A great safety idea

[old man emu]

Police aren't Judge and Jury. If you get a ticket, it's up to you to decide whether you've done wrong or not. If you reckon that you've done wrong, save time and pay the fixed penalty. If you reckon the police are wrong, stand for your principles and take the matter to court and let someone who actually knows the Law judge whose interpretation is correct. If you come back with "Oh, it'll cost me too much time and money, then your principles aren't worth much.

 

 

[facthunter]

C'mon OME, you know they work on the presumption you won't contest it, because it's easier and cheaper to just pay the fine. It's not cheap to have your day in court and you will pretty much never be awarded costs and often the outcome is anyone's guess. depending on whether the judge likes the look of you or not. Courts are places where you can lose your faith in Justice. Just don't go there.

 

I recall one" good" one where the judge said I was the ONLY reliable witness and on my testimony brought the verdict against the lawyer equipped group of lying conspirators and an old couple they went head on into in front of me got justice.. I took the trouble the day after to go to the spot and measure marks in the road in relation to the centre line. The Police didn't do it. I was the only person at the accident for quite a while and got the old folks out through the windscreen of their HR station Waggon smashed and on it's side and disconnected the battery.. A rare good outcome with a significant element of luck. Pensioners like these cannot afford a Lawyer. They were going to cop the Rap for the accident for sure. Nev.

 

 

[M61A1]

If you come back with "Oh, it'll cost me too much time and money, then your principles aren't worth much.

Most of us can't afford that luxury. You have to weigh up cost for benefit, and usually unless the penalties are massive, the cost always exceeds the benefit by a long shot. Even with undisputable evidence and a positive outcome, generally you will be out of pocket for more than the fine.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Most of us can't afford that luxury. You have to weigh up cost for benefit, and usually unless the penalties are massive, the cost always exceeds the benefit by a long shot. Even with undisputable evidence and a positive outcome, generally you will be out of pocket for more than the fine.

My experience on the two occasions I hired lawyers was that their cost was about 1/3 what the fines were going to be. The third time I decided to represent myself and had to sack myself afterwards because I lost. Then along came speed cameras and I haven't had a problem since.

 

 

[M61A1]

Must've rather large fines. Of the few times I've considered it the fees were about three time the fine.

 

Agreed, as much as I despise the principal of speed cameras, I've not had much trouble with them.

 

 

[onetrack]

I've only ever gone to court once, over a speeding fine - and I lost. But the Judge was quite sympathetic and agreed I should take my complaint to the Roads Authority that was in charge of placing signage (my argument centred around inaccurate and misplaced signage. The Roads Authority promptly amended the placement of the signage, after I'd paid my fine).

 

Funnily enough, the copper who booked me was a jibbering, stuttering, stammering mess, when he presented his evidence. I thought it was going to be the other way around.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Must've rather large fines. Of the few times I've considered it the fees were about three time the fine.

 

Agreed, as much as I despise the principal of speed cameras, I've not had much trouble with them.

A relative worked for the government department in charge of speed cameras. He said they were revenue neutral because of the high cost of regular calibration and maintenance.

 

Another bit of trivia: they regularly relocated cameras to areas of greatest need, so in fact, most of the cabinets were empty.

 

 

[M61A1]

A relative worked for the government department in charge of speed cameras. He said they were revenue neutral because of the high cost of regular calibration and maintenance.

Probably why the QLD govt is going broke. I drove from the Tweed to Brisbane a while back and counted 5 cameras between Southport and Loganholme. Two fixed and three mobile. When they first installed a camera on the "up" section of the Toowoomba range, apparently an American visitor was heard to say something to the effect of "why do you guys put up with this sh1t? If that was in the states, someone would have shot that up by now". Us Aussies are an apathetic bunch.

 

 

[old man emu]

Yes. The presumption is that you'll cut your costs and pay the fine. But that does not negate the fact that it was your your decision to take the economic way out, and a abandon your right to have your accuser prove the accusation. The problem is that the legal system is an exclusive club whose members fight tooth and nail to prevent people who aren't members sharing in the spoils.

 

I don't doubt that the policeman in onetrack's story made a fool of himself in the witness box. Police nowadays expect to be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, but they go to water when the heat is put on them. I'm helping a young woman who was arrested in relation to a domestic assault. The arresting police made no proper investigation at all. I'm just waiting for the hearing when the woman's mother gives evidence of what she saw and heard in the FaceTime call the young woman made to her while the young woman was being assaulted.

 

As for police knowing the law, when this young woman first went to court, I told the policewoman organising the running order to tell the Police Prosecutor that I wanted to go into court with the young woman as her "Mackenzie friend", the policewoman didn't have a clue what I was talking about and told me that since the woman was an adult, she couldn't have anyone go with her.

 

A McKenzie friend has no right to appear as an advocate, or to address the court on behalf of the unrepresented litigant, but such a person may provide assistance and advice to the unrepresented litigant in conducting the case.

 

Fortunately for the young woman, the Public Solicitor agreed to appear for her on that occasion in what was really a bail review and an administrative appearance.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...an American visitor was heard to say something to the effect of "why do you guys put up with this sh1t? If that was in the states, someone would have shot that up by now". Us Aussies are an apathetic bunch.

Maybe, but more likely we value safety over individual rights. I’d much prefer our problems than theirs!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Maybe, but more likely we value safety over individual rights. I’d much prefer our problems than theirs!

No it was just trash talk. The US road fatality rate sits at 221% higher than Australia, and believe me, if you ever go back to continually looking over your shoulder, or had one light up as you approached, as I did once, you'll be very thankful for the much safer, and more impartial, system we have here.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's plenty of times I've wished for more cops on the road and more speed cameras to catch some of the loopy drivers and get them of the road. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Tailgaters are the worst. These knuckleheads must think they can get there faster, or force you to speed up.

 

I saw a few chevrons painted on the M1 to show how far apart we should be driving. Very few comply.

 

 

[Yenn]

Don't go to court. I did on a failing to give way. I supposedly failed to give way to a police car that was breaking the law. The police lied completely unnecessarily as we were all in agreement on the facts. I pointed this out to the magistrate, but he found me guilty. There was no justice then and I doubt that it is much different now.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don't go to court. I did on a failing to give way. I supposedly failed to give way to a police car that was breaking the law. The police lied completely unnecessarily as we were all in agreement on the facts. I pointed this out to the magistrate, but he found me guilty. There was no justice then and I doubt that it is much different now.

I see that a lot in Planning Law the Applicant, and we'll just discuss the honest ones here, thinks he is doing the world a favour by setting up as a chicken farmer next to a residential estate.

 

He can't see a problem with that after all he has "a right to farm". The enraged residents sit down over coffee and the wives tales start, based on noise, smell, the farmer could build the sheds on the other side of the paddock, they were there first etc. They don't believe in consultants or lawyers; everyone knows they go for people with deep pockets, so they come looking for someone like me. (For this exercise we'll forget there is a Broiler Code which specifies minimum separation distances)

 

Although there are only two or three legal grounds on which they can be successful, they've already started writing their own list, and I've never heard anyone run out of wind in a planning case for less than an hour. When I tell them that noise, smell, activity comes under amenity and Councils rarely refuse a permit on amenity because it's so difficult to prove, but they keep that on the list ignore the comments I made such as scale, location, zoning conditions. They lose the case at Council, and now determinedly head for VCAT or its State equivalent, bypassing a Planning Consultant who could almost certainly win the case for them if the Application didn't meet zoning requirements, bypassing a Planning Lawyer who would normally hire the consultant and win. and decide they'll pass the hat around and go for broke with a QC. Now a QC is a barrister who normally works from a brief provided by a solicitor, in this case a Planning Lawyer, but he's qualified to do it so he takes the case and loses when the Applicant's Planning Consultant, many rungs down the ladder of importance is able to show that the Application meets every clause of the Zone requirement for that Council. The Applicant wins the case, and the myth that lawyers are no good, and never go to VCAT because they are bastards continues. The locals just didn't bother to check the exact rules the case was going to be decided on.

 

 

[facthunter]

The system is not fit for purpose if it's so complex and incomprehensible, there's a difficulty in "the Man in the street" and even some lawyers understanding it.. THAT applies to Aviation also which is more of an issue relating to safety than the usual VCAT matters. Nev