bj240z
Newbie
- Location
- Gold Coast
X2
V
Cops are tops
- Thread starter iluvbrownale
- Start date
X2
mister_duck
In search of Sunrise
- Location
- Sydney NSW
- Car(s)
- 07 VW Golf TDi
Yeah there are some nice highway patrol police officers and there are some wankers also, back when I had my mk4 GTI , I was fortunatly given a few warning for speeding and other driving offences.
One of the times I was driving along the M2 just before the tunnel heading towards the city, it was a saturday night no traffic, l was doing approx 130 in a 100 zone and up infront I notice a police car with its lights on and a copper waving me down, He was actually quite nice and gave me a warning and told me not to drive so fast.
In my current car, a couple of weeks ago, I got into a argument with a highway patrol officer up on the central coast about having my fog lights on, he was a complete tosser about the whole suitation.
One of the times I was driving along the M2 just before the tunnel heading towards the city, it was a saturday night no traffic, l was doing approx 130 in a 100 zone and up infront I notice a police car with its lights on and a copper waving me down, He was actually quite nice and gave me a warning and told me not to drive so fast.
In my current car, a couple of weeks ago, I got into a argument with a highway patrol officer up on the central coast about having my fog lights on, he was a complete tosser about the whole suitation.
isaw
Banned
- Location
- Brisbane! Australia
whats the law about fog lights? I only put them on when i want people to get out of my way on country roads.
mister_duck
In search of Sunrise
- Location
- Sydney NSW
- Car(s)
- 07 VW Golf TDi
Yeah funny mike.
I don't call them fog lights, more like driving lights, but the cop seemed to think otherwise, he went on to tell me unless there is fog the fog lights are illegal and I was so close to getting a 80 dollar fine unless I turned them off.
I did mention that in the 2 years that i have had my car, I haven't been pulled over or had any other cop tell me to turn off my fog lights, he didn't seem to care
I don't call them fog lights, more like driving lights, but the cop seemed to think otherwise, he went on to tell me unless there is fog the fog lights are illegal and I was so close to getting a 80 dollar fine unless I turned them off.
I did mention that in the 2 years that i have had my car, I haven't been pulled over or had any other cop tell me to turn off my fog lights, he didn't seem to care
Scotty1991
Banned
- Location
- Northbridge, Sydney, Australia
- Car(s)
- 2008 VW Golf Pacific
I believe they are meant to be used when its foggy only, however I drive with them on any time im going hard, to aid visibility as well as to help others see my car, as when you turn them on the headlights go on to, so people can see me during the daytime as well
a random night 2yrs ago when I still have my GTI...
I was queuing up for RBT on Parramatta road after work
one of the cops there came up to me said my car was nice
and then he told me to say "G-T-I" to the breathalyzer instead of counting 1-10
:biggrin:
I was queuing up for RBT on Parramatta road after work
one of the cops there came up to me said my car was nice
and then he told me to say "G-T-I" to the breathalyzer instead of counting 1-10
:biggrin:
yup... pretty sure the legal test is that the moment you break traction (whether wheel spin or tyre lifting on high speed corner) you're caught under the hoon laws, at least here in Vic. Had a cop once say to me that if he'd seen any traction breakage he would've impounded my car (but he didn't so he didn't)
He did then follow that with grudging admiration of the .:R
iluvbrownale
White Lightning
- Location
- Woonona, NSW
some interesting comments here. after googling the hell out of some sort of definition for 'furious driving' and the like, there sees to be no official way to define such a term (doubtless useful for the laying of charges). in my case,i had an alright bloke on a good day, but like so many, have also been subject to Constable Cock on a bad day. That's when i can see my spirited drive through a quiet road, away from traffic, suddenly landing me in court having to try to justify and defend my actions through anecdotes, example and supporting evidence. i'm within mine and the cars limits but the consequences of the court taking the officers word over mine (which they do) as to their judgment at that time you were driving 'furiously' are severe. you know fine well if the court saw you on the in-car video from the patrol car it'll look ten times worse to the average E-class driving magistrate.
it's put the willies up me to be frank. cars are gripping harder and harder so to exploit the chassis characteristics the speeds have to rise which attracts attention. is it really worth loosing your license for 12 months, worse, jail, all because you were safely playing with the character of the vehicle?
Or i'm just gonna have to get me one of those 'urgent blood supply' stickers for the sides....
it's put the willies up me to be frank. cars are gripping harder and harder so to exploit the chassis characteristics the speeds have to rise which attracts attention. is it really worth loosing your license for 12 months, worse, jail, all because you were safely playing with the character of the vehicle?
Or i'm just gonna have to get me one of those 'urgent blood supply' stickers for the sides....
Move to Queensland instead, the police union is recommending that members don't get involved in pursuits anymore, get some rotating number plates and the lack of any police helicopters ensures that you can do whatever the hell you want on our roads :w00t:
GTG's could become more fun soon :thumbup:
(this advice should not be relied on and I accept no responsibility if you get a retractable baton shoved up your arse (extended)).
Righto... I'm gonna do a 'Mav' here... (that's a sign of respect Mav, not a dis!). This is in relation to Vic laws only...
s.84C of the Road Safety Act 1986 defines the "improper use of a motor vehicle" as meaning... "in relation to a relevant offence ... the driving of a motor vehicle in a manner which intentionally causes the motor vehicle to undergo loss of traction by one or more of the wheels of the motor vehicle".
A "relevant offence" is again relevantly defined in s.84C as including:
1. an offence against section 64(1) in circumstances involving improper use of a motor vehicle. Section 64(1) states that a person must not drive a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
2. an offence against section 65A(1). This is the most relevant to the above discussion. This section says that a person must not drive a motor vehicle in a manner which causes the motor vehicle to undergo loss of traction by one or more of the motor vehicle's wheels. It is a defence to the charge if you prove that you didn't intentionally caused the alleged loss of traction. Good luck with that!!!!
3. For the sake of completeness... it also includes an offence against rule 291 of the Road Rules in circumstances involving improper use of a motor vehicle. Rule 291 says that, "A person must not start a vehicle, or drive a vehicle, in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke." So, no burn outs from the lights, folk!!!!
4. And it includes... an offence against rule 297 of the Road Rules in circumstances involving improper use of a motor vehicle... Rule 297 says, "A driver must not drive a vehicle unless the driver has proper control of the vehicle." So if you can't argue that you DEFINITELY could've held that four wheel drift through the hairpin, again, good luck!!!!
Here endeth the lesson...
s.84C of the Road Safety Act 1986 defines the "improper use of a motor vehicle" as meaning... "in relation to a relevant offence ... the driving of a motor vehicle in a manner which intentionally causes the motor vehicle to undergo loss of traction by one or more of the wheels of the motor vehicle".
A "relevant offence" is again relevantly defined in s.84C as including:
1. an offence against section 64(1) in circumstances involving improper use of a motor vehicle. Section 64(1) states that a person must not drive a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
2. an offence against section 65A(1). This is the most relevant to the above discussion. This section says that a person must not drive a motor vehicle in a manner which causes the motor vehicle to undergo loss of traction by one or more of the motor vehicle's wheels. It is a defence to the charge if you prove that you didn't intentionally caused the alleged loss of traction. Good luck with that!!!!
3. For the sake of completeness... it also includes an offence against rule 291 of the Road Rules in circumstances involving improper use of a motor vehicle. Rule 291 says that, "A person must not start a vehicle, or drive a vehicle, in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke." So, no burn outs from the lights, folk!!!!
4. And it includes... an offence against rule 297 of the Road Rules in circumstances involving improper use of a motor vehicle... Rule 297 says, "A driver must not drive a vehicle unless the driver has proper control of the vehicle." So if you can't argue that you DEFINITELY could've held that four wheel drift through the hairpin, again, good luck!!!!
Here endeth the lesson...
tooraktrash
Go Kart Champion
- Location
- Melbourne (not Toorak)
- Car(s)
- 2008 Golf GTI
Good work morty...the RSA can be a bitch to get your head around.
And I would be pleading "I didn't mean to get into that 4 wheel drift but once in it I was holding it for maximum kudos through the hairpin" :biggrin:
And I would be pleading "I didn't mean to get into that 4 wheel drift but once in it I was holding it for maximum kudos through the hairpin" :biggrin:
hehehe and it's at that point that (hopefully) the cop says that the smoke from your rubber clearly was "necessary" for you to prove your point!!!!!!
*edit* Hmmmmmmm I'm actually pretty concerned about that "unnecessary noise" provision. The number of times I give my R a burble at the lights, I'm bound to get into deep king gee sooner or later! But that's ridiculous. It's hardly a safety issue if you happen to rev a sweet sounding engine at the lights!!!!!!!
*edit* Hmmmmmmm I'm actually pretty concerned about that "unnecessary noise" provision. The number of times I give my R a burble at the lights, I'm bound to get into deep king gee sooner or later! But that's ridiculous. It's hardly a safety issue if you happen to rev a sweet sounding engine at the lights!!!!!!!