Samuel's Blog

Police press release from the future

The AFP are concerned about the results of a “high visibility operation” which they conducted in the future:

ACT Policing conducted a high-visibility roadside breath-testing operation last night (Friday, June 22) as part of its ongoing efforts to reduce drink-driving in the Territory

The next time we will have a Friday June 22 will be in 2012, so perhaps the following people will need to be reminded closer to the date, they they shouldn’t be driving:

Between 6pm and 3am, 1,770 motorists underwent roadside screening tests, with 12 returning positive results. The highest reading was 0.137 recorded on Parkes Way. This is almost three times the legal limit.

One of the positive tests was returned by a taxi driver on Yarra Glenn, the driver was transporting five passengers when he was stopped. He returned a reading of 0.055. Taxi drivers are restricted to a blood alcohol limit of 0.02.

In addition to the number of drink-drivers apprehended, 12 infringement notices were also issued for various offences including the driving of unregistered/uninsured vehicles, driving with a suspended licence and while not wearing a seatbelt. A further four drivers were issued with defect notices due to various faults identified on the vehicles.

It just occurred to me that I should call the AFP’s media office and check what the lotto numbers will be on Saturday the 23rd of June, 2012…I’ll split the winnings with them…

In all seriousness for a moment though, the following line of the press release concerns me:

[..]despite the fact that we had a large number of police cars with flashing lights conducting these high visibility RBT operations, we still apprehended 12 drivers.” A/Supt Neit said.

I’m sorry your acting superintendentness, but the last time I checked, you don’t like it when people refuse to stop for police cars bearing flashing lights…are you suggesting that you have changed your mind and people should be attempting to avoid the flashing lights now?

Please put your brain in to gear before writing press releases.

Samuel

May 23rd, 2009 at 07:05pm

Who is at fault here?

The poll on the KXNT website has been running for a while and I must say that I find the results interesting. The question:

The [police] officer who was killed in a crash last week was driving 109 mph [175 km/h] with no lights, sirens or seatbelt. The other driver who turned in front of him had been drinking, but was not legally DUI. Who is at fault?

The results at the time of writing:

The Officer. He was totally reckless. ( 57% )
Mostly the officer, but the driver contributed. ( 24% )
Both of them. It was a “perfect storm”. ( 15% )
Mostly the driver, but the officer contributed. ( 2% )
The driver. He was still impaired. ( 2% )

I voted for “The Officer. He was totally reckless” the other day, as I don’t think the other driver’s legal amount of alcohol contributed to the situation, however as any amount of alcohol can impair judgement, I can understand the thinking behind “Mostly the officer, but the driver contributed”, but I can’t comprehend the thinking behind the other answers.

Would anyone like to fill me in?

Samuel

1 comment May 23rd, 2009 at 09:58am