Losing your licence?

[avgas]

I never hit the full 100.
Had 90 for 2 years, then cleared and got 80 for 2 years, then cleared, then 90 for 2 years, then 50......then nothing for like 8 years.

Whenever it got close I used to downgrade me bike/car for a bit.

[rastuscat]

Demerits have been devalued by the gubbermint.

Used to be they were for road safety offences. Stop signs, speed. That sort of thing.

When the Pollies wanted kudos for nudging the Boy Racers 20 points got put on noisy exhaust tickets. Couple of years back they got added to vehicle registration tickets. How many people ever died from noisy or unlicensed vehicles?

Nil points for seatbelts offences. Nil for traffic light offences. Bizarre. I've been writing reports for years on that subject.

Reduce fines and increase demerits.

[Ender EnZed]

I started in 1989 and back then it was very different. If you got 100 points in 12 months you lost your licence for 6 months. Get them in 24 months and it was 3 months of walking.

Speeding tickets were all 35 points back then, 3 of those got you a compulsory walk.

3 tickets in 2 years to lose your licence? That seems harsh.

Some lawyers must have got pretty adept at stringing the third one along.

[awayatc]

twas before speed cameras, and before quotas.

You only got speeding tickets for being a complete egg......

nothing like nowadays.

( 0 tickets for umpteen years pretty standard back then)

[HenryDorsetCase]

Demerits have been devalued by the gubbermint.

Used to be they were for road safety offences. Stop signs, speed. That sort of thing.

When the Pollies wanted kudos for nudging the Boy Racers 20 points got put on noisy exhaust tickets. Couple of years back they got added to vehicle registration tickets. How many people ever died from noisy or unlicensed vehicles?

Nil points for seatbelts offences. Nil for traffic light offences. Bizarre. I've been writing reports for years on that subject.

Reduce fines and increase demerits.

no demerits. no instant fines. Every ticket goes to court. Only three offences: careless, reckless, dangerous use. Let the people who get the big bucks (Judges) decide.

[Scuba_Steve]

no demerits. no instant fines. Every ticket goes to court. Only three offences: careless, reckless, dangerous use. Let the people who get the big bucks (Judges) decide.

Which ironically are the worst drivers by occupation; so someone who can't drive is judging you on your driving

[Big Dog]

no demerits. no instant fines. Every ticket goes to court. Only three offences: careless, reckless, dangerous use. Let the people who get the big bucks (Judges) decide.

Flaw here being the judge does not witness the incident. Next you'll have every driver carrying a lawyer and every cop carrying a judge.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Flaw here being the judge does not witness the incident. Next you'll have every driver carrying a lawyer and every cop carrying a judge.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

No, that would be silly. We have drug courts and environment courts and family courts: we should have traffic courts.

and a judge is never present when a rape or bestiality or tax fraud is committed: they are the people we as a society have empowered to consider two competing arguments, and to decide who is right. There is no conceptual difference between an alleged traffic offence, and tax fraud or murder in that sense. Plus there are checks and balances built into that system which prevent (or at least reduce) the chances of mistake and allow for appeals and whatever. If you accept an infringement notice and do not take the opportunity of having it tested in court, then you have abandoned one of the fundamental principles of our democracy. Its a bad show.

I am as lazy as the next man (actually probably lazier) so I can see the attraction, but its just wrong.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Which ironically are the worst drivers by occupation; so someone who can't drive is judging you on your driving

Have you some statistics to back that assertion up? Given they (Judges) are relatively few in number, and generally well paid and cautious individuals by nature, I suspect that you are full of shit. But prove me wrong.

[rastuscat]

Have you some statistics to back that assertion up? Given they (Judges) are relatively few in number, and generally well paid and cautious individuals by nature, I suspect that you are full of shit. But prove me wrong.

Dude. Stop reacting to Scoober. He's a unique individual who we all treasure for his unique views. But don't take him seriously.

He lives in his own world, free of the responsibilities we regular citizens have. He exempt from all laws, including Newtons laws of motion.

Just let his creative fantasising roll, and accept it for what it is......ramblings of a unique individual.

[Akzle]

Flaw here being the judge does not witness the incident. Next you'll have every driver carrying a lawyer and every cop carrying a judge.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

that might save me a lot of time trying to explain legislation to the popo...

[STJim]

that might save me a lot of time trying to explain legislation to the popo...

At $200 per hour for an amateur???

[HenryDorsetCase]

that might save me a lot of time trying to explain legislation to the popo...

you should, like, get some cards printed, and laminated, and hand them out. Send me one too.

[bluninja]

and a judge is never present when a rape or bestiality or tax fraud is committed:

Interesting that you would group those 3 offences together.....and no judge has ever committed any of those acts?? hmmmmm...you got any statistics to back that up??

[Big Dog]

No, that would be silly. We have drug courts and environment courts and family courts: we should have traffic courts.

and a judge is never present when a rape or bestiality or tax fraud is committed: they are the people we as a society have empowered to consider two competing arguments, and to decide who is right. There is no conceptual difference between an alleged traffic offence, and tax fraud or murder in that sense. ,.

But it is rare to get any form of conviction for these types of crime without other evidence than a single witness.

I am all for a right to contest a ticket. Dead against making all tickets something you have to defend.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.