MEC in Speeding cavalcade pile-up

kilo39 said:
Yeah but can we have it without resorting to apartheid era legislation or other "wished for attacks" on press freedom?

If the government is above the law shouldn't everybody else be?
Click to expand...

Section 205 of the criminal procedures act is hardly ever used in this country, last time I can recall it being used was against the Argus ( I think ) photographer and the PAGAD incident
 
Reminds me of that 'Madame and Eve,'... The Tone... don't like the tone!?

:D
 
Driving a govt moro... er ... official to a meeting at high speeds endangering all and sundry does not imply being "engaged in civil protection" as there is no external threat.
 
xtermin8or said:
well, he could be guilty of defamation, not quite sure how he becomes a racist, since he does not know the race of the man, but on the other side the goof that took the pictures clearly has no respect for the laws of the country, and is therefore a criminal and should be treated as such
Click to expand...

xt, Cele is blatantly pulling a race card, as is the norm when senior officials get caught out. The mere fact that he resorts to a racial argument, where there is none should be clear enough that he is in fact the one that should take stock of himself.

As for the 'criminal' exceeding the speedlimit to keep up with the convoy, he broke the law, fair deal, nobody can dispute that.
The witch hunt for the person by Cele is another matter entirely dont you think!
How is this persons actions any different from say someone in their private capacity chasing, chasing a fleeing suspect from the scene of the crime by car to gain evidenc of number plate or address even?
None, need to look at it in context I think.

Didnt know it was legal for Cele and his henchmen to point automatic weapons at innocent members of the public either.

Nah, Cele is wrong and is abusing his position to save face.

I was almost taken out by a convoy in Essenwood rd in DBN once, they have no regard for public safety.
 
xtermin8or said:
(a) he or she shall drive the vehicle concerned with due regard to the safety of other traffic;
Click to expand...

Decoded version of Koos Custodiet's post above:
http://www.24.com/news/?p=tsa&i=535805

"They drove through the crossing. There were vehicles coming from the freeway. The VIP-unit car, the BMW, drove into the crossing to stop the traffic."

"The woman's car was already in the crossing.

In the path of oncoming traffic

"She had no way out and nowhere to go. She hit the car full-on from the front."

He said her car was slung right over the island, into the path of oncoming traffic: "She could have been killed."
Click to expand...
 
xtermin8or said:
well, he could be guilty of defamation, not quite sure how he becomes a racist, since he does not know the race of the man, but on the other side the goof that took the pictures clearly has no respect for the laws of the country, and is therefore a criminal and should be treated as such
Click to expand...

Eh? He (Cele) does not know the race of the man you say? How can he (Cele) begin to assume the man is a racist then when there is, according to statistics, 80% chance of him being at least black like Cele... and as you say, the man himself has no idea who's in the tinted cavalcade, it could have been Tony Leon.... oh wait, maybe Cele assumes that whistleblowers are white and cavalcade passengers are black?

eish.
 
Last edited:
xtermin8or said:
The convoy was not breaking the law, as the drivers in the convoy were traffic officers and as Act 93 of 1996 : National Road Traffic Act states : Chapter IX section 60

a traffic officer who drives a vehicle in the carrying out of his or her duties or any person driving a vehicle while engaged in civil protection as contemplated in an ordinance made in terms of section 3 of the Civil Protection Act, 1977 (Act No. 67 of 1977), may exceed the applicable general speed limit: Provided that-

(a) he or she shall drive the vehicle concerned with due regard to the
safety of other traffic; and

(b) in the case of any such fire-fighting vehicle, rescue vehicle, ambulance of vehicle driven by a person while he or she is so engaged in civil
protection, such vehicle shall be fitted with a device capable of
emitting a prescribed sound and with an identification lamp, as
prescribed, and such device shall be so sounded and such lamp shall be
in operation while the vehicle is driven in excess of the applicable
general speed limit.
Click to expand...

Apologies for digging up an old thread but I am still seeking clarification on this one.

Driving to the airport today on the N2, just before the Athlone Cooling towers one of these cavalcades had stopped, on a freeway, blocking two lanes. I don't know the reason for their stopping( a mortar attack on one of the cars perhaps?? :rolleyes:)

Anyway, I eventually managed to get passed them. Soon though, they had caught up, speeding along in the fast lane, lights flashing, most motorists ducking for cover.

Fortunately I was in the slow lane at this point so they just flew on by. If I had been in the fast lane I would have been extremely loathed to move out of the way at all.

But, the way I understand the above quoted laws in this thread, if the drivers of the cars are police officers, which they are required to be then they are allowed to use their blue lights, even if it is not an emergency?

Furthermore, if a car comes up behind you and wants to overtake you are meant to change lanes so it can? Even if you are already doing 120?? According to this piece of legislation:
National Road Traffic Act, 1996
National Road Traffic Regulations, 1999
Chapter X : Rules of the road and matters relating thereto
Part I : Rules of the road
323. Special provisions relating to freeways
Quote:
5) Where the driver of a motor vehicle which is being driven in the right-hand traffic lane or in the traffic lane furthest to the right on a freeway (hereinafter referred to as the first vehicle) becomes aware that the driver of another motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the second vehicle) intends to overtake the first vehicle, the driver of the first vehicle shall steer that vehicle to a lane to the left of the one in which he or she is driving, without endangering himself or herself or other traffic or property on the freeway, and shall not accelerate the speed of his or her vehicle until the second vehicle has passed.

6) For the purposes of subregulation (5) the driver of the second vehicle may make the driver of the first vehicle aware that he or she intends to overtake the first vehicle by giving the driver thereof a visible signal by means of flashing the headlights of his or her vehicle.
Click to expand...
 
My interpretation of the law requires the drivers to be police officers (as you've said) and it MUST be an emergency. But yeah, if a car comes up behind you you are supposed to move out the way if he will overtake you.
 
ToxicBunny said:
My interpretation of the law requires the drivers to be police officers (as you've said) and it MUST be an emergency. But yeah, if a car comes up behind you you are supposed to move out the way if he will overtake you.
Click to expand...

How come you have to move out of the way even if you are already doing 120? Like even if it is any old vehicle, not even an emergency one?
 
And if both lanes are blocked with peak traffic and one of these cavalcades comes through, are we meant to scurry into the hard shoulder in an attempt to let them through, as we would rightly do were it an ambulance or fire engine, or can we stand our ground??
 
It is against the law to hold up traffic in the right hand lane even if you are already travelling at the desiganted speed limit.
People who knowingly sit in there and dont move because they are travelling at the speed limit are anal.
The car behind you might have a casualty in it or some other emergency, keep left, pass right, it's really not hard to understand.

If you live in PE you will soon realise that most drivers in this town will be shot dead in JHB for the way they drive.
 
Sneeky said:
It is against the law to hold up traffic in the right hand lane even if you are already travelling at the desiganted speed limit.
People who knowingly sit in there and dont move because they are travelling at the speed limit are anal.
The car behind you might have a casualty in it or some other emergency, keep left, pass right, it's really not hard to understand.

If you live in PE you will soon realise that most drivers in this town will be shot dead in JHB for the way they drive.
Click to expand...

+1 .. i agree ... just flow the damn traffic ... like this one idiot in a 120km/h zone doing 80km/h in the fast lane ... i come up to him move a little to his right so that he might see me in the side mirror, half a car between me and him ... did not flash him and then he starts swearing me ... go next to him open the window, see it a young indian dude and i kinda throw my hands up asking him what the hell ... oh and a BMW driver ... :D (even though i drive one too but yeah they got attitude!!)
 
Last edited:
adamr said:
+1 .. i agree ... just flow the damn traffic ... like this one idiot in a 120km/h zone doing 80km/h in the fast lane ... i come up to him move a little to his right so that he might see me in the side mirror, half a car between me and him ... did not flash him and then he starts swearing me ... go next to him open the window, see it a young indian dude and i kinda throw my hands up asking him what the hell ... oh and a BMW driver ... :D (even though i drive one too but yeah they got attitude!!)
Click to expand...

There is a difference between going 80 in a 120 zone and already going 120 in a 120 zone.
 
hj2k_x said:
So you should yield to someone who is breaking the law?
Click to expand...

Yes

As you quoted in http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1410706&postcount=107,

You need to move over if its safe to do so.

Its not up to you to decide if the person if breaking the law or not. Also, you will be breaking the law yourself if you choose to "punish" them.

Rather be courteous and move over (even if the other person is being a prick). Let the cameras take care of them breaking the law.
 
xtermin8or said:
Where did the Premier make any racist statements ? I fail to see the point of this post.

The traffic Officers driving in the convoy seemed to have been acting within the confines of the law, the civilian speeding behind the convoy was breaking the law and therefore should be charged - or the next time I get a speeding ticket - I can claim I was chasing an ambulance and because this case has set a precedent I should be exonerated
Click to expand...

Attending administrative duties is not an emergency. These guys were going 160km/h on a crowded freeway, a burst tire or human error would have meant a huge pile up with many people loosing their lives or being seriously injured. These weren't cops driving the premier to an emergency meeting because aliens had landed or SA was at war but he was merely being transported as fast as the laws of physics could allow and in so doing he was endangering other peoples' lives unnecessarily because there was no emergency to speak of that could in anyones wildest dreams warrant the risking of other citizen's lives on a public road. He should have been fired and prosecuted for doing so.

The guy who took the video footage was NOT chasing a clearly marked AMBULANCE (gee red lights, red crosses, word 'ambulance' on it) nor
a fire truck nor any other emergency vehicle responding to a genuine emergency (police responding to a crime scene). The guy broke the law for a few minutes to illustrate the breaking of other laws by people who are abusing their office.

You may not know it but I'll enlighten you some more. When an emergency vehicle goes over the speed limit despite sirens blaring and lights being on, if a camera catches the said ambulance
the matter is investigated and the Traffic Dept makes sure that a genuine emergency was taking place not a case of an ambulance driver transporting tiles to his house (this actually happened).
If they find that no emergency occured then the vehicle and its crew are fully liable for any traffic fines. If an emergency vehicle (ambulance, rescue or fire truck) are not allowed off scott-free,
then why should senior members of the government be allowed the luxury of doing whatever they want? Are we living in the feudal ages here?

As for having a precedent, I don't think the SA legal system works in precendents, you've watched too much LA LAW.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X