Crossroads Road Crime Policy - updates on IID's

**Genestho** · 12th August 2009, 09:28

Mods, not sure where this goes!

Ok Dudes bare with me, bit of info here....

Firstly more good news from the senior traffic adviser at MOT.
"Good news - the Minsiter has discussed the interlock proposal with his colleagues and has "officially" given us the green light to keep working on it.

I now have to work out the final few issues (with the help of other agencies) and I'll be reporting back to the Minister by December.
If there is any major shift in direction as a result of the road safety strategy to 2020 consultation this will be taken into account. Other than that, it's full steam ahead."

Crossroads are now in the throws of writing official lobbying policy.
Which I understand will be put together with cited research at the Sensible Sentencing Conference in September.

Tentative discussions at this point include...

1.Vehicular Manslaughter - particularly for Recidivist drink drivers - that cause death/s by drink-driving
(This has been discussed with a few lawyer friends of mine, and I've been told there is no reason why this can't be implemented.)

2.Accountability when lending cars to recidivists. (points 1 and 2 are currently being addressed via research I submitted to pt.1 of My husbands and friends Inquest, pt 2 of Inquest still to come!)

3.Car crushing or Permanent removal of drink driver's cars (Too'ing and fro'ing on this one)

4.Insurance and credit tying somewhere into the mix

5.Permanent License removal (I'm personally dubious as it's only a "piece of paper")
We are currently working on implementation of processes. Specific detailed Policy will be released later in the year.

6.ACC paid counselling for " family victims", currently "victims" are not entitled to counselling unless at the roadside and surviving the smash.

7.I'll be forging ahead with IID's which is obviously going well. This removes having to rely on Police to catch recidivsts, it's self policing, it's user pays, the technology is advanced, and is succesfully used around the world.

8.Safer median barriers. Which hopefully will take into consideration the work via the Cheescutter group.

For those of you that don't believe law changes work, and that encouraging personal responsibility does, I agree, BUT reality is - there are some, for whom personal responsibility will never enter the equation!

As for Darwins theory removing the weak, the weak continue to take the innocent with them.

Last week I was invited to be on the consultation list with MOT's Roadsafety strategy to 2020, and I will be using this to the full advantage.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"

Margaret Meade

Discuss, and feedback please

**The Stranger:Me** · 12th August 2009, 09:42

Originally Posted by T.G.W

Accountability when lending cars to recidivists.

Recidivist what (drink drivers, speeders etc) exactly did you have in mind?

Permanent License removal.
We are currently working on implementation of processes. Detailed Policy will be released later in the year.

Many routinely drive now sans license, will a lifetime ban make a difference?

ACC paid counselling for " family victims", currently "victims" are not entitled to counselling unless at the roadside and surviving the accident.

Interesting, a guy we know took a dive off a car park in town. ACC paid the whole family for for quite some time. Not sure of the exact details of how much or why. None were present.

Safer median barriers. Which hopefully will take into consideration the work via the Cheescutter group.

I wish you well on this one, I REALLY do, but with the amount they are rushing into place, I don't like your odds here.

ten characters

**Genestho** · 12th August 2009, 09:48

Originally Posted by The Stranger

ten characters

ACC pay money out, after that you're on your own. They don't pay for counselling unless you're a roadside "victim". I know this because I bollocked a poor helpdesk girl at ACC over this.

I won't be personally involved with the safer median barrier project, so I'm not quite upto play on this with either policy addressing this or the research myself

**The Stranger:Me** · 12th August 2009, 10:02

Originally Posted by T.G.W

3.Car crushing or Permanent removal of drink driver's cars (Too'ing and fro'ing on this one)

Why "Too'ing and fro'ing on this one"?
It occurs to me to be one of the most effective means of getting them off the road surely. If you have no car you can't drive it. Sure they can buy another and another, but the pocket is where it hurts.
Fines can simply be not paid, easy, it doesn't hurt the pocket. Replacing a car mostly involves out of pocket cost.

**CookMySock** · 12th August 2009, 10:22

Good work, much appreciated.

Steve

**Genestho** · 12th August 2009, 10:27

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Why "Too'ing and fro'ing on this one"?
It occurs to me to be one of the most effective means of getting them off the road surely. If you have no car you can't drive it. Sure they can buy another and another, but the pocket is where it hurts.
Fines can simply be not paid, easy, it doesn't hurt the pocket. Replacing a car mostly involves out of pocket cost.

Sorry too'ing and fro'ing as to which direction: permanently remove or crush. No inbetweens!
Depends basically on public support to be honest!
One or the other buddy! Fines mean nothing and they encourage nothing!

**Genestho** · 12th August 2009, 10:28

Originally Posted by DangerousBastard

Good work, much appreciated.

Steve

Thanks mate, worth a crack eh Nige?

**mashman** · 12th August 2009, 10:37

Why is there reference to only drink drivers? I would have thought any persistent road rules offender is just as bad and can cause just as much damage...

As mentioned before, hitting people in the pocket is better than verbally banning or fining people. Why waste the time and effort putting in legislation that's been proven not to work... crush the cars/bikes!

All the best TGW

Gordon

**Genestho** · 12th August 2009, 10:45

Originally Posted by mashman

Why is there reference to only drink drivers? I would have thought any persistent road rules offender is just as bad and can cause just as much damage...

As mentioned before, hitting people in the pocket is better than verbally banning or fining people. Why waste the time and effort putting in legislation that's been proven not to work... crush the cars/bikes!

All the best TGW

Gordon

There are 5 out of 6 families at Crossroads affected by drink or drugged drivers, and a few silent families, who have got together.
In particular three families were affected by recidivist drink drivers.
We decided to push the issue.

So that's my personal involvement with Crossroads, no point in me getting involved in what I don't know mate. This is all I know. Can you imagine researching every "roadcrime" issue personally - can't be done. Initiatives need to be split up.

There is room for more intiatives, but they must be driven with personal involvement, knowledge, persistance, research, and sensible solutions to address the issues.

Take for instance cell phones, no-one personally involved, has stood up to take this issue on.

**Hitcher** · 12th August 2009, 11:26

This quite frankly scares me. I smell the dead hand of lazy regulators hovering. Instead of mandatory driver training and other sensible measures, we will have more road police, reduced tolerance levels, higher fines and a blanket 80kmh open road speed limit. Parties like the Greens will support that because it aligns with their climate change agenda.

Much of the stuff that's mooted for change, while commendable and well intentioned, will never happen because it's either too expensive or legislatively difficult.

Cellphone legislation will happen but won't make a blind bit of difference. Just like "dangerous dogs" laws haven't. If a law can't be enforced, there is little point in having one.

I'm going out for a steak, a beer and a burn-out while I still can.

**mashman** · 12th August 2009, 11:27

Originally Posted by T.G.W

There are 5 out of 6 families at Crossroads affected by drink or drugged drivers, and a few silent families, who have got together.
In particular three families were affected by recidivist drink drivers.
We decided to push the issue.

So that's my personal involvement with Crossroads, no point in me getting involved in what I don't know mate. This is all I know. Can you imagine researching every "roadcrime" issue personally - can't be done. Initiatives need to be split up.

There is room for more intiatives, but they must be driven with personal involvement, knowledge, persistance, research, and sensible solutions to address the issues.

Take for instance cell phones, no-one personally involved, has stood up to take this issue on.

Cheers for that, fills in a few gaps... Let's hope that this can be seen and used as a framework for those who have the resources to undertake research into the other "road crime" issues, making it easier to implement new road laws... Again all the best man.

**Genestho** · 12th August 2009, 11:35

Originally Posted by Hitcher

This quite frankly scares me. I smell the dead hand of lazy regulators hovering. Instead of mandatory driver training and other sensible measures, we will have more road police, reduced tolerance levels, higher fines and a blanket 80kmh open road speed limit. Parties like the Greens will support that because it aligns with their climate change agenda.

Much of the stuff that's mooted for change, while commendable and well intentioned, will never happen because it's either too expensive or legislatively difficult.

Cellphone legislation will happen but won't make a blind bit of difference. Just like "dangerous dogs" laws haven't. If a law can't be enforced, there is little point in having one.

I'm going out for a steak, a beer and a burn-out while I still can.

It's all going under our own microscope before becoming official.
And objectively looked at, public feedback taken, emotion withdrawn.
Somethings may never happen, that's the truth!

The alternative of letting things slide is the other side of the coin. Nobody wants to go so far as to remove personal responsibility or removing educating alternatives, ( I advocate training and education!) or to implement something that can't or won't work. It's all up for discussion.
Discussion causes debate, and debate is good.

Have one of all of the above for me will you?