Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Canberra’s most creative
residential property specialists

Police parking

By Skyring 26 December 2009 163

Naughty Boy!

While this police car was parked illegally in Murulla Lane at 1600 on Christmas Eve, the driver was booking cabs on the nearby taxirank for double parking.

If this was an isolated incident, it would be bad enough, but this is standard procedure for cops: parking rules and traffic regulations do not apply to them, apparently.

Police and parking

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
163 Responses to
Police parking
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
9
FUBAR 10:48 am 25 Jan 10

different strokes for different blokes.

ROOSTERFAN 11:05 am 06 Jan 10

Some of you ppl are pathetic you will winge and complain when they are not doing their job properly but when the are out there doing their job you still have something to winge and complain about just let them do their job and you stick to yours!!

peterh 1:15 am 06 Jan 10

Skyring said :

Special G said :

Skyring – You do not wish for Police to start paying more attention to taxi drivers. A targetting campaign by the Police on taxis would see the lot of them off the road due to loss of licence in a couple of weeks

Frankly, some of them SHOULD be off the road. With Summernats coming up, there’ll be a good deal of scrutiny of all traffic, including taxis. The cops should brush up on their taxi legislation.

Taxi legislation? don’t make me laugh. what about being able to recite the street names from point a to point b? don’t they test you anymore for that? and some of the taxis I have been in recently, how did they pass their license exams? fancy not knowing where the clare holland hospice is?

If the police deem a park safe for their vehicle, and allows them easy and quick access to another exit point, good on them. As you mention, summernats is coming (whoo bleedin hoo) and the descent into madness is coming.If the taxis are breaking the law, they should cop a fine. If some yahoo belts past in a hotted up car, towards the canberra centre, I would like to think that the police are able to get after them quickly, not attempt a 20-point turn to get out of a meter park. That may be the difference between a pedestrian being mown down or not.

If you think that the cabbies are being hard done by, are you one? you definitely arent a member of the force, (neither am I) but sitting at a keyboard passing judgement on their actions is all well and good, till you need them. Then the post will be along the lines of “why do the police take so long to respond to a 000 call?” let them do their job. don’t worry about their actions, at least they are there.

Skyring 11:53 pm 05 Jan 10

Tooks said :

Skyring: “A policeman making bold assertions on such flimsy evidence would get his arse kicked by any competent defence lawyer, and rightly so.”

Never stated I was a police officer. You know what they say about assumptions? Anyway, last time I checked, the Riot Act wasn’t a court of law (Kangaroo Court at times, maybe), so your point holds no relevance.

Interesting response! Odd that instead of denying it flat, you dance around.

Tooks said :

Regarding the mobile phone issue: You’re comparing a full year of stats with half a year. We might have 1 road related fatality in the first 6 months of this calendar year; counts for nothing if another 20 die in the remaining 6 months.]
When you’re talking hundreds or thousands, you don’t get discretions like that. For this financial year to equal or pass the previous one, you’d need more than 2 000 incidents in the six months January to June. In other words, the rate would have to double. Can’t see any reason why the first half of a year would make people drive and phone twice as much as the other six months. The article shows a massive decrease in incidents, gives no details on people fined, and just doesn’t back up your incautious statement.

Tooks said :

Anyway, your original comment (re mobile phones) was something along the lines of mobile phone usage being rarely enforced. The article shows otherwise, regardless of whether you agree with my points or not.]
Um, no. It shows nothing of the sort, actually. My point was that as people frequently use mobile phones while driving, it’s an easy conclusion that whatever enforcement is being applied, it’s not enough to deter people. Looking at the real world, rather than reading more into a newspaper article than is warranted.

Anyway, thanks for playing.

Skyring 11:28 pm 05 Jan 10

Special G said :

Skyring – You do not wish for Police to start paying more attention to taxi drivers. A targetting campaign by the Police on taxis would see the lot of them off the road due to loss of licence in a couple of weeks

Frankly, some of them SHOULD be off the road. With Summernats coming up, there’ll be a good deal of scrutiny of all traffic, including taxis. The cops should brush up on their taxi legislation.

Spideydog 10:04 pm 05 Jan 10

Tooks said :

Of course anyone who participates in your poll is going to choose the only sensible option. Who in their right mind is going to choose:

# They should do whatever they feel like.
# The only people who raise this issue are haters.

Reminds me of a poll from Today Tonight or the Daily Telegraph.

+1 I think you will be hard pressed to see many people agree that was a non-biased poll with a good even set of options to choose from.

dvaey 8:59 pm 05 Jan 10

astrojax said :

dvaey wrote: Even if the officer was responding to an emergency, he could still have walked the extra couple of metres to a parking space.

you are kidding, right? fugg’n’ell – you’re the victim of a violent crime and the police park in a no stopping zone on the wrong side of the road having driven the wrong way up a one way street to help you; and you’d quibble about their roadcraft?

Well, parking in a no-stopping zone on the wrong side of a one-way street in an emergency is different to parking in a lane-way when theres on-street parking available, closer to where they need to be, and disrupting less people. If there was a real emergency Id hope that an officer would park in a loading zone close to me, than park in a no-parking zone on a side-street well away from where theyre actually needed.

dvaey 8:51 pm 05 Jan 10

Aurelius said :

This may be out of date, or may only apply to NSW, but my understanding was that a traffic infringement requires the car be moving. You can’t get done for a traffic infringement for something whilst sitting in a stationary vehicle, ignition on or otherwise.

You can be charged with DUI without the car moving, or even without any intent of moving the vehicle. The vehicle doesnt even have to be turned on, the keys only have to be in the ignition.

Tooks said :

Skyring said :

Yeah, I did. How many people got booked in the last couple of years? How many is that per day?

Link..

Out of interest, are there any figures on the number of police who were cautioned, fined or otherwise, for driving while using a mobile phone? Or is there some little law somewhere that allows police officers to talk on a phone without being distracted? The only stats we seem to hear of incidents like this, is the occasional report from speed camera operators, with the number of emergency vehicles they caught and the small percentage that were emergencies.

vandam said :

You might have noticed that there is no longer any designated Police parking at the Canberra Hospital. Further, most Police vehicles visiting the hospital generally have a member of the public with them, whether that be they’re injured or suffering from a mental illness etc. Regardless Police need to have close access to the hospital. The last thing you want is some cop shooting a aggressive mental patient because the copper had to walk 200metres to the hospital with them!!!!

I havent visited emergency for a few months, but Ill take your word for it. The designated police parking was maybe 10m further from the emergency door than the exclusive ambulance zone, not 200m or even around a corner. Also, if someone needs mental health help, theyre generally taken to the psychiatric triage, are they not? The instances Ive seen, have been when the police have parked their vehicle, gotten out with a clipboard or something and proceeded in through the public emergency dept doors, presumably to question someone involved in some event theyre investigating (car crash, assault, etc).

You do raise a valid point, that there are some instances where police urgently need to park very close to medical services, but the number of those instances pales in comparison to the number of times the police abuse the privilege. The problem is, if a member of the public breaks a law like this, and gets caught out, they have to argue their case in front of a judge, a police officer (according to this thread) never has to justify their reasons for breaking those same laws.

astrojax 8:08 pm 05 Jan 10

dvaey wrote: Even if the officer was responding to an emergency, he could still have walked the extra couple of metres to a parking space.

you are kidding, right? fugg’n’ell – you’re the victim of a violent crime and the police park in a no stopping zone on the wrong side of the road having driven the wrong way up a one way street to help you; and you’d quibble about their roadcraft?

you really are a loony, innit. why should anyone take anything you say seriously after that?

bigfeet 7:41 pm 05 Jan 10

Skyring said :

motleychick said :

Seems to be a remarkably popular poll – most respondents taking a commonsense view that police should obey the traffic rules unless it’s a flashing lights situation.

Oh come on… you can’t for one minute believe that this is anything other than a loaded poll. If there had have been a reasonable option such as “It is OK when police are enforcing a law”, judging by the large majority of responses on this forum it would win hands down.

But of course we will never know.

I am convinced though that option would come a distant second if there was an option entitled: “Skyring needs to get a life”.

WillowJim 7:38 pm 05 Jan 10

sloppery said :

I think the police need to start comprehending people talking on mobiles while driving.

Should the police lip-read them?

Special G 7:20 pm 05 Jan 10

Skyring – You do not wish for Police to start paying more attention to taxi drivers. A targetting campaign by the Police on taxis would see the lot of them off the road due to loss of licence in a couple of weeks

Tooks 7:12 pm 05 Jan 10

This will be my last post on this thread, as it has become a fairly silly circular argument that is going nowhere.

FWIW, I agree that emergency vehicles should only utilise road rule exemptions when it is reasonable to do so. I have no doubt there are police who probably use these exemptions as a matter of convenience, rather than necessity.

The main argument on this thread seems to be the definition of ‘reasonable’ as it applies to ARR 307. One person’s reasonable is another’s unreasonable. Thankfully, common sense is usually applied when determining what’s reasonable.

Skyring: “A policeman making bold assertions on such flimsy evidence would get his arse kicked by any competent defence lawyer, and rightly so.”

Never stated I was a police officer. You know what they say about assumptions? Anyway, last time I checked, the Riot Act wasn’t a court of law (Kangaroo Court at times, maybe), so your point holds no relevance.

Regarding the mobile phone issue: You’re comparing a full year of stats with half a year. We might have 1 road related fatality in the first 6 months of this calendar year; counts for nothing if another 20 die in the remaining 6 months. Come back to me at the end of June and if they are decreased from the previous financial year (3000 caught), then I’ll gladly concede defeat on that point.

Anyway, your original comment (re mobile phones) was something along the lines of mobile phone usage being rarely enforced. The article shows otherwise, regardless of whether you agree with my points or not. If you still believe ‘apprehended’ (in the context used) means anything other than what I’ve already stated it does, then frankly, you’re wrong.

Aurelius (post #138): I don’t think it’s so much defending the officer involved, but rather highlighting that the ARR may have given him or her an exemption on that occasion, instead of saying straight up that he was definitely parked illegally. I wasn’t there, so I can’t judge whether or not his actions were reasonable. No parking inspectors gave the officer a ticket and Skyring won’t make an official complaint, so the officer will never be asked to justify his actions to anyone.

Sloppery #148: A caution looks the same as a TIN (traffic infringement notice/fine) but it is just an official caution with no further action taken.

I’ve had my say. Next time you get enraged about this kind of thing, look at the positives: If this is the biggest issue in your life, then life must be pretty good. Cheers.

Tooks 6:55 pm 05 Jan 10

Skyring said :

motleychick said :

But seriously, this is one of the most useless posts I have ever read. Skyring, you really need to get a life. Your obvious hatred for police is quite disconcerting, and this post seems to be mainly aimed at the fact that police were booking taxi drivers, and you are a taxi driver.

Seems to be a remarkably popular poll – most respondents taking a commonsense view that police should obey the traffic rules unless it’s a flashing lights situation.

I’ll just restate my view about police and taxi drivers. I’d like to see police pay more attention to booking taxidrivers who aren’t obeying the rules. Seeing taxidrivers – and police – get away with flagrant breaches of the law sets a poor example.

Of course anyone who participates in your poll is going to choose the only sensible option. Who in their right mind is going to choose:

# They should do whatever they feel like.
# The only people who raise this issue are haters.

Reminds me of a poll from Today Tonight or the Daily Telegraph.

Skyring 6:02 pm 05 Jan 10

motleychick said :

But seriously, this is one of the most useless posts I have ever read. Skyring, you really need to get a life. Your obvious hatred for police is quite disconcerting, and this post seems to be mainly aimed at the fact that police were booking taxi drivers, and you are a taxi driver.

Seems to be a remarkably popular poll – most respondents taking a commonsense view that police should obey the traffic rules unless it’s a flashing lights situation.

I’ll just restate my view about police and taxi drivers. I’d like to see police pay more attention to booking taxidrivers who aren’t obeying the rules. Seeing taxidrivers – and police – get away with flagrant breaches of the law sets a poor example.

sloppery 5:17 pm 05 Jan 10

Tooks said :

Yes, that *is* a massive increase from two years earlier. I’ll type slowly to aid your comprehension: 3000 people were either

a) Fined – About $243 and 3 points (fines have just increased across the board, I believe).
b) Cautioned – Stopped by police and issued with an official caution using the Autocite.
c) Apprehended – Summonsed to court.

Hey Tooks – would you mind explaining what a ‘caution’ is, and what it actually means? Thanks.

Skyring 4:01 pm 05 Jan 10

Tooks said :

Skyring, I’m starting to think you’re just taking the piss in some of your comments.

Apprehended, in a policing context, generally means a court appearance. I can guarantee you – on my life – that it does not mean police drove past, saw someone using a mobile phone, then kept driving away to report it later for statistical purposes; This does not happen in this jurisdiction.

Here is a quote (again) from the article:

“Police fined, cautioned or apprehended almost 3000 motorists for using a hand-held phone while driving in the last financial year, up from 1500 two years earlier.”

Yes, that *is* a massive increase from two years earlier. I’ll type slowly to aid your comprehension: 3000 people were either

a) Fined – About $243 and 3 points (fines have just increased across the board, I believe).
b) Cautioned – Stopped by police and issued with an official caution using the Autocite.
c) Apprehended – Summonsed to court.

I would suggest very few people (as an overall percentage) are cautioned for mobile phone use, as it is rare for someone to provide a reasonable excuse for doing so. If the ratio of fines, cautions, apprehensions are similar to two years ago, then fines have doubled in that time.

3000 people in a financial year, compared to 1500 in a financial year two years ago.

Yet, going by the same article’s figures for the last six months of 2009, there was a massive DECREASE. I’ve done the arithmetic for you above, please don’t pretend otherwise.

“Apprehended” may mean one thing to a policeman, another to a journalist, and yet another to the man in the street consulting a dictionary. The article does not support the “massive increase of fines issued for using mobile phones while driving” claimed. On the contrary, it shows a 33% decrease in people fined or stopped or “apprehended”.

A policeman making bold assertions on such flimsy evidence would get his arse kicked by any competent defence lawyer, and rightly so.

Tooks 3:11 pm 05 Jan 10

Aurelius said :

outdoormagoo said :

Funnily enough he told me that while booking me for talking on a mobile phone after I had pulled to the side of the road and stopped to take the call. I had the car in park and the handbrake on but the car was running since the air-con was on and he still booked me.

This may be out of date, or may only apply to NSW, but my understanding was that a traffic infringement requires the car be moving. You can’t get done for a traffic infringement for something whilst sitting in a stationary vehicle, ignition on or otherwise. Can our currently uniformed correspondents confirm?

If I got pinged for that, I’d be disputing it.

Tooks 3:08 pm 05 Jan 10

Skyring, I’m starting to think you’re just taking the piss in some of your comments.

Apprehended, in a policing context, generally means a court appearance. I can guarantee you – on my life – that it does not mean police drove past, saw someone using a mobile phone, then kept driving away to report it later for statistical purposes; This does not happen in this jurisdiction.

Here is a quote (again) from the article:

“Police fined, cautioned or apprehended almost 3000 motorists for using a hand-held phone while driving in the last financial year, up from 1500 two years earlier.”

Yes, that *is* a massive increase from two years earlier. I’ll type slowly to aid your comprehension: 3000 people were either

a) Fined – About $243 and 3 points (fines have just increased across the board, I believe).
b) Cautioned – Stopped by police and issued with an official caution using the Autocite.
c) Apprehended – Summonsed to court.

I would suggest very few people (as an overall percentage) are cautioned for mobile phone use, as it is rare for someone to provide a reasonable excuse for doing so. If the ratio of fines, cautions, apprehensions are similar to two years ago, then fines have doubled in that time.

3000 people in a financial year, compared to 1500 in a financial year two years ago.

motleychick 2:26 pm 05 Jan 10

Lenient said :

The only crime here is that the government has thrown money away on a ford.

+1. And agreed on the colour being gross too.

But seriously, this is one of the most useless posts I have ever read. Skyring, you really need to get a life. Your obvious hatred for police is quite disconcerting, and this post seems to be mainly aimed at the fact that police were booking taxi drivers, and you are a taxi driver. No need to take it personally. Everyone does things wrong. I’m sure you do too.

9

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site