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?