Stupid Stupid Demerits System

[caspernz]

Funny how far off topic one can get...flicking thru the various posts

Back to Petes' original post though, yes I think red light running and failing to wear the seat belt should be demerit offences. Both have a social cost in worst case scenario, so that solves it for me.

[Akzle]

Would I like to see all 3 star and less cars replaced by 5 (or 6) star. Yes, but I appreciate that's not economically pratical for many.

or... And this is just a far out left fielder, make it some kind of rule not to drive in to other cunts,

thereby making any "safety rating" 100% fucking irrelevant.

[Scuba_Steve]

Seatbelts still IMO shouldn't be anyone else's business
In my family car I'm happy to wear a sealtbelt, I expect to survive in that; but my van from the 80's I shouldn't be forced to wear a belt that only hinders safety, it provides as much safety as a lap belt on a motorbike. I have 2mm of light grade steel between me & death, seatbelt aint doing shit!

Seatbelts should be personal choice just like ATGATT & hi-vis; those who think it should be mandatory IMO should hand in their bikes for cages as bikes are inherently far too dangerous... in-fact we should probably start handing out demerits to anyone that rides one, after all "look at what happens if the muppet lives" & there's a "social cost in worst case scenario"

Also to add; Red light runners are still cocks like those who push into lines & should be targeted (but not by cameras)

[Akzle]

Seat belts let Darwin decide, its your responsibility for your passengers. If they are 18+ and refuse to put seat belt on they get the fine/demerit instead of driver.
Had one or two of those passengers. Kiddies can be a pest in this area when they decide they don't need a seatbelt

except the driver gets fined roo. 150 each iirc.

Had a 4 year old try telling me that (not mine). Once. Only once.

Stood on the picks at the end of the street...He changed his mind while he was upside down in the footwell.

[gsxr]

My rant My story.


Seat belts in this day and age are needed given the increased amount of traffic
However back in the 70s I was a hoon. Race bikes etc.
But I was an old school boy racer..... There maybe still some on here that remember me.
I had a supercharged road legal Pontiac that was the envy of most popo with a ticket book

One night I was pissed off with the girl I was with so i boosted it . Long story short I didnt quite get around the corner as planed .
The lampost was unforgiving .
Fortunately she wasnt wearing her seat belt and was sitting next to me on the front bench seat
The unforgiving lamp post went throgh where she should have been sitting
Had she been wearing her seat belt I would not have been able to wake up to her beautiful face every morning to this day.

[eldog]

Had a 4 year old try telling me that (not mine). Once. Only once.

Stood on the picks at the end of the street...He changed his mind while he was upside down in the footwell.

Even though I like your method....

try telling that to an autistic child, and then having to explain to the parent how the bruises came about

Then they wonder why I have nothing to do with them.

[awayatc]

Yes demerits should only be for dangerous fuck ups.....

red light definitely....

no rego ...?

So yes above mentioned demerit cock up fits perfectly well with overall traffic policing "efforts"

[rastuscat]

My rant My story.


Seat belts in this day and age are needed given the increased amount of traffic
However back in the 70s I was a hoon. Race bikes etc.
But I was an old school boy racer..... There maybe still some on here that remember me.
I had a supercharged road legal Pontiac that was the envy of most popo with a ticket book

One night I was pissed off with the girl I was with so i boosted it . Long story short I didnt quite get around the corner as planed .
The lampost was unforgiving .
Fortunately she wasnt wearing her seat belt and was sitting next to me on the front bench seat
The unforgiving lamp post went throgh where she should have been sitting
Had she been wearing her seat belt I would not have been able to wake up to her beautiful face every morning to this day.

Far, far more people have been saved by seatbelts than have ever been killed by them.

If you're a gambler, play the odds.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-...used-own-death

[Erelyes]

To save the trouble, then I shall go directly to hell once I've finished writing this post. I know I deserve to be burnt at a stake, etc etc.

Ok, first off the biggest change to demerits I'd make is to assign demerit points to fixed and mobile cameras too. Yes, I appreciate that someone can pick up enough points to go from clean to no license in the time that it takes to post them, but only if said person is consistently driving in excess of the legal limit.

First off, well thought out post.

Re demerits, the trouble is in setting the system up to correctly assign demerits to the driver. When you're caught red-handed and they sight the license, it's easy. But if a camera nabs you, all they can do is post it to the registered owner. Having a fine in your name is one thing, having something with an actual bearing on your right to drive (demerits) is quite another. Then you get muppets that don't change the address the car is registered to, and herpderp, wonder why they have a bailiff knocking on the door months down the track.

You are right that lower speeds = lower impact speeds.

It has been shown (sorry, can't remember the study) that in a 50kph area an attentive drive at 80kph is 100 times safer (less likely to crash) than a distracted driver at 50kph.

Some early research showed that lower speeds = more crashes (which leads one to wonder whether fatalities dropped). Studies since have compared fatalities with speeds and found essentially that even if people are crashing more at lower speeds, they're still dying less. There was an indication injuries went up. (Perhaps only because they got to be counted as 'injured' instead of 'dead'). Hence any argument that people pay less attention at lower speed, is moot as it's not the number of crashes that matter but their outcome. I presume accordingly your view of 'safety' relates to crashes, not the actual impact (pun intended) on the occupants. The studies are cited here.

The crux of the problem is not so much setting a lower speed limit, and assuming that people will drive slower (and fining those that don't). Where speed limits are sensible people generally abide by them. Where speed limits are lower than what someone's brain tells them is safe, they are more likely to ignore it. The more of these 'foolish' limits are in place, the less drivers respect speed limits overall. Hence, by setting a lower speed in a particular area just to appease residents, your piece of paper, or a local politician, you're gradually eroding the safety in other areas. Of course most residents when told this will fly off the handle as they were never asking for a lower speed based on a logical argument, but rather solely an appeal to emotion (won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN?). But anyway, the key is, if you actually want people to go slower, setting lower limits can be counter-intuitive.

I just wish Police focussed on issuing ticket for OTHER things in an equitable fashion. Speed is not the leading cause of crashes. Driver inattention is. (Anyone arguing contrary, I cite this, page 3-2, and await your evidence to the contrary)

But getting away from that, the other problem is this: we live in a society where, if we want to change behavior we legislate a new rule, rather than enforcing the ones we already have. The 'Boy Racer Act' is a prime example of this. It was already illegal to do burnouts (careless driving, causing annoyance, etc). It was already illegal to race. In fact, laughably, if you look at the law, it actually says that if the vehicle is within the speed limit and does not contravene any other enactment, then the driving is authorised by law! In other words "we're not making anything new illegal, we're just making this more punitive".

Of course rather than giving Police 'more powers' we could have actually, y'know, had more Police. But the legislators prefer to earn money sitting around debating bills which they proclaim will fix all our problems, rather than that money actually going to enforcing the rules they've already made. OR, by fixing the fuckups in the laws they made before (because that would be admitting they didn't get it right).

Any chance we can just stick to the demerits argument?

YOU'RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR!

I I'm actually in favour of an older fleet. The older the fleet the better it is for the environment (emissions improvements not withstanding).

Correct. The amount of 'stuff' it takes to make a new car, compared with maintaining an older one, is astronomical.

[rastuscat]

I'm entirely in agreement with Erelyes.

Take a photo.

[RDJ]

Far, far more people have been saved by seatbelts than have ever been killed by them.

And not just saved.

I have spent many a weary Saturday night and Sunday morning suturing facial lacerations and picking windscreen glass out of various anatomical locations in people who failed to wear their seatbelt... When in a car.

And if you think that's no fun, try having a nurse scrubbing grit out of your abrasions and lacerations with a toothbrush... so you don't end up terminally tattooed by road rash and other environmental infringements.

Not wearing a seat belt in a car, to me, is analogous to not wearing a helmet and gloves and boots while riding.

But hey, you're the author of your own destiny. Darwinian theory in practice.

[Ocean1]

Where speed limits are sensible people generally abide by them. Where speed limits are lower than what someone's brain tells them is safe, they are more likely to ignore it. The more of these 'foolish' limits are in place, the less drivers respect speed limits overall. Hence, by setting a lower speed in a particular area just to appease residents, your piece of paper, or a local politician, you're gradually eroding the safety in other areas. Of course most residents when told this will fly off the handle as they were never asking for a lower speed based on a logical argument, but rather solely an appeal to emotion (won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN?). But anyway, the key is, if you actually want people to go slower, setting lower limits can be counter-intuitive.

Certainly counter productive. I'm interested in the legal mechanism whereby speed limits are set. I know there's at the very least a guide to set the limit at 85% of the mean unrestricted speed for any given bit of road. In fact one report had that as not so much a guide as a requirement.

Which begs a bunch of questions. Not least of which is "how do you establish the mean unregulated speed?"

Only, I've never encountered a stretch of road with a sign saying: "Hit it guys, we're timing you to see what speed you're comfy with".

[rastuscat]

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.

[bogan]

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.

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

[Moi]

Certainly counter productive. I'm interested in the legal mechanism whereby speed limits are set. I know there's at the very least a guide to set the limit at 85% of the mean unrestricted speed for any given bit of road. In fact one report had that as not so much a guide as a requirement.

Which begs a bunch of questions. Not least of which is "how do you establish the mean unregulated speed?"

Only, I've never encountered a stretch of road with a sign saying: "Hit it guys, we're timing you to see what speed you're comfy with".

Here you go...