an alternative to speeding fines etc



B

Bleve

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 18 Jun 2006 07:49:45 -0700
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Before I go writing to the local pollies etc, has anyone here heard of
> > a precedent for what I'm thinking of?
> >
> > Speeding (and general road infraction) fines don't work terribly well
> > for a number of reasons - theu're not "fair", they punish the poor more
> > than the rich, and they're percieved by the punters as revinue raising.
> > So here's an alternative.
> >
> > Abolish road infringement fines altogether.
> >
> > Replace them with a graduated licence suspension scheme.
> >

>
> The problem is that people don't consider "speeding" a problem.


IMO, the problem is that people don't think -cars- are a problem, until
one of them gets killed or badly hurt in one.

> They do it every day, and nothing bad happens. So their risk meter
> says "it's not a problem".


Yes, and we all know about humans and risk assessment, and how bad "we"
are at it.

> Then difficulty of enforcement - if I ride my motorcycle to work
> tomorrow and I have a 1 day suspension what do you reckon my chances
> are of being caught?


Low, but if your bike is impounded/clamped, it's quite difficult to
ride it anywhere. Sure, you can borrow one .. but you'll find that
inconvenient at best. The kicker is the removal of the vehicle(s).

> PLus difficulty of catching. I do over the speed limit on some roads
> every day, as does everyone in the traffic stream. I have in some
> cases done that every day for years - what deterrent will your scheme
> be if I don't think I'll ever get done?


"I've been driving home drunk for years, just like everyone else".
1960's ...
Things *can* be changed.

> Unless all motor vehicles and liecences are tagged so that you need a
> valid licence to start the vehicle (and good luck in finding a way to
> retrofit that to my 1970s kickstart bike with flywheel magneto! And
> what do you reckon a bypass would cost down the local dragstrip?) then
> banking on a licence suspension being over before you get done is a
> good bet.


Nyet. Impound or clamp the thing. -simple-

> The biggest hassle on the road is getting people who do dangerous
> things at the time they are doing those things.



Yes, it is. I was riding (motorbike) home last night and there was
three idiot P platers dragging from every set of lights and one who was
diving through traffic all the way. Of course it's difficult to catch
them, and what I suggested was not related to catching them, but -was-
related to how to deal with two problems - public perception of our
current fines-based system, and how to deal with infringements if and
when they do get caught.


> That needs lots more
> cops, and it also needs a good list of things that *are* dangerous.
> Doing 70 in a 60 zone, 2 lane road, everyone doing the same, good
> visibility, that's not "dangerous". Swerving across two lanes of
> traffic to turn left is. Cutting across a cyclist in a roundabout is.


And going through a red light at a ped crossing isn't when there's no
pedestrians you can see, either? Not the point. When we get licences
we agree to play by the rules.

> The base problem is that personal motorised transport is vital in this
> country, it's very self-centred so there's no real behaviour control
> mechanism except an authoritarian police who are hardly around
> (because there aren't enough of them) and who are forced to
> concentrate on things that can be objectively measured by machine
> because anything else is too expensive to prosecute in terms of police
> and court time.


True, but irrelevant to what I suggested, which was -not- about
catching people, but what to do when you do catch them.

>
> Zebee
 
G

Graeme Dods

Guest
dave wrote:

> The well known munich study showed that essentially no difference exists
> to accident rates with and without ABS. Risk compensation at work.


Was it not even worse than that? From memory, did they not show that
the accident rates were worse for the ABS equipped taxis (though
possibly not significantly so, statistically ). Also, the observed
driving style of the drivers of ABS equipped taxis was significantly
worse (late braking, poor lane discipline, dodgy merge manouevres
etc.). So yes, risk compensation working overtime there.

Graeme
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on 18 Jun 2006 18:25:24 -0700
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> >

>>
>> Hoe to do that? Who drives it to the pound, who pays for the
>> storage, who pays for the paperwork?

>
> all issues that can be sorted out.


Sorry no. Handwaving isn't allowed :)

It's as much handwaving as suggesting a technical solution - if you
can't fund it and you can't deal with exceptions, it's not going to
fly.

In this case, the funding - storage of vehicles - is important.

The fine system is self funding. This isn't. It costs.


Zebee
 
B

Bean Long

Guest
flyingdutch wrote:
> Bean Long Wrote:
>> Hmmm... sounds like 30 k over the limit gets you a good night's sleep
>> and all expenses paid! How about 1 night in the lock-up AND a month
>> without your licence!!
>>

>
>
> Howabout a poor night's sleep with Bubba and a month of not being able
> to sit down properly? :rolleyes:
>
>

Maybe if the sentence is indicated as above we'd have a lot less
offences committed... full stop!

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying
 
B

Bleve

Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> > No fines ... so no whining about revinue raising. Serious penalties
> > for repeat offenders
> >
> > Anyone know if this has been tried anywhere in the world? Any
> > precedents for it? Am I crazy? :)

>
> Hrrm, the ol' legislation vs education discussion. Or a variation upon
> it.



Is it? I made no reference to education - merely to penalties and
public perception management.

>Have you had a peruse through either the Austlii database or
> similar legal precedents?
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/
>
> Transport Research Laboratory (UK)
> http://www.trl.co.uk/
>
> Another take, have you considered also canvassing opinions from
> potential 'stakeholders'? Might prove to be a worthy method to refine &
> research your proposals.
> http://tinyurl.com/llljf


It's not so much a proposal as a bit of food for thought that I thought
I'd write down after a late night ride home and seeing the usual
collection of dangerous idiots on the road, and thinking that there
must be a better way to deal with people who drive like turds.
I'd also impound the bikes of the idiots that shoot red lights on
pushbikes if caught, just to be consistant :)
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:29:18 +1000
dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>

>
> An alternative explaination that doesnt meet the facts. :) Consider
> that even older cars can be involved in parking lot bumps and that these
> are expensive to repair. Even more expensive when the car has an agreed
> value and can;t just be written off on 'blue book' value. And when many
> of the not real expensive bits are made out of 'unobtanium'
>


I think it is more likely that cars that old are based on exposure.

Most companies that insure old vechiles, such as Shannons, only give
cheap insurance if you are not driving it much. If you tell them it
is your daily drive to work car, or it is doing 20,000km a year, I
doubt your insurance would be cheap!

Also, old vehicles are not always insured comprehensive. Your average
70s/80s car is so low in resale value that there's no point. A car of
that age that has a book value (and you won't get an agreed value that
much over book value taking into account restoration and such ) of
more than a few thou is rare. And not often being driven to work.

can't say anything about crash rate of old vs new unless you are
comparering like withlike. So you need to have enough of the old ones
that the stats are significant (one Sprite doing 20,000 a year is not
enough) and the mileages (and thus the exposure) are comprable to
newer cars.

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
Just thought of a big problem with clamping - who else is paying a
penalty?

I know they are talking of doing it with hoons, but I think it's dead
wrong that if person A commits an offence, person B is punished.

As would happen if the car belongs to someone else, or other family
members need it.

Zebee
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Just thought of a big problem with clamping - who else is paying a
> penalty?
>
> I know they are talking of doing it with hoons, but I think it's dead
> wrong that if person A commits an offence, person B is punished.
>
> As would happen if the car belongs to someone else, or other family
> members need it.


Collatoral damage cannot be avoided in any punishment scenario.

If someone gets fined, that $200 or whatever may have been their food
budget for their family for the week, or the money for the kids new
shoes or school books? The difference is what, exactly?
 

cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
Zebee Johnstone said:
think it's dead wrong that if person A commits an offence, person B is punished.

As would happen if the car belongs to someone else, or other family
members need it.

That comes down to personal responsibility - the driver/owner of said vehicle should be aware of those responsibilities when they 'loan out' the vehicle. When people can't take personal responsibility - that's when the law or revalent authorities step in. Unless you want to start advocating to make the law more touchy-feely to compensate for folks being irresponsible with other's property. I can think of a certain group of people, who have found themselves in the **** after going as a personal Guarantor, who would *just love* that sort of bail out clause..
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 18 Jun 2006 18:25:24 -0700
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hoe to do that? Who drives it to the pound, who pays for the
> >> storage, who pays for the paperwork?

> >
> > all issues that can be sorted out.

>
> Sorry no. Handwaving isn't allowed :)
>
> It's as much handwaving as suggesting a technical solution - if you
> can't fund it and you can't deal with exceptions, it's not going to
> fly.
>
> In this case, the funding - storage of vehicles - is important.


If impounding isn't so practical, clamping sure can be. And it's not
very expensive to do. Clamps are cheap, the time required to clamp and
unclamp would be significant though and would require people to do it.
That would .. create jobs! *damn*

> The fine system is self funding. This isn't. It costs.


I'm not so sure that the process of fining is self funding in most
cases but am willing to be proven wrong.

Everything costs. Our courts, our police, our sherrifs (yes, we have
them :) ) etc ... all costs. Giving people jobs (dept of CLAMPS!)
isn't a bad thing, eh? Better than dolling out meaningless tax cuts at
election time, anyway ...
 
D

dave

Guest
Graeme Dods wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>
>>The well known munich study showed that essentially no difference exists
>>to accident rates with and without ABS. Risk compensation at work.

>
>
> Was it not even worse than that? From memory, did they not show that
> the accident rates were worse for the ABS equipped taxis (though
> possibly not significantly so, statistically ). Also, the observed
> driving style of the drivers of ABS equipped taxis was significantly
> worse (late braking, poor lane discipline, dodgy merge manouevres
> etc.). So yes, risk compensation working overtime there.
>
> Graeme
>

Ok without actually looking it up soo I could be wrong here I 'think'
that the study essentially showed no significant difference in accident
rate. The ABS equipped taxi drivers essentially used the new technology
to its full capacity and a little over. They would brake harder and
later and count on the ABS letting them stop in time. THey would brake
and swerve quite hard if they wanted to be over a lane. Essentially
they used the ABS to give them a 'perceived' advantage in traffic.
Which is exactly what you might expect.

Dave
 
D

dave

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:29:18 +1000
> dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>An alternative explaination that doesnt meet the facts. :) Consider
>>that even older cars can be involved in parking lot bumps and that these
>>are expensive to repair. Even more expensive when the car has an agreed
>>value and can;t just be written off on 'blue book' value. And when many
>>of the not real expensive bits are made out of 'unobtanium'
>>

>
>
> I think it is more likely that cars that old are based on exposure.
>
> Most companies that insure old vechiles, such as Shannons, only give
> cheap insurance if you are not driving it much. If you tell them it
> is your daily drive to work car, or it is doing 20,000km a year, I
> doubt your insurance would be cheap!
>

Its true it went from $300 to $200 a year when I told them it was doing
less than 20 K

> Also, old vehicles are not always insured comprehensive. Your average
> 70s/80s car is so low in resale value that there's no point. A car of
> that age that has a book value (and you won't get an agreed value that
> much over book value taking into account restoration and such ) of
> more than a few thou is rare. And not often being driven to work.


Hmmmmmmm Really? So that old Porshe that Ross just paid 31 K for as
a commuter (Pyalong to melbourne) was a rippoff?
Some cars go up in value. Having agreed value just means you dont
disagree with the insurance company about whether yours went up or down.
And so agreed value stops the book value from going down on that
particular car Book value tends to go down about 10% year. And with
out agreed value the unsurance company might well try that on? Its what
its for.

>
> can't say anything about crash rate of old vs new unless you are
> comparering like withlike. So you need to have enough of the old ones
> that the stats are significant (one Sprite doing 20,000 a year is not
> enough) and the mileages (and thus the exposure) are comprable to



Ummm 500 registered in Oz last year. I think its up this year. I used
to do a lot more than 20 K a year. But sure the average klicks are
lower. Till petrol goes up again. But of course you can Some
companys target the low milage classic market. By all accounts they
make a killing in spite of very cheap premiums. Its cos of the low
accident rate. THere is no low accident rate amongst the 10 klick a
week soccer mum market.

How much does it cost you to comp insure the Guzzi? How does that
compare to an equivilent sports bike (ha) today? Bet its cheaper. Mo

Dave
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:23:35 +1000
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
> That comes down to personal responsibility - the driver/owner of said
> vehicle should be aware of those responsibilities when they 'loan out'
> the vehicle. When people can't take personal responsibility - that's


Is it fair that an innocent is damaged because someone doesn't have
that responsibility?

I can't see that. Yes, the bod in question should have taken it into
account. They didn't. So their
parent/housemate/child/friend/boss/subordinate suffers.

Why is that good?

Did the other user/owner of the car have the ability to forsee the
problem? Is not being able to forsee someone else's action a crime,
if so how far does it reach?

Is not being able to control an adult a crime? The adult made their
own decisions, why should other people suffer?

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:23:35 +1000
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
> being irresponsible with other's property. I can think of a certain
> group of people, who have found themselves in the **** after going as a
> personal Guarantor, who would *just love* that sort of bail out clause..


A personal Guarantor made a decision in full possession of the facts.

Someone who is in the same household as a car user had no control and
no way to buy into or out of the other person's decision.

There is a massive difference in understanding, ability, control, and
foresight.

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:47:07 +1000
dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How much does it cost you to comp insure the Guzzi? How does that
> compare to an equivilent sports bike (ha) today? Bet its cheaper. Mo
>


It isn't worth insuring comprehensive.

The one I use daily is worth 4 grand tops. Cheapest insurance
available is about $800/yr. That's without any no-claim bonuses, which
are nothing to do with the vehicle.

The more valuable bikes are not insured comprehensively either, for
the same reason - the premium's not worth the effort. I have the
parts in stock that are available, all the money in the world won't
buy the ones that aren't.

Zebee
 

cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
Zebee Johnstone said:
Did the other user/owner of the car have the ability to forsee the
problem? Is not being able to forsee someone else's action a crime,
if so how far does it reach?

Is not being able to control an adult a crime? The adult made their
own decisions, why should other people suffer?

The last whinge made me laugh out loud. Black humor indeed.

Sheesh Ms Johnstone, you're rather naive about how the world functions, aren't you?
 

sinus

New Member
Jul 25, 2004
289
0
0
Bleve said:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 18 Jun 2006 18:25:24 -0700
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hoe to do that? Who drives it to the pound, who pays for the
> >> storage, who pays for the paperwork?

> >
> > all issues that can be sorted out.

>
> Sorry no. Handwaving isn't allowed :)
>
> It's as much handwaving as suggesting a technical solution - if you
> can't fund it and you can't deal with exceptions, it's not going to
> fly.
>
> In this case, the funding - storage of vehicles - is important.


If impounding isn't so practical, clamping sure can be. And it's not
very expensive to do. Clamps are cheap, the time required to clamp and
unclamp would be significant though and would require people to do it.
That would .. create jobs! *damn*

> The fine system is self funding. This isn't. It costs.


I'm not so sure that the process of fining is self funding in most
cases but am willing to be proven wrong.

Everything costs. Our courts, our police, our sherrifs (yes, we have
them :) ) etc ... all costs. Giving people jobs (dept of CLAMPS!)
isn't a bad thing, eh? Better than dolling out meaningless tax cuts at
election time, anyway ...
Who's been reading the paper ;)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hoons-be-warned-three-strikes-and-parents-lose-car/2006/06/17/1149964788067.html

"PARENTS of hoon drivers could have the family car wheel-clamped in the backyard for three months or even lose it forever, under tough new anti-hoon laws that will come into effect within a fortnight.

The first that parents may know of the loss of the car is when police knock on the door, under tough new provisions that allow the impounding of cars up to 10 days after an offence. ...."
 
S

Stuart Lamble

Guest
On 2006-06-19, cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> think it's dead wrong that if person A commits an offence, person B is
>> punished.
>>
>> As would happen if the car belongs to someone else, or other family
>> members need it.

>
> That comes down to personal responsibility - the driver/owner of said
> vehicle should be aware of those responsibilities when they 'loan out'
> the vehicle.


Indeed. My car is in my name. If I let my brother (for example) drive
it, I need to know what he's going to do with it. One example: if he
commits a Fisheries offence whilst he's driving it, it gets impounded.
No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Doesn't matter that it's not his.

> I can think of a certain
> group of people, who have found themselves in the **** after going as a
> personal Guarantor, who would *just love* that sort of bail out clause..


Getting OT here, but personally, if I were asked to go guarantor for
somebody, I'd refuse. There's only two or three people that I would
trust sufficiently to put my life savings on the line, and those people
are the same people that I *know* are not in the position where they'd
have to ask.

I *might* go guarantor if it were spelled out that my liabilities were
limited to X dollars, flat, never to change over the life of the contract
.... but I don't think any bank would accept such a contract.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
 

cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
Zebee Johnstone said:
A personal Guarantor made a decision in full possession of the facts.

And numerous well-intentioned, well-informed Guarantors still get screwed. Your point, if any?

Zebee Johnstone said:
Someone who is in the same household as a car user had no control and
no way to buy into or out of the other person's decision.

There is a massive difference in understanding, ability, control, and foresight.

Bollox - it's about individual responsibility. Unless you really want to do something about how the law legislates in such cases. ie: become a advocate.
 
D

dave

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:47:07 +1000
> dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>How much does it cost you to comp insure the Guzzi? How does that
>>compare to an equivilent sports bike (ha) today? Bet its cheaper. Mo
>>

>
>
> It isn't worth insuring comprehensive.
>
> The one I use daily is worth 4 grand tops. Cheapest insurance
> available is about $800/yr. That's without any no-claim bonuses, which
> are nothing to do with the vehicle.
>
> The more valuable bikes are not insured comprehensively either, for
> the same reason - the premium's not worth the effort. I have the
> parts in stock that are available, all the money in the world won't
> buy the ones that aren't.
>
> Zebee



When you stopped being able to get the nitrided 1275 cranks a mate of
mine bought a big lathe and made some. So yeah it will. :)

But whatever. It gets harder thats for sure.

Dave
 

Similar threads