What is with our terrible respect for the law?

Why do we tolerate the many situations where the law doesn’t match accepted practice?

For example, nude bathing is technically illegal in Queensland, but there are nudist beaches all up the coast.

Why don’t we strive to have the law policed at face value, instead of accepting fuzzy interpretations, especially where the law can easily be interpreted in totally black and white terms?

For example, condoning leeways on speed limits rather than having them policed accurately, or pushing for the speed limits to be raised by 5 or 10kmh in order to bring them in line with the fact that most of us exceed the speed limit by a few kmh practically all the time, with the sanction of the police.

Why are there so many laws that are not policed or only sporadically and very unfairly policed?

For example, many minor road rules.

Why isn’t every effort made to make law enforcement as uniform and as fair as possible, instead of the widespread acceptance that it is ok for the police to turn a blind eye to all sorts of infringements for the majority of the time and then nab someone for just the same thing that they let everyone else get away with?

Why are we told that we are innocent until proven guilty, when the opposite is often patently the case in our courts?

It seems to me that the very foundation of our legal system, and of a strong and coherent society, is crumbling.

Ludwig, its been a long time since I studied legal principles, but I do remember a concept known as the constables discretion. This basically said that a constable has a discretion applying the law. It means that minor issues (someone driving down a hill and watching the road conditions rather than the speedo) can be allowed for, rather than being forced to act on anything that they see or come across. I am not at all sure that the strict enforcement of each and every law and regulation is an ideal that is worth striving too. Most people at some stage have broken some law, in most cases the offence will be minor and also inadvertent.

In Victoria there is no discretion when it comes to speeding - 1km over and you're gone. Does this have a serious effect on reducing road accidents and fatalities? No, because drivers must spend more of their time watching their speedo's trying to adhere strictly to the law, rather than paying attention to the road conditions and the actions of the motorists around them.

Yes, if you are caught on the Hay plain doing more than the speed limit, you have little excuse, but if you are driving in a hilly area, it is very easy to have a quite a variation in speeds up and down. I would much rather the driver in front or behind me pay attention to the road rather than his speedo!

Rule of law,no common sense.
It make no sense to wait at traffic lights in the dead of night when there is no traffic around.
The french have a solution.Go if it is safe to do so. Even with a police car behind you.
The french also use a magistrate to investigate a murder scene.
The reason is evident,what if a policeman shot the victim.
Yes our Polititians should investigate the worlds legal system instead of making kneejerk laws that affect all of us but create less respect for the law,and our law enforcers.
David Hicks is the example of what goes wrong when knee jerk laws by popularist politicians.
Driving at what ever speed you are comfortable with across the Northern Territory highways is a right of law, but now the slow worried drivers who cannot control their Toorak Taxis Big Four Wheel drives, who do the shopping and pick up the kids from school have the say.
If a road train can travel at 100 kph why can't a small car travel at one hundred and fifty kilometers an hour.
Wake up Australia it is a big country and the tyrany of distance is why the outback is the outback. No city people ventue out there but they are the people who dictate the laws.

e .e e

Whilst I do agree with the spirit of your post, you have perhaps chosen the very worst example to illustrate your point. Speed limits are applied not solely on the basis of engineering principles but are determined by a complex interplay of public opinion, politics and science. Many speed limits are more or less arbitrary and very often are posted well below the speed that a stretch of road and the vast majority of drivers could safely handle. Unfortunately, this is often done to maximise infringement notices rather than safety.

Speed infringement is perhaps the best example of a law that should be open to much on-the-spot discretion as there is very little evidence that speed over the limit is an important causes of road trauma. As the above post alludes, stringent enforcement of speed limits has led to a detrimental effect on driver behaviour whereby the priority of a journey becomes how to get from one place to another without contributing to your state governments consolidated revenue.

A greater good is not served by enforcing speed limits in the manner that the Victorian government has chosen and hence natural justice demands that it should not be enforced to the nth degree.

Ludvig, you ask

"Why do we tolerate the many situations where the law doesn’t match accepted practice?"

But do we tolerate it? If we didn't tolerate it, what form would our lack of tolerance take?

Occasionally we get the opportunity to express our discontent about something in a way that gets publicised, and maybe then the politicians take note. But if they don't, there's little we can do about it. In Queensland neither major party is promising to legalise nude beaches, so come next election, what can a voter do?

It would help if people were more willing to stand up to the authorities when laws get misapplied. Kenneth Wenzel has tried to do so in respect of a misapplication of the wilful exposure law relating to nude bathing on a defacto nude beach. Unfortunately he was found guilty, but I understand he is appealing.

It might never have come to that if people had been less submissive prior to the enactment of the Summary Offences Act. Previously, prosecutions for nude bathing were based on it being offensive behaviour. If it had been established back then that nude bathing on some beaches was not offensive, and therefore lawful, it's unlikely that the Government would have passed legislation that (may have) made it unlawful.

However, I suspect that the correct answer to your question is "apathy".

Sylvia.

Alright, there are a few people interesting in this subject. Excellent!

CG, police discretion is fine, up to a point. But it needs to be minimised and completely justifiable.

Discretionary powers get widely abused, with friends or associates of police officers getting preferential treatment, as do young females, locals compared to out-of-towners, and so on.

As one who has been fairly (actually, extremely unfairly) and squarely on the wrong side of the use of discretionary powers a couple of times, I assert that cops can and do abuse them, and with impunity to the extent that they have no qualms at all about making it obvious.

Of course it is very hard to know just how widespread this sort of thing is. But with such a lack of accountability, I suggest that it is very widespread.

This works to denigrate respect for the police and the law. Surely reigning in discretionary powers as far as possible would serve to increase respect for law-enforcers and improve law-abidance.

“It means that minor issues (someone driving down a hill and watching the road conditions rather than the speedo) can be allowed for…”

So, most of the time the police might allow for increased speed downhill…. and then they might go and put a speed trap there and nab everyone, all of whom have come to know that a few ks over the limit in that situation was alright.

That’s just the unacceptable sort of discretionary powers that I’m up in arms about.

“I am not at all sure that the strict enforcement of each and every law and regulation is an ideal that is worth striving too.”

I agree, as many laws are currently written. Bringing the policing regime in line with the law has got as much to do with law reform as it does with improvements in policing.

So if laws are on the books that are not policed most of the time, with no negative consequences, then obviously those laws need to be adjusted or abolished.

continued

“In Victoria there is no discretion when it comes to speeding”

I thought there was a 3kmh leeway.

“….drivers must spend more of their time watching their speedo's trying to adhere strictly to the law…”

No, I don’t think so. In Queensland there is a 10kmh leeway on the highway, and just about everywhere it seems. Everyone has just accepted that the speed limit is 10kmh higher than the signs say it is… and the cruising speed for a large portion of drivers has become about 109 in a 100k zone.

So we still have the issue of having to carefully watch the speedo… or of doing a few ks less and incurring the wrath of drivers behind you for going too slow, even though you might still be sitting on or a bit over the official limit!

“…rather than paying attention to the road conditions and the actions of the motorists around them.”

I paid specific attention to this point on a long highway trip last week, after it was mentioned on another thread. I found that I could perfectly easily monitor my speed once every couple of seconds without it detracting from my concentration on driving.

In fact, if you are concentrating on keeping your speed below the limit you ARE concentrating on your driving.

Besides, if such a tiny distraction is of concern, to the extent that you think it significantly increases the risk of mishap, then I would suggest that you are clearly doing something wrong with your driving and need to slow down or pull back from the vehicle in front of you or get off the road until the heavy rain stops, or whatever is needed to reduce the apparent high-risk factors.

“Rule of law, no common sense.”

Huh?

Brock, I totally agree that the law-makers need a good boot up the backside, due to too many silly laws or laws that are too broadly circumscribed and thus inhibit people in ways that they shouldn’t!

Traffic lights that work totally against their own purpose of facilitating traffic flow, which they often do in light traffic conditions, are one example. In my town, many years ago, we had traffic lights that used to go into orange flashing mode in times of low traffic volume. I think we need to bring that back.

Stop signs are a similar example. They should be replaced in just about every instance with give-way signs.

Speed limit law also needs widespread reform, as is due to happen in the Northern Territory.

But I totally disagree with leeways on speed limits, or a fuzzy interpretation of them by police. They comprise one type of law that can and should be absolutely black and white, and that means being policed at face value.

“If a road train can travel at 100 kph why can't a small car travel at one hundred and fifty kilometers an hour.”

That’s probably ok in principle, although I’d say 150 is too much. The NT is due to introduce a maximum speed limit of 130, which is probably still on the high side. I would go for 120.

It’s all about making the law match common sense, and then upholding the rule of law with an efficient, effective, fair and consistent policing regime.

“Speed infringement is perhaps the best example of a law that should be open to much on-the-spot discretion.”

Lionel, I’ll have to disagree.

I think it is extremely difficult for a police officer to tell who might be inadvertently just exceeding the limit and who is a serial pusher of the limit. Discretion cannot be implemented evenly and fairly in this instance, so the same rule needs to apply to all.

Ok, so with an improved policing regime, those who inadvertently exceed the limit are going to get the raw end of the prawn for a while. But the whole community will pretty quickly get the message that it is foolish to sit right up close to the limit, and the overall cruising speed will drop back away from the policeable limit.

“Many speed limits are more or less arbitrary and very often are posted well below the speed that a stretch of road and the vast majority of drivers could safely handle.”

Yes. So in many instances there is good cause for them to be revised upwards. In other cases they need to be adjusted downwards. For example, I am surprised at many relatively narrow winding roads in WA that have 110kmh limits.

Arbitrary or inappropriate speed limits in some places are no reason for a slack or inconsistent regulatory approach to speeding.

“….stringent enforcement of speed limits has led to a detrimental effect on driver behaviour…”

Really? How you figure that?

WA is currently having a terrible year for fatal road accidents, many of them involving young and/or inexperienced drivers. The known circumstances/evidence of the crashes frequently positively identifies dangerously high speed as being either the cause or the main contributory cause.. Obviously this has to be addressed. We can't have a variety of different speed limits for experience/inexperience, type and/or condition of car and all the other suggested discretionary options, so we're all on the end of it. But I do agree that a reasonable tolerance should be allowed in accordance with the legally accepted tolerance on speedo accuracy.

I've been on the wrong end of a police cover up, after a "mate" of the local cops crashed into my car and then tried to drive off. [Details posted on another thread.]

An extremely senior WA detective was recently stood down because of his alleged involvement in a botched murder prosecution some time ago, which saw a now pardoned man jailed for many years. But only a few years ago, this officer allegedly inappropriately interfered in a situation after his own father was involved in a serious road crash. Makes you think, doesn't it?

In regard to beach nudity. Video available at University of Sydney Library:

"From neck-to-knee to nude: the story of the Aussie Cossie and the beach bathing bans. Written and directed by Albie Thoms; historian, Peter Spearritt; fashion commentator, Alexandra Joel. Sydney: Albie Thoms Productions, c1985.
FISHER AV 177.4/3"

This excellent documentary expresses the sentiment that every improvement on Australia's beaches has been won by open civil disobedience. So if we wait for the religious/polititical control freaks to act sensibly on this issue, then we'll probably wait for ever, won't we?

And I could tell Kenneth Wenzel, based on my own successful experience, how to get acquitted on that ridiculous charge. In fact, the authorities would probably just quietly drop the case, rather than risk opening the Pandora's Box which would ensue if he did as I would suggest.

Rex, regarding a “reasonable tolerance” on speed limits;

Firstly, I would suggest that the rule of law is a very important, and that we should always be striving to make sure that what is written in law is what applies. So, where a speed limit is stated to be 60, it should be 60, not 63 as it appears to be in Victoria, or 66 as it appears to be in states that uphold a 10% error margin, or 70 as it appears to be in Qld or some unstated fuzzy interpretation that is up to the whim of the cops.

We all need to know exactly where we stand with the law, as far as is possible. There is no excuse for fuzzy interpretations, or for interpretations that are different to the clear meaning of black and white laws, such as speed limits.

If our illustrious governments would just come right and tell us that a 60 sign actually means a 60 zone where the speed limit is 66, or 70, then fine…if they have the power to do that as the law is currently written.

Secondly, why aren’t speedometers the responsibility of the driver or owner of the vehicle, just as all other aspects of roadworthiness are?

If a driver doesn’t know the accuracy of their speedo then they’d better damn well reduce their speed accordingly…. and determine its accuracy as soon as possible….which is very easy to do with a GPS. Inaccuracy in speedos should not be an excuse for slackness in the policing of speed limits.

Thirdly, when there are leeways, many if not most people just simply drive that much faster, and sit right up close to the new effective limit, for as long as the policing regime allows them to do it, and to slip over the policeable limit by a little bit with still hardly any chance of getting sprung.

So, I say a resounding NO to leeways or tolerances on speed limits. And a resounding YES to upholding the rule of law at face value.

Ludvig,

First a note: I am not a lawyer; I just have an interest in law, and I've extensively researched the law on nudity because of my involvement with the now defunct Naturist Lifestyle Party.

Regarding the nudity in non-public areas issue. Part of the problem in pointing you to the relevant law is that things are lawful unless there is a law making them unlawful.

In QLD, some of the relevant law is to be found in the Summary Offences Act. Section 6 is about public nuisances, and is phrased so that an offence is committed if the impugned behaviour affects the enjoyment by a person in a public place. So the issue as far as nudity is concerned is whether the nudity is visible from a public place, whether or not the behaviour occurs in a public place.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/soa2005189/s6.html

The narrower wilful exposure offence is framed similarly.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/soa2005189/s9.html

Note that "public place" is defined in the dictionary at the end of the act as "a place that is open to or used by the public, whether or not on payment of a fee," so your position in a hotel is less certain. If you're visible from part of the hotel that is used by other visitors, then that is probably a public place within the meaning of the act.

You asked about more overtly obscene acts. This is covered by the Criminal Code Act.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s227.html

If you're not visible from a public place, then there has to be an intent to insult or offend another person.

The word "nude" does not appear anywhere in either QLD statutes or regulations. The words "naked" and "breast" do appear, but not in contexts which criminalised the conduct of the person who is naked, or the owner of the breast.

Sylvia.

Thanks Sylvia. Much appreciated.

‘(1) A person in a public place must not wilfully expose his or her genitals, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.’

So am I to understand that this excludes males from walking naked on a public beach but not females, as female genitalia are not usually visible in the standing position?

It seems to indicate this, which of course runs contrary to principles of discrimination.

Ludvig,

Yes, the question of whether a woman would necessarily be exposing her genitals when walking along a beach is one that has been discussed in naturist circles. The legislation does not itself define "genitals" so it takes its everyday meaning, which begs the question of exactly what that is. This is again something that has not been tested because the law is a new one.

Unfortunately, the Anti-Discrimination Act itself is not helpful here, because it does not prevent Parliament from passing discriminatory laws. Parliament could, if it wished, ban women from going to beaches at all, though of course the political consequences would ensure that such a law was reversed shortly after the next election.

BTW, I think that the wilful exposure law was was introduced specifically to make nudity unlawful on defacto nude beaches, whatever the government claimed at the time. There was some slight precedent from NSW that nudity on a defacto nude beach was not offensive behaviour, so there was always the 'danger' that someone would use that defence in QLD, with the end result that the supposed prohibition of nudity even on defacto nude beaches would be found not to exist.

What happened in NSW after the local court acquittals concerning nudity on a defacto nude beach (Reef Beach) was that legisation was then passed expressly making nudity on beaches unlawful unless the local council permitted it. Needless to say, few councils have. Subsequently, after a change of government, five beaches (including three inaccessible and very small Sydney Harbour beaches were made clothing optional by statute.

Sylvia.

Rule of Law?

The right wording should really be: Road rules?
Why are we led to believe there is a Law covering these Rules?
Did the Honourable People of the Commonwealth of Australia ever vote for these rules of the road? Nah!
The so called Australian Constitution is not a real Australian Constitution made by and for the people of Australia, it was adopted and past-on from the British empire as an Act. We are still ruled by foreign agents who swear an Oath to the Queen of England whilst ruling the Australian people. The Queen does not want to know us, we are forgotten by the UN,(we should not be a member of the UN because we are not a true legal nation)We have no rights as far as Trade deals is concerned.

Any comments on this?

eftfnc

Of course there's a law regarding the Road Rules. If there were not then you could ignore them with impunity.

The rules are incorporated into the law of each jurisdiction either by an act of parliament, or by a regulation passed under an act of parliament.

For example, see

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rtatmrr1999607/s6.html

Sylvia.

Rex,

"The known circumstances/evidence of the crashes frequently positively identifies dangerously high speed as being either the cause or the main contributory cause.."

Perhaps this comment just needs clarification but speed sounds like the main cause of their crashes from the way I am interpreting "frequently" and the overall comment. If it is and if it comes before experience as a factor in crashes then something good may have come from the obvious bad of the road crashes. In all states that I have seen official stats for skills (termed "inexperience") of those drivers ranks above speed as a contributory factor in crashes. WA must have a much better driver training program then many parts of Australia. Other states need to know more about their training.

For example in Qld in overall crashes inexperience at 20% outranks speed at 5% as a crash contributor. The drivers who you are referring to are the least experienced so I would be surprised if the ranking for inexperience swapped places with speed. If the situation is otherwise in WA that is of keen interest.

Rex,

"The known circumstances/evidence of the crashes frequently positively identifies dangerously high speed as being either the cause or the main contributory cause.."

Perhaps this comment just needs clarification but speed sounds like the main cause of their crashes from the way I am interpreting "frequently" and the overall comment. If it is and if it comes before experience as a factor in crashes then something good may have come from the obvious bad of the road crashes. In all states that I have seen official stats for skills (termed "inexperience") of those drivers ranks above speed as a contributory factor in crashes. WA must have a much better driver training program then many parts of Australia. Other states need to know more about their training.

For example in Qld in overall crashes inexperience at 20% outranks speed at 5% as a crash contributor. This is overall not specifically new drivers. However the drivers who you are referring to are the least experienced so I would be surprised if the ranking for inexperience swapped places with speed for those drivers. If the situation is otherwise in WA that is of keen interest.

Hi mjpb, nice to see you back.

I have not studied the WA road accident statistics, or tried to analyse them. I am going on recent media reports. Not always reliable I know, but these reports seem to have been fairly presented, with independent witness statements, sometimes actual speed measurements shortly/immediately before the accident, skid marks etc and/or condition of the vehicle and whatever it ran into.

In a recent incident, a 22 year old motorcyclist was doing 120kph [I believe the legal limit is 80 on that stretch of road] shortly before crossing onto the wrong side of the road on what, at 80, would have been an easy curve. Broad daylight, but no sun glare. Good weather and road conditions. Not particularly busy. He collided with a vehicle coming in the opposite direction containing a family, killing himself, but fortunately not seriously injuring anyone in the other vehicle. No suggestion whatsoever that the family driver was doing anything wrong.

Similar stories could be repeated endlessly. Speed and/or inexperience are certainly not the only causes and/or serious contributory factors of road accidents, but, to me, they rank with the inexcusable.

There is rarely any excuse at all for excessive speed, except in an emergency situation, where the driver is a specially trained, experienced and authorised person [ie police, fire or emergency service]. As for inexperience, well that can't be avoided, we all have to start somewhere, but I believe that new drivers are well aware of their possible limitations and this should be legally re-inforced by limitations on the type and/or power of their vehicles.

Sorry I can't be more generally helpful on this.

In regard to Rule of Law.

This phrase sounds as if "rule" and "law" ought to basically mean the same thing, but unfortunately [perhaps unavoidedly in some cases] it doesn't always work out that way. If it did, then in the event of an appeal to a higher court, the end verdict would invariably be clear and unanimous. But this frequently isn't so, is it?

I have no legal training, but when I have looked like being in a situation which is going to need some legal understanding, then I do my homework and try to listen to those who may be in an position to help me [free of charge, of course]. And I am a big believer in thinking laterally and not automatically accepting the so-called superior wisdom of the overbearing know-alls. And I've worked in sales management, which means that I've often had to think on my feet, but, unlike politicians, I've then had to justify my position, if called upon to do so.

I have been part of various effective campaigns in WA [on different levels of commitment] regarding topics as varied as banning tobacco advertising, getting smoke-free restaurants etc, controlling industrial/commercial noise, pollution and disruption, Neighbourhood Watch, gay rights [I'm not gay, but I believe in a fair go for all, that's supposed to be typically Australian, isn't it?], anti-nuclear, public access to foreshores, retention of heritage buildings, stopping inappropriate developments, curtailing over-logging practices and a fair deal for nude bathers. But, like Fernando from the ABBA song about the Alamo, it's been [metapohorically] a while since I've had a rifle in my hands.

Some time ago, I was president of the North Fremantle Community Assn. There was a prominent Fremantle City councillor in those days who I sometimes crossed swords with, but we generally respected one another. One time he said something in Council which had a profound effect on me. "Find out what the rules are and make 'them' stick to them."

cont

Sometimes those in authority don't know what the rules are, or pretend they don't, or think those rules don't apply to them anyway. It's sometimes amazing what you find out if you dig a little.

One way in which a campaign can have remarkable success, apparently against all the odds, is to invoke the health angle. For instance, many people justifiably complain against unreasonable, perhaps literally illegal, commercial/industrial noise, particularly at night. But they typically get ignored, lied to, fobbed off etc, even threatened.

But a few years ago, a man living in inner-city Perth, in a planned and promoted new residential development, had his night's sleep regularly interupted by the illegally noisy activities of the Perth City Council, of all people. But he didn't just complain, he got even, by beating them in court and being awarded damages, with lots of good publicity. But first of all he got a letter from his doctor, saying that his health was suffering. This, of course, was the clincher!

I thought at the time that this was a wonderful breakthrough for everyone suffering in this way. I currently live in a quiet, totally residential area. But others within a few kilometres from me have serious problems with illegally loud, invasive industrial noise. So they complain, write to the papers and get fobbed off. Old, ineffectual habits often die hard, don't they?

The fact is, we often CAN "beat city hall", just as long as we go the right way about it.

Hi Rex thank you very much.

I'd suggest not letting down the guard with media reports even if they seem fair. You analyzed an aspect of it namely the likelihood that a particular example was correct. I believe that you quite capably and probably correctly analysed that. You then drew a normal but not so considered conclusion from the fact that most reports involved high speed.

In fairness to the media they want something interesting and high speed crashes provide the most spectacular examples. However you need to realize that 163 or more people are killed annually in that State in a large number of crashes and many other serious crashes just result in serious injury. Just because the other crashes aren't shown doesn't mean there aren't a lot or that the ones they show are in the majority. It simply means that high speed wreckage strewn across a road makes better television footage (particularly after a reasonably intact car has been cut in half to try to rescue an occupant or recover a cadaver).

"Speed and/or inexperience are certainly not the only causes and/or serious contributory factors of road accidents, but, to me, they rank with the inexcusable.etc."

I totally agree with this comment and generally agree with the balance of what you wrote.