I was in the wrong and I won't do it again. I opened the no entry gate at the crossing and walked across when the boom gates were down. There was a train approaching about 400 metres away going about 30km an hour and I made it easily and did not have to pick up my pace, I was in no danger. As I hopped into my car about 100m from the intersection a police car pulled up beside me and they got out and gave me the fine. I can understand the police were angry with me because he told me the week before he attended a scene where a man did the same thing and an express train going fast cleaned him up... The officer said what the train did to the mans body was beyond words. I can totally understand why they were waiting at the intersection to fine people like me walking across when the gates are down.... My issue is with the $340 fine, it's too much! But yeah I did learn a lesson and will never do that again, it can be very dangerous. Lesson learned! (I also feel bad if kids were watching me and hope they won't copy what I did )
Did that previous incident make the news? Half the time I think they make up stories just so you don't argue, it's almost like they were doing you a favour by giving you the fine. Surely if people are being creamed by trains the police need to stop people from making the crossing in the first place, not waiting until you have safely navigated across the tracks and then come over to fine you. Surely the police are there to prevent crime, not make money from it!
Thanks for clearing up Salty. How times have changed. In my youth (80s) i used to walk up the Belair track railway lines in Adelaide and look for trains in the distance. When i saw one coming i would stick my ear to the track to pick up the vibrations from it. Other times mates and i would put small rocks or coins on the track for a laugh. No one ever said anything and nothing bad ever happened except once some motorist stopped and started telling us off and what we were doing (sticking our heads on the track) was dangerous etc. And Jislizard also makes a good point. Cops were likely making it up to make the fine appear more "acceptable".
I'd believe it. A family member is an ex-copper and has similar stories. I still remember a story about an old codger who was crossing a highway, knew he wouldn't make it across is road so just put up his hand to gesture "stop"... the driver couldn't stop and the codger never saw the other side of the road again - or any other road for that matter. Also met someone whose relo was a train driver... hit 13 people before he went off the rails (pun intended). I've seen somebody whose life ended at the hands of a train, I doubt it made the press. The media does not report suicides, nor does it pay much attention to road deaths other than reporting statistics. The issue of fines is a totally separate topic.
True he could have made it up about the guy getting killed a week earlier, but my gut tells me he wasn't. It's a good point though about how he should have yelled at me to stop as I was opening the gate, not wait for me to do something 'very dangerous and stupid' then fine me. ... That's a very good point.
^ "Suicide by level crossing" is more common than reported through the media because - as with all suicides - they deliberately don't promote it on the assumption that it will give people bad ideas.
So lets abolish fines for crossing while lights flashing. Get rid of the boom gates too, they take up far too much valuable time for cars which can cross rail lines a lot quicker than a pedestrian. Everyone is FREE to cross whenever they reckon its safe. Everybody lives happily ever after.
I think most people can judge it well enough, and if people want to commit suicide then they will, with or without gates and fines. Maybe the cops thought you were going to top yourself and they respected your decision, only to be disapointed to find out you only wanted to cross a perfectly safe crossing rather than obey the sign. That's why they fined you.
Perfectly safe for you maybe. How about the the young, the old, the NQR, and the ignorant headphone wearing iphone owners oblivious to everything? Suppose it serves them right if they decide to follow your example.
Are you just trying to stir up a fight? I think you are falling into the normal trap of assuming being free means free to do whatever you want with no consequences.
I think he probably is... Everyone of the above would have to think for themselves in that situation, if they are not able to think for themsleves then their carer would be required to make the decision for them. Or they can just chose to follow the instructions. Maybe there could be a waiver attached to the boom gate and you have to sign it in order to cross. I have the same feeling about speed restrictions 100km/h. The speed limit is for safety right? So an old man with slow reflexes in a 20 year old car driving at night in the rain can drive at 100km/h and that is no less safe than a younger driver on a dry day in a new car. Just an example, feel free to pick at it but the idea that one safety sign fits all is misguided
Sorry. Change law to allow personal possession of firearms for the reason of shooting people, cops, soldiers or any person who in any way has anything to do with the Gubmint, or any other type whom they perceive to be impinging on their personal freedoms. :sarcasm: I feel much better now that Ive fallen in line with all the uber-intelligent. :saracsm:
lucky luke and no doubt others said it as well (can't be stuffed looking), but Willrock's post is basically close enough to act as a summary of how to distinguish between the bad and good laws:
"Freedom" according to some is based on having Laws that are reactive instead of proactive. Just let shit happen and sort the criminality and financial ramifications out in Court later. Hope this sorts that out for you.
All on topic. Just because it didnt directly address one of your statements doesnt make it an invalid post. Dont you get sarcasm?
How do you plan to NOT let "criminality happen"? Forcibly stop anyone from interacting with anyone else? Edit: And to be clear, I don't mean basic rules and guidelines especially when it comes to using someone else's property. They're completely different and common sense and a fundamental part of standard property rights.
Under a User Pays/low or no tax system there would be no Carer unless their parents are well to do or the parents do all the Caring. I'd love to see a Profit-making business model that caters for the needs of people with disability.
