Something wrong here

Like it.

As a FYI - I visit Singapore a lot (Now I am not defending the Govt
there so don't assume same).

The streets are very clean. Occaisionally you see people wearing bright
orange overalls picking up whatever rubbish there is. The reason they
are doing this is because they have been convicted of dropping rubbish.

There is a huge amount of public humiliation at work here!

Very nice feedback loop!


Actually - gives me a good idea. Anyone remember the stocks?

Stan

 

Only problem with the humiliation thory here in OZ is that we tend to
then take the piss out of ourselves and the humilation factor becomes
null and void.

 

nah i'm sure you will get the 'get fugged ya fuggin cahns'

 

For repeat offender to re-obtain thier licence, I would make alcohol locking
inhibitors a requirement on any car owned by the offendor, his spouse or his
live in relatives (at the expense of the individual).

Deline to do so, and registration of any vehicles in the name of the
offender could be cancelled and the licence would not be re-issued.

It would not stop everything, but it would tend to reduce the spur of the
moment...
*slurred* Ummmm goooing foorrr a driiiveee.....

G-S

 

I agree there needs to be stronger drink-driving laws, but I think mandatory
jail time seems a bit over the top for a first offence! Especially
considering you arent identifying the extent to which you broke the law.
It seems the same as mandatory jail time for someone caught doing 62kms in a
60 zone. Just as much chance of causing death & endangerment to the
public...

I also think you need to have sufficient criteria to ensure the person was
truly a danger to the general public. All you need is an officious cop, and
someone does jail time for a tehcnicality.

Slighty off the point; A bloke who was a neighbour of mine was done for
drink driving about 8 years ago; he had been to the pub, and decided to
sleep it off in the front of his ute. The police did him for drink driving
because he had his car keys in his pocket. Irony was he parked his car
outside the cop station because last visit someone had nicked the spare out
of the back of his car....

Might I suggest that first offence does mandatory rehabilitation therapy of
some kind? Take them to an accident ward, and make them meet victims of car
crashes. Get the horror of what they might cause right in their faces.

Second offence; chuck their sorry arses in jail...

I think adding a bit of beef to James' idea would be more the go.

Cheers,

Rod.......Out Back

 

Ah, well, there you go.

I totally disagree.

I don't think that there should be any penalty at all.

Penalties should be dished out to those who have actually fucked up,
rather than those who, according to statistics, _might_ **** up.

If someone fucks up, it shouldn't matter _why_!

regards,
CrazyCam

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:19:08 +1000

Problem is that then you end up with a lot of fuckups. And a lot of
dead and injured people.

Because people never believe they will **** up. They'll do what works
at the time.

What penalties for potential fuckups do is increase the risk factor of a
particular stupidity.

amd so deter more people from doing that stupid thing.

Zebee

 

Then why aren't the sober fuckups being deterred? After all, they'd
probably make up the majority of the drunk fuckups after a few drinks. If
they were already off the road then we wouldn't have a problem.

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:02:55 GMT

Because it's hard and expensive.

Drunk fuckups have been deterred by RBT vans, although how much is hard
to say since cops have confessed to bodging the numbers.

But sober fuckups are about having lots of cops out in cars driving
about looking for them - expensive, and almost certainly lead to
targetting easy marks. Like bikers...

Bored copper needing a few hits by end of shift? That rider cut in
close after passing, good oh - that's passing unsafe and probably
failure to indicate cos the flasher took a second or two to cut in.

Zebee

 

I think well all understand that.

Trouble is, there has been so much bodging of numbers that who believes
any of them?

In the old days, if you couldn't walking in a straight line, you were
too drunk to drive. (That would sort out Pete!)

Then, to make things easier and quicker, and possibly make more money,
blood alcohol limits were introduced, original .08.

OK, maybe, so far this was fair enough, but, like the speed limit
business, if it seems to work, lets do more of it..... :-(

..05 made more money, got more customers......

OK, now, depending on the phase of the moon, there are .00 or .02
limits......

Why would the cops target bikers any more than the countless other
careless drivers?

Atleast for the foreseeable future, the cops would be spoilt for choice
of folk to book for driving badly.

I have to admit that there is no telling what a bored cop might get
upto. They are, after all, mere mortals.

OTOH, I think that, by applying modern technology, the police could be
more effective in booking folk for careless or negligent driving.

The old arguments about time in court and such like could be overcome by
having video cameras recording.

It would take a fairly clever lawyer to get someone off, when there is
direct video evidence of an offence.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:53:41 +1100

YUp. And I agree that sucks, especially as the majority of crashes
occur over .08.

But unless there are a *lot* of pissed people driving, having over .1 is
a very good indicator you are going to crash.

Is it better to try and stop them, or to leave them on the road?

Does abuse of an idea mean the idea's bad?

Visibility. General feeling they are up to something. Happens already
after all.

And bikes on the whole *do* break laws more often than cars do. On my
daily commute I both see and commit all sorts of "naughty" things.
Lanesplitting's the most obvious, but I don't have the signal going for
the requisite time most times for example.

In my judgement, what I do is safe. And my driving record shows that
judgement's sound. But it's not legal.

I'd like to think they'd look for the important marks. What I am afraid
of is that ease will win.

I wonder what offences should be the targetted ones, what should be let
slide? And what proof would be needed?

That would be useful, although presumably requiring the cop car to be
directly behind the offender.

I wonder how many offences on the books have clear lines, and how many
are "reasonable" ones? And how many of those are what we'd think of as
needing enforcement?

For example, how close does a lane-changing car have to be before it's
obvious on video that it was a dangerous manouvere?

Zebee

 

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

Alright, I'll agree with a compromise situation.

Over .08, fine....loss of licence (FWTIW) and fine.

Yes!

In principle, lots of things are quite good ideas.....democracy, beer,
motherhood, speed limits and blood/acohol tests....as random examples.

All of these, and most everything else, too, can be abused. Let's face
it, humans are extremely adaptable and can take good ideas and make a
complete shit-fight of them.

Aye, fine, but, you remember the law about public stupidity, you should,
you invented it!

Cops used to like picking on motorcycle riders. Most bikies were, when
picked, on their own, and there was no witness to the conversation.

Personally, I reckon that this kinda thing has died down lately, because
the emphasis has shifted to the hi-tech enforcement style where there is
very little chance of a court hearing, never mind and acquittal.

I suppose for some, ease might win.

Let us be charitable for once!

I really don't think the new recruits to the cops actually join up for
the graft, corruption, and abuse-of-power kick.
(Dunno about the uniform, gun and leather accessories, tho)

If the cops were able to get convictions, or even just tickets paid,
picking on bad or negligent driving, and were allowed to do it. I think
they would want to try and do it properly and "make a difference".

Dunno. Stupid speeds? Weaving from lane to lane? Text-message sending
while driving? Badly colour coordinated vehicle and driver's outfit?

If there was just a couple of offenses like, say, negligent and careless
driving, with consistant penalties, there is no real reason to believe
that the police would "over do" any particular offence.

Why?

The race cars at Bathhurst manage sideways and backward looking cameras.

But the "reasonable" ones used to, and occasionally still do, go to
court, and, since the way evidence is handled, a smart (as in expensive)
lawyer can sway the way evidence is considered....as can a smart prosecutor.

There would be a lot less argument if there was a video!

If you saw it on a video, you'd know. That's what I'm getting at.....

regards,
CrazyCam

 

More a case of making it less subjective. That's what most of the road
rules are about. Failing to stop at a stop sign (even when there is
nothing in sight); exceeding a given speed limit (on a wide straight
road in broad daylight); failing to indicate )when there was nothing
there to indicate for) - all are lines in the sand which can be easily
distinguished and therefore not subject to one person's subjectivity: no
argument; no comeback; do not pass go.


---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
'81 Suzuki GS450-s
'87 BMW K100RT

www.dmcsc.org.au

 

Physical deterrents aside, you also need the financial and inconvenience
deterrents in place. Holders, or potential holders, of the ultimate sin
award, the negligent driving ticket, are being given the excuse that as
long as they weren't drinking or speeding it's not too bad, where in fact
it's much, much worse. They've already crashed! The negligent driving
penalty does not reflect that.

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:59:09 GMT

definitely.

The current road safety regime has really lost the plot.

I dunno if it is revenue raising, or whether it's bad metrics. I
suspect the bods driving this aren't thinking "must get more cash" but
"How well we do is measured by how many people we catch".

Zebee

 

And there's no _real_ need for that to just be done by the cops...

from: http://www.dansdata.com/gz038.htm

"See, I have this idea. I call it the SnitchCam. The idea's applicable
to tiny wearable cameras, but for starters it can be a bigger camera
that looks out through the windscreen of your car - like the ones
mounted in some police cars already. It records everything it sees.
Maybe it's got a ton of local storage, maybe it's just got a rolling one
hour buffer.

You've got a button on your steering wheel, with which you can tell the
camera to squirt the next half hour, and the last half hour, out into
the ether for examination at SnitchCam Central.

If your video clip shows someone doing something for which they should
be booked, they are. And if they end up paying a fine, you get a cut."

Well, except for the fact that computer generated graphics that were
only dreamed of by the film industry 10 years ago are now pretty much
available to anyone with a modern enough pc...

big

 

Zebee said....

Certainly, that's how those at the coal face have their work performance
measured. It's really the only quantifiable indicator of a traffic
police member's performance.

The further up it goes, then actual numbers of road deaths, casualties
and detected offenders comes into play for their performance management.