Got fined while browsing OzBargain on Pitt St, Sydney

illumination on 08/09/2017 - 00:13
Last edited 08/09/2017 - 16:45

Yep, you read that right!

Ok, let me be clearer. Apologies for the clickbait title, although it is factually not incorrect!

I was browsing Ozbargain on Pitt St, Sydney, whilst in the drivers seat of my car in a line of traffic. There were lots of cars and traffic was not moving. The engine was on.

I had just picked up a mate down the road (near ANZ Home). As the cars weren't moving, I thought I'd just quickly catch up on comments from this recent Motorola G5 Plus deal which was a phone I was contemplating as being my replacement for the phone I was using, my Xiaomi Redmi Note 2 purchased from this deal. I was on my way out to the city for this deal and had intended to purchase Westfield Gift Cards and Coles Myer Gift Cards. I was also thinking of going to the AMEX lounge for some free food/drinks but ultimately didn't because lines were too long. I was charging my Xiaomi with this car charger. Had my navigation phone held by a phone holder from this deal. Was gonna park at Wilson parking from the credit I got from this, but my mate had free parking in the city, so I was actually on my way to park there. I had also just pumped petrol on Sunday, taking advantage of this targeted deal from Coles Express, and I paid using Coles Myer Gift Cards purchased from this First Choice Liquor AMEX Statement Credit Deal. In fact, I pumped 32L of V-Power this time because of this competition.

Ok, enough of the deal talk..

The actual story

I was browsing Ozbargain and my window was half open and all of a sudden cop came out of nowhere and said "Hi, just letting you know that you're being recorded committing a driving offence, please give me your licence", the whole time whilst his iPhone was recording in my direction. I was actually just in shock at the time and it took me about two seconds to process that it was a cop who had caught me red-handed using my phone. I then slowly got out my licence and he checked my carplate (and I presume took a photo). He proceeded to take a photo of my licence and advised me that the damage would be 4 demerit points and a $330 fine to come in the mail. I asked (long shot, I know) if I could be left off and he simply said, "no, sorry, I can't do that." and I just thought in my head "damnit I know you're just doing your job…but.."

Just to be clear - I know I'm in the wrong. I just wanted to share this with you guys because I thought the fact that I got fined while bloody browsing Ozbargain was kinda funny and such a "me" thing. It was also what I was doing, what I was using, that made me think - geez, this fine has got Ozbargain written all over it. I'm also a little bit sad about it so I wanted to kinda "let it out" but as I said, I know I've committed a driving offence and I don't really have a leg to stand on.. but gee, $330. Bloody expensive hey?

TLDR

  • Was browsing Ozbargain whilst in my car, stationary (in a line of traffic/red light) on Pitt St, Sydney.
  • Cop saw me. Came out of nowhere and was recording me committing the offence. Asked for my licence and took a photo of it
  • Advised the "damage" would be 4 demerit points and $330. Will arrive by mail.
  • Sad :( Just wanted to share with you guys!
Automotive

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2017 - 00:33
    +64

    $330 seems really reasonable. I think its almost double that in Victoria.

    • illumination on 08/09/2017 - 00:38
      +1

      Seriously? Wow. And I thought $330 was steep..

      I'm under the impression that talking on a handheld mobile phone might be a cheaper fine for some reason?

      • firstworldproblems on 08/09/2017 - 06:33
        +3

        the effect that mobile phone use has upon your driving ability is comparable to that of alcohol.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 08/09/2017 - 14:43
          +15

          the effect that mobile phone use has upon your driving ability is comparable to that of alcohol.

          How much alcohol?

          And how does it affect your ability to sit stopped in traffic?

        • firstworldproblems on 08/09/2017 - 22:53
          +13

          @thord:

          That's false. It may be that the result of mobile phone use is similar to the result of being under the influence of alcohol.
          But saying it has the same effect is retarded.

          LOL. it's always amusing when "challenged" people throw insults, but only embarrass themselves.

          i didn't say same. i said comparable.

          alcohol elicits loss of motor coordination, and delayed reaction time, but it also impairs executive function. the consequences are that attentional resources cannot be diverted appropriately, particularly in the presence of novel stimuli e.g. a kid suddenly running onto the road.

          i was making this statement about mobile phones primarily with regards to its effects upon attention and their similarity to alcohol. however, i was wrong: there are additional similarities to alcohol with respect to reaction time.

          Strayer et al. (2006). A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver. Human Factors. 48, 381-391.

          Objective: The objective of this research was to determine the relative impairment associated with conversing on a cellular telephone while driving. Background: Epidemiological evidence suggests that the relative risk of being in a traffic accident while using a cell phone is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit. The purpose of this research was to provide a direct comparison of the driving performance of a cell phone driver and a drunk driver in a controlled laboratory setting. Method: We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the performance of cell phone drivers with drivers who were intoxicated from ethanol (i.e., blood alcohol concentration at 0.08% weight/volume). Results: When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking. Conclusion: When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk. Application: This research may help to provide guidance for regulation addressing driver distraction caused by cell phone conversations.

          Lamble et al. (1999). Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 31, 617-623.

          This study was aimed at investigating drivers’ ability to detect a car ahead decelerating, while doing mobile phone related tasks. Nineteen participants aged between 20 and 29 years, (2000–125 000 km driving experience) drove at 80 km/h, 50 m behind a lead car, on a 30 km section of motorway in normal traffic. During each trial the lead car started to decelerate at an average of 0.47 m/s2 while the participant either looked at the car in front (control), continuously dialed series of three random integers on a numeric keypad (divided visual attention), or performed a memory and addition task (non-visual attention). The results indicated that drivers’ detection ability was impaired by about 0.5 s in terms of brake reaction time and almost 1 s in terms of time-to-collision, when they were doing the non-visual task whilst driving. This impairment was similar to when the drivers were dividing their visual attention between the road ahead and dialing numbers on the keypad. It was concluded that neither a hands-free option nor a voice controlled interface removes the safety problems associated with the use of mobile phones in a car.

        • firstworldproblems on 08/09/2017 - 22:58
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          How much alcohol?

          Comparable to 0.08 BAC (80 mg ethanol/100 ml).

          References

          Strayer et al. (2006). A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver. Human Factors. 48,
          381-391. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1518/0018720067777244…

          Burns et al. (2010). How dangerous is driving with a mobile phone? Benchmarking the impairment to alcohol.
          UK Transport Research Laboratory. https://trl.co.uk/reports/TRL547

          Huang et al. (2010). CAEP position statement on cellphone use while driving. CJEM, 12, 365-376.
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16884056

          And how does it affect your ability to sit stopped in traffic?

          you're correct: being totally stopped at a red light would obviate the risks associated with mobile phone usage and driving. however, i think it is absurd that we might apply traffic rules in such a fine-grained way. for example, one might argue that driving through a red light is only dangerous if there are other vehicles present on the road. perhaps there should be no fine if you can demonstrate that there were no other vehicles at the intersection?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 08/09/2017 - 23:31
          +4

          @firstworldproblems:

          You had me at

          you're correct

          ❤

        • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2017 - 15:20
          +4

          @firstworldproblems:

          I like that you have quoted studies.

          The study methods and conclusion is extrapolative at best. Just because it is formally written does not make the content useful, much less profound.

          Firstly - in Strayer et al 2006, they are comparing a conversation on a cell phone vs alcohol impairment. What was the baseline? Is it increase vs a conversation between two people in the car statistically significant? Is a delayed braking reaction really correlates directly with impaired driving that results in collisions?

          A driver impaired by alcohol doesn't merely suffer from impaired reaction time, they also suffer from poorer decision making skills. A collision isn't exclusively caused by failure to brake on time. There are other variables such as a potential non-collision path, honk to alert the other driver… A long list really.

          To have a conclusion re impaired braking time between a phone conversation vs drunkenness correlating to road safety is nothing short of ridiculous. This research may contribute to toilet reading material.

          Also, driving in a simulator detaches one from a sense of mortality. I use a simulator to prep for race days (no, not your Logitech gran turismo stuff). Even after coaching myself to feel the sense of mortality, my lap times, driving lines, throttle and brake response is still greatly more aggressive than in real life. Simply put, it is next to impossible to extrapolate simulator results to real world.

          I am absolutely against holding a cell phone whilst the engine is on but downplaying (whether intentional or otherwise) how much worse being drunk behind the wheel is absurd.

        • firstworldproblems on 09/09/2017 - 18:03
          -4

          @tshow:

          i have read your response. you aren't as much of a retard as i suspected. you make some cogent points. i think you're wrong, but they are sound critiques to make of empirical research e.g. does a research paradigm (driving simulators) translate to the real-world? however, i am uninterested in responding to each directly, mostly because i don't have time, but also because your final point is the most pertinent and a question that i am willing to spend time researching.

          I am absolutely against holding a cell phone whilst the engine is on but downplaying (whether intentional or otherwise) how much worse being drunk behind the wheel is absurd.

          i stated that the effects of mobile phone use are similar to that of alcohol. based on the empirical evidence, it would seem that it is the equivalent of 0.08 BAC. you believe that conceptually the two are not the same. i disagree.

          notwithstanding, would you agree that if i can find data relating to the relative risk of having an accident associated with 0.08 BAC versus mobile phone usage from real-world data, either from australia or another industrialised western nation, then my point is reasonable — not "absurd"?

          some qualifiers: the endpoint should be any of accident, or accident with injury/serious injury/mortality, with an preference for the most serious endpoint of death. also, if there is a statistically significant difference in risk, then the effect size will be small (e.g. Cohen's d < 0.2, which is a generally accepted standard of small effect). realistically, i predict the data won't come from the same study, but different studies, one looking at BAC, and another looking at mobile phone use.

          i only suggest this because i have a personal interest in knowing this myself, and so am willing to spend x hours researching it and brushing up on some statistics along the way.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2017 - 19:17

          @firstworldproblems:

          I am not saying your comment is absurd, i am actually saying that of the study's conclusion.

          I am not a statistician. I am a clinician. As such, statistics are useful but only if the methodology is sound. Strayer's hypothesis was a stretch, his methodology was hardly qualitative and merely raised more questions, and the conclusion is based on a lot of assumptions.

          I would agree that mobile phones and a 0.08BAC have the same detrimental effect to driving if you can find statistics that show similar incidence and level of morbity, in similar conditions (vehicle type and road).

          There's no point comparing a statistic that's more relevant to certain driver type (ie truckers and courier's) and the unassuming bloke that had a little too much before driving off. They are a different sample groups with different contributing factors.

          It's a tall order to find such a study but that doesn't mean a shortcut study is better than nothing.

          PS. I think there cannot be a real world study of mobile phone usage to car accidents as subjects can lie about their circumstances. In contrast there is very little you can do to hide drunk driving other than to not report the incident.

          Pretexting that I am a retard doesn't make you look any more well read. Infact, it had the opposite of the intended effect.

        • firstworldproblems on 09/09/2017 - 20:39
          +1

          @tshow:

          I would agree that mobile phones and a 0.08BAC have the same detrimental effect to driving if you can find statistics that show similar incidence and level of morbity, in similar conditions (vehicle type and road).

          bro. this is your problem — i can tell, because it's also my problem: why stop at vehicle type and road? why not control for cognitive ability too? driving skill as well. let's operationalise that as years driving. and you can't consider mortality without also controlling for differences in speed and quality of care. so let's control for time taken for paramedics to arrive, time to commence surgery, what pharmacotherapies were utilised, and surgeon experience.

          There's no point comparing a statistic that's more relevant to certain driver type (ie truckers and courier's) and the unassuming bloke that had a little too much before driving off. They are a different sample groups with different contributing factors.

          correct. i'll go one step further: even if you could control group differences, you're ignoring individual differences within groups. for example, we're assuming that in a well-controlled group of "unassuming blokes" the same BAC level means the same thing, when what you're interested in is intoxication. i rarely drink — i guarantee you 0.08 affects me more than the average person. you might say that's to do with metabolism, which is partially correct. you'd also need to control for GABA receptor density.

          my point is that the way that you're viewing this matter is that unless you can clone a person and construct parallel universes to subject them to the same experimental conditions, you cannot make a claim about causality. and even then, all you've demonstrated is that mobile phones affect that particular person, at that particular time. on that particular road.

          It's a tall order to find such a study but that doesn't mean a shortcut study is better than nothing.

          i agree. like how everyone looks for physical signs without considering their interrater reliability or diagnostic utility. we like to go through the motions without appreciating or questioning our underlying assumptions. which are oftentimes flawed.

          PS. I think there cannot be a real world study of mobile phone usage to car accidents as subjects can lie about their circumstances. In contrast there is very little you can do to hide drunk driving other than to not report the incident.

          yes, as soon as i posted i realised that. but i think there's ways around it. for example, looking at data before mobiles became illegal. there could be other ways too, such as verifying usage against mobile phone records. alternatively, i propose that a crossover design of a simulator involving both alcohol use and mobile phone use would work because you're negating the effect of the simulator; all it would mean is that your RR values would be inflated relative to real-world data, but allows for a direct comparison between the phone and alcohol conditions. i will need to read the data.

          Pretexting that I am a retard doesn't make you look any more well read. Infact, it had the opposite of the intended effect.

          erm, the cloth cuts both ways: "But saying it has the same effect is retarded."

        • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2017 - 22:18

          @firstworldproblems:
          I think you are quoting the wrong person. The one that was using the word "retarded" was 'thord'. Digression aside.

          It is true that I think unless you recreate very similar circumstances, the study would be flawed, however, I stress the importance of the word 'similar'. I am not being padentic and implying we need a clone, thats currently impossible. I am alluding to the ethical restrictions - we cannot place a single person in direct harm's way, let alone a large enough sample population for a study to have any meaning.

          In conclusion, it is not a viable study. The knowledge of the severity of effect mobile phone usage vs high BAC has no value. We know that phone usage distracts a driver and reduces their ability to function as one; do we need to quantify it against drunk driving?

          Lastly, mobile phone conversation is a distraction, being drunk is an impairment.

        • ZzRice007 on 10/09/2017 - 10:59
          +3

          @tshow:

          Boys.. need to get u 2 into a PC Room, where you can hash it over IRC and a coupla beers.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/09/2017 - 15:07

          @ZzRice007:
          Mate, we gonna need more than two measley beers but that's gonna take my BAC >0.08.

          I guess I should be okay to get home after, I'll be too wasted to hold a telephone conversation.

        • smartazz104 on 10/09/2017 - 20:01

          @Scrooge McDuck: Ask that to the hundreds of people that invariably sit at green lights holding up every car behind them because they are too busy browsing Facebook and Twitter.

        • cameldownunder on 11/09/2017 - 09:35

          @Scrooge McDuck: "And how does it affect your ability to sit stopped in traffic?"
          Chances are [very high] that the usage of the mobile phone will continue also when traffic is back in motion.

        • Liuissa on 11/09/2017 - 09:37

          @firstworldproblems: Did you by any chance take a PSYC1020 course at UQ? This has been the course assignment for a few years now, I did mine back in 2012. Don't forget the limitations :p

        • simulacrum on 11/09/2017 - 09:47

          @firstworldproblems:

          you aren't as much of a retard as i suspected.

          Bit of an escalation in tone for a reply to the guy's first post in the thread.. sure you don't have him confused with @thordl (the schmuck that randomly called you a retard)?

        • firstworldproblems on 13/09/2017 - 23:34

          @Liuissa:

          no, but i may have ghostwritten essays for a number of students from UQ.

        • firstworldproblems on 13/09/2017 - 23:35

          @simulacrum:

          sure you don't have him confused with @thordl (the schmuck that randomly called you a retard)?

          LOL yes, that was the case, and i apologised to him in private directly.

        • Liuissa on 15/09/2017 - 15:09

          @firstworldproblems: Can I ask how much you get paid? I've always been curious as to how these ghost writers work.

      • RockyRaccoon on 08/09/2017 - 07:54
        +77

        Hey I was 3 cars behind and missed the lights because you weren't on the ball when the lights changed. $330 wasn't high enough

      • jjjaar on 08/09/2017 - 08:06
        +5

        I believe in Victoria you will be fined for touching your phone while the car is not in park. You can't just move to the side of the road to check something. You have to put it in park.

        • dassaur on 08/09/2017 - 09:23
          +4

          Devil's advocate… what about neutral!

        • airzone on 08/09/2017 - 10:16
          +14

          I'm in trouble then - my car is manual..

        • chumlee on 08/09/2017 - 13:53
          -2

          The car has to be parked.

          That means engine switched off and i think no keys in the ignition

        • jjjaar on 08/09/2017 - 14:43
          +3

          @chumlee:

          You're right about being parked. I had assumed no keys too but the law is:

          Using a hand-held mobile phone is also illegal when your vehicle is stationary but not parked e.g. when you’re stopped at traffic lights.

          https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/driver…

          Nothing about keys being out, but I would assumed that "parked" includes engine off. (Also noting a lot of cars now don't require keys in the ignition)

        • Scrooge McDuck on 08/09/2017 - 14:44
          +14

          @chumlee:

          So coasting in neutral with the ignition off is OK? 🤔

        • User218134 on 08/09/2017 - 15:14
          +3

          Add SmartWatch to the list.

          Its bizarre on how to classify touching because its already on the wrist

        • lunartemis on 08/09/2017 - 17:47
          +4

          @jjjaar:
          How about if you drive a hybrid car where the engine is automatically switched off while the car is stopped

        • chumlee on 08/09/2017 - 18:29
          +10

          @lunartemis: then you will get a fine for something else I'm sure. Cops don't like to be outsmarted

        • jjjaar on 08/09/2017 - 19:57

          @lunartemis: oh man I don't know but I want to know haha

        • regenade on 08/09/2017 - 21:01

          @chumlee:put a internal and external full HD recorder and see how cops evade you lol. I don't understand why their time is not so brash when they see they are recorded, be it in a car or when TV crew is there ? Even cops scared of loosing their jobs, I dont they can loose their jobs so easy lol

        • Scrooge McDuck on 08/09/2017 - 23:28
          +5

          @chumlee:

          Cops don't like to be outsmarted

          That explains why they look so unhappy.

        • Frozensage on 09/09/2017 - 08:08

          @jjjaar: and slot of car also turns engine off when u stop at 0. Does that count?

        • kochi murali on 09/09/2017 - 09:56

          @lunartemis: The cops may argue, the gear lever is still on drive (D) even when the car engine is off and your legs are firm on the brakes.

        • strangeloops66 on 09/09/2017 - 21:28

          @chumlee:

          Surely they must be used to it.

        • cameldownunder on 11/09/2017 - 09:36

          @jjjaar: The choice is yours: Parked in a no-stopping area, or using the phone while driving.

      • hell0 on 11/09/2017 - 13:02

        $330 is not as steep as it should be. OP was in charge of a heavy and dangerous vehicle and should act like it before she injures somebody.

    • bobbified on 08/09/2017 - 00:42
      +2

      Currently $476 in Victoria - bloody expensive!

      https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/driver…

      • unco on 08/09/2017 - 10:13
        +53

        So in fact OP got a bargain. Win.

        • illumination on 08/09/2017 - 10:43
          +46

          Sweet. Saved $146. 30.67% off by living in Sydney/NSW! And they say Sydney is more expensive..

        • Scrooge McDuck on 08/09/2017 - 14:46
          +31

          @illumination:

          Did you try to price beat at Officeworks? It's right there on Pitt St.

        • illumination on 08/09/2017 - 14:47
          +5

          @Scrooge McDuck: Nowhere to legally park. Didn't want to risk another fine!

        • gimmebargains on 09/09/2017 - 19:46
          +2

          @illumination: Don't forget cashrewards!

        • illumination on 09/09/2017 - 19:49
          +1

          @gimmebargains: Oh crap. Forgot to click through… need TA's assistance LOL

        • dlovep on 09/09/2017 - 23:28
          +3

          @illumination: opposite Officeworks there's a Secure Parking…Need coupon code. Dang! it's on the phone…

        • superm86 on 10/09/2017 - 12:51
          +2

          @dlovep: phone is fine.. uhh.. hold on.

        • pennypincher98 on 16/09/2017 - 14:38

          @superm86: Really, another 'phone is fine' comment? That went to bed ages ago..

      • Gina Rinehart on 08/09/2017 - 13:11
        +10

        $511 + 4 demerit points in ACT

        • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2017 - 16:20

          daaaaamn

        • Gina Rinehart on 08/09/2017 - 17:48

          @The Land of Smeg: it's mainly to target P platers, most likely, since they only have 4 points and are (I assume) the largest offending demographic

        • buckster on 09/09/2017 - 15:03
          +1

          @brezzo: you'd be surprised, lots of 30-40 something's do it too

      • bdl on 10/09/2017 - 21:51

        That's because it's 17 x Band 28 = band $476

    • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2017 - 15:28
      +5

      This is why you get a $15 windscreen mount and browse OzBargain for $315 less per trip.

    • Bullion78 on 08/09/2017 - 21:46
      -1

      I sympathise with the OP but he should consider himself $150 luckier that he lives in NSW. I am Victorian and got stitched $480 or thereabouts for the same thing.

      The price paid for living in a nanny state.

      • callum9999 on 09/09/2017 - 06:08
        +1

        I don't think that really qualifies for being nannying. They don't really care about you, they simply don't want you to hurt/kill others - and using a phone while driving irrefutably raises that risk (regardless of whether you yourself deem your own practices safe or not).

      • Frozensage on 09/09/2017 - 08:09
        +5

        So running a red is $389 but touching ur phone is over $400? Makes perfect sense

        • smartazz104 on 10/09/2017 - 20:02
          +2

          At least if you run a red you are still in control of the car and are paying attention to the road /s

    • pbywater on 09/09/2017 - 11:37

      $480 in vic and 4 points…lucky I got done when it was 280 and 3 points in 2012

    • Lord Fart Bucket on 10/09/2017 - 07:39
      +1

      What a bargain!

    • mezje on 10/09/2017 - 13:09

      As far as I'm concerned it should be an instant license suspension.

    • AustriaBargain on 10/09/2017 - 16:07

      Would turning the engine off have saved him?

  • bobbified on 08/09/2017 - 00:37
    +23

    Expect to cop a few extra headslaps from everyone here for being on your phone while driving.

  • Some Human on 08/09/2017 - 00:41
    +89

    I like the part where you admit being at fault and aren't looking for a way out of it - uncommon here on ozbargain.

  • susmind on 08/09/2017 - 00:41
    +11

    " I was actually just in shock at the time and it took me about two seconds to process that it was a cop who had caught me red-handed using my phone".

    Psychologists say that this type of shock can be almost the same feeling as when someone wins an massive lotto jackpot.
    But to actually win a massive lotto jackpot you'd have to spend two times as much on tickets, so for only $330 you get receive a type of bargain
    on you shock feeling …

    • Scrooge McDuck on 08/09/2017 - 14:52
      +6

      But to actually win a massive lotto jackpot you'd have to spend two times as much on tickets,

      Are you suggesting that I'll win a massive lotto jackpot if I spend $660 on tickets?

      Sounds like a phenomenal deal!!

    • pegaxs on 08/09/2017 - 07:38
      +44

      Yep, never trust cops…

      Well, until your house/car gets robbed or you get assaulted or you child goes missing or any other number of things the police do for the community…

      People always hate cops right up until the time they need them…

      • RockyRaccoon on 08/09/2017 - 07:56
        +13

        Ah yes cops should stop people speeding down my street, but dont stop me speeding down others, those Cops are really untrustworthy

      • thord on 08/09/2017 - 13:25
        +4

        Cops and traffic cops are different beasts.

        • Suspect420 on 08/09/2017 - 20:24
          +5

          Brother is a cop.

          Swears the hwy patrol are absolute pricks and cowards. They are the type of guys that you work with and do not trust. All the back stabbers are promoted to hwy since no one wants the beat with a back stabber….

          Love all cops in general. (Except you Mr Angry Back Stabbing Putana)

        • KBZ on 08/09/2017 - 22:10
          -2

          @Suspect420:

          Why is this? I don't get the hate? Aren't they just doing their job to enforce the law?

        • thord on 11/09/2017 - 09:48

          @KBZ:

          No cop enforces the law as strictly as traffic cops, which probably explains the hate. Regular cops you'd meet on the street use discretion and often talk through situations with people, figuring out what's going on, and what would make the best outcome for everyone involved. Traffic cops just follow the rules like robots if you're lucky, and power trip if you're unlucky.

          (of course that's a generalisation and each individual is different).

      • Scrooge McDuck on 08/09/2017 - 14:55
        +8

        Well, until your house/car gets robbed or you get assaulted or you child goes missing or any other number of things the police do for the community…

        I wasn't aware that robbery, assault or child abduction were community services.

      • regenade on 08/09/2017 - 21:04

        How do you expect them to do a good job at midnight and get 3500$ after taxes and shit are deducted

    • neosin on 10/09/2017 - 00:23
      +1

      Damn I've been lucky all this time lol!

      "Am I allowed to make changes to my GPS settings while I’m driving?

      No. Even if your phone is in a fixed cradle, you cannot touch it while you are driving.

      If I’ve stopped at traffic lights, can I touch my GPS then?

      No. You’ll need to set the GPS system before heading off and if you need to make any changes while you’re in the car, you need to pull over and park before making those changes."

    • idonotknowwhy on 10/09/2017 - 09:22

      Lesson learnt. Never trust cops. They could be anywhere!

      lol wtf? How does "they could be anywhere" relate to trusting them?
      And if they could only be in certain places, does that make them more trustworthy?

    • smartazz104 on 10/09/2017 - 20:03

      Sounds like you didn't learn shit.

  • PJC on 08/09/2017 - 01:44
    +7

    Naughty naughty naughty.

  • PumaPants on 08/09/2017 - 05:30
    +14

    Cool story bro.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/09/2017 - 08:37

      would read again/10

    • illumination on 08/09/2017 - 10:46
      +1

      Thanks :(

  • JIMB0 on 08/09/2017 - 05:39
    +1

    He proceeded to take a photo of my licence

    Are you sure he was a real cop? I would have thought they'd write the info down in their notepad.

    • Euphemistic on 08/09/2017 - 10:21

      NSW police have some access to electronic fine issuing things AFAIK.

    • illumination on 08/09/2017 - 10:47

      Hm I actually didn't at any point in time think he wasn't a cop. Looked like a cop, but maybe I should've (could've?) asked to see a badge or something.

      • picklewizard on 08/09/2017 - 13:39
        +2

        What does a cop look like? If he was in uniform I would imagine that would be sufficient, if not… you just got identity theft'd :P

      • mooboy on 08/09/2017 - 16:57
        +5

        You need to tell him you're not sure if he's a federal officer of the law…

        • crfnx on 08/09/2017 - 20:42
          +4

          Should have told him you were. "Just waiting for a mate."

      • xyee on 08/09/2017 - 23:46
        +1

        I believe they are supposed to introduce themselves to you, i.e. Rank, name and which station they're from before reading you your charges.

      • rover on 11/09/2017 - 10:10

        Did the so called policeman say "'ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then?" if not then proper police protocol was not being used and he may have been an imposter.

    • jazeng on 08/09/2017 - 13:33

      suspect as to nothold up traffic these guys take a photo of the license, and write up the fine later

    • Toons on 08/09/2017 - 13:55
      +2

      We have them in WA, that are you would describe as undercover bikes, aren't marked the clothing is nothing that stands out, the only thing they do is use the cam attached to side of helmet, i don't think they even ask for licence as the process is quite quick they drive up the middle of stopped cars if they see someone using the phone they tap window inform them they have been caught and request name and DOB and move forward film the number plate as a second pass they look at each as they approach, then move on it's all pretty quick.

      The best one they showed on the news one night was a guy using an iPad Holding it in the middle of steering wheel following directions to his destination.

      • regenade on 08/09/2017 - 21:05

        Lol that iPad tale is epic, any YouTube link to that ?

        • Toons on 09/09/2017 - 08:35

          quite possibly, it was on channel nine news, I'll have a look it might be mid clip in a series of people doing the wrong thing. and under cover bikes.

          so probably not tagged as man using IPad, it was giving you examples of some of the worst offenders, who didn't think they were doing anything wrong. there was more than one thing wrong with that particular incident. it's also possible there was a severe lack of understanding….

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join