Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

People are so fscking stupid! [VIC]

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by [FLUX], Mar 31, 2009.

  1. Read the Herald Sun Story here, then read the reader comments for an insight into how stupid people are.

    Short story is this. Speed camera has snapped some guy's car for speeding. They've hit him up for the fine and the points, yet can't suspend his licence 'cos they can't prove it was him, and he won't/can't name who the driver is.

    There's a mass of comments calling for the crushing of said drivers car, calling him a murderer ('cos if you speed you're a murderer), to people crying for the removal of the need for the basic legal premise of the "burden of proof" for traffic offences, also helped along by the Herald Sun referring to the "burden of proof" as a "legal loophole", which the Vic Government is apparently rushing to close with the cavalry lead by Comrade Pallas.

    Seriously, what the f*ck is up with people? Is the mass populace so utterly stupid that they actually want the basic principle of the "burden of proof" removed from them?

    As one of the comments states, what if someone spots your car of the same make and model and colour in the parking lot, takes a note of your plates, and fakes up a set and goes speeding getting snapped by every speed camera along the way? Heck, what if you honestly don't know who the driver was, but know for sure it wasn't you, and so ask for assistance/proof from the police as to who it might have been?

    It really makes me angry and sad to think that people are so f*cking stupid to call for the removal of their basic rights. Makes me want to have the laws passed, so I can steal their plates, hire a rental car of the same make, model, and colour, and go speeding, put the plates back on their car, and then see how much they like it when the legal burden of proof has been removed from the legal system.

    It's f*cked. Totally f*cked.

  2. Welcome to mass mind control.

    No difference between this and people who think that there is a difference between Obama and Bush's agenda. World Government comming and global warming fraud.

    They use great propaganda to convince people to jump off a cliff of thier own free will!
  3. Flux, I'm always ranting and whinging about the different levels of burden of proof, assumption of innocence, right to a trial and so on, and how the rights of motorists are non-existant when you compare them to what real criminals are offered.

    1. A motorist has to give name, address, licence details, etc.
    2. A motorist can be detained at any time and without any reasonable cause
    3. A motorist is assumed guilty. Well, it seems that way. It will cost him more if he defends the charge and loses.

    1. A crook can remain silent. Doesn't have to speak to police at all.
    2. A crook can only be arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that he's committed a crime.
    3. A crook does not get an "infringement" notice. Rather, it's off to court where bail may or may not be granted. The penalties levied to crooks don't seem to be any worse if he pleads not guilty compared to those who do.

    Case in point. Mate's son was advised to plead guilty to an assault charge and reckless use of a car (alleged that he tried to run some guy over). The guy's mates all testified against him. His word against theirs. So, in the face of things, he's advised to plead guilty to get a lesser sentence. Wrong. He gets the max.

    As for the article, it's a load of crap, particularly from the rocket scientists who wrote to express their "views" and hiding behind anon. user names.
  4. "HOON drivers caught speeding could keep their licences after a 136km/h leadfoot dodged the law with a legal loophole..............snapped at 136km/h in a 100km/h zone in 2006"

    Hahah, I just had to ask myself, what do I consider to be more of a threat to my safety, sombody doing 36kph over the limit ( travelling 36% faster than everybody else in that case) or people not letting me know where the f#ck they are going by forgetting to indicate? The reason I mentioned that was in the past few months, not using the blinkers has become the norm for sydney it seems, nobody cares...

    I wouldnt be suprised if the dumbarses who just jump from lane to lane without a worry in the world are the same people who jumped on that article to bring some well thaught out wisdom.
  5. Same with the bikie laws.

    Can someone confirm how the SA laws are phrased? Do they refer to proscribed groups or specifically mention bikies?

    Flux, I don't always agree with what is said here, but why anyone would want to voluntarily give up their rights is beyond me. And we know that police are never wrong, vindictive or just plain corrupt.
  6. This is the one that really gets me mad. A lot of people don't even bother to understand / look-up what the definition of murder is. I believe there was a 60 minutes story not long ago exploring the idea of charging people with murder if they've killed someone with their vehicle.
    That's all well and good if the court can prove it was intentional to kill. I guess all those unfortunate parents who accidentally run over their children in their driveways are murderers too!
    Would it be too much to ask to look in to more appropriate penalties for people who are reckless drivers?

    Tell me about it! .......long story short......Work arvo shift, leave work at 11pm. Drive with left hand on wheel and right elbow resting on bottom of driver's windows with tip of forefinger on right eyebrow and thumb on chin. Across a darkened 6 lane road (with a grass strip in the middle) heading in the opposite direction, Policewoman with super-sight believes I'm on mobile. Get infringement even though not guilty.

    1. Pay fine
    2. Contest and it's my word against theirs.

    I work full time and earn plenty to pay the fine so it's not worth the hassle for me to waste my time with a system that disadvantages me from the start. 14 years of driving and this is the first penalty I get of any kind. I kind of wish I was busted for something I did do wrong!
  7. The way to get out of the mobile phone offence is to contest it in court, and provide your mobile phone records as evidence. If the time of the offence does not overlap with the time of a phone call, then they can't charge you.

    Better yet, should even be able to contest it and they should be the ones doing the leg work to obtain the phone records to prove it. Heck, they did it with the truck driver who caused the pile up and fire in Melbourne's Burnley Tunnel.

    I'd fight it, purely out of principle, if I wasn't guilty.
  8. I rang a few places to ask for legal advice and was told that the Police could say I was playing a game on my phone while driving. Plus the fact it was such a pain getting an answer out of my phone service provider for the info. From memory I could get calls I made but not calls received. (Yeah, because all that info is already on my bill!)

    Most times when I think about it I wish I had. Chalked it up to life experience. But you're 100% right about what you say in the original post about Burden of Proof.
    I've been stung once......and I'll be damned if I get done by my own ignorance again by trusting our Government and Police to do the right thing.

    P.S. Not bashing Police, I've just come to the realisation that they make mistakes too. Intentional or otherwise is a debate for another time :LOL:
  9. hey stew, regarding the offender in the OP, how can they give someone a fine and points, yet not take their licence? is it not accepting guilt by accepting the fine and points given?

    read the article but its still not 100% making sense.

    can you explain it a bit more?
  10. I'm not an expert on the finer details, but I suspect that he's copped the points and fine as a result of the owner onus legislation, that being that YOU are always responsible for YOUR vehicle. If you can't/won't name the driver, then you bear the penalty. I guess what has happened here though is that the suspension effect needs to be specific to an offender and is not linked through legislation to the owner onus rule, and so it falls back to a standard criminal "burden of proof" exercise which is what is being invoked in this scenario.

    That's what I think has happened here. I could be wrong but that appears to be the most logical explanation. I'd imagine that the laws that the govt. is planning on changing here is making a license suspension penalty also fall under the range of possible owner onus penalties without any room for appeal.
  11. could be wrong but i thought they couldn't actually suspend license (or take away points either) until you pay the fine. as paying the fine is admitting guilt and then you lose the points and perhaps license too. so as long as you are avoiding paying the fine (for whatever reason) you can't lose points.
    my 2c worth
  12. so after they cancel the vehicle registration and your license for unpaid fines, the no loss of points thing really doesn't bother you?

    If you don't contest by the specified date then you are guilty - it doesn't just drag on until you die.
  13. I just read through the comments and am pleasantly surprised that most of them seem to be in support of the 'innocent until proven guilty' scenario and against the revenue raising greed cameras.

    Maybe there's hope for Victoria yet hey Stew?

    Hehe, Some of the drongos on there just make me laugh :LOL: Especially this Muppet :roll:

    Retard. People just swallow the government and the medias crap more and more every day. *sigh*
  14. Thanks to Police/Government revenue Depts & the Media, the Road User is public enemy No. 1. We have SFA rights, and are treated worse than criminals.
    When you think about it, it pays MORE to nab someone breaking a traffic law, than it does your average scum-bag crim.

  15. This is how we do lose our "rights", or rather, have more restrictive rules, regulations and laws imposed on us.

    Who said something about, "if you say a lie often enough and loud enough, it becomes truth"?

    Or Hitler's comment, "thank god for rulers that men don't think."
  16. Well said Martin.

    So exactly what do we do about it? It's so damn frustrating to hear all this over and over again especially while I'm currently staying in a country where having NO greed cameras actually works.

    Not to mention I'm seriously thinking of giving the bike away because I can't seem to control my right wrist and keep getting pinged for being 3+ k's over the limit when I'm in Melbourne :( My GF contaced me the other day saying I had 5 speeding fines to pay... all for sweet FA over the greed limit. I'm such a danger to people obviously :roll:

  17. Change the kind of bike you ride, dude. Seriously.
    Or the country you're in (I see you already have).
    Or the government. (Nah, that doesn't work :( )
  18. Not much, unfortunately. A while ago an independant tried for Parliament based on these issues. Libs promised to increase tolerance to 10 percent. That got the main mover booted out of office. Or rather, he failed to retain his seat.

    I s'pose when enough people get pinged enough times for low exceedences then maybe they'll consider voting accordingly. But don't hold your breath waiting.

    Thing is, road safety is what they call a "motherhood" issue. If you are against say, speed cameras, then they'll bring up the safety thing and imply or accuse you of advocating dangerous driving.

    What I'd love to see is the electorate putting every sitting member last on the ballot. Boot the lot out. Vote however you like with the rest of the candidates. See where the cards fall (and what sort of government is formed). Then do it a second time at the next election. Maybe then they'll get the message.

    However, that will never happen. For starters most people don't understand what a preferential voting system is, let alone how to fill out the forms other than what the How to Vote cards illustrate for them.
  19. Hey dougz. you could always get an international licence... No demerit points and drive,ride whatever the fu*k you want all day everyday.

  20. What we need is enough people with enough balls to look at the photo from a road-side camera, and simply say: "Prove to me that this is a picture of my vehicle".

    They'll say: "It's your vehicle 'cos of the plates, colour, make, and model".

    You say: "Yes, but plates can be faked, removed, stolen, etc. Prove to me that this absolutely is a picture of my vehicle".

    Be prepared to take it to court. Fight it. Fight it until someone in the legal system actually acknowledges that a picture of a vehicle with an insecure identification tag (rego plates) does not constitute unassailable proof that the vehicle pictured is some specific individuals specific vehicle without the vehicle's owner actually agreeing to such.

    The whole system is linked to the owner's complicity in indentifying the vehicle as theirs, in which case the owner onus rules apply even if they're not operating the vehicle at the time. Remove that complicity and demand proof that the vehicle is yours, and then let's see where they stand. It's not like there aren't enough vehicles getting around unregistered or with stolen plates already to cast sufficient doubt.