The logic is that road deaths go up during holiday periods (which is sadly a statistical fact here) so they ramp up enforcement and double the penalties for those periods to try to correct for it. I’m not a huge fan of the idea, but from a purely statistical and scientific standpoint it does at least make some amount of sense. My individual circumstance is a bit of a curveball because my punishment was way outstripping my crime, but I do have some understanding for the idea of double demerits. I think my issue was that what should have been a one-point offence (doubled to two points) became an eight-point offence just because I was on a provisional licence. That part I’m still very salty about.
As a total stranger who who doesn’t know you a dot, I can totally unemotional and impartially say that you received justice.
Speed kills, literally. And as an inexperienced driver, you shouldn’t be speeding a dot. Let alone anyone else.
If a kid had run out from behind a parked car, tree or whatever then you have a much better chance of not killing them if you’re going the speed limit.
The fact that you were even caught, while armed with all the knowledge you have about increased deaths and thus increased demerits, tells me you should have made better choices.
I have been caught speeding 3 times in my 20 years of driving and I deserved every single one of them, and more.
That you were able to further reduce your punishment is further evidence of the system working.
Frankly I think your posts reveal an attitude of a victim rather than a perpetrator, which is a shame because you should probably have taken away something about the need to not speed in order to not kill people.
Everyone thinks they’re a great driver, and no one thinks it’s going to be them who has the accident that kills someone. But that’s the thing about accidents, they’re unpredictable and undesired.
All that said and done- if you were speeding by less than 10% I think it’s harsh and I’m glad you got to reduce the punishment! Over here we have 20mph zones to protect kids and 7kmh over is inexcusable in my book.
The area in which I was speeding was a distributor from our major city, with no pedestrian, bike or parking lanes available. I had exactly zero chance of hitting a child running out from behind a parked car because there’s no capacity to park cars on that road nor are any pedestrians present on the road. I was also driving on a wide corner, where speed/velocity can be easily distorted by many factors when measured from a stationary perspective, so I cannot be sure that the reading was entirely accurate. There are no pedestrians allowed on the distributor either; nor is there a walking space or lane. My only chance of causing injury or death to others due to my minimal speeding was in a collision with another vehicle.
This instance is the only time I’ve ever been fined for speeding in my seventeen years of driving. I’ve personally driven ~5km/h over the limit without any further fines or punishments, including past police cars with active LIDAR guns pointed at me and through speed cameras, indicating that there is simply no viable reason to stop and fine drivers who are over the limit within a reasonable margin of error.
Beyond all of the above, I’ll note AGAIN that I was happy to pay the $560 fine (which I deemed appropriate but costly, and costed me $80 for each km/h over the limit while I was earning $13/hour) but fought only the suspension of my licence. I didn’t believe that a single instance of driving 7km/h over the limit justified a suspension, and I still agree with that idea.
My issue was the severity of my punishment with reference to my crime. I definitely committed a crime (yes, I am a criminal), and deserved punishment for doing so, but I disagreed with the severity of that punishment. That doesn’t infer that I learned nothing; nor that I am uncaring of my fellow citizens.
I don’t think I’m a great driver, mostly because I’ve taken Low Risk Driver courses, have a Bachelor in Psychology (including driver/traffic psychology) and am acutely aware of the effects that driving hubris has on capacity - statistics often show that those who rate themselves as ‘better than average’ drivers are more likely to commit traffic offences. I do, however, know that I’m a competent driver which my last sixteen years since this event without demerit should indicate.
By the way, I’ve been a child protection caseworker for almost a decade now, and so to infer that I don’t care for the safety of children might not be the best argument to make.
The logic is that road deaths go up during holiday periods (which is sadly a statistical fact here) so they ramp up enforcement and double the penalties for those periods to try to correct for it. I’m not a huge fan of the idea, but from a purely statistical and scientific standpoint it does at least make some amount of sense. My individual circumstance is a bit of a curveball because my punishment was way outstripping my crime, but I do have some understanding for the idea of double demerits. I think my issue was that what should have been a one-point offence (doubled to two points) became an eight-point offence just because I was on a provisional licence. That part I’m still very salty about.
As a total stranger who who doesn’t know you a dot, I can totally unemotional and impartially say that you received justice.
Speed kills, literally. And as an inexperienced driver, you shouldn’t be speeding a dot. Let alone anyone else.
If a kid had run out from behind a parked car, tree or whatever then you have a much better chance of not killing them if you’re going the speed limit.
The fact that you were even caught, while armed with all the knowledge you have about increased deaths and thus increased demerits, tells me you should have made better choices.
I have been caught speeding 3 times in my 20 years of driving and I deserved every single one of them, and more.
That you were able to further reduce your punishment is further evidence of the system working.
Frankly I think your posts reveal an attitude of a victim rather than a perpetrator, which is a shame because you should probably have taken away something about the need to not speed in order to not kill people.
Everyone thinks they’re a great driver, and no one thinks it’s going to be them who has the accident that kills someone. But that’s the thing about accidents, they’re unpredictable and undesired.
All that said and done- if you were speeding by less than 10% I think it’s harsh and I’m glad you got to reduce the punishment! Over here we have 20mph zones to protect kids and 7kmh over is inexcusable in my book.
The area in which I was speeding was a distributor from our major city, with no pedestrian, bike or parking lanes available. I had exactly zero chance of hitting a child running out from behind a parked car because there’s no capacity to park cars on that road nor are any pedestrians present on the road. I was also driving on a wide corner, where speed/velocity can be easily distorted by many factors when measured from a stationary perspective, so I cannot be sure that the reading was entirely accurate. There are no pedestrians allowed on the distributor either; nor is there a walking space or lane. My only chance of causing injury or death to others due to my minimal speeding was in a collision with another vehicle.
This instance is the only time I’ve ever been fined for speeding in my seventeen years of driving. I’ve personally driven ~5km/h over the limit without any further fines or punishments, including past police cars with active LIDAR guns pointed at me and through speed cameras, indicating that there is simply no viable reason to stop and fine drivers who are over the limit within a reasonable margin of error.
Beyond all of the above, I’ll note AGAIN that I was happy to pay the $560 fine (which I deemed appropriate but costly, and costed me $80 for each km/h over the limit while I was earning $13/hour) but fought only the suspension of my licence. I didn’t believe that a single instance of driving 7km/h over the limit justified a suspension, and I still agree with that idea.
My issue was the severity of my punishment with reference to my crime. I definitely committed a crime (yes, I am a criminal), and deserved punishment for doing so, but I disagreed with the severity of that punishment. That doesn’t infer that I learned nothing; nor that I am uncaring of my fellow citizens.
I don’t think I’m a great driver, mostly because I’ve taken Low Risk Driver courses, have a Bachelor in Psychology (including driver/traffic psychology) and am acutely aware of the effects that driving hubris has on capacity - statistics often show that those who rate themselves as ‘better than average’ drivers are more likely to commit traffic offences. I do, however, know that I’m a competent driver which my last sixteen years since this event without demerit should indicate.
By the way, I’ve been a child protection caseworker for almost a decade now, and so to infer that I don’t care for the safety of children might not be the best argument to make.
Seems like we agree then.
I don’t agree with your position that my ultimate penalty was congruent with my crime. EDIT: nor that it represented a just outcome.
Okay, well I’m not trying to change your opinion as it’s completely valid…as is mine.
Have a good day.
As a total stranger who doesn’t know you a dot.
You’re a douchebag.
Ad hominem attacks always reveal the character.
Wow you sure got me, “hurt durr much logical fallacy”
No one takes those seriously.