Front end loader seized, WA.

[jaydee]

Without getting into an arguement over the rights and wrongs etc of whether Police should seize vehicles, I just thought this was an interesting story.
Guy is driving a 17 tonne loader whilst talking on his mobile.
Gets pulled up by the Police and turns out his license is suspended. His boss is going to be real happy about this. What an idiot, really dumb
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/west...-1225860554948

[flappist]

Yep bureaucratic stupidity is the only constant in this country.

[4Vman]

and that things no where near 17 tonne!!!

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

and that things no where near 17 tonne!!!

No I think that pic is for illustration purposes. That particular site (PperthNow) always have pics that aren't close to the subject they're talking about.

[calais]

Government fail.

This sort of garbage is happening only too often these days.

[SVTVNM]

Imagine the cost to the taxpayer for a low loader to be brought in to shift the front end loader asuming it was not driven to were it was impounded.

[Spanrz]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

and that things no where near 17 tonne!!!

Hahah yeah +1

More like 8-9 tonne.

[OLDFORDNUT]

so he was not driving down the road ,He was actually working the machine in roadworks. wonder why people lose respect for cops

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

so he was not driving down the road ,He was actually working the machine in roadworks. wonder why people lose respect for cops

Actually if you read the article he was driving ON THE ROAD and was pulled over at an intersection. At no point in the article does it say he was within the road works area. It only says it was being used in roadworks in the area.

Tough for him, he broke the law and was dumb enough to drive a vehicle with a suspended licence and got caught...... boohoo

I would bet that if he wasnt talking on the phone the police wouldve just driven straight past and not pulled him over..

Yet again members on here lambast Police for doing their job.... get real people.

[Bluntman]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Yet again members on here lambast Police for doing their job.... get real people.

I don't blame the cop for doing his job. As a motorbike rider, people talking on their phones is one of my pet hates. Had so many of them change lanes into me.

My problem is with the stupid "police state" laws. How these got through I'll never know. It is legalised stealing by the police as far as I see it.
Just another case in this country where the victim gets punished more than the criminal.

[FrogInASock]

IMHO, the "vehicle" sholuld not be impounded if it is not the primary means of transport of the offender, ie: if it's a front end loader which belongs to the Boss, a truck which belongs to the Employer, or Auntie Mabel's Camry which the "hoon" was just taking to the shop once and once alone (maybe hard to prove this one, but you get the idea). The offender should still have the book thrown at him. After all, how long has it been widely known that thou shalt not chat on mobile phones while operating a vehicle? It's not bloody hard!

[TUF_302]

What an idiot!, the cop that is, the guy was working on a closed road, he should be able to talk on the mobile while driving the loader i think, also the boss shouldn't have to loose his vehicle over it, even if his employee was doing the wrong thing, he himself was not in charge of the loader at the time

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by TUF_302

What an idiot!, the cop that is, the guy was working on a closed road, he should be able to talk on the mobile while driving the loader i think

If its a registered or classified vehicle or piece of equipment I think you'll find its still illegal even on private property, im sure Worksafe would be able to prosecute as well...

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by TUF_302

What an idiot!, the cop that is, the guy was working on a closed road, he should be able to talk on the mobile while driving the loader i think, also the boss shouldn't have to loose his vehicle over it, even if his employee was doing the wrong thing, he himself was not in charge of the loader at the time

Where in the news report does it say it was a closed road?

It says it was at an intersection..... No where does it say in that article he was within the road work area!

[jaydee]

Some people must be reading a different link than the one I posted. It clearly says he was driving along at the time through an intersection.
Now if he was driving a 17 tonne front end loader whilst talking on his phone (which has ben proven is a big distraction) and he ran into you because of inattention you'd be jumping up and down.
Theres only one idiot here and thats the moron with no license, therefor no insurance driving a heavy vehicle yakking on his mobile.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by jaydee

Some people must be reading a different link than the one I posted. It clearly says he was driving along at the time through an intersection.
Now if he was driving a 17 tonne front end loader whilst talking on his phone (which has ben proven is a big distraction) and he ran into you because of inattention you'd be jumping up and down.
Theres only one idiot here and thats the moron with no license, therefor no insurance driving a heavy vehicle yakking on his mobile.

Yes amazing.. people love to automatically stick the boots into the police even without taking 20 seconds to read or understand what actually happened..

No wonder some people get into trouble with them, attitude test FAIL....

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by jaydee

Some people must be reading a different link than the one I posted. It clearly says he was driving along at the time through an intersection.
Now if he was driving a 17 tonne front end loader whilst talking on his phone (which has ben proven is a big distraction) and he ran into you because of inattention you'd be jumping up and down.
Theres only one idiot here and thats the moron with no license, therefor no insurance driving a heavy vehicle yakking on his mobile.

i read it as being at the intersection of the Great Northern HWY,working .which is
technically driving on Hiway.
yes hes a dumbass but if he was digging up the road then he might have assumed he was ok

[NC1183]

The article says he was driving through an intersection near some road works. I doubt the police would have even looked at him if he had have been in the road work area.

[flappist]

This is yet another example of incompetent lawmaking and bureaucratic stupidity controlling the police force.

The last time it was a lambo confiscated due to a mechanic test driving it, this time it is a very expensive piece of road building machinery.

What happened to the good old days when the police force's mandate was to keep the peace and protect the people?

Once coppers could assess a situation and act in the best interest of the people, now they are almost robots who are disciplined if they do not follow the exact wording of the law regardless of any circumstances.

The almost Nazi like culture of "YOU MUST OBEY" that is becoming so common in all sections of the public service (yet another oxymoron) from the parliament all the way down to the council dog catcher is turning the once free country of Australia into an almost totalitarian socialist domaine.

The idiots who created these "hoon laws" have demonstrated gross incompetence and complete failure to understand the issues.
The sycophantic apparatchiks who are implementing these flawed debacles and forcing police officers to act in such inane ways should be removed from office and charged with treason against the people of Australia.

This can only be fixed one way. They have to be constantly reminded at the ballot box that they are the servants not the masters of the people.

[NC1183]

Unfortunately Flappist, unless a political party with a whole different set of idea's comes to power, and there's an equally minded party on the other side, voting against them won't do any good.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by NC1183

Unfortunately Flappist, unless a political party with a whole different set of idea's comes to power, and there's an equally minded party on the other side, voting against them won't do any good.

Yes tru but as I have stated several times it is not the party in it the candidate that you replace. A single term ensures that they get no perks and the power is fleeting. This is the big stick....

[zdcol71]

Iv'e read the original post, and I've read a couple of interpetations of where he may or may not have been driving. Appears to me, and I am willing to be corrected, he was caught driving a heavy vehicle, whilst under suspension, whilst talking on a mobile phone, whilst either on a road or a highway. He may have, or may have not, been the owner/ operator of said vehicle.
If he is the owner of said vehicle he has broken at least two laws, if he is the operator for an owner, then the owner is guilty of breaking at least one law. People may be aggreived about hoon laws ,but IMO, this is a perfect example of when a vehicle should be impounded. Why anyone would defend his actions, or compare the legislation that is in place to avoid this stuff happening, as akin to nazism, or totalitarianism, is beyond credibility. He is a professional driver, and as such would be well versed in what is required of him to earn his livelyhood. If he chooses to ignore the constraints that are put in place to stop people driving to fast for the conditions, or whilst talking on a phone ,or whilst under suspension,or whilst over the BAC,or whilst doing any other thing that is illegal, why should anyone defend him or compare the coppers who enforce these rules to robots!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

Iv'e read the original post, and I've read a couple of interpetations of where he may or may not have been driving. Appears to me, and I am willing to be corrected, he was caught driving a heavy vehicle, whilst under suspension, whilst talking on a mobile phone, whilst either on a road or a highway. He may have, or may have not, been the owner/ operator of said vehicle.
If he is the owner of said vehicle he has broken at least two laws, if he is the operator for an owner, then the owner is guilty of breaking at least one law. People may be aggreived about hoon laws ,but IMO, this is a perfect example of when a vehicle should be impounded. Why anyone would defend his actions, or compare the legislation that is in place to avoid this stuff happening, as akin to nazism, or totalitarianism, is beyond credibility. He is a professional driver, and as such would be well versed in what is required of him to earn his livelyhood. If he chooses to ignore the constraints that are put in place to stop people driving to fast for the conditions, or whilst talking on a phone ,or whilst under suspension,or whilst over the BAC,or whilst doing any other thing that is illegal, why should anyone defend him or compare the coppers who enforce these rules to robots!

Are you really that simple???

What if it was a school bus, rural fire brigade truck, VMR trailer or some other important piece of equipment?

Should those be confiscated for a month because some idiot drove them illegally when they were off duty?

Kids miss a months school, a few houses burn down, a couple of people drown but at least the nasty phone user was stopped.

Hoon laws are suppose to stop HOONS, not be used as a weapon of mass destruction.

The world is not black and white.....

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by flappist

Are you really that simple???

What if it was a school bus, rural fire brigade truck, VMR trailer or some other important piece of equipment?

Should those be confiscated for a month because some idiot drove them illegally when they were off duty?

Kids miss a months school, a few houses burn down, a couple of people drown but at least the nasty phone user was stopped.

Hoon laws are suppose to stop HOONS, not be used as a weapon of mass destruction.

The world is not black and white.....

Boy, I sometimes think your tally of smily faces must be based on the maxim that if you shout loud enough people will believe what you say, particularly when you use this logic:
"Kids miss a months school, a few houses burn down, a couple of people drown but at least the nasty phone user was stopped." Or the obligatory "nazi", or "conspiracy"
My post was based on the fact that there was nowwhere in the original post that said anyone was "off duty"

[flappist]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

Boy, I sometimes think your tally of smily faces must be based on the maxim that if you shout loud enough people will believe what you say, particularly when you use this logic:
"Kids miss a months school, a few houses burn down, a couple of people drown but at least the nasty phone user was stopped." Or the obligatory "nazi", or "conspiracy"
My post was based on the fact that there was nowwhere in the original post that said anyone was "off duty"

So how does impounding a piece of equipment that is being used to do work on a public road (the great northern highway) help the people of Western Australia?

Either the equipment IS NOT replaced thereby causing the job to take longer and therefore causing extra inconvenience to road users and of course costing the tax payers of Western Australia more money OR the equipment IS replaced by something else on a short term contract costing the tax payers of Western Australia more money.

So basically the "hoon" does not lose his personal car as a punitive measure and many other innocent people are punished as collateral damage.

This is what I call bureaucratic dogmatic stupidity.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by flappist

So how does impounding a piece of equipment that is being used to do work on a public road (the great northern highway) help the people of Western Australia?

Either the equipment IS NOT replaced thereby causing the job to take longer and therefore causing extra inconvenience to road users and of course costing the tax payers of Western Australia more money OR the equipment IS replaced by something else on a short term contract costing the tax payers of Western Australia more money.

So basically the "hoon" does not lose his personal car as a punitive measure and many other innocent people are punished as collateral damage.

This is what I call bureaucratic dogmatic stupidity.

Let me say first that despite what you may think, I am not a big fan of impounding cars for the sake of minor indescretions and from all I am hearing, I don't think it is happening as quickly or unfairly as many here would hve us believe(if people are indeed getting there cars impounded because they happen to "spin their wheels on a slick of oil when pulling sedately away from the lights", then I stand corrected)
But to the topic, I would guess that the guy in question was either an owner operator or an employee of a company contracted to do the work. As such the contract or the supply of material and equipment, or the safety management plan of the contractor or any other issue relating to the contract would have very little, if anything at all to do with the taxpayer direct, other than the fact the duration of the works would overrun a pre contracted schedule.That's probably why very few if any councils or main roads depts. actually have any full time crews working on roads anymore. Most of this work is contracted out to private business.
I doubt very much wether any tax payer dollars will be spent to source another vehicle to complete the works in question. More likely the contractor would be contracturally penalised and be forced to foot the bill himself to complete his work under the terms of his contract. As an ironic little twist this could be construed as the government actually sending out a very strong message not to screw with the tax payer dollar.But hey ,all that aside I know the response I will get for saying something like that!

[GasoLane]

Tony, I know this is a little off topic but it's kinda related....

As you know I drive a Truck, a few weeks ago all drivers received a memo saying that there is now a new law in Vic. Whereby if we (the drivers) get caught for speeding (in any state) not only do we get fined so does the company.

I haven't followed up to see if this is correct yet or when it comes in to effect perhaps one of our friendly Mr Plods in here might know.

We are already speed limited to 100kmh, have Satellite tracking and receive a warning letter if we run off hills at more than 110kmh. I do fail to see how anyone can fine a company for the actions of their drivers hundreds of kilometres away.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I do fail to see how anyone can fine a company for the actions of their drivers hundreds of kilometres away.

A company can be fined simply by being in breach of OH&S legislation, ie a company needs to be very sure that its employees are operating within the law any time its employees are representing or acting on behalf of said company

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

A company can be fined simply by being in breach of OH&S legislation, ie a company needs to be very sure that its employees are operating within the law any time its employees are representing or acting on behalf of said company

Speeding has NOTHING whatsoever to do with OH&S.

I think you meant that companies should ensure their employees are working within OH&S laws.

If Road related incidents were in OH&S jurisdiction the Highways would be classed as a workplace and they're not (not in Oz anyway)

If what you said was even remotely correct every company that employs drivers, be they Taxi, Company Reps, or the Police force would be in court everyday!

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

A few weeks ago all drivers received a memo saying that there is now a new law in Vic. Whereby if we (the drivers) get caught for speeding (in any state) not only do we get fined so does the company.

I’ve heard nothing about this, but I’ll get the mirror out and look into it.