Driving Penalties
December 30th, 2005 at 5:06 am by David FarrarTransport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven has proposed an automatic loss of licence for running red lights, or “bad” overtaking.
Both these activities are dangerous, and I certainly support increased penalties there. However I think losing your licence for bad overtaking is somewhat too harsh – that’s putting it in the same category as drunk driving.
No tag for this post.
December 30th, 2005 at 6:20 am
I propose Harry shut the hell up since he has no right to be in parliment anyway and was handed is own special retroactive law change to pull it off.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 7:37 am
How about Harry investing in safer roads instead of screaming for more and more restrictions. Those Labour people just love to boss people around. Pricks.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 7:41 am
Is it not time that we recognised drunk drivers, people running red lights, bad overtakers, and speeding drivers, for what they are, criminals; that being allowed to drive on the roads is a privilege not a right and if you can’t obey the law – no privileges.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 8:04 am
After having soom moron UNDERTAKE me on the way back from the Mount last week and almost causing me to crash (with my two kids in the car) I have some sympathy for banning drivers who do crazy passing manouvres. The only trouble is that unless it causes a crash it is a case of “he said, she said”. Sure, someone driving the other way at 100KPH may have witnessed it but by the time your heart stops racing you are several kilometres apart and have no way of actually getting witnesses. An unworkable proposition I am afraid.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 8:28 am
Why don’t we just ban driving?
Seriously — its obvious to me that the root cause of all accidents is driving, and so in order to save lives we should ban it outright.
People can catch trains.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 8:46 am
When in doubt pass a law. Problem solved!
It doesn’t mean a damn thing if the laws are not enforced. People drive like idiots because there’s little chance they’ll be stopped by a patrol.
They’re all on the side of the road with cameras.
The total penis who drove 1 meter off my bumper (cops estimation backed by the digital photo I took) was stunned that he was pulled over as the chances that we’d just been passed by an unmarked car going the other were not high.
The first round of fines cost him $900. The dangerous driving hasn’t been heard yet.
Banning him from driving wont change anything because it wont be enforced.
If every 50th car on the road was a marked car then everyone would drive like Miss Daisy.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 8:47 am
Mike – they are all traffic offences, just as both blasphemy and murder are criminal offences.
The issue is whether they should all attract the same penalty? Personally I think they shouldn’t. But you do? So how about 30 years for criminal blasphemy alsoi?
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 9:34 am
I don’t see a problem with introducing loss of licence for dangerous overtaking manouvers. Quite simply, they’re one of the most dangerous things you can do on the open road and one of the most likely to cause a serious accident.
The red light thing is a bit less cut and dried. I don’t. in principle, have a problem with the idea apart from the fact that the rules around the whole yellow/red thing are a bit odd at the moment.
Did you know that the fine for going through a yellow light is the same ($150) as going through a red one? Did you know that is actually a LARGER fine than you would get for getting pulled over doing 119kph on the motorway and then subsequently failing to produce your licence?
There needs to be a bit more clarity there.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 9:43 am
Murray – Harry Duynhoven was elected by the poeple of New Plymouth, he’s got every right to be in Parliament.
And DPF – while repeat Drink Driving is a crime, you’re right, speeding is categorically not.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 9:45 am
Brian: Being overtaken on the inside can mean many things, for example you are not being observant of your surroundings and unaware of a faster car behind you (be it within the legal limit or not), you were too far to the right and left no option for the trailing car, you were in the fast lane going to slow.
Geez guys, think about, to overtake one needs to speed up to get past the danegr zone. What happens is most people then immediately brake and go under the limit. I also accept the driver of the vehicle was could also be complete Plonker who has no respect nor regards for others lives.
for you others out there: Banning will do didly squat and I bet all of you has broken a driving law otr tow in your time or are you all thos etypes that religously drive under the speed limit, do not take consideration of the cars building up behind you, do not pull over to the left to create passing opportunities and generally frustrate other drivers on the road.
Basically everybody is getting too self righteous on this matter. Reality check people you are all starting to sound like you want to live in a Police State.
Think about it a while and start considering this is just one small part of the cog that goes back how the Government wants to rule every second of our lives from before we are even created to well after we have departed this mortal coil.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 11:22 am
While we’re at it, can we ban those drivers who consistently travel at 70km/h on the open road, and then speed up to 110km/h at every passing lane available?
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 11:31 am
“or are you all thos etypes that religously drive under the speed limit, do not take consideration of the cars building up behind you, do not pull over to the left to create passing opportunities and generally frustrate other drivers on the road…. Basically everybody is getting too self righteous on this matter.”
Wow, irony at its finest. You don’t think it’s self-righteous to get angry at drivers who are obeying the law because you want to break it? That’s pretty funny.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 11:36 am
//higher Penalties for Running Red Lights.
While ive never really ran a red light (except for those ones right in front of round abouts crazy idea in the 1st place to put lights at round abouts) – Alot of traffic lights are basically f***…Take for example The Taranaki Courtaney Place Lights or the Fergusson Drive the let one lot of traffic on one side off first and the opther side waits for seconds on end, ive seen some drivers run these not because they ar eimpatient but because these set of lights are screwed up, Thats why i prefer roundabouts any ol day. Oh yeh the Road Manager of the Hutt City council must be whacked out on wowie pills, dope or whatever, it seems his decision to put lights right in front of roundabouts (ie outside the Lower Hutt Library by the Ewan bridge Roundabout) or right by the lights at dache st naenae is the very idea of a drugged out 21 year old student than a city council road worker.
Oh yeh the police SERIOUSLY need to focus on getting slow pokes up to speed – i dont mean breaking the speed limit but on days when its sunny as and the road conditions are excellent These arrogant slow b****** should be given DEMERIT POINTS as well as a ticket – Im surprised that if the police chose to enforce this slow poke rule at all then the driver only gets a $150 fine it should be $300 – hey if you refuse to allow the LTSA to sell your information to 3rd party marketing companies (ie. failing to relicence your car) its a $200 ticket and thats a “victimless offense and nothing to do with safety” – just the LTSA wanting to illegally sell your details. It should be the LTSA that are dealt with not the innocent motorist. But yeh if overtaking accidents where to be severely limited then the police would focus on cracking down on slow drivers as well as the inevitable crowbar and hammer attacks on fellow motorists weve seen of late they provoke.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
err:
“Wow, irony at its finest. You don’t think it’s self-righteous to get angry at drivers who are obeying the law because you want to break it? That’s pretty funny.”
Ironic – perhaps.
But it appears you may have misread the sentence, I did not say anything about obeying the law in that sentence.
Driving on the road requires (in addition to all the laws) situational awareness and courtesy to all others on the road. This means that if others want to break the various and numerous laws, they will, but you as the other driver must at least train yourself to be able to try and avoid the law breaker or get out of there way to ensure your safety.
Vote:Or to quote the Defensive Driving Instructor I was taught by;
“Always when driving, ensure at all times you have an exit plan”
December 30th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
All this talk of “Slow drivers” causing overtaking accidents is very nice, but doesn’t resemble reality. A scientific experiment to demonstrate this:
Get on SH1 somewhere south of Hamilton. Drive to Wellington, maintaining 100kph exactly for the entire trip apart from times when you have to drive slower (50kph zones, that section on the way up to the desert road that takes you down to 30kph in places). Use low-speed lanes at all times when they are not occupied by slower vehicles than you. Count how many times you get passed at high speed, dangerously, by morons who go duck into the oncoming lane without sufficient visibility. I’ve even seen this done on completely blind corners.
It’s a large, large number folks. Those are the people being dicussed here, and it doesn’t matter if the slower drivers speed up from 80kph to 100kph – these idiots are still going to keep their dangerous, illegal driving habits. If anything, they’re marginally safer passing a car at 80kph than one at 100kph because it reduces the time they’re ducking out into the oncoming lane.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Great idea, lets turn more NZr’s into criminals. We know they will keep driving (as you sort of have to to survive) then we can really pile the fines up- some will have houses and assets to confiscate! (unlike more traditional crims who own bugger all)
Sod it, lets apply the same rule to parking enforcement and why stop at fines when we can send all these dangerous enemies of the state to the organ banks!
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
As long as they make it retrospective, to keep Ruth “One for the road” Dyson off the streets.
Labour shouldn’t have any problem with retrospective laws, should it?
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 12:26 am
This is another stupid idea in the over-regulation of New Zealanders. The mischief the proposal is designed to stop is the serial red light runner – the fool who speeds up to 80+ when they see the lights turn orange some 100m away. Fine, I have little sympathy for drivers like that (although getting hit at a green light is fairly hard work as one should always look before pulling away).
What about the defacto Green Arrow – right turning traffic on the red light. A natural side effect of busy intersections with out arrows. Should they have their licences taken off them? Or the person who probably should have stopped but is the best part of their way through the intersection before the red kicks in – should they lose their licence?
Compulsory penalties are generally daft because they do not take into account the circumstances of each offence. For infringement notices it is practical but such a proposal will have unintended consequences.
Take the “boy racer” laws. Designed to crack down on silly snots tearing up and down the road, racing and generally being a pain in the ass. Same penalties as drunk driving including mandatory minimum 6 month loss of licence. I have had several cases where people have technically breached the act (although not in a boy racing context) and lose their licence for six months. A recent example – loss of traction after accelerating too fast on a green light. Rapidly corrected but still sustained loss of traction. This was a builder on the way home from work.
The other thing to remember is that the Police have other options from infringement notices. Running a red light after several seconds is, imo, dangerous driving – a charge which, if proven, has a loss of licence component.
In short, Duynhoven is promoting an unecessary law that will simply criminalise an increasing number of New Zealanders.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 6:54 pm
I am always amazed that the road toll,death and injury, is as low as it is.Consider the number of vehicles on the road,the number of untrained/poorly trained,drunk,medicated,angry,half blind,mentally insecure and otherwise disqualified people pushing a half ton of metal at high speed along a highway within a metre or so of oncoming traffic!Add this to the fact that a crash only takes a moment of inattention… jeez and we worry about flying,where mostly the aircraft is sound and the pilot is sober!
Vote:January 1st, 2006 at 6:17 am
It’s really quite simple. If no one is hurt or there property damaged during the course of a manoevre, whether it be over taking or parallel parking. If there is no victim there is no crime. End of story.
Vote:January 1st, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Year Zero,
Why do you persist on labelling “slow pokes” as the worst drivers on the roads and an excuse for bad driving by other drivers on the road?
I’d like you to define a “slow poke”.
While there are a small minority of drivers who drive with their blinkers on and seem to have no concept of their speed (or lack of), if they are in front of you, they are NOT responsible for your driving actions just by driving a little bit slowly.
What about cars towing trailers? What about campervans? Heavy laden trucks? Does your blood pressure rise when you get stuck behing one of these “slow pokes”?
As Err correctly pointed out, it doesn’t matter how fast you drive. There will always be idiots who always want to drive faster than you and overtake at all costs.
Vote: