NSW: 3 strikes and you're out

Seems the facist state of NSW is worse than I thought

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rta1999242/s28.html
and click next to go to S29 and S30

3 traffic offences in 5 years and it's 5 years supension (and it doesn't
exclude 3 speeding fines in 5 years)

JL

 

Ahhh, this one I actually know a deal about.....

For the 3 strikes rule to apply, they need to be _CRIMINAL_ traffic
offences.

eg:
Dangerous driving
Speed dangerous
Street Racing
Unlicensed Driving
Driving an unregistered/uninsured vehcile
Neligent driving occasioning death/grevious bodily harm

Etc etc etc.

Reason I know this one, was because it was explained to me in some detail by
one of the court bods when I got sentenced for dangerous driving some 4
years back.

 

But... I thought you wanted more strictness in and around traffic law John
;-)


G-S

 

Only when you kill people Geoff!

I think punishing people heavily for potentially causing a problem and
punishing them comparatively lightly for *actually* causing a problem is
insane and arse about.

JL

 

I hope your reading is correct, although reading through that act it had
speeding listed as a proscribed offence....

JL
(have a dig and see what you reckon, I really have to get this
assignment done instead of chatting

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:29:10 +1100

It's in Sect 27 below.

IN that Sect they refer to prescribed speeding offences, and Sect 22
says:

(b) in relation to section 27 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act a speeding offence
within the meaning of clause 154 of the Road Transport (Safety and
Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999 committed in the
circumstances referred to in clause 154 (3) of that Regulation.

And that says:
(3) Exceeding speed limit by more than 45km/h
(although if you are more than 130 over, they handle it differently)



ROAD TRANSPORT (GENERAL) ACT 1999 - SECT 27
Relevant offences

(1) In this Division, a "relevant offence" means:
(a) any of the following offences committed after the commencement of
this Division of which a person has been convicted by a court in this
State:
(i) a major offence,
(ii) a prescribed speeding offence,
(iii) an offence under section 25 (3) of the Road Transport (Driver
Licensing) Act 1998 ,
(iv) an offence under section 25A (1), (2) or (3) of the Road Transport
(Driver Licensing) Act 1998 , or
(b) an offence committed after the commencement of this Division of
which a person has been convicted by a court in another State or
Territory that would be an offence of the kind referred to in paragraph
(a) if it had been committed in this State, or
(c) a relevant offence within the meaning of section 10EA of the Traffic
Act 1909 as in force immediately before its repeal.
(2) A relevant offence includes an offence of the kind referred to in
subsection (1) (a) in respect of which the charge is found proven, or a
person is found guilty, (but without proceeding to a conviction) under
section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 , or section
556A of the Crimes Act 1900 , if the offence would, if it were a
relevant offence, give rise to the declaration of the person under this
Division as an habitual traffic offender. In that case, a reference in
this Division to the conviction of the person for a relevant offence
includes a reference to the making of an order with respect to the
person.

 

Then you don't believe in the deterent effect John?

G-S

 

I disagree.

IMHO in cases (say) of drink driving, the offence is putting yourself in
a position where you are a danger. Whether or not you kill someone as a
consequence should make little difference.

For comparison, if someone discharges a shotgun into a busy shopping
mall, and doesn't hit anyone, should they get off much more lightly than
someone who does the same thing but wounds a mother or kills a child?

I would like to see the consequences of a conviction for drink driving
much closer to the consquences for causing a fatal crash while under the
influence. In my world, one conviction for drink driving should entail
loss of licence (not suspension) and disqualification for a minimum of
five years. A second conviction would entail a jail sentence and life
disqualification.

Moike

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:53:47 GMT

Why? No one was hurt. You had potential sure, and the correlation is
such that over .1 should be grounds for punishment, but not as much as
actually hurting someone.

BEcause it's just a statistic. You did no damage.

Absolutely.

They should not get away without consequences, but the conseqeunces
shouldn't be as bad.

THey were only potentially doing harm.

Should someone who owns a car be immediately fined as soon as it sets
wheel on public pavement?

They have potential to cause serious damage by that action. Every
person killed by a car on the public roads would be alive if the car had
not been driven on that road. So the correlation is clear.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, as things with great potential of
harm have to be dealt with in commensurate ways.

But not, I believe, with the same severity as actually causing harm.

using what as a marker? Any alcohol at all? .05? .08? .1? .2?

ANy extenuating circumstances at all? Such as driving on a deserted
road out one driveway, onto the road, and into another, never exceeding
5pmh?

Zebee

 

But the action is the same. The difference in the consquences is
fortuitous.

No, just as every person who owns a gun should not be seen as a
criminal. The offence occurs when they use the car or gun in a way
that is clearly dangerous.

yeah. sure. Birth is invariably fatal.

No, I said "much closer" (ie much closer that it is now) not precuisely
the same, but the consequences for taking risks with other people's
lives ought be commensurate with the risk.

Yeah.. all that. Good thing that wasn't a piece of legislation I was
drawing up. ;-)

Moike

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 07 Nov 2004 01:49:21 GMT

Perhaps...

YOU have a loaded shotgun, pointed at the ground. Someone runs into
you, the weapon discharges, a ricoched pellet blinds a child.

You have a loaded shotgun you deliberately fire it into a crowd of
people, several are injured, but none seriously.

Were the actions the same?

Should tbe penalties be the same?

Zebee

 

Farkin' hell.

I would like to see the consequences of a conviction for speeding to be
similar, Moike. We could share a cell together...

 

S31 gets better. No appeal!

 

No, I'd say the first was (possibly criminal) negligence in carrying a
loaded shotgun in a crowded public place, the second is a deliberate
attempt to hurt or kill people.

Probably not, but how is this relevent to consideration of two offences
where the actions are the same but the outcomes fortuitously different?

Moike

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:23:59 +1100

A matter of line drawing. Just as fining anyone who drives a car on
public road is...

How to calculate risk?

presumably punishment should be commensurate with the product (or
sum...) of likely damage and chance of the damage occurring.

People do 146 on deserted freeways without chance of serious
consequences to others all the time, and the chance of serious
consequences if the freeway *is* deserted are also low. So that
shouldn't deserve much of a punishment. Low harm, low chance of harm.

Doing the same in a school zone or shopping street is a different thing
- high chance of nasty consequences.

But what if the freeway is not deserted? what if there's a slow car
over a rise? The driver thought it was, they were mistaken. the chance
of nasty consequences has just gone up, as has the level of consequence
- can't hurt people who aren't there, can hurt people who are.

I'm sure someone can derive the equations!

Zebee

 

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

Only for the first offence, after that, hang them! ;-)

regards,
CrazyCam

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:00:05 +1100

quick paint "HRD sidecar" in really big letters on Angie's car then!

do trucks count as cars? Or do we have to have Really Big Sidecar
Floats to carry containers about?

Zebee

 

No comment.

Two wheels, good.

Four wheels, bad.

Number of wheels greater than 6, acceptable.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:14:55 +1100

So all the car drivers mug kids for their trainer wheels?

Zebee

 

But those are two quite different actions.

Yes, what you said is ridiculous.
Moike