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.

Speed cameras and illegal parking Victoria

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by twistngo, Dec 5, 2010.

  1. Thanks!!
  2. It's the same as people getting all hot and bothered about Police speeding and doing various other things when the fact is under the ARR (Aussie Road Rules, sections 305-308) they have an exemption from obeying the road rules provided they are taking reasonable care. There are also various other exemptions such as being allowed to use mobiles whilst driving for emergency services etc.
  3. Cops don't man speed cameras in VICTORIA
    They are outsourced to a private company but the correct statute by twistngo applies in VICTORIA
  4. Yes, it's amazing how the speed camera operators and police can avert the laws of physics which apply to the rest of us and under which (presumably) these laws are made. ie. that a speed camera car is safer parked on a median strip than yours or mine; that a cop can speed through traffic without having to have lights and sirens on and still remain safe and immune to causing a crash or being involved in one.

    But if they put it down to "advanced training" and then they pull over say, Lewis Hamilton or Craig Lowndes, their exceptional skills count for diddly squat.
  6. Whos law??.....The police and 'the ones that are above the law'.... Makes me wonder why I contribute to society.......
  7. And leaving asise the various exemptions that police, RTA, Speed camera operators etc have from various laws, lets not forget one thing.
    These exemptions are to protect them from prosecution.
    They DO NOT make the evidence gathered "legal" where it would otherwise be "illegal".
    This is wrong and a fallacy.

    Australia does not have a "fruit of the poisoned tree" law where illegally obtained evidence is automatically excluded unlike the USA who do.
  8. I get hot and bothered because (in NSW at least) they never used to have this exemption. Not that long ago the Police force's only exemptions were traffic lights and speed and that was only with lights and sirens and only for a reason.

    It's another example of them gaining too much power.
  9. Although I see the key word in the above statement being "automatically". Illegal entries and/or searches (in NSW at least) can still see evidence being dis-allowed.
  10. As they can in most states, but it's done on the grounds of fairness.
    Any evidence can be excluded if it's predjudicial value outweighs the "benefit" of admitting it, in order to prove a fact in question.

    My statement was in response to the incorrect assertion that illegally / unfairly obtained evidence was not admissable.
  11. Thanks guys!! Really appreciate the feedback!!! I will still be fighting it.....
  12. On what grounds?
  13. For those following at home, this is not an easy thing to show. Actually, the 'legal' rules of evidence are very convoluted, and frequently messed up by self-represented parties.

    Tramp, would I be right in thinking that you want to get across the message that American cop shows are not a good source for information on law/legal process? (for everyone else, you can probably take an educated guess now at where those self-representers get their incorrect information from)

    Can, do and will. Courts are quite happy to chuck out evidence from say a warrant-less search where a warrant was.. err.. warranted. However, this is becoming more and more blurred as parliaments keep providing exemptions/exceptions to processes such as search warrants (and thus the checks/balances that these processes provide). In my opinion, an unsettling trend.
  14. Agreed. People are just not aware their rights are being steadily eroded.
  15. M'learned friend is 110% correct.
    I was trying to simplify a very NON simple topic.

    That would be a fair interpretation.
  16. And it can be applied to life experiences in general.

    You gotta love it when people start screaming, "I have a constitutional right to..."
  17. I've been told once or twice that I have "the right to remain silent"...
    But as far as I know it's the only one I got, and lately I hear even THAT one is disappearing?
  18. Sort of - "the right to remain silent", part of the US Miranda Rights (and often heard on US television) doesn't directly cross over here. I suspect that US television takes a bit of creative licence when it comes to the application of "pleading the fifth" for the sake of drama.

    Here you have the privilege against self-incrimination. Legal term that at a basic level means you can refuse (and cannot be otherwise compelled) to give evidence which would lead to your conviction of a crime. There is a bunch of conditions attached (eg. in a court you would need to satisfy the Judge that the evidence you refuse to give is self-incriminating). There are also exceptions, for instance the privilage doesn't have effect for crimes under the Federal anti-terrorism laws. Generally, a Judge cannot direct a jury to draw inferences from the silence of a witness, though again, exceptions exist (as always).

    Beyond the few privilages (there are a handful of others), refusing to answer a question when directed to do so by a Judge may result in being in contempt of court. So there is no universal right to remain silent.
  19. Lawyers for a school involved in the death of a student due to a reaction to peanuts is asking that their clients be excused from giving evidence at the coronial inquest in case it incriminates them.

    I thought that it was an automatic right. It seems not if the defence counsel has to request it.