One of the big problems with the policing regime, and there are many, is the misuse of police discretionary powers. The police have the ‘right’ to ignore infringements of all sorts and to treat people very differently regarding the same sort of offence….. apparently.

I have witnessed this twice in the most extraordinarily blatant manner. I was on the losing end both times. Both times the relevant police officer protected the local citizen and did whatever was necessary to see that the out-of-towner copped it.

That’s a pretty big allegation. I would be more than happy to elaborate, to the extent of making or remaking formal complaints, if the police ever read this forum and wish to follow it up. Just provide a contact. One of these instances did result in a thorough formal complaint, which then led onto another issue – the officer to whom I complained went out of his way to protect the complainee officer, even though he lived and worked in a town hundreds of kilometres away.

So as well as the actual safety factor, this whole road safety business stinks in another very significant manner – the powerlessness factor. You can’t do anything about rank drivers when they place you under unnecessary risk nor afterwards with the police, unless they have actually caused an accident or perhaps done something really brazenly dangerous… and even if your could, you would be most reluctant to do so, given the unreliable nature of how the police might deal with you.

Even if instances like this are in the tiny minority, which I don’t believe they are, they are the ones that you really remember and which affect you for life. I have managed to have very little to do with police overall. Most encounters were reasonable but a significant portion of them weren’t. This comes from someone who has no criminal record and went for 24 or more years without incurring a demerit point while being a prolific driver the whole time and who has never incurred a more serious driving infringement than a speeding ticket.

I was driving home this evening after dark on a four-lane road, when a car came up behind me in the inside lane and went past with no headlights on. One car in front of me flashed its brakelights and one oncoming car flashed its headlights.

Drivers are not averse to giving signals in some situations, most notably in this situation, on the highway when you have an oncoming vehicle with its high beam on and when indicating to oncoming traffic that there is a speed trap ahead.

These sorts of signals are taken in good faith, although signalling the presence of police is highly dodgy.

Why then can’t we signal our displeasure to tailgaters, speeders, etc?

Simply putting up with the added risk of having a vehicle aggressively and impatiently following you far too closely can surely not be condoned. The police and other bodies surely cannot expect us to do that. But that is exactly what they effectively do – expect us to cop it sweet. The RACQ and police advise us not to give signals.

What could be wrong with flashing your brakelights at a tailgater or putting your arm out the window and waving them back? If these were formalised methods of indicating discontent, and they were publicised as part of road-safety awareness campaigns, then the issue of tailgating or following too closely and of nose-to-tail accidents could be greatly reduced.

Simple.

See some debate on fast drivers under ‘Bound by rules’ by Caspar Conde 10/03/06 (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4242#35173)

Gee wouldn’t it be just lovely if someone on behalf of the Qld Police (or any Australian police dept), or an ex-police officer (Belly, where are you?) was to respond to this thread? See my comments six posts back (26/02/06).

There has got to be somebody in the police force who is monitoring OLO who can respond.

Come-on. How about a bit of debate on this stuff.

You know why the cops won’t respond Luddie, even if they did discover this obscure Ludwig-ridden thread…. coz they know that you are right… and therefore there is nothing to debate!

MMMMM interesting

I suppose I have to agree with myself on that matter!!

Anyway, the RACQ wants new measures to halt the soaring number of young motorists being killed on our roads.

In response to the Qld Govt’s discussion paper on reducing road trauma, RACQ called for:

Reducing the learner age to 16 years, with an extended 12-month learner period incorporating compulsory training,

120 hours or more of supervised driver training before sitting the provisional licence test, with a minimum of 10 hours of night driving,

Provisional licences not granted until 17 years or older,

Re-introduction of P-plates, split into two phases, with additional restrictions in the first phase,

No more that one passenger under 21 for P-platers under 21 during first year,

Considering night driving restrictions in the first 6-12 months of a three-year probationary period,

Extend zero tolerance on blood-alcohol levels for all young drivers, even those with open licences, until at least 24.

YES!! Well thank goodness for a bit of meaningful input from RACQ.

Now let’s just bloody hope that the QLD Govt takes SOME of it on board!

Quoted from Sunday Mail 19/03/06