Stupid Stupid Demerits System

[eldog]

I don't buy the personal choice argument.

Not when you'll be picked up and mended by the community. The Ambo, the A&E, the plastic surgeon reconstructing your face. When you are covering all those costs yourself, then I'll buy the personal choice argument.

And as for demerits, I know people who just don't give a toss about the Fines. Only points are enough to motivate some folk.

I suppose this is opening the ACC debate again, but perhaps those PROVEN at fault should pay for remediation. But that's not going to happen.
The Darwinian theory is a great idea because it uses only 2 outcomes - life/death, not life with disability or reconstruction. This is not reality.

Reality everyone has to deal with the consequences of their or someone elses actions.

A fine with demerits for such basic things as seatbelts could be applicable. Maybe a written warning is enough for most people.
Multiple times may require a stint to be educated - attendance compulsory - along the lines of showing the individual the consequences.

Would agree there is a big proportion that don't give a fig about fines, but when someone can and will remove their license....

The is a group that don't care about loss of license either or personal freedom. How do we tackle those?

[J.A.W.]

There is a group that don't care about loss of license either or personal freedom. How do we tackle those?

For sure, the ol'... 3 strikes & off to prison for a lengthy stretch - routine, as played out stateside - is pretty pricey..

[eldog]

For sure, the ol'... 3 strikes & off to prison for a lengthy stretch - routine, as played out stateside - is pretty pricey..

For some it appears to be a way of life, a place of education to further that life and to keep prison officers employed.

I would prefer to be out riding the bike.


Maybe theres a more permanent way.....

[rastuscat]

Does that not apply to your personal choice to ride bikes then?

Sure does.

It's one of the compromises of life. I reckon allowing motorcycling is a balanced social decision. The benefit out weighs the social cost, in my view.

But allowing people to not wear seatbelts is a bit unnecessary.

In terms of cost benefit, the cost of everyone wearing a seat belt is minimal. There's a comfort argument, but it's spurious. Versus the benefit to society of everyone wearing them, we'll, to me it's a sound decision. Of course not everyone agrees, and that's okay.

[eldog]

Sure does.

It's one of the compromises of life. I reckon allowing motorcycling is a balanced social decision. The benefit out weighs the social cost, in my view.

But allowing people to not wear seatbelts is a bit unnecessary.

In terms of cost benefit, the cost of everyone wearing a seat belt is minimal. There's a comfort argument, but it's spurious. Versus the benefit to society of everyone wearing them, we'll, to me it's a sound decision. Of course not everyone agrees, and that's okay.

Would you want to extend this to wearing of ATGATT?

I would agree that ATGATT isn't as protective as a seatbelt, but it has similar injury protection for road rash etc as seatbelts for glass impacts

There is a lot of bikers that would object to having demerits for no ATGATT.


OP: I suppose what you are asking is where is the boundary for demerits, fines and a combo for both. What/where is the practicality/benefit border.

[J.A.W.]

For some it appears to be a way of life, a place of education to further that life and to keep prison officers employed.

I would prefer to be out riding the bike.


Maybe theres a more permanent way.....

Sure is..

In Germany.. ~80 years ago, the Gov't developed a number of concepts, like the speed unlimited Autobahn..

..& that of "useless mouths" a category which includes "anti-social elements" such as habitual criminals..
..for scientific evaluation into re-education-redeemable, or alternatively, yes, frank extermination..

Adolf, himself being a motorhead, would not have signed off on those with excessive licence demerit points,
gained for trivial offences - but who were otherwise productive citizens, being put up for the chop..

Even as a humanist, I find the logic difficult to rebut..

[rastuscat]

I'm not asking to re write the rules.

We already have a demerit system. MoT can put them on vehicle licencing tickets.

So how hard can it be?

[eldog]

I'm not asking to re write the rules.

We already have a demerit system. MoT can put them on vehicle licencing tickets.

So how hard can it be?

Most people are resistant to change if that means that they have to do something that wont benefit themselves.

They want to have a good time, or go to work to pay for a good time (they don't goto work because they want to)

[bluninja]

Here you go...

Nah, that is just for the setting of the speed limits between 50 and 100 kmh. There's nothing about how the upper speed limit is calculated.....pobably cos it wasn't.

[Ocean1]

Here you go...

Ah, the real deal. And there's the very word itself: 3.1......

[Kickaha]

And as for demerits, I know people who just don't give a toss about the Fines. Only points are enough to motivate some folk.

True, when it was fines only I didn't give a shit, 120-140 was normal cruising speed

[5150]

Nope. The guy writing the ticket doesn't do it for the money.

Maybe someone in Treasury cares but the guys writing the tickets sure don't do it for the money.

And here I was thinking that the number of tickets written on the side of the road is directly proportional to the amount of doughnuts you boys get as a weekly Friday night bonus.