suffice.

'They're not malicious, they simply don't care about how their activities affect others - they want to do what they want to do and everyone else can just put up with it.'

That's your projection onto the other. You don't have any proof except what you want to believe. Someone cuts you off in traffic, and you build a whole profile on the personality of the person, filling it up with all your prejudices. Besides, they're not malicious, but you're bloody well going to be? Teach-em a lesson? Righteous one?

Y'all should watch that movie Crash. I feel sorry for a world of people so full of hate and fear and anger. In the most privileged and pampered place on earth.

A slight annoyance, an accident, a bit of carelessness, to a material possession brings about an explosion of rage. Get a sense of proportion guys. Some people have their kids dying of cancer and really don't have the physical or emotional energy to deal with a little scratch on your car.

Nope, not projection, houellie, observation. The person who refuses to get out of the way of an ambulance; the person who blocks a left turning lane for 5 minutes because they want to get across to the right hand lane in one go when there is a perfectly clear left hand lane available to turn into; the person who blocks a left turn lane by parking a long way from the car in front and won't move forward regardless of the horn-blowing behind them; the person who sits texting at every red light and has to finish what they're doing before moving off, blocking all the cars behind; the person who sits in the right hand lane of the motorway doing 80; the person who weaves in and out of heavy traffic, causing people behind to have to brake and creating a wave of braking that goes all the way down the line; the person who has a minor tailender and won't move their car off the roadway; the person who has a minor tailender and must call emergency services, thereby creating even more chaos. I could go on for pages.

These are all examples of the type of behaviour I mean. How would you characterise it?

Sure, it's only a car, but in the case of my bike it cost nearly $300 just to make it rideable and I had to get it carried home on a towtruck, which cost another $100. If I hadn't stopped the fat fool with that can of beans, I'd have had to pay that myself. As it was he quickly offered to pay and he also had the cost of a window to remind him to be more careful in future.

I reckon that's a pretty good result.

Anti,

I realise the sand castle scenario isn't pertinent to a car park, yet it is pertinent to civilised human behaviour Why do we bother to instill a more "civilised" reaction in small children if we can rationalise ourselves out of it when we're adults?

Juniors first inclination would be retaliation in kind, because of his playmate's carelessness. The adults are charged with mitigating Junior's initial reaction and rationalising it within the bounds of civilised social behaviour. Hasbeen's own words were that he was too civilsed to actually enact a retaliatory gesture.

Hasbeen, I do understand your frustration - it's a jungle out there. Your car represents more than a means of transport, and is bound up in much pride, hard work and even a sense of beauty and aesthetics.

The problem is that shopping centre car parks are not conducive to things of beauty amidst the hurly-burly of modern life. Dings and scratches are likely to be inflicted in some places more than others.

(Hope that's the last time you're confronted with such a circumstance:)

Just wondering, Anti, if your dangerous projectile, the "can of beans" had severely injured or killed the driver - or a someone else in the vicinity, how you would rationalise that?

Yes, I expect you'll tell me that your aim was so good, that it was merely sent on a window-breaking trajectory - and that your "rage" was justified.

Do you ever despair when you see on the news the consequences of "road rage" where simple things (that could have been mitigated with a little common sense and civilised discourse) have blown right out of proportion resulting in serious injury or death? I'm always gob-smacked when I see those instances, because it seems to me that stressed out people in the modern world racing about in cars, are more likely to dispense with civility - and civility is one valued behaviour that has delivered us our so-called advancement....

Most of those situations Anti, could easily be characterized by a lack of awareness of the world around them. People in a Daze. The drugged masses, going through the motions on the treadmill of life.

They may not be as intelligent as your good self, but the fact they're not switched-on does not mean they are indifferent to the needs of others.

I remember one day at Marc and Sparcs, getting lunch, with a pretty thumping hangover. It was a metro type supermarket and the layout was pretty crowded. I waited for the current customer to be served, then walked up to buy my stuff. This elicited a screaming verbal tirade from another woman in the store, who claimed quite correctly that I had cut in front of a short line that had formed down an isle that I hadn't noticed.

Now, sure, she was right. But she called me an arrogant asshole who doesn't care about anyone else rah rah rah. I didn't feel it was fair. I was hungover, struggling through the day, and made a mistake.

Do you accept that people's skill levels and aptitudes on the road vary? Do you think that those who get a little bit freaked out by an ambulance, or don't notice the cars behind them, as they're lucky just to keep the car going straight and work out where they are, should be banned from driving altogether?

Sure, if people are genuinely dangerous, perhaps they shouldn't be driving. But if they inconvenience others, surely the independence people gain from being able to get to work, to get out of the house, for an Asian migrant who can barely speak english and learnt to drive late in life, to the old person who can only really manage 80km/h and is worried they'll miss their turn off, to the truck concerned about hitting overhanging trees in the slow lane, to the young hot chick who's a bit neurotic and...

Do you have no generosity at all for the human condition? Do we all have to be switched on 24/7 not to be poked with a big stick and made an example for, and a target for all that rage you've got built up?

Sure if it costs money, or injures you, you're entitled to be upset. But vengeance? Hate? Did your granma ever drive slowly? Be forgetful? Do you want old doddery people to be housebound? Do you want to punish the young for being young? And if it's only an inconvenience?

Is it worth shouting at cows who cross the road really slowly?

It's frustrating, but sometimes people are having a bad day man. This aggression will not stand!

Houlebecke is right...at last, a voice of reason.
We are only human, and humans make mistakes.
Spitting the dummy doesn't help in the long run...

'The person who refuses to get out of the way of an ambulance;'
Inexperienced driver? Stunned mullet?

'the person who blocks a left turning lane for 5 minutes because they want to get across to the right hand lane in one go when there is a perfectly clear left hand lane available to turn into;'

Riddled with anxiety. Genuinely fears will somehow end up in the M2 tunnel. Actually that's quite a valid fear.

'the person who blocks a left turn lane by parking a long way from the car in front and won't move forward regardless of the horn-blowing behind them;'

Probably wondering what the f&ck that idiot is doing blowing their horn. Horns are for warning people of danger, it's illegal to use them for anything else.

'the person who sits texting at every red light and has to finish what they're doing before moving off, blocking all the cars behind;'
Illegal for a reason. Unlikely, but it could be a genuinely important, even life-changing event, or they could be under intense pressure.

'the person who sits in the right hand lane of the motorway doing 80;'
I get annoyed at that too. But I rather those people than the people who drive on their tale 2 metres behind them to teach em a lesson and scare the sh1t out of me with their antics.

There's heaps of annoying driving, but it's your projection that gives someone the benefit of the doubt or not, and it's your choice how much you let it upset you.

Poirot, I have a very good arm from playing cricket and football in my youth and the car's windows were up. The risk to anyone was vanishingly small.

However, as I said, I would have preferred to be able to rely on the mechanisms of the state, but they don't work.

Houellie, I made the point above that some old men may have the excuse of poor faculties. That doesn't apply to young people of either gender.

As to the reason for their lack of engagement, that's not my problem. On the road they have an obligation to be switched on. There is actually an offence of "driving without due care and attention", but I don't recall anyone being charged with it unless their lack of attention actually causes an accident. Instead, the law has focussed on externalities, like using mobile phones, while ginoring the underlying reason, which is that they detract from the attention available to be given to the road.

There was a head-on collision on the Storey Bridge here in Brisbane a few days ago, in which a cabbie was killed. The driver at fault was a young woman driving her boyfriend home in the early hours who crossed the centre line of a 6 lane road.

I don't give a toss why she did that, I simply wish she had been better trained to appreciate the serious responsibility inherent in taking to the road. I don't have any "rage", I'm a very patient and considerate driver. It is not possible to drive a large truck with safety any other way, let alone survive being a motorcyclist in city traffic for 30 years. I do my best to assist the traffic flow, which is a basic piece of common sense.

That doesn't mean I don't get irked by those who aren't any of those things, as I'm sure you do as well. There is no need for such slackness and it's not hard to do better, so failing to do so is simply inconsiderate and lazy.

Anti,

So you are saying that if you had instead taken the guy's number and reported the $300 dollar damage to the authorities, then nothing would have been done?

Are you saying that lobbing a weighty projectile at an intact window is a wise course of action because you "have a good arm"? Young delinquent behaviour of tossing rocks at passing cars is aimed at breaking windows and often causes serious injury - albeit with no reason behind it other than to cause harm - yet it often seems to result in serious injury all the same.

What I'm getting at is that the person who caused the damage to your bike, did so by accident. Your reaction of causing deliberate damage with a dangerous projectile seems to be something you're rather proud of. If I was the guy you targeted, I'd report your actions even while wearing the guilt of inadvertently causing the initial damage.

What if, unbeknownst to you, there had been a small child in the car who got sprayed with flying shattered glass? When we react in the heat of the moment, sometimes we tend to overlook minor details such as that.

Poirot, I'm saying that the guy will be very unlikely to do anything like that again and that my course of action was completely safe. I was less than 20 meters from the scene when the incident occurred, but the fat fool didn't see me because he was unable to turn his head that far.

Cars have had safety glass in their windows for decades, that doesn't shatter into shards but into blocks and largely remains in its original form rather than flying apart. It the particular case the only actual penetration was at the point of impact, the rest of the window simply crazed into blocks and stayed put.

My action wasn't "spur of the moment". I tried to get his attention by yelling, but he couldn't hear me in his little cocooon with the radio going. When he started to drive off I felt I had to stop him, so I took the only course of action I had available. I could have aimed at the body work, perhaps, but I figured the glass was unlikely to break and would therefore be less expensive to him, which was my only mistake.

I don't encourage such responses, but as I keep saying, unless people are made directly accountable for their poor behaviour, they won't stop it. In my view that person is an accident waiting to happen as long as he is in charge of a car and should be prevented from holding a license. He actually offered his lack of flexibility in motion as some sort of excuse, when it is actually a good reason for him to be declared unfit to drive.

The worst thing is that I really do lack any confidence that the police will do anything at all. That's a much greater tragedy, as Ludwig points out and can only lead to more people feeling they have to act as I did, whether right or wrong.

Anti,

Do you reckon that the course of action that you took is likely to bring this guy's poor flexibility/driving problems to the attention of anyone who can do something about him being on the road?

Yeah, again, like with Hasbeen, I get your frustration, and these sorts of problems are endemic to the sort of society we have concocted for ourselves.

When it all boils down, the person who is lax and makes mistakes can always be written off as a "fat fool" or a "ditzy air-headed chick", etc - obviously far beyond a reasonably civilised encounter....

Like I said, it's a jungle out there.

Houell I'm a bit sick of this sympathy for the offender. It is this very attitude that has expanded the number of offenders.

I did mention that the offender had parked a foot into my marked parking bay. There were at least 30 empty bays in the area I had parked. There is no excuse possible for parking so close to any other car in this situation.

I know about difficulty of getting out of a car. I have great difficulty getting my left leg out of the door. It causes pain, & I have to lift it with my hands. I have a rough old Ford Capri convertible, with a big wide door, which with the roof down, is all I can manage some days. No one with any problem could have got out of a car parked that close. The reason for my damage was they had difficulty getting out with a door only half opened.

It was sheere bloody minded laziness, in not realigning their car that caused it.

Poirot perhaps if the cops did do their job with these people, society could be as courteous as it was when I was a kid. Unfortunately today, they are only interested in applying a fine to someone. If no chance of revenue, forget the cops. I mentioned a couple of teenagers they simply roused on, after they had done $8,000 worth of keying damage to 6 cars. If the cops bothered to charge these people, the problem would soon stop.

What happened to my car was negligent vandalism, & unless we stop these actions by these people, expect increasing rage & vigilantism to come. You pair have convinced me. I will get that tyre valve removal tool, next time I'm in town.

Tolerance is a two way street. You guys show no tolerance, and believe it is a ridiculous notion to show tolerance to someone who annoys you or damages your property through negligence and carelessness.

Yet you talk of a society where people look out for your property. You don't care about any ameliorating circumstance that could have been the cause of their carelessness, so you're perpetuating the society you despise. ie Everyone look out for themselves. You're saying that's not my problem, and that's exactly what you perceive to be the error of their attitude that has led to your misfortune.

Zero tolerance, no excuses, throw a can at em, they shouldn't have the right to participate in society without the very best of skills? I'm not saying people shouldn't be responsible for their actions or that there shouldn't be consequences, but violent and aggressive acts without any evidence of anything other than negligence and laziness is an illustration of the every same intolerance that angers you so.

'The reason for my damage was they had difficulty getting out with a door only half opened.'

So by your admission, the door opener could well be the victim of the lazy driver. Who could well be the victim of sleepless nights caused by x, who was the victim of poor personal hygene from y, who was the victim of boat people and Tony Abbot.

There is always someone to blame. You lash out at them, you perpetuate the comedic tragedy.

We're all in it together. Be annoyed, sure, look for compensation from the persons involved, it's just the shoot first ask questions later zero tolerance attitude that I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate if you made a mistake or were careless.

You beep at some poor sod who is blocking the left lane, legally staying 7 metres behind the car in front, they get flustered from the disproportional show of rage when they didn't even understand what you're on about, and crash into some other poor sod, rather than you waiting the 20 seconds for the light to change. What kind of a world do you really want? I think you want the wild west, as you believe you can thrive based on your superior intellect, aggression, whatever.

Just don't let your guard down. Or get old or sick or distracted. Don't make a mistake will you.

I have already posted this talk elsewhere. It is relevant here as well,

The intolerance of Tolerance by Don Carson,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PVJlnvVeSM

"..You pair have convinced me. I will get that tyre valve removal tool, next time I'm in town."

Excellent, Hasbeen.....apparently your notion of being "too civilised" was some kind of aberration and was merely holding you back - nothing that a spot of retaliatory vandalism won't cure.

It's interesting that those who delight in telling us of their disdain and frustration at the actions of careless people, appear to be slapping themselves on the back that they would do the same type of things "deliberately".

Strange old world.....

I blame tinted windows…

Road rage incidents were virtually unheard of years ago when all drivers could see all other drivers at all times – and vapid little shrugs or a mouthed 'sorry' defused many a potential incident.

Then car windows turned into mobile versions of interrogation cell one-way mirrors and increasing numbers of drivers started figuratively acting like 'perps' in TV dramas throwing tantrums and chairs at them.

Psychologically it's almost understandable when you get in your car to drive in your manner to your destination along your route for your purposes… that everyone else should realise that it is your road.

But for some unknown reason they don't. They think it's theirs.

Hasbeen,

Don't miss the chance to ask where some of these high horses are being parked. LOL

Poirot, he was the one who failed to act in an adult and civilised manner by attempting to run off without admitting to responsibility. All I did was prosecute my own claim to being treated decently. My use of the pejorative is not intended to dehumanise, merely paint a word picture succinctly. On the other hand, have you noticed how US and increasingly Australian police avoiding using the word "people" or person? The preferred usage in the US is "individual", when the simple word "person" would do. that is intended to be dehumanising and separate them from "we, the people" and thus reduce empathic responses from the cops.

Hoellie, you're stretching, mate. I am not tolerant of lackadaisical incompetence, whether it is from some other person on the road, the copper behind the counter, the doctor who can't advise on the proper treatment for a mild ankle fracture (another recent experience - he had to refer to a textbook), the bureaucrat who can't exercise judgement to override minor failures of process, the tradesman who can't do things that are basic to his trade.

The trouble is that we have dumbed down our expectations of people to an enormous extent and yet we pretend that the standards are every bit as high as always. They're simply not, because people are being trained to follow a process rather than engage any of their own thinking in doing a good job and the process is deliberately limited in complexity to ensure nobody can't do it, so it leads to bad outcomes.

For me, the most glaring example is that competency based training is now being accepted as a means of demonstrating educational attainment when seeking entry to Uni. It's not even evidence of attainment of the skill it purports to be imparting, let alone of capacity to learn!

There will always be a spectrum of abilities, but benchmarks should be based on the needs of a task, not on the qualities of the applicants. That's not a matter of tolerance or elitism, but simple practicality.

WmTrevor

Interesting points you have raised.

I keep going back to the simple explanation that there is a higher proportion of selfish uncaring people about.

That and simple jealousy and spite where lack of care with other people's property is concerned.

To take an example from elsewhere, tenants in residential housing are known to be much harder on rental properties than previously. Incredible as it seems, such tenants believe that landlords are wealthy and that 'unfair wealth' excuses, even invites, carelessness with the expensive asset they occupy.

There are some nasty changes taking place in Australian culture. it is not so long ago that vandalism was so reviled that even to joke about it was to risk certain censure.

Trev I was tempted to agree until I thought if people could see each other's rage more often it would lead to more people leaving their cars to sort it out. I have seen psychos do that half a dozen times, and you even get people following another driver home and violent confrontations. Or maybe they'd be happy that they got their message across by pulling faces and punching their hand and wouldn't feel the need to follow them home after that. Who knows.

There's actions and motives.

It seems people are really confident to define the motives of the people's actions that annoy them without any real evidence. So an act of negligence somehow turns into an act of aggression in their mind, and they justify to themselves that an aggressive retaliation, however disproportional, is justifiable. They turn an impersonal happenstance to a direct and unambiguous slight.

I do hate how I cant see through cars when I'm trying to turn left and they move up next to me so I cant see to my right because their windows are too dark. 4WDs make that hard also.

' I am not tolerant of lackadaisical incompetence'

I would say that's un-Australian! Sheel be right mate!

' people are being trained to follow a process rather than engage any of their own thinking in doing a good job and the process is deliberately limited in complexity to ensure nobody can't do it, so it leads to bad outcomes.'

This is my frustration also. It also happens in sport. They even talk about it in sport. 'Bowling in the right areas', 'executing our skills' and strict adherence to the game plan etc. Nobody plays what's in front of them anymore.

Computer says No. That's the source of the problem. That's why people are disengaged from their surroundings, and stop at the end of escalators to have a conversation.

Prior to considering reporting the matter to police, one needs to consider whether the damage was caused wilfully.

If so, police may conduct an investigation to consider laying charges of malicious damage/wilful damage/whatever the jurisdiction has for intentional damage to property.

If not, it would be a civil matter where the plaintiff would take the defendant to a civil court to recover the costs of repairs.

Without knowing the individual involved, it could reasonably be assumed the damaged was accidental, if not careless, hence the civil court option.

As to answering the question, it really depends on your view of civil society. And your strength of conviction in that society.

Personally, choosing to ignore the law reduces each individual to no more than those that breach it. One foot in the mud still leads to dirty floors when withdrawn...

"4WDs make that hard also"

We have a new Toyota 86 parked in the driveway. Anything higher than that is a menace I agree. Ban buses, that goes without saying.

G'day HASBEEN...

I could only imagine it'd break my heart too. I've never owned a vintage or collectors car as such, so to have it damaged in circumstances as you've described would make you want to give up, I'd imagine ?

Like most I've suffered similar 'car park' damage, mainly door dents by unreasonable people not exercising care when opening their doors.
What can be done about it ? Nothing really, unless you can identify the culprit's particulars. Serious damage, your only legal remedy is seek police assistance. Will that work, probably not. Most GD coppers are inherently lazy, when it comes to furnishing paperwork.

I'll not attempt to defend them other than to say, A L L police work, involves mammoth amounts of paperwork ! So it's little wonder the average coppers will try their hardest to reduce the load. Blame Command, DPP, and other statistical gathering organisations that love to be able to quote facts and figures. It all mounts up, believe me.

Again, I'm sorry HASBEEN for what's happened. When similar things have happened to me, there's a momentary flash and image of a 'tyre iron' or a 'jack handle', appears, 'til sanity once again prevails ?

I wonder if Australians could become decent drivers if they drove on the correct side of the road, i.e. the right ?

This 105 year old film taken from the front of a New York tram should show that road behaviour has improved somewhat over the years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=NINOxRxze9k

Yes, I know, it is still like that in Aussie cbds and on the tourist strips.

O sung wu, I believe police work has always involved a lot of paperwork. Many jobs do. I ran engineering laboratories for quite some time and if you want to see paperwork, that's the place to do it!

However, that never used to stop police from being part of the community, there to help people with all sorts of problems, from cats stuck in trees to tracking down rapists and murderers and everything in between.

I understand that it must be frustrating and time-wasting for police to deal with minor matters that people should be able to deal with themselves and I understand that the duties they are assigned to have fairly limited capacity to be varied by the officers themselves - traffic patrol doesn't have the discretion to stop and assist someone who got burgled last night.

That is all down to the rigidification of process for the convenience of managers. It does seem, however, that some police, like the "women" at Mount Gravatt, are wilfully obstructive and aggressively so, above and beyond the limitations of process. For that sort, it's not merely enough to say "sorry, I can't help, but this is the way you can go to get help from someone else", they must show they are in charge and be seen to be the dominant party in the interaction. "Sit down and shut up, Sir" with hands on tasers is intended to intimidate, dominate and make it clear to the one addressed that they are in a position of inferiority. It may be appropriately used toward a person involved in a fracas at a pub, but it is not appropriate toward a member of the public seeking assistance.

That some police think that it is appropriate is a failure of either their training, or the selection process that placed them in the role, or the culture they encounter among operational police.

In any case, it does not reflect well on the police as a service, although it speaks volumes about their self-perception as a "force".

Hi there ANTISEPTIC...

Much of what you say I'd agree with. Often when somebody criticise police to me, my immediate retort is usually along the lines of something like, '...why don't you wear 'blue' for a month or two...' then come back to me ?

However, much of your comment was both constructive and accurate. Though, you alluded to insufficient or inadequate training, which may be right ? However if police were to be trained to a standard that might accommodate ALL areas of scholarship that the public perceive as necessary, then potential police officers would spend more like ten (10) years, even more perhaps, under training, at the Academy.

Further, to go through with you, ad infinitum each point you raised, would take an inordinately long period of time and space. I'll say again, coppers are human. I've had a 'beef' with some of their actions, or omission to act, or behaviour of police, that I've witnessed since my retirement. I suppose the only difference, in most cases, I do understand or appreciate 'the why' of what was done or not done, where members of the public don't ?

Am I making excuses for them, no. BUT, as I stated herein, I do (in most instances) understand or appreciate their actions...remember, I said in 'most cases', certainly not all !

That said, thank you for a pretty well balanced opinion and critique, I for one, appreciate it.

The vast majority of police feel let down by the occasional cowboy or in this case cowgirls who get people off-side. The police cannot do their work without the cooperation of the public. The positive public relations hard won by hundreds is eroded by the ignorance of the few.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

I couldn't have said it any better my friend. You've captured the issues perfectly. The coppers NEED public assistance. The PUBLIC and the COPPERS are one and the same ! The only real difference, the coppers are merely 'agents' of the public, despite what a few may say.

Interesting vid, onthebeach. Pedestrians, cyclists, horse-drawn carts, cars and trams all right in together…. without a hint of a road rule of any sort!! There were no bingles in that 7 minute film, but there were a lot of near misses. I bet there were plenty of accidents back then, despite the very slow speed.

<< The police cannot do their work without the cooperation of the public. >>

Well, perhaps they need to harness the cooperation of the public instead of rejecting it! This is exactly what I have experienced with my small number of complaints about bad drivers over about a ten year period before I gave up….. and I only ever bothered to report the worst and most dangerous bad driving episodes that I was subjected to!

I’ve mentioned my outrage over this many times on OLO.

If the police facilitated the public’s assistance with road safety, as they do with neighbourhood watch or littering, where the public is encouraged to report incidents, then perhaps road safety would be greatly improved. And then the police could divert a lot of their efforts into other things.

But no, the public has been effectively knackered when it comes to road safety.

I couldn’t be more disgusted by this.

I wonder whether the average speed of movement through the streets of New York is any higher today? My grandfather was killed in the 20s by a horse after stepping out from behind a tram in Sydney. That video shows how easy that may have been to achieve!

O sung wu, I don't expect great scholarship, but it seems to me that knowing the law is a basic part of policing and wilfully misadvising the public as to the elements of laws that they may rub up against regularly is a serious failure of policing. The Act relating to traffic cameras is not complex and the use of such cameras impacts hundreds of drivers daily. The form of Stat Dec attached to the notice which is issued is itself misleading, since it is based only on one part of the Act and doesn't admit to any possible course of action other than the one provided, or that of taking the matter before the court. The problem is that the Act itself doesn't allow the matter to be decided by a Court except in limited circumstances that are not related to the evidence of culpability, but are to do with proper process being followed. In other words, the court can only rule on whether the police have properly followed process, not on whether they got the right person.

That is not the fault of frontline police, but they should be aware and able to advise people who ask that there is an alternative procedure that may be followed. By failing to do so they can create a miscarriage of justice that could be readily averted by the correct information being provided. If I had taken the police advice as proper, rather than taking the time, trouble and expense to consult a solicitor, I would now be facing being found liable for an offence I did not commit.

The more I think on this, the stronger my view that a formal complaint is warranted.

I'l also be investing in an excellent gadget I saw advertised by ALDI yesterday. it is a pen that contains a HD camera with the lens in the clip. Any future interactions with police or other bureaucratic process workers will be filmed.

Yes Antiseptic, I have long thought that you should always be prepared at the press of a button to at least audially record any interactions you have with the police.

It would be nice if you could just say to a police officer, that you are recording the conversation in the interests of being able to accurately recall the important details, but I somehow think that this would only aggravate some officers, so better to do it on the sly.

You’d think in this day and age, with audio and visual recording being so easy, and easy to hide, that it would have improved the adherence to the code of conduct and proper process on the part of the police.

You could use the same recording device that has become necessary to later prove consent to bonking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4WgR85SAOU&list=UUijH5lF8vXFkAhO_8jb4o8Q&index=4

Hold on a minute, that suggestion may have been hilarious once, but it doesn't seem so funny any more.

Nothing like a little cutting edge technology to fight the forces of evil...

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/03/14/106628473-4_3_r536_c534.jpg?1b79b3da202957124496e3768cfb7b67cdb10c81

Poirot's folly: forever destined to be the seagull that flies in, dumps and leaves. LOL

As this report in The Sunday Mail (Qld) shows, police already do record conversations, sometimes without official technology. See here,

<Police are armed with powerful voice-recording watches

Kay Dibben November 10, 2007

QUEENSLAND police officers are secretly taping conversations with the public through sporty wristwatches that contain powerful voice recorders.

The recording is legal and one covertly taped conversation has already been used as evidence in court.

The recorders, which look like a normal watch, are being bought privately by officers on the internet for about $180.

........
A conversation between a police officer and a woman at Brisbane's City station in July -- secretly taped by the policeman on his recorder-watch -- was successfully submitted as evidence in a Brisbane Magistrates Court case last month.
.......

The lawyer who represented the woman has now bought one of the recorder-watches for himself>

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-use-secret-recorders/story-e6freoof-1111114847856