NSW: 3 strikes and you're out

Maybe its a good thing I'm not making laws, but I get quite irate about
other people who endanger my life.

Of course, if I made the rules, 110 in a 100 zone would be a mere
trifle, and 146 in a deserted freeway at 2 am would be a non-event.

 

The reality is that on any given day a road user has no idea how many
times his life is actually endangered by other motorists for whatever
reason.
Perhaps we would use the roads less if we really knew.
Deterrents: one reason capital punishment is not used is that it is not seen
to be a deterrent. On a lesser scale obviously speeding fines are not
either.
The success of the drink driving campaign may well in part be the result
of public education and arousing the public's consciences.
As I see it, the State draws up laws in part so that we might live in a
civil
society. The way the mis-demeanors addressed in this thread can be
classifies are: against the State, and against the citizen. In the latter
case,
there is a resultant ill-effect caused, and then the severity of the penalty
should be increased.
Rockit

 

No, it was just a way to acknowledge that trucks do perform essential
services, like delivering beer, and, while they can be a nuisance, are
acceptable.

Kids should get training wheels anyway!

regards,
CrazyCam

 

No they're not the same. One is probably disobeying a road traffic sign,
the other is incredibly stupid speeding.

I think you will find Burke street Mall is still a road, and default
limits apply.

My earlier point was in relation to two circumstances in which the
action of the offender was the same, and only the consequences differ.
Coming up with odd scenarios where two vastly different actions might
just be considered equivalent from a limited perspective if you squint a
bit is a bit pointless.

well, in the example I gave, both offenders were in the same situation.

Did he fire it into a crowded shopping mall, recklessly endangering the
lives of others? Or did he fire it down a rabbit burrow, reckessly
endangering a rabbit (and probably himself)?

I never suggested that two offences with just a single point of
similarity should be treated the same way.

Are you suggesting that the one who fires the shotgun into the crowded
mall, (or drives a semi through it at 150k/h) should get a slap on the
wrist, and be told not to do it again and isn't it lucky no-one was hurt?

Moike

 

too true.

obviously? what stops *you* from doing 130 on the hunme freeway?

I think that's the basic idea, but it seems to have gotten complicated.

eh?

Moike

 

Yeah, speeding is one of the offences, but it only becomes criminal etc, ie,
you have to go to court if you're doing more than 45km/h over the limit etc.
Seems like a good idea to me. There were an awfull lot of repeat offenders
on the roads for far too long. I'm talking serious stuff here though, not
like parking tickets and 0-15km/h over tickets.

Cam

 

Was there any traffic about?

I think there should be *some* penalty attached to frightening the rabbits.

Moike

 

Yes, but Section 30 sets down the mechanisms for bargaining for a more
reasonable disqualification period (less than 5 years but at least 2 years) at
the time of the conviction for the offence which triggers the habitual traffic
offender declaration. You can argue that 5 years disqualification is a
disproportionate punishment for the offences committed and have that time
reduced.

I don't think it's worth worrying about unless you're the type of serial drink
driver that Mike Munro would stalk.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Stop it, Minime!

Taunting educated people is bound to end in tears.

 

the fact that I'm usually going faster.... actually I stay away from the
hum drum if I can. Will come home in traffic after a good ride... settle
in behind (to the left) of something travelling at an "acceptable" pace...
acts like a brake for me.

Regarding the matters being discussed, the law itself is a command (a wish?)
to reject it may have no ill-effect on anyone\anything, but it remains an
offence against the State... the law maker consequence ??? none most of
the time... not even a guilty conscience; so there is hardly need for an
excessive penalty.
However, if the risk in breaking the law is such that it results in some
ill-effect,
and it could be urgued that it need only be to the maintenance of civil
society... then there is a need for a greater penalty.
Perhaps we are talking about the conflict between liberty and regulation.

 

You attempt to 'bargain' for the best possible result in any court case.
If you feel the sentence is too harsh you have grounds, as you should, for
appeal. This is a sentence on top of a sentence without an appeal.

Yes, but once started where does it stop?

 

It depends on how you describe the action:
1. fired a shotgun into shopping mall
2. Killed a child in a shopping mall

IMO, action 2 is considerably worse than action 1, even though action
1 has the potential to also entail action 2.

And a greater offence occurs when the dangerous act results in injury
or death.

[snip]

 

Well maybe I should stop if you think John is going to get all teary ;-)


G-S

 

<sniffle> Boohoo.

There ya happy now ?

JL

 

Conehead wrote

Now I don't think it's nice calling people names Conehead

JL
(educated, hmmmph !)

 

Somewhat but you're (deliberately) missing the point. Heavier punishment
should be meted out for *actually* causing a problem, deterring people
is all good and well but the whole concept of ever tighter restrictions
stop people being accountable for their actions. People should be making
decisions about what they do and being held accountable for those choices.

JL

 

OK, now we hit the fundamental diversion of logic then. I think killing
someone is worse than potentially killing someone. You don't. We'll have
to agree to differ.

As above, we differ.

Yes

JL

 

The action being the same is irrelevant, the outcome is what's
measurable and should be treated accordingly. I don't think we differ on
stupid actions which don't actually cause harm should carry some
penalty, I think where we differ is that achieving a negative outcome
should carry an extra penalty.

JL

 

Thanks guys, I didn't really have time to dig into it properly, glad it
wasn't as bad as the first skim looked !

 

fairy nuff.

As a point of clarification, I'm not suggesting reducing the penalty for
actual harm, I'm suggesting bringing the penalty for 'reckless
endangerment' up a fair bit closer to that for causing actual harm.

Note the use of the phrase "much more lightly" above.

e.g. I had a 4wd ute pull out from behind a stopsign the other day,
phone stuck on the driver's ear. What saved my life was my own
preparedness and moderately quick reflexes. I saw the ute, saw the
phone, and knew he hadn't looked in my direction yet, so I covered the
brakes and prepared for the worst. The driver is probably still
wondering what that noise was that sounded like a horn. I don't think
he heard the plaintive cry of "MORON!!"[1]

What saved his life[2] was the fact that he pulled out from my left and
turned right. By the time I had calmed down he was too far away to be
worth chasing down.

On another day, another rider might have gone straight underneath the ute.

If I ruled the world, the driver could lose his licence for that kind of
recklessness endangering someone else.

Moike

[1] bloody full face helmets.

[2] OK, I exaggerate. It saved him from getting an earful at the next
lights.