Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 108438	2010-03-28 23:00:00	I thought I liked the police	Thomas01 (317)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
870754	2010-03-29 10:00:00	It was a stupid law brought in by do-gooders presumably for what they think are safety reasons. So the Police think for his safety on the road they have to take him into custody, brilliant thinking by the Police and totally out of proportion for a victimless minor offence. Of course the Sensible Sentencing mob would want ten years prison and no parole, as they would think a minor offence would lead to murder if not punished severely. Yes, it's a stupid law. Most laws are. There are all kinds of studies proving and disproving the benefits or otherwise of wearing a helmet when biking. From personal experience I can categorically state that I would not be here had I not been wearing one at around 8.30pm on a Wednesday evening in June 2007. I have friends in the same situation from only last year. We shouldn't need a law where common sense is sufficient - unfortunately common sense is not common. Why don't we change the law and prioritise application of health services for cyclists predicated on whether they were wearing a helmet at the time of the accident that put them in hospital. If they weren't wearing one, they move to the back of the queue, behind the kid with the runny nose who has got a splinter in his hand and the fat lady who has sprained her ankle. Why don't we? Because that's even stupider (even though I see merit in it - you could extrapolate that to smokers and obese people too, but where would the line eventually be drawn??), because it would then involve medical professionals changing their modus operandi and having to make value decisions on who to treat when. [EDIT] which they do now, but based on seriousness of injury rather than the circumstances around how the injury was caused and what self-protective measures were used by the patient. In this particular instance, the dickhead who was breaking the law (by not wearing a helmet) aggravated the situation by disrespecting the Police officers carrying out their sworn duty and not complying with a legal request to supply his name (and address?). I have absolutely no sympathy for the idiot - but it certainly rarks up the civil rights people - which makes for good TV (on a slow news day) and great talkback radio, as well as great fodder for forum-dwellers.	johcar (6283)
870755	2010-03-29 10:40:00	OK................. As some people may know I used to work for the Auckland City Council as it was then under Sir Dove Meyer-Robinson as a traffic officer in the early 1970s. I later transferred to the MOT in Mount Wellington and in 1975 was transferred to Rotorua. Later went to Wellington for a job in a car as opposed to a motor cycle. I then transferred out of the enforcement branch to operate a terminal computer linked to the Wanganui Computer and still with the MOT. I had had experience with the the Waterfront Industry Commission programming the Burroughs B3500 mainframe in COBOL and also the TC500 terminal in assembler. Suffice to say that there are always people who WILL test the boundaries as to what is legal or not. lance4k is a case in point for example and the person featured on TV is another. In my time as a law enforcement officer the boss ( CTO ) used to use what was called "selective enforcement" which meant you would go out and look for obscured number plates ( by tow bars ) or mud or whatever. We used to use the three E's. Engineering, Education and Enforcement. I see now that Engineering is sadly lacking. Why do Local councils plant trees, hedges and tall growing plants so close to intersections as to deny views of street signs or other traffic? Education is also sadly lacking in so far as some people do not know the law as it may stand on any particular day. Quite a few people do not observe a new stop sign as it wasn't there yesterday so why is it there TODAY and I didn't see it? Enforcement is not as easy as it's made out to be in my opinion. As a law enforcement officer you used to give a warning or you wrote a ticket. A ticket may lead to a defended case so I always used to try and make certain I could stand in Court and tell the truth without planting evidence or evading questions. Sadly though, I have to say that I have lost confidence in the various Law enforcement agencies and the Justice system as a whole due to general stuff ups where people are not held accountable for their actions or inactions. To get back to the person who would not supply his name and address on demand. I used to have the same problem at one time. As an ACC traffic officer I used to dish out parking tickets. One person gave his name as Donald Duck and I thought ( Yeah right ) but was noted on the notice. His name was Donald Duck as it happend. Another person gave his occupation as Bumpkin. Was noted. When the Magistrate at that time asked him, "Are you a Bumpkin." He replied no. Magistrate said, "You lied to the officer didn't you." He lost his licence for six months. Having said all that the Police are not perfect and may fit you up. So defend everything.	Sweep (90)
870756	2010-03-29 10:54:00	It was a stupid law brought in by do-gooders presumably for what they think are safety reasons. So the Police think for his safety on the road they have to take him into custody, brilliant thinking by the Police and totally out of proportion for a victimless minor offence. Of course the Sensible Sentencing mob would want ten years prison and no parole, as they would think a minor offence would lead to murder if not punished severely. I hope you have noticed that there is going to be a youth arm of the SST so I see. Once again you have not mentioned the consequences of failing to wear a helmet. If he was not wearing one and fell off the cycle and had brain damage as a result I can only think that you are happy to pay for the treatment(s) required via taxes that most of us pay? He was taken into custody because he did not supply his name as required by law. In fact that's why he was taken into custody rather than the alleged offence.	Sweep (90)
870757	2010-03-29 11:06:00	Having lots of police friends and relatives over the years I have generally been on their side but :- On TV2 the other night I saw the most amazing display of stupidity by the police. A young man on his bike exercising his dogs in what looked like a very quiet neighborhood was stopped by a police woman who demanded his identity, as he had no crash helmet. He got a bit stroppy and refused as he had done nothing wrong and this is not a police state. She sent for reinforcements and soon three cops were engaged in throwing him into handcuffs and taking him to the nearest interrogation - sorry police station. More pressure applied and they found his wallet. He apparently had never been in any sort of trouble - even knew one of the officers from them being at school together,but was obviously appalled at the way three police were involved in a non crime plus the way he was treated. They were obviously very determined on the identity problem, almost as bad as the eastern European states I have been in and America of course. I agreed with the lad all the way. Wearing crash hats is sensible but no way should be compulsory for cyclists. I wonder if these police ever read anything that affects their work - if so they would have known that the UK acting from surveys, discovered that making crash hats compulsory would save lives but more for car passengers - bus passengers and even pedestrians than for cyclists. So they dropped the idea. Can you see the logic in having to wear a crash helmet to go to your next door neighbours. From my study window, being retired, I see many cyclists - huge numbers of them not only riding on the pavement (which in this area is obviously the safest place to be) but also no helmets apart from the school children. The Christchurch police apparently use common sense. Two comments:- 1) This is not a police state. 2) Rules are made for the guidance of the wise man and the observance of the idiot Tom lol. Maybe you should stop being a grumpy old man.	roddy_boy (4115)
870758	2010-03-29 11:51:00	I do have to agree with you of course. But supposing it had been me! Overly sensitive, always polite, no threat to anybody, I would have been very respectful and probably would have got away with it. But why should I get away with it. He had broken a daft law - I had done the same. The Tolpuddle Martyrs were pretty arrogant as were many of the Union officials who fought against other daft laws and made my life better. It does seem to me that many people are too prepared to accept any restriction. "It's THE LAW" Yeah right (not my normal phrase but it seems to be the "in thing" to finish comments with this). There are daft laws in your opinion. There are daft laws in my opinion as well and some are not enforced or are unenforcable. Take the law(s) on killing other people for example. Normally you can't kill other people and you may be charged with Murder or Manslaughter if you do kill. But. You may have a defence under law or not as the case may be depending as circumstances differ. The circumstances only go toward mitigation of the sentence though I think. Let's take a case where you are at my place and we have both been consuming alcoholic beverages. You fall over and have an injury because you hit your head on the desk. I decide to put you in my car and take you to the Hospital and on the way get pulled over by police and am positive as to a breath test. Hopefully the police will not let you bleed to death in my car while I'm being processed but who would know? What I should do is let you bleed and call the Ambulance and wait. I'll be within the law won't I?	Sweep (90)
870759	2010-03-29 17:15:00	I would have thought the opposite, in my experience chicks can calm people down where everything else has failed. Matter of fact chicks are better than males in lots of things where not showing off or being staunch are factors. The best thing about female police officers is... women are really sexy in uniforms! I dated a female cop once, and it sure was a turn-on when she was in her uniform! :)	Greg (193)
870760	2010-03-29 18:22:00	A drunk got arrested by a female police officer. She said "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you". The drunk replied "Boobs"	xyz823 (13649)
870761	2010-03-29 18:32:00	The law is the law. He broke it by not wearing a helmet. He then made it more difficult for himself by not giving his name. He deserved everything he got.	xyz823 (13649)
870762	2010-03-29 20:26:00	lol. Maybe you should stop being a grumpy old man. No way - I thoroughly enjoy being a grumpy old man.	Thomas01 (317)
870763	2010-03-29 21:24:00	I do have to agree with you of course. But supposing it had been me! Overly sensitive, always polite, no threat to anybody, I would have been very respectful and probably would have got away with it. But why should I get away with it. He had broken a daft law - I had done the same. The Tolpuddle Martyrs were pretty arrogant as were many of the Union officials who fought against other daft laws and made my life better. It does seem to me that many people are too prepared to accept any restriction. "It's THE LAW" Yeah right (not my normal phrase but it seems to be the "in thing" to finish comments with this). Cant be bothered reading through the rest. It law to wear a helmet on a cycle. Refusing police your name is a dumb ass move. They dont know if you are dangerous or not, refusing to give your name will raise alarm bells any where. Stop being paranoid and hippyish about laws, Id rather read an article about someone who survived a hit from a car due to a helmet than read about how it took police 3 days to properly investigate the ID of someone through dental records because they didn't. Dont believe everything you see on tv.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9