Some road use issues

Desember 17, 2011 in Sonder kategorie

I have often wondered where the probable cause is that makes policymen and speedcops stop motorists. Surely if they did not see any breach of the peace, there is no probable cause, meaning that they have no reason to disturb the average motorist’s peace.

People have the common law right to travel freely on the highways and byways without being disturbed, even statutes admit to this, which leads to the question whether tolls are lawfull at all? Surely only those using the roads for commerce should thus pay tolls.

I also wonder if it is not rape when a person is forced against his will to insert an blowing device into an oriface, against his or her will and thus without consent? Remember also that the one person in this scene is normally armed, which leads to even more questions around this.


Blikskottel: have a many questions that need answering.

25 antwoorde op Some road use issues

  1. najsyu het gesê op Desember 17, 2011

    Please let me know what happens when you raise these “questions” at the next road block… It will make for some very entertaining viewing.

    Not one of your questions is going to hold any water in this country… as you trying to mix American law (statutes) and constitutional law into the road traffic act… trust me you going to loose out!

  2. TS het gesê op Desember 17, 2011

    Het jy ‘n ander oplossing?

  3. Neander het gesê op Desember 17, 2011


  4. frikve het gesê op Desember 17, 2011

    The last thing to do when stopped is to get aggressive with the guy in uniform. That will surely get you behind bars.
    My son is a pilot and regularly travels from Tambo at all hours of the night. He has been stopped numerous times by the Metro Police – thinking that he must be travelling home from a party. His modus operandi is to get out of the car, greet the Metro-guys with a hand shake, blow willingly into the tester and engage them in a few minutes of easy-going banter. He says it takes no hair off his chest and makes for a rest-break in the night’s driving. And my son is an aggressive guy – but this is how things seem to work better with the cops.

  5. Dit is consent, nie concent nie. Hoekom pos jy in Engels, wat duidelik nie jou huistaal is op n Afrikaanse blogsite?

    Stel jy voor dat dronkbestuur onbeperk toegelaat moet word?

  6. lora2me het gesê op Desember 17, 2011

    I would rather have someone blowing into an alcohol test tube than have him driving on the road while under the influence of alcohol. I do, however, disagree with the inhumane way in which the person is often treated/arrested if found to be drunk. Do you know how many intoxicated persons get away with their condition, because the time that elapses between arrest and blood tests has been too long to prove his guilt?

  7. The LAW does actually not provide for hunches etc…it relies only on fact. Hunches leads to lots of other discriminatory practices as well and this should be avoided.

  8. I hear you, but the problem is that by default the majority of people stopped has done nothing wrong and now they have to suffer.

  9. I post in English and Afrikaans, depending on how I feel. Thx for noticing the one little mistake…hammering on the table, witness etc does not work with me.

    I find it an eye opener that you make no comment that I actually blogged anything that was not correct as far as the law is concerned.

  10. Jy het al talle foute in Engels gemaak. Wat die Reg betref is jou idees so bizarre dat dit geen kommentaar regverdig nie.

  11. I agree absolutely, staying calm and assertive is the way to go. They may not however refuse to anwer your questions, they have to identify themselves etc etc and make no mistake, they also need to act under their oath, which we must hold them too.

    My brother in law is a cop and I have discussed this with him many times and he agrees as well. He also admitted that consent cannot be forced from anyone.

  12. Ja, hulle moet gedwing word om onder hul eed en binne die wet op te tree.

  13. Been there, done that and to date never had a problem. It is all in the way you ask.

    Read our act, then talk to me..make sure you also read about the common law rights we have, as mentioned in the act. Also make sure you actually know what those rights are and mean. You might be surprized.

  14. Their work is not to work from hunches. That is a lie. Hunches are normally clouded by their own human background or preconceived ideas and personal experiences and that should play no role. If it did, then we might just as well get rid of all statutes and laws that prohibits discrimination.

  15. Ek erken dat ek foute maak…selfs soms in Afrikaans, maar wie is tog perfek. Ons is tog nie hier om simpel spel toetsies te speel nie.

    Die idees is nie myne nie en is dalk vir jou bizarre, maar dis besig om orals op die ou aarde in howe getoets te word en glo my daai geheimpies wat julle “regsgeleerdes” so oppas word een na die ander bekend gemaak en vernietig.

    Soos die ou spreekwoord lui: “Watch this space …and the newspapers.”

    Nou vra ek jou openlik: Verduidelik die “Common law” gedeelte wat in die Padverkeers wet voorkom vir my.

  16. Sure it is, no wonder most people do not trust them one bit.

  17. Sug Blikskotttel. Met die grootste deernis teenoor jou, jou kennis is so beperk dat ek nie eers kan begin verduidelik nie. Dis hoekom ek jou genooi het vir n bier as jy ooit in George kom. Daar is NIKS van die Common Law in die padverkeerswetgewing nie. Dis n WET, of liewer n ordonansie. Dit VERVANG die Common Law indien dit ooit bestaan het tav paaie.

  18. Met deernis, die volgende:

    (xlv) “owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means-

    (a) the person who has the right to the use and enjoyment of a
    vehicle in terms of the common law or a contractual agreement
    with the title holder of such vehicle;

    NO. 93 OF 1996: NATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1996.

    Dis hieroor wat ek wil weet. Hoeveel meer duidelik kan dit wees dat “common law’ wel bestaan en dat iemand wat ‘n motor besit regte het onder die jurisdiksie. Dis die regte wat ek jou vra om te verduidelik.

  19. Die WETGEWING bepaal die posisie. Dit VERVANG die common law insoferre dit van toepassing was. Sug. Dis wat alle wetgewing doen.

  20. Dus is die “common law” regte soos hier beskryf volgens jou weg geneem van ons…nie volgens baie regs menings wat ek al voor gevra het nie….

    Of common law vervang kan word is ook nogal ‘n goeie vraag, veral wanneer dit gaan oor die vervanging van mense regte wat verskans(onvervreembaar) is, soos die wat ons hier oor praat. Ek neem kennis van jou mening, maar moet jou meedeel dat verskeie ander regs geleerdes duidelik van jou verskil.

    Baie interresant is hoe die grondwet hof in sake rondom die “Road accident fund ” wetgewing dit ongrondwetlik verklaar het dat sogenaamde “common law” regte deur dit vervang of verminder was.

  21. Regsgeleerdes sal altyd veskil. Dis hoekom daar litigasie is en derduisende gerapporteerde beslissings. Dis hoekom een stel feite van die landdroshof tot by die konstitusionele Hof gaam met ten minste 20 regters met verskillende opinies.

  22. MAW dis hoekom die “regstelsel” eintlik meeste mense nooit na behore dien nie. Groete en geniet die res van die naweek.

  23. najsyu het gesê op Desember 19, 2011

    Uhm yeah I will go reread the same laws I practiced for 10yrs both within the saps and within the metro police… anybody can interpret the acts and sections to sound as if the laws are crooked /wrong/ or plain baised… the fact of the matter is the cop has the law behind him you have your assumption and misinterpretation of the laws…

    you might wish to try read the whole criminal procedure act then reread the NRTA and then tell me if you have a case or not.

  24. The cops have the legal system behind them, but we the people have the LAW behind us and if we do not stand upo for that, then we should just take the abuse that the legal system gives to us.

    My question stands; Explain exactlyw hat the common law rights is that a owner of a car has. It’s even in the act, so we need to know.

  25. najsyu het gesê op Desember 19, 2011

    To put it simply: Once you enter onto a public road in a motor vehicle you agreed to abide and be bound by the rules/ sections and regulations contained within the NRTA end of story…The officer is empowered to stop any vehicle at any time on any public road, reasonable doubt doesn’t have to come into to it as they are employed and empowered to check motor vehicles and the road worthiness thereof as well as the fitness of the driver of such motor vehicle… plain and simple if you do not want to be stopped and or checked stay home.

Laat 'n Antwoord

Jou e-posadres sal nie gepubliseer word nie. Vereiste velde word aangedui as *.