Metro Police

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

check the nrcs website to see if they are legal and for any approvals.if not approved with certificates for both machine and operator = not legal.

 

Dude... totally wrong end to approach this from.

 

"Erm, occifer, I was, like, speeding and all but that thing you have there can't legally tell you I've been speeding or be held up in court because it's illegal. So, like, my illegal and your illegal, like, cancel each other, like, out, bro. So it's quitsies."

 

Grow the F*** up, Racer, and stick to the rules. I know someone who was fined for not indicating when she changed lanes. My old man was up in arms about it, and all irritated because "they should be doing something more than pulling peopl eover for not indicating" but you know what? It should be fined. Just because we see everyone else doing it, it doesn't make it right.

 

If you get caught, cough up.

[Flippa]

Dude... totally wrong end to approach this from.

 

"Erm, occifer, I was, like, speeding and all but that thing you have there can't legally tell you I've been speeding or be held up in court because it's illegal. So, like, my illegal and your illegal, like, cancel each other, like, out, bro. So it's quitsies."

 

Grow the F*** up, Racer, and stick to the rules. I know someone who was fined for not indicating when she changed lanes. My old man was up in arms about it, and all irritated because "they should be doing something more than pulling peopl eover for not indicating" but you know what? It should be fined. Just because we see everyone else doing it, it doesn't make it right.

 

If you get caught, cough up.

 

Surely that should apply to Metro police too? They also need to obey the law when it comes to the equipment that they use? Or are they above the law like so many of our politicians?

[AndreZA]

This morning they were trapping on John Adamson again. One guy under a tree submitting to his tjommies at the next intersection pulling the cars in. I was standing at the intersection with Byers Naude when I saw a car pulling alongside the car next to me. An officer got out and told the lady in the car to turn her car around and follow them back. I guess she did not stop when they told her to.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Surely that should apply to Metro police too? They also need to obey the law when it comes to the equipment that they use? Or are they above the law like so many of our politicians?

 

No, they're not. But instead of trying to get out of the fine that you've been written, try staying under the speed limits and obeying the rules of the road.

 

Whilst I agree that the cops themselves need to obey the law, thus be certified to use as well as maintain the units, we as the public can't sit back and say "well, you can't stop me, because your equipment is illegal and you're not licensed to use it, so I'll carry on speeding thank you very much."

[Seeker911]

I thought this was old technology. I remember being nailed on the M2 west going into Joburg on Xmas day about 20 yrs ago for doing 120 in a 80 zone. The buggers were driving a Skyline and had all the kit. I was treated to a 30 minute lecture and demo in the back of the Skyline while they wrote out the fine.

[Flippa]

No, they're not. But instead of trying to get out of the fine that you've been written, try staying under the speed limits and obeying the rules of the road.

 

Whilst I agree that the cops themselves need to obey the law, thus be certified to use as well as maintain the units, we as the public can't sit back and say "well, you can't stop me, because your equipment is illegal and you're not licensed to use it, so I'll carry on speeding thank you very much."

 

Firstly, I don't advocate breaking the "law", by anybody. That means that, I can't speed. However, that also means that the traffic cop can't make use of equipment that is not properly certified in terms of the very same "law" that seeks to prevent me from speeding.

 

The law cannot be applied selectively. The end cannot justify the means.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Exactly.

 

So stop speeding, and stop worrying about having to argue the point in a court of law. Or being charged with assault if the argument gets heated between you and the officer etc etc.

[Slowbee]

Firstly, I don't advocate breaking the "law", by anybody. That means that, I can't speed. However, that also means that the traffic cop can't make use of equipment that is not properly certified in terms of the very same "law" that seeks to prevent me from speeding.

 

The law cannot be applied selectively. The end cannot justify the means.

 

 

so in the ethic debate of the high and mighty that they must obey before us obey ....... do you or do you not obey ?

[DaLoCo]

This technology, as any technology used for speed monitoring has to be certified regularly to ensure accuracy. If the appropriate certificates do not exist you have a valid defense for a court case.

 

But, taking into account the cost of time wasted at the court and sometimes the cot of a lawyer, just pay the fine (you did speed), or just don't speed (my personal favorite)

[Flippa]

so in the ethic debate of the high and mighty that they must obey before us obey ....... do you or do you not obey ?

 

Not "they must obey before us obey" but rather "we must all obey together"

 

For the record, I obey.......mostly.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Firstly, I don't advocate breaking the "law", by anybody. That means that, I can't speed. However, that also means that the traffic cop can't make use of equipment that is not properly certified in terms of the very same "law" that seeks to prevent me from speeding.

 

The law cannot be applied selectively. The end cannot justify the means.

 

Oh - and the law regarding preventing you from speeding is not the same one as the law that stipulates that the equipment must be properly maintained and used, and the user must be fully certified to use said equipment. That law relates to the prosecution side of things, when it comes to enforcement of the fines and, later on, conviction, of the speeding driver.

 

The law that dictates that you may not speed is separate from that. And should be adhered to at all times.

 

Your argument is also self-contradictory. You don't advocate breaking the law, but WHEN YOU DO, you will argue that their equipment is not legal.

 

If you did not break the law, you would not NEED to worry about whether their equipment was legal or not.

[E1A104]

This technology, as any technology used for speed monitoring has to be certified regularly to ensure accuracy. If the appropriate certificates do not exist you have a valid defense for a court case.

 

But, taking into account the cost of time wasted at the court and sometimes the cot of a lawyer, just pay the fine (you did speed), or just don't speed (my personal favorite)

 

assuming the equipment is accurate and operated correctly but must agree that sticking to the speed limit is the best course of action.

[Flippa]

Oh - and the law regarding preventing you from speeding is not the same one as the law that stipulates that the equipment must be properly maintained and used, and the user must be fully certified to use said equipment. That law relates to the prosecution side of things, when it comes to enforcement of the fines and, later on, conviction, of the speeding driver.

 

The law that dictates that you may not speed is separate from that. And should be adhered to at all times.

 

Your argument is also self-contradictory. You don't advocate breaking the law, but WHEN YOU DO, you will argue that their equipment is not legal.

 

If you did not break the law, you would not NEED to worry about whether their equipment was legal or not.

 

Wow!!!!

 

What is with the argumentative tone?

 

My argument is not contradictory at all. Just as we the public have to obey the law, so those that are tasked with compelling us to uphold the law should uphold the law. Its that simple.

 

None of my posts have advocated breaking the law, clearly there should be oversight over the use of the correctly certified equipment by the Metro in order to prevent them from breaking the law, just as the Metro has oversight over the general public in order to prevent them breaking the law.

 

And to clarify, my use of the word "law" refers to the law of this country, made up of various Acts written and promulgated. I have not referred to any specific Act written.

[Nettie R]

If only cops used as much energy policing other offences than speeding.

We should tell them there's more money to be made on fines for people who run red lights. R500 a piece=RRRRR

[Tiny K]

Is this not their new algorithm scanning device for number plates. Reads everything zipping past and then throws a flag for "traffic fines outstanding", "stolen vehicles", "wanted persons" etc. etc?

 

I agree - I think that is the more plausible answer.. :thumbup:

[Minion]

If you did not break the law, you would not NEED to worry about whether their equipment was legal or not.

What happens if I'm going at the speed limit, but their improperly maintained and calibrated equipment says I'm speeding? What happens if they've calibrated properly, but sited it in the wrong place e.g. the recent case from 2009 where they illegaly set up an 80km/hr trap in a 120km/hr zone on the N1 in Joburg. People driving at the limit of 120km/hr have received massive fines and summonses. The authorities must adhere to the law. This is to protect the innocent, not the guilty.