The cops need to use only the "count to ten" machine from now on. We should exercise our right to never have to place foreign objects from strangers in our mouths. It's always been a disgusting practice enforced by the cops, with no regard for innocent motorists' dignity. A non-invasive drug test should be devised as well

Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine

Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

We should exercise our right to never have to place foreign objects from strangers in our mouths.

it's never bothered bobby

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine

spare me the melodrama. It's no different to using a straw or even cutlery in a restaurant. As long as the tubes haven't been used by anyone else before (and since they ALWAYS open the pack in front of you that's not an issue), then who cares?

When my daughter was young she was in a car with a friend and the mum was East Eu and had a very strong accent. She got pulled up for a breath test and my daughter though it was an English test :)

John Smith wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 6:57pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine spare me the melodrama. It's no different to using a straw or even cutlery in a restaurant. As long as the tubes haven't been used by anyone else before (and since they ALWAYS open the pack in front of you that's not an issue), then who cares?

That answer would be better off in the Health and Welfare board

This topic is about peoples' right to innocence and dignity versus the tyranny of the cops and the law

John Smith wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 6:57pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine spare me the melodrama. It's no different to using a straw or even cutlery in a restaurant. As long as the tubes haven't been used by anyone else before (and since they ALWAYS open the pack in front of you that's not an issue), then who cares?

That answer would be better off in the Health and Welfare board

This topic is about peoples' right to innocence and dignity versus the tyranny of the cops and draconian laws

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 7:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:57pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine spare me the melodrama. It's no different to using a straw or even cutlery in a restaurant. As long as the tubes haven't been used by anyone else before (and since they ALWAYS open the pack in front of you that's not an issue), then who cares? That answer would be better off in the Health and Welfare board This topic is about peoples' right to innocence and dignity versus the tyranny of the cops and the law

tyranny and right to innocence? Christ it gets worse. ::)

You can always choose not to drive ...... then you won't lose your innocence or have to subject yourself to any tyranny

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. And with that privilege come certain obligations. If it means I don't have to walk 30kms to work and back every day, I'm happy to blow in a tube once every couple of years, which is about how often I get breath tested.

I reckon I get tested once or twice a year. I'm prepared to bear that intrusion if it helps to prevent drunk drivers from killing kids.

I also want to see low range offenders catch public transport for a year rather than getting off after pleading their sob story.

John Smith wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 6:55pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:52pm: We should exercise our right to never have to place foreign objects from strangers in our mouths. it's never bothered bobby

https://i.gifer.com/176G.gif

yeah

---

Anyways, back to the adults. The main issue I have with random breath testing is that it doesnt really work. For all the resources they put into it we get a small result. Lots of people still routinely drink drive and the ones who are serial offenders just keep doing it, it doesnt deter them them.  The day when they set up a booze bus, check hundreds of people and dont catch anyone is when we can say its a positive result. And there is of course a far cheaper alternative which will stop everyone from drink driving. I kind of think that its not about drink driving at all but all those extra fines they hand out when they notice car defects or outstanding warrants on people.  Its really just random checking but they dont need to show reasonable cause. Its the back door to a police state and erosion of civil liberties and of course we fall for it because of the concocted outrage about drink driving. And Btw, I do not drink and drive.

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine

Having a licence and driving on our roads is a privilege, not a right.

If you don't want to be breathalysed, don't get a licence.

I don't believe police do enough breath tests - I'd like to see them out there all day, every day.

Of course you would.

rhino wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 7:54pm:

Of course you would.

Absolutely.

I have a very strict rule with driving and alcohol.

If I have just one sip of alcohol, I don't go near my car.

It annoys a lot of my friends who say "You've only had one, you'll be okay to drive", but I stick by the rule no matter what.

With Uber these days, there's just no excuse for drinking and driving.

Do breath tests all day long, and lock up the repeat offenders.

Way too many people quick to claim their rights but not so keen on the accompanying responsibilities.   If my being inconvenienced for a couple of minutes once in a blue moon means even one drunk kept off the road then I reckon that is a fair exchange.

Belgarion wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 8:03pm:

Way too many people quick to claim their rights but not so keen on the accompanying responsibilities.   If my being inconvenienced for a couple of minutes once in a blue moon means even one drunk kept off the road then I reckon that is a fair exchange.

Absolutely! 

I have no time for people who complain about random breath tests.

If they don't like it, they can catch the bus.

John Smith wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 7:09pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 7:04pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:57pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine spare me the melodrama. It's no different to using a straw or even cutlery in a restaurant. As long as the tubes haven't been used by anyone else before (and since they ALWAYS open the pack in front of you that's not an issue), then who cares? That answer would be better off in the Health and Welfare board This topic is about peoples' right to innocence and dignity versus the tyranny of the cops and the law tyranny and right to innocence? Christ it gets worse. ::) You can always choose not to drive ...... then you won't lose your innocence or have to subject yourself to any tyranny Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. And with that privilege come certain obligations. If it means I don't have to walk 30kms to work and back every day, I'm happy to blow in a tube once every couple of years, which is about how often I get breath tested.

Well what's wrong with a "count to ten" tester instead of a tube in the mouth?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 8:00pm:

rhino wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 7:54pm: Of course you would. Absolutely. I have a very strict rule with driving and alcohol. If I have just one sip of alcohol, I don't go near my car. It annoys a lot of my friends who say "You've only had one, you'll be okay to drive", but I stick by the rule no matter what. With Uber these days, there's just no excuse for drinking and driving. Do breath tests all day long, and lock up the repeat offenders.

The breath tests dont work to deter the serial offenders, thats the problem. You and I arent going to drink drive no matter we get breath tested or not. Of course you dont care. The serial offenders just keep doing it. we either need extremely harsh penalties which the government seems reluctant to do or go another route.

rhino wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 8:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 8:00pm: rhino wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 7:54pm: Of course you would. Absolutely. I have a very strict rule with driving and alcohol. If I have just one sip of alcohol, I don't go near my car. It annoys a lot of my friends who say "You've only had one, you'll be okay to drive", but I stick by the rule no matter what. With Uber these days, there's just no excuse for drinking and driving. Do breath tests all day long, and lock up the repeat offenders. The breath tests dont work to deter the serial offenders, thats the problem.

I was a serial offender.

It stopped me cold in my tracks.

Between the ages of 17 and 20, I used to drive home drunk every night of the week (at excessive speeds in a 351 V8).

I was caught once, punished, and never did it again.

Best thing that ever happened to me.

I still think the limit should be 0.00
No need to calculate or count drinks
Just dont drink if you are driving

miketrees wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 11:15pm:

I still think the limit should be 0.00 No need to calculate or count drinks Just dont drink if you are driving

That's what I reckon, and for drugs too, with heftier penalties handed out

In the mean time, "count to ten" testers should only be used for alcohol testing, and a less invasive way found for drug testing

In Oct 19 - "During the long weekend police blitz, officers conducted 17,948 breath tests and handed out 21 PCA charges across Western NSW."

Out of these motorists, 21 were charged, but 17, 927 were innocent. The 21 lost their license and presumably are back on the road now and sneaking in a drink or two occasionally. The 17,948 didn't really deserve to have tubes in their mouths - that's the point I'm making

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 8:13pm:

rhino wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 8:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 8:00pm: rhino wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 7:54pm: Of course you would. Absolutely. I have a very strict rule with driving and alcohol. If I have just one sip of alcohol, I don't go near my car. It annoys a lot of my friends who say "You've only had one, you'll be okay to drive", but I stick by the rule no matter what. With Uber these days, there's just no excuse for drinking and driving. Do breath tests all day long, and lock up the repeat offenders. The breath tests dont work to deter the serial offenders, thats the problem. I was a serial offender. It stopped me cold in my tracks. Between the ages of 17 and 20, I used to drive home drunk every night of the week (at excessive speeds in a 351 V8). I was caught once, punished, and never did it again. Best thing that ever happened to me.

  I am talking about people who have multiple convictions.

Drug and Alcohol testing should be done by Medical Professionals. Not Revenue-Raking Police.

Police are 'Spiritually incorrect'.
White is the colour of Politics & Law.
Blue is the colour of Medicine.

Police need to change their uniform to correct colouring.
Police should 'always' conduct themselves in Uniform and not operate by deceit.
If they can't do their job properly, then they shouldn't do it at all. Acting like covert criminals in 'unmarked' vehicles and uniform is unprofessional.
Every other profession has to operate in 'Professional attire'. So to should they.

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 8:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 7:09pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 7:04pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:57pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine spare me the melodrama. It's no different to using a straw or even cutlery in a restaurant. As long as the tubes haven't been used by anyone else before (and since they ALWAYS open the pack in front of you that's not an issue), then who cares? That answer would be better off in the Health and Welfare board This topic is about peoples' right to innocence and dignity versus the tyranny of the cops and the law tyranny and right to innocence? Christ it gets worse. ::) You can always choose not to drive ...... then you won't lose your innocence or have to subject yourself to any tyranny Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. And with that privilege come certain obligations. If it means I don't have to walk 30kms to work and back every day, I'm happy to blow in a tube once every couple of years, which is about how often I get breath tested. Well what's wrong with a "count to ten" tester instead of a tube in the mouth?

Nothing wrong with them at all. I even prefer them. I just don't agree that blowing through a tube is tyrannical or a loss of innocence

rhino wrote on Apr 27^th, 2020 at 12:24am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 8:13pm: rhino wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 8:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 8:00pm: rhino wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 7:54pm: Of course you would. Absolutely. I have a very strict rule with driving and alcohol. If I have just one sip of alcohol, I don't go near my car. It annoys a lot of my friends who say "You've only had one, you'll be okay to drive", but I stick by the rule no matter what. With Uber these days, there's just no excuse for drinking and driving. Do breath tests all day long, and lock up the repeat offenders. The breath tests dont work to deter the serial offenders, thats the problem. I was a serial offender. It stopped me cold in my tracks. Between the ages of 17 and 20, I used to drive home drunk every night of the week (at excessive speeds in a 351 V8). I was caught once, punished, and never did it again. Best thing that ever happened to me.   I am talking about people who have multiple convictions.

the problem there is not the testing, but the idiot judges who keep letting them off

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 7:52pm:

I don't believe police do enough breath tests - I'd like to see them out there all day, every day.

They should certainly do a lot more drug testing

John Smith wrote on Apr 27^th, 2020 at 12:11pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 8:06pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 7:09pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 7:04pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:57pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine spare me the melodrama. It's no different to using a straw or even cutlery in a restaurant. As long as the tubes haven't been used by anyone else before (and since they ALWAYS open the pack in front of you that's not an issue), then who cares? That answer would be better off in the Health and Welfare board This topic is about peoples' right to innocence and dignity versus the tyranny of the cops and the law tyranny and right to innocence? Christ it gets worse. ::) You can always choose not to drive ...... then you won't lose your innocence or have to subject yourself to any tyranny Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. And with that privilege come certain obligations. If it means I don't have to walk 30kms to work and back every day, I'm happy to blow in a tube once every couple of years, which is about how often I get breath tested. Well what's wrong with a "count to ten" tester instead of a tube in the mouth? Nothing wrong with them at all. I even prefer them. I just don't agree that blowing through a tube is tyrannical or a loss of innocence

That's not what I meant. It's the act of stopping a motorist without reasonable suspicion that is tyrannical. The motorist is presumed to be guilty before being proved innocent

A motorist is always guilty until the green numbers come up on the breath tester, but only for the time the cops have you stopped, because as soon as you drive off down the road, you are automatically slotted back into being guilty again. You were innocent for only a few minutes

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 27^th, 2020 at 1:45pm:

That's not what I meant. It's the act of stopping a motorist without reasonable suspicion that is tyrannical. The motorist is presumed to be guilty before being proved innocent A motorist is always guilty until the green numbers come up on the breath tester, but only for the time the cops have you stopped, because as soon as you drive off down the road, you are automatically slotted back into being guilty again. You were innocent for only a few minutes

it's the cost of doing business. Don't want to be stopped, don't drive.

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine

You are such a snowflake, Bias

Living in a society has plenty of advantages but it also has obligations

John Smith wrote on Apr 27^th, 2020 at 1:51pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 1:45pm: That's not what I meant. It's the act of stopping a motorist without reasonable suspicion that is tyrannical. The motorist is presumed to be guilty before being proved innocent A motorist is always guilty until the green numbers come up on the breath tester, but only for the time the cops have you stopped, because as soon as you drive off down the road, you are automatically slotted back into being guilty again. You were innocent for only a few minutes it's the cost of doing business. Don't want to be stopped, don't drive.

So you agree then that motorists' are considered guilty from the time they first acquire a drivers license?

John Smith wrote on Apr 27^th, 2020 at 1:51pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 1:45pm: That's not what I meant. It's the act of stopping a motorist without reasonable suspicion that is tyrannical. The motorist is presumed to be guilty before being proved innocent A motorist is always guilty until the green numbers come up on the breath tester, but only for the time the cops have you stopped, because as soon as you drive off down the road, you are automatically slotted back into being guilty again. You were innocent for only a few minutes it's the cost of doing business. Don't want to be stopped, don't drive.

Exactly!

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Being an Australian is a privilege, not a right.
Back to the USA you go Pecca. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 27^th, 2020 at 4:27pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine You are such a snowflake, Bias Living in a society has plenty of advantages but it also has obligations

The law implies that every motorist is guilty until green numbers show on the breath tester - that includes you

Why can't Police do their job in their proper and appropriate uniform and vehicles?

...why do they need to 'deceive' the Public, especially when they mostly just 'revenue-rake' like the Highway Patrol?

John Smith wrote on Apr 27^th, 2020 at 12:12pm:

rhino wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 12:24am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 8:13pm: rhino wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 8:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 8:00pm: rhino wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 7:54pm: Of course you would. Absolutely. I have a very strict rule with driving and alcohol. If I have just one sip of alcohol, I don't go near my car. It annoys a lot of my friends who say "You've only had one, you'll be okay to drive", but I stick by the rule no matter what. With Uber these days, there's just no excuse for drinking and driving. Do breath tests all day long, and lock up the repeat offenders. The breath tests dont work to deter the serial offenders, thats the problem. I was a serial offender. It stopped me cold in my tracks. Between the ages of 17 and 20, I used to drive home drunk every night of the week (at excessive speeds in a 351 V8). I was caught once, punished, and never did it again. Best thing that ever happened to me.   I am talking about people who have multiple convictions. the problem there is not the testing, but the idiot judges who keep letting them off

Like I said, either increase the penalties or stop the sham, its not working.

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 27^th, 2020 at 4:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 1:51pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 1:45pm: That's not what I meant. It's the act of stopping a motorist without reasonable suspicion that is tyrannical. The motorist is presumed to be guilty before being proved innocent A motorist is always guilty until the green numbers come up on the breath tester, but only for the time the cops have you stopped, because as soon as you drive off down the road, you are automatically slotted back into being guilty again. You were innocent for only a few minutes it's the cost of doing business. Don't want to be stopped, don't drive. So you agree then that motorists' are considered guilty from the time they first acquire a drivers license?

Not at all. Part of the deal with getting a license is an agreement that you will subject yourself to random testing to ensure you are still following the road rules. I'd rather they stopped 10 innocent people for 2 minutes and then wave them on their way if it led to getting 1 stoner or drunk off the road.

The alternative is to wait until that stoner or drunk crashed and possibly killed 5 people before you test him. Would you prefer they subject your family to that or 2 minutes to blow in a tube and move on?



Tell me Bias, have you ever been caught driving under the influence?

John Smith wrote on Apr 28^th, 2020 at 4:39pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 4:58pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 1:51pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 1:45pm: That's not what I meant. It's the act of stopping a motorist without reasonable suspicion that is tyrannical. The motorist is presumed to be guilty before being proved innocent A motorist is always guilty until the green numbers come up on the breath tester, but only for the time the cops have you stopped, because as soon as you drive off down the road, you are automatically slotted back into being guilty again. You were innocent for only a few minutes it's the cost of doing business. Don't want to be stopped, don't drive. So you agree then that motorists' are considered guilty from the time they first acquire a drivers license? Not at all. Part of the deal with getting a license is an agreement that you will subject yourself to random testing to ensure you are still following the road rules. I'd rather they stopped 10 innocent people for 2 minutes and then wave them on their way if it led to getting 1 stoner or drunk off the road. The alternative is to wait until that stoner or drunk crashed and possibly killed 5 people before you test him. Would you prefer they subject your family to that or 2 minutes to blow in a tube and move on? Tell me Bias, have you ever been caught driving under the influence?

Only "count to ten" machines should be used. Ordering motorists to shove things on their mouths is a disgusting and denigrating practice

Using straws and cutlery in restaurants, which you raised before, is completely voluntary. But mandatory breath and drug testing is draconian and dictatorial, so if they're going to do it that way, don't ask people to put things in their mouths

No, I've never been caught for driving under the influence because I don't drink nor take drugs. Obviously therefore, the numbers are always green when I get tested

I've never made a claim against my Greenslip either, it seems I'll go my entire motoring life and never do so, which means I'll have paid $23,000 charity to accident prone drivers I don't know from a bar of soap

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 27^th, 2020 at 8:40pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 4:27pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine You are such a snowflake, Bias Living in a society has plenty of advantages but it also has obligations The law implies that every motorist is guilty until green numbers show on the breath tester - that includes you

That's right. If I refuse to take a breathalyser, then that is an offence too.

But you are going to have to make up your mind Bias
Is your issue with putting a straw in your mouth?
Is your issue that motorists are considered guilty until proven innocent?
Because you seem to be flip flopping

Jasin wrote on Apr 27^th, 2020 at 8:50pm:

Why can't Police do their job in their proper and appropriate uniform and vehicles? ...why do they need to 'deceive' the Public, especially when they mostly just 'revenue-rake' like the Highway Patrol?

Why do you object to the police having revenue?

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29^th, 2020 at 4:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 8:40pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 4:27pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine You are such a snowflake, Bias Living in a society has plenty of advantages but it also has obligations The law implies that every motorist is guilty until green numbers show on the breath tester - that includes you That's right. If I refuse to take a breathalyser, then that is an offence too. But you are going to have to make up your mind Bias Is your issue with putting a straw in your mouth? Is your issue that motorists are considered guilty until proven innocent? Because you seem to be flip flopping

The opening post explained it, you need to read it again ....

The cops need to use only the "count to ten" machine from now on. We should exercise our right to never have to place foreign objects from strangers in our mouths. It's always been a disgusting practice enforced by the cops, with no regard for innocent motorists' dignity. A non-invasive drug test should be devised as well

Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have to go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine

Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine




"That's right. If I refuse to take a breathalyser, then that is an offence too."

Yes it's a double whammy, you are considered to be guilty of drink driving, and guilty by refusing to submit to a breath test, even if no alcohol was consumed. If they can't get you one way, they'll get you another way

If you don't drink, and refused to submit to a breath test, and went to court, the only thing the magistrate could say to convict you is: "You were suspected of drink driving, therefore you should have submitted to the breath test"

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2020 at 10:29pm:

The opening post explained it, you need to read it again .... The cops need to use only the "count to ten" machine from now on. We should exercise our right to never have to place foreign objects from strangers in our mouths. It's always been a disgusting practice enforced by the cops, with no regard for innocent motorists' dignity. A non-invasive drug test should be devised as well Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have to go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine

So if your issue is drivers being presumed guilty, then a "count to ten" machine isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to that.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 30^th, 2020 at 4:38pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 29th, 2020 at 10:29pm: The opening post explained it, you need to read it again .... The cops need to use only the "count to ten" machine from now on. We should exercise our right to never have to place foreign objects from strangers in our mouths. It's always been a disgusting practice enforced by the cops, with no regard for innocent motorists' dignity. A non-invasive drug test should be devised as well Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have to go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine So if your issue is drivers being presumed guilty, then a "count to ten" machine isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to that.

You don't have to put the "count to ten" tester in your mouth, it's more civilized and less denigrating for an innocent motorist, who is already presumed to be guilty by the politicians and the cops and that's why the motorist was pulled over. You are guilty whether you drink or don't drink. Submitting to a breath test is an act of trying to prove you are not guilty, it's not an act of trying to prove your innocence, because the politicians and cops already consider you to be guilty as soon as you first started driving your car

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2020 at 9:37pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 30th, 2020 at 4:38pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 29th, 2020 at 10:29pm: The opening post explained it, you need to read it again .... The cops need to use only the "count to ten" machine from now on. We should exercise our right to never have to place foreign objects from strangers in our mouths. It's always been a disgusting practice enforced by the cops, with no regard for innocent motorists' dignity. A non-invasive drug test should be devised as well Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have to go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine So if your issue is drivers being presumed guilty, then a "count to ten" machine isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to that. You don't have to put the "count to ten" tester in your mouth, it's more civilized and less denigrating for an innocent motorist, who is already presumed to be guilty by the politicians and the cops and that's why the motorist was pulled over. You are guilty whether you drink or don't drink. Submitting to a breath test is an act of trying to prove you are not guilty, it's not an act of trying to prove your innocence, because the politicians and cops already consider you to be guilty as soon as you first started driving your car

I give up

The_Barnacle wrote on May 1^st, 2020 at 4:17pm:

I give up

You don't understand the difference between presumption of guilt and presumption of innocence?


The law as it is ignores "reasonable suspicion" of the individual motorist and tests everyone by way of blanket mass testing (random breath testing). This breaches the universal human right of "innocent until proven guilty"

There must be reasonable suspicion of the individual committing an offense first, but to suspect the whole motoring population, some 14 million people, of committing an offense, simply side steps that universal human right. Either we have that right of "innocent until proven guilty", or we don't. It seems we don't

What if all husbands and wives were called into their nearest police stations once every few months to be quizzed about possible domestic violence in the homes. The way the Libs and Labs think, this could happen in the future sometime. Blanket mass quizzing, suspecting they are all guilty of DV

Bias_2012 wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:36am:

You don't understand the difference between presumption of guilt and presumption of innocence?

do you ever get your house checked for termites?

John Smith wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:02pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:36am: You don't understand the difference between presumption of guilt and presumption of innocence? do you ever get your house checked for termites?

Termites can't digest steel

Bias_2012 wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:08pm:

John Smith wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:02pm: Bias_2012 wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:36am: You don't understand the difference between presumption of guilt and presumption of innocence? do you ever get your house checked for termites? Termites can't digest steel

no poo sherlock.

So is that a yes or a no?

Bias_2012 wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:36am:

The_Barnacle wrote on May 1st, 2020 at 4:17pm: I give up You don't understand the difference between presumption of guilt and presumption of innocence?

So how would a "count to 10" tester make any difference to the presumption of guilt?

It's also interesting that you don't extend the courtesy of the presumption of innocence to Muslims

The_Barnacle wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:12pm:

So how would a "count to 10" tester make any difference to the presumption of guilt?

It doesn't, but a count to ten tester is less disgusting than shoving a tube in your mouth



The_Barnacle wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:12pm:

It's also interesting that you don't extend the courtesy of the presumption of innocence to Muslims

Do muslims drive vehicles on public roads? I think they do

Bias_2012 wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 1:36am:

The_Barnacle wrote on May 1st, 2020 at 4:17pm: I give up You don't understand the difference between presumption of guilt and presumption of innocence? The law as it is ignores "reasonable suspicion" of the individual motorist and tests everyone by way of blanket mass testing (random breath testing). This breaches the universal human right of "innocent until proven guilty" There must be reasonable suspicion of the individual committing an offense first, but to suspect the whole motoring population, some 14 million people, of committing an offense, simply side steps that universal human right. Either we have that right of "innocent until proven guilty", or we don't. It seems we don't What if all husbands and wives were called into their nearest police stations once every few months to be quizzed about possible domestic violence in the homes. The way the Libs and Labs think, this could happen in the future sometime. Blanket mass quizzing, suspecting they are all guilty of DV

You are making a classic reductio ad absurdum here.  Being fond of quoting the law you will no doubt be aware of the 'reasonable person test'.  When this is applied to random breath testing we see that any reasonable person will agree that any theoretical infringement of individual civil liberties by a random breath test is outweighed by the common good of society as a whole.  This has been tested in court. It is now a matter of precedent and is therefore enshrined in Common Law.   

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 29^th, 2020 at 8:03pm:

Jasin wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 8:50pm: Why can't Police do their job in their proper and appropriate uniform and vehicles? ...why do they need to 'deceive' the Public, especially when they mostly just 'revenue-rake' like the Highway Patrol? Why do you object to the police having revenue?

Then they don't need our Tax then to finance them, no?

Jasin wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 5:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 29th, 2020 at 8:03pm: Jasin wrote on Apr 27th, 2020 at 8:50pm: Why can't Police do their job in their proper and appropriate uniform and vehicles? ...why do they need to 'deceive' the Public, especially when they mostly just 'revenue-rake' like the Highway Patrol? Why do you object to the police having revenue? Then they don't need our Tax then to finance them, no?

I want the police to have as much revenue as possible.

Why don't you?

Are you a criminal?

Belgarion wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 3:23pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on May 2nd, 2020 at 1:36am: The_Barnacle wrote on May 1st, 2020 at 4:17pm: I give up You don't understand the difference between presumption of guilt and presumption of innocence? The law as it is ignores "reasonable suspicion" of the individual motorist and tests everyone by way of blanket mass testing (random breath testing). This breaches the universal human right of "innocent until proven guilty" There must be reasonable suspicion of the individual committing an offense first, but to suspect the whole motoring population, some 14 million people, of committing an offense, simply side steps that universal human right. Either we have that right of "innocent until proven guilty", or we don't. It seems we don't What if all husbands and wives were called into their nearest police stations once every few months to be quizzed about possible domestic violence in the homes. The way the Libs and Labs think, this could happen in the future sometime. Blanket mass quizzing, suspecting they are all guilty of DV You are making a classic reductio ad absurdum here.  Being fond of quoting the law you will no doubt be aware of the 'reasonable person test'.  When this is applied to random breath testing we see that any reasonable person will agree that any theoretical infringement of individual civil liberties by a random breath test is outweighed by the common good of society as a whole.  This has been tested in court. It is now a matter of precedent and is therefore enshrined in Common Law.

I'm arguing for the use of "count to ten" testers only.

The mandatory requirement of sticking a foreign object from a cop in your mouth is disgusting and denigrating

"Reasonable Person" ... oh I see, the law implies we must give consent whether we want to or not. Sounds like dictatorship to me

The definition of a "reasonable person" on the road, is someone who plans and minimizes risk, doesn't drink drive and stays within speed limits

State governments' definition of a "reasonable person" is quite different, it's someone who follows a cops directions and orders without fuss. Only then do they consider a motorist to be "reasonable"

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

The cops need to use only the "count to ten" machine from now on. We should exercise our right to never have to place foreign objects from strangers in our mouths. It's always been a disgusting practice enforced by the cops, with no regard for innocent motorists' dignity. A non-invasive drug test should be devised as well Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine

We need to remember that driving our cars on the road is a privilege not a right. If officers want to stop us for breath testing, that is what they are allowed to do.

And as for the hygiene of using breathalyzers, you do see officers unwrapping the tubing to place in the breathalyser machines right in front of you. They are clean tubes. The only thing you have to worry about is your own hypochondria.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:32am:

And as for the hygiene of using breathalyzers, you do see officers unwrapping the tubing to place in the breathalyser machines right in front of you. They are clean tubes

That means nothing, it only means the tubes have wrappers. A judge would throw you out of court if you tried to tell him the tubes are clean. A judge needs proof from a testing laboratory - so should you

Again, ask for a "count to ten" tester

Bias_2012 wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 4:01pm:

That means nothing, it only means the tubes have wrappers. A judge would throw you out of court if you tried to tell him the tubes are clean. A judge needs proof from a testing laboratory - so should you Again, ask for a "count to ten" tester

so when you buy a new toothbrush or plastic fork do you proof from a testing laboratory before you use it?

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 4:02pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 4:01pm: That means nothing, it only means the tubes have wrappers. A judge would throw you out of court if you tried to tell him the tubes are clean. A judge needs proof from a testing laboratory - so should you Again, ask for a "count to ten" tester so when you buy a new toothbrush or plastic fork do you proof from a testing laboratory before you use it?

They are voluntary, there's no one says you have to use them. Personally I clean anything and everything new before using, I've done that all my life, so should everyone else. New cookware, cutlery, cups, sheets and pillow slips, jeans, second hand furniture ... and especially ebay goods

If something is mandatory, the onus is not on you to accept it, it's being "forced" upon you by Parliament with punishment if you don't comply

Ask for a count to ten tester 

Bias_2012 wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 4:39pm:

They are voluntary,

there's no difference to the actual cleanliness. Anything you put in your mouth must meet Australian standards. Those standards don't care about whether you're putting it in voluntarily or not.

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 4:41pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 4:39pm: They are voluntary, there's no difference to the actual cleanliness. Anything you put in your mouth must meet Australian standards. Those standards don't care about whether you're putting it in voluntarily or not.

"Australian Standards"?

High-rise buildings with structural cracks, tenants evicted till safe to return

Killer air bags in new vehicles, thousands need to be replaced

Several deaths from roof insulation installment

The gross abuse of elderly in age care facilities

Yes, we know all about Australian Standards!

I once bought a replacement tie-rod end for my car. It came apart when I pumped some greased in it. Luckily I hadn't fitted it to the car yet. There was only a piece of nylon holding the two parts together. I've never trusted Australian Standards since that time, it woke me up to the fraud that it's now become

Bias_2012 wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 5:39pm:

I once bought a replacement tie-rod end for my car. It came apart when I pumped some greased in it

if that's the case, it obviously didn't meet Australian standards

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 6:43pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 5:39pm: I once bought a replacement tie-rod end for my car. It came apart when I pumped some greased in it if that's the case, it obviously didn't meet Australian standards

Like so many other things possibly

If an important car part like a tie-rod end doesn't meet A/Standards, what else doesn't meet them?

Bias_2012 wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 4:01pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am: And as for the hygiene of using breathalyzers, you do see officers unwrapping the tubing to place in the breathalyser machines right in front of you. They are clean tubes That means nothing, it only means the tubes have wrappers. A judge would throw you out of court if you tried to tell him the tubes are clean. A judge needs proof from a testing laboratory - so should you Again, ask for a "count to ten" tester

Are you seriously suggesting that the officers would give you a tainted tube to blow into? Let me guess: You would call an ambulance for when a child drank out of a hose?

UnSubRocky wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 1:38pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 4:01pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am: And as for the hygiene of using breathalyzers, you do see officers unwrapping the tubing to place in the breathalyser machines right in front of you. They are clean tubes That means nothing, it only means the tubes have wrappers. A judge would throw you out of court if you tried to tell him the tubes are clean. A judge needs proof from a testing laboratory - so should you Again, ask for a "count to ten" tester Are you seriously suggesting that the officers would give you a tainted tube to blow into? Let me guess: You would call an ambulance for when a child drank out of a hose?

In a legal sense, a wrapper on the tube means nothing. A motorist has a right to ask the cop for a certificate of sanitization. With or without that, refuse to put the tube in your mouth and ask for a count to ten tester

The mandatory tube in the mouth routine is disgusting and dehumanizing. It should be strictly voluntary if anyone wants to do it. Beats me why anyone would want to denigrate themselves though

Bias_2012 wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 3:49pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 1:38pm: Bias_2012 wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 4:01pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am: And as for the hygiene of using breathalyzers, you do see officers unwrapping the tubing to place in the breathalyser machines right in front of you. They are clean tubes That means nothing, it only means the tubes have wrappers. A judge would throw you out of court if you tried to tell him the tubes are clean. A judge needs proof from a testing laboratory - so should you Again, ask for a "count to ten" tester Are you seriously suggesting that the officers would give you a tainted tube to blow into? Let me guess: You would call an ambulance for when a child drank out of a hose? In a legal sense, a wrapper on the tube means nothing. A motorist has a right to ask the cop for a certificate of sanitization.

Have you got a link to that particular piece of legislation?

Bias_2012 wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 3:49pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 1:38pm: Bias_2012 wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 4:01pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am: And as for the hygiene of using breathalyzers, you do see officers unwrapping the tubing to place in the breathalyser machines right in front of you. They are clean tubes That means nothing, it only means the tubes have wrappers. A judge would throw you out of court if you tried to tell him the tubes are clean. A judge needs proof from a testing laboratory - so should you Again, ask for a "count to ten" tester Are you seriously suggesting that the officers would give you a tainted tube to blow into? Let me guess: You would call an ambulance for when a child drank out of a hose? In a legal sense, a wrapper on the tube means nothing. A motorist has a right to ask the cop for a certificate of sanitization. With or without that, refuse to put the tube in your mouth and ask for a count to ten tester The mandatory tube in the mouth routine is disgusting and dehumanizing. It should be strictly voluntary if anyone wants to do it. Beats me why anyone would want to denigrate themselves though

You are legally not obliged to be driving, either. If you want to use your car on the road, you should be able to prove that you are sober enough to drive. And I would be certain that police officers do not taint the tubing that you would use to blow into the breathalyser. I mean, you could theoretically pick up something from the "count to ten" tester, as well.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 3:56pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 3:49pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 1:38pm: Bias_2012 wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 4:01pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am: And as for the hygiene of using breathalyzers, you do see officers unwrapping the tubing to place in the breathalyser machines right in front of you. They are clean tubes That means nothing, it only means the tubes have wrappers. A judge would throw you out of court if you tried to tell him the tubes are clean. A judge needs proof from a testing laboratory - so should you Again, ask for a "count to ten" tester Are you seriously suggesting that the officers would give you a tainted tube to blow into? Let me guess: You would call an ambulance for when a child drank out of a hose? In a legal sense, a wrapper on the tube means nothing. A motorist has a right to ask the cop for a certificate of sanitization. Have you got a link to that particular piece of legislation?

Bias?   :-/

UnSubRocky wrote on May 8^th, 2020 at 2:28pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 3:49pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 1:38pm: Bias_2012 wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 4:01pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am: And as for the hygiene of using breathalyzers, you do see officers unwrapping the tubing to place in the breathalyser machines right in front of you. They are clean tubes That means nothing, it only means the tubes have wrappers. A judge would throw you out of court if you tried to tell him the tubes are clean. A judge needs proof from a testing laboratory - so should you Again, ask for a "count to ten" tester Are you seriously suggesting that the officers would give you a tainted tube to blow into? Let me guess: You would call an ambulance for when a child drank out of a hose? In a legal sense, a wrapper on the tube means nothing. A motorist has a right to ask the cop for a certificate of sanitization. With or without that, refuse to put the tube in your mouth and ask for a count to ten tester The mandatory tube in the mouth routine is disgusting and dehumanizing. It should be strictly voluntary if anyone wants to do it. Beats me why anyone would want to denigrate themselves though You are legally not obliged to be driving, either. If you want to use your car on the road, you should be able to prove that you are sober enough to drive. And I would be certain that police officers do not taint the tubing that you would use to blow into the breathalyser. I mean, you could theoretically pick up something from the "count to ten" tester, as well.

It's random testing, the majority are sober, a minority are affected by alcohol and/or drugs. That minority should be dealt with much harsher than at present and revenue raising should be taken out of the equation, then we might get somewhere with the drink-driving issue

A count to ten tester doesn't breath on you, you breath on the tester, you're not kissing it or handling it

Bias_2012 wrote on May 8^th, 2020 at 11:40pm:

It's random testing, the majority are sober, a minority are affected by alcohol and/or drugs. That minority should be dealt with much harsher than at present and revenue raising should be taken out of the equation, then we might get somewhere with the drink-driving issue A count to ten tester doesn't breath on you, you breath on the tester, you're not kissing it or handling it

Oh, so you are breathing on a tester. But, you are also breathing on a breathalyser, too. In both cases, you have to be close to both to give a sample of your breath. You are as at risk of catching something from a breathalyser as you are with a tester. All those "coodies" could jump off the "count to ten" tester as there could with breathalysers. The mouthpiece for breathalysers are sterile.

If you cannot handle coodies from breathalysers, you should perhaps not touch your car door, or your seat belts or your steering wheel. All those germs out there invading those surfaces.

Well I'll be! Nearly all breath testing has stopped

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-the-road/coronavirus-police-suspend-rbt-across-australia-due-to-covid19/news-story/dd7b856e6331f23fb8a113dff973da56

Stone the crows, the cops are scared of a little ol' virus

The cops have admitted that breath testing hundreds of motorists in a day can risk spreading the virus. So, how many other viruses or diseases are spread by breath testing that we don't read about in the papers or hear about on TV?

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

The cops need to use only the "count to ten" machine from now on. We should exercise our right to never have to place foreign objects from strangers in our mouths. It's always been a disgusting practice enforced by the cops, with no regard for innocent motorists' dignity. A non-invasive drug test should be devised as well Innocent motorists not only go through the indignity of being thought of as guilty, but then have go through the disgusting "tube" in their mouth routine Let's exercise our right of not having to be personally interfered with, and refuse the cops' request to "Blow in this", instead, ask for a "count to ten" testing machine

Shouldn't the Medical Industry be doing the 'Drug Tests' - not the Political/Legal Industry?

Oh that's right. Western Medicine is a 'Woman's Industry'... hence why Corona will win.

Oceania: Where Medicine is a Man's job and Politics is a Woman's  :D ;D

With this Coronavirus, it's illegal for the cops to stop you in your car for a breath test on the pretense of wanting to know why you're out driving around

The cops can't use breath testing as a reason to then start interrogating you about compliance with the virus directives    

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2020 at 10:30am:

With this Coronavirus, it's illegal for the cops to stop you in your car for a breath test on the pretense of wanting to know why you're out driving around The cops can't use breath testing as a reason to then start interrogate you about compliance with the virus directives

link? Or did you just make that up as well?
You are starting to sound like karen  ;D

The police can stop you for any reason at all. They can stop you to ask you if you are enjoying the weather.

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 30^th, 2020 at 11:54am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 30th, 2020 at 10:30am: With this Coronavirus, it's illegal for the cops to stop you in your car for a breath test on the pretense of wanting to know why you're out driving around The cops can't use breath testing as a reason to then start interrogate you about compliance with the virus directives     link? Or did you just make that up as well? You are starting to sound like karen  ;D The police can stop you for any reason at all. They can stop you to ask you if you are enjoying the weather.

If I can find a link, why can't you?


"As a result of the coronavirus lockdown, a significant concern has been that police are illegally stopping vehicles to interrogate the occupants about their movements under the disguise of a Random Breath Test (RBT).

Although the police suggest that these stops are for the purpose of conducting a random breath test, the clear intention in some cases has been to question the occupants of the vehicle about why they have left their homes.

This has raised the question, is it illegal for the police to use random breath test powers in this way?

The short answer is Yes, absolutely. It is an improper and illegal use of police random breath test powers."


https://www.acfl.com.au/nsw-police-using-illegal-random-breath-tests-lockdown-interrogation/

Quote:

A large portion of these fines were issued to drivers who were stopped by police for a “random breath test”, where during the conduct of the breath test, the person was questioned by the police. This does not mean that each of these occasions amounted to an illegal stop and interrogation, If a police officer genuinely stops a vehicle for the purpose of conducting a random breath test and during the process, the occupants volunteer information about their movements, that would not amount to an illegal stop or interrogation. There is nothing in the law that says it is illegal for a police officer to ask questions that are additional to a separate genuine purpose. Although equally, a person is not legally required to answer these questions.

Good luck with trying to prove it's an "illegal random breath test"
I also suspect it is different in each state

Quote:

There was once a time when, in order to be stopped by police, there needed to be a reason - or, to use legal parlance, you’d need to have given them probable cause (be it speeding, driving erratically or doing something illegal) - for a police officer to stop you. So, if you were to scream past a police car with a radar gun, cross double white lines or were spotted not wearing a seatbelt, using a phone or looking generally suspicious, you could be stopped. But since the introduction of the random breath test, a police officer can pull you over anytime they’d like to administer the breath alcohol exam, and that means you no longer need to have done anything wrong before being stopped. https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/what-are-my-rights-when-pulled-over-by-police-50843

So in Victoria you can be pulled over for any reason and even in NSW you still have to stop even if you don't believe you have done anything wrong


Quote:

If you don’t pull over when asked, however, things take a far more serious turn. In NSW, for example, a new law known as Skye’s Law (named for a toddler killed by a car evading a police stop) includes stiff penalties, including up to three years in prison for the first offence https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/what-are-my-rights-when-pulled-over-by-police-50843

So in reality you can be pulled over for no reason. It is then up to you to go to court and try and prove you were "illegally stopped"
Good luck with that Karen

We are in a time of a Coronavirus, and we need to know our rights when pulled over. The police can't use breath testing as a guise to quiz you about why you're out of your house etc


What are my rights if I'm stopped?

First things first, you don’t need to answer any questions, nor provide any personal information, other than your name and address. You are also required by law to hand over your driver’s licence so police can check you’re telling them the truth.


You can take notes and/or video, to record everything if the cops ask questions unrelated to breath testing and use that info in court, but once the cops see you doing that, they will probably let you go with out any further hindrance if your breath test is within the limit



 

Quote:

While you don’t have to volunteer information, it’s always a judgement call as to whether you want to aggravate the situation by not answering menial and non-incriminating questions, especially if you’ve done nothing wrong. The same goes for those wondering if they can video police in Australia during a traffic stop. While not illegal to film your interaction with police, it’s also likely to inflame the situation, so a judgement call will be required.

If you've done nothing wrong why would you risk inflaming the situation?