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.

[SA] Roadside cameras on bikies

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by vanman37, Nov 4, 2007.

  1. Hi all

    Read in Adelaide "Sunday Mail" 4/11/07, pg 24. http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22697791-910,00.html but acknowledged in the article to be a federal issue.

    I wonder about these cameras. I know it's pretty early days with not a lot of detail to hand, but I wonder about what they'll be used for when they're not tracking down outlaw club members? A bit of revenue raising? A few more high speed capable speed cameras?

    Also, towards the end of that article, I note reference to the federal government supporting restricting the number of "bikies" who can gather at one time to eliminate "bikie" runs.

    Well here's my question. Given that (at least in SA) the push is to outlaw the displaying of patches and colours, that "bikie" gangs become (at least theoretically) indistinguishable from the average non-outlaw associated bloke on a harley or a cruiser. So what if 20 of these guys get together for a cruise to their favourite spot? Is this now going to be illegal?

    What about the annual toy run, or other motorcycle club organised events and runs, like the pink ribbon ride, etc? How is restricting the congregation of "bikies" going to impact on other bike-related events?
  2. That is bull$h!t!
    Outlaw people gathering because a minority cause trouble.
    And banning motorbike clubs! are they going to remove netrider too?
    Just when you think, yeah a real free country within reason. This is a bit far.
  3. Interesting points. Certainly, if anyone is able to challenge such legislation via the High Court, it would be the larger gangs. They seem to have significant resources at their disposal, including funding education for their own in house lawyers, etc..
  4. I think we are really getting ahead of ourselves here. Nowhere in ANY of this does it say non-bikie gang riders in groups will be targetted. Are you saying that as soon as they ban patches that the cops won't be able to tell the difference between an OMCG and a netrider ride? How about the "jap crap" being ridden as a start point. How about the distinct lack of leather. How about the noticeable absence of facial hair(considering a lot of netriders are too young to grow any!). How about the predominance of full-face helmets. How about the totally undisciplined group riding displayed by the majority of riders. How about the significant proportion of L and P platers. I find it extremely hard to imagine how any of these measures will cause any problems for normal group rides for the vast majority of riders.

    But don't let a little logic get in the way of a good scary conspiracy theory. Is this right wing enough for you Smee!
  5. You're very trusting aren't you?

    Let's put more high test surveillance cameras and enact laws to stop groups gathering and displaying identification badges. And we'll word the laws such that they're open to interpretation or can be modified with little outcry. And then, sometime in the future, we will change things to gradually erode the rights of ordinary people. And all so quietly that no one will notice. And when they do, we'll use 'Law and order' and other emotive lamguage to shout down anybody who questions it.

    I believe that police have all the powers they need. All they need to do is use them. But that requires manpower, effort and will.
  6. Outlawing patches :shock: So now they are telling people how to dress,thats fcuked up.Where are all the collingwood fans and crows fans going to hang out without being arrested :shock: .
  7. Yes, because I'm not a sensationalist. This has been brought on by a very small minority who conduct illegal activity that the government is looking for ways of curbing. The purpose is not to attack the general populace of motorbike riders. If these laws were changed in scope to encompass lawful gatherings of non-OMCG riders then it would be a losing argument for the government as soon as they are tested on it.

    And if you somehow dispute the threat some of the gangs pose in Adelaide, let me start telling stories about the bomb that went off in my suburb in Adelaide that almost showered me with glass in my lounge room. Oh, and the two blokes who were gunned down in a drive-by shooting outside the pub I used to play comp pool at.
  8. You're not being sensationalist? Where, anywhere, at anytime, in any post did I indicate that I don't believe that gangs are a serious threat.

    See, this is how it goes. Someone responds, you shout them down. Can't win the argument, subtlely change it to something else.

    Can you tell me how automatic number recognition systems cannot be modified for general surveillance? Can you absolutely, categorically state that the AFP and State police will not (at some later stage) make a change so that ALL registration plates will be logged. Of course, ALL plates will be logged. The police will merely use data mining for those people they want to track. Of course, that information IS there. It just needs to be queried.

    The police will say 'see, if we had access to this information, we could check for the presence of known criminals and then correlate that to criminal activities in the area'.

    As for gang ID, the law will be drafted in such a way so that gang members will not be able to defeat it. It will therefore be broad. The politicians will tell us that we have nothing to worry about. The shock jocks will respond to callback callers by saying 'well, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. Anyone who expresses doubts or concerns will be shouted down by people like you who will carefully respond like your final paragraph, making the person expressing very reasonable concerns have to defend the indefensible. Therein lies the mechanism by which governments and authorities gradually change the balance of civil liberties.

    As has been stated by more eloquent people than me, it's not this government that I am worried about, but it's successor etc..
  9. Yet they do this in London and the majority don't mind. And it proved it's worth against terrorist elements as the heightened surveillance was able to identify illegal activities.

    The problem I have with the argument against any form of improved surveillance is that the immediate assumption is that it will somehow be used for sinister purposes. I think that is an unfair assumption as it is generally the Police and security agencies that are pushing for it to allow them to get criminals off the street. Yet the people who these measures are designed to protect immediately assume that it is somehow targeting them. Hence the sensationalism of it all.

    Get over it. Easily the most likely outcome is that law-abiding citizens will benefit from such moves.
  10. Ah, good. A liberal voter.
  11. excellent stereotyping there gregg :LOL:
  12. You really don't play the ball do you.

    I was referring in general to governments. Here in the Republic of Victoriastan, we are ruled by the ALP. The next government might very well be liberal. Or labour. But as I said, you play the man and not the ball. Can't win the argument, then just say something else.

    And as for London. It didn't and hasn't stopped any terrorist bombings. And there is unease at the level of surveillance taking place.

    As for sinister goings on. I long ago stopped believing in benevolent governments only acting in my best interests. Unfortunately history proves me correct and you wonderfully wrong.
  13. It was a joke you dope!

    And I only haven't won the argument in your opinion. Nothing you have said has changed my mind.
  14. How about the OMCG changing bikes to avoid detection? How about the OMCG riding jap cruisers? How about they shave, wear full face helmets? C'mon mate, you're looking past the issue here. Furthermore, this is a national issue, but published in an SA paper. So let's not bang on about Adelaide gangs ferchrissake. That aint the issue.

    The issue is about whether we all are being tarred with the same brush, even by association because we commute on 2 wheels. As taxpayers, we rely on our leaders to make good decisions which don't adversely and unneccessarily affect those who do the right thing. Nowhere in the brief article I posted a link to does that assurance get given. Nowhere in that brief article does it discuss implications for general riders. True, there may be none, on the other hand there may be some. Do you know for sure? You seem to want us to think so.

    I posted the same post on the MRA(SA) forum, and the president there is going to ask the police commissioner for some clarification and summarise his reply. This isn't sensationalist, but a responsible way to address the information at this early stage. Meanwhile, people naturally chew over the implications amongst themselves. Why do you seek to halt healthy debate about an issue which may affect some here, and which may further impose limitations on all riders depending on how the proposed legislation pans out? What's the problem?

    The evolutionary nature of lawmaking is all around you. Laws are introcuced with a specific issue in mind, then over time, they are amended to incorporate other issues or widened to encompass parallel issues that sounded good at the time. You seem to be pretty secure in the notion that lawmakers and police have nothing but our welfare in mind. I ask you this. How does detection of an otherwise law abiding driver who exceeds the speed limit by 3kph (a) ensure that drivers welfare or (b) catch the bloke doing 50kph over the limit? Simply put, it doesn't. You sure seem to be very trusting, don't you.

    FYI, I'm not getting ahead of anyone. I posted a link to an article with some thoughts attached. You my friend, seem to be a bit hot-headed about things. Take a chill pill. Lets see what pans out.
  15. i think it is funny, that the tools that dream up these miracle contraptions really, deep down, believe that they will actually be able to reduce or even change the activity of any club by any significant amount. you would have to be naive to believe that the ugly doods on harleys are the "businessmen" of the outfit..... :rofl:
    talk about a media/public hushing bandaid :LOL:
  16. Joel, you're around the mark from where I sit. They take a topical issue or use fear to rationalise the introduction of a new form of revenue raising device in order to get public approval, then they photograph everything that moves. Watch the speeding fines for all vehicles increase exponentially.

    Imagine if the media release read "New speed camera capable of photographing 20 cars simulateously. Government anticipated unprecedented revenue."

    Ya reckon that would go down well?