Why do the police have the right to flagrantly ignore law infringements?

Why aren’t they compelled to police the law in all its forms, and only turn a blind eye when they are rushing off to something of urgency?

Numerous times I have become really angry when witnessing police just drive past illegally parked vehicles, cyclists without helmets or lights at night, and various other infringements, when those police are obviously just cruising the beat.

Then they’ll clamp down on one thing or another and book everyone for infringing the letter of the law, while for 99% of time ignoring the same and probably much worse infringements of the same law.

By ignoring infringements or not policing the law at face value (ie there is always a 10 km leeway on speed limits Queensland so it seems), they are effectively training people to not obey the law. They are effectively setting up a different set of rules, unspoken and unwritten, which people come to understand, but which vary from town to town and state to state). This then creates a conflict between those who wish to obey the law and those who are only concerned with what they can get away with.

The incredible discretion that police have is also open to abuse, with a high likelihood of out-of-towners being booked while locals are let off for the same infringement, young males being booked while young females get off, and so on.

I think our whole policing regime, of everyday things, is serious flawed.

Dear Ludwig
this may come as a shock :) but police are very human. I tend to agree with you, but a recent experience showed me that the discretion police use is related to the 'cost benefit' they see in the incident based on their own perceptions rather than the legal aspect.

When I asked if police would protect me if I was a bit 'in your face' to some Palestinians with some ugly truths they would not like, he said as follows:

"If I have to become a punching bag between YOU and a mob of Palestinians, I'll arrest YOU for breach of the peace" i.e. take the easiest way out.

I do sympathize with him. So, I avoided that level of confrontation.
I met him later at the demonstration, and my restraint taught me some important lessons about dealing with those of opposing views in public.

So, don't despair. Just realize it ain't all black and white out there.
cheers

I believe also that police are very overworked and sometimes there just isnt the manpower to go around. It could be for this reason that some things look as though they are being overlooked. I think our police do a fantastic job all in all. It was blue ribbon day on Friday and I was surprised to learn of how many of our police died in the line of duty. The are human as Boaz said and can only do what they can do, with what they have.

Deborah, I agree that the police are very thin on the ground. The whole law-enforcement sector is just another service, along with health, water, education and lots more that is not up to scratch….not by a long way.

But when I see a police vehicle simply cruising around and passing obvious infringements, I just have to shake my head and say to myself; ‘for goodness sake you slackers, how about doing your job.’

The police are only human. But that does not give them the right to pick and choose what they will pull people up on and what they will ignore entirely.

The law is the law. If a police officer sees a violation of the law when on the beat, he should be obligated to deal with it. There should be no discretionary powers and there should be no need for a complaint to be lodged in order to trigger action.

Ludwig I too tend to agree with Deb. and Boaz on this up to a point..

Police are spread very thin..overworked and simply dont have the time or energy required to give every misdemeanour the full attention it may or may not deserve..I guess they do have to prioritise the most urgent and important jobs on any given day and thats about it in some cases..

As for the pretty girl scenariou well there has to be some perks to being a girl doesnt there? Cops are human too as was stated..thats completely right.

And maybe they are trying to lighten up a bit..it cant be nice for being branded a "Pig' just for doing theyre job.?

And lets face it some of the stuff they have to enforce..really petty stupid stuff, well some of it does go beyond a joke even for them.:)

Dont be frustrated Ludwig as long as they front up on the things that really matter , is it really that important?

Hey OZGIRL, if you're lucky enough to be the attractive young female that gets off, then good for you. But what if you’re on the other side of the situation?

Well, I have been, and after seven years it still cuts very deep.

I was parked at a beach at Lakes Entrance, Victoria. I returned to my car to find a police officer writing a ticket. I asked what was going on. He pointed to a sign back amongst the line of parallel-parked cars. On closer inspection it proved to be a no standing sign….with a number of cars parked illegally on my side of it. I hadn’t seen the sign and had simply parked where everyone else was parked.

Then along comes an attractive young woman and gets into the car next to me. She realises what is happening and waits, presumably because she knows that she will also be getting a ticket. But the officer doesn’t book her….and doesn’t place any tickets on the other illegally parked cars.

I had Queensland plates on my car and all the others were Victorian. So it seems to me that the out-of-towner was deliberately targeted.

It was clear that people parked all along there all the time. Vacant spots on the other side of my car clearly showed that vehicles parked there, off the road in the dirt, all the time. The locals apparently knew what they could get away with, but any tourists (or whatever criteria the cop used to decide to book only me) were fair game.

This is the sort of corruption of the discretionary powers that I am concerned about.

OK, so this is a very minor example. But the effect it has had on my perception of police is not in any way minor. And if this officer can so blatantly exercise chronic bias with impunity in this situation, what could he do in more serious situations? Was he acting differently to the others in his unit or his state or was he exhibiting normal practice?

continued

The police know what they can get away with, and that is usually a lot more than they should be able to get away with. So of course, some officers are going to abuse the privilege, and a few or maybe a lot are going to grossly abuse it.

I’ve had limited contact with police. But most of the few really disgusting episodes that I have had with my fellow man have been with police…. and I will say on every occasion, through no fault of my own. There have been reasonable acquaintances as well and even a couple of really good ones. But it is the bad ones that really have an impact.

I do not have a criminal record and went for more than twenty years without losing a demerit point on my driving record, while being a prolific driver the whole time. I reckon the reason I get so strongly affected by rogue police behaviour is that I try to uphold a high standard of law enforcement, and expect our law-enforcers not to heap crap on anyone who does that, unless they have an extremely good reason.

As for cops having to put up with some really silly stuff – I’m sure they do. But that really is just par for the course in that job…. and it is no excuse whatsoever to spread the silly stuff to innocent or undeserving people.

“as long as they front up on the things that really matter , is it really that important?”

I think it is very important that the police set the example of good law-abiding behaviour ALL the time. There is no example of dodgy behaviour by police that I would call unimportant.

Ludwig,

Police need to be able to prioritize using common sense and discretion or they would not be able to be effective in their job. Then the factors of being human and being individual, politics, and practicality kick in.

You get one bad cop and you want to tarnish the reputation of all in the service just because of that. How would you feel if people were all considered the same as the worst example of someone in your job?

Have you also considered that cops might agree with you with some types of offence and act any time they don't feel politically bound to do nothing? It is unfair to the out of towners but better than nothing. Plus it can work as a bluff for locals as they may see the ticket not the plates and think twice about doing it again.

I also think that you are making no attempt to understand the police. How do you know what is involved in day to day policing and what makes you an expert on what infringement is worse?

Are you aware that bike riders have no licence or registration and lie frequently to police about their names? What a waste of time writing out a ticket that is wasted when something productive could be achieved.

You picked a real poor example with the 10km leeway on speed limits. Your grievance is more based on what you don’t know than reality. The tolerance is 10%. The legislation allows a 10% tolerance for tachometer accuracy. It would be draconian to book someone who had a roadworthy tachometer and no way of knowing they were exceeding the speed limit. I also suspect that speed limits are set assuming the tolerance to be in place.

People who take your approach are also the first to point out the inconsistency if one offence got a ridiculous lack of tolerance. If people were booked for going walking speed above a speed limit they would be asking why police don't book people who pause more than 2 seconds over a no parking zone.

Mjbp

“Police need to be able to prioritize using common sense and discretion or they would not be able to be effective in their job.”

When police are cruising the beat, is it not their job to look out for ALL unlawful activities? What is the actual role of police? What is the purpose of actually cruising the beat? What happens if people witness the police ignoring known illegal activities? Does it not send a direct message to them that they can break the law in that way and get away with it? Does it not lead to a breakdown in the respect for the law? Does it not lead to confusion in what is acceptable and what isn’t? Does it not lead to a separate set of criteria quite apart from the law as to what is acceptable? Does anyone who is then busted for breaking laws that they have seen ignored by the police not have a very strong and legitimate complaint about being busted and about the duplicity or lack of consistency in policing?

In short, the whole legal reality of our lives becomes very mucky indeed when the police ignore infringements of the law.

Again I say, from what I have observed, it is not a matter of prioritisation, it is a matter of simply not being bothered to take action against unlawful things that they obviously observe and have the power, and responsibility, to deal with.

“You get one bad cop and you want to tarnish the reputation of all in the service just because of that.”

Why would you jump to the conclusion that I brand all with the same brush after one bad experience? Please, give me a bit more credence that that. That was one example. I have a bunch of others. My impressions of our police force have been ground into me over a period of many years. And I say again at this point that I have had good interactions as well as atrocious ones.

There is a lot more to respond to in your post mjpb. Later.

“I also think that you are making no attempt to understand the police.”

Why would you think this? Surely the opposite is apparent – I make every attempt to understand police, and I have always promoted the notion of an efficient and effective police force.

Yes a good deal of the problems have got to do with a lack of resourcing and a failure in Queensland at least to keep the numbers and quality of policing up to the rapidly growing population, let alone improving it with all the increased revenue that this population growth is touted to provide. But that is only part of the problem and can certainly not be blamed for some of the things that I have witnessed.

“Are you aware that bike riders have no licence or registration and lie frequently to police about their names?”

I don’t understand your point. This doesn’t give the police any right whatsoever to be rude or to step outside of due process with non-bikers, or bikers for that matter until they have given an officer a good reason to be heavy-handed.

Incidentally, the policing of motorbikes is disgraceful. One of the unbelievably poor aspects of it is the lack of a front number plate, which basically allows bikers to get away with speeding and other offences regardless of mobile or fixed speed-detection devices in front of them.

“You picked a real poor example with the 10km leeway on speed limits.”

This is a very good example of the duplicity inherent in policing. Speed limit signs send a hard and fast and totally unambiguous message. But then the police operate on something different!

Now, I have never heard that there is actually provision written into legislation that allows for a 10% leeway. Can you please confirm this. (How come the Victorian police/government decided a few years back to police speed limits within 3kmh of the stated limit?)

If a 10% buffer did apply, then why haven’t we been told as much in my inquiries to police, RACQ and the Dept of Transport?

I have heard police on TV and radio avoiding this exact issue, when asked the straight question; ‘how fast can you go over the speed limit before you get booked’, the answer has never been 10kmh or 5 or 3, or 10% or 5%, it has always remained vague. The nearest thing to it that I have heard is ‘a few k’s over’, which surprised me, because I would have expected the police to say no k’s over, in light of the ‘every k over is a killer’ campaign, even though it would be a lie to say as much.

continued

If the tolerance is 10% then I have been lied to by police, who have asserted that there is a 10kmh leeway, and I must be blind every time I witness police let vehicles pass by while doing 60 in a 50k zone of 70 in a 60k zone. Clearly, fixed radar detection devices in urban areas do not operate on a 10% margin, they operate on the basis that you won’t get booked until you are doing 11kmh over.

“The legislation allows a 10% tolerance for tachometer accuracy.”

Why aren’t tachos required to work properly, as with every other aspect of safety on a vehicle? Or for the driver to take responsibility for knowing the error margin? It is very easy to determine the accuracy of your tacho with a GPS. This argument of a 10% tolerance is no longer believable and hasn’t been for some years.

“Your grievance is more based on what you don’t know than reality.”

Well, why don’t I know, despite my best efforts to find out? Why is the exact situation not only never expressed, but is apparently a secret even when you deliberately set out to find the answer? Why couldn’t even the RACQ give me a straight answer?

Ludwig,

Three posts. I know the word limit is tough but you sure are enthusiastic.

"Again I say, from what I have observed, it is not a matter of prioritisation..."

I'd suggest the contrary. Prioritisation is essential. If police are too nit picking on technicalities that in itself can create problems. The main problem is of course the inability to do two things at once and the large problems that have to be ignored to concentrate on the smallest.

"Why would you jump to the conclusion that I brand all with the same brush after one bad experience?..."

From your posts I got the impression that you considered it normal for police to let their hormones dictate their discretion. Apologies for any offence.

"...But that is only part of the problem and can certainly not be blamed for some of the things that I have witnessed."

Things that I would anticipate are exceptions. Police entry requires physical and written testing. The testing includes psychometric testing and ability testing. This type of testing aims to screen out people not suited for the job. However there is never a guarantee.

"I don’t understand your point...."

Simply that some police give up on enforcing bikers. Please elaborate on the rude/heavy handed comment.

"Incidentally, the policing of motorbikes is disgraceful. One of the unbelievably poor aspects of it is the lack of a front number plate...

True but that is a legislation issue not a policing issue. They are legally allowed to lack a front number plate.

"This is a very good example of the duplicity inherent in policing. Speed limit signs send a hard and fast and totally unambiguous message..."

It would just be unfair to book someone when they have no way of knowing they are breaking the law. It is not duplicity but common sense and reasonableness.

"...legislation that allows for a 10% leeway... (How come the Victorian police/government ...?)"

No law stops Police enforcing 1k over but the legislation has provided that a tachometer is roadworthy providing that it measures speed within 10%. Hence the need for the tolerance that doesn't book people unless they are above 10%.

I am sure I have seen it in Queensland legislation. I would have thought that Part 4 Division 1 of the Transport Operations (Road Use
Management—Vehicle Standards and Safety)
Regulation 1999 but it doesn't seem to be there.

Failing that there is the federal standards. Here is a link that refers to an ADR.
http://www.motor.net.au/VACC/Public/ConsumerTips/5cd9efdd-b208-4a8f-901a-217eb068f0d0/

"If a 10% buffer did apply..?"

The theory is that people will sit on 9 or 10% above if they know.

"in light of the ‘every k over is a killer’ campaign, even though it would be a lie to say as much."

Intelligent observation. It was bluntly suggested to Mary Sheehan from CARS-Q at a talk that one can't take that slogan seriously and she was invited to disagree (or the panel generally were posed the question and she responded). Neither she nor any other speakers defended its accuracy. They simply said that the slogan was good because it got people thinking about the issues or words to that effect.

"I must be blind every time I witness ..."

I have a friend who confided that he wouldn't book unless people are at least 20 above. The issue is a tricky one due to the complexities and the safety factor. But he is supposed to give 10% tolerance.

“The legislation allows a 10% tolerance for tachometer accuracy.”

"Why aren’t tachos required to work properly,"

That is the standard.

"It is very easy to determine the accuracy of your tacho with a GPS."
Not everyone has a GPS. The tolerance is about reasonableness.

"...RACQ give me a straight answer?"
RACQ are government funded plus an individual might have the concern I outlined above

Mjpb

Thanks for responding again. I think we are now getting into the guts of a very interesting discussion.

“Three posts. I know the word limit is tough but you sure are enthusiastic.”

Four posts actually….and I hadn’t finished responding to you then! The word limit IS tough. In this post I have simply given brief responses to a few of your comments… and run way over the word limit!

Yes I’m very keen, or perhaps I should say, extremely outraged, about policing and law-enforcement, especially as it pertains to road safety. Please see my 104 posts under ‘Putting the brakes on the road toll’ http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2877#57460.

“I'd suggest the contrary. Prioritisation is essential.”

But what I am saying is that prioritisation is not a factor here. The police aren’t prioritising anything, they are just simply ignoring stuff. If they are rushing off to a particular job, then fair enough that they cannot deal with stuff along the way, unless it is of very high importance. But when they just cruise slowly on past illegally parked cars or cyclists without lights at night or whatever, it is just grossly offensive to me, in my understanding of the role of the police.

I ask again; “When police are cruising the beat, is it not their job to look out for ALL unlawful activities? What is the actual role of police? What is the purpose of actually cruising the beat?”

“Simply that some police give up on enforcing bikers.”

Well, is that in any way acceptable? If you believe that the police have given up on proper enforcement of bikers, then why aren’t you as outraged as I am? How can you accept such a thing?

continued

“Please elaborate on the rude/heavy handed comment.”

Simple. Just because the police might get frustrated in one particular situation does not give them the right to be in any way less than polite or decent to other people. I certainly have gained the impression that some police are all too ready to jump down your throat, or even deliberately prompt a conflict, because they are used to dealing with rough and unruly people or because they look down their nose at everyone due to their position of authority or because they simply shirk their duty to be friendly and ‘nice’ to the general public unless given a good reason not to be, and are never pulled up on it. Let’s face it, police are very often nowhere near neutral or polite in their first contact with people, are they? How does this sort of behaviour sit with their training?

“True but that is a legislation issue not a policing issue.”

Ah but it is a policing issue! Firstly, it is part of policing in the wider sense. And secondly, it is also surely the role of the police to lobby their commissioner, minister or whomever on matters that need improvement in law. If they are silent on matters that make their lives harder and which reduce law-abidance and safety, then they can be very rightly heavily criticised.

I’ll address speed limits and tachos next time.

Talking about Queensland, how about the official blind eye being turned to large numbers of nude people [including the until recent Labor member for Noosa and her family] frequently on the beach at Alexandria Bay. Particularly during the well publicised annual carnival, which is patrolled by surf lifesavers, raises money for charity and is a well known tourist attraction.

I would say the most likely reason is that the blanket ban on public nudity in Queensland is [unofficially] recognised as both unnecessary and discriminatory and remains in place only due to blatant dishonesty and stupidity by successive Queensland governments. And to the supposedly un-Australian, but widespread Australian practice of sucking up to wowsers.

A friend of mine some years ago was a WA Police Sergeant. He got an un-asked for transfer to the branch which, in his words, was responsible for going into licensed premises where the advertised entertainment may include young women removing their clothing and/ or not wearing much anyway and PRETENDING to be offended. I'm sure he would have preferred to have turned a blind eye to this victimless psuedo "crime".

After a short time of perhaps enjoying the break from more arduous police duties, he asked to be transferred into a situation where, again in his own words, he could feel that he was doing a proper job. He did get a transfer into a very responsible position indeed, so he was obviously considered a capable officer.

Good point Rex.

This is another example of the law and reality being at complete odds.

There are numerous ‘unofficial’ nudist beaches in Queensland. And yet not so long ago I heard Premier Beatty say that public nudity is illegal throughout Queensland. Well! As much as I rather like Pete, I’ve gotta say, who’s telling us big fat fibs?

I year or so ago I wrote to the Cairns City Council complaining about the nudist beach at Buchan Pt, at which people walk on the beach starkers in view of houses and traffic on the Cook Hwy…and about there being no signs, which means people can stumble onto it without having any idea, as I initially did.

Of course, the reply did not even acknowledge the existence of any such beach, which meant that they couldn’t address my concerns at all!! And yet it has been there for years, condoned by council and police. You can bet your bottom dollar that my official complaint did not lead to any regulatory activity on behalf of the council or police. But then, how could it have if no such thing existed??

Such is the extraordinary extent to which blind-eye policing, or I should say; blind-eye lack of policing, has developed.

It is one thing for individual police officers to turn a blind eye. But whole councils and indeed the state government? Now THAT is going tooo far!

Of course it just makes a complete mockery of the whole rule of law.

The Bowen Shire Council has taken this one step further. There ARE signs there, in the carpark at Horseshoe Bay pointing the way to the nudist beach. But how can the council allow there to be signs to something that doesn’t officially exist and which is illegal?

I don’t have any problem with clothing-optional beaches. My gripe is purely with the issue of legal duplicity, and hence with not being able to know exactly where one stands with the law….. on a wide range of matters.

Ludwig,
I believe the signs at Horseshoe Bay, Bowen, were not put there by Council.
As for the Alexandria Bay Carnival, each year the police come down, pass several hundred nude people and last time they were asked by a nude organiser to deal with a fellow with a camera which they did.
Yet elsewhere on the Sunshine coast police were booking nudists for "Public nuisance" which wasn't the correct offence. Most paid the fine. However one gentleman took them to court. 5 court appearances later, at great expense to the taxpayers, and with the charge of public nuisance being changed to wilful exposure (costing police $750) the man got a $75 fine. What a waste of taxpayer's money!

Marsketa

Quite right, the signs at Horseshoe Bay are not council signs. But the point is; the council knows that they are there and obviously condones their presence.

Isn’t this and interesting example you outline; the person with the camera is the one who got the raw deal…. in the presence of many blatant law-breakers. I wonder if there was anything illegal at all about him having a camera in that situation?

Nearby, people doing just the same thing – conducting harmless naked sunbaking and wanderings on the beach - were booked for ‘public nuisance’.

So when is such a thing acceptable and when isn’t it? It just seems to have nothing to do with actual legality.

And then there’s the issue of the police laying the wrong charge!

Crazy stuff.

Mjpb, regarding 10% leeway on speed limits and tachometer accuracy;

“No law stops Police enforcing 1k over…”

Doesn’t this make a complete mockery of the 10% leeway - if some state governments or perhaps even local councils or local police can enforce different standards? There is one thing worse than having this secretive 10% leeway and that is the inconsistency or potential inconsistency in its policing. As you mention, some officers don’t police speed until people are travelling 20kmh over, or some other personal judgement on what is unacceptable.

“…a tachometer is roadworthy providing that it measures speed within 10%.”

This really is terrible. So one driver could be sitting on 91kmh in a 100k zone while another could be sitting on 110. Both are legal and both are driving roadworthy cars. What a sorry situation!

I note in the link that you provided that “…roadworthy tests do not demand speedos be tested for accuracy.”

Well, why on earth not ??

“The theory is that people will sit on 9 or 10% above if they know.”

And this is exactly what many do. Many cars and large trucks sit right on 110 in the 100k zones and 120 in 110 k zones on the Bruce Hwy. This means that the principled legal driver who is sitting on 100 gets a constant barrage of vehicles coming up rapidly behind, tailgating and often overtaking in unsafe circumstances. This crazy situation actually forces or at least very strongly coerces many drivers to driver faster than they think they should.

It is just grossly irresponsible for our authorities not to make it patently clear to all road-users just what the deal is. There can be no excuse for vagueness or deliberate withholding of information pertaining to the law.

”Not everyone has a GPS. The tolerance is about reasonableness.”

Not everyone has the tools or wherewithall to keep their car roadworthy either. But they are required to do so. Obviously, any mechanic that issues roadworthy certificates should have a GPS and should be required to check the tacho as part of the process.

"Four posts actually…."
My mistake.

"Please see my 104 posts under ‘Putting the brakes on the road toll’ http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2877#57460."

That sounds like a long thread... I'll try...

Re: Prioritisation

They might not be rushing off to an emergency with lights flashing but it doesn't mean that a whole bunch of significant offences won't go undetected while they are dealing with your trivial offender.

"I ask again; “When police are cruising the beat, is it not their job to look out for ALL unlawful activities? What is the actual role of police? What is the purpose of actually cruising the beat?”"

I believe protecting and serving the community are considered more important than facilitating significant crime and creating ill will with the community. Cruising the beat is a means of detecting problems.

"...why aren’t you as outraged as I am? How can you accept such a thing?"

What do you think is better: writing out a ticket to a non-person or catching an offender? If you feel strongly why not lobby for registration of pushbikes? You can probably force the police hand (and endear yourself to police) rather than be outraged. I suspect enforcement would change quickly if registration of pushbikes occurred.

"less than polite or decent to other people... Let’s face it, police are very often nowhere near neutral or polite in their first contact with people, are they? How does this sort of behaviour sit with their training?"

Firstly, I'd ask you to ensure that your manner isn't causing some cautiousness. You have indicated outrage. Are you sure that doesn't leak through in your paralinguistics?

I'd then ask you to ensure that you aren't mistaking a firm but polite manner with people with being impolite. Police can't really lean toward the vivacious side with someone they don't know. Being firm avoids catalysing trouble by being seen as a 'soft target'.

Aside from that it is a difficult thing to answer. Police are people so some may mistakenly read a particular person to be a troublemaker. Police regularly deal with persons who are extremely negative toward the profession.

Consider the other side. I recall being 'out on the town' with a friend when I was pulled over for an RBT. My friend started giving the policewoman quite a mouthful and she kept calling him sir and stayed polite. He then showed his badge and let her off the hook.

"Firstly, it is part of policing in the wider sense."

A very wide sense I would suggest. Besides between a job and a family it is hard to do everything.

"I’ll address speed limits and tachos next time."
I am hoping that you don't do 104 posts? In the last post I meant to respond to your Victoria question. I spoke to a Victorian cop in 2002 who said that every (Victorian) cop he knows thought that police being required to book people who may have no way of knowing they are speeding was for revenue raising. I suspect that that is your answer.

“I believe protecting and serving the community are considered more important than facilitating significant crime and creating ill will with the community.”

Mmmm now you’ve lost me. Facilitating significant crime??

“Cruising the beat is a means of detecting problems”.

Exactly!! And if the problems are going to be ignored….

“What do you think is better: writing out a ticket to a non-person or catching an offender?”

I just can’t understand your thinking on this point. It is simply not a matter of prioritisation. It is not a matter of one thing or another. It is a matter of the police taking a holistic approach to law enforcement, instead of a highly selective approach, which basically leads to a lots of infringements just being ignored or condoned.

“…lobby for registration of pushbikes?”

The idea has its merits and has been raised many times for public consideration. But it has its downside as well, especially a whole new layer of bureaucracy. My feeling is that it would not be necessary if cyclists simply thought that there was a significant probability of getting fined for infringements. So it comes back to the quality of policing. Improving the quality of policing has got to be a far better idea than a bicycle registration system.

“Firstly, I'd ask you to ensure that your manner isn't causing some cautiousness.”

I express outrage here, but you can bet your bottom dollar that a nice demeanour is presented to the cops…. for two reasons, one of sticking to my principle that you are nice until given reason not to be, and the selfish reason that you will generally get a much better quality of interaction if you present a positive demeanour.

continued

“Being firm avoids catalysing trouble by being seen as a 'soft target'.”

Fine. Just as long as it is neutral.

“Police are people so some may mistakenly read a particular person to be a troublemaker.”

It seems to me that for many police, if a person is worth approaching in the first place, then they are automatically deemed to be a troublemaker, and deserve a harsh demeanour. Thus, an air of intimidation or of overriding authority is projected straight away, which I think is grossly inappropriate and offensive, and very negative in terms of respect for the police.

Police are polite when they pull you over for a random breath test, licence check, speeding ticket, etc. Well, the same demeanour needs to apply all the time, unless there is good reason to behave differently.

“He then showed his badge and let her off the hook.”

What the…?

So he was police officer. So why did he show his badge? Was it an attempt to get out of an RBT? Why was he rude to start with? Who was letting whom off the hook? Very interesting.

“A very wide sense I would suggest.”

Well, we need to look at the whole policing regime, which includes the law-makers, local council regulatory officers and internal regulation of company and departmental rules and codes of conduct. All of these aspects seem to have the same problems – the blind-eye syndrome. So to be fair, it certainly isn’t just the police at fault here, it is a chronic ailment of society.

"Mmmm now you’ve lost me. Facilitating significant crime??"

Police can't be everywhere at once. You can guarantee that Police would miss significant crime if they spent all their time on minor technicalities.

"...It is simply not a matter of prioritisation. It is not a matter of one thing or another."

Would you consider the possibility that an offence might occur that could benefit from judicial intervention while the Police Officer is writing a ticket to the bike riders' pseudonames?

“My feeling is that it would not be necessary if cyclists simply thought that there was a significant probability of getting fined for infringements. So it comes back to the quality of policing. Improving the quality of policing has got to be a far better idea than a bicycle registration system."

A million tickets can be written to a million creative versions of John Doe and the riders can throw all those tickets into the bin smugly and tell their mates. How will that make them think that they will get fined? At the least it would have to be a legal requirement that they carry a drivers licence but even then ... without registration...

"... you will generally get a much better quality of interaction if you present a positive demeanour."

That is for sure. Sounds like you have that one wrapped up.

"It seems to me that for many police..."

You might have had bad luck or maybe your interactions were skewed toward traffic cops.

"Police are polite when they pull you over for a random breath test, licence check, speeding ticket, etc. Well, the same demeanour needs to apply all the time, unless there is good reason to behave differently."

...That surprised me. Do you mind if I ask what other circumstances you came to interact with the police? Many police do have strong feelings about some offences and might be a little terse.

“So he was police officer..."

He was just having a joke with her imitating the people often encountered then let her in on the joke (/let her off the hook).

“Police can't be everywhere at once. You can guarantee that Police would miss significant crime if they spent all their time on minor technicalities.”

It is not a matter of spending “all their time” working on any particular thing; it is a matter of finding the right balance. And surely just working a beat and looking after the little things has got to be part of that balance. Besides, all police are in immediate radio contact if they need to be called to more urgent matters.

I guess you would agree with me that there should be many more police, and that one of the primary reasons for this is so that the perceived minor things don’t get left out.

“A million tickets can be written to a million creative versions of John Doe and the riders can throw all those tickets into the bin smugly and tell their mates.”

O dear. The vast majority of people would comply with the police and give their correct name and address, especially if it was made clear to them that giving a false name or not providing that information is a serious matter, probably a lot more so than the infringement for which they are being fined. The more tickets that get issued, along with the necessary publicity, the more people will realise that there is actually a significant chance of getting caught if they play up, and will pull their heads in accordingly. That’s a pretty basic principle – greater frequency of effective policing leads directly to lower offence rates.

I almost get the impression that you think that the police should not bother with cycling infringements and the like at all, because some of these minor offenders might give them the run-around.

“Sounds like you have that one wrapped up.”

Absolutely. And surely it has got to work both ways.

“Do you mind if I ask what other circumstances you came to interact with the police?”

OK, a few examples;

Darwin, June 2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2877#45955,

Yeppoon, December 2001. I went to the police station to report really disgusting full-on tailgating, intimidating and dangerous driving that had just been imposed upon me. To my amazement this awful excuse for a driver was there. It became immediately apparent that the police officer was going to protect this person, a local and presumably an acquaintance, and do whatever it took to sting me, the traveller. The way in which the two of us were treated was a million miles from equitable. I ended up making another formal complaint about that issue. But the officer to whom I complained obfuscated the process and basically told me what I could and couldn’t complain about, which I consider to be none of his business and a complete perversion of his role. He then informed the relevant officer instead of taking it through the proper channels. And yet he was residing in a different town (my home town), a few hundred kilometres away.

Lakes Entrance, 2000 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=99#1939 as already mentioned on this thread,

Townsville, ~1995. I was pulled over by a cop on a motorbike for an RBT. This cop accused me of not blowing in the device correctly and immediately threatened to drag me down to the police station if I did not cooperate. But I was fully cooperating, having been breath-tested numerous times before without any problems. It was patently obvious that he just wanted to exercise his domination and full-on nastiness that he thought he could do with impunity. His whole behaviour was very different to what I had encountered before in RBTs. Needless to say I was not over the limit….and never have been. I have always regretted not making a complaint about that.

continued

Following up on an aspect of blind eye turning I raised recently, I have this information from a Queensland contact:

"Not only are there signs in the car park and along the beach to let people
know where the clothing optional beach is, but in the tourist information
brochures for Bowen, put out by Bowen Council , Coral Beach is advertised as
a clothing optional beach and said to be very popular with European
tourists. Illegal or no? They do it."

So it seems as if the Bowen Council people have more common sense than almost all the various members of successive Queensland governments, who have pig-headedly ignored the proven popularity of nude bathing with many tourists, particularly those from a number of European countries. Countries with large numbers of people who enjoy holidays which include nude bathing include both Britain and Germany. Australia has tourism offices in both these countries, but we officially pretend that nude bathing doesn't happen here, presumably to suck up to the wowsers.

And it looks as if the police in the Bowen area have enough sense to ignore this technically illegal, but obviously harmless and beneficial aspect of local tourism.

continued from my last post

Townsville, ~1990. I was knocked off my bike by a car. The driver left the scene, so I called the police. The cop that came to the scene was the most utterly nasty piece of work, straight-up, to me the victim of an accident! It seems that he was enormously annoyed at being called out over what he presumably thought was an insignificant issue. Either that or he was just plain psychotic. I went into the police station the next day to make a complaint and caught same cop behind the counter. He gave me another huge serve, in front of three other rather stunned officers. I went back late that evening to make a complaint, which was accepted by another officer. I never heard about the matter again.

Perth, ~1980. I was parked somewhere on the edge of suburbia next to a patch of bush, having just gone for a walk which I have always done a lot of as a botanist. The cops pulled up and immediately accused me of all manner of stuff. I could not say anything that satisfied them. Again it was patently obvious that they were simply intent on having their powerplay with me and being as nasty as possible. Eventually they let me go. That is just the worst sort of rank police behaviour, which was simply completely unprovoked and unavoidable.

and there's more...

Ingham, ~1999. I went into the police station to report a chronically tailgating large truck on the Bruce Hwy, that gave absolutely no room to move when sitting on a few k’s over the speed limit. Even though the incident had just happened, the cop was just totally disinterested. A week later I submitted the complaint in writing and lo and behold the police acted on it, and copped this guy for various infringements, but only after they had to go chase up his whereabouts interstate!

Cooktown ~2003. I was bitten by a dog in the course of my work. It was immediately obvious where the dog, one of a pack of 4 that harangued me, resided. I went straight to the police, before going to the hospital. Again the cop was just completely disinterested. I followed it up with a complaint to the Cook shire council, and after follow-up letters and phonecalls, the council just insisted on shirking their responsibility to deal with the matter.

The story gets better and better Rex.

So the Bowen council openly promotes its illegal nudist beach. Amazing!

Obviously they can do this without fear of complaint or penalty from the Qld govt or the police. So then, we must assume that the fault lies fairly and squarely with the state government for allowing this blatant duplicity.

I agree – there should be nothing wrong with the promotion of a nudist beach, for tourism reasons or whatever. But not when it’s illegal.

So, what happens if people on this beach start acting in an overtly sexual or harassing manner? Will the police or council officers act then? Would they need a complaint to act on? Obviously they are not going to act on a complaint of nudity itself.

Where are the written guidelines on what is acceptable in an already totally illegal setting??

Who has the power to decide which laws are going to be policed and which aren’t?

How can our government, councils, police and community allow such flagrant legal contradictions to exist?

I think you would find that while some technicalities are left alone police do balance their time attending to occasional little things but prioritising more important things.

"I guess you would agree with me that there should be many more police, and that one of the primary reasons for this is so that the perceived minor things don’t get left out."

Yes unless you would include booking people who might have no way of knowing they are committing a technical breach.

“A million tickets can be written to a million creative versions of John Doe and the riders can throw all those tickets into the bin smugly and tell their mates.”

"...a serious matter, probably a lot more so than the infringement for which they are being fined."

It would be serious for them if anyone knew who they were. Registration would take care of the problem.

“Absolutely. And surely it has got to work both ways."

Absolutely.

I notice that you seem to get tailgated alot. That must be uncomfortable.

Mjpb, I hope you can appreciate now why I feel a certain level of disgust about the standard of policing (following my elucidated experiences).

There are others, but overall they have been few and far between….thank goodness! They do comprise a large portion of all contacts that I have had with police though – about a quarter I suppose. But then most of the acceptable ones have been RBTs and other simple encounters, which you would hardly expect to be problematic. But then in one case it was problematic, as elucidated.

I have no reason to think that I have copped a worse deal than the average person, and hearing of other peoples’ experiences now and then supports this.

So, all considered, I think that policing has got some really deep-seated problems.

I must admit, I thought that this thread would bring out a few correspondents in support of my concerns and with a few examples of their own. I am surprised that this hasn’t really happened.

.
“I notice that you seem to get tailgated alot. That must be uncomfortable.”

It is very uncomfortable for someone who knows the law, respects safety margins and risk factors, knows what following distances the police, RACQ and Dept of Transport all recommend, and sees the police ignore their own recommendations and ignore the law of ‘failing to show due care and courtesy to other road users’ …. and has experienced the the police failing to give a hoot about anyone who reports incidents of this sort of driving behaviour (and various other dangerous driving antics)!!

You bet it’s uncomfortable, and enraging. But I ain’t alone. Successive RACQ surveys have shown it to be a major concern.

But it does seem to have improved considerably in the last year or so. Despite any direct message or publicity from police, government or other authorities, what used to be a chronically bad general practice, has become much less of an issue. Or at least that’s my impression.

Thanks mjpb for this discussion. Much appreciated.

"Mjpb, I hope you can appreciate now why I feel a certain level of disgust about the standard of policing (following my elucidated experiences)."

Ludwig if you haven't just had an unusually bad run then I won't argue. I am inclined to suspect you have and the lack of people chiming in with examples supports that. Hopefully you have for a few reasons including the likelihood that you won't get any more problems (and of course the implications for policing).

"Thanks mjpb for this discussion. Much appreciated."

Thank you. It is certainly interesting. Again I hope your experience isn't typical.

I don't like criticising the police service, which I like to think generally does a good job under often difficult circumstances. And for many years I've had friends who are/were either serving or retired police officers, some of them quite senior. But I feel that I have to speak out on this.

About 30 years ago, I was sales manager with a Perth company. I had just completed a satisfactory sales call on a householder and was stood with her on her front balcony. We both clearly saw [it was daylight] a car come down her street and sideswipe mine, which was parked legally and safely and two thirds of the way on the verge and off the road. The driver wasn't going fast, but did not stop.

I chased the car on foot and caught up with it. The passenger side door was unlocked and I opened it and jumped in. I told the driver to stop and wait for the police to come. He told me that wouldn't do me any good, as he was a director of a well-known local company and the local police were friends of his. This turned out to be true.

He was obviously affected by alcohol and he then became very abusive and threatening. Whilst he was shouting, two men came over to see what was going on. He threatened to punch one of them through his open window and run over the one who was standing in front of his car. One of the men said that he knew the people in the house outside of which we were stopped and he would use their phone to call the police. This turned out to be my salvation.

cont

The driver then pulled his fist back to punch me in the face. He was about 4 inches taller than me, aggressive and half full. Before he could hit me, I grabbed hold of him, pulled him out of the car, squeezed his head under my arm until he quietened down a bit, threw him onto the ground, dropped on him with my knees and held him there. He suffered a sore neck and a couple of broken ribs, but, under the circumstances, I felt justified.

When the first police officer arrived, I was sitting on my assailant, to stop him from getting up. They were on first name terms, in fact the first thing the officer said was "Hello Andy". Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Then he told me that Andy was a nice guy when he hadn't been drinking. I told him to check his blood alcohol level and charge him. The officer then said that if Andy was charged with drink driving, his insurance wouldn't pay for my car damage. [As if that were of any consequence.]

Then two more officers arrived [apparently more senior than the first one] and asked me to walk back up the street with them to inspect my car. Whilst we were up the street, Andy and his car disappeared. He was not charged. I contacted the officer in charge of the local police station and was told that I was in the wrong for getting into Andy's car and assaulting him. I gave my client, who had seen Andy sideswipe my car, as a witness and was told that she had seen nothing. Obviously she had been got at.

I went to the CIB and reported the lot of them. Fortunately, I knew the house where one of the other witnesses [who the police didn't know about] used the phone. Subsequently, these two men, who had also been threatened with violence, were able to speak on my behalf. But no-one was ever charged over this incident.

In retrospect, I should have gone to the media.

I'm sure we'd all like to think that my experience was just an isolated exception. But it apparently involved an officer-in-charge of a large suburban station and possibly his entire staff. And what's the usual suspected reason when a well-off person receives preferential treatment?

A while later, the son of a well known and well liked Fremantle business couple was arrested on a minor nuisance charge and allegedly roughed up. He was a slightly built young man, possibly not an angel, but didn't look big enough to cause much trouble to a number of arresting officers.

His parents called a public meeting, which got a very large turnout. We were asked to speak out if we'd been treated inappropriately by police officers. A significant number of people had stories to tell. None of this is proof of course, but no-one there could not have at least had doubts about some police conduct.

Back to tail-gating. A recent WA survey showed that a large proportion of people find this a major problem. Just think about the consequences of a large, fast moving vehicle driving too close behind you and being unable to stop in time. You, through no fault of your own, could be dead. Isn't this serious enough to expect some effective police action?

Very interesting Rex.

I think that police misbehaviour is actually very widespread and that some officers, if not many, have no qualms about making it glaringly obvious. Two of my above examples (Yeppoon and Lakes Entrance) were just the most blatant displays of abject misbehaviour (in fact all of my examples were to unacceptable extents).

But again I say here, that I support an efficient, effective and accountable police force, and I acknowledge that most of their efforts are commendable.

I just wish we could deal effectively with the rogue element.

.
Re: tailgating.

It confounds me as to why the police give it the complete miss.

I reckon that drivers who just put up with chronic tailgaiters don’t deserve to have a drivers licence to the same extent as the bloody tailgaters….because they are basically condoning themselves being placed under ongoing (not just momentary) added risk, or more likely just blithely ignoring this risk or not worrying about it (which is irresponsible)….and they are encouraging the turds to keep on driving like that.
But if they pull over or change lanes to let the mongrels through, it would just encourage them as well. So that leaves few options – flashing brakelights, gently slowing down in front of them, throwing their arm out the window and making their discontent obvious or reporting them to police.

In my experience the last option will get you nowhere. The police, RACQ and Dept of Transport have all recommended to me that flashing brakelights or giving other signals or slowing down is not good. Therefore they suggest by default that you should just put up with it! Well I say crap to that! It is obvious that neither the RACQ nor the Dept of Transport have given this matter sufficient consideration, needless to say along with the police…. which is bizarre given the RACQ surveys that have shown tailgating to be such a major concern.

Pffffffff…… what do you do??!!

Re: tailgating.

"...But if they pull over or change lanes to let the mongrels through, it would just encourage them as well."

You obviously feel strongly about the tailgating but I presume you would concede that the situation would be different on a multilane freeway. It would be pretty unproductive if someone was illegally sitting in the right hand lane and some vigilante driver got worked up by the law breaking / dangerous driving and tailgated them then the original driver decided to be a vigilante by not changing lanes as it would "let the mongrels through" / encourage the second type of dangerous driving / law breaking (tailgating). The likely corollary would be both vigilantes became increasingly worked up and perpetuating an extremely dangerous interaction at high speed with innocent members of the public in the area who could be killed if anything goes wrong.

Yes well, there are all sorts of scenarios where people can get worked up and end up in a much more dangerous situation.

Of course, your safety comes first, so if you are subjected to ridiculous driving behaviour, you do whatever you can to legally reduce or alleviate that risk. And if after signalling your discontent, the driver imposing it upon you continues to do so in defiance of your obvious concerns, then you just give them the road if you can…. and take their number and report them…. and then demand that the police act on it.

If you feel that you have been forced to give the road to a dangerous driver due to real concern for your own safety and that of your passengers, then by goodness you should feel that it is worth pursuing with the police.

We’ve all got to find our own balance on these things. Sticking to the principle of law and upholding your rights is important. But your safety is importanter (:>|.

In fact, if you do it to the extent that you stay under unsafe circumstances or heightened risk, then you are really going against the principle that you are trying to uphold

There are regular articles in our local paper quoting police officers asking the public to report dangerous drivers and being prepared to give evidence in court against them if required.

A few years ago, I was chronically tailgated by a car, on a street which was not wide enough for me to pull over and let him pass. There were no side streets for me to turn into and no suitable verges for me to temporally stop on. This is a fully built up suburban street in an area where residents regularly complain about speeding motorists. He obviously wanted to go much faster than the posted limit, but I was in his way. But I couldn't get out of his way anyway.

Eventually he illegally overtook me on a bend and almost collided with a vehicle coming in the opposite direction. The driver of the other vehicle was fortunately able to take evasive action.

He sped off, but was obliged to stop at the next intersection where I caught up with him. I let him see me checking his number plate and writing it down.

I phoned the police, gave them the details, told them I had a passenger who would corroborate my account and said I was prepared to give evidence in court. Shortly afterwards, the officer I spoke to phoned me back and said this driver had a list of traffic offense convictions a mile long, some of them serious, thanked me for my public spirited action and said they'd be in touch.

I heard nothing from them again!

There is indeed a glaring contradiction between the message from authorities that the public should do their bit by reporting dangerous driving, and the facilitation of such complaints……although I haven’t heard anyone promote the reporting of this sort of thing for a long time.

A while ago there was a push to dob in old bombs or smoky vehicles, to the Dept of Transport. But when it comes to the much more important matter of road safety and peoples’ lives, there’s been sweet FA for years!

The small number of times that I reported dangerous drivers… and they were only the worst cases that I bothered with…..five of them in about as many years…I received attitudes from the police ranging from enthusiastic assistance to complete disinterest and even a bit of brash negativity.

The only time that I have ever heard back from police, that is, the only they have ever acted on a complaint was when I put it in writing well after the event, as I expressed in an earlier post.

Subsequently I have not gone to the police a bunch of times when I should have…because I know that nothing would eventuate, unless I pushed the point.

I think this lack of facilitation of public involvement in policing is a huge flaw in the whole policing regime. If the police genuinely facilitated complaints, then the whole law-enforcement problem, as it affects road safety and all sorts of other things, could be vastly improved, because every person in the community would then effectively be seen by potential offenders as a potential cop, or surrogate police officer.

So, not only do we need vastly more police on the streets, we need them behind the scenes to facilitate the complaints process and empower the community to get involved in law enforcement.