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.

NSW Traffic Offenders Rehabilitation Program

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by trd2000, Jun 22, 2016.

  1. So I recently attended this, not strictly for giggles, as may be assumed by my clear and present preference for road safety over redundant draconian legislation..... and it was the funniest shit ever, provided you were as drunk/high as the drunk/druggie side of the room.

    If you have never seen he results when 100 hoons and 50 alcoholics are kept in a room with nothing better to ponder than "my car is faster than yours" for 8 hours, I highly recommend it.... it was fcuking hilarious. The only better thing was them holding it at an RSL and making the alcoholics walk through a bar to get to their cars on the way out........ I didn't wait around.

    My crime, I attempted to follow the speed limit.... I thought it was 100, it turns out it was 50.... for a full 200m before the speed camera.... my bad. Drizzle, oncoming headlights, glare, bla bla... I'll save the excuses for court ... fact is I had NO idea I was speeding and it wasn't intentional.

    Thanks to strict liability, I attended the TORP, cause strictly, attending it, however stupid it is, apparently counts...

    overall it wasn't too bad, I learned a lot about drugs... I don't take drugs, so that was informative, I learned fcuk all about anything else, and my typed response to the court will reflect just that.... cause I'm honest. One thing that stood out was the false stats offered by a NSW government employee re speeding (they claimed 40% of accidents were caused by over the speed limit speeding, which is at odds with every government database... NSW transport, RMS, RTA, RSAC etc.... it's the stat for "speed" as in, 2/3 under the limit but not appropriate for conditions..... perhaps if they were honest people might slow down when sensible and 30% of accidents could be avoided??....... anyways.... the other thing that stood out was that, despite bikers being over represented, there was ZERO mention of bikes for the whole 8 hours.... I'm wondering how the court will view my No. 1 cause of accidents..... inappropriate lines.... I think I might have to explain it for them.

    any questions?
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. What were the topics. I got drugs and speed. Anything else. Is this just because thats what everyone is dragged in for so they have to justify dragging you in.

    Nice review lol

    Was this a compulsory thing or is it going to lok bettter in front of a judge. Did they charge you for it?

  3. $160. For more information: Traffic Offender Rehabilitation Program

    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. so you would have been served better by a program to improve your powers of observation of your surroundings? like some sort of roadcraft type thing?

    re your stats comment, are you referring to all accidents or fatal accidents? they may have been referring to stats of different group of accas compared to the other ones?

    at an RSL? wouldn't the sound of pokies get distracting? :p
  5. If you want to hold on to your license I'd strongly recommend you abandon the "honesty" approach. I can tell you now that a magistrate doesn't want to read a rant about how useless the TOP is. The magistrate is not concerned about how lines cause crashes. I'd suggest something more along the lines of sorry I screwed up I won't do it again because I now understand the consequences.
    • Agree Agree x 7
  6. Im with CBF'dCBF'd if you want to keep your licence do the old yes sir, no sir, 3 bags full sir.

    Once that's done then sent everyone an email about your thoughts.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  7. I've seen the governments stats for fatalities and serious injury. Of the 6 major contributing factors, there was a big gap between 5 and 6 and 6th on the list was Speeding, that is travelling above the posted limit.

    There is another government statistic that puts "Speed" at number 3 on the list, but that is a seriously distorted statistic because the police must put in a speed at which a collision occurred for without speed, the vehicles would be stationary and therefore could not have collided. On this form of reporting Speed is considered a factor, regardless of it was above or below the posted limit.
  8. $160 times how many people is how much? Nice if you can get that work
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. drugs/alcohol, policing, legislation, first aid, victim perspective....... there was a heavy focus on drugs and speed was largely glossed over. the NSW govt guy (transport dept i THINK) and the cop both elected to skip trying to justify cameras..... the govt guy even pointed to the point in the graph where cameras were introduced and the downward trend in the road toll stopped..... I was expecting MUCH more on speed, the first aid guy actually said the most about it, and his point, which is valid, is the "faster you go the bigger the mess" argument..... no arguing with that.

    lol Absolutely. and its kind of self achieving .... after realising I didn't see it I feel like i have a vested interest in doing that without requiring prompting. I can think of a few reasons i may have missed it, fatigue,? dehydration? i was 1150km into the days ride. visibility? fact is I may have had a good reason for watching the road not the signs, but would i have seen a cow??? it could be a problem, it could be nothing...... but it's a wake up call and will be in the back of my mind making me ATTEMPT to see more.

    I don't want to concentrate too much on MY offense cause while it is why i attended, i really just wanted to share my course experience... inattention wasn't mentioned at all throughout the day aside from the first aid guy, it wasn't in the syllabus.

    the NSW govt guy specifically stated 40% of fatal accidents involved illegal speed. In actual fact its significantly less, and OFFICIALLY the definition of "speeding" includes accidents occurring below the speed limit..... so the info he gave was wrong.... when you look at accidents overall speed is much much less of a factor, because fatalities basically require speed, or kinetic energy, the number of accidents where people aren't injured very rarely involves high speed. (2.48% of ALL accidents according to the tassie stats i got and NSW would be similar)..... it doesn't matter MUCH... but it's valid because I can say that I observed the information given was effectively the same standard as so many of those TAC and RTA ads that misrepresent stats to justify their financial goals, and it cast doubt on anything else they said all day.

    sort of..... I'm not claiming to have a defence, I did the wrong thing and have already admitted guilt.... the TORP questions are loaded in such a way that they're incompatible with my account of events. It's catering to recidivists who chose to engage in behaviour.... eg "what would make you CHOOSE not to offend in the future" ...... That implies that I chose to offend in the first place, which I didn't. "what did you learn from TORP that you will include in your driving to improve safety in the future" NOTHING, I already knew the content, which might be why I was trying to follow the rules at the time.

    overall I personally didn't get much out of it, but I know that some others did. I spoke to one guy who found it all really informative..... I'm not being dismissive, there are valid reasons for me to have not gotten much out of it:
    My Mother and my Brother are both permanently disabled as a result of car accidents, so I didn't really need the first aid or victim impact part.
    I take an involved approach to road safety. I probably spend a lot more time than most attendees looking at accident figures and reports (many of you guys are probably knew that), I correspond with transport departments, and ministers from multiple states, I've volunteered for MUARC studies, I attend safety awareness rides, I used to attend a lot of learner rides to try and upskill learners, I've been involved in government committees to set road legislation, I ride motorbikes large distances in all weather and traffic conditions and I have a car that has a reputation for throwing uninitiated drivers backwards off the road.
    None of this is to say I'm super awesome or anything, just that I already make myself aware of everything from the course, and in greater depth, aside from drugs..... because I don't do them so it doesn't interest me.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. we all know 87% of statistics are made up on the spot :)

    "It's catering to recidivists who chose to engage in behaviour"
    that's primarily what it is for, and interesting that people DO find it informative.. like they've never even thought about it before... that is SCARY!

    they have a similar program in Japan (deliberately during working hours so you have to tell your boss why you are taking time off work ;) ),
    but also a shorter 1-2hr version when you just RENEW your licence (every time, so.. every 3-5 years?).. most people just sleep through it (presenter dudes included when there is long video)
  11. I told my boss.... we've been laughing about "hoon school" all week, he PROBABLY has suspicions about me after I accidentally lost traction leaving work the other day.....

    like I say, I was there because traffic offenses are apparrently "strict liability" (JustusJustus can likely explain this better) so strictly, attending it makes me look apologetic or punished or whatever..... it doesn't actually matter if i get anything out of it at all....it's not about fairness, or education, or safety. I initially wasn't going to attend as you can't be rehabilitated from a condition that you didn't intend to occur. My intent was to follow the speed limit, any rehabilitation in my choices would only result in me NOT attempting to follow it, right? It's a little like gay rehab lol, it won't work cause the person didn't CHOOSE to be gay. but my lawyer seemed to think it would look good if i'd already been punished.
  12. Well, I just got out of court again.... 18 months good behaviour. This is a reasonable result but to be honest I was disgusted with the magistrates obvious bias.

    Had she been listening rather than rolling her eyes on at least 5 separate occasions she might have realised the offence was not as bad as she thought it was..... In her conclusion she commented on me overtaking a truck in the rain into a speed camera........ The fact presented was that I was riding behind a truck which threw up spray from a wet road and turned off the road at the speed sign, obscuring my view..... I did not overtake because of the wet road.

    I understand that judges are people, I believe I got this one on a bad day, but I will be following it up as I believe judges should make an effort to listen to evidence before passing ignorant judgement.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Why am i not suprised at this behaviour from people whom are supposed to be impartial

    Was 18 months good behaviour a goof or bad result. Did the traffic offenders class help?
  14. Reading between the lines he got the charge dismissed under s10 on the condition he enter a good behaviour bond. So basically unless he does something stupid he got off Scot free. Minus his lawyers fees I guess. Seems like a very good result to me for being 50km/h over the limit and facing a 6 month holiday off the roads and a $2k odd fine.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. like i say, it's a reasonable result, it could have been worse, had the judge actually listened to the circumstances rather than relying predominantly on their preconceptions and bias I feel it could only have worked in my favour.

    the judge's statement in sentencing showed they had misunderstood the facts of the case in a way that had given an unfavourable opinion of my riding and attitude to safety, and the circumstances that occurred..... and their statements during the case showed existing bias and disbelief of facts as presented.... IF the RMS, who brought the case, have admitted on paper, and published it, that the site requires more signage and it's included in upcoming budgeted work.... you can't just dismiss someone saying they missed the sign.... but she seemed to. Further, she ranted about speed and safety, despite it not being mentioned once by the prosecution.... and the camera comissioners report recommended the removal of that camera due to it offering "no safety benefit".... so this, again, showed bias which is extremely unprofessional in a judge.

    18 months is a really long time considering how easy it is to get a minor infraction on our roads.... and in that case i cop the full fine and suspension. I've averaged a minor speeding ticket every 4-5 years since getting my license,so the odds are on my side, but in this case i was unlucky not to see the 50 sign just before the camera, and I could be equally unlucky again. It's all good to say oh just "be good" but i was actually TRYING to be good, I believed i was doing the right thing...... It's beyond anyones abilities to do more than attempt to follow the law so it's illogical to put a sentence like this on there as if it could be avoided as a conscious decision.

    a really big problem, which is impeding the legal system from delivering justice, is mandatory minimum sentences. This comes down to politicians, not the judge herself.... she literally has the option of 6 months, $2500... or section 10 scott free.... or section 10 with a good behaviour period. Theres no option to issue me a smaller fine, in line with normal speeding tickets, for an event which was in line with smaller speeding offenses, so short of hammering me, or letting me off for nothing (not strictly true, lawyers, court costs, traffic offenders program etc.) a bond was her only option..... I just dispute it's length being fair.

    the reason I say "normal" speeding tickets.... 30 and 45 over carry massive penalties, at the time when these penalties were introduced 1990's or earlier, you could safely assume that if someone was doing that much over, they would have known they were speeding. to do 45 over you would have to continue at 110 into a 60 zone (or a school zone) and there were no locations where that occurred. We simply didn't have 50kph changes in speed zone, so you'd have to miss a series of signs, all with minimum distances between them. So it was reasonable to say that 45kph over was deliberate whereas lower range speeding could occur for a variety of reasons unintentionally. In this case, if I'd made the same mistake prior to 2013, I would have gotten a fine for $438 for exceeding the limit by 20-30km for doing 79 in a 50 zone, or at that exact location, $254 for 19km over in an 80 zone...... which is a MASSIVE difference to $2500 and no license for 6 months living in a rural area...... for EXACTLY the same mistake in the same place.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. Obviously the propaganda is working, it even gets to the Judiciary. Repeat something often enough and it become mantra . Speed kills don't you know.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. they should just make it 100km/hr speed limits everywhere, then people won't have to pay attention to speed signs :p
    as a by-product, there will be no deaths because it is safer to crash at 100 than 50 :)

    a secondary benefit will be that pedestrians and school kids will expect vehicles to be going 100, and will use cars to cross the road instead of legs :p
  18. U
    Speak to your lawyer as you misunderstand how a good behaviour bond works. You have to commit a serious offence then the magistrate can call on the bond and resentence you. A "minor" offence will not see the suspension take effect. As long as you don't end up in court your fine.