Adult Forums   \   Hot Topics   \   Off Topic   \   Your thoughts on double demerits

+ New Topic

RHP

RHP User

M44

Your thoughts on double demerits

December 24 2016

Hi fellow forum readers! ☺. It's that time of year again. Xmas parties;,new years parties, bad livers and hangovers, new years resolutions.....and double demerits. Would like to hear what people think about them. Do you think they work? Personally I think there could be a place for them but unfortunately in a lot of cases it just looks like a revenue raiser instead of a life saver. For example: you drive along a freeway with a speed limit of 100 and cars are flying past you doing 130/140. You come into a roadwork section that's 40km on a day where there's no workers around but a copper sits on the side and you get booked because you were doing 50km. I'm not suggesting we don't need them because we do have some bad and irresponsible drivers around but just would've thought the guy doing 140 is more of a risk than the guy who slowed to 50 in a roadwork section on a day off for the workers. (For the record no I'm not talking from experience in that scenario but did think about if it happened). Safe driving folks ☺ - Posted from rhpmobile

reply

Comments

  • DynamicCouple36

    DynamicCouple36

    9 years ago

    As are hefty fines. Of course you have nothing to worry about if you obey the law, and don't break it by speeding. - Posted from rhpmobile

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    Tell that to "Mark Hanson"who fell foul of NSW's COPS program after a vindictive police officer entered him into that system. I fear the if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear attitude.

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    through a road accident you would not even think about posting this question. The heartache, anguish, despair, the loss is with you e.v.e.r.y day. So its a bah humbug from me .

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    Road safety is my favourite topic.... In the last 48 hours of being on the road in the truck there were 2 vehicles overtake me at an inappropriate time.... these drivers can be thankful I check my mirrors quite regularly and make allowances to those who I can see don't have the room to overtake..... That's a minimum of 2 lives be ensured we're never in a collision to be at risk of losing their lives.... Did the thought of double demerit points alter their decision making ??? Nope....not one bit. That's because fines and demerit points at any level are merely an encouragement to those who are safe drivers 99% of the time. I say safe as it's their intentions to be safe, but we are all human and are entirely capable of a momentary brain fart that results in us doing a stupid thing. However..... Those whose mindsets are so rigid in their thinking that their agenda is more important than others, will ALWAYS never care about road safety.....some of those drive trucks too, which embarrasses me greatly as that brush is wide and sticky..... Bing safe on the roads in my view isn't about much else other than making allowances.... It's about allowing that 6 year old to be unsupervised that runs out in front of you that you weren't looking for... It's about allowing for that numb nuts that cuts you off in peak hour..... Its about allowing that said dickhead that I mentioned above the room to return to the left hand side of the road without incident.... AND..... It's about KNOWING..... Knowing that at any point in time you could've said "fuck you jack" but didn't because you have the integrity to do whatever it takes to allow the local coppers/ambos/firey's to not see yet another lifeless body that could've been prevented, but also to not need to knock on the door of a loved one that's now left behind. - Posted from rhpmobile

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    Well, the demerit points are double, but not the fine, so you can't call it revenue raising. The fine stays the same. I like the idea as it is equitable. Traffic fines are very inequitable, as they don't take into account how much you earn. They are a much larger impost on the poor than the rich. Demerits, however, are the same for all of us.

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    Well said. I dont drive a truck but i do have these considerations at all times. - Posted from rhpmobile

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    Well having cut several dozen bodies out of car wrecks im all for quadruple points and quadruple fines. Does increased penalties change everyones behaviour.....no but if it saves one life by changing one persons behaviour then its well worth putting up with the whingers. - Posted from rhpmobile

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    I'm extra cautious at this time of year. I actually think the police do a good job most of the time. I just posted this as a thought to share because i see where the cameras and coppers are set up sometimes and don't think they're actually setting up in the genuine blackspots all the time. There's a back road north of where I live that has a bad reputation for speeding drivers and for fatal accidents but I see less highway patrol officers there then the suburban streets I live near which are too busy to do the speed limit anyway. Maybe I'm wrong to think this way? in the meantime I'm sticking to the speed limit because it's better to follow it even if I don't agree with the positioning of some cameras or police cars. - Posted from rhpmobile

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    I do agree with stirry too. No matter the consequences or deterrent there are some people who will always speed or drive carelessly. - Posted from rhpmobile

    reply

  • sweetgem

    sweetgem

    9 years ago

    There should be a triple demerits instead of double, as double demerits are still not severe enough for some offenders! Yes, the repeating offenders won't give a rat about that nor will they stop driving when their licences get suspended! But the triple demerits would at least scare the crap out of those non-repeating offenders (but tend to get stupid during festive season) and that could save a few more lives on the road! I would also lobby for a double demerits charge for not driving to condition when the roads are wet due to rain or storm, if there was a way to lobby for such rule! Too many people are still speeding and not driving to condition on bad raining days and the roads are slippery as hell! I don't care if their cars are equipped with super gears for wet roads or not, their careless and selfish driving behaviours are putting other road users at risk! 😡😡 - Posted from rhpmobile

    reply

  • madotara69

    madotara69

    9 years ago

    the presence was in the places where the kids play nearby home in the suburbs of the cities, small townships (street lights, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, school zones and parks, dogs, cats even wombats.) try keep em on their toes, so to speak, head scratchers, text typing and deadlines to meet. But out on the highways with bitumen on a thick concrete bed, animal fences, three lanes for miles and miles in the clear ? Truth is Cars have become designed in wind tunnels, they have the engine, transmition, suspension, braking system, all working together to keep the vehicle on the road safely. Once these vehicles reach the speed required for the airodynamics to pull the weight down into the suspension, tyres bedded to the surface hot and sticky the temperature tyres aught to be .... I for one, do not believe, 110 is a safe speed, 180 much safer indeed. Oil consumption depleting the reserves is why 120 dropped to 110, 100 to 90, 90 to 80, 80 to 70 ' Well the next thing you know, Jed's a millionaire, Towns folk said "Jed you'd better move away from here", So he loaded up the truck, And off to Beverly,..... Hills that is, Swimming pools and movie stars. Mado Mado Tara xx

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    Quoting 'PerthHillsCouple' Well, the demerit points are double, but not the fine, so you can't call it revenue raising. The fine stays the same. I like the idea as it is equitable. Traffic fines are very inequitable, as they don't take into account how much you earn. They are a much larger impost on the poor than the rich. Demerits, however, are the same for all of us. that makes no sense. The loss of license via demerits is less of an impost on the rich, since the cost of transport that they must pay for is a smaller proportion of their income. Who can afford to uber/cab everywhere? Who generally lives in areas that are inner-city/closer to work and better serviced by public transport? But making the fine relative to income also seems impossible to enforce in a fair and timely manner - would I be able to claim a refund on my fine 4 years down the track when my final modification to taxable income is made? What if I have no taxable income? I agree that double demerits themselves aren't a revenue raiser, but I'd suggest the increased enforcement isn't purely from a safety perspective. They include it in general revenue for budgeting. Even the camera money doesn't go to making the alleged blackspots safer. Quoting 'ruby_blossum' through a road accident you would not even think about posting this question. The heartache, anguish, despair, the loss is with you e.v.e.r.y day. So its a bah humbug from me . an emotional situation doesn't mean a question shouldn't be asked. My aunt was killed when a driver fell asleep at the wheel, and I've known other people in accidents. Data shows the focus on speed is misplaced, yet that is held up as the killer even though it is known to not be the culprit. As for the "make the penalty bigger", I call poppycock. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) studied this, they found "that substantial increases in fines and licence disqualifications would have limited potential in deterring recidivist offenders", and that people who had received longer disqualifications (for speeding or drink driving) were more likely to end up in the same situation again. So, even the govt says increased penalties don't have a positive impact on recidivism... yet that doesn't seem to be the party line trotted out. That finding was also backed up by other research out of the USA.

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    Quoting 'sweetgem' There should be a triple demerits instead of double, as double demerits are still not severe enough for some offenders! Yes, the repeating offenders won't give a rat about that nor will they stop driving when their licences get suspended! But the triple demerits would at least scare the crap out of those non-repeating offenders (but tend to get stupid during festive season) and that could save a few more lives on the road! I would also lobby for a double demerits charge for not driving to condition when the roads are wet due to rain or storm, if there was a way to lobby for such rule! Too many people are still speeding and not driving to condition on bad raining days and the roads are slippery as hell! I don't care if their cars are equipped with super gears for wet roads or not, their careless and selfish driving behaviours are putting other road users at risk! 😡😡 (first paragraph, see my earlier post, research says that approach doesn't work) There is already a law on the books that police could apply - negligent driving, and the court is directed to specifically consider the nature and conditions on the road at the time. Why not look for an existing law that would apply instead of this knee jerk "make a new law" response? Anyway, for the established proper way for people to lobby in NSW is: send a letter to the Daily Telegraph.

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    to S_OTL's responses above, you might question why demerit points ever are doubled. If truly about safety and intended to modify driver behaviour, why should any road traffic offence be deemed more significant on some days of the year than other days? Surely, a person's safety is of equal value on any day of the year, yet the penalty for risking someone's safety is not (?) Double demerit points are typically applied on those days of the year when a greater proportion of drivers travel on roads unfamiliar to them (or only infrequently travelled by them). Drivers need to be vigilant at all times they take to the road.

    reply

  • Zsuza69

    Zsuza69

    9 years ago

    Why on earth would I say that well for one reason only. If the police and government were serious about cutting the road death toll to nothing all they have to do is make it compulsory for all cars and trucks to have speed limiters installed like they do for seat belts and airbags and everything else in a car that's compulsory. And take it a step further and put a ground scanner on cars and a barcode on the road every time the speed limit changes so that it changes the speed limiter to the different speed zone. But then the police wouldn't get any money in for the government and also there would be no need for highway patrol. Therefor more police for real crimes such as breakins and thefts and drugs. Just my thoughts 😀 - Posted from rhpmobile

    reply

  • sweetgem

    sweetgem

    9 years ago

    You're a laugh, at times! I can make a response however I like/want, as long as I'm not offending or insulting anyone, plus stay on the topic! Please really, leave me alone! 🙄🙄

    reply

  • Tall74nHard9

    Tall74nHard9

    9 years ago

    Only really work for the people who generally obey the road rules without question.There are so many examples available whereby our speed limits are extremely arbitrary and make no sense at all according to the prevailing road conditions. And newer or upgraded sections of major roads are generally well capable of handling speeds well in excess of what is posted. Good roads that are posted at, say, 110 km/h (in NSW) could easily accept the general European limit of 130km/h without problem, and this has even been recently recognised by one Victorian parliamentarian. With our general vast distances of travel, boredom is a major source of inattention on the roads, caused by travelling at a slower pace than would otherwise be achievable. What is usually trotted out by our elected officials of the 'speed kills' motto is of course absolute b/s. Every day people travel at speeds far faster than we travel on some of our highways, but how many actually get killed from travelling fast ? It is travelling at a faster speed than is desirable for the conditions is where people generally get into trouble. Going too fast on a wet bend; going too fast on a short section of road; and so on. Sensible people will usually act in a sensible fashion - it is the others who do not know their own limitations that are the ones who will usually push their boundaries to a fail, and unfortunately with our general low level of driver education and easy accessibility to a licence that leads to the ultimate failure. They are the ones who do not care about demerits or other forms of penalties - they will always be looking out for their next 'high', regardless. How do you legislate against that ? Tall

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    Quoting 'Zsuza69' Why on earth would I say that well for one reason only. If the police and government were serious about cutting the road death toll to nothing all they have to do is make it compulsory for all cars and trucks to have speed limiters installed like they do for seat belts and airbags and everything else in a car that's compulsory. And take it a step further and put a ground scanner on cars and a barcode on the road every time the speed limit changes so that it changes the speed limiter to the different speed zone. But then the police wouldn't get any money in for the government and also there would be no need for highway patrol. Therefor more police for real crimes such as breakins and thefts and drugs. YES! I love this idea.... because underneath my car will be a barcode saying "150" ;) On a related note, the new Volvos such as the XC90 can read street signs to determine the speed, then display the speed limit on the dash and adjust the cruise control limit if you're on cruise. It's pretty nifty, since unlike the GPS base systems it adjusts for new roadworks or variable speed limits. You will never have a road toll of zero - unless you remove all vehicles from the road. Even when there were nearly no cars, there were car accidents and people killed or injured. The world just isn't absolutely safe, vehicles are MUCH safer than they were - and this is reflected in the data - but you can't make it absolutely safe. Quoting 'sweetgem' You're a laugh, at times! I can make a response however I like/want, as long as I'm not offending or insulting anyone, plus stay on the topic! Please really, leave me alone! 🙄🙄 Thanks, I find some of your posts funny too. To clarify, I didn't say you couldn't make your post - but don't you think it is a bit nonsensical to tell me that you can post however you want (within reason), but I can't also post what I want? If you're going to post on a public forum then you either need to accept that people may post a rebuttal/dissenting reply, or make the arguments in posts so solid that they can't. I'm happy for you to post a counter to my arguments if you would like. Back on topic, I think it is telling that while govt officials have pushed for double demerit/increased penalty periods during holidays - the academic circles don't seem to say the same thing. I'd be interested to see an examination of stats for regular vs holiday periods of the old notorious highway sections, like the Pacific Highway, and how highway improvements have impacted the toll, and how the traffic volumes have changed over time.

    reply

  • Machariel

    Machariel

    9 years ago

    Most rich ppl do not registerer there cars in there names, they will have it registered to a company. When the company receives a fine they do not have to pass over the drivers info. Therefore bypassing demrit points. In this case (qld perspective) the fine cost is 4X the amount. This amount does not change during double demrit times... I think 4X is a little low to get around the loop hole. Using a company to shield your self should be closed - Posted from rhpmobile

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    Quoting 'Machariel' Most rich ppl do not registerer there cars in there names, they will have it registered to a company. When the company receives a fine they do not have to pass over the drivers info. Therefore bypassing demrit points. In this case (qld perspective) the fine cost is 4X the amount. This amount does not change during double demrit times... I think 4X is a little low to get around the loop hole. Using a company to shield your self should be closed The company loophole is the best you're going to get, you can't close it, because what happens if you have a shared car and don't know who was driving it? Even if cars could only be registered to one owner, it's a criminal charge so you can't just penalise the owner - would you send someone to the clink because they were the owner of a knife borrowed to kill someone? The police can't prove it was you driving unless the speed camera picture clearly shows you - so, assuming nobody was going to come forward and say it was them - the option was, give people a more expensive out and hope they take it; or tie up the court with a futile case to prove the person did it. I'm guessing those multipliers were chosen to make it cheaper to pay the increased fine than have paying the legal fees to go to court and avoid the fine.

    reply

  • RHP

    RHP User

    9 years ago

    Fines are doubled too in WA trust me i learn't the hard way

    reply

Tags

View all

sex

swingers

couples

advice

swinging

fun

women

redhotpie

relationships

travel

Boards

Forum help

Get the RedHotPie app
appStore googlePlay

Contact Us

®2001 - 2026 Digital Quarter Pty Ltd - All Rights Reserved The word RedHotPie and the RedHotPie logo style are trademarks of Digital Quarter Pty Ltd.

X