Police parking

sloppery said :

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

Should the police lip-read them?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’d be nice if the cops stopped parking outside Subway in Weston where it’s directly opposite a Stop sign intersection and a No Stopping area.

… just to get their lunch.

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?

Spideydog said :

Skyring said :

Thanks. That shows a massive DECREASE in people fined, apprehended and cautioned, and gives no figures on actual fines. Going by the definition of apprehended, it may merely mean that a thousand people in the last six months were seen talking on their phones while driving, rather than stopped, cautioned or fined. Did you actually read the article?

And just how would Police get the stats for “people seen to be talking on phones with nil action taken” I am pretty sure police don’t take note of the people they seen talking/using mobile phones during shift, that they took no action on, so that those stats could be collated.

The article stated : “police fined, cautioned or apprehended”

For a person that likes using large words, you seem to have a hard time with the definition of “apprehended” within the context of policing. In this instance it would mean: sent to court. The figures I would contest would indicate fined, cautioned and sent to court.

Sounds like your personal interpretation. I’m merely pointing out that there is a range of meanings. Just quietly, but journalists usually aren’t policemen or lawyers, and they often get things wrong. We’d really have to check court reports or something to get at the facts.

Meanwhile, in the real world out there, I see people driving and using their mobile phones on a regular basis. I’ll bet I could camp on Northbourne Avenue and record several hundred each day. Perhaps that’s what the police did – run a survey. Certainly it’s not a crime that people seem to worry about a great deal. Just saying.

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

vandam said :

The last thing you want is some cop shooting a aggressive mental patient because the copper had to walk 200 metres to the hospital with them!!!!

I can understand a grossly obese policeman reaching the end of his resources after waddling two hundred metres, losing his rag, pulling out his pistol and opening up on the world, starting with the crazies. It’s not an easy job. Even the most balanced of people can teeter over the edge.

While the original poster’s highlighted issue (the police car parking somewhere the rest of us would not legally be permitted to) is rather trivial, and the police car is parked legally, according to the letter of the law, what is disappointing is the reaction of some members of the constabulary in this thread to the original claim, as well as others that are raised here.
Memo to the police in this thread: some of your compatriots do the wrong thing. Unfortunately, because of the police’s “us and them” mentality, you may feel the need to defend EVERY fellow officer against EVERY allegation. But to do so makes you look small. Just accept that sometimes, some of your colleagues behave in a regretable manner. Defending them makes you look like a Raiders exec defending a Carney.

Tooks said :

At #130:

What? Which part of this don’t you understand?

“THE NUMBER of Canberrans caught chatting on a mobile phone or texting behind the wheel has skyrocketed in recent years, despite road safety campaigns and the efforts of police.

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.”

You do know what apprehended means, don’t you? Based on your comment, apparently not.

You said, “I guess you missed the recent CT report regarding the massive increase of fines issued for using mobile phones while driving in the last couple of years.”

Where’s the massive increase in fines you claimed?

3000 people in the last financial year is 3 000 in 12 months = 250 per month. But the last six months, according to the report, “almost 1000” were apprehended. That’s nearly 1 000 in 6 months = 166 per month or fewer. 250/month down to 166.month is a massive DECREASE. It’s basic arithmetic. I shouldn’t have to work it out for you.

The meaning of apprehended?
Main Entry: ap·pre·hend
Pronunciation: \?a-pri-?hend\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin apprehendere, literally, to seize, from ad- + prehendere to seize — more at get
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 : arrest, seize
2 a : to become aware of : perceive b : to anticipate especially with anxiety, dread, or fear
3 : to grasp with the understanding : recognize the meaning of

Two of the three meanings involve perception or understanding. The article doesn’t say any arrests were actually made or people actually fined. It says they were “caught chatting”. That might mean they were seen in passing. If you think it means a “massive increase of fines issued for using mobile phones while driving”, you have failed to apprehend the meaning. Go, read it for yourself: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/drivers-mobile-madness/1713873.aspx

The parking options available in the vicinity of the taxis being booked:

Loading zone,
pay parking,
taxi rank,
Where they parked

All of these options would mean Police would refer to ARR rule 307 providing them with an exemption.

Is it reasonable the Police take up a park that can be legitimately used by a member of the public doing their job or park in laneway which may also enable better response capabilities.

Seems to me you are just pissed the officers were booking your buddies.

I would only catch a taxi if I absolutely had to. I can’t say they regularly demonstrate professional driving skills.

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!!!!

In regards to the parking in the City. OMG they parked in a lane that HARDLY gets used. I’m sure everyone and i mean EVERYONE has sometime or other crossed a white line to pass a obstruction, exceeded speed etc. It’s not that big a deal. They weren’t obstructing traffic on Bunda Street!!!!!

The point is the coppers were clearly doing their job ENFORCING THE LAW(exactly what we as the tax payer pays them to do). At least they parked their vehicle in a close proximity (for emergency response purposes) that was not obstructing the MAIN flow of traffic. (THE PHOTO CERTAINLY DOES NOT INDICATE THERE WAS AMPLE PARKING ELSE WHERE FOR POLICE TO PARK)

Skyring said :

Thanks. That shows a massive DECREASE in people fined, apprehended and cautioned, and gives no figures on actual fines. Going by the definition of apprehended, it may merely mean that a thousand people in the last six months were seen talking on their phones while driving, rather than stopped, cautioned or fined. Did you actually read the article?

And just how would Police get the stats for “people seen to be talking on phones with nil action taken” I am pretty sure police don’t take note of the people they seen talking/using mobile phones during shift, that they took no action on, so that those stats could be collated.

The article stated : “police fined, cautioned or apprehended”

For a person that likes using large words, you seem to have a hard time with the definition of “apprehended” within the context of policing. In this instance it would mean: sent to court. The figures I would contest would indicate fined, cautioned and sent to court.

Wilco said :

The relevant law is the Australian Road Rules.

Rule 305 states:

305 Exemption for drivers of police vehicles

(1) A provision of the Australian Road Rules does not apply to the
driver of a police vehicle if:

(a) in the circumstances:

(i) the driver is taking reasonable care; and
(ii) it is reasonable that the provision should not apply;
and

(b) if the vehicle is a motor vehicle that is moving — the
vehicle is displaying a blue or red flashing light or
sounding an alarm.

Rule 307 contains an express police vehicle exemption from stopping and parking provisions. It also includes the same requirements for ‘reasonable care’ and a reasonable grounds exemption.

What constitutes ‘reasonable’ will turn on the facts of the individual case. This will include actions that are fair, proper, just, moderate, suitable under the circumstances, and fit and appropriate to the end in view. On the one hand, when selecting a parking spot to enforce minor parking offences, operational requirements would certainly be relevant. On the other hand, Skyring tells us that “There were vacant, legal, closer places for the police to put their vehicle”. Assuming (s)he has firsthand knowledge, then the question is whether the ” vacant, legal, closer places” would have been suitable. If so, then it would be unreasonable to expect exemption from Rule 305.

The real issue here is ensuring that those charged with enforcing the law, do so in accordance with what the law actually says, and not what they think it says. Certainly, the parking of police vehicles is a relatively minor matter. But encouraging junior police to act as if the law doesn’t apply to them encourages the attitude that was so starkly displayed by senior AFP officers in the Haneef case of exceeding their authority and acting with excessive zeal.

Thanks Wilco, this is the *only* true objective response to the OP. Everything else is yawn!

At #130:

What? Which part of this don’t you understand?

“THE NUMBER of Canberrans caught chatting on a mobile phone or texting behind the wheel has skyrocketed in recent years, despite road safety campaigns and the efforts of police.

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.”

You do know what apprehended means, don’t you? Based on your comment, apparently not.

A friend works at the hospital ED and so I asked her about this today. She told me the reason Police park in the Ambulance zone is because they transport people there with mental health problems and they get taken to the ED first.

Its always easy to jump to conclusions without knowing the full story.

Tooks said :

Skyring said :

Tooks said :

Skyring said :

They rarely get booked for talking on mobiles.

I guess you missed the recent CT report regarding the massive increase of fines issued for using mobile phones while driving in the last couple of years.

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

Link: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/drivers-mobile-madness/1713873.aspx

Tooks said :

Skyring said :

Tooks said :

Skyring said :

They rarely get booked for talking on mobiles.

I guess you missed the recent CT report regarding the massive increase of fines issued for using mobile phones while driving in the last couple of years.

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

Link: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/drivers-mobile-madness/1713873.aspx

Thanks. That shows a massive DECREASE in people fined, apprehended and cautioned, and gives no figures on actual fines. Going by the definition of apprehended, it may merely mean that a thousand people in the last six months were seen talking on their phones while driving, rather than stopped, cautioned or fined. Did you actually read the article?

ozmreeee said :

While I disagree totally with the sentiments and substance of Skyring’s post I’m totaly in awe of anyone who can use a word like “boustrophedonically” in perfect context … had me clicking immediately on the google shortcut 🙂

Isn’t it a lovely word? One with solid roots, not one of these internet portmanteaux you get nowadays.

Tooks said :

If you want to see a good example of this, visit Canberra hospital emergency and count the police cars parked in the ambulance zone, while the dedicated police carpark about 10m away is almost always empty.

Possibly shocked at your ignorance. There are numerous reasons why police cars park in the ambulance zone. In any event, the ambos themselves have no problems with it, nor do the hospital staff. Once again, ARR 307 applies.

Im sure there are numerous reasons why they park in the ambulance zone instead of the police zone, I suspect a major one is that its less distance to walk.

Why is that always your defence, if a police officers actions are questioned, ‘it doesnt matter, rule xxx allows it’ or ‘no-one will object’.

While police arent required to show common courtesy by law, failing to do so only serves to fuel peoples emotions on this issue, and the fact that those in uniform are above the rules and laws everyone else in the country abides by.

While I disagree totally with the sentiments and substance of Skyring’s post I’m totaly in awe of anyone who can use a word like “boustrophedonically” in perfect context … had me clicking immediately on the google shortcut 🙂

uteme said :

If you want to see a good example of this, visit Canberra hospital emergency and count the police cars parked in the ambulance zone, while the dedicated police carpark about 10m away is almost always empty. Ive even seen police write a ticket to a vehicle parked in a 15min zone, while the police vehicle was parked in an ambulance set-down zone, and when I called them a few choice words the officers looked completely shocked (either that Id caught them, or that Id dare to question them).

Possibly shocked at your ignorance. There are numerous reasons why police cars park in the ambulance zone. In any event, the ambos themselves have no problems with it, nor do the hospital staff. Once again, ARR 307 applies.

Skyring said :

Tooks said :

Skyring said :

They rarely get booked for talking on mobiles.

I guess you missed the recent CT report regarding the massive increase of fines issued for using mobile phones while driving in the last couple of years.

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

Link: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/drivers-mobile-madness/1713873.aspx

dvaey said :

uteme said :

Why is it that some fool always shoots of his mouth before knowing what is going on.

I have another suggestion since the pic was obviously taken from a moving vehicle. KEEP YOU EYES ON THE ROAD RATHER THAN ON SOMETHING YOUR NOT INVOLVED WITH.

Are you trying to demonstrate your point? Look closer at the sloping angle of the window, and youll realise the photo was taken by a passenger, through the passengers window.

Wrong again Dvaey. I think you will find that in order for the passenger to take that picture and still get the window in the shot they would need to be sitting on the drivers lap. If the picture was taken from the passenger seat you would not be able to see the window at all in the shot.

That picture was taken out the passenger window by the driver. So the question remains, was the OPs car stopped at the time with the car in park if auto, the handbrake on and the ignition turned on, because I was once told by a police officer that the car had to be turned off to be parked.

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.

Ryan said :

Skyring said :

Mmmm. But they WERE obstructing traffic. Look at the photograph – the only way to travel north along the lane is to cross the unbroken white line and a driver is only allowed to do so to pass an obstruction.

So, if a driver is permitted to cross the unbroken white line due to this obstruction, then what’s the issue?

The cops were booking other drivers for obstructing traffic in a similar minor fashion.

dvaey said:

Are you trying to demonstrate your point? Look closer at the sloping angle of the window, and youll realise the photo was taken by a passenger, through the passengers window

It does appear as if was taken out of the passenger window, but how can you say that a passenger took it, and not the driver? The driver could have leaned over, zoomed in. And guessing that Skyring took the picture, probably from his taxi, would indicate that he took it from the driver’s seat. Unless, of course, he got a paying customer to do it.

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

Forget about the alleged petty corruption crap, the most disturbing aspect about this incident is that the cops would choose to drive a car that is such a hideous colour. Sure, they want to show their loyalty to the Raiders but that green is really an awful colour and should only be seen out at Canberra Stadium. But someone in ACT Policing has good taste and I do like the stylish black SS-V Commodore ute that I see booking speeding motorists from time to time.

dvaey said :

the officers looked completely shocked (either that Id caught them, or that Id dare to question them).

I know what that supposed “shocked” look would be….. and it’s not what you would have suggested. You really don’t think outside the box …. tunnel vision, I think it is called.

Skyring said :

The fine for the offence would have wiped out any income for the shift. How would you like to work for twelve hours on Christmas Eve for no result?

Sorry m8, but it is simple. They break the law, then cry foul when booked.

Skyring said :

]Mmmm. But they WERE obstructing traffic. Look at the photograph – the only way to travel north along the lane is to cross the unbroken white line and a driver is only allowed to do so to pass an obstruction.

So, if a driver is permitted to cross the unbroken white line due to this obstruction, then what’s the issue? Not like Murulla Lane is particularly busy road. I’m sure most people could handle overtaking the police car.

uteme said :

Secondly and for the second time that vehicle was not being driven by the officer handing out fines to taxis or anyone else I know this for certain.

That’s obvious to anybody. The policeman booking taxis for obstructing traffic was clearly not driving his parked vehicle.

A traffic branch vehicle, parked and empty and obstructing traffic. One policeman was booking taxis, the other was on the other side of the street making a phone call.

Perhaps he was making a voice post to RiotACT.

uteme said :

Why is it that some fool always shoots of his mouth before knowing what is going on.

I have another suggestion since the pic was obviously taken from a moving vehicle. KEEP YOU EYES ON THE ROAD RATHER THAN ON SOMETHING YOUR NOT INVOLVED WITH.

Are you trying to demonstrate your point? Look closer at the sloping angle of the window, and youll realise the photo was taken by a passenger, through the passengers window.

jake555 said :

Out in Kingston/City last night and saw plenty of cop cars parked on islands, paths, laneways, etc.

Im fairly sure that I read about road closures for basically this reason. I believe when roads are closed for mass numbers of the public to use the roadways on foot, that the police should be able to park there, but police parking on closed roads on new years eve (the biggest party day of the year), is a bit different to police parking on throughfares on (the biggest shopping day of the year).

uteme said :

Secondly and for the second time that vehicle was not being driven by the officer handing out fines to taxis or anyone else I know this for certain.

I dont think anyone is disputing that the driver of the car was doing his job. But even if he’s doing his job, that doesnt mean he has to park in a lane-way when a designated carpark is available. Even if the officer was responding to an emergency, he could still have walked the extra couple of metres to a parking space. If you want to see a good example of this, visit Canberra hospital emergency and count the police cars parked in the ambulance zone, while the dedicated police carpark about 10m away is almost always empty. Ive even seen police write a ticket to a vehicle parked in a 15min zone, while the police vehicle was parked in an ambulance set-down zone, and when I called them a few choice words the officers looked completely shocked (either that Id caught them, or that Id dare to question them).

uteme said :

Sites like this are a waste of time but a good laugh hence my posts. Everyone is quick to point fingers but who on here really knows the joker who started this thread. He/she claims the Police vehicle is parked however for all anyone here knows the vehicle was actually moving. You can’t tell me for certain its not. Speed limit is 10 it is possible.

Secondly and for the second time that vehicle was not being driven by the officer handing out fines to taxis or anyone else I know this for certain.

Way to avoid responding to my criticism.

jake555 said :

Out in Kingston/City last night and saw plenty of cop cars parked on islands, paths, laneways, etc.

So what? Cops may park where they want so long as it’s reasonable to do so. Most people out on New Years Eve aren’t busy counting cop cars. Go, have a drink, enjoy yourself. You’re only young once.

Tooks said :

Skyring said :

They rarely get booked for talking on mobiles.

I guess you missed the recent CT report regarding the massive increase of fines issued for using mobile phones while driving in the last couple of years.

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

BenMac said :

Skyring, from the looks of you Flickr page, you seem to be a taxi driver. Is that why you’re upset? Don’t believe in taxis getting booked?

You should have read my comments earlier in this discussion. I’m all in favour of the police enforcing the rules. There are a lot of taxi drivers who do the wrong thing, rip off the passenger, drive unsafely, tout for fares outside nightclubs etc. And yes, obstruct traffic.

I take a lot of pride in doing my job safely, efficiently and fairly. But when I see other cabbies giving the whole industry a bad name, I wish there was a bit more enforcement. It doesn’t even have to be a policeman right there on the spot. Take a photograph. Take notes. Whip out your mobile phone and get a video of the cabbie explaining why it costs fifty dollars with the meter off to get from Civic to Dickson.

I don’t have a problem with cabbies getting booked for obstructing traffic – my beef is that the cops did exactly the same thing when they parked and left their vehicle unattended. At least the cabbies were sitting in their cabs, engines running, able to move their vehicles if the need arose.

jasmine said :

As long as they are not obstructing traffic or causing a danger, police should be able to park wherever if they are doing their jobs.

It would be impossible to do your job in the City and have to find a park every three seconds to be able to book someone or break up a fight etc.

This is just nit-picking the police.

Mmmm. But they WERE obstructing traffic. Look at the photograph – the only way to travel north along the lane is to cross the unbroken white line and a driver is only allowed to do so to pass an obstruction.

jake555 said :

Skyring. On one hand you’re having a go at parking in the laneway, yet according to you it’s OK for the police to park in a loading zone.

Well no, but it’s a lot better to park in a loading zone instead of obstructing traffic. Obviously police have to park somewhere if they are to do their jobs, and quite rightly they are exempt from prosecution if it is reasonable to do so. But is it reasonable to obstruct traffic when there are vacant spaces in a loading zone that is closer? And is it reasonable to obstruct traffic when that is exactly what they are booking the cabbies for?

bigred said :

Good to see the plod doing some enforcement activity. So what if they parked the plodmobile in a hardly used lane in such a way tat may have technically blocked it.

Because that’s exactly what they were booking the cabbies for.

vg said :

Skyring said :

Tooks said :

The only ‘red hot venom’ on this thread seems to be coming from Skyring …

Sorry. I thought my comments were quite mild. Or maybe some folk are extra sensitive. Perhaps if you were to quote an example of “red hot venom”, I could see what offends you and dial down my invective. I’d hate to cause offence.

Referring to your understanding of ‘illegal parking’ as corruption……there’s a start

Red-hot venom eh?

“Petty corruption” was the phrase I used, and I went on to explain it – corruption because they parked so as to cause an obstruction, knowing that no other law officer would pull them up on it. Petty because in all honesty it’s not that big a deal – there wasn’t that much traffic around, which is why the cabs were piling up on the ranks. It was a slow evening.

My beef is more with the hypocrisy of the action and the example being set: they were busy booking taxi drivers for obstructing traffic. The fine for the offence would have wiped out any income for the shift. How would you like to work for twelve hours on Christmas Eve for no result?

The joys of being a police officer 😀 haha. They can park wherever they are, you really expect them to go find somewhere to park, pay money and walk 5 minutes to give some taxi drivers a ticket when they would leave the split second said police car drives off? Just let them do their job.

They couldn’t find a parking space, just like most of canberra’s!

Gungahlin Al said :

uteme said :

Why is it that some fool always shoots of his mouth before knowing what is going on.

Rather than take a photo why not approach the officer I’m sure he would be more than happy to talk to you.

I have another suggestion since the pic was obviously taken from a moving vehicle. KEEP YOU EYES ON THE ROAD RATHER THAN ON SOMETHING YOUR NOT INVOLVED WITH.

Ha! Good one.

I did a little while back when an inappropriately parked marked car blocked my ability to exit safely from my work carpark. Seeing the police walking away from the car I (quite politely) said “guys do you realise your car is blocking the view as we are leaving the carpark?”

I should point out that this wasn’t a minor view-blocking issue – there was a busy intersection very close and it was that which was being blocked from view. And a perfectly legal parking space was vacant a mere 2 car lengths away.

The ‘more than happy to talk to you’ response I received was (in what I believed was a deliberately threatening tone) “You should mind your own business.”

I have also seen numerous instances of poorly managed accident sites, breath testing, and speed booking, sometimes resulting in unnecessary accidents and many more close calls. It has often seemed to me that not effort goes into training police to assess the potential adverse consequences of their activities.

So without commenting further on this particular case, but instead looking at the more general issue…

Seeing as how you took it into a sweeping disparagement Uteme, before shooting your own mouth off, you could take a moment to realise something. There are unfortunately some ill-considered things done by some members of the police, and people here are less likely here to accept it unquestioningly. Of course there’s a pretty easy way of making such complaints go away…

In any high profile role, “one must not only do good, one must be seen to do good”.

Sites like this are a waste of time but a good laugh hence my posts. Everyone is quick to point fingers but who on here really knows the joker who started this thread. He/she claims the Police vehicle is parked however for all anyone here knows the vehicle was actually moving. You can’t tell me for certain its not. Speed limit is 10 it is possible.

Secondly and for the second time that vehicle was not being driven by the officer handing out fines to taxis or anyone else I know this for certain.

uteme said :

Why is it that some fool always shoots of his mouth before knowing what is going on.

Rather than take a photo why not approach the officer I’m sure he would be more than happy to talk to you.

I have another suggestion since the pic was obviously taken from a moving vehicle. KEEP YOU EYES ON THE ROAD RATHER THAN ON SOMETHING YOUR NOT INVOLVED WITH.

Ha! Good one.

I did a little while back when an inappropriately parked marked car blocked my ability to exit safely from my work carpark. Seeing the police walking away from the car I (quite politely) said “guys do you realise your car is blocking the view as we are leaving the carpark?”

I should point out that this wasn’t a minor view-blocking issue – there was a busy intersection very close and it was that which was being blocked from view. And a perfectly legal parking space was vacant a mere 2 car lengths away.

The ‘more than happy to talk to you’ response I received was (in what I believed was a deliberately threatening tone) “You should mind your own business.”

I have also seen numerous instances of poorly managed accident sites, breath testing, and speed booking, sometimes resulting in unnecessary accidents and many more close calls. It has often seemed to me that not effort goes into training police to assess the potential adverse consequences of their activities.

So without commenting further on this particular case, but instead looking at the more general issue…

Seeing as how you took it into a sweeping disparagement Uteme, before shooting your own mouth off, you could take a moment to realise something. There are unfortunately some ill-considered things done by some members of the police, and people here are less likely here to accept it unquestioningly. Of course there’s a pretty easy way of making such complaints go away…

In any high profile role, “one must not only do good, one must be seen to do good”.

Out in Kingston/City last night and saw plenty of cop cars parked on islands, paths, laneways, etc.

Who cared? No one.

You out Skyring? Didn’t see anyone bringing up the subject with the officers. Some good photo opps though. Methinks you might need a bigger hard drive if you want to store all the images.

Found another good one for your collection too. The 4WD in the background is clearly parked on the wrong side of the road!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r480101_2440093.jpg

KarlG said :

As a taxi driver, I feel the cops should be generally minding their own business and leaving the taxi drivers to regulate themselves when it comes to who is parking on the rank etc.

this whole topic is a bit of a joke IMHO but i read through all the comments because it’s the hot topic over the very obviously quiet xmas/ny break, and if you ask me (not that anyone is!) it is this comment which takes the cake. sorry, say what, taxi drivers should regulate themselves??? wtf?! firstly the taxi industry is renowned for being one of the most difficult to keep in line as it is, and secondly the stated reason for the police being present was double parking which is less a cab rank issue and more a road safety and obstruction of other traffic issue.

dvaey said :

outdoormagoo said :

Just out of interest, for all those who believe the police actions arent wrong, because the law allows them to get away with what theyre doing… How do you feel about the new law in Victoria which allows police to strip search anyone in any area they declare, without warrant? Do you believe that it is right people could be subjected to a strip-search (just because of where they are), without warrant, because its the law of the week?

ACT Police already can strip search, ordinary search, frisk search without warrant. Search powers are adequate in the ACT and I can’t see them changing any time soon.

Ryan said :

Is it any wonder with responses such as these from our police members, why people dont bother reporting traffic violations, to be investigated by the buddy of the driver who was accused.

How do you know people don’t bother reporting traffic violations? You don’t. And if you really think the ‘buddy of the driver who was accused’ would investigate a complaint involving another member (is that *really* what you are suggesting?), you are really showing your ignorance.

Skyring said :

They rarely get booked for talking on mobiles.

I guess you missed the recent CT report regarding the massive increase of fines issued for using mobile phones while driving in the last couple of years.

Need to pull you up there ‘Devil_n_Disquiz’. Your comment about Police having a “magical blue uniform” in post 94 misses the mark in a big way. I take your meaning to be in criticism of the manner in which some officers behave whilst driving, fine. Though say it clearly so you’re not misunderstood or misrespresented.

As sarcastic as your comment is (perhaps) intended though, I’m sure the family of WA Constable David Rudd would have loved him to have a “magical blue uniform”. Not to enable him to make or take a phone call while driving, but to protect him from the cowardly $%^& who smashed his face with a brick after responding to a disturbance in Wyndham on Christmas Day.

If you haven’t seen it, here’s Constable Rudd after the attack:
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/officer-breaks-silence-after-vicious-brawl-bashing-20091227-lg5h.html

This is the grim reality that Police face when protecting us. Kind of pales in comparison with the squabbling over Police parking and use of mobile phones doesn’t it?!

Why is it that some fool always shoots of his mouth before knowing what is going on.

Rather than take a photo why not approach the officer I’m sure he would be more than happy to talk to you.

I have another suggestion since the pic was obviously taken from a moving vehicle. KEEP YOU EYES ON THE ROAD RATHER THAN ON SOMETHING YOUR NOT INVOLVED WITH.

As far as booking taxis for entering East row after midnight,,,,,,,, The cops are not blind but some fools on the site are. Both directions of London Cct say “No left turn” “No right turn” buses excepted. There is no mention of taxis on these signs. This is what they are being booked for not “disobey no entry” as per other signs on East Row.

Once again one set of signs in on London Cct the other on East Row so the taxis are breaking the first rule before getting to the second.

From my source the green Police car was there for another issue and the officer handing out fines was parked on the side of Bunda Street in an unmarked vehicle which I’m sure most of you tools making uninformed comments are likely to come across sooner or later

Happy NYE

Skyring said:

bigfeet said :

“And the comment on reflective coating on police registration plates…well if you had any credibility at all you lost it with that one.”

http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyring/2114015895/
I’m sure of my facts. You’re just waving your hands around a lot in the hope that you’ll impress the gullible

Perhaps you should look at your own taxi plates:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyring/491511264/

Coasted with some high gloss varnish, maybe?

Skyring, from the looks of you Flickr page, you seem to be a taxi driver. Is that why you’re upset? Don’t believe in taxis getting booked?

Aurelius, don’t quote me but I am sure I was told by a member of the AFP that cops are in fact allowed to drive using a mobile phone. But thats ok cos the lack of concentration that people like you and me have when using a mobile phone, whilst driving, doesn’t affect some others once they put on their magical blue uniform. 🙂

As long as they are not obstructing traffic or causing a danger, police should be able to park wherever if they are doing their jobs.

It would be impossible to do your job in the City and have to find a park every three seconds to be able to book someone or break up a fight etc.

This is just nit-picking the police.

You’re a clown Skyring. On one hand you’re having a go at parking in the laneway, yet according to you it’s OK for the police to park in a loading zone. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

To be honest, there’s probalby more chance an actual goods vehicle needed to use the loading zone than anyone needing to use the laneway! Where’s your twisted logic there?

I won’t repeat the relevant section of the Aust Road Rules re loading zone, and I have already given my opinion. I will say again however – Police break the odd (minor, ie. traffic) law to enforce laws – whoop de friggin doo!

I don’t want you to feel like you have to respond to everyone, because given the awesomeness (lost for words) of this post topic, I know in your infinite wisdom (and obvious time-consuming pastimes such as photographing police cars on Xmas eve), you will not have time to respond to my loading zone query….

Well, this has been highly entertaining – albeit a tad highly strung.
As Officer Barbrady put it, “Move along people; there’s nothing to see here”.

Personally I don’t see the problem with where the cop car is parked. Although it partly obstructs the laneway, it does not appear unsafe to other motorists or pedestrians.

The fact that the copper is enforcing the law down the street with the taxi drivers is the job after all. I’d only be pissed off if the copper turned his back on more serious offences committed in broad view at the same time.

Must have been a quiet afternoon in civic.

Spideydog said :

Thanks. Could you quote the two sections of the relevant legislation, please?

Seeing how you asked so nicely, but unfortunately I am not near any legislation at present, so I cannot quote the act and section, but I can quote the two offences:

1. “Use vehicle with illegible plates” (ie, muddy, degraded plates, not properly maintained)
This carries a penalty of $90

2. “Drive/use vehicle with traffic evasion article” (ie, numberplate spray, radar detector etc)
This carries penalty of $1200

Two separate and different offences 🙂

Fair enough. I was wondering where people deliberately smearing their numberplates with mud comes in. However, it comes down to the same thing – people getting away with behaviour that the rest of us have to cop. Such as a police driver choosing to obstruct a laneway, instead of parking on a loading zone. It’s the hypocrisy of the act that pisses me off, rather than any aversion to police parking their vehicles in a convenient spot, which obviously they have to do.

Aurelius said :

On a slight tangent:
While driving along the M5 in southern Sydney over the Xmas break, I saw an officer driving a marked police car, doing about 85, yapping away on his mobile phone.
I’d previously been told they can do so because of the exemptions mentioned above, but having read those here, it seems they are not. So maybe I should send the letter I was considering.

ARR’s Rule: 300 Use of mobile phones

(1) The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while
the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked,
unless:
(a) the phone is being used to make or receive a phone call
(other than a text message, video message, email or
similar communication) and the body of the phone:
(i) is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle
while being so used; or
(ii) is not secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle
and is not being held by the driver, and the use of
the phone does not require the driver, at any time
while using it, to press any thing on the body of
the phone or to otherwise manipulate any part of
the body of the phone; or
(b) the vehicle is an emergency vehicle or a police vehicle;
or
(c) the driver is exempt from this rule under another law of
this jurisdiction.

So there you have it, emergency vehicle’s and Police vehicles are exempt.

Is it right that an exemption applies for mobiles ?? I would say no, unless it was an absolute emergency. Buuuut the exemption does apply none the less.

georgesgenitals said :

The police here are definitely selective about enforcement of road rules, although I suppose they are focussing on whatever this month’s policy is. For example, almost every time I drive I see people using mobile phones while driving – clearly people aren’t concerned about being booked for that. People are starting to get more paranoid abou the speeding thing, but there are roads you know you can get away with it, and roads where you probably can’t.

Exactly right. If people are booked for things, they talk about it, modify their own behaviour. Word spreads. I see other drivers slowing down going past speed cameras and vans – often to well under the limit. That’s because people get booked for speeding.

They rarely get booked for talking on mobiles.

One thing I’d like to see some police action on is cyclists riding after dark without lights. The cyclists might be able to see where they are going, but other road users may not see them until too late.

I’d like to see police pay more attention to safety and security. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t book cabbies doing the wrong thing, but if I almost run down some kid on a bike without lights or helmet, that’s a bit different to going a bit over the lines on a cab rank.

“Illegal parking by the cops?” FFS, Grow spines!

What do you jokers do…Pube maybe? Permanent DSS bludger? Tradie who’s had one too many DUI’s (and it was everyone else fault but your own for the last schooey at the “Magpies” or similar)? Far too easy for all to whinge from the side line as to “walk in their shoes” as the cliché goes.

Do you have copperS walk up to your place of work (or in front of your plasmas and PS3’s) telling you how to do what ever you do? I thought not.
“Don’t park there, but file that paperwork more efficiently, lest the world crumbles” they’d say.

I couldn’t do what the cops do in any town, let alone a place as navel-contemplation like as Canberra so I can only wish the whiners in this town would leave the cops alone. They have a totally no win job where the failings of parents, society, the courts and our OWN responsibility are always the cops’ fault.

And yes, I have $179 and three points owing – because I, repeat I made the mistake.

outdoormagoo said :

The point is in this case, they are operating within the law, according to the ARRs. Therefore your entire argument regarding the poll result is a waste of time.

Just out of interest, for all those who believe the police actions arent wrong, because the law allows them to get away with what theyre doing… How do you feel about the new law in Victoria which allows police to strip search anyone in any area they declare, without warrant? Do you believe that it is right people could be subjected to a strip-search (just because of where they are), without warrant, because its the law of the week?

Ryan said :

I didn’t say that writing tickets to cabs double parked near a cab rank was an emergency situation. I said that the police, unlike a Dominos Guy or a Courier, may be required to immediately RESPOND TO an emergency situation.

Wouldnt it make more sense for them to be parked on Bunda St than down an alley, if they need to leave the area quickly? Especially since OP claimed there were available spots nearby on Bunda St. What about if a delivery truck parked in that alley, leaving the police car unable to exit the narrow street at all?

Ryan said :

Frankly, your logic is flawed. To compare our emergency services to delivery guys is really quite a stretch.

The logic I was applying, is that theyre both trying to find a spot to leave their vehicle while they do their job. The difference, is that if anyone other than a police officer obstructs traffic throughfare, they will be penalised, while apparently if a police officer does it, they can do no wrong. Is it any wonder with responses such as these from our police members, why people dont bother reporting traffic violations, to be investigated by the buddy of the driver who was accused.

Good to see the plod doing some enforcement activity. So what if they parked the plodmobile in a hardly used lane in such a way tat may have technically blocked it. Not sure if they were booking the taxi drivers for that peculiar, odd, strange, bizarre reverse double parking series of manouvres they do. If so, hope they booked them for stupidity. WHile they were at it they probably would have been able to throw a few fines about for having wanker lights on – esp those tarago taxis – and probably witness more than one illegal u turn. Taxis in this town are a law unto themselves – time they got a slapping!

Put yourself in moderation JB. Comments like that just make you look childish.

As for Skyring and your outrage:

Submit photo to the Police professional standards and the Commonwealth ombudsman – get the outcome of the investigation and post it up. If you are not prepared to do this then you are just grandstanding on your soapbox and really know that what the Police were doing was reasonable in the circumstances.

Being a police officer would be incredibly frustrating – guilty parties getting off altogether, a minister who favours junkies … frankly, skyring, if small perks that aren’t doing any harm to the broader community redress the imbalance just a tad, I’m all for them.

On a slight tangent:
While driving along the M5 in southern Sydney over the Xmas break, I saw an officer driving a marked police car, doing about 85, yapping away on his mobile phone.
I’d previously been told they can do so because of the exemptions mentioned above, but having read those here, it seems they are not. So maybe I should send the letter I was considering.

Skyring:
As a taxi driver, I feel the cops should be generally minding their own business and leaving the taxi drivers to regulate themselves when it comes to who is parking on the rank etc.
In this situation, I have no issue with where the cop was parked, or the fact he was booking taxi drivers for stopping away from the rank concerned.

As far as the number plate, what you observed was simply a sweetspot in the reflectivity of the number plate, combined with your camera’s sensitive CCD or film picking up the reflected light. There is a reason why fixed speed cameras have a flash unit some distance from the camera unit – that is so the reflected light is suitably attenuated to prevent this exact issue.

In this case, the police were correctly doing their job, and any stories about plates being treated with spray or similar is tin-foil hat territory.

(The coatings/covers I have seen obstructing plates give a full view of the plate from 90 deg angle, but from an oblique view such as a speed camera, HALF the plate becomes invisible)

Skyring said :

Tooks said :

The only ‘red hot venom’ on this thread seems to be coming from Skyring …

Sorry. I thought my comments were quite mild. Or maybe some folk are extra sensitive. Perhaps if you were to quote an example of “red hot venom”, I could see what offends you and dial down my invective. I’d hate to cause offence.

Referring to your understanding of ‘illegal parking’ as corruption……there’s a start

More appropriate poll answers would have been :

1. They should always obey the rules regardless of the situation

2. They should obey the rules unless it’s a flashing lights emergency

3. They can make use of the exemption under ARR’s, ONLY if it’s for a law enforcement purpose, (ie – getting lunch does not count)

4. They should be able to park where ever they please

A more accurate gauge may be had then, unless anyone can think of a fairer one ??

Skyring said :

Spideydog said :

A vehicle with mud covering the number plate is a different offence to that of using evasive device ie, numberplate spray.

Thanks. Could you quote the two sections of the relevant legislation, please?

Seeing how you asked so nicely, but unfortunately I am not near any legislation at present, so I cannot quote the act and section, but I can quote the two offences:

1. “Use vehicle with illegible plates” (ie, muddy, degraded plates, not properly maintained)
This carries a penalty of $90

2. “Drive/use vehicle with traffic evasion article” (ie, numberplate spray, radar detector etc)
This carries penalty of $1200

Two separate and different offences 🙂

Skyring said :

Why would people in some US states clean their plates so they conform with the law, and people here not? It’s like knowing how far you can go over the limit without being booked – just watch what the locals do.

Of course, as we can see here, there’s always the odd galah who doesn’t have a clue.

The police here are definitely selective about enforcement of road rules, although I suppose they are focussing on whatever this month’s policy is. For example, almost every time I drive I see people using mobile phones while driving – clearly people aren’t concerned about being booked for that. People are starting to get more paranoid abou the speeding thing, but there are roads you know you can get away with it, and roads where you probably can’t.

I think, though, that if we don’t like this (and frankly it doesn’t bother me at all), we need to petition our elected representatives rather than hassle our police.

Oh don’t tell me the police don’t turn the odd eye either. Of all the law-abiding citizens I know (that at least try) not one of them is perfect and until that day they all are I don’t expect the police to be either.

I’m usually happy to see police presence in general, don’t care where it is or how it’s parked.

Infact, despite the fact I try to be independent and not waste the establishment’s time with my dramas, my life still depends on the ability of emergency services to be at my beck and call on the odd occasion. So please park in the middle of the street all you like if it means getting to me and my kids sooner if it’s life threatening (and even then I’m still looking after my own).

Gosh, I must be boring if all my life in Canberra, the coppers have never annoyed me, no matter what they do (haven’t seen much)! Guess I try not to worry about them and as a result they don’t bother with me unless I deserve it or need help..

Nice.. if you can get it!

(in other words, watch your own karma when you are telling someone else to be perfect, you would want to be exceptional, which very few are!)

Interesting how I am being modded out of this conversation. Clearly I can’t be a faux intellectual like JB…..please excuse me

Oh no!!!!

This is such a bad event, and it must be dealt with accordingly!!
Skyring – you should have made a citizen’s arrest on the officer there on the spot, as this behaviour is totally unacceptable and it is only up to people such as yourself or dvaey to enforce the letter of the law!!!!!! Since you’re sooooo knowledgable in the road rules and are so keen to learn the rules you have not yet memorised, you are in a perfect position to create a militia force to police the police, because as you have so passionately argued throughout this thread, the police are out of line!!!!! Where will it end???????

Seriously though, I think one of the most rational comments so far has been this one:

outdoormagoo said :

…I do believe that the police should operate within the laws unless its an emergency.

The point is in this case, they are operating within the law, according to the ARRs.

There are many laws, and many blanket laws, which many people disagree with. However, they are LAW, so you can whinge until the cows come home but thats the bottom line.

If anyone out there thinks that the police have abused their powers in this instance, why don’t you contact the AFP to make a complaint, or seek to get the Australian Road Rules changed (good luck with that ha) and put your name to your grievences instead of hiding behing a screen name and criticising the police for doing their job as the law entitles them to do!

Skyring said :

Tooks said :

Skyring said :

Spideydog said :

If you really believe that is the case, report the vehicle/s and their rego plates in question, as it is a serious offence attracting a $1600 fine if I remember correctly.

Not a serious offence in the eyes of the police, as it is rarely enforced, judging by the number of cars around town with numberplates obscured by dirt or bike racks or towballs or reflective numberplate covers.

How would you know it’s rarely enforced? Do you have the annual traffic infringement stats in front of you?

Why would people in some US states clean their plates so they conform with the law, and people here not? It’s like knowing how far you can go over the limit without being booked – just watch what the locals do.

Of course, as we can see here, there’s always the odd galah who doesn’t have a clue.

*Sigh* Your response has nothing to do with my question. How do you know it’s rarely enforced here? Instead of calling me names you wouldn’t repeat in person, how about answering the question?

fgzk said :

Increasingly we are seeing laws introduced that reinforce the notion that breaking the rules is ok, if you are a policeman trying to catch a “criminal”.

Really? Some examples?

Skyring said :

Tooks said :

The only ‘red hot venom’ on this thread seems to be coming from Skyring …

Sorry. I thought my comments were quite mild. Or maybe some folk are extra sensitive. Perhaps if you were to quote an example of “red hot venom”, I could see what offends you and dial down my invective. I’d hate to cause offence.

The Red hot venom quote was from Johnboy originally, not me. To be honest though, I didn’t think any of the conversation has been particularly heated.

I believe this whole issue should come down to common sense. I also believe that police, where possible, should park ‘legally’, unless they have a legit reason for doing otherwise.

You are obviously pretty irate about it all, so why not talk to someone in ACT police to see what they say about the issue?

In my previous post, top paragraph should read, “THAN a Hawaiian pizza and garlic bread.”

…In saying that, pizza delivered with lights and sirens would be cool! Though you might get in trouble for trying to tip the driver, unless he’s one of those corrupt types who parks wherever he or she likes!

dvaey said :

Ryan said :

dvaey said :

Just out of interest, would you feel the same if it was a courier van? What about a dominos delivery car?

How exactly is this relevant? Last tiem I checked, Couriers and Pizza Guys aren’t called to immediately respond to an emergency situation.

How exactly is that relevant? Last time I checked, writing tickets to cabs double parked near a cab rank during christmas eve shopping rush, wasnt an emergency situation.
.

I didn’t say that writing tickets to cabs double parked near a cab rank was an emergency situation. I said that the police, unlike a Dominos Guy or a Courier, may be required to immediately RESPOND TO an emergency situation.

Frankly, your logic is flawed. To compare our emergency services to delivery guys is really quite a stretch.

Tooks said :

The only ‘red hot venom’ on this thread seems to be coming from Skyring …

Sorry. I thought my comments were quite mild. Or maybe some folk are extra sensitive. Perhaps if you were to quote an example of “red hot venom”, I could see what offends you and dial down my invective. I’d hate to cause offence.

Spideydog said :

A vehicle with mud covering the number plate is a different offence to that of using evasive device ie, numberplate spray.

Thanks. Could you quote the two sections of the relevant legislation, please?

Eby said :

I get extremely tired of people criticising the Police (and by the way, I’m not one). Sure, some of them are knobs. Sure, some of them don’t have great people skills. Sure, some of them like the power a bit too much.

But they work extremely hard hours. They don’t get allocated breaks, they’re just lucky if they get one. They don’t even get paid particularly well.

And they see some terrible things, things that most of us wouldn’t see in a lifetime. A motorcyclist with half his head scraped off in an accident. A young woman who was decapitated when her car rolled. An old lady who was found after three months, her body melted into the floor and covered in maggots. The numerous suicides we don’t hear about in the news.

So really, if one of the perks of their job is to be able to park illegally for five minutes to get a takeaway coffee, who cares? I don’t.

Does having a bad experience as a child, as a soldier, as a refugee mean you can break the law because it’s only fair that two wrongs make a right? Shouldn’t the police be especially scrupulous in their behaviour, setting a good example?

Dvaey,

Courier van? Dominos car? – Spare me! But in answer to your earlier question – yes I would feel differently to those parked where the Police car is (or in a similar manner) because in an emergency I’d rather have the support of the Police, a Hawaiian pizza and garlic bread. Though then again and on further reflection, maybe I wouldn’t care – as delivery drivers have a job to do too.

Oh, and Dvaey, they’re not “traffic wardens”, they’re Police.

God forbid a single Police vehicle should be parked somewhere “out of place”, “illegally” or whatever people’s negative terms for this are.

Here’s a poll for you. How many people walked past the Police car and thought;

a) nothing about it whatsoever as they didn’t notice it,
b) oh look, a Police car,
c) oh look, a Police car – the Police are doing their job,
d) oh look, a Police car. Maybe they could have parked somewhere better,
e) oh look, a Police car parked in such a fashion as to be demonstrative of the utter disregard for the rules which Police themselves are sworn to uphold. Why, it’s utter Police corruption – the stuff I thought the Woods Royal Commission stamped out! Thankfully I have my trusty digital camera and can post this for discussion instead of spending quality time with my loved ones on Christmas Eve!

The fact of the matter is people are going to have their own views on whether this is “right” or “wrong” and very little will sway them. By the way, I DON’T think Police should be held to the same standard as the public, they should be held to a higher standard!

Is the photo above contradicting that standard? To some, yes. To others including myself, no way. They’re just trying to do their job. A job far different and more difficult to those of delivery drivers (though keep up the good work guys!) and many, many of us.

‘Skyring’, ‘Dvaey’ and others supporting their position on this; read…our…lips – it is not suggested that the officers writing tickets are in an emergency situation and need to park there! The vehicle is there to enable the Police to RESPOND to any possible emergency quickly and with a minimum of fuss and delay.

Perhaps they’ve also left it there so they can see it? The way some people are carrying on nowadays I wouldn’t put it past to have a go at an unattended Police car. Maybe the Police may need something out of it in the course of their duties (like a first aid kit)?

Though don’t let practicalities like these get in the way of your axe-grinding guys! Please, carry on!…

Tooks said :

Skyring said :

Spideydog said :

If you really believe that is the case, report the vehicle/s and their rego plates in question, as it is a serious offence attracting a $1600 fine if I remember correctly.

Not a serious offence in the eyes of the police, as it is rarely enforced, judging by the number of cars around town with numberplates obscured by dirt or bike racks or towballs or reflective numberplate covers.

How would you know it’s rarely enforced? Do you have the annual traffic infringement stats in front of you?

Why would people in some US states clean their plates so they conform with the law, and people here not? It’s like knowing how far you can go over the limit without being booked – just watch what the locals do.

Of course, as we can see here, there’s always the odd galah who doesn’t have a clue.

Skyring said :

Spideydog said :

If you really believe that is the case, report the vehicle/s and their rego plates in question, as it is a serious offence attracting a $1600 fine if I remember correctly.

Not a serious offence in the eyes of the police, as it is rarely enforced, judging by the number of cars around town with numberplates obscured by dirt or bike racks or towballs or reflective numberplate covers.

A vehicle with mud covering the number plate is a different offence to that of using evasive device ie, numberplate spray.

That photo example you have provided does not prove that the police vehicle was using numberplate spray m8. People see a photo come up like that and automatically hit the conspiracy button.

Tooks..” Thankfully, this officer doesn’t have to justify his (or her) behaviour to the likes of Skyring and dvaey.”
“I look forward to your next post, complaining about police speeding to catch speeding drivers.”

Tooks I think you have hit the nail on the head. People are pissed off that the police dont have to justify there behaviour beyond some notion of catching a criminal. The law only applies to the public. Increasingly we are seeing laws introduced that reinforce the notion that breaking the rules is ok, if you are a policeman trying to catch a “criminal”.

I look forward to your next post complaining that the laws protect criminals and need to be changed so you can catch them.

johnboy said :

Personally I love that despite the red hot venom this has engendered from the law enforcement section of our readership (and we do love you guys), the poll indicates the general public are not pleased by these displays.

That’s the public which elects the governments, which in turn writes the laws, and pays for the police.

Think about it fellas.

Then just jerk your knees because your brains have never been top notch.

Johnboy, I chose the poll option that has been the popular choice so far. And I do believe that the police should operate within the laws unless its an emergency.

The point is in this case, they are operating within the law, according to the ARRs. Therefore your entire argument regarding the poll result is a waste of time.

Reply

johnboy said :

Personally I love that despite the red hot venom this has engendered from the law enforcement section of our readership (and we do love you guys), the poll indicates the general public are not pleased by these displays.

That’s the public which elects the governments, which in turn writes the laws, and pays for the police.

Think about it fellas.

Then just jerk your knees because your brains have never been top notch.

The only ‘red hot venom’ on this thread seems to be coming from Skyring and dvaey; Almost everyone else on the thread seems to think it’s a storm in a teacup.

Lame insult at the end there, too. Hardly worthy of your apparent superior intellect.

Skyring said :

Spideydog said :

If you really believe that is the case, report the vehicle/s and their rego plates in question, as it is a serious offence attracting a $1600 fine if I remember correctly.

Not a serious offence in the eyes of the police, as it is rarely enforced, judging by the number of cars around town with numberplates obscured by dirt or bike racks or towballs or reflective numberplate covers.

How would you know it’s rarely enforced? Do you have the annual traffic infringement stats in front of you?

Regarding your original post: If you’re so outraged about the actions of this officer – which you clearly are – why don’t you make a complaint, contact your local member etc?

Spideydog said :

If you really believe that is the case, report the vehicle/s and their rego plates in question, as it is a serious offence attracting a $1600 fine if I remember correctly.

Not a serious offence in the eyes of the police, as it is rarely enforced, judging by the number of cars around town with numberplates obscured by dirt or bike racks or towballs or reflective numberplate covers.

In some US states, it is enforced, and it is not uncommon to see cars covered in mud – with the exception of the tag, which has been carefully wiped clean.

I’d like to see the same situation apply here and a few of the more blatant abusers cop this supposed $1600 fine. I’ve seen Subaru WRX cars that have been fitted with towballs carefully obscuring the numberplate. Presumably not so that they can tow the garden clippings to the dump.

Skyring said :

bigfeet said :

And the comment on reflective coating on police registration plates…well if you had any credibility at all you lost it with that one.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyring/2114015895/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyring/2114015895/sizes/s/in/photostream/ for a small version.

bigfeet said :

Skyring said :

[The lane contains two lanes, divided by an unbroken white line. The police car is completely obstructing one lane. Anyone moving across the line to pass the parked police car is breaking the law and could be booked.

Wrong again. See Rule 139(2).

Which deals with driving on the wrong side of an unbroken white line to avoid an obstruction. In this case the obstruction is a police car, illegally parked.

bigfeet said :

Your lack of knowledge of the Road Rules is disturbing, perhaps it is time to book yourself in with ACT roads for a driving test.

Perhaps it is. Would you kindly point out the relevant law? Or are you just making it up?

bigfeet said :

Skyring said :

I’d rather have them flipping hamburgers or impersonating Elvis instead of committing petty corruptions in their police officer vehicles.

Petty corruption? Are you serious? When is a police officer acting completely within the law any form of corruption?

For a start, the police driver was acting illegally. Let’s look at regulation 305:

305 Exemption for drivers of police vehicles
(1) A provision of the Australian Road Rules does not apply to the driver of a police vehicle if:
(a) in the circumstances:
(i) the driver is taking reasonable care, and
(ii) it is reasonable that the provision should not apply…

In this case, it is not reasonable that the police vehicle should be parked and left unattended in a position where it is creating an obstruction – the obstruction you want other drivers to cross an unbroken white line to avoid – when there are vacant spaces in a loading zone just behind the taxi rank.

Of course, it would be up to a magistrate to determine the “reasonableness” in each specific case, but I feel that a reasonable person would have no difficulty in determining the situation here. Without any specific court ruling, whether it is reasonable or not is a matter of personal opinion. I say that obstructing traffic when better and closer parks are available is not reasonable, and is therefore illegal. That’s my opinion. I’m an eyewitness. You may have another one, but unless you are a magistrate hearing the specific case, your opinion is as good as anyone else’s. You aren’t an eyewitness – you are making your opinion on website hearsay.

Parking so as to obstruct traffic is corruption, because the police driver knows full well that no other policeman is going to book him for breaking the law. It’s petty because, in all seriousness, the traffic at that time of Christmas Eve was minimal.

Which brings us back to the question of why policemen were booking taxidrivers. At least the cabbies were in their vehicles, engines running, able to respond immediately in the unlikely event of another vehicle needing to use the slip lane. The police vehicle was parked, empty, unattended.

bigfeet said :

And the comment on reflective coating on police registration plates…well if you had any credibility at all you lost it with that one.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyring/2114015895/
I’m sure of my facts. You’re just waving your hands around a lot in the hope that you’ll impress the gullible.

dvaey said :

Maybe you should understand the meaning of ‘parking’ and ‘standing’. Parking, means the vehicle is turned off and the driver is more than 3 metres away from the vehicle. Standing, means that the vehicle is stopped, but is ready to move and the driver IS in the drivers seat. (Ref Aus Road Rules 167/168 since you like specific rules).

Read my comments above, and youll understand that the cabs werent double ‘parked’. They were stopped, but they werent parked, unless like the police officers, the cabbies left their vehicle.

Hmmmm, that interesting what is the definition of double parked in the ARR, rule 189 comes to mind:

189 Double parking
(1) A driver must not stop on a road:
(a) if the road is a two-way road — between the centre of
the road and another vehicle that is parked at the side of
the road; or
(b) if the road is a one-way road — between the far side
of the road and another vehicle that is parked at the side
of the road.

The key words “A driver must not stop” ….. not park.

Thats not what the majority of the responses have been ….. so which is it Johnboy. Do we gauge from a poll or what the actual responses are ?? Regardless the “poll” was rather restrictive and narrow too. I wouldn’t count that as “reflective” of the community when their only poll choices are a little ridiculous.

Personally I love that despite the red hot venom this has engendered from the law enforcement section of our readership (and we do love you guys), the poll indicates the general public are not pleased by these displays.

That’s the public which elects the governments, which in turn writes the laws, and pays for the police.

Think about it fellas.

Then just jerk your knees because your brains have never been top notch.

Ryan said :

dvaey said :

Just out of interest, would you feel the same if it was a courier van? What about a dominos delivery car?

How exactly is this relevant? Last tiem I checked, Couriers and Pizza Guys aren’t called to immediately respond to an emergency situation.

How exactly is that relevant? Last time I checked, writing tickets to cabs double parked near a cab rank during christmas eve shopping rush, wasnt an emergency situation.

If they were responding to an emergency, then I believe they should be exempted from some restrictions, but a bit of revenue raising is different.

Also, a lot of people seem to be taking criticisms here of police action, as an anti-police stance. While Im sure there are some with that opinion, I think the annoyance is with individual police actions, not with the police force as a whole, at least I know it is for myself.

Skyring said :

[The lane contains two lanes, divided by an unbroken white line. The police car is completely obstructing one lane. Anyone moving across the line to pass the parked police car is breaking the law and could be booked.

Wrong again. See Rule 139(2).

Your lack of knowledge of the Road Rules is disturbing, perhaps it is time to book yourself in with ACT roads for a driving test.

Skyring said :

I’d rather have them flipping hamburgers or impersonating Elvis instead of committing petty corruptions in their police officer vehicles.

Petty corruption? Are you serious? When is a police officer acting completely within the law any form of corruption?

And the comment on reflective coating on police registration plates…well if you had any credibility at all you lost it with that one.

Skyring said :

There is a loading zone directly behind the taxi rank. It was vacant at the time. Other, legal, closer parks were available.

Was it a general loading zone or a timed one? Where is your photo of said empty Loading Zone to back up your story?

Last time I checked a Police vehicle is not a goods carrying vehicle. Wouldn’t the Police being parked in said Loading Zone be in contradiction of Regulation 179 of the Australian Road Rules – Stopping in a loading zone? (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/s179.html)

Seriously dude – Police:
– Lawfully speed in order to catch speeding drivers;
– Can lawfully assault you whilst effecting an arrest (given certain circumstances);
– Can lawfully confine you and deprive you of your freedom and liberty;
– Can forcefully enter your house, stop your car, remove your children;
– Etc, etc, etc

Surprise surprise, they also park illegally to enforce parking rules.

Whoop de friggin do!

bd84 said :

Firstly the lane is no way narrow, there is room for almost 3 cars.
The police car is not obstructing any traffic or pedestrians.
There is no legal parking that would be readily available in that area.
The police are not required to park legally when performing their duties i.e. writing parking tickets (yes if they were collecting their donuts, it would not be legal).

The lane contains two lanes, divided by an unbroken white line. The police car is completely obstructing one lane. Anyone moving across the line to pass the parked police car is breaking the law and could be booked.

There is a loading zone directly behind the taxi rank. It was vacant at the time. Other, legal, closer parks were available.

It was not reasonable for the police to obstruct traffic in the laneway when better parks were readily available, especially when they are booking other drivers for obstructing traffic.

People that quote the legislation thnat allows Police the free pass have all absolutely missed the point. You idiots.

If legislation is the ultimate end to your argument you ignore the reasons why legislation is always changing – cos its often inappropriate for the times.

and to argue no obstruction is being caused… jesus if i used that in my defense for my next parking ticket how d’you think i’d go?

Should there be legislation that allows police to book people whilst committing the same crime.

That’s the question.

Idiots.

The answer is simply no. Police should adhere to the highest standard, Your arguments simply imply they should be allowed to choose the lower option.

Skyring said :

TP 3000 said :

The Police would of parked in that alley as if Bunda Street was banked up the Police could fly up the lane & exit directly onto Cooyong Street.

But those that complain about the Police parking & get things changes, will (most of the time) be the exact same ones that complain about the time it took for the Police to attend to their son/daughter being killed by a stranger.

I think that the police parked their vehicle in the lane because it was convenient for them to do so, and they had the blanket protection of the Australian Road Rules. I don’t think that thoughts of flying up the lane for a quick getaway entered their heads.

There were vacant, legal, closer places for the police to put their vehicle. Instead, they chose to block off half of a narrow lane in immediate disregard of a sign saying “No Parking in Lane”. I have a problem with policemen making such poor choices, and I wonder what other poor choices these same people have made in the past and will make in the future.

I was very loose with my description of the cabbies as “double parking”. Specifically, the Bunda Street rank is double width, the outside line of cabs moving backwards, the inner line moving forwards: boustrophedonically. Double parking is allowed, though triple parking isn’t. Until 1800, the rank is between the Mort Street and Bible Lane corners. After 1800 the loading zone between Bible Lane and the zebra crossing becomes part of the rank and another four or five cabs can be squeezed in.

This was just before 1800 and there was an oversupply of cabs for the work available, which is the usual state of affairs. Cabs were extending the beginning of the outside line by stopping in the slip lane leading left into Mort Street. This is illegal and a block to other traffic. But that is EXACTLY what the cops were doing on the other side of Bunda Street.

I think that my observation of the police parking in a narrow lane is a neat balance to the cabbies stopping in the slip lane. Comparing the cops parking in the lane to the crime of murder is right out of whack. Using that sort of logic one could excuse almost any sort of poor behaviour – “oh there might have been a horrid mass murder of your entire family and you’d be the first to complain because they weren’t in their cars waiting outside your house, guns drawn.”

You keep repeating the same idiotic points and you keep adding unsupported arguments such as the reflective coating on numberplates.

This is all you need to know:
Firstly the lane is no way narrow, there is room for almost 3 cars.
The police car is not obstructing any traffic or pedestrians.
There is no legal parking that would be readily available in that area.
The police are not required to park legally when performing their duties i.e. writing parking tickets (yes if they were collecting their donuts, it would not be legal).

Conclusion: the police were legally parked in a safe location.

It’s been mentioned already, but see Aus Road Rule 307. Thankfully, this officer doesn’t have to justify his (or her) behaviour to the likes of Skyring and dvaey.

I look forward to your next post, complaining about police speeding to catch speeding drivers.

Skyring said :

But abusing the privilege creates a poor impression. For instance, I’ve noticed that some police vehicles have their number plates sprayed with a reflective coating, so that they won’t get booked by speed/red light cameras.

I call bulls$%T. Spraying reflective coating on the rego plates …… I see someone with an axe to grind. Police spraying rego plates is waaaaaay out there m8. You really must have a serious issue if your allegedly inspecting police vehicle rego plates. Pfft, more conspiracy theories of Police. This one did make me laugh ALOT 😉

If you really believe that is the case, report the vehicle/s and their rego plates in question, as it is a serious offence attracting a $1600 fine if I remember correctly.

Boo Hoo. Who’s going to give the Police a ticket? No one, because they can park wherever they want. If it means they dish out a few fines to our money-hungry, overpriced taxi service, then so be it.

I assume from OP that you didn’t actually see the Police vehicle park there, just old mate giving out tickets? He could have parked there for a number of reasons unknown to you.

I can just see him having to respond to an urgent job, but having to do an 8-point parrallel parking exit manoeuvre from between two ridiculously close vehicles to get out of his legal park in a hurry.

Been done to death I know, but I think the consensus is that we want them close to their vehicles – either getting a coffee or responding urgently.

Skyring – did you read the road rules. You keep calling what the Police in the picture do illegal etc.. get a grip – there is an exemption there for a reason.

Go read it and get back to us.

The relevant law is the Australian Road Rules.

Rule 305 states:

305 Exemption for drivers of police vehicles

(1) A provision of the Australian Road Rules does not apply to the
driver of a police vehicle if:

(a) in the circumstances:

(i) the driver is taking reasonable care; and
(ii) it is reasonable that the provision should not apply;
and

(b) if the vehicle is a motor vehicle that is moving — the
vehicle is displaying a blue or red flashing light or
sounding an alarm.

Rule 307 contains an express police vehicle exemption from stopping and parking provisions. It also includes the same requirements for ‘reasonable care’ and a reasonable grounds exemption.

What constitutes ‘reasonable’ will turn on the facts of the individual case. This will include actions that are fair, proper, just, moderate, suitable under the circumstances, and fit and appropriate to the end in view. On the one hand, when selecting a parking spot to enforce minor parking offences, operational requirements would certainly be relevant. On the other hand, Skyring tells us that “There were vacant, legal, closer places for the police to put their vehicle”. Assuming (s)he has firsthand knowledge, then the question is whether the ” vacant, legal, closer places” would have been suitable. If so, then it would be unreasonable to expect exemption from Rule 305.

The real issue here is ensuring that those charged with enforcing the law, do so in accordance with what the law actually says, and not what they think it says. Certainly, the parking of police vehicles is a relatively minor matter. But encouraging junior police to act as if the law doesn’t apply to them encourages the attitude that was so starkly displayed by senior AFP officers in the Haneef case of exceeding their authority and acting with excessive zeal.

kazbar said :

So for goodness sake, give them a break – they’re not perfect, and there are bad eggs (as there are everywhere), but at the end of the day, they do a really tough job – and they do it well!

I’d rather the bad eggs were not in the police force, just quietly. This is one job where bad eggs shouldn’t be tolerated. I’d rather have them flipping hamburgers or impersonating Elvis instead of committing petty corruptions in their police officer vehicles.

This is not to say that I want a bad egg with my McYummyBreakfast, of course.

TP 3000 said :

The Police would of parked in that alley as if Bunda Street was banked up the Police could fly up the lane & exit directly onto Cooyong Street.

But those that complain about the Police parking & get things changes, will (most of the time) be the exact same ones that complain about the time it took for the Police to attend to their son/daughter being killed by a stranger.

I think that the police parked their vehicle in the lane because it was convenient for them to do so, and they had the blanket protection of the Australian Road Rules. I don’t think that thoughts of flying up the lane for a quick getaway entered their heads.

There were vacant, legal, closer places for the police to put their vehicle. Instead, they chose to block off half of a narrow lane in immediate disregard of a sign saying “No Parking in Lane”. I have a problem with policemen making such poor choices, and I wonder what other poor choices these same people have made in the past and will make in the future.

I was very loose with my description of the cabbies as “double parking”. Specifically, the Bunda Street rank is double width, the outside line of cabs moving backwards, the inner line moving forwards: boustrophedonically. Double parking is allowed, though triple parking isn’t. Until 1800, the rank is between the Mort Street and Bible Lane corners. After 1800 the loading zone between Bible Lane and the zebra crossing becomes part of the rank and another four or five cabs can be squeezed in.

This was just before 1800 and there was an oversupply of cabs for the work available, which is the usual state of affairs. Cabs were extending the beginning of the outside line by stopping in the slip lane leading left into Mort Street. This is illegal and a block to other traffic. But that is EXACTLY what the cops were doing on the other side of Bunda Street.

I think that my observation of the police parking in a narrow lane is a neat balance to the cabbies stopping in the slip lane. Comparing the cops parking in the lane to the crime of murder is right out of whack. Using that sort of logic one could excuse almost any sort of poor behaviour – “oh there might have been a horrid mass murder of your entire family and you’d be the first to complain because they weren’t in their cars waiting outside your house, guns drawn.”

Skyring said :

But abusing the privilege creates a poor impression. For instance, I’ve noticed that some police vehicles have their number plates sprayed with a reflective coating, so that they won’t get booked by speed/red light cameras.

Pull out your tin foil hat. Get over yourself and your own deluded importance.

One way to look at it is the officers were in line with the Suburban Policing Strategy and providing a highly visible presence.

bd84 said :

How is the a dead-end lane better than the one in which they have parked? They appear to be just as wide as each other..

One has through traffic, one doesnt. Its not rocket science.

bd84 said :

Also you seem to contest the police being able to park to do their job? So with that thinking they would not be able to pull drivers over as pulling over and parking in most locations would be illegal.

If Im not mistaken, when police pull over a driver, they have flashing lights, which indicate to other drivers ‘Im parked illegally, please take care around me’. You ask if I think an ACTEW van should be fined for parking while ‘doing his job’.. well what about a courier or pizza delivery guy?

Spideydog said :

So your having a go a Police parking “illegally” but saying cabbies should be left alone when their parking illegally ..

Maybe you should understand the meaning of ‘parking’ and ‘standing’. Parking, means the vehicle is turned off and the driver is more than 3 metres away from the vehicle. Standing, means that the vehicle is stopped, but is ready to move and the driver IS in the drivers seat. (Ref Aus Road Rules 167/168 since you like specific rules).

Spideydog said :

“Why would cabbies be booked for simply sitting in their designated rank waiting for a fare ….. I am pretty sure the OP was stating they were “double parked” which is illegal,

Read my comments above, and youll understand that the cabs werent double ‘parked’. They were stopped, but they werent parked, unless like the police officers, the cabbies left their vehicle.

Spideydog said :

So your saying that when Police notice an offence (traffic or otherwise) is seen to be being committed, they must attempt to find a legal parking space (in the city, mind you) to deal with said issue

If they notice an offence, that requires immediate action, then it is an emergency situation and they should turn their lights on. If theyre going to park their car and then walk 10min away from it into a mall, then what difference does it make if they find a park and have to walk an extra 30sec? That wasnt the case here, the vehicles were (apparently) double ‘parked’, but it was enough of an emergency that they couldnt waste a minute to find a park, like every single other person in the city has to?

Spideydog said :

Your comments are not surprising given your very active anti police stance on any Police related threads on this site I must say.

Well, I will always expect the police to justify their questionable actions, especially when they get caught out doing what we as the public arent allowed to do. I dont have a dislike for the police, I have a dislike for the actions of some police officers. If you are so narrow-minded as to interpret that to affect everyone on the job, then I pity you. I say police shouldnt park illegally unless its an emergency, you say thats ‘anti police’? I say thats ‘anti anyone-who-park-dangerously’. Just because someone has a badge, it doesnt mean they can flaunt the laws and safety rules of our city.

Cops or taxi’s,im not sure which one is the lesser of two evils??the taxi drivers do need a kick up the bum from time to time,but the cops do need to “Practice What They Preach”..its very hard to respect the letter of the law,when they bend the rules to suit themselves.

dvaey said :

Just out of interest, would you feel the same if it was a courier van? What about a dominos delivery car?

How exactly is this relevant? Last tiem I checked, Couriers and Pizza Guys aren’t called to immediately respond to an emergency situation.

I get extremely tired of people criticising the Police (and by the way, I’m not one). Sure, some of them are knobs. Sure, some of them don’t have great people skills. Sure, some of them like the power a bit too much.

But they work extremely hard hours. They don’t get allocated breaks, they’re just lucky if they get one. They don’t even get paid particularly well.

And they see some terrible things, things that most of us wouldn’t see in a lifetime. A motorcyclist with half his head scraped off in an accident. A young woman who was decapitated when her car rolled. An old lady who was found after three months, her body melted into the floor and covered in maggots. The numerous suicides we don’t hear about in the news.

So really, if one of the perks of their job is to be able to park illegally for five minutes to get a takeaway coffee, who cares? I don’t.

dvaey said :

Just out of interest, would you feel the same if it was a courier van? What about a dominos delivery car?

But it’s not… it’s a police car.

I used to work in Mort Street so that is the buildings to left. Parking is quite a problem, trucks plus entry and exit of cars which are parked under the buildings need that lane. Delivery vehicles are often parked on the footpath. I never saw anyone fined for this. I may have just not seen it but certainly whatever happens it is no deterrent. Police used to park near Guss’s and you would often see them parked there in an area where no one else parked. Police can and do park in a normal spot when they want. Recently I saw one parked just near there in a parking spot. It was a bright metallic green ute but then that was not meant to be noticed!
I have problem with the booking of taxis for double parking. It means to me there was an expected rush of people needing them and the government had made no provision for such a situation. Taxis are part of the cities transport system. The gummnit gets quite enough from them without screwing more out on Christmas Eve. I would say to Urban Services if any were booked there at that time do not proceed it is wrong. How about better provisioning for taxis?

I don’t mind police cars parking where it is appropriate. Obviously police, fire, ambulance vehicles should be exempt when circumstances demand.

But parking against the rules to book other road users for minor infringements, that’s an abuse, in my book. There is a loading zone just behind the taxi rank, which was empty at the time. There’s also a zone just behind that, on the other side of the zebra crossing, which is commonly used by police vehicles. Again, there were spaces available.

I’ve seen marked police cars park on the taxi rank at Manuka while the occupants saunter down to MyCafe for takeaway coffee. That’s not on.

Until recently, the police cars would park in the drop-off area at the airport, which is a royal pain, because there is limited space available and at peak hours it’s almost impossible to find a place to drop people off safely, especially if they are elderly or have heavy bags. But now they have taken to parking on the paved area which with the construction is not in the way, so that’s a blessing.

I recently drove around the Midwest. It is law in most, if not all states, that if an emergency vehicle is parked on the side of the road, lights flashing, all traffic should move over one lane, if possible, otherwise slow down. I think that’s a bloody good law, and I observe it here. Obviously emergency vehicles need somewhere to park, and other road users need to defer.

But abusing the privilege creates a poor impression. For instance, I’ve noticed that some police vehicles have their number plates sprayed with a reflective coating, so that they won’t get booked by speed/red light cameras.

And while I have no problem with police booking cabbies parking unsafely or blocking other traffic, I do think that they should ensure that their own vehicles are parked legally, otherwise it gives a poor impression.

In fact, I wish that the police would enforce the existing laws governing taxis. I often see cabbies touting for hire outside nightclubs, at Green Square in Kingston, at Transit Bar or Knightsbridge. That’s illegal, especially where marked cab ranks are only a few metres away.

A similar issue arose while I was in Perth a year or so ago. A Police Officer had parked on the median strip of the Rockingham Foreshore to grab his lunch. Now Rockingham Foreshore is similar to most beaches when Canberra descends on them & it is hard to find a park.
The Police Commissioner found the correct answers to stop the paper beefing the story up. The Officer had been in court all day & from what I remember nothing really happened.

The Police would of parked in that alley as if Bunda Street was banked up the Police could fly up the lane & exit directly onto Cooyong Street.

But those that complain about the Police parking & get things changes, will (most of the time) be the exact same ones that complain about the time it took for the Police to attend to their son/daughter being killed by a stranger.

I think this has been covered already, but +1 to all those who have disagreed with the OP. I am of the opinion that Police should park where ever they can even if they are getting their lunch, dinner or coffee etc. they should park as close as possible to their destination. I know that if I was being held at knife point, I would prefer the Police to be illegally parked, and get to me quickly, than to be legally parked and get to me too late!

Police have a job to do, and I think its about time that people just let them do it. So many are so quick to judge them, and criticize them, but the minute Police are needed to respond to something involving you or your family, I’m sure you will call and expect their assistance – and they will be there to give it to you (no matter how much of a tool you are!!). So for goodness sake, give them a break – they’re not perfect, and there are bad eggs (as there are everywhere), but at the end of the day, they do a really tough job – and they do it well!

Not even a storm in a teacup, im normally one to have a go at cops abusing authority but you yourself point out they parked there so they could do their job – ipso facto they are actually doing their job, not parking illegally, so it really is clutching at straws to try and paint this as anything other than the police…. wait for it…. doing their job. *shock horror* That is what they get paid for isn’t it?

dvaey said :

Is it any wonder the cabs dont bother taking many fares from the city? They have to put up with violence, alcohol, abuse, and now the risk of being booked while parked in front of a taxi rank.

So your having a go a Police parking “illegally” but saying cabbies should be left alone when their parking illegally …….

dvaey said :

On christmas holiday weekend, Im surprised you believe that police booking taxis is a good use of taxpayer money, or policing resources for that matter. If the taxi was double parked and the driver was nowhere to be seen, thats fine, but given the area, Im assuming the cab was in the cab rank, and would have been with his vehicle waiting for a fare.

I think you will find that is a traffic police unit and their CORE responsibility is policing traffic issues. As such, that would be a good use of tax payer dollars doing exactly what that traffic unit’s core responsibility is ??? Why would cabbies be booked for simply sitting in their designated rank waiting for a fare ….. I am pretty sure the OP was stating they were “double parked” which is illegal, disrupts traffic flow and causes visibility issues for other drivers.

dvaey said :

I partly agree with your comment about vehicles parking ‘illegally’, but I believe they should only be allowed to do it in an emergency, not because theyre ‘doing their job’. If a shop is on fire, then park the fire truck in front.. if someone has a heart attack on the street, double-park in front of them.. if a cab double parks in a taxi rank, I dont think that really qualifies as an emergency worthy of being able to break one law to enforce another.

So your saying that when Police notice an offence (traffic or otherwise) is seen to be being committed, they must attempt to find a legal parking space (in the city, mind you) to deal with said issue !!!! Unless of course it’s a heart attack or building fire. Well, the legislators seem to disagree with you on that one and have afforded an exemption in the ARR’s.

Your comments are not surprising given your very active anti police stance on any Police related threads on this site I must say.

‘Double parking’ on the Bunda Street rank is legal. The solid white line allows for the double park. It was designed this way and has been happening for years. What the hell was the cops problem ?? I have never yet seen a cop booking a private car parked on a taxi rank, and if you ask them to they will tell you its the ‘Brown Bombers’ job, not theirs.

A few weekends ago police were booking cabs turning left into East Row from London Cct after midnight. Can someone pls point out the signage to our local boys in blue.

WalkTheTalk said :

Did anyone also notice that the officer driving the vehicle left the rear of his vehicle showing past the wall – not so much as to block pedestrians and enough for (observant) drivers turning left into the laneway to see it and account for getting around it.

I didnt, but upon further inspection I notice the rear of the car is actually on top of a yellow painted ‘keep clear’ zone, and the front of the vehicle is blocking access to vehicles who park to the left of where the police vehicle was parked.

WalkTheTalk said :

This isn’t thoughtless, careless, or illegal parking / driving. It’s Police doing their job. Give them (and the rest of us) a break!

Just out of interest, would you feel the same if it was a courier van? What about a dominos delivery car? Either of those two vehicles would be required to find a parking spot, of which there are numerous spots close to the location that photo was taken, including the bus interchange. Or like others seem to do, you could drop one person off, he could go do his business and write tickets, then get picked up 10min later.

If it was an emergency, or in your example above if youre arresting someone who is resisting, I dont have a problem with the police breaking some road rules such as no-stopping or pedestrian zones. However, these officers werent responding to an emergency, they were being traffic wardens and penalising public transport operators. (for double parking in their own dedicated area, apparently)

dvaey said :

Im not sure exactly what your idea of ‘safest place’ is, but blocking an entire direction of travel, in a narrow street, is NOT a safe place to park.

bd84 said :

Or are you stupid enough to think that the driver is expected to go and find a car park and put money in the metre

Looking at google street view of the area, I can see plenty of parking nearby. Directly behind where the police car was parked, there is a dead-end lane, where they could have parked and not blocked any traffic. Not only that, but parking in the dead-end lane, also has parking spaces and would have left them on the same side of the road as the cabs they thought it was important to fine.

I partly agree with your comment about vehicles parking ‘illegally’, but I believe they should only be allowed to do it in an emergency, not because theyre ‘doing their job’. If a shop is on fire, then park the fire truck in front.. if someone has a heart attack on the street, double-park in front of them.. if a cab double parks in a taxi rank, I dont think that really qualifies as an emergency worthy of being able to break one law to enforce another.

How is the a dead-end lane better than the one in which they have parked? They appear to be just as wide as each other, thought the dead end looks a bit narrower and also would service delivery trucks as opposed to mostly vehicles accessing car parking for the Tax Office. Either way parking in the dead-end lane would be just as “illegal”.

Also you seem to contest the police being able to park to do their job? So with that thinking they would not be able to pull drivers over as pulling over and parking in most locations would be illegal. They need to deal with say a shoplifter, you expect them to go into the multi story car park and look for a carpark? They should pull over the postie as he “illegally” rides on the footpath, maybe when ACTEW fixes broken mains and park on the median strip, book them too (after finding an appropriate carparking place). Illogical and absurd reasoning.

This whole conversation is moot as the 1st line of the OP is totally incorrect.

The car is not parked illegally…….end of discussion. Plenty of people love to throw the barbs, most don’t have the fortitude to do the job. I mean they can’t be as tough as they are at the end of a DSL line when it has to be face-to-face

vg said :

S305 of the Australian Road Rules.

Have a squizz at it………see if you can find your life in there while you’re at it, because clearly you don’t have one

vg you can be a picky bugger at times however you make me laugh!

I get annoyed when I see unnecessarily dangerous or careless parking of police vehicles when often 10m either way would have made for a perfectly safe situation (and have said as much here on previous threads).

But in this instance, clearly there isn’t such an issue. The woeful behaviour of the cabbies around that taxi rank is another thing altogether though and has been getting worse. So good on them for acting on it.

If there is an underlying problem with not enough taxi ranks around the city, then that should be looked at by the ACT Gov’t too though.

Good to see the majority of respondents here agree that it’s appropriate for the Police to do this in the course of their duties. +1 as far as I’m concerned.

Did anyone also notice that the officer driving the vehicle left the rear of his vehicle showing past the wall – not so much as to block pedestrians and enough for (observant) drivers turning left into the laneway to see it and account for getting around it.

‘Skyring’ – please feel free to describe the other incidents of Police ignoring parking rules that you mention in your post. Paddy wagons driving through or parking in pedestrian areas perhaps? Yeah, much better to wrestle with someone all the way back to their legally parked vehicle a block or so away, isn’t it?

This isn’t thoughtless, careless, or illegal parking / driving. It’s Police doing their job. Give them (and the rest of us) a break!

bd84 said :

The police can legitmately park anywhere (i.e. in no parking/stopping areas) if they need to do so in the course of their duties. If the driver was booking taxis (as opposed to visiting the donut store), then he is in the course of his duties. Also, where he is parked is probably the safest place in that area for him to be stopped.

Ive got a photo of a police vehicle parked out the front of a nearby Indian take-away joint, in a no-parking zone, where there were 3 parks available within 20m of where the police were parked (and yes, the officer walked out of the shop with his dinner).

Im not sure exactly what your idea of ‘safest place’ is, but blocking an entire direction of travel, in a narrow street, is NOT a safe place to park.

bd84 said :

Or are you stupid enough to think that the driver is expected to go and find a car park and put money in the metre

Looking at google street view of the area, I can see plenty of parking nearby. Directly behind where the police car was parked, there is a dead-end lane, where they could have parked and not blocked any traffic. Not only that, but parking in the dead-end lane, also has parking spaces and would have left them on the same side of the road as the cabs they thought it was important to fine.

Is it any wonder the cabs dont bother taking many fares from the city? They have to put up with violence, alcohol, abuse, and now the risk of being booked while parked in front of a taxi rank.

Dougal said :

Your post annoys me. The police were booking people. Seems like a good use of taxpayers money to me.

Personally, I have no problem with ambulances, fire trucks or police parking ‘illegaly’ if they are simply doing their job.

On christmas holiday weekend, Im surprised you believe that police booking taxis is a good use of taxpayer money, or policing resources for that matter. If the taxi was double parked and the driver was nowhere to be seen, thats fine, but given the area, Im assuming the cab was in the cab rank, and would have been with his vehicle waiting for a fare.

I partly agree with your comment about vehicles parking ‘illegally’, but I believe they should only be allowed to do it in an emergency, not because theyre ‘doing their job’. If a shop is on fire, then park the fire truck in front.. if someone has a heart attack on the street, double-park in front of them.. if a cab double parks in a taxi rank, I dont think that really qualifies as an emergency worthy of being able to break one law to enforce another.

Police need to lead by example, although this particular situation isn’t really worth getting upset about.

The pair of coppers who decided to park in the bus stop opposite Yarralumla Bakery a few months ago probably weren’t winning any friends when they stopped to pick up morno’s though.

I’m sure one of them stayed with the car to book anyone who had to pass around them by crossing the unbroken white line.

Your post annoys me. The police were booking people. Seems like a good use of taxpayers money to me.

Personally, I have no problem with ambulances, fire trucks or police parking ‘illegaly’ if they are simply doing their job.

Your petty post indicates to me that you would be equally pi$$ed off if you saw people parking illegaly and the police just cruising on by because it was too hard find a park.

This one comes around all the time. Should the Police park in the multistory car park and pay for parking so they can then walk down to the taxi rank to book the cabs then over the radio receive an urgent job of your mother getting stabbed in her house although takes them 10 minutes longer to respond to the job because they had to walk back to their car.

The job they are on may not be an emergency although the one they have to drop everything to respond to may be.

S305 of the Australian Road Rules.

Have a squizz at it………see if you can find your life in there while you’re at it, because clearly you don’t have one

The police can legitmately park anywhere (i.e. in no parking/stopping areas) if they need to do so in the course of their duties. If the driver was booking taxis (as opposed to visiting the donut store), then he is in the course of his duties. Also, where he is parked is probably the safest place in that area for him to be stopped.

Or are you stupid enough to think that the driver is expected to go and find a car park and put money in the metre (which they’re also not required to do)?

Is this really such an issue? I would prefer that whilst they are doing work like this (not that I really like it when they give out tickets) that they have their cars nearby so they can get back in them and go to emergencies quickly. I would hate to think that if I ever called 000 that the cops had to walk 5 minutes back to their car before they came. The only time I wouldnt agree is if the Police car was parked dangerously, which in this case it isn’t.

As it is an emergency services vehicle it is not illegally parked. Police and other emergency services staff need to have their vehicles close by so that they are able to quickly attend emergency incidents and ensure your safety.

I have absolutely no problem with this whatsoever.

Stuff like this would be much easier to take if traffic ops police weren’t so darn zealous about fining people for the most minor traffic violations. A few years ago my Dad wore a $79 fine for not indicating when changing lanes. And a couple of months ago I got a lecture and a $249 fine for entering an intersection when the arrow was amber, and turned red before I had exited the intersection.

I’ve seen Constable $249 lurking underneath the Commonwealth Avenue overpass on Parkes Way on numerous occasions, trying to catch Eastbound traffic which hasn’t slowed down from 90 km/h to 80 km/h. Pretty dangerous stuff.

It would also be easier to take if the AFP were actually properly resourced to follow up violent and petty crime in the community.

The three options in this survey seem rather biased – what about ‘they make mistakes from time to time’?

this is a push-poll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

And there’s the AFP/Protective Services van which is permanently parked in the “Security Reasons” Drop Off only zone at Snowtown – usually over the No Parking paint. And yes I have the photo.

So cops should only attend those jobs which arise where there is plenty of adequate legal parking available?

I can see your point, just from looking at the massive traffic disruption in the photo.

You are quite right. Parking rules and Traffic Regulations do not apply to them. See Rules 305, 306 and 307 of the Australian Road Rules.

You clearly state that they were engaged in enforcing a law, its not as if they parked there to do their christmas shopping.

I guess you would be the type of person who would whinge if a police car drove past the double parked cabs you referred to and did nothing about it.