Police officer fined for texting behind the wheel

[bob10]

Officer fined for texting behind the wheel (http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/officer-fined-for-texting-behind-the-wheel/vi-BBBtUyJ?ocid=spartandhp)

[Tombie]

Hang on... he was photographed by a Truck driver - from the drivers seat..... hmmm

[Don 130]

They're taught how to text while driving.
Don

[bob10]

They're taught how to text while driving.
Don

That is so wrong, on so many levels

[bob10]

Hang on... he was photographed by a Truck driver - from the drivers seat..... hmmm

Always looking for an angle.

[Roverlord off road spares]

Hang on... he was photographed by a Truck driver - from the drivers seat..... hmmmInteresting , So the truck driver had a proper camera with him at the time, or did the truck driver use the camera in his mobile phone to take the picture, if he used the mobile phone camera then he would also be breaking the law by having a phone in his hand whilst driving whether or not he was texting or not having a phone in hand gets you in hot water

[POD]

At least the cop was stopped at traffic lights, unlike the clown weaving all over the road whilst texting on the Monash the other evening or the kid who sped past me doing about 130 whilst seated in a position not unlike a jason recliner in the reclined position, steering with his knees and texting with both hands and all of his modest brain.
They had to demonstrate that this cop is not above the law, but texting whilst stopped at lights is pretty far down my list of risky behaviour.

[trog]

Until they miss the green and the impatient clown behind slams into him , assuming he will be rocketing off the micro second the drag lights go to green.

[Tombie]

Always looking for an angle.

An ironic observation rather....

[Tombie]

That is so wrong, on so many levels

Why? It's one of their methods of communication and sometimes easier and more effective than radio.

They're also taught to be able to drive faster, Use firearms etc.

So depending on circumstances- which in this case it seems weren't in the course of performing their duty - he has committed and offence.

Just remember - the person taking the picture has also committed the same offence..

[Fatso]

Why? It's one of their methods of communication and sometimes easier and more effective than radio.

They're also taught to be able to drive faster, Use firearms etc.

So depending on circumstances- which in this case it seems weren't in the course of performing their duty - he has committed and offence.

Just remember - the person taking the picture has also committed the same offence..


Following a paddy wagon type cop vehicle a while back who must have been trained to throw empty drink cans out the window . The truckie could have used his Cam Corder or what ever they call them to take the shot ?? .

[bee utey]

Just remember - the person taking the picture has also committed the same offence..

You sure of that? Even I carry a small digital camera in the car because it's legal to use on the move.

[Tombie]

You sure of that? Even I carry a small digital camera in the car because it's legal to use on the move.

Yep.. look at the resolution and the photo itself, that's a phone lens [emoji846]

[Saitch]

............and then there's this!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The $365 jetty fine that left boatie baffled | Sunshine Coast Daily (https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/the-365-jetty-fine-that-left-coast-boatie-baffled/3181639/)

I was aware of this but still think it's s bit harsh. Also, I wonder how he his behavior was? May or may not have been a factor.
Steve

[hodgo]

............and then there's this!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The $365 jetty fine that left boatie baffled | Sunshine Coast Daily (https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/the-365-jetty-fine-that-left-coast-boatie-baffled/3181639/)

I was aware of this but still think it's s bit harsh. Also, I wonder how he his behavior was? May or may not have been a factor.
Steve


I WOULD FIGHT THIS ONE To me its just bastardization and revenue raising or total misunderstanding of the law and or regulations on the police officer's part
Queensland Consolidated Regulations[Index (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/)] [Table (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/index.html#s267)] [Search (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinoform.pl)] [Search this Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinoform.pl/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/)] [Notes (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/notes.html)] [Noteup (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.pl?query=toumrr2009629+s267)] [Previous (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/s266.html)] [Next (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/s268.html)] [Download (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629.txt)] [Help (http://www.austlii.edu.au/help/legis-help.html)]Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009 - SECT 267267 Exemptions from wearing seatbelts 267 Exemptions from wearing seatbelts
(1A) A person in or on a motor vehicle is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if—

(a) the seating position that the person occupies is not fitted with a seatbelt; and

(b) there is no requirement for that seating position to be fitted with a seatbelt; and

(c) all passengers in the vehicle who are exempt from wearing a seatbelt are complying with subsection (8).
(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply to a person who is under 7 years old.
(1C) To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (1A) does not authorise a passenger to whom section 266(3) or (3A) applies to occupy a seat in the front row of seats in a vehicle that has 2 or more rows of seats.
(2) A person in or on a motor vehicle who is 7 years of age or older is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if—

(a) the person is engaged in the door-to-door delivery or collection of goods, or in the collection of waste or garbage, and is required to get in or out of the vehicle, or on or off the vehicle, at frequent intervals; and

(b) the vehicle is not travelling over 25km/h.
(3A) A person is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if—

(a) the person (or, for a passenger, the driver of the vehicle in or on which the person is a passenger) is carrying a certificate that—


(i) is signed by a doctor; and


(ii) states that, in the opinion of the doctor, the person should not wear a seatbelt due to the person's medical condition; and


(iii) displays a date of issue; and


(iv) displays an expiry date that is a date not more than 12 months after the date of issue; and


(v) has not expired; and

(b) the person is complying with any conditions stated in the certificate.
(4) However, a person is not exempt under subsection (3A) if the person (or, for a passenger, the driver of the vehicle in or on which the person is a passenger) does not immediately produce the certificate mentioned in the subsection for inspection when a police officer asks the person (or the driver) whether the person is exempt from wearing a seatbelt.
(5) A person is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if—

(a) the person is a passenger in or on a police or emergency vehicle; and

(b) either—


(i) if the vehicle has 2 or more rows of seats—the person is not in the front row of seats or there is not a seating position available for the person in another row of seats; or


(ii) if the vehicle is a police vehicle and has a caged, or other secured, area designed for the carriage of passengers—the person occupies a seating position in that area.
(6) A person is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if the person is providing or receiving medical treatment of an urgent and necessary nature while in or on a vehicle.
(7) If a truck or bus has a sleeper compartment, a two-up driver of the truck or bus is exempt from wearing a seatbelt while the two-up driver occupies the sleeper compartment for rest purposes.
(8) If a vehicle does not have approved seatbelts or approved child restraints fitted to all its passenger seating positions, a passenger who is exempt from wearing a seatbelt under this section must not occupy—

(a) a seating position that is fitted with an approved seatbelt; or

(b) an approved child restraint;
if the result would be that a passenger who is not exempt from wearing a seatbelt under this section would be required to occupy a seating position that is not fitted with an approved seatbelt or an approved child restraint.
(8B) A passenger on a bus is exempt from wearing a seatbelt while the passenger is—

(a) a standing passenger mentioned in the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Standard 2010, section 11(2)(c) and (d); or

(b) entering or leaving the bus.
(8C) A passenger on a booked hire vehicle, bus, taxi or tow truck is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if—

(a) the passenger is less than 1 year old; and

(b) no suitable approved child restraint is fitted and available for use by the passenger; and

(c) if the booked hire vehicle, bus, taxi or tow truck has 2 or more rows of seats—the passenger is not in the front row of seats; and

(d) the passenger is seated in the lap of another passenger who is 16 years of age or older; and

(e) if the vehicle is a tow truck—the person is a passenger in the tow truck because the vehicle in which the person was a passenger is being towed.
(8D) To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (8C) does not limit the exemption given to—

(a) a driver of a bus in relation to a passenger under section 266(1); or

(b) a driver of a booked hire vehicle or taxi in relation to a passenger under section 266(5).
(9) In this section—
two-up driver, for a vehicle that is a bus or truck, means a person accompanying the vehicle's driver on a journey or part of a journey, who has been, is or will be, sharing the task of driving the vehicle during the journey.
[Index (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/)] [Table (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/index.html#s267)] [Search (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinoform.pl)] [Search this Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinoform.pl/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/)] [Notes (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/notes.html)] [Noteup (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.pl?query=toumrr2009629+s267)] [Previous (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/s266.html)] [Next (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/s268.html)] [Download (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629.txt)] [Help (http://www.austlii.edu.au/help/legis-help.html)]

[Roverlord off road spares]

I WOULD FIGHT THIS ONE To me its just bastardization and revenue raising or total misunderstanding of the law and or regulations on the police officer's part
Queensland Consolidated Regulations

[Index (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/)] [Table (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/index.html#s267)] [Search (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinoform.pl)] [Search this Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinoform.pl/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/)] [Notes (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/notes.html)] [Noteup (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.pl?query=toumrr2009629+s267)] [Previous (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/s266.html)] [Next (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/s268.html)] [Download (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629.txt)] [Help (http://www.austlii.edu.au/help/legis-help.html)]Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009 - SECT 267

267 Exemptions from wearing seatbelts 267 Exemptions from wearing seatbelts
(1A) A person in or on a motor vehicle is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if—


(a) the seating position that the person occupies is not fitted with a seatbelt; and



(b) there is no requirement for that seating position to be fitted with a seatbelt; and



(c) all passengers in the vehicle who are exempt from wearing a seatbelt are complying with subsection (8).


(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply to a person who is under 7 years old.

(1C) To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (1A) does not authorise a passenger to whom section 266(3) or (3A) applies to occupy a seat in the front row of seats in a vehicle that has 2 or more rows of seats.

(2) A person in or on a motor vehicle who is 7 years of age or older is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if—


(a) the person is engaged in the door-to-door delivery or collection of goods, or in the collection of waste or garbage, and is required to get in or out of the vehicle, or on or off the vehicle, at frequent intervals; and



(b) the vehicle is not travelling over 25km/h.


(3A) A person is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if—


(a) the person (or, for a passenger, the driver of the vehicle in or on which the person is a passenger) is carrying a certificate that—




(i) is signed by a doctor; and





(ii) states that, in the opinion of the doctor, the person should not wear a seatbelt due to the person's medical condition; and





(iii) displays a date of issue; and





(iv) displays an expiry date that is a date not more than 12 months after the date of issue; and





(v) has not expired; and




(b) the person is complying with any conditions stated in the certificate.


(4) However, a person is not exempt under subsection (3A) if the person (or, for a passenger, the driver of the vehicle in or on which the person is a passenger) does not immediately produce the certificate mentioned in the subsection for inspection when a police officer asks the person (or the driver) whether the person is exempt from wearing a seatbelt.

(5) A person is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if—


(a) the person is a passenger in or on a police or emergency vehicle; and



(b) either—




(i) if the vehicle has 2 or more rows of seats—the person is not in the front row of seats or there is not a seating position available for the person in another row of seats; or





(ii) if the vehicle is a police vehicle and has a caged, or other secured, area designed for the carriage of passengers—the person occupies a seating position in that area.



(6) A person is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if the person is providing or receiving medical treatment of an urgent and necessary nature while in or on a vehicle.

(7) If a truck or bus has a sleeper compartment, a two-up driver of the truck or bus is exempt from wearing a seatbelt while the two-up driver occupies the sleeper compartment for rest purposes.

(8) If a vehicle does not have approved seatbelts or approved child restraints fitted to all its passenger seating positions, a passenger who is exempt from wearing a seatbelt under this section must not occupy—


(a) a seating position that is fitted with an approved seatbelt; or



(b) an approved child restraint;


if the result would be that a passenger who is not exempt from wearing a seatbelt under this section would be required to occupy a seating position that is not fitted with an approved seatbelt or an approved child restraint.

(8B) A passenger on a bus is exempt from wearing a seatbelt while the passenger is—


(a) a standing passenger mentioned in the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Standard 2010, section 11(2)(c) and (d); or



(b) entering or leaving the bus.


(8C) A passenger on a booked hire vehicle, bus, taxi or tow truck is exempt from wearing a seatbelt if—


(a) the passenger is less than 1 year old; and



(b) no suitable approved child restraint is fitted and available for use by the passenger; and



(c) if the booked hire vehicle, bus, taxi or tow truck has 2 or more rows of seats—the passenger is not in the front row of seats; and



(d) the passenger is seated in the lap of another passenger who is 16 years of age or older; and



(e) if the vehicle is a tow truck—the person is a passenger in the tow truck because the vehicle in which the person was a passenger is being towed.


(8D) To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (8C) does not limit the exemption given to—


(a) a driver of a bus in relation to a passenger under section 266(1); or



(b) a driver of a booked hire vehicle or taxi in relation to a passenger under section 266(5).


(9) In this section—

two-up driver, for a vehicle that is a bus or truck, means a person accompanying the vehicle's driver on a journey or part of a journey, who has been, is or will be, sharing the task of driving the vehicle during the journey.
[Index (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/)] [Table (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/index.html#s267)] [Search (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinoform.pl)] [Search this Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinoform.pl/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/)] [Notes (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/notes.html)] [Noteup (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.pl?query=toumrr2009629+s267)] [Previous (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/s266.html)] [Next (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629/s268.html)] [Download (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009629.txt)] [Help (http://www.austlii.edu.au/help/legis-help.html)]

If they really were serious about revenue raising thy should police shopping centre and supermarket and Bunnings car parks, where traffic rules also apply, they could make a fortune on the non use of indicators.

[Tins]

............and then there's this!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The $365 jetty fine that left boatie baffled | Sunshine Coast Daily (https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/the-365-jetty-fine-that-left-coast-boatie-baffled/3181639/)

I was aware of this but still think it's s bit harsh. Also, I wonder how he his behavior was? May or may not have been a factor.
Steve

Hard to say what his behaviour was like before he got that, but I could hazard a guess as to what it was like after....

[Tombie]

Spot on Hodgo.. same rules in SA

[Eevo]

Just remember - the person taking the picture has also committed the same offence..

police probably sent out 2 fines that day.


imho, its never ok to use a phone while driving. police officer or not. its a distraction plain and simple.

[bob10]

How do you tell your teenage children who have just got their licence, not to touch their phones, when they say " but the Police do it". And to say that it is in the legislation, means to me, the legislation is wrong. Hands free phones yes, texting no. One rule for Police, another for citizens, is a slippery road to go down.

[Tombie]

By the same token, the police can drive at speed, open carry hand guns, can park on the footpath, carry a taser, detain you, search your vehicle/property....

We have to tell our children they're not allowed to do any of the above as well 🤡

[hodgo]

Bob ten

WE always tried our best to teach our kids to respect the law like most of us responsible parents have done, The other thing that I high lighted in their growing up ( teenage years) was common sense which can not be taught I also taught them not to be afraid of and to respect police and realize they are only human like you and never, never argue with the law regardless as you only make thing worse If you have a dispute take it higher. Luckley they have never been in any trouble .
Hodgo

[Tins]

imho, its never ok to use a phone while driving. police officer or not. its a distraction plain and simple.

There are many studies that show driving with children in the car is between four and ten time as distracting as using a mobile ( Note: not texting ). Do we ban carrying children next? As far as I'm concerned, if you cannot talk and drive at the same time, take the bus.

[bob10]

Hodgo, all responsible parents do the same. Now, this is much more than some poor copper sprung texting, which probably deserved no more than a talking to. The S.A. Police are to be commended for the action they took. A dedicated and uncorruptible Police Force is one of the cornerstones of our Democracy. Anything less is a banana republic, or a pre Fitzgerald Queensland. We teach our children to respect authority, and rightly so, but respect has to be earned, and maintained. Standards must be set, and kept. Only the best of us can take on the job of Policing our society, with all the pitfalls to go with that. Some of my best friends are coppers, mostly ex military, I don't pretend to know all the pitfalls of their job, but I know this. If they take their eye off the job, and let standards slip, society slips. And that is a fact. And that is why I find it hard to accept a serving Policeman would try to publicly shift blame from the policeman, to the whistle blower. No offence meant to anyone, just my pedantic attitude.

[BMKal]

Hodgo, all responsible parents do the same. Now, this is much more than some poor copper sprung texting, which probably deserved no more than a talking to. The S.A. Police are to be commended for the action they took. A dedicated and uncorruptible Police Force is one of the cornerstones of our Democracy. Anything less is a banana republic, or a pre Fitzgerald Queensland. We teach our children to respect authority, and rightly so, but respect has to be earned, and maintained. Standards must be set, and kept. Only the best of us can take on the job of Policing our society, with all the pitfalls to go with that. Some of my best friends are coppers, mostly ex military, I don't pretend to know all the pitfalls of their job, but I know this. If they take their eye off the job, and let standards slip, society slips. And that is a fact. And that is why I find it hard to accept a serving Policeman would try to publicly shift blame from the policeman, to the whistle blower. No offence meant to anyone, just my pedantic attitude.

Wow !!!!

So "the SA Police are to be commended for the action they took" - against a WA copper who got sprung using his phone. [bighmmm]

And who is the "serving Policeman" you are referring to ???? ............................ Has Constable Tombie been at it again ???? [bigrolf][bigrolf][bigrolf]

[V8Ian]

Wow !!!!

So "the SA Police are to be commended for the action they took" - against a WA copper who got sprung using his phone. [bighmmm]

And who is the "serving Policeman" you are referring to ???? ............................ Has Constable Tombie been at it again ???? [bigrolf][bigrolf][bigrolf]
Commissioner M Tombie, he got a promotion last Wednesday. [wink11]

[bob10]

Tombie is doing the right thing by his mate, and you wouldn't expect anything less. Good on him.

[bob10]

I get it. Easy to get confused W.A And S.A. both play that funny kick & giggle game, Time for a new set of glasses. And, Tombie IS a Copper, isn't he? If not he's had me fooled for a long time. Mind you, that is getting easier to do as each year goes on. Anyway, nothing to see here, I'll be on my way. [ place receding whistling, followed by cricket sounds here...........]

[trog]

A bit off the going topic , but are the fire and ambulance services allowed to use a phone while driving ? I would have to guess so they are as all are emergency services?

[Eevo]

A bit off the going topic , but are the fire and ambulance services allowed to use a phone while driving ? I would have to guess so they are as all are emergency services?


not sure about other states, but in SA, a firetruck is ONLY an emergency vehicle when its lights flashing lights or sirens on. this is important in the law

[Tombie]

Copper? Just a Mining/Processing guy.

Did my time as a Pusser and then went into Engineering and Industrial work... slid across into Steel make and Then Mining and Mineral processing..

Not sure how you thought I was in the Force..

[pop058]

Copper? Just a Mining/Processing guy.

Did my time as a Pusser and then went into Engineering and Industrial work... slid across into Steel make and Then Mining and Mineral processing..

Not sure how you thought I was in the Force..

There has got to be a "the force is with you" one-liner here somewhere [wink11]

[Tombie]

Tombie is doing the right thing by his mate, and you wouldn't expect anything less. Good on him.

Just challenging perception - banter if you will...

People latch onto a perception but accept others as the norm...

One of my favourites:

If I was to hand you an open container of extremely volatile hydrocarbons and ask you to decant into another container, what would you do?

[pop058]

Just challenging perception - banter if you will...

People latch onto a perception but accept others as the norm...

One of my favourites:

If I was to hand you an open container of extremely volatile hydrocarbons and ask you to decant into another container, what would you do?

borrow your funnel and ask you to hold the other jerry can still [biggrin]

[V8Ian]

Tombie IS a Copper, isn't he?
Bob, even the kick and giggle states aren't that desperate. [wink11]

[AndyG]

going totally off topic, Essendon Richmond last night, 86,656 , how many turned up for the bum sniffers this weekend, or is that the stinky finger game [bigsmile][biggrin]

[bob10]

Bob, even the kick and giggle states aren't that desperate. [wink11]

Ian, I must have had too many head knocks playing the game they play in heaven. Or Its rough version, the working mans game, to be played Wednesday night.

[bob10]

Copper? Just a Mining/Processing guy.

Did my time as a Pusser and then went into Engineering and Industrial work... slid across into Steel make and Then Mining and Mineral processing..

Not sure how you thought I was in the Force..

Must be your arresting personality. One day I must get around to going to one of those Land Rover love ins to meet some of you rough heads.

[bob10]

going totally off topic, Essendon Richmond last night, 86,656 , how many turned up for the bum sniffers this weekend, or is that the stinky finger game [bigsmile][biggrin]

Got one!, they're on the bite, break out the coffee lattes.[bigwhistle]

[BMKal]

One day I must get around to going to one of those Land Rover love ins to meet some of you rough heads.

You will love it Bob. I have so far only made the trip across the paddock for one such gathering. Drank numerous cafe latte's and met many friendly and interesting people - and generally had a great time.

It's a pity it's such a long drive across there, or I'd be doing it more often. [thumbsupbig]


Oh, and we do occasionally see news items over here about that other strange game that you follow up where you are. [bigsmile1]
Saw something in the last few days about how the current benchmark for on field greetings is insertion to the second knuckle. :eek2::eek2::eek2:

[mudmouse]

What a load or crap! Sure it's a bad look and sure the bloke taking the photo with his phone isn't exempt either - but look at the Law.....


ROAD RULES 2014 - REG 300

Use of mobile phones
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 an audio phone call or to perform an audio playing function 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 phone is functioning as a visual display unit that is being used as a driver’s aid and the phone is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle, or
(c) the vehicle is an emergency vehicle or a police vehicle, or
(d) the driver is exempt from this rule under another law of this jurisdiction.

"police vehicle" means any vehicle driven by a person who is:
(a) a police officer, and
(b) driving the vehicle in the course of his or her duties as a police officer.


Just proves his WA boss is a dill. Take it to Court son.

[tonguewink]

[V8Ian]

Load of crap alright; (most) coppers are like the rest of us, ordinary, decent and fallible people. Leave it alone, when any of you lot, taking the high and mighty stance, get pinged is it discussed at such length, by people whose business it is not?

[bob10]

You sign that dotted line, and take the Oath, you become more than the average joe. You are in the public eye every time you don the uniform, and everything you do comes under scrutiny. Rightly or wrongly. It is a heavy responsibility to carry, but hey, don't sign that dotted line, or take that Oath, if you can't do the job. That mans' boss knows that public perception is a large part of that job, and he acted accordingly. My understanding of the legislation regarding texting is if they are not actually on a job , where texting may be essential for a positive outcome , they are under the same rules as the public. Policemen are human, but they are not like the rest of us. They can't be. [ that probably doesn't sound as I meant it] Of course, these are just my thoughts on the subject.

[mudmouse]

The person who issued the notice did the 'job' a great dis-service in that, 1) there is a lawful exemption for use of a hand held mobile phone (whilst driving), and 2) the officer is being made an example of - when leadership demands the trust, confidence and integrity of your subordinates. The proper response should have be (to the media) 'The matter has been dealt with'. No further comment or undermining of the troops. He's on duty, he's got an exemption, so 'go away'.

His boss, and/or the media unit there are morons.

It is a 'bad look' but that can be overcome with educating the public - there always has been and always will be a law for 'us' and a law for 'them'. And thank god too - how the hell can you have an effective police force when the public are trying to 'police' them?? He's done nothing unlawful.

Matt

[Eevo]

but that can be overcome with educating the public


hilarious.



cops on the phone

Police Car causes 3 car Crash - Prospect N.S.W - Caught on Dash Cam - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZX1dQOLp6E)

[Mick_Marsh]

If I was to hand you an open container of extremely volatile hydrocarbons and ask you to decant into another container, what would you do?
Pour you a scotch just before I pour mine.

[Strop]

I don't have an issue with people who are employed to enforce laws doing so but I do with people who are not, starting off proceedings. How would any of us feel if that annoying vindictive neighbour sends in a photo of our mistake? It sets a bad precedent. Is it about road safety or just payback. That it was on the news probably answers that question.

What happens when the police officer pleads not guilty? Who pays for the truck driver to come and give evidence in court? Who pays court costs if the police officer wins - the truck driver as he made the complaint? Us as members of the community? It opens a whole can of worms here.

Let's not even deal with how many silly laws are able to be enacted due to the noisy wheel having to be oiled. I can spread a newspaper over the wheel and they need to prove I didn't have proper control but commit an offence handing a phone to my passenger. Is an iPad a phone? What about a laptop? I can message on them too.

These cameras in cars are dangerous. Just wait till insurance companies make us have cameras recording our every move. Will they review it and reject our claim based on something previously done?

When you drive around next just take note of who have cameras in their cars - grumpy old men. Says something about safety is the priority.

All the best

Laurie

[bob10]

The person who issued the notice did the 'job' a great dis-service in that, 1) there is a lawful exemption for use of a hand held mobile phone (whilst driving), and 2) the officer is being made an example of - when leadership demands the trust, confidence and integrity of your subordinates. The proper response should have be (to the media) 'The matter has been dealt with'. No further comment or undermining of the troops. He's on duty, he's got an exemption, so 'go away'.

His boss, and/or the media unit there are morons.

It is a 'bad look' but that can be overcome with educating the public - there always has been and always will be a law for 'us' and a law for 'them'. And thank god too - how the hell can you have an effective police force when the public are trying to 'police' them?? He's done nothing unlawful.

Matt

Your observations are interesting. I doubt his boss is a moron, in fact, he probably has more sense than those jumping on his judgement.

[Strop]

Bob, hate to say but I have seen many police officers charged with things where no action would be taken for others. Both by Police departments and other legal related govt depts over sighting incidents.

As in many things in life nowadays it is about how it appears at a particular point in time. What is right or fair comes a distant second. To many bosses today protecting their career path is the most important thing - I think that applies across the board. Easier to throw someone under the bus and claim moral high ground.

[Eevo]

we should be holding police to a higher standard
but as you said, politics involved

[cuppabillytea]

Pour you a scotch just before I pour mine.
Stuff that I'd drink the lot. :beer:

[cuppabillytea]

I don't have an issue with people who are employed to enforce laws doing so but I do with people who are not, starting off proceedings. How would any of us feel if that annoying vindictive neighbour sends in a photo of our mistake? It sets a bad precedent. Is it about road safety or just payback. That it was on the news probably answers that question.

What happens when the police officer pleads not guilty? Who pays for the truck driver to come and give evidence in court? Who pays court costs if the police officer wins - the truck driver as he made the complaint? Us as members of the community? It opens a whole can of worms here.

Let's not even deal with how many silly laws are able to be enacted due to the noisy wheel having to be oiled. I can spread a newspaper over the wheel and they need to prove I didn't have proper control but commit an offence handing a phone to my passenger. Is an iPad a phone? What about a laptop? I can message on them too.

These cameras in cars are dangerous. Just wait till insurance companies make us have cameras recording our every move. Will they review it and reject our claim based on something previously done?

When you drive around next just take note of who have cameras in their cars - grumpy old men. Says something about safety is the priority.

All the best

Laurie

The evidence was obtained illegally and not admissible in court, I would think, and the State foots the bill when the Officer wins.

[Eevo]

The evidence was obtained illegally and not admissible in court, I would think, and the State foots the bill when the Officer wins.


the evidence was not obtained illegally. evidence was volunteered to the police. the person who took the photo is not on trial.

[cuppabillytea]

the evidence was not obtained illegally. evidence was volunteered to the police. the person who took the photo is not on trial.
If It's illegal to take a photo whilst driving then the photo was illegally obtained. The photo being the only material evidence was obtained illegally.

[Eevo]

If It's illegal to take a photo whilst driving then the photo was illegally obtained. The photo being the only material evidence was obtained illegally.

the law doesn't work like that.

[cuppabillytea]

the law doesn't work like that.

Scenario: The Police are unable to obtain a warrant to search your house for evidence. Luckily, out of the blue, a reliable informant has broken into your house looking for a bottle and a piece of hose, when he stumbles upon your favourite Rubber Chicken. He takes a photo of it and the next day, compelled by an overwhelming sense of community spirit, hands it in at the local Police Station.
Next minute a patrol car shows up at your place and you are arrested and charged with committing an act of gross poor humour.

What do you think your Silk will say when the evidence is presented in Court?

[Eevo]

Scenario: The Police are unable to obtain a warrant to search your house for evidence. Luckily, out of the blue, a reliable informant has broken into your house looking for a bottle and a piece of hose, when he stumbles upon your favourite Rubber Chicken. He takes a photo of it and the next day, compelled by an overwhelming sense of community spirit, hands it in at the local Police Station.
Next minute a patrol car shows up at your place and you are arrested and charged with committing an act of gross poor humour.

What do you think your Silk will say when the evidence is presented in Court?


the evidence was volunteered to police. same end result.

i think you've been watch too many US tv shows.

[cuppabillytea]

Really?

[Eevo]

yeah. have a look at Bunning v Cross.
in short, the police unlawfully took a breath test of a drunk driver.

the case was thrown out initially, until it was reviewed and went up to the the high court of australia where it was ruled admissiable.

the end result: Improperly or illegally obtained does not inherently render it inadmissible.