Police Cars Not Obeying The Rules- Thoughts?

THL on 21/07/2016 - 13:32

Hi all,

This post is based on my recent driving experience in Melbourne. Last week I was driving on a 1 lane road which also has a dedicated tram lane (with yellow line markings but no concrete divider). As the car in front me was about to slow down and make a right turn, I saw a police car speeding down the tram lane from behind (it was 60 zone but the police car was travelling much faster). Luckily, the car in front of me saw the police car at the last minute and stopped just in time before collision. The police car slowed down and then went around the car then continued travelling in the dedicated tram lane. I continued driving on the road and then saw the police car made a right turn at an intersection through red light, without indicating.

Throughout all of these events, the police car did not have siren on or honk to warn the drivers on the road. I am assuming there must be an emergency situation where they had to get to considering the speed they were travelling at.

But my questions is, had the car in front of me not see the police car coming from behind and then a collision occurred, will the driver be liable? Or if when the police car made a right turn at a red light and collided with someone, then who's at fault?

If the police car had the siren on throughout all of these events, I would not be posting on this forum as I understand the police had to do what they need to do.

So what are your thoughts?

Automotive

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2016 - 13:42
    +6

    who watches the watchmen

    there isn't anyone to do anything about police breaking the law because they are the ones who are supposed to do it.

    • endotherm on 21/07/2016 - 14:58
      +8

      You can complain to senior police. Complaints about police can also be made to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) or to Victoria Police’s Professional Standards Command.
      There seems to be more oversight of police than criminals or Joe Public.

    • kima on 22/07/2016 - 11:13

      because they are the ones who are supposed to do it

      does the laws actually give exception to police or is this assumed?

    • moar bargains on 22/07/2016 - 13:00
      +1

      who watches the watchmen

      You do. Police are public servants, just like politicians. Hence, they are responsible to the government of the day, and ultimately the electorate.
      The hierarchy is: general officers < senior officers < chief of police < Minister for police < general public

    • ninetyNineCents on 23/07/2016 - 12:38
      +1

      What proof have you got they were breaking the law and not actually rushing to help someone ?

      • nobro25 on 23/07/2016 - 19:50
        +4

        Simple. If their siren is not on and are not chasing someone they shouldn't be speeding. Op mentioned the speed limit is 60 and the police car was clearly going over that speed limit. That in itself is against the law.Just because you're patrolling doesn't give you the right to go over the speed limit and endanger civilians that they were meant to serve and protect.

        Side note: Probably driving between pokestops spinning for more pokeballs and reives.

        • endotherm on 23/07/2016 - 20:22
          +4

          100% allowed under the law: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr200920… It's been mentioned half a dozen times already in this thread but some people just seem to come in, start spouting their (wrong) opinion without even bothering to read what the discussion is about.

        • nobro25 on 23/07/2016 - 21:09

          @endotherm: Does this Apply in Sydney NSW?

        • endotherm on 23/07/2016 - 21:22
          +4

          @nobro25: Yep. All the road rules are standardised and are VERY similar throughout the country. States will each have their own legislation but they will include the above exemption in almost the same wording.

          See NSW Rule 305 here

          VICTORIA

          ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2009 - REG 305
          Exemption for drivers of police vehicles
          (1) A provision of these 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
          Rule 305(1)(b) amended by S.R. No. 116/2009 rule 11.
          (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.
          Note
          Motor vehicle is defined in the Road Safety Act 1986 and police vehicle is defined in the dictionary.
          (2) Subrule (1)(b) does not apply to the driver if, in the circumstances, it is reasonable—
          (a) not to display the light or sound the alarm; or
          (b) for the vehicle not to be fitted or equipped with a blue or red flashing light or an alarm.

          NSW

          Rule 305 Road Rules 2008
          Part 19 Exemptions
          305 Exemption for drivers of police vehicles
          (1) A provision of these 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.
          Note. Motor vehicle and police vehicle are defined in the Dictionary.
          (2) Subrule (1) (b) does not apply to the driver if, in the circumstances, it is
          reasonable:
          (a) not to display the light or sound the alarm, or
          (b) for the vehicle not to be fitted or equipped with a blue or red
          flashing light or an alarm.

        • John Dough on 24/07/2016 - 14:11
          +1

          @endotherm:

          100% Allowed - but was it allowed in this circumstance is the question.

          To me if a driver of a police vehicle is breaking the road rules, they would probably have a good reason or could make one up on the spot if challenged. I have seen them also do what the OP has mentioned and thought to myself it's a bit cheeky they just don't want to sit in traffic.

          But as taxpayers, do we want cops sitting in traffic on our dime? but that's a whole different argument!

          If the car was involved in a collision, depending on the severity, that's the only way anyone else would know if they were acting reasonably by not having the red and blue flashing.
          It would have to be tested in court and only if the incident involved injury, significant liability or loss.

          If the civilians car just turned legally and normally and the cop hit it in the mentioned circumstance at low speed, with no injuries, IMO they would be certainly at fault and would be liable for the excess / insurance bill.

          I think you would find they watch out for exactly that type of thing, and a collision would be unlikely.

    • luckydan on 23/07/2016 - 17:38
      +4

      If you want to know the actual police HQ.

      Police have GPS Tracking, warning sirens and lots of other types of jazz. The HQ KNOWS where they are from the cameras all the time.

      So even if they "Seem" to break the law, they made be attending to criminal activity and need to jump on the criminals. Coming down with blaze and glory would signify would alert the criminals and put alot more people in danger. Prevention is better than the cure bro.

  • SnoozeAndLose on 21/07/2016 - 13:45

    Do you have a video? post it on the web and let the public judging it.
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/a-new-…

    • THL on 21/07/2016 - 15:45

      No but I will probably get a dashcam soon as it is getting more and more common for cars to have a dashcam :)

        • Scrooge McDuck on 21/07/2016 - 23:41

          They're both inconsiderate but the Police truck more so since it sticks out much further.

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 00:03

          @Scrooge McDuck: OK, silver Holden towing a trailer? This photo could even be of moving vehicles clearing the intersection (I see they still have the green light). Not enough information. Not saying that whoever took the photo has an agenda against police, but why is that photo any more significant than the hundreds of similar photos one could take every hour!

        • Scrooge McDuck on 22/07/2016 - 00:13

          @endotherm:

          This photo could even be of moving vehicles clearing the intersection

          Nope.

          Not saying that whoever took the photo has an agenda against police, but why is that photo any more significant than the hundreds of similar photos one could take every hour!

          Because the enforcers of the law have a duty (like everyone else) to abide by it, not to is hypocrisy.

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 01:06
          +3

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Because the enforcers of the law have a duty (like everyone else) to abide by it, not to is hypocrisy.

          Sure, but aren't they entitled to a minor transgression for misjudging the space available, or the speed of the traffic ahead etc. Just like hundreds of others that are "forgiven" and against whom no action is taken. To deliberately flout the law and then book the guy next to him would be hypocrisy. Pointing the finger at one example of a mistake while ignoring hundreds of other examples is equally deplorable. We do rightly hold police to a higher standard, but they are human. Many "human" mistakes are given warnings by police every day without penalties being issued. Aren't they entitled to the same?

          We don't know what the duties were being performed at the time. Perhaps their attendance and service was required somewhere urgently and this was the expedient method of getting the vehicle there. This looks like a prisoner van, was there a brawl up ahead with multiple "hotheads" being arrested and needing transport to get them off the street and diffuse the situation? Urgent and emergency doesn't only mean squealing tyres and burning rubber. If their attendance is urgently required, they are permitted to break the road rules.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 22/07/2016 - 08:15
          -2

          @endotherm:

          Sure, but aren't they entitled to a minor transgression for misjudging the space available, or the speed of the traffic ahead etc. Just like hundreds of others that are "forgiven" and against whom no action is taken.

          No, a driver shouldn't enter an intersection unless there's space to proceed through it.

          Action should be taken against all drivers who queue across intersections. It's dangerous for pedestrians at the crossing and needlessly obstructs other traffic further compounding congestion.

          Your speculations are ridiculous.

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 14:09

          @Scrooge McDuck: You're right, they shouldn't have entered the intersection unless there was a valid reason to do so. Lets just put them up against the wall and shoot them on the basis of one photo, don't worry about due process, no trial for them, they have been tried in the court of public opinion already right? Why don't we just leave it up to the courts to decide guilt, it's what they are there for isn't it? Your prosecution is likely to fail if all you have is one photo for evidence. Who was even driving? Was he offered a chance to give an explanation? Just because it was a police truck, how do we know it wasn't a mechanic driving? He wouldn't need to be held to account as highly in your estimation then. Yes, justice can be ridiculous sometimes. The pedestrians in your second photo seem to be crossing against the lights as well (none of the other traffic is moving). Lets put them up against the wall too based on this photo.

          My speculations aren't ridiculous, I'm trying to point out that in life things happen where everything isn't as black and white as they may first appear. I've heard more ridiculous excuses for more serious matters than I've suggested here.

        • Harold Halfprice on 22/07/2016 - 17:26

          @endotherm:

          Do we live in the same state/country? Police being forgiving on road rules? I guarantee you no police officer will let you off if you run a red light right in front of them. Not a chance.

          What you're saying is irrelevant anyway, regardless if "many" mistakes are forgiven, there are also "many" mistakes that aren't. You can still be fined for a simple mistake on the road - so why shouldn't the police be subject to scrutiny?

          The police didn't make a simple mistake here, they willingly broke the law. If it was a double yellow line, you're not allowed to drive in it at all. A single yellow line, you're allowed to drive in it for 50m only to leave the road or pass an obstruction. The cops were doing WELL over 60 (by the sounds of it 10km+ over the limit at least), and driving in a lane when they weren't supposed to. Then they went through a red light. These aren't simple mistakes - it's not like the cop went a tad over the speed limit and can be considered a small mistake. It's a blatant disregard for the law.

          I've seen plenty of police speeding without lights or sirens, and I've seen a few go through red lights as well.

          If it's an emergency that requires road rules to be broken, use the lights/sirens. And if it truly was an emergency, I'm sure they'd have their lights on.

          They break the rules on the road because there's literally no one to call them up on it and they can get away with it. No one can pull them over and fine them. Absolute worst case, someone sees them and feels so strongly about it that they can be bothered to record the license number, contact senior police and put in a formal complaint. And then if something does even eventuate from the complaint (would probably take more than one) the officer wouldn't get more than a slap on the wrist.

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 17:47

          @milkguru: Police have discretion to issue warnings, and they do. They usually don't for serious matters like red lights. Yes, here in Melbourne, just watch a few episodes of Highway Patrol on the TV for some very public examples.

          Clearly the police are subject to scrutiny, much more than the guy in the car next to him and the countless cars before and after him that did the same thing. If you feel like policing this type of thing, go and report it to somebody, but make sure you include plenty of examples of members of the public doing the same thing so you are seen to be fair and not just singling out a certain group. Just like racism would be.

          You totally miss the point with the rest of your post. It wasn't a mistake. It was deliberate action. It is allowed under rule 305. Just because they don't teach you that when you get your licence off the back of a Weeties box doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your knowledge of the law and police procedure seems to come from the movies. You might expect light and siren to be mandatory to enable them to drive like that but IT IS NOT! You seem to be upset because there is no action taken against them if you complained about this. Maybe it is because there is no need to do anything about it because it isn't illegal.

        • luckydan on 23/07/2016 - 17:47

          @sjn:

          Illogical, if police get a slap on the wrist so does that Holden driver. You can't say one without the other, this opinion should of not been posted and the reason why people LIKE YOU should be restricted in posting insightful crap on the internet.

          I've seen other drivers go WELL OVER 60 KPM as well as cops and neither of them get booked. Cops use their discretion, if your not doing 100 kmphs down the road, your pretty much fine as long as you don't do it on a CROWDED road where you put everyone in danger. Next I'm gonna see Fire Engines and Ambos are breaking the road rules from this post.

          Sounds like you got booked for doing something you thought was right but in fact was wrong and you can't get your head around it, how about explain your little spat here like everyone else?

        • figarow on 23/07/2016 - 20:12

          @Scrooge McDuck: Living up to your name there boss..

      • bod311 on 23/07/2016 - 21:16

        Umm. Not even a police truck. It's a Corrections truck for transporting prisoners. That is like photographing an ambulance in an intersection and criticising the police.

  • inherentchoice on 21/07/2016 - 13:47
    +4

    You can take a photo and make a complaint.

    In Queensland there's a police officer who pulled his gun on a motorist and now he's facing tough disciplinary action and will hopefully lose his job.

    • Diji1 on 21/07/2016 - 13:50
      +2

      In the USA they pull guns if you point a camera at them.

      • pegaxs on 21/07/2016 - 22:45
        +3

        "Am I being detained? Or am I free to go?"

  • hell0 on 21/07/2016 - 13:48
    +3

    "So what are your thoughts?"
    It is pretty shit. I saw a similar thing happen when a policeman nearly had an accident doing the same thing, then he got so mad he was yelling profanities at the other cars driver with a face as red as beetroot. He got by but i'd hate to run into him.

  • Settero on 21/07/2016 - 13:52
    -5

    even with the sirens if the cop car hits you the city would be responsible for the damage ( cops work for the city ), they have every right , and laws on their side to fine you if you don't move out of the way when they have sirens on , but they can not damage property.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2016 - 14:03
      +4

      No, cops are state govt, apart from feds with are feds.

    • Forfiet on 21/07/2016 - 16:21

      But they didn't have the sirens on so…..?

  • Diji1 on 21/07/2016 - 13:56
    -8

    Some police behave as though they're above the law - this is what the best evidence, past behavior, has shown as well as various psychological studies that show how people in privileged positions often develop an us and them mentality which results in them acting against the interests of the population they allegedly serve.

    Which leads to all sorts of corrupt behavior including this instance.

    • endotherm on 21/07/2016 - 14:50
      +10

      You are the one that seems to have an us and them mentality, you post nothing but anti-establishment tripe here all the time.

      This behaviour was corrupt you say? Where is your evidence, that every person is entitled to (except the police that you hate of course) that led you to this judgement? Go figure out what corrupt means and tell me how it applies to someone risking their life to serve the public under the law as they are obliged to do, under an oath they made requiring them to do so. I'm sure they thought they'd just drive down the tram tracks and travel through a red light just for laughs while they were high on weed? They were more likely to be risking their lives serving the population preventing a crime. Go have a read of the law some time, the same laws you think they are breaking, and have a read of this. It gives them the exemption under law from the road rules. It does not have to be the way you think they should be acting — lights and siren operating etc. — but it is up to the driver of the police car. I'm sure he knows the provisions a hell of a lot better than any of us here. In the event of an accident, what makes you think the circumstances won't be microscopically examined in detail?

      So the circumstances are that there is an exclusive tram lane with yellow line (where cars are not permitted to travel). A police car was observed driving >60km/h (how do we know?). The car in front stopped in time before a collision (what was this other car doing in an exclusive tram lane where he is not allowed to be?). Police car is going straight ahead. Other car turned in front of approaching vehicle. Who do you think would be at fault? Would you ask the same question if it was a, I dont know…, TRAM going straight ahead?

      Then the vehicle is seen entering and turning in an intersection against a red light, and without lights and siren. Do we know what the intersection was like? Was it reasonably clear of traffic? How many cars have they ploughed into? None? If there had been an accident there would be an in depth investigation, much more thorough than the rest of us civilians are put through. If there is a breach of the law they will be charged. However all the circumstances and applicable laws will be considered as well as if the action was reasonable.

      Regulation 305 gives them the authority to drive in the way they were seen driving. We have no idea WHY they elected to drive that way. Was it an armed robbery or someone getting raped just around the corner? Maybe a silent approach is the best tactic to catch the offender.

      Police drivers are highly trained and encounter other drivers acting unexpectedly all the time. They drive accordingly. Driving a police car is more than most people's idea of it, it is more than just hitting the lights and siren and ploughing on through. The requirements for lights and siren isn't automatically mandatory in an emergency.

      • whooah1979 on 21/07/2016 - 16:08
        -4

        tl;dr?

        • endotherm on 21/07/2016 - 22:03
          +1

          Make time 2 read, U mite lern sum ting.

        • Baysew on 22/07/2016 - 09:31

          tl;dr?

          endotherm disagrees with Diji1 as Diji1 posts are tripe.

        • whooah1979 on 22/07/2016 - 12:27

          @Baysew:

          endotherm disagrees with Diji1 as Diji1 posts are tripe.

          Thanks.

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 14:19

          @whooah1979: @whooah1979: Short twitter version just for you. If you didn't read it you went away thinking police acted illegally. ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2009 - REG 305 makes it 100% legal. Also proves Diji1 assumption wrong.

        • whooah1979 on 22/07/2016 - 15:04

          @endotherm:

          Thanks :)

      • THL on 21/07/2016 - 16:20
        +1

        @endotherm
        I should clarify the story. The car that was turning right was turning from the car lane, not the dedicated tram lane.

        I understand your point that if it was a tram coming from behind, then it would've been driver's fault no doubt. But if it's other vehicle in that lane and collided, then it'll be other car's fault as it should not have been there in the first place.

        That being said, I know police are just doing their job and no one will do those things just for fun. My intention to start this post was if me or anyone else ever involved in a situation like this, would I be liable for it?

        • endotherm on 21/07/2016 - 22:02

          If it is a dedicated tram lane, the car is not allowed to cross the yellow line at any time, whether to make a right turn or a U turn. Under reg 305 the emergency vehicle is allowed to be there. The turning driver is SOL. Crystal clear that he would be at fault.

          A bit confusing because you said:

          The police car slowed down and then went around the car then continued travelling…

    • ninetyNineCents on 23/07/2016 - 12:40
      -1

      What a load of bullshit, we all know most police are fine people, who help keep Australia safe and great.

      If you dont like Australia, piss off to another country and then you will appreciate how great Australia is largely because of the fine work of the Police.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2016 - 14:06
    -6

    Sometimes police may urgently need to get to a crime without alerting the criminals !
    But mostly, they are DH's with a badge and gun.

    • moar bargains on 22/07/2016 - 12:32

      Here's an idea: why don't you join the force, and make a change for the better sort them out? Post back and let us know how you get on.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/07/2016 - 14:38
        -4

        OK, just joined the force, started making a change for the better, and was sorting them out when I was handed a big bag of cash and asked to quit :-)

  • Mumbles on 21/07/2016 - 15:37
    +17

    This happens a lot in my area where it takes a few seconds before Police turn on their sirens. Especially late at night when they begin to chase a suspected speeder. The sirens would wake up residents, alert the speeder 500meters away to slip down a side alley. Police will accelerate using flashing lights without the siren.

    I don't mind since I live in a city with heaps of night time hoons that wake me up at 2-3am. The roads are smooth and safe and the hoons take advantage of this.

    A Police offer's assessment of risk is definitely different to an average road users. Officers get driver training. Have more experience at high speeds and pursuits. The vehicles in their fleet are mechanically A1. They drive new vehicles which means they have modern safety features. The high speed vehicles have GPS tracking so there's already a senior that's probably aware of the frequent nature of their speeding.

    I'm a vulnerable motorcyclist. I believe the Police are the least of our problems. When I check my mirrors I'm looking for unskilled street racers, a road rage pursuit, a hit and run driver, fleeing bank robber, multi-car hijackers, an asleep truck driver, mechanical brake failure, people rushing to hospital for pregnancy, elderly driver having heart attack, seizure, foot cramp, unconscious, blood loss, etc.

    If you are looking for these its a no brainer to spot Police, ambulance, fire, SES.

    They say the road is for sharing. We need to share it with Emergency services. Please keep a look out for them. Emergencies happen, give consideration to them as they are doing us a service.

    • 17833 on 21/07/2016 - 15:58
      +4

      Very fair assessment. Like everything in life, I am sure you may see the odd Emergency Services vehicle do something unsafe or silly. The other thing is cars are so well insulated now, it is often hard to hear a siren. Especially at night, road users are much more likely to see flashing lights.

    • bargainslut on 21/07/2016 - 20:54
      +1

      Where do you live Mumbles? I'm guessing Gotham City…..

    • THL on 22/07/2016 - 16:27

      Thanks for the comment @Mumbles. Sharing is caring and we need to be more cautious when driving to look out for the unexpected!

  • whooah1979 on 21/07/2016 - 16:17
    +3

    flashing lights without the siren.

    flashing lights without the siren is ok in most cases. the siren is way to loud for someone only few car lengths away.

  • oscargamer on 21/07/2016 - 16:42
    -3

    OMFG

    read road rule 305

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/repealed_reg/arr210/s…

    then ask yourself the questions that are raised in the RR

    then go back to your xxxx existence and move on

    • ilikeradiohead on 21/07/2016 - 17:47
      +3

      New South Wales Repealed Regulations

      This Legislation has been repealed

      NSW

      Maybe you should have read the text before you linked to it?

      • oscargamer on 21/07/2016 - 18:51

        maybe you should read the OP

        it's in melbourne, which isn't in nsw, last time i checked….

        and then again, maybe you are just plain wrong…
        http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/758
        http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/758…

        • inherentchoice on 21/07/2016 - 20:47

          @oscargamer: Interesting road rule. And it is current.

          BUT it only applies if the police car is displaying flashing lights or sounding an alarm.

        • endotherm on 21/07/2016 - 22:15

          @inherentchoice: Except subrule 2 negates subrule 1:

          (2) Subrule (1)(b) does not apply to the driver if, in the circumstances, it is reasonable—
          .. (a) not to display the light or sound the alarm; or
          .. (b) for the vehicle not to be fitted or equipped with a blue or red flashing light or an alarm.

          Note this exemption (and the equivalent in other States) is only applicable to the driver of a police car, not to any other emergency vehicle.

        • MrTweek on 22/07/2016 - 15:42
          +2

          @endotherm:
          It doesn't negate subrule one. It means there can be exemptions from rule one if there is a good reason to.
          Seems unlikely in this case, especially the part with making a right turn without indicating.

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 16:31

          @MrTweek: It negates part b of subrule 1, which was the part we were discussing regarding lights and siren. "Does not apply to" essentially eliminates that clause from consideration, hence the "negates" terminology.

          How can you possibly know the circumstances requiring turning without indicating? A last second decision to change course due to traffic ahead or an update on location of the crime, occupied with the radio, struggling with ballistic vests, weapons etc. Plenty of conceivable explanations.

        • MrTweek on 22/07/2016 - 16:38

          @endotherm:

          Does not apply to" essentially eliminates that clause from consideration, hence the "negates" terminology.

          But still only

          if, in the circumstances, it is reasonable

          and it does not exempt from (1)

          the driver is taking reasonable care;

          It may be subject to interpretation, but to me this sounds like this behaviour is only legal if it was a situation where any second counts and where turning on emergency lights would have caused any kind of issue for someone.

          Nobody here will know whether the police car driver had proper reasons to act like this, but I can't think of any, so it seems less likely to me.

          Chances are they just couldn't be bothered sticking to the rules because they know they won't get fined anyway (and that is as illegal for them as for everyone else).

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 17:24

          @MrTweek: Nobody said the rest of the section didn't apply, I clarified that. I'm trying to dumb it down for the masses to understand, I've posted the whole rule more than once, I'm not trying to hide anything. I should be able to just say rule 305, then have everyone here say, "ah, now I understand". But they still don't.

          Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean there aren't any reasons. And the only explanation you can think of is that they can't be bothered? There are records kept of locations and intercepts and other jobs along with the time. Lights and siren use is logged and usually needs to be authorised by someone in command. Supervisors scrutinise these activities, written records are kept for years. If there is a complaint or incident, they do have to justify their actions. It's pretty easy to see, if they get a complaint about this while the records show they were on the way to a shooting or involved in a high speed chase. There is a hell of a lot of oversight and reviewing of actions to ensure these type of exemptions aren't abused. Just because you don't know about them or imagine them doesn't mean there is no reason.

  • derek324 on 21/07/2016 - 18:32
    +1

    In order to capture the evil masterminds in the world, superheroes must break numerous laws.

    • ninetyNineCents on 23/07/2016 - 12:43
      -1

      Who said they are breaking law ? Its amazing how many people are ungrateful and disrepectful for the fine work the police do. THese same people often themselves just dont like the fact the police fined them or caught them breaking the law and being general aresholes.

      • derek324 on 24/07/2016 - 16:57

        Who? - read the OP again.
        My response was a joke, a quote from one of the superheroes movies. Its amazing how many people have to be serious on a regular basis.

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/07/2016 - 17:17

          Perhaps but you shoudl still show some respect to the police, especially when other idiots are having an unfair go at them. Why help those ungrateful morons.

  • nrg2010 on 21/07/2016 - 20:54
    +6

    Cops breaking the law, politicians taking bribes, schools not giving a toss about your kids education, the reasons we give international aid, Libor scandal, sugar in low fat drinks, Pinochet ,WMD and Tony Blair

    Foreign debts, homeless Vets, AIDS, Crack, Donald Trump,Hypodermics on the shores, Turkey's under martial law, Rock and Roller Cola wars, I can't take it anymore,,,, (apologies to Billy)

    • oscargamer on 22/07/2016 - 12:01
      -2

      again, read what i posted

      they are EXEMPT

      they are not breaking anything

  • Gershom on 22/07/2016 - 09:59

    I think you mean Bernie Goetz not Donald Trump. Nice substitution of Turkey for China though.

  • MrTweek on 22/07/2016 - 15:32

    Here's what the road rules say:

    Exemption for drivers of police vehicles
    (1) A provision of these 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.

    So that basically says police cars have to adhere to the same rules as everyone else, unless they have their flashing lights on.
    Well, you could report them, but I doubt that would lead anywhere.

    In case of a collision, the police car driver will be liable, of course.
    Even when running with emergency lights, they need to try avoiding collisions, but without them they have no excuse at all.

    • TenaciousTom on 22/07/2016 - 15:53

      So that basically says police cars have to adhere to the same rules as everyone else, unless they have their flashing lights on.

      No it doesn't. The part of the road rule you left out says:

      (2) Subrule (1)(b) does not apply to the driver if, in the circumstances, it is reasonable—

         (a)     not to display the light or sound the alarm; or

   (b)     for the vehicle not to be fitted or equipped with a blue or red flashing light or an alarm.

      So that basically says police cars DO NOT have to adhere to the same rules as everyone else, EVEN IF they DO NOT have their flashing lights on.

      • MrTweek on 22/07/2016 - 16:29

        So what circumstances make it reasonable to keep them off in your opinion?

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 16:39
          +1

          The test of "reasonable" is what a reasonable member of the public judges it to be. A silent approach is reasonable. If someone is deranged, it is reasonable to approach without aggitating them. If someone is firing a gun in the street, it is reasonable to want to stay alive and not advertise your direction of approach and distance, etc. How about you leave these decisions to those whose lives it affects.

        • TenaciousTom on 22/07/2016 - 16:42

          Silent Bank Alarm:

          Robber: "Don't touch the silent alarm or I'll kill you!"
          Clerk: "Okay"
          clerk presses silent alarm
          5 minutes later the robber notices flashing police lights coming towards the bank and shoots the clerk.

          However ridiculous this scenario is, I think it gets my point across.

        • MrTweek on 22/07/2016 - 16:43

          @endotherm:

          How about you leave these decisions to those whose lives it affects.

          I'm discussing the questions OP asked. How about you don't get mad when someone has a different opinion than you do.

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 17:56

          @MrTweek: I'm not getting mad, feel free to discuss away. I'm just saying most people are being armchair critics, passing judgment without knowing all the facts and circumstances. That usually boils down to a handful of people directly involved.

        • Moose-au on 24/07/2016 - 09:16

          @endotherm: Or, if they are trying to approach someone who might run away / hide if they hear sires wailing. Or if they were approaching someone who was unstable / anxious / scared. Or if they were approaching children. Or if they were passing through a busy area and didn't want to cause unnecessary noise pollution. And many other reasons !

    • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 15:57
      +1

      Of course the same rules apply to them as everyone else, but your advice is flawed. You conveniently overlooked subrule 2 which supersedes subrule 1:

      (2) Subrule (1)(b) does not apply to the driver if, in the circumstances, it is reasonable—
      .. (a) not to display the light or sound the alarm; or
      .. (b) for the vehicle not to be fitted or equipped with a blue or red flashing light or an alarm.

      They DON'T have to have their flashing lights on. In the case of a collision, there is no automatic liability either way, although other cars are expected to give way to emergency vehicles. Without lights reg 305 DOES give an excuse. What's up with all the "need to avoid collisions" crap? What sane person tries to have a collision?

      This has been covered a few times in the preceeding replies, but noone seems to read the conversation before chiming in these days.

      • MrTweek on 22/07/2016 - 16:31

        What's up with all the "need to avoid collisions" crap? What sane person tries to have a collision?

        OP asked who's at fault if they collide with someone while speeding through a red light.
        It's the police car driver obviously.

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 16:49

          That was in response to your comment

          In case of a collision, the police car driver will be liable, of course.

          …they have no excuse at all…

          It doesn't work like that. The circumstances are thoroughly investigated. Liability can go either way, there can be excuses and exceptions.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/07/2016 - 15:52
    -2

    "hypothetically" the Police are supposed to give way to traffic following the road rules even when running lights and sirens, but in reality with the police unions and strong legal representation they will probably find their way out of their actions, even when there is a fatality directly caused by one of their vehicles. It is common that they will pin it on whoever they were chasing (probably a meth head with no money).

    • TenaciousTom on 22/07/2016 - 15:59

      but in reality with the police unions and strong legal representation they will probably find their way out of their actions

      Actually, in reality police officers are held to the full extent of the law. It's more likely you think the laws are unfair and give too much leniency to police officers.

      As with people in the USA, you're better off arguing that the laws are too lenient for police officers rather than arguing that lawyers magically get them off charges. Lawyers ensure the laws are applied correctly.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/07/2016 - 16:02

        I didn't claim such thing about the las, only that the Police member probably has access to better legal resources than you do to find a legally valid justification for their actions that the judge would accept.

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 16:12
          +2

          They need a strong legal representation to defend against all the allegations made against them. You usually need lawyers to "get you off" when you have done the wrong thing. However police need them to address unfounded allegations all the time. Half the posters here (or more) have already decided they have broken the law despite clear laws saying otherwise. You can falsely accuse them but they have to defend their actions and address the allegation. No wonder they have good representation.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/07/2016 - 16:23
          -1

          @endotherm: Ummm I was just talking generally, no specific case, so how would you know if the police would be wrong or not?

          The end result is the same anyway, you are either wrong, or the police are "legally justified" in 99.99% of cases because their lawyers will find a way to successfully defend them no matter the cost or how far they need to go to prove it.

        • TenaciousTom on 22/07/2016 - 16:29
          +1

          @The Land of Smeg:

          I don't agree with the common opinion that lawyers can defend someone in every case if they "go far enough" as you've sort of put it.

        • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 17:00
          -1

          @The Land of Smeg: I was speaking generally too. You seem to be saying everything the police do is wrong and they need lawyers to concoct a story to get them off or justify their actions. Most of the time the police are quite sure of their rights and responsibilities, they do what is legally required and allowed. Maybe thats why they get off 99.99% of the time.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/07/2016 - 17:01

          @TeanaciousTom: Lawyers CAN defend in every case - that is their job, it is just a question of payment.

          Whether they will successfully win the case? That is the real question.

          I subscribe to the common opinion… Can both parties afford top representation? And then be able to afford to file all the appeals and keep taking it to higher courts until they both reach a verdict they accept or until no further appeals are possible?

          Appeals and higher courts overrule previous judges' decisions all the time, so the law can't be that black and white… that's why we have courts, lawyers and judges.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/07/2016 - 17:09

          Real example:

          http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/charges-dropped-over-sharo…

          Police running lights and sirens runs red light, hits another car with right of way killing driver, lawyers manage to convince a jury that the cop was in the clear. Must be a pretty good (and expensive) lawyer if you ask me!

          The person who was driving the stolen car they were chasing gets off too!!! His lawyers must be even better!

          If the situation OP described resulted in an accident (fortunately just a near miss), I'm sure that the end result would not be any different once the good lawyers have successfully defended their client and costs to be paid by the victim.

        • ninetyNineCents on 23/07/2016 - 12:45

          So what if they do. ?

          Give them a break, they put up with a lot of lying aresholes who are so quick to point out any mistake the police do, while they thesmelves are utter scumbags.

  • endotherm on 22/07/2016 - 16:04

    Which hypothetical road rule requires police emergency vehicles to give way to other cars? It has nothing to do with police unions etc. Try pointing the finger at Parliament for passing the LAW that permits them to so so.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join