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.