Fine the Rich only
December 28th, 2006 at 11:23 am by David FarrarThe fines system in NZ is somewhat of a sick joke, with an ever increasing number who simply don’t pay. And eventually when taken back to court they get the fine translated into community service at rate of several hundred dollars per hour.
But now to make things even more barmy, the Government is looking at having lower or no fines for poorer offenders. Yes fines will not be based on your criminal offending but your wealth. Park your car illegally and it’s only $10 for Mr A but $150 for Mr B as he is a rich bastard.
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the idea of slashing fines for young and low-income offenders was one of the dumbest ideas he had heard from this “whole warm, fuzzy experiment we are having on crime”.
But lawyer Catriona MacLennan, who works with low-income people, said today’s system was inequitable.
“If you get a fine of $200 and are on a benefit or are unemployed that’s a huge penalty to you, whereas to a middle-class person it is nothing.”
Well I’ve got the solution to the problem – stop making criminals pay fines, but make wealthy non-criminals pay it. It’s very unfair that criminals who are often poor stay trapped in poverty because they have to pay for their criminal behaviour. So let’s add on a 3% surcharge to everyone earning over $40,000 and use that money to pay all the fines on behalf of those who actually break the law. That’s fair and equitable isn’t it?
No tag for this post.
December 28th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Which brings us back to the old classic saying…
If you can’t do the time don’t do the crime.
If you can’t afford a speeding ticket or to loose your licence for excessive demerit points… Don’t speed.
But like all things Labour, the party is dedicated to winning votes and nothing else. Traditional Labour voters would like this policy because it shows an unreasonable level of punish the achievers. Classic tall poppy style of policy that should be expected from the socialists.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
From the nzherald article:
“The Government is questioning, for example, whether two separate $200 fines should be issued for lack of vehicle registration and warrant of fitness”
Poor people will be able to commit two offences for the penalty of one. Traffic fines will then match the rest of the justice system.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
This wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that nearly all scum-sucking crims vote Labour would it?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
What a sick little joke NZ politics is.
“stop making criminals pay fines, but make wealthy non-criminals pay it”
err…thats what already happens for one sector – working people pay the benefits of many of these people who then use the benefit money to pay the fine. The beneficiaries used to be able to apply for one off (joke!) payments for things such as fines, petcare bills etc, and I’m sure that still goes on.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
I have some agreement with the principle of differing fines according to ability to pay. I have seen well off people fined an amount they could pay from their lunch money. In fact some white collar offenders would be better off with periodic detention than monetary fines. The punishment should reflect the effect on the offender. Some well off regard parking fines as a parking fee.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Yes indeed the lunatics are firmly in control of the asylum. What really pisses me off is that we actually pay these morons to come up with shit like this.
No doubt Catorina Maclennan been a rich lawyer would be more then happy to wave her low income cilents bill ( Tui ad ) but of course we have the legal aid gravey train. Prehaps the best advice she could give to her low income cilents is to obey the law this of course will not cost them a cent.
Not only is the long suffering taxpayer excpected to pay for the shit that goes under the tittle honourable we are now excpected to pay for thoses that are dishonourable.
Go get fucked you Liarbour wankers!!!
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
This is just further evidence of the fact that the Lefts answer to any problem is to either deny it, ignore it, or give up.
Underachieving school kids ? Answer – lower the standards of assessment.
Prison overcrowding ? Answer – let the crims out earlier, or don’t put them away in the first place.
Hospital waiting lists ? Answer – cull patients from the list
And now this nonsense. They will probably require the fine defaulters to attend some candy-arsed, platitudinous, restorative justice meeting to talk about their “feelings”.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Not bad, David, but I think you could go one step further. Since the wealthy people in society (through their materialism and its ostentatious display) are effectively forcing the beneficiary classes to commit crime in the first place, we should stop labeling what the beneficiary classes do as “crime”. Thus, actions by the beneficiary classes involving what the wealthy might have called “a crime” should not even involve the courts in the first place. Only the wealthy should be forced to account for their actions.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
What do people think about the system of fines that exist in the military? Fined one-half of pay for a month etc.
I realise it’s not especially portable to the civilian jurisdiction, but does anyone oppose its use in the military?
Having fines for people who will never be able to afford them does seem a little stupid, however. Not least because such fines will never operate as much of a detterent.
DPF – do you think it fair that someone whose car is forfeited for one of the repeat this offence and your car is taken is fair when some people lose $800 cars, and some might lose $80,000 cars?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
David sometimes u come out with some crap
Vote:Two people both get caught for speeding
both are naughty and have broken the law
both get fined $120 Person A gets works hard gets $500 per week so doesn’t eat for week
Person B works just as hard gets $3500 per week and fine has no effect whatsoever.
Neither person is a “criminal”.
I suppose if the purpose a fine is to act as a deterrent then it would seem to be inequitable
system.
regards brian
December 28th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Most of these fines relate to driving offenses.
Take the car, sell the car and credit and sale proceeds to the unpaid fine account. Give them back the balance – if there is any.
If they thought they were going to lose their car they would be less likely to break the law.
If I owned an $80,000 car I would probably have paid my fines anyhow.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Keep the fines the same as they are for poor people, but always give the rich offenders community service for the same offence, that would be a far greater punishment and deterrent for them to have to spend an afternoon working with the unwashed and possibly being spotted by a passing member of the tennis club…
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
The military system would be fine(!) by me.
Vote:As long as the beneficiaries, who by definition have no money, are shot immediately on conviction. Along with their lawyers.
December 28th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
What could however go hand in hand with such a policy is a similar (but inverse) situation for incarceration.
If you earn lots then to incarcerate you for a long time is an unfair punishment compared to the punishment it is for an unemployed person.
Under a Labour style policy like this if you earn $200,000/year murder might only be 6 months in jail, with extra long sentences like 60 years being served by unemployed people to obtain the incarceration KPI for murder.
The joys of Labour policy eh!
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Car forfeiting is voluntary…if you chose to do something stupid with an $800 car that could get it confiscated you are making the same choice as someone in an $80,000 car. You have decided that your need to do something stupid is worth more than your car. It’s not the courts probably if you don’t value your car highly enough to want to keep it.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
The poor do not pay their fines anyway. It all gets converted into community work. The bastards keep hounding you to pay fines. I always have these wretched parking fines and pay the cunts all the time. These silly Asian ladies ring you up and start asking a whole series of personal questions without telling you why. After about the 10th question I just say I am sick of asking all their damn questions and tell them to piss off.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I wonder what the National Parties viewpoint is. Maybe we will find out when they get back from their holidays.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
“If you get a fine of $200 and are on a benefit or are unemployed that’s a huge penalty to you, whereas to a middle-class person it is nothing.”
That’s life, get over it.
If you get a [power bill, grocery bill, phone bill, vet bill, petrol bill, etc] of $200 and are on a benefit or are unemployed that’s a huge penalty to you, whereas to a middle-class person it is nothing.
Perhaps the government should pass laws insisting that all power companies, supermarkets, phone companies, veterinary practices, gas stations, etc charge less to poor people and more to the middle-class.
But I guess it would be really difficult to identify all the things that poor people find harder to pay for than the middle class so lets just all become communists…
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
The real issue is the repeat and multiple offender that ignores any sort of fine or penalty.
What makes it worse is when they accumulate a huge amount of fines that they’ll never repay, and it gets written off with nothing of significance provided or sacrificed by the offender in return.
sort out the repeat offenders – rich or poor, with a graduated penalty system that imposes significant penalties that the offender can pay (time, possessions, service, public shaming, the lash, army service, whatever).
Then the other issue of graduated fines for infrequent offenders is less significant. Instead of instant fines – demerit points for non-dangerous offenses, but once those points accumulate, back to my first suggestion.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
I wonder about people who make a loss for a year – do they get paid for speeding?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Almost anyone can afford a one way ticket to Aust….
Vote:Flee Orwell’s nightmare while you can comrades.
December 28th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
As in: some pigs are more equal than others.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
I admit I’m one of those hoping to crash the courts system through non-payment. Can’t pay, won’t pay. It worked with the TV Licensing Fee under the Nats, and I’m confident it will work with the current fines system with Labour.
I am quite pleased that the suggestion for linking fines to an offender’s ability to pay has finally seen daylight. Setting fines as a percentage of income would have a similar proportionate impact on everyone equally. Now that’s fair. Then there’s the revenue angle. An income-based fine would generate more revenue and less hassle than the current fiasco.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Parking illegally and driving dangerously are both hazards to other people. As an “other people” I am in favour of discouraging such behaviour by drivers.
Most everyone who posted above seems to realize the inequitability of elitist David Farrer’s argument against graduated penalties. I suggest that the miscreant be required to pay the greater of either 20% of a weeks income or 2% of the value of the car multiplied by the weight in tonnes. (i.e. SUV’s would cost more).
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
I think that the real problem is that we don’t have enough fines. We should introduce more fines for bigger crimes. Give people the option of paying big fines or doing time.
$100,000 for assault.
$2,000,000 for murder.
Does that seem about right DPF?
Wouldn’t that help the governments coffers and let them lower taxes?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
I have only recently started to visit this blog as my friend told me this was the most popular one in New Zealand but already I am finding the level of debate here not only ignorant but also lacking in human decency and compassion.
Who are we to blame poorer criminals for their offences? They have obviously been raised in uneducated families and can barely look after themselves, which is why many of them are not as knowledgeable on civil law like most of us. Richer people are more likely to know when they’re committing an offence, and as a result the penalty should be harsher. We should not be punishing poor people as most of them don’t even have enough money to pay their bills.
Only through welfare can they eventually climb out of poverty and have time to better themselves as people, being penalised for a criminal offence would put that back too far.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
What a load of bunkum Jonathan. It is this pathetic excusing of crime that has got us to the state we are today with ca 100 murders etc a year invariably by cradle to jail criminals with records 40+ long dating back to pre-teens.
As far as paying fines it is because they choose not to do so not because they cannot afford to. You know the old story – plenty of money for drugs cigs and booze…. Anyone who actually has operated service business in the real world knows exactly what goes on – for example giving credit because people “need” the service only to find that there is no ability under the law to recover the bad debt. If you don’t want to pay the debt you simply dont pay!! unbelievable but true!!
Typical scenario:
“If you want this service you have to pay”
“err… don’t understand English”
“yes you do”
“oh I have no money”
“ok then you cant have the service”
“oh wait what’s this? Oh I do have the money”
(pulls out a wad of bills.)
If you operate in the real world, you know this scenario is typical. We didn’t all come down in the last shower of rain out here in the real world you know.
It also applies to court fines – they choose not to pay. Stop excusing this pathetic behaviour, and take it out of their bank account like it would be take out of mine if I refused to pay my tax!!
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 1:04 am
Fines that follow the flat rate model rather than the flat fee/lump sum model (I wonder about the person saying “that’s life” to a flat fee” fine system: do they also support a flat fee/poll income tax?) have been used in Finland since the 1930′s (Sweden, Denmark and Germany also link fines for some offences to income, but Finland seems to follow through the idea more extensively). I wrote up some stuff about it in a report a while back:
Since 1999 Finnnish police have been able to access official tax records through cellphones, and learn within seconds a driver’s reported income and the corresponding fine. So, for example, if a driver is caught going at least 12 miles an hour over the posted limit then a fine is assessed in two steps. First, the driver’s Daily Disposable Income (DDI) is estimated by subtracting $235 (US) from the driver’s after tax monthly income, then dividing by sixty. Next various small adjustments (down) for dependents and (up) for assets are made to the DDI. The fine rate for a given offence is given by the number of days of Adjusted DDI (ADDI) forfeited: the more severe the offence, the larger the number of days. The actual fine imposed on individual i for offence of type o = $(i’s ADDI)•#(Day fines for o-type offences). Fines in excess of $100K (US) – just 14 days of ADDI for some Nokia executives! – have been imposed, with one of the largest being in excess of $200K (US) = 20 days of ADDI for doing 50 mph in a 30 mph zone. (The WSJ just about had an aneurysm reporting that one!)
To overcome the objection to this sort of scheme that very low-earners – certainly those making less than $235 (US) weekly after tax – will be assessed very negligible fines, an alternative minimum fine is always stipulated, which is normally between $60 (US) and $110 (US). Thus the complete rule is to assess for each offence type either the alternative minimal fine or $ADDI•(# Days of ADDI to be forfeited), whichever is greater.
Anyhow, it’ll be interesting to see the Cabinet document…. a radicalized Finnish-style system *without* the alternative minimum fine option does sound like a classic piece of NZ legislative extremism/overkill…. Brillliantly running together a couple of different ideas, with something to offend almost everybody. The sort of thing, in other words, that’ll be “part of our identity” and held presumptively beyond all criticism in five years time. What a country!
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 4:27 am
Johnathon = flimsy attempt at trolling. That’s my call anyway.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 7:07 am
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with unpaid fines, and everything to do with envy. It is yet another attack on the better off, and a bribe to the bludgers in society.
Thanks Labour.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Johnathan:
Not sure whether your tongue was in your cheek when you wrote that but assuming it wasn’t:
The central flaw in your argument is that no matter how much welfare is directed at your so-called “poor” (and many “poor” receive more than others living in what you would call affluence) they will still remain in the some poverty trap.
Your solution is no solution at all, just a furtherance of the dependency mother state, which is in fact what makes a huge contribution to the poverty trap.
Many people escape the poverty trap. Most don’t. And I don’t think it is luck or welfare that extricates those that do escape.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 7:47 am
Can anyone believe the shit Johnathan is saying? I think he’s really DPF doing a stir….no one could really be that dim and out of touch….right?
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 8:12 am
weird..!..
a riposte to the above is shown in the comments sect on front page..
yet not here..?
a ‘censoring-system’ glitch..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)…
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Thats crap Jonathan – people know right from wrong – are you seriously trying to say that some hoodie wearing learner driver from Otara doesn’t know that its wrong to do 150 on the open road? Actually I have I got the wrong end of the stick and is your whole post just a big piss take? If it is then its a pity that its being taken so seriously by the idiots that have been voted into government by the other idiots in this country. Aborrogate personal responsability – its someone elses fault
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 8:40 am
“Who are we to blame poorer criminals for their offences?…Only through welfare can they eventually climb out of poverty and have time to better themselves as people, being penalised for a criminal offence would put that back too far.”
Ha ha – nice one Johnny boy.
Err, this *is* a troll right?
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Pardon me if I pull out the world’s smallest violin here, Jonathan – especially when it appears an overwhelming majority of these fines are for traffic offences. Then again, I’m one of those oddballs who doesn’t buy the boofhead mantra that being as asshole behind the wheel of a car is a fundamental human right.
And here’s another thought for you, Jonathan: Don’t be so fucking condescending towards “the poor”. I know those folks who do their best to pay their bills, live within their means, and respect the law don’t get a lot of media face time but they are out there.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Relax everyone
Vote:This is not about crime and punishment, it is purely a suggestion of another way to relieve the “rich” of their money which was obtained on the backs of the oppressed workers who are the real generators of wealth.
Keep the red flag flying folks, long after the Great Leader has gone and North Korea has become a truly capitalist society, NZ will remain the last bastion of true socialism in action.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Well DPF,
Looks like nobody has commented on the “guts” of your blog item.
DPF quote:
“Well I’ve got the solution to the problem – stop making criminals pay fines, but make wealthy >>> NON < -criminals pay it.”
While a number of commentors have concentrated on the unfairness of being caught, or the unfairness of not being wealthy, few appear to comment about personal responsibility for their own actions.
I think you have “tongue in cheek” and are infact addressing the question of proper use of the tax taken from the silent majority.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 10:57 am
If you keep pulling on it Johnathan it’s going to fall off…errr is that you sonic?
Presumably Johno is a recent product of the NZ education system.
Vote:There’s still time to save your kids ….buy a one way ticket West.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Johnathan said “Only through welfare can they eventually climb out of poverty and have time to better themselves as people” …. don’t know which planet Jonathan’s from but he sure hasn’t heard of welfare dependancy or seen the results of it up here in the Far North.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Actually Johnathan, only through work can people bring themselves out of poverty. Welfare never made anyone (except some criminal fraudsters) rich. Working gives people an income that they value, and self esteem. It keeps them busy – the devil makes work for idle hands – so they are less likely to be tempted to commit offences.
People should be penalised for breaking the law. Otherwise we are headed for chaos.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
The emphasis should not be on the level of the fine but on how it might be repaid. That’s where alternatives might be useful. Can’t afford a $200 fine? Then do the equivalent in community work. That kind of scheme seems more equitable – particularly if the alternatives are universal (offered to everyone). Personally, I would be happy to pay a $200 fine rather than lose a couple of Saturdays to scrub cutting. I think it’s wrong to focus on varying the level of the original fine. We should all be equal under the law. Imagine the outrage if it were argued that for short stints of imprisonment – those who cannot afford the time off from work – you know like the self-employed or farmers or people holding critical positions in big firms – get lesser prison sentences than the unemployed – because the unemployed have the time to do the time.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
The thing is though that there are situations where guys just keep getting fines when they need a spell in the slammer. I used to have a moron for a neighbour who ran up 30,000 dollars of fines – all no registration, no wof, no license, etc, and he just did not give a damn. And he had no ability to repay. But he just kept getting more and more periodic detention when it was obvious this was no deterrant at all.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
I have had dealings with thousands of “poor” people who always made sure they paid their bills. We are all brought down by the parasitic bad debtors who choose to refuse to pay their bills, and paying fines is just another form bad debt.
Stephen finland = fascist?
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
The problem with the alternatives like “community ‘work’” are that they are expensive of capital and especially labour. Of course labour loves that because it is yet another way of hiding unempolyment – 3 people per one ‘comminty worker” – you know the supervisor, the social worker and the lawyer.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
We’ve already got the chaos with the slack attitiude to violent crime and organised drug related crime. This just looks like a mop up operation in the governments “war on workers”.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
I’m wondering how the Highway Patrol officer is meant to know how much you’ll be earning for the current financial year to calculate how big your fine is.
I’m sure the solution will be straight forward and extremely cost effective.
Vote:December 30th, 2006 at 1:55 am
I must admit that when I’ve walked out of my office to find a $100 parking ticket flapping on the window of my humble second-hand car and a fine for a similar amount flapping under the (probably titanium) wiper of the Maserati which regularly parks in the same street, the unfairness of it tends to irk me.
For me, $100 is a week’s groceries. For Mr Maserti, it’s probably a day’s expense account lunch.
Parking fines ought to go up according to repeat offending, so those of us who run late once in a blue moon pay a small tithe for our tardiness, and those who see, as Bob Howard says, “a parking fine as a parking fee” find it quickly becomes unaffordable, even for them.
As for speeding fines, I’d suggest reversing burt’s idea. Do away with fines altogether, and hand out community service sentences to all speedsters.
Overnight, the government and the cops can truthfully say they’re not revenue raising. The rich man and the poor man both get to wear the same overalls and clean up the same stretch of motorway. And both think twice about speeding again, moreso than any fine will ever make them. And the community actually gets something positive out of the money it pours into making cops into ticket issuing machines.
Vote:December 30th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
If a beneficiary gets fined, they dont pay, and if they do pay they pay it off at $5pw, and claim a hardship benefit, which in the end costs us all.
Vote:Solution: do away with fines and impose a pionts system and when the points reach a level (yet to be determined) you are imprisoned and lose your vehicle.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Happy New Year!
Road issues and debate are increasing!
http://www.snapt.co.nz, is a kiwi owned and operated website to report road frustration and risky drivers. It’s the chance to identify and expose those who abuse rights of others & the road code. Members are invited to publish photos and vent their views not take matters into their own hands. Acting irresponsibly will soon have drivers exposed and published.
Create awareness so behaviour will be modified! Let’s get rage out of drivers & courtesy back in! Snapt would also like to publish good deeds and public courtesy on the site, to recognise the positive too.
Launched on the 19th of December http://www.snapt.co.nz aims to bring awareness to driver safety and courtesy on our roads this holiday season. Snapt wants to encourage responsibility, and reduce risk, to encourage all road users to lead by example, to be cautious and to promote safety.
Snapt is not trying to imitate the law, nor do Snapt wish to encourage the public to take the law into their own hands. We all know no one is perfect, we all have made errors, but some drivers are chronic, they do not consider the consequences of their actions, in some cases may have a price too high!
Snapts’ aim is to provide the public with the opportunity to support the public and the police, and better, to create awareness that vehicles blocking driveways, illegal use of disability car parks, tailgating, and running red lights are just a few of the regular offences committed daily, and that these acts may well be ‘snapt’ and published through the Snapt forum.
Snapt may make people think before they act, and can assist those when something does happen by providing access to the Roadwatch Police Form.
Your stories or snaps can be forwarded to Snapt from web page links on the site http://www.snapt.co.nz . Also available, Met Service forecasts, webcams and the latest headlines.
regards, Snapt
Vote:January 2nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
It’s been working very well in the Netherlands for a long time now. I’m extraordinarily rich, by most people’s standards anyway, and I think it’s more than fair for the punishment to be a good bite in the ass for the rich. I’ve noticed that the worst driving I’ve seen this summer (and well, let’s face it -every summer) is from assholes in expensive sportscars and luxury BMWs etc.
Maybe a speeding ticket should be a week’s wages? That might make anyone (rich or poor) think twice before putting other people in danger through their arrogance.
Vote:January 3rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
peterc, Rex, etc. I’ll go along with your idea, on the condition that you agree that overweight people should pay a higher of tax. That way they are responsible for the additional costs they impose on the health system.
Fair enough?
Vote:January 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Sure, let’s say 1 week’s wages for being overweight.
Vote:January 4th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
peterc: “Sure, let’s say 1 week’s wages for being overweight.”
Or, if the individual is on a benefit, then let’s go for one week’s benefit, with no right of appeal, and no emergency assistance or WINZ ‘loan’ to cover the shortfall. Sounds fair enough to me.
Vote:January 5th, 2007 at 11:49 am
peterc – Don’t know what roads you drive on, but almost universally the worst driving I see (regardless of time of year) is isolated to SUVs… (new/old, expensive/otherwise)
Vote:January 20th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
If they drive like an idiot, ignore the road code and other driver rights, and put others at risk, take a photo and add your comments to this site – public censorship will bring these drivers into line.
Vote:January 20th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
If they drive like an idiot, road rage, tailgating and speeding and ignore the road code and other driver rights, and put others at risk, take a photo and add your comments to this site – public censorship will bring these drivers into line – visit http://www.snapt.co.nz.
Vote:January 20th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
If they drive like an idiot, road rage, tailgating and speeding and ignore the road code and other driver rights, and put others at risk, take a photo and add your comments to this site – public censorship will bring these drivers into line – visit http://www.snapt.co.nz.
Vote:January 20th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
If they drive like an idiot, road rage, tailgating and speeding and ignore the road code and other driver rights, and put others at risk, take a photo and add your comments to this site – public censorship will bring these drivers into line – visit http://www.snapt.co.nz.
Vote: