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