Quote:
|
Originally Posted by outback_ute
...
balthazarr he said that he didn't think it would be appropriate for someone in his position to make use of that provision. Plus I think the $ and points aren't the end of the world for him really. (it is only when they start to stack up that you worry about it!)
|
My comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, but having another think about it, why would it be inappropriate to use such a provision?
The basic premise of our system of governance is the paramountcy of the rule of law - the law applies equally to everyone.
The law allows a discretion to give drivers with a good record a warning in place of fines/demerit points. Clearly, if his record is as clean as he says, he would qualify.
Politically, of course, it would be suicide.
Switching tacks - it's great that the road toll has been steadily reducing from its high in the '70s. But it irritates me that the governments (particularly in recent times) are using this fact to "prove" that their "safety cameras" are working to reduce the road toll.
There are so many factors contributing to the reduction in the road toll - improved car design (DSC, Air bags, crumple zones, etc.), improved road design, increased focus on drink & drug driving, speed, etc.
Speed is one factor. To credit the reduction in the road toll to the 'safety cameras' is simplistic and disingenuous and using it to blanket roads with these cameras is BS.
If it was really about safety, we'd have a higher police presence - Victoria currently has the lowest police presence of any state in Australia.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/fe...0128-n1pu.html