Expand Ad


One of our readers has sent in photos detailing appallingly dangerous driving by a member of the Victorian police force.

Shown below is an unmarked police vehicle – nothing uncommon there I hear you say. If you look closely, the female driver of the vehicle is talking on her mobile telephone (held to her head by her right hand).


Click to see larger image

Seconds after our reader’s passenger took the photographs, the driver then reaches over the wheel with her left hand (while still holding the telephone to her head with her right hand) and puts her indicator on. Effectively, the driver is using her left hand to hold the wheel on the opposite side and then uses the same hand to put her indicator on.

If that wasn’t dangerous enough, the driver then merges in front of our reader’s vehicle – eliminating the two second gap they were keeping with the truck in front of them – and comes within 1-metre of his bull-bar. Maybe she didn’t see the car? Unlikely, considering our reader was driving a 70-series Toyota Landcruiser with a large bull-bar attached.

Policewoman on mobile phone while driving Policewoman on phone while driving
Click for larger image

Seemingly oblivious to this potential near miss, the driver of the unmarked police vehicle continues on her merry way.

When contacted for comment with regards to the photographs, CarAdvice also posed the question of reprimand toward the driver.

Although we can’t publish the exact response from Natalie Webster – the Media Officer for the Media and Corporate Communications Unit of the Victoria Police – she told us that police are covered under Road Rule 300 (1), exempting them from breaking any law if they were to use a mobile phone while driving.

According to Monash University research (Monash University Accident Research Centre – Report #206 – 2003, authors: K. Young, M. Regan & M. Hammer), the use of a mobile phone while operating a motor vehicle can increase the risk of an accident by up to four times! And that figure disregards whether the driver is a police officer or member of the public – as we are all humans at the end of the day.

The fact that the police have brushed this off on a technicality is truly appalling. The driver of this unmarked police vehicle put the lives of several people at risk and the police are unwilling to even follow the matter up. Being a police officer doesn’t somehow exempt you from a human’s common cognitive train of thought – which puts all of us, despite your job position, in the same boat when it comes to using a mobile phone whilst driving.

This act of dangerous driving poses the question – should members of the police force really be allowed to use a mobile phone while operating a motor vehicle?




  • Antonia

    Nothing new guys, it has always been one law for the lawmakers and one for all us punters. The Judiciary system is just the same. Average punters can\’t even afford justice in their own country, while the rich pay well known barristers who miraculously get them off sometimes serious charges including drink driving.

    In a word, disgraceful. But you can\’t change the system. It is there for the rich and the whole judiciary merry go round.

  • Gibbo

    It seems hypocritical to me that the Police don’t have to follow the very rules they enforce.

  • Pat E

    I can appreciate maybe the need for an emergency call while getting to a situation or crime scene et al, but it doesn’t really seem like she was in a great hurry, and could’ve easily pulled over to a safe area to take the call if need be. I’ve seen plenty of police pulled over on the side of the road because they are on their phone., so most of them do the right thing. The frustrating thing is that there is no regard for the rules when the question is raised of one of their own.

    I remember similar ohotos made it into the Daily Telegraph in sydney, the officer involved copped a reprimand then, maybe these photos should anonymously make it to a newspaper?

  • Oz.

    If the police are allowed to talk on the mobile phone while driving, so can we. That’s why I voted “No” in the new poll, “Should police be allowed to talk on mobile phones while driving?”

  • Andrew M

    im gonna take a different approach here,

    would all you people who always stick the boot into the police, be happier if there were no police?
    at the end of the day they do a good job whether or not they may seem to act a bit hypocritical sometimes.

    whats the difference to talking on a mobile phone whilst driving versus a CB or UHF radio????
    no body knows what the phone call was in regard to do they?
    everybody just assumes the worst in that it was a phonecall regarding the weather conditions for the weekend.

    part of their training actually includes commentating back to base whilst driving.

    and can i ask if the reader had to brake heavily to avoid contact?
    in my book thats a good merge. too many people dont know how to slot in between cars during heavy traffic.
    do you think it would have been better if they stopped on the MWY waiting for a 5 sec gap?
    if you wont merge unless you have a 5 sec break in traffic, you will never merge in city or HWY traffic simple.

  • Azza

    I don’t want to be a party killer or anything. But that isn’t a Unmarked police car. It’s clearly in Melbourne Victoria, and all Victorian Police cars have red writing on the number plates. This car has blue writing.

  • p

    I once followed a police 4WD from the Bega area along the road to Cobargo at speeds of over 150km/h in a Mitsubishi Pajero. This was a clearly marked car, and while I do concur that the speed was safe for that stretch of road, that isn’t how our legal system works. I refuse to be booked by hypocrites. The police did not have any lights or sirens activated at the time.

  • anthony C

    whats the difference. police drivers arnt allowed to communicate with CB,s uhf etc.. thats why there are 2 people in the car… our police are apauling ATM… and as a conisquence people are having more accidents and getitng killed or worse. victorias motorways freewayts etc are constantly an accident waiting to happen, trucks doing 20-30-40kmh over speed limits. people not indiaccting. cutting in. mobile phones. its a jungle. we need a heavy police pressence in high vissibility cars arresting stupid drivers.. forget all these speed traps and revenue rasing ideas.

    get the crap drivers off our roads till they learn

  • Joober

    “I don’t want to be a party killer or anything. But that isn’t a Unmarked police car. It’s clearly in Melbourne Victoria, and all Victorian Police cars have red writing on the number plates. This car has blue writing.” – Thats what they want u to think…

    If u look closely its got the red and blue flashers on bottom right of the rear window.

  • Oz.

    And also Joober, there’s also aerials on the back windscreen which also can mean it’s a police car as well as the lights.

    Exactly Anthony C, if there’s a need to contact anyone back at the station, the cop in the passenger seat talks on the 2-Way radio(what ever kind of radio that might be)

  • Grumps

    Yay, CarAdvice sticks the boot in to the coppers yet again. Maybe this site should be renamed WeHateCops.

    That is certainly more than a metre gap between the two vehicles as well. Nothing wrong with that merge at all, and I don’t see any evidence of the Landcruiser slowing.

    And why can’t you publish the response from Police Media?

    Since we don’t know the reason why the police officer was on the phone it would have been more prudent to wait and find out if she had a legitimate reason for doing so. Then again, if it turned out there was a legitimate law enforcement reason this ‘story’ wouldn’t have been shown.

    Of course I forgot that when CarAdvice does road tests they never exceed the speed limit on public roads do they!

  • realcars

    Police have a difficult enough job without being put under the microscope. Cut em some slack heaven knows they earn it!

  • realcars

    feed up to with journos whinging about speed limits and how u can travel at 400klms/hr in Germany. Majority of our roads are goat tracks and whilst this is the case thank God for speed limits.

  • Maxta

    Seems the problem here isn’t Police drivers, its Women drivers. that should be the real discussion here.

  • Ben

    Guys,

    Police officers are legally able to talk on their mobiles whilst driving. This is a method of communicating with their base station. Sounds like BS I know but that is how they are covered in this situation.

  • http://ford anthony C

    i agree with relcars, australian roads are a nightmare. even our expensive “forign owned” toll roads liek city link are rubbish. with 2 types of ashfalt used, leaking tunnels causing ripples in the road surface and any number of debri…..mostly retreads coming off trucks… speed limits are a very good idea:P. espeicaly could you imagi nthe c arnage if 18 year old hoon head p platers found out they didnt have to worry about mr.plod when racing down dandenong road?

    cookie

  • Andrew M

    Anthony C,
    there are not always 2 people in a police car. even this photo proves that.

    its a method of communication, its their job, simple.

    i dont know why so many people are getting wound up about this one sided view of the situation.

    it could be worse,
    we could be in a country where the Mafia for eg might control a certain district of the police force.
    then watch people whinge when police officers turn a blind eye when you need then most.

  • Benjie

    Andrew M:
    “no body knows what the phone call was in regard to do they?
    everybody just assumes the worst in that it was a phonecall regarding the weather conditions for the weekend.”

    It’s besides the point Andrew. The police officer has clearly committed a dangerous maneuver whilst on the phone, proving they should not be allowed to drive while communicating on the telephone.

    Going by your theory, simply because I have an important business call, I should be allowed to use the phone while driving. At the end of the day, I have completed more defensive driving courses than the police.

    Don’t be a joker Andrew M, it makes you look silly.

  • Norman

    The absolutle hypocrisy here is amazing.

    How is this woman any more capable to use a phone while driving than I am? She has clearly done something dangerous and any other driver would have the book thrown at them.

    Double standards…yet again.

  • realcars

    Well said Andrew M & Anthony C!!

    To those that launched this witch hunt in the first place pay your bloody speeding fine suck it up and harden up as Golf would say and be grateful that the thin blue line is there if u need them!!!!!

  • Mr. Funk

    Look, I don’t much care for the constabulary. But this is bullshit!

    It’s not illegal to use a mobile phone while driving, it’s illegal to use ANY two-way radio device. Phone, CB, whatever. And police, truckies, and any other emergency responder are all exempted.

  • Norman

    Mr Funk and all other blind CarAdvice members:

    The contention of the article has nothing to do with the legality of using a mobile phone while driving.

    It indicates that you are four times more likely to have an accident if you use a phone while driving and this is a clear cut example of why it’s illegal to use the phone – IT’S DANGEROUS!

    Half-wits…

  • Carl

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely…..it takes a very special person to not abuse power!!! Obviously this Police officer is not a very special person!!!
    Having said that i can’t believe the hypocrisy of making talking on the phone illegal and ignoring the dangers of smocking while trying to drive!!!

  • Tixy

    “would all you people who always stick the boot into the police, be happier if there were no police?
    at the end of the day they do a good job whether or not they may seem to act a bit hypocritical sometimes.”

    This is a fair comment, and I’m sure if anyone was in a time of needing the assistance of the police, they would be very grateful for it. However, that shouldn’t exempt them from having to follow the law. It doesn’t have to be one and not the other. It shouldn’t have to be that we allow police to break the laws just because they do a good job.

    Unfortunately, I doubt that the mentality that they are above the law amongst SOME police officers will ever change. I’m sure that there are those who don’t use their position to break the laws we have, but there will always be those that do and it’s something that does not seem to be punished.

  • Carl

    ^^^meant Smoking^^^^

  • Andrew M

    Benjie,
    where is the proof of this dangerous manouver?

    is a still photograph all we have to judge this on?
    what was the speeds being travelled and above all did the guy in the landcruiser have to brake heavily and take avasive action?
    no brake lights on the police car indicate that they at least kept the same speed as the vehicle following.

    if you have to wait for a 5 second gap to satisfy your need for a safe merge then you will never be able to merge.

    not enough people are aggressive enough when they merge.

    one of the most frustrating things is those that cant adjust their speed to to suit a gap in the traffic when merging.

    its not hypocritical of them to merge like this because ive never heard of police booking anyone for such an offence.
    the mobile phone thing is a bit hypocritical, but as already said it is legal for them to do so

  • Andrew M

    i think the poll should be changed to
    “have you ever answered your phone whilst driving?”

    because i reckon a heck of a lot of us have done it whilst pointing our finger at this article saying ah ah

    the bottom line is the officer hasnt broken the law and now we still want her head????

  • CoRDS

    IF they have their lights on and the siren going they can drive however they want. otherwise obey the rules or DIAF

  • Gus

    In response to Azza, who states: “all Victorian Police cars have red writing on the number plates.”
    This is an *unmarked* police car. They look like normal cars; that’s the whole point. They wouldn’t use government plates on an unmarked car – it would cancel out the ‘stealth’ factor, which is why they exist; to sneakily blend in with all us punter drivers.
    And if cops want to talk on their mobiles while driving, they should get a hands-free kit, like the rest of us have to.
    Top job to the reader who caught this on film!

  • Andrew M

    Gus,
    and just on the topic of blending in,
    i saw a Honda Accord of all things last night pull over a motorist.
    first time ive ever seen a honda used.
    we used to have a mitsu 380 getting around these parts unsuspectingly and he would nail people

  • Flying High

    “Ooh yes. The Police do such a great job. They are always there for us. It would be soooo bad if we didn’t have them” What a crock of horsesh!t. Another clear case of the hypocrisy we live in. Anarchy is the only true democracy.

  • Mightyrollaman

    Not that I wish to defend the officer in question, but these pics were clearly taken by someone in the drivers seat.

    Don’t like the idea of operating the indicators with the left hand one bit though, regardless of legal exemptions.

  • JBiswellandkicking

    This is nothing. I had a traffic cop interceptor SS fly past me at around 180-200km/h, no lights or sirens were on, just so he can pull over a car up the front for speeding. Lucky I watched me mirror and noticed how fast he was travelling, because I just wanted to merge in his lane. To be honest the cop car was more dangerous then the speeding driver, truth be told.
    Also, Azza, red writing on the rego plates are CFA cars. This is unmarked cop car, no doubt.

  • SteveC

    I saw a Paddy wagon tonight on the way home from the in-laws Sunday dinner I get to go to every fortnight. They had their headlights off, and it has been raining in Sydney this evening.

    His parkers weren’t even on, so you can’t say that he couldn’t see his lights were on or off which is usually the case when the roads are wet.

  • JBiswellandkicking

    Cops should lead by example, not be protected by the law. If they speed they should loose their licences, if they use mobile phones they should cop fine, if they do doughnuts in a paddock they should get the same punishment as the other “hoons”. Andrew M, officer has broken the law, unfortunately police lovers like yourself are so dumb they cannot accept the facts.

  • Whaeveerrr

    Andrew M is clearly a cop himself, how else to explain his essays trying to defend the cops. Andres M, shouldn’t you be on the roads collecting revenue for your beloved politicians, stopping some “criminal” for doing 3km/h over a pathetically slow speed limits.

  • Kelvin

    Wonder whether it was a passenger or the driver of the 4WD taking the photos.

  • Benjie

    Good to see all the police coming in and questioning whether it was the driver taking photos.

    Stop trying to shift the blame. If you adjust your spectacles and re-read the article, you’d see it was the passenger taking the shot.

  • SSV blah

    Lets face it:
    - Taking a call on a mobile without handsfree, while driving is dangerous.
    - The driver took the call
    - The mobile is most likely their own personal mobile.
    - We’d get booked if we did it.

    FFS if cops can’t follow the law, then how can they expect us to.

    FYI: My company spends craploads on ads to get people to NOT talk on mobiles while driving. The fact that cops don’t really give a sh_t annoys me somewhat.

  • Matt

    Grumps, although I didn’t write this article I feel I need to reply to your “Yay, CarAdvice sticks the boot in to the coppers yet again. Maybe this site should be renamed WeHateCops” comment…

    Perhaps if the police were seen to be doing to right thing to begin with, there’d be no cause for CA to present these issues. What happened to lead by example? Or did you always do things by the book when you wore a uniform?

  • alec

    I for one don’t really care. If they have to take a call for police business while they are driving, so be it.

    But maybe the Police force should be considering the use of Bluetooth integration with their phones as that option would have definatley been available with that particular falcon!!

  • snowman

    Is the police officer going to be immune to the laws if they end up killing someone when they get distracted by the phone????? Throw the book at them I say!

  • Stevo

    If CA wants to do some investigative journalism, then perhaps they could come up with a more serious piece of police ‘corruption’ than some shiela talking on a mobile phone while driving, which is about all it amounts too. Police or not, they’re normal people who make wrong and stupid decisions at times, and occasionally have to enforce laws they may personally disagree with, or can’t obey themseves. (Yes they take the risk and could cop a ticket too, however unlikely!)
    No doubt everyone who has made a comment here has done something in their job which isn’t exactly permitted.
    Perhaps a CA juorno has accepted some tickets to the footy or a free meal, or some other gratitude / favour. Never sped on a test drive, taken a mobile call yourself?
    HYPOCRITES are in every profession, every day, but to pull this one out is sooo petty!!!!

  • Stevo

    Matt, CA got a photo of one copper on one day doing something that arguably she should or should not have been doing. To balance CA’s opinions of coppers, perhaps they could mention what the other 15000 or so other coppers were doing on that day. Stepping in an preventing some drunken thug king hitting another drunken yobbo on the street, getting spat in the face for their trouble etc. etc. Just one good news story occasionally may get Grumps off your back!

  • swampdawg

    I see no evidence of a cop car. Victorians should be more concerned about their states assets being foreign owned or privatised than this blow up.
    Pump up Victoria

  • GhisGT

    Other 15,000 coppers? Probably hiding in the bushes with their radar gun sticking out, making the roads safer for you and me by stoping the bad drivers from speeding.

  • http://www.caradvice.com.au Anthony

    why aren’t police cars fitted with a Bluetooth phone connection. That would solve the problem of having to hold the phone with one hand and the wheel with another?

  • Matt

    Stevo – of course there are good coppers, I happen to know some, in fact I’d even go so far as to say the vast majority are just that, but the fact remians that when you’re in the public eye you ought be leading by example, especially when it’s of the very rules you’re there to enforce.

  • Anthonii

    Would we complain if they were on a two way radio?

    They probably opt against bluetooth as it is pretty easy to hack. Or its a cost that could be skipped given that the law does not require them to have one…

    I don’t really have a problem with this to be honest… Its just too nit pickey.

    All emergency services are at work at the crappy hours of the day doing a variety of jobs to protect us, some we may not agree with some of the things they do or how though go about it, but the day you need them you will be singing their praises.

    I think police need more exemptions to laws, for example to beat the living crap out of aggressive violent people etc… but thats just me.

  • http://www.antilag.com Tom Jakovljevic

    I personally think its a storm in a tea cup

    The fact the sender of these pics had enough time to take 2 pictures of the car merging indicate to me that the police car did not merge suddenly and dangerously, unless it was taken with a 3 fps SLR?

    Also, the story says the passenger took the pics, the one from behind clearly indicate to me that it was more then likely the driver taking the pics.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    For all we know it could have been an emergency call about someone about to be attacked/etc.

  • aubz

    Ugh, less of these articles on the front page please.

    There are is an equally innumerable amount of arguments for either side here.

    I think I’ve said this before, but there should be a rants section for this type of material.

  • Anthonii

    # aubz Says:
    April 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Ugh, less of these articles on the front page please…there should be a rants section for this type of material.

    There is a rants ‘section’, though the format of a blog and a traditional website is very different. Everything goes on the front page once simply because its a blog…

  • Camski

    As is with all things really, everyone cuts corners and breaks the rules sometimes. However i do believe that “the law” (police) being exempt from “The Law” is not a good way to lead a good example.

    Tom Jakovljevic, 3FPS isn’t that fast, many compact digital camera’s are capable of doing 3FPS. 3FPS by SLR standards is actually very average. Might i add, it’s not the FPS but more the shutter speed that captured that moment in time (speed in this shot is hard to tell as the cars are moving forward at approximately the same speed and plenty of avaialable light meant a fast shutter speed was possible).

  • http://www.antilag.com Tom Jakovljevic

    Camski, thank you for your advice. Ill remember it when I play with my camera whilst doing a photoshoot. ….

    Anyhow, you are incorrect, or you have misunderstood me.

    I meant that in normal traffic conditions, you indicate, and merge, it takes a couple of seconds.

    If the police person did it real quickly (or dangerously) it would have taken alot less time, and hence needed a fast speed slr to catch the sequence of pictures.

    In other words, this has been greatly exagerated by the person commenting on what happened.

  • Jeff

    Yep, it paints a bad picture for the coppers. Agreed.

    Nope, it’s not illegal for them to do so. Agreed.

    Should it be, NO.

    Whilst I agree the copper could have used a little common sense and at least tried to adhere to the law as it applies to everyone else, I believe to make them follow the same laws would just make things even harder for them.

    I am not a copper. I’m a firefighter and I can say that to have to pull over to the roadside to answer calls, be they CB, phone or otherwise (given that these types of calls are the backbone of emergency services for tasking, general information, or other purposes) would create undue delays in response to incidents.

    I’m not saying she was responding to an incident, merely that the law for them should be different in this regard for those reasons. And to suggest the law should ONLY apply when attending incidents is also nonsensical and would only serve to show peoples lack of understanding of what it is to be an emergency worker.

    I’m not even from Vic and our laws only prohibit mobile telephone use, which we voluntarily abide by, which as i said before, she could/should have done…

  • joober

    I think in the end we need look back and see…

    This is giving a bad example to other motorists if they see a police person talking on their mobile without handsfree/bluetooth, what sort of message is this going out.

    And yes the police should be using a bluetooth/Handsfree system, and whats this BS about easily hacked? This is not blardy lawnmower man. Given the range of BT, The likelyhood of this is to point of non existant.

  • Anthonii

    the ‘example’ argument is a load of smurf pee. Next we are going to try and argue that because police carry pistols on their belt that we are all going to do it because we are to flaming stupid to work out right and wrong for ourselves.

    Sorry, but for the example argument to have any wait the said person would have to argue that they have no ability to make decisions themselves and their actions are nothing more than re enactments of others actions. No one wants to sign up for that stigma so just leave it, cheers.

  • Skitza

    If we can’t you can’t. Doesn’t matter what the call was about, if we tried explaining what it was “about” we would get fined without question. You can’t set the rules, enforce them and then break them yourselves. Doesn’t work like that. Good story.

  • No Name

    Smacks of Hypocracy all over, however there wasn’t an accident on this occasion.Its wrong use a phone without hands free and the driving was debateably poor. Its clear the driver of the Landcruiser was taking the photos given the positioning of his/her vehicle in the lane, and thats just as dangerous.
    I don’t suppose the Police will do anything to the driver, one day she’ll get caught out and hopefully the book will be thrown at her. She deserves it 100%.

    I do not believe CA are anti-police, I would say they are highlighting hypocracy at its best. Yes Andrew M the police do a good job but it would be ironic if you got pulled over by the cops for using a phone by a copper you’ve just seen using a phone!

  • Anthonii

    No Name: “Yes Andrew M the police do a good job but it would be ironic if you got pulled over by the cops for using a phone by a copper you’ve just seen using a phone!”

    I sat next to speeding coppers once, who were doing 10 over with out lights or sirens etc…

    They did nothing but give me evils, though in hind sight it was a pretty dumb thing to do.

    This is no more hypocrisy than police carrying a firearm, that can kill someone so normally people are not allowed to walk around with one on their belt…

  • Duck

    Why dont they use bluetooth?

  • Joober

    Anthonii going about the pistols is far fetched and is rubbish, as for talking on the phone while driving IS SOMETHING the police have been pushing AS DANGEROUS, IRRESPONSIBLE and is a DISTRACTION, regardless if your cop, army guy, or a office worker.

  • off timing

    She could’ve just been running late to set up her speed camera! Come on, how many drivers still use their mobiles while driving, yet this copper gets the finger pointed at her and made an example of on the web. Maybe the landcruiser driver should do some policing of their own and take photos of ALL drivers on their mobiles, get their licence place details and send it into the local cop shop. Maybe CA should have their own dedicated page of pics of law breakers on their mobiles taken by “concerned” members of the driving fraternity.

  • Dave Jones

    I wonder what type of phone it was.

  • Andrew M

    to those few people that have a problem with my comment, show me the part where this police person broke the law?

    do you all fail to see that she didnt?

    its also like footy players taking drugs. nobody gives 2 hoots when its joe blogs slipping a pill but if someone of high profile gets caught with one in their trouser pocket, only then do people try to make out they really care about problems in society.

    off timing ponits it out perfectly when he asks why this photographer doesnt snap all motorists on mobile phones.

    speed cameras is a totally different topic

  • Benjie

    AndrewM:

    Surely you’re not that slow?

    If you read the article, you would see that the contention of it was in relation to the Police officer driving DANGEROUSLY on a public road – the main reason behind it being the use of a mobile phone.

    If you take the time to read through the studies quoted, you would note that a driver is four times more likely to be involved in an accident if they’re speaking on a mobile phone.

    That study doesn’t take into account dangerous one hand lane change maneuvers either – which this young lass seems to have nailed down to a tee.

    Finally, cutting so finely in between two vehicles like that is downright dangerous at highway speeds.

    Why on earth would the passenger of the vehicle be interested in catching all motorists? People know it’s illegal because it’s downright dangerous to speak on a phone while driving, yet it’s legal for the police to do so. The photos simply back up the claims of the Monash University study and cement the fact that police are humans too – with the ability to kill other drivers in an instant.

    Shouldn’t you be catching some more speeding motorists who are doing 3km/h over the speed limit? – Pig.

  • Macca

    If this police officer was following up on a lead to save a friends life I would want them to be able to break a few of the more petty laws to give them a better chance of being successful. Be thankful that there are people out there who are willing to do this job.

  • Andrew M

    Benjie,
    i was initially thinking that you are the un named “spy photographer”

    just to reiterate, and as clearly stated, the police woman did not break any laws by talking on the mobile phone.

    and also as i said earlier, how are we judge a dangerous manouver by a still photograph?
    did the driver (you?) have to brake hard and take evasive action? no brake lights on the cop car indicate that she had to have at least kept the speed flowing.

    if you wont merge unless you have a 5 second buffer then it is you that needs to stop impeding the flow of traffic.

    im not a copper for the record. nor do i know any coppers.

    so whats the real thing in question here?
    the officer LEGALLY talking on the phone?
    or the manouver which seems typical of that needed in heavy traffic?

  • Benjie

    No point trying to convince a member of the force, you’re all as useless as each other.

  • Andrew M

    you can call me a copper all you want if it turns you on, but you still havent answered my question you spy photographer you.

  • NooT

    Christ you are petty!!! I see a dozens of people a day using their phone while driving but everyone picks on the cops. Yes they are exempt and so they should be. They dont always have to have lights and sirens going to mean they are attending to an urgent job! I’ve seen heaps of cops in my area on their phones- and they are always pulled over. So if they need to take a call while driving it must be important, so thankyou police for looking after us.

  • Marc

    If using your mobile phone while driving is so dangerous, how exactly did your reader take these pics? They seem to be from a mobile phone and appear to have been taken from the drivers side of the vehicle.

    My question is this:

    Whats worse, driving while using your mobile or driving while trying to take pictures of someone driving while using a mobile.

    Marc

  • Marc

    Azza said
    “But that isn’t a Unmarked police car. It’s clearly in Melbourne Victoria, and all Victorian Police cars have red writing on the number plates. This car has blue writing.”

    Absolutely incorrect. All Victoria Police unmarked vehicles have the standard Vicroads number plate (as in picture).

    All marked Police cars, as well as all non-police government vehicles have the Victorian Government number plate (red instead of blue).

    Marc

  • jim

    why dont we do something about it then instead of shuting up our mouths.if we get caught we have to pay the fine so should they.lets all get together and do something about it enough is enough who ever has got balls can join me

  • NJ

    mind you 4X4 should not be taken into the city at all so this “reader” with there phone out to take the photo is more of a risk in her big 4X4 and her silly photo taking is wose then the actions of the police who is porbs a far better drive mind you too

  • Benjie

    NJ:

    Surely you’re not that stupid?

    That’s the highway which – bypasses – the city…

  • nj

    which is still in metro melbourne yes / or no i think you know the answer heres a hint if the car caught on fire who would come the cfa or mfb benjie?

  • nj

    and there are lots of cattle on our highways too according to benjie

  • ONEWHOKNOWSBETTER

    Even though I hate the stuck up drivers of four by fours
    (I have been involved in a collision with an arrogant driver of a 4*4 who denied ANY wrongdoing whatsoever)I must agree with Mr. NJ.

  • http://www.caradvice.com.au/2090/victorian-police-force-holden-ve-ss-commodore/ star captan

    police can mind there own buisness we know how to take care of our selves then being watch over like primary school kids

  • Andrew M

    ^^^^
    YOU TELL EM!!

  • nj

    police are around not only to look after you but to protect the safety and property of others as well as the laws of our society

  • Jim

    I don’t believe the stupidity of this article and some the comments being posted.

    police are allowed to communicate on mobile phones whilst driving – in fact its usually the main method of communication between station and car as the CBs are often dodgy.

    The crap about two cops being present in all cars because the one in the passenger seat is the radio/phone operator is just plain incorrect – the only time you see 2 cops in one car is when they are assigned to general duties, this car is from the traffic branch, they only have one cop per car because they are not attending typically dangerous situations.

  • Marc

    Jim,

    There is no way of knowing whether or not this vehicle is a traffic vehicle or not. Although I’d lean towards not. More likely a CIB vehicle or even a liason person. It could be federal police for all we know.

    Marc