Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National The Financial costs of losing your licence.

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by deadman, May 7, 2011.

  1. 12 points and about $1200 in fines, equals loss of licence,
    I know, Its self inflicted.
    Accumulated points,

    The other side is.

    Loss off income due to no transport, I live in the sticks and there is virtually no transport available,

    I am a sub contractor, so I cant put a tonne of welding gear on a bus, even if there was one,

    Loss of licence, 8 months,
    Loss of income, $60,000-00
    Loss of taxes to the Govt, $20,000-00

    You cant get a hard ship Licence allowing you to travel to and from work,
    It Just doesnt exist,

    How many other people are in this predicament,
    And how much does the Govt actually lose in Taxes when you add all the people together who have lost their licences and their jobs,

    Does speed revenue cover the actual loss of income to the Govt in Taxes,

    With out my Tenant living here, I would be forced to drive with no licence, just to get to the shops for food, Let alone any thing else.

    Going any where, is just a no go, Unless my Tenant drives me, I dont go any where,

    The stats show that there are a lot of people driving unlicenced,

    The people with familys to support and mortgages to pay are the ones really feeling this when they lose their jobs,
  2. Yup, loss of licence is ludicrous for a lot of the cases. And the fines are ridiculous!
  3. a very enlightening perspective on the issue, mate, you don't tend to think of the OTHER costs until it happens....

    The fines are supposed to be a deterrent; perhaps if the advertising ALSO included the stats that are quoted here, the campaign might be a lot more successful.
  4. They should have the fines like they do in some places in europe - dependent on your earnings.

    Earning $200 a week, fine would be like $20 or something.
    Earning $10,000 a week, fine might be $6,000 etc.
  5. I agree that the fines and associated costs being more than some people can pay simply escalates the problem of unlicensed/suspended/uninsured drivers and riders being on the road.....
  6. So if you have responsibilitys to your family, dont lose your licence.
    The majority of people who go around unlicenced and uninsured are the ones who dont have jobs/responsibilitys. They crash, the courts take $10 a week off their welfare for the next 60 years. The system may not work, but there are always options to avoid the problems

    I don't feel that is so. The people who will risk the most are the ones who have the least to lose. I have insurance and a licence because if i take out someone and disable them, and didnt have any of that, the court will take everything from me. But if i didnt have a job or anything worth value and i did, the governments welfare system will prevent the court from "taking the lot"

    So you think we should apply the law seperately, depending on their social class? That is a dangerous path to take.
  7. my brother in law lost his licence (for medical reasons) and hired someone to drive him around rather than lose the business. get an apprentice with a licence.
  8. On the contrary, such a system provides for the consequences of breaking the law to apply equally painfully regardless of social class. Rather fairer IMHO.
  9. But you are applying a larger punishement to someone for the same crime, simply because one earns a larger sum per week. The consiquences should be applied equally, regardless of someones income.
  10. And to think if you had of killed someone and wore a badge you probably would have never lost your licence.
  11. If people were given community service orders, that were inforced, then everybody would feel the same pain for the same offense. The points system should be abolished as a failure, given the governement obsession with speed cameras and other issues. Fines should be eliminated as they just get governments addicted to the revenue.

    Then no-one would lose their licence, or their job, or business, etc.

    The loss of money doesn't stop even extreme gambling addicts. Neither does it stop people from minor infringements against unreasonable laws.

    Okay, drink driving and some other offenses should result in people being taken off the road, but not accumulated points for minor speeding offenses, for example. Yes, it isn't as simple as that. But that would be a start.

    Hang in there Deadman.
  12. I feel your pain deadman. I'm very low on points and if I lose it, I couldn't get to work.

    The public transport in my area is a joke. Its only 25kms to work but we have no trains and only option is getting a bus to a different area, swapping bus companys (as the sta that services my area doesn't go towards work) and getting the very rare bus that goes in my direction of work. I've done it once and took just under 3 hours with the walking included between bus stop and home/work. Riding or driving takes ~40 minutes.

    Biggest PITA is that I booked twice in areas that had the speed limit reduced by 20km/h.

    Can't blame anyone else for speeding that was my choice, but the effect of stopping someone being able to get to work has huge effects that the lawmakers don't seem to care about.

    The good news that came in a recent letter was that we now have an extra point (nsw), and that some committee is looking into allowing fines/points to be substituted by going to courses instead. No doubt they'll be 'attitude' courses, bringing in maimed victims from speeders, instead of courses in vehicle control that would make a much bigger difference. Its funny because I know someone who did one of these courses for extreme speeding and the victims they brought in turned out to have accidents not at all related to the road, they were just muppets part of the program trying to make a point.

    There is another serious side effect of having low points which I'm sure many can relate to. When you're one offence away from losing your license (and therefore income), the attention you spend on making sure you're not speeding detracts significantly away from your attention - less time to be scanning the road for potential obstacles, people pulling out, etc. Really makes you hate the system.
  13. I'm sure they DO; the penalties, in all their implications, are, as already noted, there to discourage the breaking of the law. If you choose to break the law, even if you're just rolling the dice, then you need to be aware of the penalties, not just the fine, but the broader costs, as Deadman points out.
  14. That's fine Paul but when the laws are stupid and everyone is breaking them, but you just happen to be the unlucky one they picked on, then that isn't justice.

    Case in point. I rode across town in traffic yesterday, and had to travel down several roads that had 40 Km/h school speed zones in them. One was three lanes in each direction, with a median strip in the middle, at least two were two lanes in each direction. I was the only driver/rider that I saw who tried to obey the limit. I was being pased, by everybody. No kittens or children died as far as I could tell. Yet at any time, if I did go over the limit by even 3 Km/h, I could have lost points.

    I hadn't ridden those main roads for some time, and I was amazed that they had 40 Km/h limits on them. I could see regular commuters easily being caught out several times just by flowing with the traffic, and that could be the end of their licence, income, house, family, etc.

    The price of justice is often high, and I think we are going to have to pay that price soon to get our lawmakers and safetycrats to wake up to themselves.
  15. The first part of that sentence you quoted (that you left out) addressed your comment;

    Its the way the enforcement system works that shits me. If you could take a course instead of losing points I'd have zero problem.
  16. The consequences, though, are not the fine itself, but what needs to be foregone to pay it. For some, $1000 is pocket change. For others it could easily mean losing their sole means of transport or even their home if they're really near the knuckle financially (yes, I have been there, or nearly so, so any argument that it wouldn't happen will be ignored). How is a penalty that one will barely notice but could, potentially, destroy another's life, equitable?
  17. My biggest gripe with the point system is the fact people can lose them for offences that are not driver based. If the offence is not to due with driver error/negligence/blatant rule breaking, then it shouldn't cost points on a Driving Licence.
    When I was on my P's I had a arsehole copper pull me over and got me for having a blown park light and my stereo too loud (my stereo wasn't on as we had taken out the speakers to retrim the interior). The park light was working when I checked in the morning. Anyways that resulted in 2 points off my license which was half way to losing it.
  18. The problem with your argument is you are comparing the offences to someone else's situation. If you want to do that, then the current system favours the poor, by holding them less finacially responsible for road accidents in court. whether an infringement fine is "pocket change" to someone is irrelevant. They are risking the same amount of money. If one does not have that money to risk, why is that the legal system's problem?. Your accountability to the law is the same.
  19. Whilst the popular perception is that the poor get off lightly, the reality is that a large percentage of prison inmates are there as a result of fine defaults because they're poor. I forget the exact proportion but it was worryingly high when I heard it.

    Fines are supposed to be a deterrent. I would argue that $1000 is likely to be a lesser deterrent to someone for whom it represents, for example, a night or two in a swank hotel than it is for someone to whom it represents their entire food budget for the next 6 months. The financial value of their lawbreaking may be the same but the cost would be very different.

    A system where the rich can afford to break the law and the poor can't is fundamentally unjust, even if it does represent the reality in many countries.
  20. So the guy earning $200 only pays 10% of his income and the guy earking
    10k pays 60% of his income?