Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Our worst driving offenders

THEY are the worst of the worst YES, This is the sort of outright lies, a tabloid is prepared to tell in order to sell a story to you, NOW. - thousands of drivers who repeatedly get behind the wheel despite having their licences disqualified. The worst of the worse means that these people are worse than

1. The Nazi's efforts at extinguishing the Jews.

2. The 9/11 terrorists.

3. The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and other Christian Crime

4. Saddam Hussein

5. Soviet Russia & the Eastern Bloc countries

6. Mao Zedong

We could go on day; paedophiles, rapists, murderers, despots etc are all considered to be not as bad as an unlicensed driver according to Edith Bevan and the foreign-owned Daily Telegraph.

Many -not all, but lets lump them all in together, the precedent for histrionics and outright lies has already been established-have been disqualified for seriously injuring or even killing -note the use of strong, emotional language and the usage of the most extreme results- other drivers through negligence ??, drink-driving overwhelmingly perpretrated by licensed drivers, hooning A news ltd special phrase, what precisely is hooning, beyond a suitably vague word that affords an opportunity for tabloid journo's to sit in judgement of another spiritual being? or excessive speeding excessive words? wouldn't it be enough to simply say speeding? . Some are disqualified for longer than they're likely to live. But, I'm guessing that this is a very small minority? Maybe the issue is overly harsh sentencing?

But still they take to the roads in a flagrant disregard ooh, flagrant is so much worse than a mere disregard, but, How does Edith know the mindset of these individual people? Has she asked them? Is she one of them? of the law Does Edith even know what a law actually is? Does she even care? Would it be fair to propose that Edith is prepared to write anything at all to establish an emotional and accusatory piece that will get published and allow her to get paid? and the safety of other motorists That would be because apparently, licensed drivers do not have a flagrant disregard for the safety of other motorists. We'll remember this, the next time a News Ltd paper runs a story that demonises licensed drivers, which should be some time this week..

There are now 23,000 drivers declared "habitual offenders" by the RTA Who cares what a private corporation such as the Roads Traffic Authority thinks? Do they make law? No. and the justice system. Is this because they couldn't afford a skilful enough lawyer to play the court game? Because the court system can be a little corrupt at times? Because they could not represent themselves adequately? Are there other reasons?

To earn this dubious distinction, drivers have to accumulate three convictions for serious offences The phrase 'serious offence' has been left undefined. What is a serious offence? Is it a crime as defined in the 1958 Crimes Act? If so, that would mean that somebody has suffered a serious injury or loss? within five years.

The third conviction means they will be disqualified from driving for five years unless a court rules otherwise. This is in addition to any disqualification the third major offence itself attracts.

The scheme was introduced in 1998 for drivers who repeatedly committed serious offences and since then about 30,000 drivers have been declared habitual offenders.

Yet despite the tough sentences handed down by the courts under the scheme, the state's top traffic cop Assistant Commissioner John Hartley admitted it seemed to be doing little to deter drivers determined to take to the roads without a licence.

"Anecdotally, the trend is pretty even," Mr Hartley said.

"We're still catching about 40,000 unauthorised drivers each year - that's unlicensed, disqualified, or licence cancellations. This reminds me that certain people who exercise their common law right to travel, have been subjected to Police stationing themselves close by a freeman's home, who then pounce as soon as private travel is commenced. Another tactic used by Victoria Police is there is a particular car that is called on the radio to come out and take your home made license plates. They can unscrew any screw and if your plates are welded on, they will simply use a grinder to cut them, and a portion of your front & back panels/bumper bars off your automobile. There is remedy. Use stickers. Make about 10, so if a copper rips one off your automobile, put a replacement back on. Then, write a notice of understanding, and pursue them for damages, remembering that a Police Officer is not a judge, the side of a road is not a court room, and you are entitled to face your accusers in a court of law, with a jury, that presumes you innocent of the matter you are accused of. If a murderer, a rapist, or a paedophile is not punished before a trial, why should you be for a trivial matter such as a breach of contract claim?

"Certainly there are people out there of the mindset that they will drive in disregard of the law no matter what." Maybe, but this reads like an opinion, rather than a statement of fact. People who exercise their common law right to travel respect the law. The relevant issue is what is a law? Not addressed in this article, unfortunately.

Mr Hartley said such drivers were a menace on the roads. Again, we have an opinion presented as fact. This could be an argumentative essay!

"It's a danger, particularly when you know that a number of fatal crashes are caused by unauthorised drivers. There's a reason they're disqualified in the first place." Notice the enjoinder that is established here between an unauthorised and disqualified driver. Also, take note of the ambiguous phrase, "a number" how many? how many in relation to crashes caused by licensed drivers?

Police have suggested that declaring a driver an habitual offender after racking up their third offence in five years is leaving it too late. Now that the article has got us all nice and emotional, we reach the point of the article, the Police want greater powers to punish members of the community.

"It's very similar to the drink driver who is an alcoholic - intervention needs to be very early in their driving history rather than later," Mr Hartley said.

"The earlier that intervention comes, the greater chance of success. Obviously some are past the point now where intervention will help."

No comments:

Post a Comment

the mikiverse loves free speech and wholeheartedley accepts, that someone who is diametrically opposed to my views is free to promulgate those thoughts...However, misogyny, racism, intolerance etc will see that comment deleted.
These abstract considerations will be solely, and exclusively determined by the mikiverse, so play hard, but, nice.