Increasing fines in the name of safety

[SlowRide]

I've started to notice a few TV ads in Perth how the police are planning to raise the cost of applied fines in the interest of improving community safety.


I'm curious - has any study ever revealed that the more you fine a community the safer it becomes?

[Ferret]

...I'm curious - has any study ever revealed that the more you fine a community the safer it becomes?

Probably not as such, but there are studies which show if you slow people down then road trauma and deaths are decreased.

The question then becomes - how do you slow people down? Fines are one means I suppose. If you think they are ineffective in doing that - what are the alternatives?

[debruiser]

People would need to know how much the fines are for each offense for that to work. I personally feel that they try to hide the rules and costs of breaking them somewhat, then tell you that it's your responsibility to know them. I think it's a bit mushroom like.

[AndyG]

A better fine would be day(s) in remedial training, or picking up litter. Rather than $$$

[SlowRide]

If you think they are ineffective in doing that - what are the alternatives?

How about community service - roadside and reserve clean ups and the like. The offender could be mandated for community service on dates X, Y or Z, then if they don't show then level them with a fine AND their community service requirement. If they show up but don't pull their weight then commit them with more service until their attitude corrects itself.

I think this would be far more effective a punishment as you'd have a recognised reference to correction beyond the inconvenience of a fine. For employers it would be humiliating and embarrassing, for employees you'd be eating into your annual leave and workplace credibility, and for the self-employed you'd lose the ability to earn a days wage. And if you're unemployed it'll force you to get active and keep off the bongs/goon for a day. And best of all - it'd be appreciated by the wider community.

Obviously room for fine-tuning, but I think the reliance on fines as a behavioural correction mechanism is flawed from the outset. It's nothing more than than legalised extortion - an inconvenient financial transaction. I'd suggest you'd be more likely to think (and remember) of consequences of your actions if it was linked to community service each and every time you fall foul of the law.

[LR1979]

Money can make everything possible, like let drivers slow down[bighmmm]

[BigJon]

and for the self-employed you'd lose the ability to earn a days wage. And if you're unemployed it'll force you to get active and keep off the bongs/goon for a day. .

So effectively for an unemployed person the "fine" is zero, whereas for the self employed person it could total into the thousands of dollars.

Seems fair...:(

[Ferret]

How about community service - roadside and reserve clean ups and the like. The offender could be mandated for community service on dates X, Y or Z, then if they don't show then level them with a fine AND their community service requirement. If they show up but don't pull their weight then commit them with more service until their attitude corrects itself...

I suspect it's a cost thing.

I don't know how many people are fined each year but I think hundreds of thousands would be a fair guess. Someone has to administer and supervise all those people if they are to community service - that probably is a net cost the state. Just easier, faster and less costly to slug em - net profit to the state.

The young bloke came home with a $300 fine a while back. As a poverty stricken uni student working a part time job as a waiter at slave rates he worked out how many shifts he had to work for nothing.

[101RRS]

Years back the authorities realised that fines were not working so brought in double demerits at critical times but of course they then got greedy keeping double demerits in for longer and longer periods but then also increasing fines.

The aim should be to reduce accidents and the road toll not line the coffers - now if fines do that and line the coffers that is fine but there comes a point that increasing fines does nothing.

When I drive I have in my mind the conditions not the fine I might attract - I don't even know what they are.

What is needed are actions that reduce a bad event of happening before it is likely to happen not a penalty that is applied after the event and was not even a consideration before hand.

Garry

[SlowRide]

So effectively for an unemployed person the "fine" is zero, whereas for the self employed person it could total into the thousands of dollars.

Seems fair...:(

Obviously room for fine-tuning,

;)

I can guarantee you if I were responsible for remapping the system as a whole the concept of tax-payer-funded-entitlement would be reformed for everyone from the welfare class to the political class. Not in a nasty way, but in the spirit of fairness, societal progression, and provable contribution.

Another system would be to incentivise good behaviour - ie - ten years without a traffic infringement and receive free rego for a year. Model behaviour should be privy to such rewards, and it would give you something to quest for. Positive behavioural reform will never be propagated within a punishment-only system.

[CraigE]

The main one I have seen them advertising is use of mobile phones while driving, which I agree with but they actually have to start pinging people here first. Driving from our place in South Yunderup to Pinjarra Road I counted 6 odd cars with drivers on the phone and 2 trucks. Only went by about 8 cars and 4 trucks to start with. The total disregard people have in our area for this is amazing.
IMHO if they catch you on the phone without a valid reason, your phone should be confiscated for a time for first offence and for repeat offences the phone should be smashed immediately without the sim card being returned.
Increasing fines is just revenue raising. Watch they will be hitting this hard to bump up the Govt coffers from September 26th.

[3toes]

Not sure about fines for motoring offences however there are plenty if studies to show increasing the length of the potential jail sentence does nothing to deter crime yet this is still very popular with the press and politicians. Would not be a big leap to say the same about motoring fines.

Chances of being caught is what is the deterrent hence speed cameras which are highly visible are proven more effective at reducing speed than those hidden from the motorist.

[debruiser]

Mobile phones are a menace. Not just in the car but in general. Yes I do own one but only under protest these days.

I liked the idea of 10yrs without infringements = 1yr free rego. Lets see some positive reinforcement here Government bodies!!!

They talk of increasing fines to make everyone safer, but who does it make safer? You and I maybe, the people who do the right things anyway? Those people who are going to speed, drink and drive, use a phone, etc are not going to care, they will continue their learned behaviours. Yes learned behaviours; they have learned that they can get away with these things time and time again. Sometimes they get a fine, most times they wont. IF they get a fine, do they even pay it????? do you know someone who has just neglected to actually pay the fine they have received? I bet they don't get chased up. I heard a number on the news the other day our council had given something like $400000 worth of parking tickets. How many of those get paid??? maybe half? People like you and I who are already doing the right thing would pay, because they accidentally parked in the wrong spot, or got held up and went over time.

Another example for you; I had a friend who lost his licence, then continued to drive. He didn't care that he'd lost it. Therefore it wasn't really punishment was it.

My point is, it doesn't matter what the fines are, if the debt isn't paid then there is no point; your only going to hurt the honest people who do the right thing and just get caught out that one time.

[Grumbles]

Whilst walking my dogs I stopped to watch two coppers doing .05 tests. Along came a young, pretty girl chatting on her mobile. I thought uh oh - she's gone. When stopping she put her phone down, blew in the bag and when she drove off immediately picked up her phone to continue her interrupted conversation.

[Chucaro]

If speed kills why car manufacturers compete with each other to who come with the faster car in 0 to 100 ?
If speed kills and also it is illegal, why the above it is allowed?
It would no be much better to improve safety, reliability, and economy in the vehicles instead of speed?
Make you wonder why people need a high performance car when soon or later they will break the laws.

[Barefoot Dave]

Minimise passive enforcement and maximise active enforcement.

The biggest response from most drivers to a flash from the side of the road is "Sucked in, wasn't me", OR "Ah crap, oh well whatever" and a shrug of the shoulders a few MONTHS later when they get the letter.
You also get the ludicrous situations like I have near me: 2 camera sites, 1 mobile, 1 fixed.
At the mobile sites, traffic backs up every morning as drivers shave off 10kph 'Just in case' whether the site is active or not, traffic concertinas and clogs every day due to this. At the fixed site, traffic drops 10kph 300m before and adds 20kph 200m after! What a deterrant! Safely moving traffic becomes chaotic and the impatient do silly things to avoid the congestion.

Flashing Red and Blues and the sight of a REAL person, Really getting the in-your-face talking-to has a much greater effect on all those who see it.
Having to stop and go through the process and be embarrased or ashamed is a much greater hassle for people than the (cheaper) letter option.
Add the community service option in mid-level cases and you are away.
For the Idiots: +20 over the limit, 3+ DUI, Racing, Reckless endangerment, evade arrest- Hit them HARD. In Qld, Police have the option of sending them to a magistrate BUT the magistrate needs to back the decision up with a truer penalty.
Seizure of vehicle, loss of licence for Qty of years, Forced to sit in with the Victims of road trauma/ ride along with an ambulance or RCR.
There will be those (as there is today) that still drive when disqualified/ unlicenced, so give them some thinking time in a nice quiet place for a few months while undertaking re-education. Maybe even as a clean up crew after MVAs?

[Tank]

Probably not as such, but there are studies which show if you slow people down then road trauma and deaths are decreased.

The question then becomes - how do you slow people down? Fines are one means I suppose. If you think they are ineffective in doing that - what are the alternatives?
ABS figures show when blanket 50klm/h speed limits were introduced in urban areas pedestrian road toll rose by 12%, due in the main to people watching their speedos instead of the road.
Contrary to what our money grabbing politicians and their Police force say, SPEED IS NOT the biggest killer on our roads, INNATTENTION IS.
So other than filling the coffers of our corrupt governments what is raising the level of fines going to do, Regards Frank.

[SlowRide]

I'm going to play devils advocate here, but why is it so important that we all follow the rules - especially if the outcome 99.99% of the time is that nobody gets hurt?

What is our goal? Is it really to stop people from getting hurt, or do we just like the leverage of being able to point offenders out from our righteous positions? Is the goal so we all live such safe existences that we all survive to the ripe age of 100... only to spend our last 30 years in a nursing home and senile because we never pushed ourselves? Or are we as a society so scared of death that we're trying to outlaw it's occurrence? What is our goal?


If everybody were to follow the current rules 100% of the time, under our current model that means the rulebook would need to be tightened even harder - just so a surplus of income can be created in the form of fining. Then we comply with that set of rules 100% and the rule book will need to be tightened again... and so it would go ad infinum. Nanny state here we come.


And I certainly don't agree with proactive enforcement. The law should exist to serve your freedoms passively, not chase after you in efforts to extort your money.

[CraigE]

ABS figures show when blanket 50klm/h speed limits were introduced in urban areas pedestrian road toll rose by 12%, due in the main to people watching their speedos instead of the road.
Contrary to what our money grabbing politicians and their Police force say, SPEED IS NOT the biggest killer on our roads, INNATTENTION IS.
So other than filling the coffers of our corrupt governments what is raising the level of fines going to do, Regards Frank.

Absolutely agree. The problem with most speedos is that they are set up at 20kmph increments and can be difficult to read at 50. 110 is not so bad as is generally at the top of your speedo in your direct field of vision, below 80 is generally below your normal field of vision and you have to keep looking especially with the odd numbers 50/70 and causes distraction.

[DiscoMick]

I doubt if many people think, "Oh, they've raised the fines so I better slow down."

[sam_d]

Absolutely agree. The problem with most speedos is that they are set up at 20kmph increments and can be difficult to read at 50.

If you're in a 50 limit and you speedo is set at 20kph increments then do 40 if you find working out where the midway point between 40 and 60 is.

Limits and targets are different things.

[frantic]

Probably not as such, but there are studies which show if you slow people down then road trauma and deaths are decreased.

The question then becomes - how do you slow people down? Fines are one means I suppose. If you think they are ineffective in doing that - what are the alternatives?

Studies and reality are in conflict.
Reality, they got rid of the open road speed limit in the NT and the death toll went up! This is common knowledge easily found on any google search.
Ignore the simple fact that with more cops out on the open roads collecting income, there where more suburban deaths from DUI, unregistered vehicles that would have been picked up more often and easily with cops policing the burbs instead of collecting cash on the highways. :angry:


What did they think would happen when you move 15-20%of your enforcement officers out of the townships/burbs? Along with losing a growing industry where manufacturers would bring their cars for high speed / high temperature testing. Where else can you test a car at high speed in 40deg heat for long periods?

[digger]

Just something different..

in this document the current SA expiation fees (traffic) are listed...

add a $60 'victims of crime' levy on each one (as per legislation)

listed from about page 63 onwards....

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/ROAD%20TRAFFIC%20(MISCELLANEOUS)%20REGULATIONS%201 999/CURRENT/1999.236.UN.PDF