Proof that people are losing the plot

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

And acceptance allows the behaviour to continue.

Is it acceptance persay,or that theres less police on the beat ???
Dont worry about speed cameras or the odd unmarked here and there
Troll around full marked cop cars up and down the hiways and see how fast people pull their head in ....

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by Ugg

You have demonstrated my point perfectly.
Your examples rely on a charge after a collision, or excessive speed.

She had no collision, was on the speed limit, therefore your examples are irrelevant.

Hang on, you didn’t read my post properly.

Read it again, carefully. You do not need to be involved in an accident to be charged with careless driving. Better still, as you’re in Victoria. Ring up your local police station and speak to a TMU member and get the info directly from him. The reason the definition of careless driving is so broad, to put it bluntly, is so they can get you on anything that “they” deem is unsafe, and this my good friend, would fall nicely under that definition.

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by Ugg

Very touching metaphor mate.

But fact is she didn't rear end anyone, and she didn't break any laws.

Period.

The fact is mate that rear end collision's do happen everyday on our road's, and since you are privileged to drive and share our road's (if you are licensed) with everyone else including people like this woman then you are at risk of it happening to you.

Now like I said just remember what would go through your mind if and when it does happen to you.

Would you be as so kind to praise the person for their lack of incompetence and disregard they had for you and every other road user.

[ltd]

Why distractions can be deadly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnHcy6ZNYuY

[No.6]

LOL. unbelievable.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by Ugg

so....enlighten everyone here with your road rule knowledge.

Any australian state you like...what law did she break?

Please just settle down. You are attacking a few here who you should be listening to rather than digging a hole too big to get out of. Discuss by all means but listen to what people are saying?

[zilo]

Originally Posted by JC

So rather than enforce a law that is designed to prevent events occurring that may lead to injury and death, you're more than happy to let people do what they want, and only charge them with an offence if injury or death result from their behaviour? Seriously?

I'm sure that proposition will inspire the usual sentiment.

But..Her action did not lead to injury or death as you propose.

And we all complain about the nanny state.

If she is driving in a coherent manner, whithin the speed limit, in the left lane, who gives a damn if she's picking her nose, playing with her voice command stereo, glancing at a page, adjusting her sound system.
As long as she doesn't crash...and she didn't then...big deal.

Originally Posted by flappist

No actually I checked with a friend who is 2IC of the traffic branch in our region and has 25 years of experience. He pointed me to the legislation and has personally successfully charged many drivers for doing exactly what appears in the pic.

I rang the number in the article a while ago and asked for further details.
She hasn't been charged with anything as a result.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by Ugg

I'm sure that proposition will inspire the usual sentiment.

But..Her action did not lead to injury or death as you propose.

etc ......... .

So ........ doing 225km/h in a 50 zone is OK unless it leads to death or injury?

Please don't say it isn't the same ..... it is exactly what you are saying.

Also ..... most here are advocates for a fairer and less of a nanny state type thing but can readily identify something that is not kosher compared to someone being ticketed for 4 k;s over a limit.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

So ........ doing 225km/h in a 50 zone is OK unless it leads to death or injury?

Please don't say it isn't the same ..... it is exactly what you are saying.

.

Pretty sure that the police would have been right on it if it were the same as 175km over the limit.

They don't seem as confident acting on an anonymous photo as an internet lynch mob is.

So justice has prevailed I guess.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

Dont worry about speed cameras or the odd unmarked here and there
Troll around full marked cop cars up and down the hiways and see how fast people pull their head in ....

Agree, a marked cop car is a lot more of a deterrent to a range of offences that speed cameras have no effect on.

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Agree, a marked cop car is a lot more of a deterrent to a range of offences that speed cameras have no effect on.

You and me and im sure many others beleive this
But remember its the text book trained monkeys that dont venture beyond 4 walls that know better than us who live in the real world .....
If trolling fully marked police cars can curb bad or offensive drivers alot better than revenue raising cameras ,why dont they use that philosophy ...

Oh,silly me, it doesnt make millions of dollars a year .....

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

You and me and im sure many others beleive this
But remember its the text book trained monkeys that dont venture beyond 4 walls that know better than us who live in the real world .....
If trolling fully marked police cars can curb bad or offensive drivers alot better than revenue raising cameras ,why dont they use that philosophy ...

Oh,silly me, it doesnt make millions of dollars a year .....

You know it, we are both on the same page on that one.

[Poorboy_racer]

Which meat and two veg was he into?

He was eating Roast beef, Yorkshire, puddings, roast potatos, carrots and peas. And had a mug of tea.

According to some you were distracted and should have been watching the road ahead instead of taking an inventory of his dinner plate to the side of you. may as well have been reading a book

Thanks Ugg. I think being totally awair of whats going on, looking around you instead of just staring straight ahead might be safer. You dont see someone eating their Sunday dinner while driving along everyday. You saying I should have looked away? Can see a long way ahead in the freeway and nothing usally comes the other way. By the way is your name a clue to the posts you have been putting up?

[flappist]

Proof that people are losing the plot?

Quod erat demonstrandum

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Ugg

I'm sure that proposition will inspire the usual sentiment.

But..Her action did not lead to injury or death as you propose.

And we all complain about the nanny state.

If she is driving in a coherent manner, whithin the speed limit, in the left lane, who gives a damn if she's picking her nose, playing with her voice command stereo, glancing at a page, adjusting her sound system.
As long as she doesn't crash...and she didn't then...big deal.

What a load of crap. So going by this I can do 250km/h as long as I don't crash, I'm good. Go away troll.