an alternative to speeding fines etc



EuanB

New Member
Jan 11, 2005
877
0
0
Zebee Johnstone said:
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.
Just in case you missed it, that's been happening since the beginning of time.

Man gets sent to jail for an offence, he's the main breadwinner so who suffers? His dependents.

There's nothing new in the scenario you've painted and it's not a bug, it's a feature. Actions have consequences, the more responsibilities you have, the greater the consequences.
 

EuanB

New Member
Jan 11, 2005
877
0
0
Zebee Johnstone said:
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?
Risk assessment currently: what happens if the person I let drive my car stuffs up? Worse case sceneario they write it off, I trust them not to write it off and it's insured anyway.

Risk assessment under new scheme: what happens if the person I let drive my car stuffs up? They could speed, I know that he's a bit of a careless driver, no way am I going to risk losing my car for a day.

That is good.

Sure it would take time but if such a scheme were to be put in place you'd find people far less willing to let other people driver their cars.

With road trauma costing the country 17 billion dollars a year, 2% of the gross domestic product, I for one welcome harsher penalties on careless driving.
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-06-19, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> 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.


Either they didn't own the car, in which case they were always in risk
of losing access to that car, or they own it and loaned it out to
someone without ensuring the driver would accept adequate
responsibility for their actions. Either way, acceptable collateral
damage, IMNSHO.

--
TimC
A mouse is a device used to focus xterms.
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-06-19, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> of the not real expensive bits are made out of 'unobtanium'


On Friday, I worked "ununnilium" into some docs I am writing for the
computer support group. I couldn't use unobtanium, because I also
needed the chemical symbol.

--
TimC
TELESCOPE, n.
A device having a relation to the eye similar to that of the
telephone to the ear, enabling distant objects to plague us with a
multitude of needless details. Luckily it is unprovided with a bell
summoning us to the sacrifice.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
 
S

Shane Stanley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think it's dead wrong that if person A commits an offence, person B
> is punished.


So no-one with dependents can ever be sent to gaol. Doesn't seem a good
idea to me.

--
Shane Stanley
 
E

Euan

Guest
Bleve wrote:
> Before I go writing to the local pollies etc, has anyone here heard of
> a precedent for what I'm thinking of?


Not quite the precedent you're looking for, in Belgium if you can't pay
an on the spot fine your car's impounded. If you pay the fine you get
your car back once you've paid additional impound fees. If not it's
auctioned three months later.
--
Cheers
Euan
 
J

J5

Guest
"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In aus.bicycle on 18 Jun 2006 15:46:22 -0700
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> sinus wrote:
>>> What's to stop them ignoring the suspension?

>>
>>
>> Impounding the vehicle, and the threat of a night in gaol if caught.
>>

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


like the burnout impounds they already do, the person who did the deed
pays for the storage of said vehicle

in the case of burnout impounds its 3 months at 5 or 10 bucks a day IIRC

i m betting that it gets towed at the cost of the person

>
> When is it done? If I dispute the ticket, then is it right I'm
> punished until after it has gone to court?
>
> Is 5kmh over the limit really worth 3 days off work? (one to deal
> with getting the car to the pound, one day with no licence so can't
> get to work, one to get the car back)
>
> Zebee
 
J

J5

Guest
"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> 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.


in the early days of the hoon suspension

1 x dad has a panel shop

son takes one of the loan cars out and gets it impounded

dad goes to court and gets car back since it wasnt owned by son

this of course all took time and money

>
> Zebee
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-06-19, J5 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> in the early days of the hoon suspension
>
> 1 x dad has a panel shop
>
> son takes one of the loan cars out and gets it impounded
>
> dad goes to court and gets car back since it wasnt owned by son
>
> this of course all took time and money


And person who's car got taken out sues both driver (for damaging
car), and shop for loaning out property that is not theirs.

And then the state goes and imposes criminal sanctions against them
for theft and criminal damage.

--
TimC
I saw a slow moving, sad faced old gentleman as he bounced off the
roof of my car. -- insurance claim
 
D

dave

Guest
TimC wrote:
> On 2006-06-19, J5 (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>in the early days of the hoon suspension
>>
>>1 x dad has a panel shop
>>
>>son takes one of the loan cars out and gets it impounded
>>
>>dad goes to court and gets car back since it wasnt owned by son
>>
>>this of course all took time and money

>
>
> And person who's car got taken out sues both driver (for damaging
> car), and shop for loaning out property that is not theirs.
>
> And then the state goes and imposes criminal sanctions against them
> for theft and criminal damage.
>

No Tim I think you missed that one.
Its a loan car. A beater :)) ) that the shop owns to loan to customers
whose car they have to repair. Its a common thing.

In the situation I think you are talking about where they had loaned my
car out.. I just wouldnt bother paying them. Tell em if they push the
issue I,ll have em charged.

Dave
 
J

J5

Guest
"dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> TimC wrote:
>> On 2006-06-19, J5 (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>>>in the early days of the hoon suspension
>>>
>>>1 x dad has a panel shop
>>>
>>>son takes one of the loan cars out and gets it impounded
>>>
>>>dad goes to court and gets car back since it wasnt owned by son
>>>
>>>this of course all took time and money

>>
>>
>> And person who's car got taken out sues both driver (for damaging
>> car), and shop for loaning out property that is not theirs.
>>
>> And then the state goes and imposes criminal sanctions against them
>> for theft and criminal damage.
>>

> No Tim I think you missed that one.
> Its a loan car. A beater :)) ) that the shop owns to loan to customers
> whose car they have to repair. Its a common thing.


yes Tim got it wrong

it was a beater , shitbox old 323 IIRC

>
> In the situation I think you are talking about where they had loaned my
> car out.. I just wouldnt bother paying them. Tell em if they push the
> issue I,ll have em charged.
>
> Dave
 
F

Friday

Guest
dave wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>
>>On 2006-06-19, J5 (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>>
>>>in the early days of the hoon suspension
>>>
>>>1 x dad has a panel shop
>>>
>>>son takes one of the loan cars out and gets it impounded
>>>
>>>dad goes to court and gets car back since it wasnt owned by son
>>>
>>>this of course all took time and money

>>
>>
>>And person who's car got taken out sues both driver (for damaging
>>car), and shop for loaning out property that is not theirs.
>>
>>And then the state goes and imposes criminal sanctions against them
>>for theft and criminal damage.
>>

>
> No Tim I think you missed that one.
> Its a loan car. A beater :)) ) that the shop owns to loan to customers
> whose car they have to repair. Its a common thing.
>
> In the situation I think you are talking about where they had loaned my
> car out.. I just wouldnt bother paying them. Tell em if they push the
> issue I,ll have em charged.
>
> Dave



In Western Australia if you don't pay your fine they suspend your
license until you do.

Friday
 
D

dave

Guest
Friday wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>> TimC wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-06-19, J5 (aka Bruce)
>>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>>
>>>
>>>> in the early days of the hoon suspension
>>>>
>>>> 1 x dad has a panel shop
>>>>
>>>> son takes one of the loan cars out and gets it impounded
>>>>
>>>> dad goes to court and gets car back since it wasnt owned by son
>>>>
>>>> this of course all took time and money
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And person who's car got taken out sues both driver (for damaging
>>> car), and shop for loaning out property that is not theirs.
>>>
>>> And then the state goes and imposes criminal sanctions against them
>>> for theft and criminal damage.
>>>

>>
>> No Tim I think you missed that one.
>> Its a loan car. A beater :)) ) that the shop owns to loan to customers
>> whose car they have to repair. Its a common thing.
>>
>> In the situation I think you are talking about where they had loaned my
>> car out.. I just wouldnt bother paying them. Tell em if they push the
>> issue I,ll have em charged.
>>
>> Dave

>
>
>
> In Western Australia if you don't pay your fine they suspend your
> license until you do.
>
> Friday


Ummmm pay the panel shop wot had loaned my car out. THey would only
have it to work on it. They loan it out, I aint paying the bill.
They kick up, I have em charged with theft. Cos it is. Or fraud or
something. Anyway they dont want me going to the cops.

THey can always send "the boys " around. If they have spares :)

Dave
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
Friday wrote:

> In Western Australia if you don't pay your fine they suspend your
> license until you do.


Doesn't stop them driving though.

Theo
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Friday wrote:
>
> > In Western Australia if you don't pay your fine they suspend your
> > license until you do.

>
> Doesn't stop them driving though.


That's because they're not removing the use of the cars. Clamp them or
impound them.
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
Bleve wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Friday wrote:
>>
>>> In Western Australia if you don't pay your fine they suspend your
>>> license until you do.

>>
>> Doesn't stop them driving though.

>
> That's because they're not removing the use of the cars. Clamp them
> or impound them.


Sorry, but I don't agree with you for pretty much the same reasons Zebee
stated. We share four vehicles between us, should my wife have her licence
suspended, which vehicle should be clamped/impounded? All, so that neither
of us can go to work?

A lot of people, including me, see many traffic rules being deliberately
ignored by people who are confident they will not be caught. Reason being,
the Gov't has gravitated more and more to enforcement of the quantitative
area of the law, the parts you can measure with an electronic device. Pretty
much anything else you can do with impunity. And, everytime some-one dies on
the roads they want to increase these quantitative penalties. Does anybody
think doing 104 in a 100 zone is putting anyones life in mortal danger? Not
me. I've travelled in excess of that speed on very many occasions and
haven't died. This reinforces my opinion that it isn't dangerous. I know
people who jump out of aircraft for fun. I wouldn't do that, but I don't
have the experience that tells me that few people don't die from that
pursuit.

In Sundays paper there was a story of a copper who got a $100 parking fine
which got sent to the wrong address. The follow-up and final notices also
got sent to the same address. He then lost his licence and they notified him
in writing to his (you guessed it) address. After three months he went to
renew the rego on his car and they informed him he was unlicenced. It was
not his fault, they cocked up his address on the database.

Theo
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
Theo Bekkers wrote:

> I don't have the experience that tells me that few people don't die
> from that pursuit.


Oops, Please delete "don't".

Theo
 
S

Stuart Lamble

Guest
On 2006-06-20, Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>> I don't have the experience that tells me that few people don't die
>> from that pursuit.

>
> Oops, Please delete "don't".


"I have the experience that tells me that few people don't die from that
pursuit."

I see.

:)

--
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".
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> >> Friday wrote:
> >>
> >>> In Western Australia if you don't pay your fine they suspend your
> >>> license until you do.
> >>
> >> Doesn't stop them driving though.

> >
> > That's because they're not removing the use of the cars. Clamp them
> > or impound them.

>
> Sorry, but I don't agree with you for pretty much the same reasons Zebee
> stated. We share four vehicles between us, should my wife have her licence
> suspended, which vehicle should be clamped/impounded? All, so that neither
> of us can go to work?


She shouldn't have her licence suspended, because she should play by
the rules she signed up to when she got her licence. She should be
aware of the consequences of what happens if and when she *chooses* to
break the rules, and the rules should be sensible - eg: you don't lose
the car & licence for a year for 5km/h over the limit, but if you get
caught doing 120 in a 40 zone, you -should- be removed from the road.

Smoking out the excusemakers is fun, eh?

> A lot of people, including me, see many traffic rules being deliberately
> ignored by people who are confident they will not be caught.


Of course, and if you re-read what I wrote, I did *not* discuss how to
catch more people breaking the rules, but rather, what to do when they
do to make the punishment meaningful. Please pay attention.

[chomp]

> In Sundays paper there was a story of a copper who got a $100 parking fine
> which got sent to the wrong address. The follow-up and final notices also
> got sent to the same address. He then lost his licence and they notified him
> in writing to his (you guessed it) address. After three months he went to
> renew the rego on his car and they informed him he was unlicenced. It was
> not his fault, they cocked up his address on the database.


Last week, I had chops for dinner with mint sauce and mashed potato.
They were pretty good. Do you have a point?
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
Bleve wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:


>> Sorry, but I don't agree with you for pretty much the same reasons
>> Zebee stated. We share four vehicles between us, should my wife have
>> her licence suspended, which vehicle should be clamped/impounded?


> She shouldn't have her licence suspended, because she should play by
> the rules she signed up to when she got her licence.


OK, so we should all play by the rules and then we don't need any silly
laws.

Theo