Inspecting the Inspectors

Far out.

I saw the pic posted and thought this was a rather lighthearted go at ‘evil’ vehicle inspectors. But reading through the responses, there are people with their noggins so far up their ‘you know whats’, that this entire thread has turned quite sad! From people policing other internet forum users on correct grammer, to people quoting rules and regulations and deriding the OP for having the audacity to take the time to post the thread and picture.

Everyone needs to take a big breath and relax…. for I fear a stroke is coming! You are busting the chops of the OP for “wasting his time posting”, yet you are all wasting just as much time responding to and counter arguing a rather mute point. Interesting post OP, thanks for the entertainment. To the others… relax folks. For too many keyboard warriors makes a crap website to visit.

toriness said :

agreed it’s within the law but it’s not a good look is it? blatant hypocrisy of law-enforcers i mean. this is assuming what the OP says is true and that there were lots of spots available in the said carpark.

Are we reading the same post? Where did it say there were lots of spots available?

The OP clearly has some issues – you could drive a frigging truck through there in spite of the ‘obstruction’.

agreed it’s within the law but it’s not a good look is it? blatant hypocrisy of law-enforcers i mean. this is assuming what the OP says is true and that there were lots of spots available in the said carpark.

taninaus said :

I never realised that the car park in that area is not a private car park. My understanding is that vehicle inspectors can only do random inspections in public car parks. And grey ghosts have to be invited in to regulate any parking rules in the private car parks.

Under the rules a carpark that is normally open to the public, be it on private or public land, is defined for the purposes of the road rules as a roadway and environs. So although there may be some confusion as to the right of parking inspectors to police ‘private’ car parks, other enforcement personnel such as copulators and inspection boys can and do police the road rules therein.

taninaus said :

I never realised that the car park in that area is not a private car park. My understanding is that vehicle inspectors can only do random inspections in public car parks. And grey ghosts have to be invited in to regulate any parking rules in the private car parks.

Same rules apply but there are no gates at Russell. For them to have gates it would then be considered a fringe benifit & therefore FBT applies.
Well this is how they ran the car park at the Dickson motor registry anyway.

I never realised that the car park in that area is not a private car park. My understanding is that vehicle inspectors can only do random inspections in public car parks. And grey ghosts have to be invited in to regulate any parking rules in the private car parks.

Roguaussie, what a well researched unbised post from you, did they happen to take the plates off your car because it was unregistered?

I used to do this job, it was actually not too bad, out & about & not stuck in an office. The biggest downfall was dealing with uninformed bush lawers like yourself who THOUGHT they knew everything.

While Rule 307 certainly does apply there is also a rule in the ACT Parking Regulations that indicates that the normal parking rules do not apply to Police, emergency & “AUTHOROSED VEHICLES” which under the Act. This particular vehicle & personnell are “authorised” by the Minister to perfom their daily duties upholding the Motor Vehicle Standards Act. Now the exact regs escape me at the moment as I have not worked there for 6 1/2 years but I can find them out tomorrow if you like.

Now, think past your own petty needs. On any given day there would be a couple of thousand cars parked at Russell Offices, every time we did a sweep of the car park we would get numerous defects & find at least 1/2 dozen or more unregistered vehicles.

I ask you this, one of these unregistered/defective vehicles runs you over or hits your vehicle(no CTP or other insurance remember), who are you going to scream to then?

Wow, you people really tear eachother to pieces when I’m not around!

At least the vehicle inspectors were doing some work which is an alien concept to the people in Russell Offices.

RogueAussie said :

This is sooo f’n funny reading the responses!

As for the safety hazard, I refer to the choke point in the road that is already tight and should someone step out from between say 2 4×4’s and a car try’s to avoid them then there is little option left for the driver (tell me people don’t speed in car parks).

I find it funny also that people are rattling of Rule 307 this and Section 8 that. It all revolves around the statement of “to perform his or her duties”. No one has noticed or commented on the vulture perched on the bonnet of the vehicle looking away from the car park … must be performing his duties? LMFAO

Dude, you question where the inspectors get the authority to park where they did. Rule 307 answers your question but, because it doesn’t fit your expected outcome, you rubbish it (the reference to the fictional section 8 is a joke). Your photo shows only the ‘vultures’ vehicle parked as far to the left of the road as I can see and shows nothing of a ‘choke point’, in fact, the gap between the camera and the vehicle alone looks as though a truck could pass through. I might be wrong but I suspect you were once issued a parking ticket and have had trouble accepting your own mistake.

RogueAussie said :

This is sooo f’n funny reading the responses!

As for the safety hazard, I refer to the choke point in the road that is already tight and should someone step out from between say 2 4×4’s and a car try’s to avoid them then there is little option left for the driver (tell me people don’t speed in car parks).

I find it funny also that people are rattling of Rule 307 this and Section 8 that. It all revolves around the statement of “to perform his or her duties”. No one has noticed or commented on the vulture perched on the bonnet of the vehicle looking away from the car park … must be performing his duties? LMFAO

I know exactly where you are talking about, and if you think that is the case, please put your licence in a one way envelope going straight to the RTA, as driving may be a challenge for you.

OH NO, the “vulture” is standing at his car…….. he mustn’t be working. Didn’t you say earlier he had returned to his vehicle where your marvelous mate accosted them?

From here, sounds like a disgruntled person with a defect notice to me …… Is there more to this story that you have neglected to tell us?

BenMac said :

How is that car a safety hazard for pedestrians? You must pray before crossing a road.

The OP is quite clearly another one of these ‘gifted’ types mentioned in another thread.

So gifted in fact that he’s unaware that they have an exemption while performing their duties, and doesn’t seem to care when this is pointed out…

p1 said :

Punter said :

Try looking up rule 307 of the Australian Road Rules champ, you’ll find our friendly and much loved parking inspectors are ‘authorised persons’ as defined within.

Rule 307 includes the line “(b) it is reasonable that the provision should not apply”. If parking in that spot is sufficiently inappropriate that it was necessary to put up a No Parking sign, then what is so urgent about issuing parking tickets that makes it reasonable for the inspector to park there?

Thanks P1, it has been established the workers pictured are vehicle inspectors, not parking inspectors. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for said inspectors to position themselves in the no parking zone in order to perform their duty. Their reason may be more than a convenient park, it may be most vehicle traffic passes that location, or the positioning of their vehicle gives them some protection against traffic flow. Whatever the reason, they’re only trying to do their job and I’m sure they don’t need some armchair expert telling them how to do it.

This is sooo f’n funny reading the responses!

As for the safety hazard, I refer to the choke point in the road that is already tight and should someone step out from between say 2 4×4’s and a car try’s to avoid them then there is little option left for the driver (tell me people don’t speed in car parks).

I find it funny also that people are rattling of Rule 307 this and Section 8 that. It all revolves around the statement of “to perform his or her duties”. No one has noticed or commented on the vulture perched on the bonnet of the vehicle looking away from the car park … must be performing his duties? LMFAO

p1 said :

Spideydog said :

Eg, “excuse me sir, would you mind staying here whilst I try and locate a parking space elsewhere. I will come back and deal with you shortly, thats if you choose to wait.”

I would have no trouble at all with a vehicle inspector noticing a car with a missing [vital functional component], pulling up and defecting it. But if they are stopping to perform a sweep of the entire car park, shouldn’t they be able to take the time to park legally?

I think it would be a reasonable argument that they need access to equipment in their vehicle in the execution of their duty and not be boxed in, in a small carspace with the possibility of damaging the vehicles they are parked next too.

If it is safe and reasonable, I don’t see an issue.

p1 said :

Punter said :

Try looking up rule 307 of the Australian Road Rules champ, you’ll find our friendly and much loved parking inspectors are ‘authorised persons’ as defined within.

Rule 307 includes the line “(b) it is reasonable that the provision should not apply”. If parking in that spot is sufficiently inappropriate that it was necessary to put up a No Parking sign, then what is so urgent about issuing parking tickets that makes it reasonable for the inspector to park there?

They wouldn’t be issuing parking tickets for one, they are vehicle inspectors and 2 the provision says “reasonable”, not “urgent” Different peoples interpretation of “reasonable” is relative I will admit. I do know that reasonable does not equate to urgent, but could be a considering factor.

Chop71 said :

that must have really got your goat up. How much time did you waste thinking, writing, taking and posting the pic? Sounds like you had a productive day for a pube in Russell offices.

+1

“Not only did this create a traffic hazard” BAHAHA between some pube trying to take a photo and the inspectors vehicle, not much room to get passed.

Between this and there not being enough 50m pools in Gungahlin, I think a very important point has been: most of our problems are pretty minor.

Spideydog said :

Eg, “excuse me sir, would you mind staying here whilst I try and locate a parking space elsewhere. I will come back and deal with you shortly, thats if you choose to wait.”

I would have no trouble at all with a vehicle inspector noticing a car with a missing [vital functional component], pulling up and defecting it. But if they are stopping to perform a sweep of the entire car park, shouldn’t they be able to take the time to park legally?

” it also created a safty hazard for pedestrians (funnily enough, we need to walk from our cars to our office)”.

When oh when will they ever provide Russell offices with moving walkways?

Hugh Lews said :

Punter said :

Try looking up rule 307 of the Australian Road Rules champ, you’ll find our friendly and much loved parking inspectors are ‘authorised persons’ as defined within.

Ah rule 307, got em again.

Don’t you mean Section 8, rule 220 “Do as I say, not as I do”

This applies equally to Police as to Vehicle Saftey Inspectors

I think you have that rule mixed up with the one that states:

“being able to “effectively” enforce the law, if safe and reasonable, with a provision provided by the legislators”

Eg, “excuse me sir, would you mind staying here whilst I try and locate a parking space elsewhere. I will come back and deal with you shortly, thats if you choose to wait.”

Chop71 said :

that must have really got your goat up. How much time did you waste thinking, writing, taking and posting the pic? Sounds like you had a productive day for a pube in Russell offices.

Getting a bit worked up there yourself Chop71…

Sotko said :

Inspecting the inspectors all right. Got randomly pulled up once by one of those roadside blitzes. police thought our rear windows were too dark (tint) so got the inspector to come and look. Inspector says windows are too dark, and you will get a defect until they are fixed.
I was a little surprised, and advised him they were factory fitted that way, and he had better call the car manufacturer and advise them that all their cars are not meeting Australian standards. He let me go with a warning after wandering off and talking to someone on the phone.

Cut a long story short, I called Department of Transport and spoke to someone who had a good chuckle. He said the markings on my window show that they had passed Euro compliance which is what Australia goes by and that the windows were perfectly legal.

While I don’t mind getting pulled over for a check, they should know their own regulations.

It gts better than that, a guy was defected in his stock standard Commodore SS-V, for being too low.

The Police also use these cars, however the police cars have modified suspension so they are lower than standard cars anyway!

Punter said :

Try looking up rule 307 of the Australian Road Rules champ, you’ll find our friendly and much loved parking inspectors are ‘authorised persons’ as defined within.

Rule 307 includes the line “(b) it is reasonable that the provision should not apply”. If parking in that spot is sufficiently inappropriate that it was necessary to put up a No Parking sign, then what is so urgent about issuing parking tickets that makes it reasonable for the inspector to park there?

It’s legal, try finding a more constructive use for your time RogueAussie.

How is that car a safety hazard for pedestrians? You must pray before crossing a road.

Punter said :

Try looking up rule 307 of the Australian Road Rules champ, you’ll find our friendly and much loved parking inspectors are ‘authorised persons’ as defined within.

Exactly. I think the OP’s “friend” could have quite rightly been told to pull his/her head in ….. They are vehicle inspectors, not parking rangers anyways. The guys are trying to do their job and are being accosted by clowns with no idea.

Besides, from what I can see in that photo, I don’t see an unreasonable obstruction there and they were there in the execution of their duty.

Wake up dude (OP), there are far more concerning things to worry about in life, seriously.

it also created a safty hazard for pedestrians

What safety hazard does that car pose to pedestrians?

At least they are actually working. I dont no how mant times i see the cops parked in a no parking zone at kippax when they are buying subway.

that must have really got your goat up. How much time did you waste thinking, writing, taking and posting the pic? Sounds like you had a productive day for a pube in Russell offices.

“who polices the police?”

Coast Guard?

If some un-roadworthy cars are fixed up or taken off the road, then i think a brief inconvenience for you to have to walk around the car and other car park users to have to slowly negotiate the entry/exit is quite acceptable.

They are not above the law, they are in fact complying with it in order to perform their duties.

Massive, massive ignorant fail for the OP. Thankfully they were only parking inspectors and not people inspecting IQ. That would have resulted in tears all around

Inspecting the inspectors all right. Got randomly pulled up once by one of those roadside blitzes. police thought our rear windows were too dark (tint) so got the inspector to come and look. Inspector says windows are too dark, and you will get a defect until they are fixed.
I was a little surprised, and advised him they were factory fitted that way, and he had better call the car manufacturer and advise them that all their cars are not meeting Australian standards. He let me go with a warning after wandering off and talking to someone on the phone.

Cut a long story short, I called Department of Transport and spoke to someone who had a good chuckle. He said the markings on my window show that they had passed Euro compliance which is what Australia goes by and that the windows were perfectly legal.

While I don’t mind getting pulled over for a check, they should know their own regulations.

Punter said :

Try looking up rule 307 of the Australian Road Rules champ, you’ll find our friendly and much loved parking inspectors are ‘authorised persons’ as defined within.

Ah rule 307, got em again.

Don’t you mean Section 8, rule 220 “Do as I say, not as I do”

This applies equally to Police as to Vehicle Saftey Inspectors

Good catch rogueaussie – shits me when I see the speed camera vans speeding!

Apart from bald tyres and maybe oil leaks what is the point of these mobile inspectors?

How can they test for faulty brakes, tail lights, brake lights, headlights, exhaust?

GBT said :

“right yourself a ticket”? Spelling really has taken a turn for the worse today. Those damn homonyms!

i was digging the idea of these bureaucrats wondering, peripatetic plods eh?

GBT, that wasn’t the only spelling error in it but I’ll let you have that one as you must be having an uneventful day or feel the need shine.

How much was the ticket?

Try looking up rule 307 of the Australian Road Rules champ, you’ll find our friendly and much loved parking inspectors are ‘authorised persons’ as defined within.

“right yourself a ticket”? Spelling really has taken a turn for the worse today. Those damn homonyms!

I certainly will, just need to wait till I can get home to get it off the phone.

post the pic.