One of my junior staff has recently had his licence suspended due to an accumilation of demerit points. No serious violations, as in 'careless wreckless driving' or, 'dangerous driving' offences, just an accumilation of points here and there.

Now I rely on this guy for deliveries, so, off I went to the transport department to enquire about a 'work licence'.

I thought I had a justifiable case, however, as it turns out, the only way one in QLD can obtain a 'work licence' is to be convicted of 'DUI'.

So, what do you consider more of a risk to other road users, DUI or minior speeding infringments?

Irrelevant question. What's worse, rape or murder?.

But, seeing as you ask I'd suggest collecting demerit points over time is worse. Shows a habitual serial offender. DUI can be a one off "mistake". The potential consequences of both are equal to each other.

Serial speeding indicates an ongoing disregard for the safety of others even after being pinged for it before.

Laws are always too harsh when someone you know gets caught. They're too lenient when someone you hear about on the news gets caught.

If the guy's doing deliveries he's likely to be on the road a lot and hence his exposure to speed cameras, etc is much greater. When I was on the road a lot I got quite a few speeding fines while travelling between jobs.

What you say isn't quite true, though. One of my friends was given a work license after accumulating points. The kicker is that if you get booked even once during the period, you're suspended for the maximum time.

I would agree with STG.

A low level DUI of 0.05% once off will cost you your license. In the event of a good record and no previous offences, they might consider a trade license.

In the case of multiple speeding offenses, the lesson clearly hasn't been learnt.

While speeding you still have the illusion of control, but for example driving 70 in a 60 zone:
Decreases the time to impact by 16%,
Increases the stopping distance by 36%, doubles the chance of losing traction,
Increases the energy of a collision by 36%, and the chance of a fatality by 80%.

And is responsible for many of the young P plater deaths recently.

I can now get off my soap box and do some work.

On yers Shadow Minister... I know this isn't what started this thread, but the figures you quote show how we need to reduce the legal speed limits in urban areas, from 50 kph (in Qld) down to the European level of (about) 30kph.

Even the 60 limit on larger roads could easily come down to 50.

There is a lot of latent anger on our roads, and some is expressed through speeding and poor driving. Driving slower is actually a calming influence.

I was a bitumen-sailor for ten years, about 125k miles a year driving, and was only ever booked once for not having the 'tare and agg' sign written on the side of my bosses truck. There was little point speeding over a 3000 mile round-journey, and when one drives in the city, in a car, these days, almost nothing is gained in driving short bursts at over the road speed limit.

In fact, in the UK on the motorways, they have a section of road where drivers get timed and if their average speed is greater than the 70mph limit they get fined.

In these sections, people slow down, from the over 100mph that I witnessed, and all three lanes drive 'at the correct speed'. Spaces between vehicles open up, dashing between lanes ends, people become civilised for a few miles... then the section ends and it's off-and-running again, mayhem at over 100 mph!

rehctub,
Make it a trifector I agree with StG and Shadow minister on this on.
I think there's a table pertaining to this in Butterworth's road and traffic act binders if it's still printed.
Do the crime do the time simple.

There is no difference between speeding or drink driving, and there is no such thing as a minor speeding fine. All of the above are outside the law. Fines should be much harsher. Anybody who accumulates enough points to warrant loss of license, has a problem and should be dealt with medical treatment.
Speeding is a blatant disregard for anyone else on the road or off the road. All they think of is themselves.
How often do you see cars racing to a red light, is this so they want to be first there.
Taking roundabouts at full speed with infant kids in the car. Their brain is to small for their head, no wonder there is so many drongoes around. They say shaking a kid is not good, so whats the difference about roundabouts.
A speeding offence is instantly off the road i say.

Exam, you say; Do the crime do the time simple.

Fair point, nobody can argue with that, but why then do drunks get a work licence?

The Blue Cross
One would assume that to have witnessed such lunercy, as you called it, 70MPH, then 100MPH, you would have had to be traveling with them otherwise you would have no real idea just how fast they were traveling.

Fabricating a story just to make it all sound good can catch you out. I hope you have not been caught out here hey!

Now as for 'serial speeders' as some call it, four points can be lost in one or two offences.

Also, if one owns a company car, they can avoid points in QLD by simply paying 5 times the fine.

Can't do this for DUI hey!

Who gives a toss rehctub?. Both are offences, deal with it and move on.

Rehctub,

If one accumulates too many demerit points, one is sent a letter, asking that one opt to either hop off the road for 3months or to drive without further demerits for a year. Purely automatic. If one subsequently gets more demerits, the license is automatically suspended. This suspension is real. The "work license" is the result of a "special hardship order" from a judge. The suspension remains in place but provides for the driver to continue to earn a living thereby preventing "special hardship" to dependents, creditors, or the driver (losing home etc). A critical condition is that the judge find the driver to be "a fit and proper person" to enjoy such privilege.

I suggest your employee should have sought legal advice, even if he chose to self-represent for such an application.

He requires a letter from you specifying how you cannot employ him without the license and cannot guarantee re-employing him later. He needs people "respected in the community" to vouch for him. He needs to show how he or dependents will suffer "special hardship".

Irritating as it is, your employeee needs to convince the judge that he is aware of his driving failings, contrite, and willing to improve.

I don't remember if there is a window for the application, there may be. Having applied, he may drive until the matter is heard.

During this time, attending a defensive driving course is a good way to show willingness to improve (and tax-deductible). Reviewing one's driving history as much as possible indicates self-examination.

I believe that routine accumulation of points (not too many at a time) is less detrimental to getting the hardship order than DUI, "fit and proper" and all that.

Good luck!

rectum

You really need to travel further afield:

"Fabricating a story just to make it all sound good can catch you out".

70 mph is pretty fast, so when vehicles fly past and practically vanish in no time, it doesn't take much to know they are going considerably faster. I was driving a hired small-car, was unfamiliar with the route, and was quite happy to drive at the speed limit, when the motorway was clear enough to do so, thank you.

Here's a snippet from beyond your horizons:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article3508185.ece

"Cameras that detect average speed will be deployed on hundreds of miles of motorway under a Government plan to force all drivers to comply with variable limits.

"Drivers will no longer be able to exceed the limit knowing that police rarely prosecute anyone driving at less than 85mph on motorways. They will also no longer be able to slow down when they spot a camera.

"Unlike Gatso or Truvelo cameras, which typically cover less than 100 yards, average-speed cameras work in pairs to cover several miles. They use numberplate recognition to record the time it takes a driver to travel between any two points and work out the average speed."

AS an old bloke, I learnt to drive in the late 50s. We used to legally cruise our gravel roads, between towns, in our late 30s, & 40s cars at mid 70 MPH speeds.

You know, no lightening bolts struck us, & I know it's hard for some of you to believe, we did not have prangs.

Move on to the 60, & with improving roads, & more modern cars, [often only 10 years old] we would average 70 MPH, [115Km/H] on overnight trips from Sydney to Melbourne, or Brisbane. We still didn't have prangs.

Today, with modern highways, with all the corners straightened out, & cars that could sit on 150Km/H, we have these rediculously low speed limits, designed for revenue raising.

Today the hardest thing about an interstate trip is staying awake, through the boredom, particularly if you have cruise control. However, with a modern very quiet car, the concentartion required to avoid exceeding the limit, is very wearing, if you don't have cruise. At least with my old 70s sports car, there is just enough engine, & road noise to make conscious speed control unnecessary

<< …what do you consider more of a risk to other road users, DUI or minior speeding infringments? >>

Rehctub, this is impossible to answer because there is a huge range in both DUI and speeding from no risk greater than normal driving to a very seriously increased risk.

I don’t have a problem with the DUI law. Everyone knows exactly where they stand with it. There is a hard and fast cut-off at 0.05% blood alcohol limit.

But this simply isn’t the case with speeding. The enforceable limit is fuzzy and you are very strongly pressured to drive close to the limit just about all the time.

There is a real problem here. You either roll with the flow, which is a few Ks over the legal limit most of the time or you get subjected to an increased risk of offensive behaviour and mishap…and you become the hazard… if you actually drive under the speed limit.

If you want to roll with the flow, you have to sit right up close to bookable limit and be very careful about not letting your speed slip into it.

You can easily get booked for exceeding the speed limit while essentially driving properly. You can very easily be booked for doing more than 13kmh over the limit while just rolling with the flow and letting your speed just slip slightly higher than it should be. That’s three demerit points gone.

If you observe the principle of the law by giving way at a stop sign but not the letter of the law by coming to a total stop – that’s another 3 points. Similarly with various other very minor things.

We can only lose 12 points before we lose our licence, and points hang around for three years.

So it is pretty damn easy to lose your licence while essentially driving safely.

Sure, most people who accrue demerit points to the extent of licence suspension do presumably drive in a ratty manner. But not all of them are particularly poor drivers.

Hasbeen, you make a very good point, in that older cars require much more concerntration to keep on the road, hence, you are less likely to become distracted.

As for my employee, I should have mentioned that he was on a P plate and only had 4 points.

As for my mate 'The Blue Cross', it becomes quite obvious when I prove someone wrong when they turn to silly little games like changing my name. Ticks and stones.
Better luch next time.

Rectum.... 'when I prove someone wrong'... actually chum, you've 'proved' nothing at all, and were simply speaking out of your backside, hence the renaming to suit.

The camera's exist, the altered state when these things are in place exists, the speed is otherwise very high on UK motorways, well above the limit, and you would not have a clue what speed I drove at.

I'm not sure what you were trying to 'prove' at all.

Please explain.

Rehctub:

Re employee on P plates.

Bugger. Reckon he'd be up the creek either way in that case. Still worth asking a lawyer if he has a family to support etc.

Rusty

Any person who drives breaks the law during their driving history.

From the elderly lady straddling lanes to the mother or father with kids collecting them after school speeding [and never seem to get caught] through the 40k school zones, to the people sitting on the speed limit and almost knocking down kids as they alight from school buses over viaducts where they walk.

Speeding and drink driving may be the point of discussion here; yet let us not forget that we are all breaking the law in vehicles at some point during our driving history. Therefore, be understanding of a young fellow's mistakes, punishment and learning he is now undertaking.

Anyone who declares or boasts "I've never had a speeding fine or parking ticket" are the first people I view suspiciously. These same people have been spotted speeding and/or breaking the law at times. Yes, speeding kills and injures. Yes, drink driving kills.

So, too, do people undertaking illegal U-Turns, breaking suddenly or pulling over at the last minute in bumper traffic to answer a mobile, or make a phone call, people pulling out not giving way, people not stopping at "stop signs" or racing to be the first onto a roundabout causing accidents; to name just but a few.

Rechtub my opinion is that both are on par. I dont drink drive; however am guilty of having sped on occasions; generally in emergency situations with a son injured on a dirt motorbike and being rushed to hospital [the speed camera did not capture me that day] and when my daughter suffered from an asthma attack before Christmas [the speed camera at another location missed me that day too]. No thanks to two people sitting on the highway neck to neck bailing me up in a 100kmh zone doing 80ks at the time [for a good 15 minutes of the journey]: the vehicle in the right hand lane sitting under the 100kmhs should have moved over to the left unless overtaking. Another law breaking antic.

<<<< Laws are always too harsh when someone you know gets caught. They're too lenient when someone you hear about on the news gets caught.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 18 February 2010 8:36:56 AM >>>>

I second that, very funny Houellebecq.

I would also add that I think DUI is far worse than speeding, that's because I am a very good driver - which, ironically, is what everyone thinks about his or her driving skills.

But in my case it's true.

;-)

The Blue Cross,
When you say 'you were there' and witnessed the speeds the cars were doing usually means you were doing the same speeds, otherwise, you would simply be guessing. This is most evident when you referr to the spacing between cars.

Now at least WAU is on the money, in sayiny that very few people, and I mean 'very few' drive their entire life without speeding.

We must also remember the 'under speeding' is also the contributor to many accidents.

I am of the view that if you are travling during 'peak hour' then you must do at least 90% of the speed limmit, 'where possible' or face being finned for going to slow, as this causes frustration to fellow road users.

On the other hand, if you preferr to travel at 80, in a 100 zone, then travel out of hours or obtain a 'slow vehicle permit'.
In any case, I think DUI is much more dangerous than speeding as ones reflexes are impaired. Now before you all get on your 'serial speeding horse', I am not referring to 'excessive speeding'. Like 20 - 30% above the limit

rehctub... you continue to talk out of your backside.

"When you say 'you were there' and witnessed the speeds the cars were doing usually means you were doing the same speeds, otherwise, you would simply be guessing. This is most evident when you referr to the spacing between cars."

Errant nonsense, is the most polite treatment of this stab-in-the-dark to retrieve some hint of intelligence on your part.

Not sure why you even comment on the 'spacing' section.

I think you'd have to have been brave enough to leave your small world to see what goes on 'elsewhere' before you can begin to grasp that your perspective is not always the only one around, and that 'elsewhere' things are sometimes different to here.

A shock, I do realise, but there it is.

You intimated that you 'had staff' at the outset of this thread- one can only wonder how they survive under your off-the-cuff diktats.

Another snippet you might like to denounce as 'not being true' is the mechanism used on UK motorways that allows drivers, whilst travelling, to measure the distance they need to be from the vehicle ahead of them...a simple system of road lane markings matched to your own speed... very natty.

Or the system in France, which may well not be in use at this time, where lower speed limits were imposed, and suddenly traffic flowed far more freely.

Better get your 'proving cap' on

The Blue Cross: it may be in everyone's best interests to attach the UK and French links you have come across instead of the labelling. [I learned a few weeks ago not to become hot headed and insulting with labelling after disagreeing with someone over an issue]. This person has raised some fantastic viewpoints on other topics since; and was not the narrowminded person I had presumed initially.

Upon reflection, I realised that many people participating on OLO have been "giving" to fellow Australians for many years via their contributions and one should respect this fact. Also, if one attacks people labelling them [generalising/judging] them over one viewpoint regarding an issue, fellow posters will not bother interacting or bothering with one's wonderful contributions.

Thanks for your thoughtful advice 'we are unique', noted.

However, I think you will find that rehctub insists that I was fibbing, and that s/he had 'proved' that, simply by offering his/her opinion on the matter without explaining anything other than to assert that I was probably also speeding.

The system known as 'google' is open to all to use to see just what goes on in other nations. Clearly rehctub chooses to accuse first, and then not even bother to check anything.

Given the ubiquity of google type machines to find 'facts' it is hardly worth pretending or fibbing about any facts anywhere, on such a forum as OLO, is it?

I have already provided an old article on the 'average' speed cameras on the motorways in the UK, as far as I can tell, prior to their introduction, or at least widespread introduction, maybe some were on test already?. These are now in place, and have been for some time.

The speed/distance-behind-the-vehicle-in-front has been in action for a few years....I have no idea when they were introduced, and am not sure it is very important anyway.

In NSW, if not other states, trucks are policed by some form of 'average speed' camera system now, although probably only on major routes. I have no idea if it does what it is supposed to do, but it probably does.

Now, I have no intention of providing 'references' for any of that.

Most is obvious to those are vaguely aware of the world, the rest is all on google for those keen to 'investigate'.