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.

[VIC] Latest police crackdown

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by the_blacke, May 17, 2010.

  1. Are you ****ing serious? It's MY CAR, I'll leave it unlocked if I want to. Windows down? Uh, gee, maybe someone doesn't want to have their interior at 951° when they get back, so now they get fined for leaving their windows cracked? What about leaving the roof down on a convertible?

    ****ing fascist assholes.

    FUrthermore, you blue-shirted cocksuckers: If the car's unlocked, there's less chance they're going to break my windows to look for shit to steal while you go and your merry band of dipshits are out stealing from the citizenry over minor speeding infractions instead of stopping actual crime. I hope you all get cancer and die.


    The guy who pays your ****ing salary.
  2. unbelievable, just when i thought they couldn't come up with a another way to fine the average joe they succeed ](*,) would love to see how this one stands up in court, next we will be fined for leaving a house window open when we go out.....actually **** it i might patent that idea :-k
  3. A more apt headline topic should be:

    "If thieves don't rob your unlocked car, the government will!"

    Seriously what the f*ck is up with this modern day government? Absolute pack of thieving fascists!
  4. Ahem.. to quote a certain Mr Webber " nanny state ".
  5. Do the pigs lock their cars when they park them, or do they just rely on their much deserved reputation as murderers to keep people out?
  6. Nothing new here. They've been 'targetting' unlocked cars in the Cootamudra Local Area command for months.
  7. WHAT THE HELL!?!?!? That's so pathetic!!!!
  8. So, rather than tie up police resources targetting thefts and real crimes, they'd rather tie up police resources booking people for not locking their cars when more than 3m away from them, or leaving the window down by more than 20mm? One wonders if they'll walk up with rulers, and lift up the window lining on 15mm gaps to achieve a >20mm measurement.

    Just another example of this government being more interested in revenue than fighting crime.
  9. Actually, this is a good thing. While the Police are busy cracking down on unlocked cars, they aren't out on the road bothering us.
  10. I saw this too!! What a crock!

    @grue - apparently you can leave the windows cracked... but once they are more than 2-3cm then it's 'unsecured'.
  11. Nah, it won't work like that. The HWP guys are already out there tax collecting. Those guys will stay doing what they're doing.

    The officers doing this will be those who weren't pulling their weight by fighting real crime, as opposed to bringing in revenue.
  12. Oh, one other observation.

    What if you have a hard-top convertible on a sunny warm day? You remove the top and leave it at home. Is it now illegal to be more than 3m away from your convertible? If it's a rag top, then does a cloth layer count as "secure"?

  13. Exactly. Anyone with a convertible knows you're better off leaving the car unlocked, because having the cloth replaced after they slash it is a damned sight more expensive than them stealing whatever you left in there.
  14. Why should the government care about what costs the car owner incurs, I guess is the obvious answer. Your fault for buying a convertible.

    Actually, no, it's the Victorian public's fault for voting these f*ckers into power.

    The 2009 road law amendments were the biggest black shaft stuffed up the arse of the Victorian road-going public. We're all paying for it now.
  15. Brought to you by the same geniuses who made helmets and seat belts mandatory.

    But no, I'm the crazy one because I don't think the government should have control over what we do with our lives or property unless we're infringing upon the life, liberty or property of another. Clearly I've been wrong every time I've said that the government will continue to take and take.

    Nope, after all, they're just looking to keep us safe.
  16. Woah there cowboy. I ain't got no problem with mandatory seatbelts. Mandatory helmets are borderline for me too, 'cos I've been in 3 separate accidents now where I wouldn't have a face left, or had severe head damage, if not for wearing a full-face helmet. I definitely don't agree with the AS sticker crap preventing the purchase of identical helmets from cheaper overseas sources though.
  17. If helmets weren't mandatory, would you still wear one? I would. In fact I do still wear one when riding in places they're not required (I frequently visit places that recognize the ability of adults to decide things for themselves), with the notable exception of at the WSBk.

    However, I think any adult should be able to ride without a lid or drive without a seat belt, because it's his body on the line, nobody else's. The only argument people seem to be able to make against this is that it costs the government money… which is the same as saying that the government's financial wellbeing is more important than freedom, which I do not accept.

    HOWEVER, I don't think health insurance companies should have to pay out if they're not wearing a lid or a belt.
  18. Winning friends again, aren't they? Generating respect for the law and community spirit, aren't they?
    Brought to you by the same command that's putting hip-pocket snipers in the bushes.

    As B12mick says, at least it's keeping some of 'em busy fining grandmas.
  19. re: seatbelts, I disagree with the "nobody else's". Who ends up paying for the partner and kids when the main family bread winner is permanently injured and the other partner has to stay at home to care for them? That is what becomes the issue in terms of what costs more. Simply buckling up mandatorily with a fine, or having a bingle at even 50kph and society paying for it. Am pretty unsure why you'd ever choose not to, aside from reversing.

    If you could prove that you had no dependents, then sure, I'm all for "your choice". The problem is that rarely does an accident affect only the person hurt.

    As for no helmet, if you wanna ride around a grassy paddock, or at <30kph speeds without a helmet, that's fine. You can run faster and trip at speeds higher than that.