photos of Camera Cops hiding behind truck @ 1 in morning

X-No-archive: yes
Nev.. wrote ;

My limited understanding is that speed-cameras were introduced into NSW
under the proviso that they would only be used out in the open (and with
warning signs).
This was called the "fair cop" program.
I think this is why NSWelchies feel they're being cheated.
Clem
(Up here we just got told to bend over!)

 

Interesting post.
Implicit in your Theo definition of what's supposed to happen is the fact
that the laws may not be all that flash WRT either applicability or their
fitness for purpose. Just like a return policy, 'cept you never get one
from GovCo. Did you mean that to be so?
People have been involved in 'go see' their local pollies for farkin
*centuries*.
Stupid laws continue, and prosper.
Might be time to 'go see and beat the snot out of' local pollies.
Then we could have security guards outside the pollies electorate offices,
AND the local bank AND the local supermarket.
Be a decent wake-up call - both ways but for ever so slightly different
reasons. Only then would the idiots get the message that they've stuffed it
all in the name of their own power - from way back.


--
Toby.
"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make
sense. The thought that The State has lost its mind and is punishing so
many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be
internally denied."
- Arthur Miller

 

I've got no sympathy. There isn't a problem if you aren't speeding.
I'm all for tax systems that I have a choice not to pay - ie do the
speed limit.

Ray

 

Certainly.
Point taken - sort of.

You say they were only "half" hiding?

Heh - Like, "She's only a bit pregnant"

 

They never do. Not around here. They're "special constables" whose
primary job requirement is being able to lifet heavy equipment.

Shill.

How about actually doing something that's got a positive road safety
output in terms of reducing road trauma and crashes?

 

I see you quoted in full the section of my post in which I said, implied or
suggested that they were half hiding.

Nev..

 

[. . .]


Dave, it's not as tho this is anything new. We all know they do it and that
they catch more people that way. I can just hear the official line
"motorists should be obeying the law and then they will have nothing to
worry about"

Jason

 

Ok,
"Apparently they were only hiding if you were approaching them from behind
the
truck. The fact that the OP saw them when approaching from the other
direction indicates that they were in fact quite visible from the other
direction. "

Now we get to the nitty gritty.
The half hiding bit.
I respectfully suggest that hiding from drivers going in half the available
directions is half hiding.
Of course, if you take the view that they were only visible to drivers
approaching from behind the parked truck after becoming visible to those
drivers via their RV mirrors, then they were 3/4 hiding, 'cause they were
visible to 1/2 the traffic on their side of the road for 1/2 of the time
available, and 1/2 the drivers the other way,1/2 the time. Thus they were
1/4 visible, or 3/4 hiding, for 1/4 of the time for all.
So yes, I was wrong, and I apologize unreservedly - you couldn't have been
suggesting they were 1/2 hiding;-)

 

I see you quoted in full the section of my post in which I said, implied or
suggested that their presence there was in any way related to passing traffic.


Nev..

 

Well, you did than in your penultimate reply.
Because passing is implied by approaching, since neither you nor the
original poster mentioned that all or any traffic stopped adjacent to the
marked car other than our shutter-bug troll.

Anyhow - you appear to have ignored my playful shot at ASIO - whasamatter -
a bit warm in the kitchen?

 

I get that it is a shit - but all we have to do as drivers is not speed to
crucify all revenues

 

You *must* make it personal and vindictive. You can't change
the system, but you can make the individuals so uncomfortable
with the system that they push back on it from the inside.

The *only* bit of the police department that will listen is
whatever they call 'internal affairs' in this part of the
world. Ring them up with a specific complaint against a
specific officer (or enough identifying information that
they can tie it down to a specific individual) and they
listen alright.

Nothing ever happens against the orificer in the end of
course, they *always* find a reason for them to be right,
but it takes 8-12 months of screwing about that they'd
rather not have to deal with.

It's not much, but it's all we've got.

G

 

(Ray) wrote in

"...Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to
speak up."


Strictly enforced speed limits are dangerous because they force
drivers and riders to focus intently on the speedometer instead
of the road. Whilst drivers and riders are distracted from the task
of driving or riding, they must, by implication, be operating in
a less safe manner.

Any questions?

G

 

Loophole: if, as Dave_H says, they were parked "no more
than 2 feet in front of a large removal style van", then
they were parked illegally.

400mm worth of illegally. Hell, if they wanna clutch at
straws, two can play.

G

 

I think this is someone's cue to reference the urban myth about
the illegally parked police car in Sydney somewhere (in the version
I heard) that earned a parking ticked from the Brown Bombers, went
unpaid, and in the course of time resulted in every vehicle in the
NSW Police force having it's rego suspended.

Well hey, it's a good story.

G

 

Just one. If you're so inept that you can't keep to a speed without studying
your speedo, why are you riding a bike?

Hoping that Harsh Week's still in force ...

A glance at the speedo now and then gives one a pretty good idea of how fast
they're going, by what amount said speed is varying, etc. A quick glance
doesn't take much effort or concentration. A glance at the mirrors to see
what's behind you takes more.

I don't agree with draconian enforcement, though. Vic's 3km/h "tolerance" is
a trifle on the silly side.

 

If you're so inept that you can't hold a point of view for
as long as it takes to make just one post, what are you
doing on usenet?

It is.

Such 'tolerance', or lack thereof requires constant checking.
I rest my case (at least until I decide to re-open it next).

G

 

Hmmm? My view changed where, precisely?

Checking doesn't equate to studying. Not the last time I checked, anyway. As
I stated, it takes more effort to keep track of who's behind you than to
take a quick glance at the speedo.

Such "tolerance" is not tolerance. Roadworthy speedo error can easily
account for 3 km/h, which makes it an unacceptable margin. The thing is,
given a reasonable margin for error, it's really not that hard to keep to a
set speed.

 

You mean to say "obey"?
Stoppage of revenues will follow.
And drivers will be rewarded - how?

 

So you voted for Kennet then?

Hammo