Diesel Damo

On Aug 18, 9:26*pm, Toby Ponsenby <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:37:37 +1000, Snapper wrote:
> > I wrote wrote...
>
> >> I wonder if those doing the videoing, if they're driving, will be charged with
> >> using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
> > Further to this post of mine. Ms. Nixon, our Chief Commish, must've read this
> > post..
>
> >http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...07-661,00.html
>
> >> Still, I s'pose that it would be more effective than relying on people"dobbing"
> >> in hoons via a hotline. In that scenario the police can't do zip without
> >> evidence.
>
> > And again, this is reflected in the above story.
>
> > But then she talks about the hoon hotline. Again, this requires those who call
> > in to be prepared to give evidence and to be cross examined if it went to court
> > and their "evidence" was required to secure a conviction.
>
> > Thing is, I wonder how many people, when the cops rock up to question the
> > drivers at their homes, cave in on the spot and dob themselves in.
>
> > Here's a couple of videos from a US university law school. Laws may differ in
> > some aspects but the principle's the same:
>
> >http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/28...d-cop-agr.html
>
> > Same videos but in larger format. Res ain't that crashhot, though.
>
> > Prof Speaks:
> >http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02514885833865
>
> > Cop Speaks:
> >http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...22229458915912
>
> Please save me the trouble - the videos mean?
>

If they're the videos I think they are, it's about how you should
never ever talk to a cop about a crime without legal representation
even if you are innocent. First talk is from a professor (of what I
forget) and the next is by a 30-year veteran cop telling how they can
and do nail you with the slightest mis-wording and such, or at least
get some leverage on you. A few tricks of the trade too.

Worth a look IMHO.

Snapper

Sylvia Else wrote...

> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.

Here in Victoria, at least that doesn't appear to be a problem when it comes to
issuing speeding fines that are detected by speed cameras. The owner of the car
is hit with the fine. He has to prove that it wasn't him driving, otherwise the
fine sticks.

Can't see how this would be any different in that respect.

And when they catch "hoons" the car is impounded, regardless of who the owner
is. Imagine if your 18yo feral brat takes the family car for a spin, it gets
impounded, then later crushed as happens elsewhere.

I wonder what the finance companies think of this, given that a hell of a lot of
kids will have gotten loans for their vehicular purchases.

Sylvia Else

Snapper wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote...
>
>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>
> Here in Victoria, at least that doesn't appear to be a problem when it comes to
> issuing speeding fines that are detected by speed cameras. The owner of the car
> is hit with the fine. He has to prove that it wasn't him driving, otherwise the
> fine sticks.
>
> Can't see how this would be any different in that respect.

There is specific legislation for those cases. That legislation could be
extended to include videos of hoons, but note that this would be quite a
radical step. The existing situations relate to specified camera types
whose performance is documented, placed at defined locations. The hoon
scenario would involve video taken by hand held cameras in uncontrolled
situations.

Sylvia.

atec77

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Snapper wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote...
>>
>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual hoon.
>>> Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>
>> Here in Victoria, at least that doesn't appear to be a problem when it
>> comes to
>> issuing speeding fines that are detected by speed cameras. The owner
>> of the car
>> is hit with the fine. He has to prove that it wasn't him driving,
>> otherwise the
>> fine sticks.
>>
>> Can't see how this would be any different in that respect.
>
> There is specific legislation for those cases.
not specific at all , but your back peddle wont stop here
That legislation could be
> extended to include videos of hoons, but note that this would be quite a
> radical step.
wrong
The existing situations relate to specified camera types
> whose performance is documented, placed at defined locations.
actually no it doesn't , there are alterations designed to allow a
judgement call
The hoon
> scenario would involve video taken by hand held cameras in uncontrolled
> situations.
your point ?
>
> Sylvia.

Sylvia Else

atec77 wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Snapper wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote...
>>>
>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual
>>>> hoon. Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>
>>> Here in Victoria, at least that doesn't appear to be a problem when
>>> it comes to
>>> issuing speeding fines that are detected by speed cameras. The owner
>>> of the car
>>> is hit with the fine. He has to prove that it wasn't him driving,
>>> otherwise the
>>> fine sticks.
>>>
>>> Can't see how this would be any different in that respect.
>>
>> There is specific legislation for those cases.
> not specific at all , but your back peddle wont stop here
> That legislation could be
>> extended to include videos of hoons, but note that this would be quite
>> a radical step.
> wrong
> The existing situations relate to specified camera types
>> whose performance is documented, placed at defined locations.
> actually no it doesn't , there are alterations designed to allow a
> judgement call
> The hoon
>> scenario would involve video taken by hand held cameras in
>> uncontrolled situations.
> your point ?
>>
>> Sylvia.

You're using Thunderbird, just as I am. How is it that your quotations
come out in such a mess?

Sylvia.

atec77

Sylvia Else wrote:
> atec77 wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> They won't be able to do much more with videos unless the law is
>>>>> changed. The problem will be that of identifying the individual
>>>>> hoon. Merely identifying the vehicle isn't enough.
>>>>
>>>> Here in Victoria, at least that doesn't appear to be a problem when
>>>> it comes to
>>>> issuing speeding fines that are detected by speed cameras. The owner
>>>> of the car
>>>> is hit with the fine. He has to prove that it wasn't him driving,
>>>> otherwise the
>>>> fine sticks.
>>>>
>>>> Can't see how this would be any different in that respect.
>>>
>>> There is specific legislation for those cases.
>> not specific at all , but your back peddle wont stop here
>> That legislation could be
>>> extended to include videos of hoons, but note that this would be
>>> quite a radical step.
>> wrong
>> The existing situations relate to specified camera types
>>> whose performance is documented, placed at defined locations.
>> actually no it doesn't , there are alterations designed to allow a
>> judgement call
>> The hoon
>>> scenario would involve video taken by hand held cameras in
>>> uncontrolled situations.
>> your point ?
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>
> You're using Thunderbird, just as I am. How is it that your quotations
> come out in such a mess?
>
> Sylvia.
irrelevant
how is it you claim to have intelligence and yet your arguments are
soft and unsubstantial usually proving you have nfi ?

the_dawggie

On Aug 19, 108*am, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:
> the_dawggie wrote:
>
> > These days I don't do
> >some of the stuff I used to. 1980s was a good time - could do
> >virtually anything you wanted :-)
>
> Yeah, but in the 1960's and '70's you coulda been conscripted... which
> woulda earned you the right to complain about hoons! *;-)

Thankfully I was a bit too young back then :-)

Toby Ponsenby

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:38:34 +0200 (CEST), Athol wrote:

> People who once were hoons are now actively complaining about the hoons,
> and I tend to wonder if some of that is jealousy.

Jealosy - perhaps.
My mind boggles as to what I could have done with a Turbo-car or even a
GenIII or IV all those years ago.
Which is why I NEVER complain about Hoons.
there's also the matter of ubanisation - there's pretty much no-where
left to play, what with rural res developments and locking off of
forestry areas etc.

And Ageism - definitely.
And lets not forget Bastardisation.

FWIW, We have a couple of imbeciles round here that delight in leaving
tyre-marks on the road at most driveways. At the worst, we get a little
noise late at night one week-end in about 10. If that.
The truly amazing thing is that the local older population get
positively apoplectic about it.
They just Will Not get the joke.
Which is of course why the imbeciles come out to play.


--
Toby

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly
and applying the wrong remedies."
-Groucho Marx.

Toby Ponsenby

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 108:51 +1000, John_H wrote:

> the_dawggie wrote:
>>
>> These days I don't do
>>some of the stuff I used to. 1980s was a good time - could do
>>virtually anything you wanted :-)
>
> Yeah, but in the 1960's and '70's you coulda been conscripted... which
> woulda earned you the right to complain about hoons! ;-)

Shit - you missed the opportunity to call it out for what it is.

Compulsion.



--
Toby

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly
and applying the wrong remedies."
-Groucho Marx.

John_H

Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>
>FWIW, We have a couple of imbeciles round here that delight in leaving
>tyre-marks on the road at most driveways. At the worst, we get a little
>noise late at night one week-end in about 10. If that.
>The truly amazing thing is that the local older population get
>positively apoplectic about it.
>They just Will Not get the joke.
>Which is of course why the imbeciles come out to play.

Don't the old ladies give 'em the small penis sign?

--
John H