Mum or Law?

[Lipp]

Number one... I don't permit the State to dictate the manner in which I drive. They do however have input should my driving cause injury or loss of property to another.

The rules that the state has set are pre-emptive measures, whereas this would advocate that everyone drives how they wish to and the state is just there to sort things out when they go wrong, effectively making them passive observers who can't counter growing crash tolls, and as in most of your writing assumes that most, if not all, drivers are good at it and have a good judgement to avoid accidents - which definitely isn't the case over here.

Number two... Speed limits are artifically lowered by 1/4 to 1/5 of standard everyday capabilities. I say "standard", because it is also possible to safely drive even faster than their initial rating as evidenced by police cars and other flagged government vehicles whenever they like to speed and without repercussion. The same goes for not following traffic rules (ie. safely crossing red lights when no other traffic exists, rolling stops, not signaling when no other vehicles are present, etc...)

Emergency vehicles may use sirens and flashing lights to inform other drivers and ensure a safe approach, which is not applicable to "normal traffic", it also assumes that everyday drivers would be on par with the driving capabilities of trained traffic cops or ambulance drivers, which again isn't applicable, and in very many cases the sensors for red lights will switch very quickly when there's no traffic, signalling still applies as useful for pedestrians and vehicles alike (frankly, you'd spend more time making sure that no one is around than to flick the rod), and essentially all of these rules are applied to normal driving conditions, for which they are very relevant, and can't be tailored for special situations.

Number three... we are told that driving is a privilege and not a right and to violate any directive doled out whether that action caused a real crime or not, is supposedly also a crime which can validate a revocation of said privilege. Yet, the same law generating/vomiting body without public consensus vote nor clear parameters and safeguards in a "Bill of Rights" or other concrete guarantee of civil liberties present through their various institutions dictate that we all must live within 4 "approved"walls, we must work, we must buy our food instead of raise it, pay our share of taxes, and follow whatever newest enacted knee jerk overnight law... this requires transportation and public transportation is inadequate for the majority to carry this out effectively. Gone are the days of the horse and/or carriage and it has also been made illegal to use a horse or carriage on a public road.

Well, technically you can still buy some land to grow your own food, stop working as you've now got food and won't need groceries, very few taxes to pay if not having a monetary income or car, and in this situation not needing a car - but I'm pretty sure that people would still prefer not to do it in that way. But yeah, efficiency-wise public transport will often have a hard time challenging cars, though it can still often succeed over it in monetary terms and peace of mind when not having to focus on driving. To each their own, personally I hope that public transport will be improved, I'm going to avoid a car as long as possible despite having a license.

Yet it's still a privilege??

In the meantime, more and more little piddly bullshit laws (one cannot have a handsfree enabled phone NOT in an approved cradle, have an mp3 player NOT in an approved cradle, etc etc etc...) are stacked onto what supposedly constitutes "safe driving". So one can flip the radio stations and adjust the bass and treble, shift through the gears, smoke a cigarette, while sipping on a Coke with one hand on the wheel... but to take one hand off of the wheel to say... flip to the next song of the mp3 player on your lap... is illegal?

And there are fines for all of this.... "unsafe driving".

Again, these have sprung up as pre-emptive measures because accident reports or other cases have highlighted their hazard. If all drivers would be responsible (rather than trying to focusing on closing a merging deal while driving in the morning rush or flipping the mp3 to find a favourite song while going down a windy mountain road) then these things would never have been highlighted, so it had its chance and failed. And frankly, if people continue to stuff up their driving to concentrate on other tasks (I just love to see people eating breakfast sandwiches while driving in the morning) then more things will be deemed as unsafe - many people would be able to cope with it, but it's hardly as if they could give out "Approval of driving while smoking" license amendments - people will always be different, you can't tailor the rules to fit every individual, or even narrow groups of individuals.

Freed from the duties of actually pulling people over for committing traditional "crimes against the State" (fixed and random speed cameras which dole out fines through private contractors and companies, into the State coffers or having to write parking tickets) they've now decided to focus on the interior of the car... the personal space and travelling residence of its citizenry. It's not like real crimes ie. murder, rape, theft, etc... are ever attended to by the State when they're happening. They show up "after the fact" no matter how fast you dial 000 or 911.

What's left but to violate free will in search of the mighty infraction dollar?

Afterall, it's a privilege that you be permitted to carry out your life and duties, paying money to the corporations and the State, as dictated to you by them.

Hence why crimes are classed not by the outcome but by the supposed prospect of an action leading to a possible crime.

Guilt before innocence.

Yeah, I suppose that the pre-emptive approach may be an annoyance, but traffic is one of the few things in which this can be done effectively, and I bet the coppers would love being able to prevent all the crime types you mentioned as well (seen the movie Minority Report? ), but that's far more difficult to assess and find out people's intentions.

If you're in the SE suburbs, you may have come across the intersection of Stud Rd and Wellington Rd near the Stamford Pub last night.

...hundreds of cars piled up for nearly 10 blocks... all waiting to go through a suspicionless "random" booze bus checkpoint. Violation of their civil liberties and the definition of the word "random" aside, consider that the supposed speed limit is 80 KPH and the police created an unsafe traffic hazard. Had you or I blocked off three lanes of traffic, we'd be suffering the legal consequences while being called bloody unsafe idiots and lambasted by the government mouthpieces and press.

2 weeks ago I was walking through Upper Ferntree Gully and noticed two service techs trying to wrestle a very large laundromat washing machine up a small trailer, so I lent a hand. As they backed up their van to couple to the trailer, 1 car was patiently waiting. A cop then drove by and jumped out of his car and onto the occasion to demand they stop blocking traffic as it was "unsafe". They asked for just half a minute to line the van up to the trailer and be on their way. He threatened them with an infraction. The speed limit was 50 KPH. They complied and he sped off doing at least 70.

That sums up traffic rules. There is nothing moral or ethical, even practical... about the road rules. They are not there for our safety. They are there to control us and feed off of us financially.

Well, for such checkpoints I'd expect them to set up a warning sign about slowing down because there's a checkpoint ahead, but of course then you'd might have dozens of cars making a U-turn to avoid getting caught, so it's a bit tricky to make it safe. But essentially, these checks are isolated incidents, whereas your own case may have been fine if isolated, but extrapolate that to occur over an entire population and you'll have such hazards popping up all over the place rather than a single place near a pub. It's unfortunate, the rules aren't perfect and the cops may get roasted for letting things slip through the cracks, even if its to compensate, but that's why laws are debated to be tailored for the better.

Whenever one questions this publically, one is almost always met with "If you're not doing anything wrong than you have nothing to hide"... what's even more disgusting than that is how you generally hear it from the citizenry first.

It is the politics of fear, apathy, and distrust of one another... and they prey on it.

All they have to do is point at the odd random case of reckless driving and suggest a new ban/law instead of just prosecuting for the actual crime committed. Millions of people driving through Melbourne everyday, and some kid who joyrided at Mach 1 through the city, or another who killed her teenage boyfriend months later is all they need.

They seem to get "random" right sometimes, eh?

It's true that they can be a bit frivolous when it comes to jumping at examples and setting up new laws, it gets into too much of a bureaucratic debacle when it comes to making these decisions - is it isolated or not, if not then how many cases are sufficient to advocate a new law, coupled with the extent of the damage that was caused and so on - it's very unfortunate, but until the premise of drivers being responsible is upheld it will be considered necessary.

I drive as fast as I freaking can up until the point where one of their police state roving choppers, numerous speed cameras, or very random squad cars might nab me. In clusters of traffic, I overtake and place distance between them because it is actually safer to drive at 110 in a 80 bottleneck full of new immigrant drivers still trying to learn the ropes in their 30's, 40's, and 50's. On the open road, I bottom out the speedo, around school crossings I maintain the ability to abruptly stop.

I have been driving accident free for over 20 years in every condition known to man and on 3 different continents and I never wear a seatbelt except to temporarily pull it across the shoulder when driving by so called "authorities" or their grubby infraction fishing expeditions.

Safe driving is a responsibility. Causing loss of life, injury, or loss of property is a violation of that responsibility... Up to that point, the laws have no validity. They are immoral and unjust.

We have the ultimate authority, not them.

Your ability is commendable, but to the general public it is not applicable, which is why pre-emptive measures - in the form of rules - are used. And frankly, driving ability is well and all, but there are still cases where ability won't save you (or another driver's inability will doom you), and it plain sucks to have your face scraped clean off on rough concrete simply because the belt is a minor annoyance or to save the 4 seconds it takes to clip it on.

Oh, and I wear a helmet when biking, sue me

[IndiReloaded]

Do what you like up to where it only affects you. There are a lot of hills around where I live, its pretty much impossible not to go over 50kph when you are driving down a mountain.

If I get caught, and I have, I cough up the price of the ticket and carry on until the next time. Or move to Germany. But, if I actually HIT someone (the original question in this thread) b/c I chose to drive over the speed limit, or yapping on my phone, or had been drinking, then I should take responsibility for it. The lawyer who encourages someone to lie about the facts of such an event in court, should be reported and lose their licence to practice law.

[Charlie Boy II]

Of course, but that's why you'd never act for your own mother in those circumstances.

[IndiReloaded]

I wouldn't lie if she hit someone, nope. She would never ask me to. Again, your lack of reading comprehension means you misinterpret what I wrote. I can certainly act on my mom's behalf without needing to lie about it. If I felt she was being treated unfairly I would help her, through proper channels as Doc mentioned, but not by lying about it.

Sorry CB, I have no respect for your attitude. I'm a mom, and I would be appalled if my son ever did what you describe. Its so common in our weak-minded society. We aren't discussing a situation where a cop pulls your mom over and a white lie will mean $100 less on a ticket that really only affects her. The situation Mish described is that another human gets hurt b/c of her choices. I would support my mom through such an event but I wouldn't lie so she could avoid taking responsibility for what happened. That is basically what you are proposing, and I can only assume you are the sort who would also hit-and-run. I am the sort who takes a photo of your plate w/my phone and testifies in court to make sure you never do it again.

Here's a topical article. I suppose you would say this nice guy w/his character references shouldn't go to prison for what he did. Unless he killed YOUR mom, in which case you'd be on your knees thanking the witnesses who caught this guy:

[url]http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100219/CGY_Coupal_Sentence_100219/20100219/?hub=CalgaryHome[/url]

[Lipp]

The Crown is calling for a 10-year sentence. "I can't stress enough, drunk driving at the best of times if reprehensible but in those circumstances it calls for a sentence that tells people if you're close enough to home, stay away from the car,"

It's not too serious in this case, but I hate when they specifically want to "make an example" of someone in a case, takes away from the fairness of the trial for the benefit of the media response.

[Charlie Boy II]

and I can only assume you are the sort who would also hit-and-run.

yes that seems like a rational, well-reasoned inference from my answer to a hypothetical. Your posts appear to be hitting a rather hysterical note.

But I think it's time you were quiet now. I wouldn't let my mum go to prison for a moment's inattention. You can type as much nonsense as you like, but you won't change my mind. And besides, the law agrees with me. The fact is, in the above scenario my mum would be highly unlikely to go to prison - in New South Wales, at least.

[IndiReloaded]

Poor CB, really feeling the small-penis effect that you need to tell me to 'be quiet' on an anonymous internet site and call me hysterical. Insults are the sign you've lost both control of yourself and the argument. Unable to make a reasoned, intellectual argument in defense of an indefensible position. So, LOL, and.... no, I won't. But you are welcome to that Ignore Button, as I mentioned before.

And besides, the law agrees with me. The fact is, in the above scenario my mum would be highly unlikely to go to prison - in New South Wales, at least.

Now who has the problem with logic? If this^ is true, then you'd hardly need to lie, now would you?

Oh, and if you did, there are perjury laws, which as a law student I assume you are familiar with? And as for the lawyer, how about a little thing called 'subornation of perjury'?

Don't lawyers just HATE those know-it-all scientist-types? LOL.

[IndiReloaded]

It's not too serious in this case, but I hate when they specifically want to "make an example" of someone in a case, takes away from the fairness of the trial for the benefit of the media response.

I agree with this, Lipp. Its like they are trying to make up for the unfair, too lenient judgements they have given in the past. That's not the way to go about it, agreed.

Of course, the Canadian supreme court has just decided its okay to reduce sentence below minimums in cases where an accused experienced abuse at the hands of authorities. Like its some kind of consumer transaction where you get a discount if your court system experience isn't up to standard. Its a total admission that our police are out of control but without taking any proactive steps to correct. Way to take the focus off of the actual problem.

[misombra]

i could never deal with mandatory minimums. they are so ridiculous and undermine judges. they irritate me.

[Charlie Boy II]

i could never deal with mandatory minimums. they are so ridiculous and undermine judges. they irritate me.

I agree, I think they're very dangerous. They undermine the independence of the judiciary.

[Charlie Boy II]

Poor CB, really feeling the small-penis effect that you need to tell me to 'be quiet' on an anonymous internet site and call me hysterical. Insults are the sign you've lost both control of yourself and the argument. Unable to make a reasoned, intellectual argument in defense of an indefensible position. So, LOL, and.... no, I won't. But you are welcome to that Ignore Button, as I mentioned before.

I wasn't insulting you. It did seem like your posts were getting a bit hysterical.

There is no problem with my logic. In my initial response I was simply answering the hypothetical as it was put to me.

"small penis effect", give me a break. And now this discussion has degnerated sufficiently that I think I will cease engaging with you. You have a proven ability to trade snide insults for upwards of 20 pages. I don't have the same stamina. Adios.

[Lipp]

Just have angry sex in a law office with one another and be done with it.

[Doc Durian]

The rules that the state has set are pre-emptive measures, whereas this would advocate that everyone drives how they wish to and the state is just there to sort things out when they go wrong, effectively making them passive observers who can't counter growing crash tolls, and as in most of your writing assumes that most, if not all, drivers are good at it and have a good judgement to avoid accidents - which definitely isn't the case over here.

If you have no issue with pre-emptive measures then you would have no problem with work camps, sub division compounds, curfews, wire tapped residences, identity paper/card checks, urine collection, DNA testing, forced psychological evaluations, indefinite incarceration without charges, media blackouts, internet filtering, just to name a few other pre-emptive initiatives.

Emergency vehicles may use sirens and flashing lights to inform other drivers and ensure a safe approach, which is not applicable to "normal traffic", it also assumes that everyday drivers would be on par with the driving capabilities of trained traffic cops or ambulance drivers, which again isn't applicable, and in very many cases the sensors for red lights will switch very quickly when there's no traffic, signalling still applies as useful for pedestrians and vehicles alike (frankly, you'd spend more time making sure that no one is around than to flick the rod), and essentially all of these rules are applied to normal driving conditions, for which they are very relevant, and can't be tailored for special situations.

You're making excuses for why the State has it's own rules for itself and the populace, restrictions. Incidentally, most training for government officials is not comprehensive enough to safely operate outside of the normal traffic rules... hence why ambos and cops regularly crash and regularly don't have the story featured in the state guided media. It's not adequate because it's not experience related. It's a course or two.

Well, technically you can still buy some land to grow your own food, stop working as you've now got food and won't need groceries, very few taxes to pay if not having a monetary income or car, and in this situation not needing a car - but I'm pretty sure that people would still prefer not to do it in that way.

Technically you can't... legally. Councils prevent people from growing foods and livestock on their own property where public transport actually is available. Ths smallest parcel of land in these areas cost no less than 80-100 thousand and would not sustain one person's nutrition for a year much less a family. One can not just live on this land as they see fit without running into the corporate influenced zoning laws either. A roo can shit where it likes, but a family who wants to live in a tent or caravan for longer than an approved period of time without having secured a permit to build an approved residence has been rendered illegal.

Ask the gypsies and the subsistance living movement people if you don't believe this simple truth. The State Government suggests one take a "power nap" anywhere alongside a road if one is too tired to continue driving... yet, a good 8 hours of sleep in a lifestyle change is "dirty" and worthy of prosecution under vagrancy. So is crapping in a lime, bio, or chemical toilet, without guarantees that a flushing toilet hooked up to a water supply is coming.

This all requires money and standard job types in order to find the money in order to comply with the statutes in order to pay socialist thief taxations in order to get off the grid.

Yet council rates and other permit renewals never stop.

But yeah, efficiency-wise public transport will often have a hard time challenging cars, though it can still often succeed over it in monetary terms and peace of mind when not having to focus on driving. To each their own, personally I hope that public transport will be improved, I'm going to avoid a car as long as possible despite having a license.

Public transport is only rolled out where it will support "the machine".

Again, these have sprung up as pre-emptive measures because accident reports or other cases have highlighted their hazard. If all drivers would be responsible (rather than trying to focusing on closing a merging deal while driving in the morning rush or flipping the mp3 to find a favourite song while going down a windy mountain road) then these things would never have been highlighted, so it had its chance and failed. And frankly, if people continue to stuff up their driving to concentrate on other tasks (I just love to see people eating breakfast sandwiches while driving in the morning) then more things will be deemed as unsafe - many people would be able to cope with it, but it's hardly as if they could give out "Approval of driving while smoking" license amendments - people will always be different, you can't tailor the rules to fit every individual, or even narrow groups of individuals.

Yeah, right... the end always justifies the means. Thank you, Machiavelli.. thank you, Trotsky. Aside from that, the reports are misleading. Plenty of people eat and flip through their MP3's while driving. Some of us even knee drive while doing all of this while smoking a blunt. Not a big deal until some idiot screws up. Instead of prosecuting them for any harm or damage done to property or person.... The United Socialist States of Australia merely blankets the blame on the execution of the action, not the outcome.

No wonder Australia fights becoming a Republic.. the frenzied under the thumb fostered mob rule of the current state would have to contend with checks and balances from guaranteed civil liberty and being responsible for the results of one's actions. Drivers in a Republic would be forced to drive within their ability level or face the consequences and the State would have to add more Pokies machines to generate defacto taxation revenue.

Yeah, I suppose that the pre-emptive approach may be an annoyance, but traffic is one of the few things in which this can be done effectively, and I bet the coppers would love being able to prevent all the crime types you mentioned as well (seen the movie Minority Report? ), but that's far more difficult to assess and find out people's intentions.

It's not an annoyance. It's immoral. As for police yearnings, it's impossible to prevent crime in a free society, hence the sordid state of liberty in Australia. But hey... Australia is a freedom loving democracy and the police unions don't scream for more "discretionary powers" every year like a hybred Judge Dredd monster ofthe executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

Well, for such checkpoints I'd expect them to set up a warning sign about slowing down because there's a checkpoint ahead, but of course then you'd might have dozens of cars making a U-turn to avoid getting caught, so it's a bit tricky to make it safe. But essentially, these checks are isolated incidents, whereas your own case may have been fine if isolated, but extrapolate that to occur over an entire population and you'll have such hazards popping up all over the place rather than a single place near a pub. It's unfortunate, the rules aren't perfect and the cops may get roasted for letting things slip through the cracks, even if its to compensate, but that's why laws are debated to be tailored for the better.

The laws were once fine. You do something which gives a police officer "reasonable suspicion", you are safely pulled over and queried. Don't make excuses for the government pushing through its citizens like sheep through a taxation and police state bottleneck. You disgust me as a person, in that case. I would be forced to withhold a cool drink of water to you in the desert if I were to chance upon your withered broken down carcass. Nothing personal, but liberty takes some personal sacrifice and you'd be that person best suited for it between the pair of us.

It's true that they can be a bit frivolous when it comes to jumping at examples and setting up new laws, it gets into too much of a bureaucratic debacle when it comes to making these decisions - is it isolated or not, if not then how many cases are sufficient to advocate a new law, coupled with the extent of the damage that was caused and so on - it's very unfortunate, but until the premise of drivers being responsible is upheld it will be considered necessary.

Drivers being "responsible" is Australia is doing whatever they are ordered to do by the State. Try thinking outside of the tyrannical loop for once.

Your ability is commendable, but to the general public it is not applicable, which is why pre-emptive measures - in the form of rules - are used.

Don't patronise me, kid. You're not doing the social engineers any favours by speaking up for their evil practices.

And frankly, driving ability is well and all, but there are still cases where ability won't save you (or another driver's inability will doom you), and it plain sucks to have your face scraped clean off on rough concrete simply because the belt is a minor annoyance or to save the 4 seconds it takes to clip it on.

Further bullroar from the socialist dung heap. There are situations where wearing a seatbelt also dooms one. What about those situations? If you recall earlier, I also mentioned that I stay far away from other drivers in my speeding frenzy. Whether it dawned on you or not, there is a very good reason for it. The inability of other drivers matters not if you're not exposed to a situation where they could impact your life or property. Particularly drivers who hold off getting their licenses and practicing how to drive as soon as they can versus jumping on the roads many years later.

So do what you have to do. Pull out government sanctioned and paid for polls studies, etc... like a good little Kapo

Oh, and I wear a helmet when biking, sue me

I usually spit on the bicyclists if they're taking up a whole lane of motor vehicle designed roadway and peddling like old people screw, so your helmet won't do you a lick of good. I also hit the horn for a good 3 seconds just as I approach, swerve, and slip back in a few metres ahead of them doing 80. Sometimes I call them "bloody idiots" who "deserve to perish" for their arrogance and stupidity... especially around curvy mountain single lane roads with medium level speed limits.

But hey... maybe you can get my bull bar banned, eh? Pre-emptively speaking...

[IndiReloaded]

I had to drive behind an annoying cyclist this morning. I don't mind sharing the road, but it irks that the rules only apply when it suits them. He had no problem going slow enough I couldn't make a left turn on green-yellow, but he had no problem himself turning left on the red. Doc would have bumped him with his huge bumper, but he would have scratched my eco-euromobliles fine german paint and my husband would have gotten mad at me.

[qwertz]

I would not lie for my mum, or anyone for that matter. If she chose to break the speed limit, then she has to deal with the consequences regardless of whether speed was a factor or not. The rules/laws may be right or wrong, but that really isnt what matters, they are there and if she or anyone cant stick to them, well they have to deal with what happens if you break them. Plus, that pedestrian probably wants justice if they were injured, and their family have to deal with the loss(if they were killed). You people that say you would lie..if it were the other way around and someone knocked down your child/parent/sibling or someone close to you, i bet you would be pissed off if the driver got away with it because their son/daughter lied about the speed they were travelling at.

I was in a similar situation where someone close to me killed someone else close to me in a car crash under the influence of alcohol. As much as i hated what this person did, i gave a letter/statement of character that(according to the judge) was the thing that stopped him getting a custodial sentence. A mandantory minimum sentence in this case (and im sure many more) would not have achieved anything.

Oh, and its not about integrity for me, its about people taking responsibility for their actions. Something that doesnt happen too often.