Gt-r 40km/h Over. Need Your Help!

[GTRPowa]

I was in agreeing with you too. Forget the 'you' part. I mean that for anyone reason the thread in general.

I didn't understand your last question though, since you could be going 10 over or 100 over and all of the offences would still apply if a police officer 'wanted' to throw them on you, in this specific case.

[wht510]

Let me respond to you, as we are talking about my family.

Think of it this way. Would you tell your kids it's ok to speed as long as they are comfortable?

Depends on the road, and whether the government has lowered the speed limit to raise revenue, or whether they have genuinely changed the limit for the safety of others.

Let's assume you're 30, have kids, and in about 8 years they'll be driving. Your son (who loves watching drag/drift/race vids on youtube) buys an R33 GTR. Would you tell him it's ok to break the law in it as long as it's a GTR?

Are you serious? That is the most stupid thing I have heard. One would argue that most cars today are better than most cars back in the 1960's, so why are the speed limits the same? I'm not condoning doing 40km/h (unless it's on a hwy which usually has a posted speed limit of 100km/h and there is road works which brings the speed limit down to 40km/h and THERE ISN'T ANY ROAD WORKS IN SIGHT....)

If so, what would be going through your head if you had to visit him in hospital for 6 months while his food is intravenously administered and he can't talk, and all he can do it look at you?

What the hell do you think would be going through my head? Regardless if he was speeding or not. It doesn't matter. He could kill himself on a race track too. Am I going to tell him/her/them etc. not to drive fast on a racetrack? Hell they can kill themselves going to McDonalds ordering a quarter pounder and some spineless coward comes up while they are trying to read the menu and hits them over the head with a bottle. What do YOU think I would be thinking if I saw my own flesh and blood lying in a hospital? Bloody stupid question if you ask me. Get some perspective man.

Think hard about it, because this desensitising of the law and road rules is where it all begins.

And concentrating on speeding by the media/government/ Macquarie bank etc. is where it's at. Hang on did I just say Macquarie Bank? Yes.. Yes I did. They bought Redflex. The company that makes speed and red light cameras. "There's money in them there hills." is what the shareholders saw in the prospectus. IT'S ABOUT MONEY.... Not about lives, not about you and me living. It's about taxes. It's about fines, and it's about getting as much money out of us as possible while we have it. For what you ask? Shareholder return.

Everyone who crashes and kills someone didn't go out that day knowing what was coming. Nobody wants to smash their car, or worse, kill someone. They are always accidents. Sometimes it won't even be driver related, it might be mechanical failure. Ironic would be the badass pro drivers in here being wrapped around a pole tomorrow.

No. No they didn't. But a pedestrian/bike/fellow driver can be killed even when the driver is doing the speed limit, within the rules, follow every letter of the law. Even concentrating. Even paying attention to the road.

Do we fine jay walkers as much as speeding drivers?

Do we fine cyclists who disobey the road rules or the speed limit? (HELL I CAN BREAK THE 40km/h ZONE ON MY BLOODY PUSH BIKE AND KILL ME AND A PEDESTRIAN ALL AT THE SAME TIME!)

No, because there isn't that much money in it.

Another example would be if the OP flew past a bus stop across where your theoretical daughter was sitting waiting for a bus.

The point is, he wasn't. So why do you even raise this? Perhaps a police car would be chasing as well. They may as well be doing 45km/h over the speed limit to catch up. So I guess that makes them criminals too?

Wait, let me switch sides for a sec. "Man, I think that'd be awesome! I'd be on the kerb throwing my fists up with passion for the GTR!" -

Seriously? Driving 42km/h over in a built up area is pretty stupid. We all know that regardless of whether it's a GTR, a lada, or a police car or ... Damn.... I crossed the line again. Now I'm not going to justify why the police can drive 42km/h over the speed limit in a modified commodore, and 'The OP' can't. How about the Autobahn? Perhaps that's a better example of one set of cars doing a theoretical 118km/h safely and another set doing 160km/h. ON THE SAME STRETCH OF ROAD. Yes it's legal. Yes it's safer, but it's still 'speeding'.

Yeah righteo, now he loses control and smashes into the bus stop, pinning your daughter under the car. Blood, screaming, smoke. Worth it? I think not.

Right. So we've established my son is in hospital previously. Why do you think I would let my daughter out of the house with all those GTR drivers out there crashing into shit? I'd be getting a SS commodore with police pack, as it seems to be the safest car allowed on the road allowed to speed. May be even a fire truck or an ambulance so the missus can transport the kids to Coles. Perhaps even a government car, as those guys always seem to get off scott free when it comes to fines and demerit points.

Excuse the examples, but often it comes down to hitting the right nerve with some people before they even realise.

Hit a nerve?? Never. I've been so exposed to the blood and guts on the TV from all of these ads eschewing the virtues of speed that I'm desensitised already. Now I just get angry they are wasting my money on ads which could be used to TEACH idiots on the road to use their indicators, TEACH idiots how to merge, use their bloody brains when driving, and perhaps follow the bloody road rules for once. All in a positive light of course.

Anyone who's gone to a defensive driving course would know. How many of you back-chat one of the victims when they walk in with missing limbs? You don't feel heroic then, so why now?

I've been on a few defensive driving courses. They are excellent. Why would anyone feel heroic back chatting a victim of any description in general? What kind of human are you?

If it was self inflicted. Went through stop sign, was drunk etc., then perhaps a little less shock/horror etc., but still shock etc. Honestly mate, we're dudes sitting here on a computer at work/at home in front of the fire just like you. Don't feel we're any different.

Assumptions aside, the facts are here. Moving back a tad, watering down the crime is immature, selfish, and egotistical.

Watering down the crime? Selfish? Egotistical? How is it selfish to question the government? How selfish is it that 'the op' used the system CORRECTLY, and admitted guilt. He never once said he wasn't guilty. That's not selfish. It's not egotistical either. In fact it's bordering on humble.

Shit I know I can juggle a chain saw with someone standing under me. Lend me your wife, just trust me, bro.

Firstly, you wouldn't be going anywhere near me or my wife with a chainsaw. If you even thought about it, I would be showing you things the UFC deem illegal. Again, I resort to the 'what kind of human are you' for even suggesting such a twisted/demented thing.

You keep juggling those chain saws by yourself champ and when you chop off one of your hands that would be a victim I would back ch.....<ahem> No I'd still feel sorry for you, again with shock and horror etc.

Edit: While I agree some (most) of the roads could do with a review of their speed limits. Talking about it in a thread where someone is trying to get out of a speeding fine isn't appropriate. How about you have a chat with the minister of transport, or get on one of them shit Interview shows like ACA and have your say in front of the public. Sulking about speed limits in here does nothing but anger/empower everyone who already registered themselves on a forum which is related to fast cars. Stupid.

I consider the start of this paragraph with the first sentence agreeable. The rest I think needs a bit of work.

Talking about options (not getting out of a speeding fine) on a forum is perfectly acceptable, because this is a DEMOCRACY. Freedom of speech and all. I'm glad this is something that the government still allows us to use.

I don't sulk about speed limits. I write letters to Vicroads, I consult with traffic engineers, I'm a member of CAMS and speak to members of the board who consult with the government about road safety. I petition. I ring the local MP I knew in school and speak to them (when I get the chance). I defend my family. Anyone who brings members of family into any of these forums and puts them into scenarios doesn't earn my respect and I use my democratic right to retort.

[GTRPowa]

Think of it this way. Would you tell your kids it's ok to speed as long as they are comfortable?

Depends on the road, and whether the government has lowered the speed limit to raise revenue, or whether they have genuinely changed the limit for the safety of others.

-Ok so I guess you'll be telling them it's ok to speed on only certain roads, make a list or map and highlight them or something, I'm trying to see how you'd do this. Or on roads where they feel the govt has lowered speeds to increase revenue. You've introduced the same grey area that get's people into the crap in the first place.

Let's assume you're 30, have kids, and in about 8 years they'll be driving. Your son (who loves watching drag/drift/race vids on youtube) buys an R33 GTR. Would you tell him it's ok to break the law in it as long as it's a GTR?

Are you serious? That is the most stupid thing I have heard. One would argue that most cars today are better than most cars back in the 1960's, so why are the speed limits the same? I'm not condoning doing 40km/h (unless it's on a hwy which usually has a posted speed limit of 100km/h and there is road works which brings the speed limit down to 40km/h and THERE ISN'T ANY ROAD WORKS IN SIGHT....

-Because drivers habits haven't changed. New technology + old habits = the same result. With what you've just said, if you kill someone with a nice expensive car, that's ok, because the car was better than what people drove when the speed limit was imposed on that road. I'm sure the courts will accept this. Also if you get picked up going 100km/h in a 40 zone because there are no workers there, cops will allow this too. Godspeed to you. (Note sarcasm)

If so, what would be going through your head if you had to visit him in hospital for 6 months while his food is intravenously administered and he can't talk, and all he can do it look at you?

What the hell do you think would be going through my head? Regardless if he was speeding or not. It doesn't matter. He could kill himself on a race track too. Am I going to tell him/her/them etc. not to drive fast on a racetrack? Hell they can kill themselves going to McDonalds ordering a quarter pounder and some spineless coward comes up while they are trying to read the menu and hits them over the head with a bottle. What do YOU think I would be thinking if I saw my own flesh and blood lying in a hospital? Bloody stupid question if you ask me. Get some perspective man.

-I just gave you perspective. It seems to anger you. It seems to hit that spot, but still you avoid the point. Yes a bottle at maccas could kill, yes you can get hurt on a racetrack. But speeding on the road is yet another dangerous element added to their lives and more unnecessary risk. I know what you would be thinking, no need to ask the question. I wouldn't have put the notion out there if I didn't know the impact.

Think hard about it, because this desensitising of the law and road rules is where it all begins.

And concentrating on speeding by the media/government/ Macquarie bank etc. is where it's at. Hang on did I just say Macquarie Bank? Yes.. Yes I did. They bought Redflex. The company that makes speed and red light cameras. "There's money in them there hills." is what the shareholders saw in the prospectus. IT'S ABOUT MONEY.... Not about lives, not about you and me living. It's about taxes. It's about fines, and it's about getting as much money out of us as possible while we have it. For what you ask? Shareholder return.

-Wow. You still don't get it. Yeah, you're right. Speeding isn't a factor in many of the fatal accidents. It's all a fad in our bubble and rainbow world. Wake up man. Money is a factor as well, I concede this, but denying that speed doesn't relate to deaths on the road makes you a fool.

Everyone who crashes and kills someone didn't go out that day knowing what was coming. Nobody wants to smash their car, or worse, kill someone. They are always accidents. Sometimes it won't even be driver related, it might be mechanical failure. Ironic would be the badass pro drivers in here being wrapped around a pole tomorrow.

No. No they didn't. But a pedestrian/bike/fellow driver can be killed even when the driver is doing the speed limit, within the rules, follow every letter of the law. Even concentrating. Even paying attention to the road.

Do we fine jay walkers as much as speeding drivers?

Do we fine cyclists who disobey the road rules or the speed limit? (HELL I CAN BREAK THE 40km/h ZONE ON MY BLOODY PUSH BIKE AND KILL ME AND A PEDESTRIAN ALL AT THE SAME TIME!)

No, because there isn't that much money in it.

-You're right, they can be. But if the driver was speeding when he hit the cyclist, he is royally f**ked. If it was an accident and the driver wasn't breaking the law, it will be seen by the courts as exactly that, an accident. J walkers aren't putting others at risk, so that point is moot. Cyclists also don't put others at risk, another moot point. And if you want to get technical and say how a cyclist in the wrong spot on the road can make a driver swerve to avoid, etc etc etc, then your mind 'should' be open to the relative connection between speed and 'others' taking the brunt of it. Actually, on the next line you've admitted the connection between the two, I needn't go further.

Another example would be if the OP flew past a bus stop across where your theoretical daughter was sitting waiting for a bus.

The point is, he wasn't. So why do you even raise this? Perhaps a police car would be chasing as well. They may as well be doing 45km/h over the speed limit to catch up. So I guess that makes them criminals too?

-Refer to previous post. "...on the pretence that 'nothing happened and nobody got hurt' this time." And if the police have their lights and sirens on, it does not make them criminals. In your hypothesis, if the driver wasn't driving in a way that would START a pursuit, there would be no chasing police car. Lol. You need to think of how a situation starts, not how it ends.

Wait, let me switch sides for a sec. "Man, I think that'd be awesome! I'd be on the kerb throwing my fists up with passion for the GTR!" -

Seriously? Driving 42km/h over in a built up area is pretty stupid. We all know that regardless of whether it's a GTR, a lada, or a police car or ... Damn.... I crossed the line again. Now I'm not going to justify why the police can drive 42km/h over the speed limit in a modified commodore, and 'The OP' can't. How about the Autobahn? Perhaps that's a better example of one set of cars doing a theoretical 118km/h safely and another set doing 160km/h. ON THE SAME STRETCH OF ROAD. Yes it's legal. Yes it's safer, but it's still 'speeding'.

-The area in the pic isn't built up, and there is a bus stop there. Someone's mum/dad/son/daughter uses that bus stop. Police go through rigerous training before they can drive highway patrols for this exact fact. And no training can cover it ALL, that's obvious. This is why cranes still fall over, and nuclear power stations still blow up. On the other hand the OP has NOT gone through the relevant courses, and even if he did, this doesn't make him above the law. This is not the Autobarn, there are no bus stops on the Autobarn. Also, you should read about how much a German drivers license costs and the training required, and specific rules for the Autobarn. All these things the Australian side does not cover. Educate yourself.

Yeah righteo, now he loses control and smashes into the bus stop, pinning your daughter under the car. Blood, screaming, smoke. Worth it? I think not.

Right. So we've established my son is in hospital previously. Why do you think I would let my daughter out of the house with all those GTR drivers out there crashing into shit? I'd be getting a SS commodore with police pack, as it seems to be the safest car allowed on the road allowed to speed. May be even a fire truck or an ambulance so the missus can transport the kids to Coles. Perhaps even a government car, as those guys always seem to get off scott free when it comes to fines and demerit points.

-You seem jealous that police can speed under conditions but you can't. Become a police officer then. Learn the difference between what they do, and what you think they do. You're bringing up hogwash to try and support your withering case against the majority. I can't believe you'd try and use speeding police as leverage in your case but not think twice about someone with less official training.

Excuse the examples, but often it comes down to hitting the right nerve with some people before they even realise.

Hit a nerve?? Never. I've been so exposed to the blood and guts on the TV from all of these ads eschewing the virtues of speed that I'm desensitised already. Now I just get angry they are wasting my money on ads which could be used to TEACH idiots on the road to use their indicators, TEACH idiots how to merge, use their bloody brains when driving, and perhaps follow the bloody road rules for once. All in a positive light of course.

-This is true. This is the difference between us and German licensing requirements as I've just mentioned, google it.

Anyone who's gone to a defensive driving course would know. How many of you back-chat one of the victims when they walk in with missing limbs? You don't feel heroic then, so why now?

I've been on a few defensive driving courses. They are excellent. Why would anyone feel heroic back chatting a victim of any description in general? What kind of human are you?

If it was self inflicted. Went through stop sign, was drunk etc., then perhaps a little less shock/horror etc., but still shock etc. Honestly mate, we're dudes sitting here on a computer at work/at home in front of the fire just like you. Don't feel we're any different.

-What kind of human am I? One bringing perspective into this. Oh wait, did you think I back chat victims? I didn't say that. Blurred vision or anger talking? Many people haven't gone to these courses. Usually the ones who get away with shit like this. They're also usually the people finding themselves hugging yet another pole a few months later once their ego rebuilds to the point where they think they are invincible again.

Assumptions aside, the facts are here. Moving back a tad, watering down the crime is immature, selfish, and egotistical.

Watering down the crime? Selfish? Egotistical? How is it selfish to question the government? How selfish is it that 'the op' used the system CORRECTLY, and admitted guilt. He never once said he wasn't guilty. That's not selfish. It's not egotistical either. In fact it's bordering on humble.

-You're not questioning the government, you're pissing and moaning about it on a little forum. Or do you want the government to read this thread lol? I also never complained about the OP getting his license back, that's between him and the law, I am directing my posts at people who and trying to make it look like it's not that bad of a crime when if someone was killed that day it would all be different. Again think of the start, not the end of the situation.

Shit I know I can juggle a chain saw with someone standing under me. Lend me your wife, just trust me, bro.

Firstly, you wouldn't be going anywhere near me or my wife with a chainsaw. If you even thought about it, I would be showing you things the UFC deem illegal. Again, I resort to the 'what kind of human are you' for even suggesting such a twisted/demented thing.

You keep juggling those chain saws by yourself champ and when you chop off one of your hands that would be a victim I would back ch.....<ahem> No I'd still feel sorry for you, again with shock and horror etc.

-Why not? "I know what I'm doing. I've done it plenty of times before. Nothing bad ever happens. I'm the best there is." Do you get my point YET? lol. Wait, the next line you typed almost grasped the point, but not quite. You've illustrated that I can put myself at risk, but nobody else. So maybe you are getting my whole point. Or maybe not..

Edit: While I agree some (most) of the roads could do with a review of their speed limits. Talking about it in a thread where someone is trying to get out of a speeding fine isn't appropriate. How about you have a chat with the minister of transport, or get on one of them shit Interview shows like ACA and have your say in front of the public. Sulking about speed limits in here does nothing but anger/empower everyone who already registered themselves on a forum which is related to fast cars. Stupid.

I consider the start of this paragraph with the first sentence agreeable. The rest I think needs a bit of work.

-Nuff said.

Talking about options (not getting out of a speeding fine) on a forum is perfectly acceptable, because this is a DEMOCRACY. Freedom of speech and all. I'm glad this is something that the government still allows us to use.

I don't sulk about speed limits. I write letters to Vicroads, I consult with traffic engineers, I'm a member of CAMS and speak to members of the board who consult with the government about road safety. I petition. I ring the local MP I knew in school and speak to them (when I get the chance). I defend my family. Anyone who brings members of family into any of these forums and puts them into scenarios doesn't earn my respect and I use my democratic right to retort.

-Yes there is freedom of speech, we've seen plenty on that on the past 16 pages. See it only matters to you when a member of your family is involved, you won't click if it's anyone else. You'd be the type who'd speed past MY family, but slow down for YOURS, and expect everyone else to as well. This is where my point resides for people who think your way. Your post has made this rather transparent. Because this is only typing, while the real idiots are out there everyday doing exactly what you say you won't allow anyone to do, oh wait, as long as it's YOUR family. Point in case. - And btw, I'm not here to earn anyone's respect, if you have seen me posting around that should be rather apparent by now.

Edit: The post looks like crap because you replied in the middle of a quote, but who cares, right?

Further edit: So you're a member of CAMS, you consult with the govt, petition, ring MP's etc etc, yet you didn't seem aware of many of the offences you can easily be charged by in your own state. I don't know if you're ignorant, or just plain talking crap.

Edited May 30, 2011 by GTRPowa

[wht510]

Watch out guys. We've either got:

1. Redflex's no 1 share holder right here. How's the shares looking fella? Not so good at the moment?

2. OP's ex girlfriend? (She didn't like how fast he drove or was jealous of his other girlfriend who was big white phat and has twin turbos)

3. A 16 year old keyboard warrior waiting to get his license?

4. A member of the brainwashed public?

5. A closet Holden Commodore SS with police pack driver?

6. Banana man? Fighting the evil majority.

7. A fella who can't afford said R35 GTR? Eastes' will be going cheap

8. The bloke that comes up with all of those "speed kills ad's" and he can't think of anything else. I've got one....

9. Perhaps even someone who works for MUARC (Monash University Accident Research Centre), who wont get any funding from the state government if he/she/it doesn't spruik the "speed kills" mantra.

http://www.aussiemotorists.com/speeddebate/speeddebate.html

Read up Ladies and Gents.

This egg is hard to crack.

Edit: The post looks like crap because you replied in the middle of a quote, but who cares, right?

Check post #313.

Pot Kettle Black?

[GTRPowa]

Wow.. uhm, you just... Lol wow.. Haha.

And you're a mod on another forum too. Great skills you have. If you don't get what you want when you 'consult' with the govt as you claim, do you act this way?

I don't have much else to add, you really threw a curveball on this one. Verbally abuse your wife much when you don't get your choice of paint on the walls?

Hey at least you weren't travelling at great speed when them crappy Chinese CV shafts broke on you or you wouldn't be here to throw childish insults at me. Savour every day man, savour every day.

Edit: that website is the colour of the noodles I ate earlier. I should make a website showing how to safely juggle chainsaws as an enabler for all the people who don't know any better.

Fin.

Edited May 30, 2011 by GTRPowa

[wht510]

Wow.. uhm, you just... Lol wow.. Haha.

<Blush> Awww Shucks... It's late, but I'll take that as a compliment.

And you're a mod on another forum too. Great skills you have. If you don't get what you want when you 'consult' with the govt as you claim, do you act this way?

Yes. I'm a mod on another forum. Thanks for checking up on me . Nah, I just do burnouts at traffic lights and break CV joints. On a seriously note, I am just not a fan of the "government". G. Orwell 1984 anyone? Perhaps have a look at the documentary "Gasland", and see how the US government for example wasn't interested in the welfare of the people, but instead of lining their pockets with gold.

I don't have much else to add, you really threw a curveball on this one. Verbally abuse your wife much when you don't get your choice of paint on the walls?

Great. Thanks for seeing my point. I see yours that you equate every car like a chainsaw ready to turn everyone including my fictitious wife and two kids into mince meat. Scrumptious!

Paint on the walls? Meh. She gets her way more than I do. I'm a bloke she's a woman, I deal with it by selective hearing. Or was that deafness caused by the Datto?

Hey at least you weren't travelling at great speed when them crappy Chinese CV shafts broke on you or you wouldn't be here to throw childish insults at me. Savour every day man, savour every day.

Thanks bloke. Again, glad you are following up on me. Are you going to find out where I live, maybe facebook friend me, and then chainsaw me?

Edit: that website is the colour of the noodles I ate earlier. I should make a website showing how to safely juggle chainsaws as an enabler for all the people who don't know any better.

Youtube it and I'll subscribe. Just make sure you practice on your wife first.

Fin.

[GTRPowa]

You can't really redeem yourself after that display of immaturity a few posts earlier. I hardly dug anything up since one click in your sig shows it. Grats on the delusions of importance. You take examples as literal when they are a descriptive metaphor for what you feel is fine. You still have trouble grasping what I'm getting at, its not a question of if you even agree, because you've shown you simply don't understand. Anyways this is dragging the thread off topic with all the baseless insults which relate to nothing more than your need to get at me for having a point. Disagreeing is one thing, conjuring insults is another. I'll leave you to your devices, go to bed early, your judgement is clouded with anger, bloke. See you on the bureau of statistics lol.

Edited May 30, 2011 by GTRPowa

[Daleo]

This just in from the newsroom:

GTRPowa is the only one on the forum entitled to an opinion.

Oh, and GTRPowa; Autobarn is a car part store franchise in Australia, not a high speed road network in Europe.

Just so you know...

Wonder what he'll say about my wife & kids?

Edited May 30, 2011 by Daleo

[Birds]

Er.. Reality Check: He broke several laws, not just speeding, and some people are trying to water it down so it seems more trivial then downright stupid. It's raining, and he's doing 40km/h over. Further proving poor judgement, he's not even driving to the conditions. Just because he owns an R35 shouldn't at all rate his ability to drive. I've seen people in terrible cars drive in a manner where they should be doing it as a profession. We've also seen people smash up expensive cars such as Ferrari's and Lambo's because they have poor judgement and/or simply cannot drive.

It's simple fact. That doesn't mean every owner of a $100,000+ vehicle is an idiot, OR a great driver, but the reason we have arbitrarily poor (slow) speed limits is because of all the braindead drivers out there who crash at even very slow speeds. Take the recent MX5 incident on the Old Pac. Now apparently speed was not a factor, but I can say it is. You can have a head on between 2 cars at 5km/h each and everyone will walk away. So while the OP may think he's in control, you don't know if the driver of the ute (I assume this is actually his friend, but moving on) is in control. Now if the ute (for whatever reason) loses control and bumps into you, would you rather be traveling at 80km/h or 122km/h? What if you're now spinning down the road out of control and there was a kid standing beside a tree at that bustop in the picture, trying to avoid the rain, and you pin them between your car the the tree. Now if you were traveling at a different speed, there is a chance you'd miss the tree altogether. But if you are driving in a non-conforming manner, and you DO hit the tree, you will go to hell and back trying to prove your innocence. It's lucky that did not happen this occasion, but it can, and damn well has happened before. OP consider yourself lucky for these reasons, not because you got your license back. I'm not saying this to lecture you, you've had your serve from everyone else, I'm just here to put it into perspective for the people who think that it's ok to do this if you have the ability. I have the ability to rig/dog/drive forklifts and work platforms, but I still had to prove competency before I was allowed to drive one legally. Now while I can get in one and show my competency, that doesn't mean shit, because if someone else hits me and causes an accident, I'm the one in trouble because I shouldn't have even been driving in the first place, as much as if you weren't speeding, your car wouldn't have been in the oncoming path of an impending accident.

So keep up with the watering down of his misdemeanors on the pretence that 'nothing happened and nobody got hurt' this time. You few probably drive your cars at whatever speed knowing you are a 'pro driver' and all, but that won't save you when someone get's killed as a result of an accident. You say it's a highway, he says it's a quiet mountain road, and the pic shows a bus stop. I also see a sign showing a bend just behind them. The only assumption I'll make about the whole thing is that you'd have to be driving enthusiastically (considering it's raining) to exit that bend in the wet and reach 122km/h just ahead. It doesn't matter how much torque the car puts out, the force on the body and your ability to sense what's going on is no different.

And Birds, why would I smoke a joint? That's also against the law, and again, if I was involved in an accident, and had my blood tested, the mere presence of Delta9-THC is my blood would mean I have to defend myself in court. Any more useful ideas from you? I think it is you who is in need of the reality check, keep in mind most ("the majority") of the people in this thread against the OP are thinking basically their own version of what I'm typing, most just can't be bothered chasing it to the very end. You forget that most accidents are a complex web of small things that give you the end result.

F**kin' LOL. Who said anything about driving while stoned? This is your problem guy...you're putting words in peoples keyboards, assuming we have the mindsets you want us to have, so that you can build up some rage over it. Why you would do that, I have no idea. I'll lay it out for you one last time:

1. OP committed a summary offence.

2. OP was charged with the offence.

3. OP was handed down a punishment.

4. OP, with every legal right to, applied for a work driving licence.

5. A magistrate who oversees cases of traffic law on a daily basis decided this outcome.

6. People on SAU rationalise without condoning it, like the magistrate, that not every crime scenario is black and white...not every punishment is bureaucratically applicable - this is why we have courts.

7. GTRPowa fails to comprehend the reasons why a magistrate decided to grant a work licence.

8. GTRPowa yet to apply for a building permit, to commence work on a sizeable suspension bridge.

[Trozzle]

Fact of the matter is, if this righteous twat GTRPowa opened his mouth in the court room with this exact same bullshit argument, he'd be the one copping the real punishment when found to be in contempt. Question the judges decision to his face and then see your argument hold, or are you simply like every other useless prick with an opinion - too chicken shit to deal with being put back in your place?

[Nee-san]

F**kin' LOL. Who said anything about driving while stoned? This is your problem guy...you're putting words in peoples keyboards, assuming we have the mindsets you want us to have, so that you can build up some rage over it. Why you would do that, I have no idea. I'll lay it out for you one last time:

1. OP committed a summary offence.

2. OP was charged with the offence.

3. OP was handed down a punishment.

4. OP, with every legal right to, applied for a work driving licence.

5. A magistrate who oversees cases of traffic law on a daily basis decided this outcome.

6. People on SAU rationalise without condoning it, like the magistrate, that not every crime scenario is black and white...not every punishment is bureaucratically applicable - this is why we have courts.

7. GTRPowa fails to comprehend the reasons why a magistrate decided to grant a work licence.

8. GTRPowa yet to apply for a building permit, to commence work on a sizeable suspension bridge.

Permit f**king denied.

This thread is so f**king power.

Also,

[GTRPowa]

Daleo, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Any anyone's entitled to mash on that opinion. Thanks for participating. - However if all you can argue is one letter in one word of the hundreds I have typed, you have nothing.

Birds, do you know how long Delta9-THC metabolites last in the body? From a week to several months. Do you know how long the effect of being stoned lasts? A few hours. So I can be picked up 'quite possibly' a month later, when I'm not at all under the influence, but the metabolites are still in my system. Like wht510, you should educate yourself on the fact. I never argued that the magistrate made a poor choice. Go dig up the part where I said anything abhout a magistrate making a bad choice. But I'll assume he got a work license to drive to and from work? Please correct me if this assumption is wrong?

Trozzle, I'm trying to see when I'd stand up in court and say all of this. On the other hand I'd like to see you stand up in court in defence of someone who copped a less lenient decision from the magistrate and yap on about how safe the offence was at the time. It's compempt eitherway you go. The difference is this is a forum, not a courtroom. Deal with it. - Again I'll say that I never said the magistrate made a bad choice, he/she is in the job for the reason they have a proven track record for making good choices. They are put in place to sort out people who make POOR choices, such as the OP. That doesn't at all stop or prevent me from saying what 'can' happen as a result of careless driving on the roads.

Edited May 30, 2011 by GTRPowa

[fungoolie]

Trozzle, I'm trying to see when I'd stand up in court and say all of this. On the other hand I'd like to see you stand up in court in defence of someone who copped a less lenient decision from the magistrate and yap on about how safe the offence was at the time. It's compempt eitherway you go.

Why is defending yourself in order to cop a more lenient decision contempt? I have a colleague who used the defence that 40+ over on an outer suburban road at 2am on a weeknight without any other people in sight wasn't as bad as doing it during peak hour and the magistrate saw the logic in the argument and reduced his "automatic" loss of licence to a fine and 6 points. Or if I've read this wrong and you're arguing that telling a judge he's an idiot after he's done such a thing is contempt then Trozzle is dead right. If on the other hand you're telling him what a good job he just did, ummmm I can't imagine that would be contempt....

Edited May 30, 2011 by fungoolie

[Daleo]

Daleo, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Any anyone's entitled to mash on that opinion. Thanks for participating. - However if all you can argue is one letter in one word of the hundreds I have typed, you have nothing.

Honestly mate; if you'd actually read the thread properly, you'd have noticed that I made my point quite succinctly several pages ago. Adding me to the list of people you've attempted to insult (and rather poorly, I might add) is doing absolutely nothing for your credibility.

You haven't made one point that has added to the topic that hasn't been made; in spades already. All you have done is attack anyone whose viewpoint differs from your own; then rather ironically, accuse those you've attacked of behaving aggressively.

I simply picked the most glaringly obvious of a laundry list of faults in your self confessed long winded, boastful, know it all posts.

The horse you are flogging sir; it is dead.

But by all means, continue to post your rather entertaining mind vomit, you clearly seem to desperately crave the attention; much like a puppy shitting on the rug.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Daleo

[wht510]

[Daleo]

F##king love this.

[Daleo]

Look who's beating the dead horse now?

[wht510]

Couldn't find a dude with a chainsaw...

Mmmmm Jessica Alba... What were we talking about again?

Edited May 31, 2011 by wht510

[Daleo]

Couldn't find a dude with a chainsaw...

Mmmmm Jessica Alba... What were we talking about again?

How about this guy? This guy obviously knows your wife

Mmmm...

Edited May 31, 2011 by Daleo

[Birds]

Birds, do you know how long Delta9-THC metabolites last in the body? From a week to several months. Do you know how long the effect of being stoned lasts? A few hours. So I can be picked up 'quite possibly' a month later, when I'm not at all under the influence, but the metabolites are still in my system. Like wht510, you should educate yourself on the fact. I never argued that the magistrate made a poor choice. Go dig up the part where I said anything abhout a magistrate making a bad choice. But I'll assume he got a work license to drive to and from work? Please correct me if this assumption is wrong?

You deliver inadvertent lulz in a way I've never seen before. Is your house painted with flat white walls? Do you have wooden chairs instead of sofas? A framed bible quote where the TV should be? De-caff in the pantry?

I said you fail to comprehend the reasons why the magistrate made their choice. Which is true, because they are the same reasons that this thread did not turn into a lynch mob from the get go...we all agree that this is not the same as someone doing 80km/h through a school zone. You hate on us for that, it's that simple. There's no condoning of any illegal actions here. Not one person in this thread has said it's a good idea to go out and speed, yet you suggest we think it's okay/acceptable. You just make up the crap you want to hear so that you can continue arguing...