an alternative to speeding fines etc

[Bleve]

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.

For example -

Break speed limit
5km/h - 2 days no licence
10km/h - a week
15km/h - a fortnight
20km/h - 3 weeks
25km/h - a month
30km/h - spend a night in gaol

Drive while using phone - 15 days no licence
repeat offender, night in gaol - an extra night for every repeat
offence

Shoot red light - 2 weeks no licence
repeat offender - 1 month
3rd time, night in gaol

Dangerous driving - licence loss for arbitary period

Driving without licence - gaol for a couple of days.

And so on ...

and the kicker -
While licence is suspended - impound all vehicles registered to the
offender (except their bicycles )

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?

 

[Friday]

Bleve 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.
>
> For example -
>
> Break speed limit
> 5km/h - 2 days no licence
> 10km/h - a week
> 15km/h - a fortnight
> 20km/h - 3 weeks
> 25km/h - a month
> 30km/h - spend a night in gaol
>
> Drive while using phone - 15 days no licence
> repeat offender, night in gaol - an extra night for every repeat
> offence
>
> Shoot red light - 2 weeks no licence
> repeat offender - 1 month
> 3rd time, night in gaol
>
> Dangerous driving - licence loss for arbitary period
>
> Driving without licence - gaol for a couple of days.
>
> And so on ...
>
> and the kicker -
> While licence is suspended - impound all vehicles registered to the
> offender (except their bicycles )
>
> 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?
>

A wealthy person can afford a taxi but the poor person looses his job
because he can't. Poor people lose out again.

 

[gplama]

A wealthy person can afford a taxi but the poor person looses his job
because he can't. Poor people lose out again.

Money buys everything - except immunity from physical pain... the answer is ELECTRODES!!!111one!!!11zzZAPP

 

[flyingdutch]

new wheel-clamp or confiscation of car for repeating hoons is kinda similar. altho with Vic Police surely they could just shoot them? :S
not_that_i_condone_such_things...

 

[Donga]

Bleve wrote:
> 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.

At least rich people's cars have ABS and traction control etc. so
hopefully are less likely to destroy us than 1985 280Zs.

donga

 

[sinus]

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.

For example -

Break speed limit
5km/h - 2 days no licence
10km/h - a week
15km/h - a fortnight
20km/h - 3 weeks
25km/h - a month
30km/h - spend a night in gaol

Drive while using phone - 15 days no licence
repeat offender, night in gaol - an extra night for every repeat
offence

Shoot red light - 2 weeks no licence
repeat offender - 1 month
3rd time, night in gaol

Dangerous driving - licence loss for arbitary period

Driving without licence - gaol for a couple of days.

And so on ...

and the kicker -
While licence is suspended - impound all vehicles registered to the
offender (except their bicycles )

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?

What's to stop them ignoring the suspension? A lot of people do now for the more serious suspension offences and hope they won't get caught. I have not had to show my licence to Police for over 10 years. Driving for a few days or a week while suspended sounds like a safe bet that many people would take.

How about wheel clamping the car that was speeding?

 

[Bleve]

sinus wrote:
> Bleve 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.
> >
> > For example -
> >
> > Break speed limit
> > 5km/h - 2 days no licence
> > 10km/h - a week
> > 15km/h - a fortnight
> > 20km/h - 3 weeks
> > 25km/h - a month
> > 30km/h - spend a night in gaol
> >
> > Drive while using phone - 15 days no licence
> > repeat offender, night in gaol - an extra night for every repeat
> > offence
> >
> > Shoot red light - 2 weeks no licence
> > repeat offender - 1 month
> > 3rd time, night in gaol
> >
> > Dangerous driving - licence loss for arbitary period
> >
> > Driving without licence - gaol for a couple of days.
> >
> > And so on ...
> >
> > and the kicker -
> > While licence is suspended - impound all vehicles registered to the
> > offender (except their bicycles )
> >
> > 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?
> What's to stop them ignoring the suspension?


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

 

[Bleve]

Friday wrote:
> Bleve 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.
> >
> > For example -
> >
> > Break speed limit
> > 5km/h - 2 days no licence
> > 10km/h - a week
> > 15km/h - a fortnight
> > 20km/h - 3 weeks
> > 25km/h - a month
> > 30km/h - spend a night in gaol
> >
> > Drive while using phone - 15 days no licence
> > repeat offender, night in gaol - an extra night for every repeat
> > offence
> >
> > Shoot red light - 2 weeks no licence
> > repeat offender - 1 month
> > 3rd time, night in gaol
> >
> > Dangerous driving - licence loss for arbitary period
> >
> > Driving without licence - gaol for a couple of days.
> >
> > And so on ...
> >
> > and the kicker -
> > While licence is suspended - impound all vehicles registered to the
> > offender (except their bicycles )
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> A wealthy person can afford a taxi but the poor person looses his job
> because he can't. Poor people lose out again.

No solution is perfect, of course.

But, taxis are a lot less convenient than paying a fine over the 'net.

 

[Bleve]

Friday wrote:
> Bleve 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.
> >
> > For example -
> >
> > Break speed limit
> > 5km/h - 2 days no licence
> > 10km/h - a week
> > 15km/h - a fortnight
> > 20km/h - 3 weeks
> > 25km/h - a month
> > 30km/h - spend a night in gaol
> >
> > Drive while using phone - 15 days no licence
> > repeat offender, night in gaol - an extra night for every repeat
> > offence
> >
> > Shoot red light - 2 weeks no licence
> > repeat offender - 1 month
> > 3rd time, night in gaol
> >
> > Dangerous driving - licence loss for arbitary period
> >
> > Driving without licence - gaol for a couple of days.
> >
> > And so on ...
> >
> > and the kicker -
> > While licence is suspended - impound all vehicles registered to the
> > offender (except their bicycles )
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> A wealthy person can afford a taxi but the poor person looses his job
> because he can't. Poor people lose out again.

And anyway, lose out? Actions -> consequences. Making the deterrant
something real and relevant to the infraction has got to be better than
arbitary and ineffective fines.
The anti-hoon stuff seems to me to be a step in the right direction,
esp re clamping the cars - I reckon that's the best part of it.

You still have to catch the turds, of course ...

 

[dave]

Donga wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> At least rich people's cars have ABS and traction control etc. so
> hopefully are less likely to destroy us than 1985 280Zs.
>
> donga
>

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

And there is a reason insurance for my 1967 Austin Healey is so cheap.
Its cos the things never have accidents. A lot of studies have shown
that having an accident in an older car is way more likely to kill you.
But many older cars are way under represented in accidents. Risk
compensation again.

And then again there are the mid 80,s commodes. Hugely over represented
in accidents.


THe whole armour thing sucks as a rational. Says Dave who used to play
with serious armour. Even if it actually worked (which it does for
survivability but not for accident rates) Pedestrians, cyclists,
motorcyclists and apparently all who sleep on the ground floor are only
put more at risk.

ABS certainly does have a role. It allows Joe average a better chance
of staying in control the one time he screws up. And it lets him
swerve while braking hard. How many people are capable of using it that
way without dropping the phone I don;t know. I would have ABS on my
motorcycle. That horrible feeling of being on the way down as the front
wheel locks. That aside I have actually not failed to regain control in
that situation. Traction control on the road, pah. If I dont need it
on a hundred horsepower motorcycle....


The owner of the top of the line BMW parked on Heildelberg rd near the
paper mill so badly he was in two lanes undoubtably had ABS and airbags
and even parked was lethaly dangerous.

Dave

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

Zebee

 

[Bean Long]

Bleve wrote:
>
> Break speed limit
> 5km/h - 2 days no licence
> 10km/h - a week
> 15km/h - a fortnight
> 20km/h - 3 weeks
> 25km/h - a month
> 30km/h - spend a night in gaol

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!!


--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

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?

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

 

[cfsmtb]

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. 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://www.woj.com.au/australian-road-authority-links/road-issues-advocacy/

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Making the deterrant something real and relevant to the infraction
> has got to be better than arbitary and ineffective fines.

They don't have to be arbitrary; there's always the Swedish(?) model,
where they're a percentage of income.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[sinus]

sinus wrote:
> Bleve 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.
> >
> > For example -
> >
> > Break speed limit
> > 5km/h - 2 days no licence
> > 10km/h - a week
> > 15km/h - a fortnight
> > 20km/h - 3 weeks
> > 25km/h - a month
> > 30km/h - spend a night in gaol
> >
> > Drive while using phone - 15 days no licence
> > repeat offender, night in gaol - an extra night for every repeat
> > offence
> >
> > Shoot red light - 2 weeks no licence
> > repeat offender - 1 month
> > 3rd time, night in gaol
> >
> > Dangerous driving - licence loss for arbitary period
> >
> > Driving without licence - gaol for a couple of days.
> >
> > And so on ...
> >
> > and the kicker -
> > While licence is suspended - impound all vehicles registered to the
> > offender (except their bicycles )
> >
> > 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?
> What's to stop them ignoring the suspension?


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

But's it a weak threat.

I think the idea of suspending the licence is great. But the fines should stay to make it a more mandatory punishment.

I know of someone who lost their licence for 3 months (accumulated too many demerit points) and continued driving. They were never caught, so there was no real punishment.

 

[Terryc]

dave wrote:

> And there is a reason insurance for my 1967 Austin Healey is so cheap.
> Its cos the things never have accidents. A lot of studies have shown
> that having an accident in an older car is way more likely to kill you.
> But many older cars are way under represented in accidents. Risk
> compensation again.

Or, when people in older cars have accidents, they are less likely to
claim, because they are dead, hence they are cheaper for the insurance
company to insure.

 

[flyingdutch]

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?

 

[Bleve]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> 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?

all issues that can be sorted out.

> When is it done? If I dispute the ticket, then is it right I'm
> punished until after it has gone to court?

again, easy to sort out.

> 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)

again, these were just suggestions - maybe 5km is too tight, or then
again,
maybe it isn't. Tuning issue ... not fundamental problem with the
idea.

 

[dave]

Terryc wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>
>>And there is a reason insurance for my 1967 Austin Healey is so cheap.
>>Its cos the things never have accidents. A lot of studies have shown
>>that having an accident in an older car is way more likely to kill you.
>> But many older cars are way under represented in accidents. Risk
>>compensation again.
>
>
> Or, when people in older cars have accidents, they are less likely to
> claim, because they are dead, hence they are cheaper for the insurance
> company to insure.
>

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'

Dave