Copped a fine from the EPA...

[kaniSS]

Originally Posted by Pis-ton broke

f&^k you. i was trying to talk about a serious problem.

So we have moved onto personal attacks over the internetz now? really?

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by kaniSS

new age sensitive pansie types.

Originally Posted by kaniSS

So we have moved onto personal attacks over the internetz now? really?

Seems like you started it?

What do you call someone who whines on internet forums and requests people "keep it to yourself"? Sensitive Pansie is probably a good start.

[kaniSS]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Seems like you started it?

What do you call someone who whines on internet forums and requests people "keep it to yourself"? Sensitive Pansie is probably a good start.

like one of those new age sensitive pansie types

Seems like it.

[Jack91]

I'd fight it till the end. Even if you did it, it's still total crap that someone can just dob you in and you're guilty. Y

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Jack91

I'd fight it till the end. Even if you did it

Why would you fight something you are guilty of?? Makes no sense, is it because you are unable to face the consequences of your actions??

Would be good to hear from the OP to see what the outcome was/is, or what is happening with it.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Why would you fight something you are guilty of?? Makes no sense

On principle? Your accuser should provide evidence of your crime. You shouldnt have to waste time/money to defend a spurious accusation.

Search on this topic, and you find people going to silly lengths to demonstrate their innocence, like multiple witness statements, affidavit from doctors saying the person was a non-smoker, etc.

[Trump]

Kids play nice. I've said it elsewhere, attack the argument/point, not the arguer.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by b0son

On principle? Your accuser should provide evidence of your crime. You shouldnt have to waste time/money to defend a spurious accusation.

Search on this topic, and you find people going to silly lengths to demonstrate their innocence, like multiple witness statements, affidavit from doctors saying the person was a non-smoker, etc.

I think you missed the point, he said if he did it he would fight it. I say if you did it own up and cop it on the chin.

Every fine I have ever gotten I paid without hesitation as I was guilty of what ever it was, I fought one in court because I actually did not do it.

And ended up getting off after stating my case. So if you did it just cop it, if you did not do it fight it, pretty simple stuff really.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by b0son

On principle? Your accuser should provide evidence of your crime. You shouldnt have to waste time/money to defend a spurious accusation.

Search on this topic, and you find people going to silly lengths to demonstrate their innocence, like multiple witness statements, affidavit from doctors saying the person was a non-smoker, etc.

I understand the system can be unfair, inaccurate and open to be abused.

I actually feel dash cam evidence should be necessary.


And hey, I wish there were an organisation to report drivers in the right lane on freeways who refuse to move. I'd have reported at least 4 this morning with video evidence.

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

I understand the system can be unfair, inaccurate and open to be abused.

I actually feel dash cam evidence should be necessary.


And hey, I wish there were an organisation to report drivers in the right lane on freeways who refuse to move. I'd have reported at least 4 this morning with video evidence.

Hope this gives you a smile ... witnessed someone getting pulled over for not keeping left on the M7 ... was a nice morning seeing this on the way home from work ... while everyone else was stuck in traffic going the other way

[wackyv8]

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

Hope this gives you a smile ... witnessed someone getting pulled over for not keeping left on the M7 ... was a nice morning seeing this on the way home from work ... while everyone else was stuck in traffic going the other way

sorry to be off topic , but -mechanik ,are you sure ? , im curious ,as this would be the first recorded case ,that ive ever heard of , of a person being pulled over for that. and can i say - about bloody time ! this issue need a new thread.

[Mechan1k]

Yeah ... followed the same group of cars from North Ryde M2 ... and finally just after the start of the M7 over the rise past the 2nd Windsor Rd Exit ... Police Pulled to the left lane ... sat back a little ... and then pulled back in behind ... disco lights.

Everyone was doing the limit (even in the roadworks Zone through M2 as well).

[b0son]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

I think you missed the point, he said if he did it he would fight it. I say if you did it own up and cop it on the chin.

And I say on principle, no. If a law is unjust, whether we are guilty or innocent, it is our civic duty to make it as difficult as possible for that law to be applied.

And ended up getting off after stating my case. So if you did it just cop it, if you did not do it fight it, pretty simple stuff really.

How many people cop it on the chin even when they didn't do it, don't defend it because they don't have the time/money to do so? Why should only one team play by the rules?

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by b0son

How many people cop it on the chin even when they didn't do it, don't defend it because they don't have the time/money to do so? Why should only one team play by the rules?

In Vic 64% of reports to the EPA end up with a fine. About 85-90% of all reports relate to cigarette butts.

I've reported someone for throwing a glowing butt from their car. It was in the height of summer, hot windy day, driving through tinder dry hilly forest on the outskirts of Melbourne. I can't understand why people actually do that.

There needs to be some system in place to heavily discourage that behaviour - how else could it be done effectively?

[b0son]

Originally Posted by chamb0

There needs to be some system in place to heavily discourage that behaviour - how else could it be done effectively?

Ban smoking in cars. If phones are a distraction, so are smokes.

Better yet, just ban smoking outright. It provides no net benefit to society, just a huge cost burden.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by b0son

Ban smoking in cars. If phones are a distraction, so are smokes.

Better yet, just ban smoking outright. It provides no net benefit to society, just a huge cost burden.

I was taking the p1$$ when I said to ban smoking in cars. Banning smoking would result in a massive hit to the govco bottom line, something they won't want to happen. Not only that, prohibition will just drive it underground and turn it into the runt version of marijuana.

[Adamz Ghia]

It's already banned if kids are in the car as it should be. Wonder if it's ever actually enforced.

[fordomatic]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

I was taking the p1$$ when I said to ban smoking in cars. Banning smoking would result in a massive hit to the govco bottom line, something they won't want to happen. Not only that, prohibition will just drive it underground and turn it into the runt version of marijuana.

The government has spent a shed load of money doing studies into this over the last 10 years. Long story cut as short as i can.

The price of smokes has risen which has made a lot of people stop, some people still keep smoking but now it is a minority. The cost to provide smoke related sickness healthcare to smokers was proven to cost the government more per person than they were making on the smoke tax.

So by raising the price of smokes it has reduced the number of smokers, which reduces the cost to smoke related health issues. The small minority that still smoke pay the ridiculous prices which still gives them the tax money they were making before but doesn't cost as much for healthcare as it is a reduced number of smokers.

They also found that the majority of smokers are in the lower class (welfare) of society, so it's costing them a lot with that for healthcare as they are not insured with private health.

Hopefully that all makes sense

On a side note, I am in the Army and 10 years ago everyone but me in my section of 9 smoked and in my platoon of 30 there was only 4 of us that didn't smoke. Now in a platoon of 30 you would be lucky to find 3 or 4 smokers. Society has slowly started to stop smoking as they realise the health effects it has.

[2011G6E]

Awful lot of things to do with road rules these days completely throw the old "innocent until proven guilty" premise.

It's now up to you to try and prove your innocence, and they make it as hard as possible for you to even attempt this.

How can some do-gooder numpty on a phone app cause you to get an official fine???

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by fordomatic

The government has spent a shed load of money doing studies into this over the last 10 years. Long story cut as short as i can.

The price of smokes has risen which has made a lot of people stop, some people still keep smoking but now it is a minority. The cost to provide smoke related sickness healthcare to smokers was proven to cost the government more per person than they were making on the smoke tax.

So by raising the price of smokes it has reduced the number of smokers, which reduces the cost to smoke related health issues. The small minority that still smoke pay the ridiculous prices which still gives them the tax money they were making before but doesn't cost as much for healthcare as it is a reduced number of smokers.

They also found that the majority of smokers are in the lower class (welfare) of society, so it's costing them a lot with that for healthcare as they are not insured with private health.

Hopefully that all makes sense

On a side note, I am in the Army and 10 years ago everyone but me in my section of 9 smoked and in my platoon of 30 there was only 4 of us that didn't smoke. Now in a platoon of 30 you would be lucky to find 3 or 4 smokers. Society has slowly started to stop smoking as they realise the health effects it has.

Possibly a problem is that even if smoking was outlawed as of today, the healthcare costs will still be a burden for at least 10 more years for those who smoked up until today.

Since governments only seem to look short term, thats a big cut to take, losing cigarette tax income but still paying for the negative health effects for 10 years.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Awful lot of things to do with road rules these days completely throw the old "innocent until proven guilty" premise.

It's now up to you to try and prove your innocence, and they make it as hard as possible for you to even attempt this.

How can some do-gooder numpty on a phone app cause you to get an official fine???

Probably the crime stoppers phone service should be cut too, and anti terrorism hotlines.

Hey, as someone else mentioned, even if guilty you should make it as hard as possible for them to catch you.

Originally Posted by b0son

And I say on principle, no. If a law is unjust, whether we are guilty or innocent, it is our civic duty to make it as difficult as possible for that law to be applied.