Advertisement

Double demerit points this Anzac Day

By 23 April 2013 41

For your information Rioters:

ACT Policing is urging motorists to drive safely over the Anzac Day period and warns that double demerits will apply for speeding and seatbelt offences, with an extra point for all other traffic offences.

Double demerit points are effective from the first instance on Wednesday, April 24 until midnight April 28, 2013.

ACT Traffic Operations Superintendent Kylie Flower said ACT Policing will continue to target reckless and dangerous driving behaviour over the Anzac Day period.

“ACT Policing is asking the Canberra community to enjoy Anzac Day, but remember to keep our roads safe by not drinking and driving and staying within the speed limit at all times. Make sure you fasten your seatbelt and remember it is your responsibility to ensure that all occupants of your vehicle are wearing their seatbelts too.”

“ACT Policing asks for motorists to stick to the speed limits at all times and to drive to the conditions of the roads. Speed limits are the maximum speed you can safely travel on a road in good conditions, not the minimum speed you must travel on a road in any conditions.”

The ACT road toll for 2013 currently sits at four.

Media enquiries
Police Media — (02) 6264 9460, act-police-media@afp.gov.au

[Courtesy of ACT Policing]

Please login to post your comments
41 Responses to Double demerit points this Anzac Day
#31
IrishPete8:10 pm, 25 Apr 13

Deckard said :

Puhlease!!

Have you ever been distracted by fog lights? I know I haven’t. I have been distracted by normal headlights with their aim adjusted higher. Pretty much every other night.

At night, or at dusk or dawn YES, all the time. Especially when they’re following me as it’s much longer exposure than when the d$ckhead is coming towards me. So much so I angle the rear view mirrors so I can’t see behind me. Even worse when following someone, as I can’t see well enough past them to know if it’s safe to overtake, so I have to drop way back. Actually, cars coming towards me are just as bad, as the temporary blindness means I may not see the suicidal wildlife crouching on the verge.

And yes, cars or utes with heavy loads or trailers, causing their headlights to be raised, are just as annoying, but more forgiveable as there’s usually nothing they can do about it.

IP

#32
bigred10:11 pm, 25 Apr 13

It is very clear that the use of foglights is against the Australian Road Rules. So just turn the f-_king things off when others are around! They are an absolute PIA. I am waiting for the AFP foglights in clear weather month. Easy offence to detect and lots of losers around thinking they are cool.

#33
screaming banshee7:18 am, 26 Apr 13

Rear fogs are a bigger pain in the arse, and in every car I’ve seen with them fitted there is an additional switch that must be operated to turn them on. Are these people that stupid that they think they have to hit two switches just to get their headlights to work.

I’ve also had a few idiots lately driving with their high beams on. From behind them I can see the blue light lighting up the cabin…..I’m tempted to install a spotlight on the rear of the car as no other method yet has adequately informed them of their d***headidness

#34
Jono10:36 pm, 26 Apr 13

IrishPete said :

Nearly had my comeuppance early this afternoon after posting this, with a slightly speedy overtaking manouevre, but the marked police car coming the other way must have been checking his Facebook page or something, or maybe (which is probably true) I only exceeded the limit for a second or so. (Marked police car, but in NSW – sorry ACTites.)

IP

Here’s what you said on an earlier thread about cyclists:

Feel free to ignore advisory signs (which probably did have the force of law – the event organisers were probably the ACT Government and NCA, and you can’t just get those kind of signs in Go-Lo), but don’t whinge when someone else breaks a law (or an advisory sign) that puts cyclists at risk. No really, don’t, because I’ll just post a link back to this thread.

Well, to paraphrase that:

Feel free to ignore the road rules, but don’t whinge when someone else breaks a road rule that puts others at risk. No really, don’t, because I’ll just post a link back to this thread.

What you’ve said on the two threads is so typical of the attitude of most road users – whether they be cyclists, motorists or pedestrians. It’s OK of you to ignore the road rules, but it’s totally unacceptable for others to do so.

#35
IrishPete4:55 pm, 27 Apr 13

Jono said :

Here’s what you said on an earlier thread about cyclists:

Feel free to ignore advisory signs (which probably did have the force of law – the event organisers were probably the ACT Government and NCA, and you can’t just get those kind of signs in Go-Lo), but don’t whinge when someone else breaks a law (or an advisory sign) that puts cyclists at risk. No really, don’t, because I’ll just post a link back to this thread.

Well, to paraphrase that:

Feel free to ignore the road rules, but don’t whinge when someone else breaks a road rule that puts others at risk. No really, don’t, because I’ll just post a link back to this thread.

What you’ve said on the two threads is so typical of the attitude of most road users – whether they be cyclists, motorists or pedestrians. It’s OK of you to ignore the road rules, but it’s totally unacceptable for others to do so.

Why do I get the feeling I am being stalked?

Feel free to look up the meaning of the word comeuppance. You can’t gloat at someone who is beng forthright. (Look that one up too if you need to.)

You also may have missed the subtle distinction that the post you quote was about cyclists who were choosing to break the law with impunity because they are untraceable. I’m not suggesting they should be registered and have number plates and insurance (which woud effectively ban children from riding bicycles), but whilesoever they are not required to do those things they need to respect that privilege.

And the other subtle distinction is that I didn’t admit to putting anyone at risk (except me at risk of getting a speeding ticket) – if anything it was the opposite. Judicious use of speed to avoid a more risky situation.

IP

#36
Jono5:13 pm, 27 Apr 13

IrishPete said :

You also may have missed the subtle distinction that the post you quote was about cyclists who were choosing to break the law with impunity because they are untraceable. I’m not suggesting they should be registered and have number plates and insurance (which woud effectively ban children from riding bicycles), but whilesoever they are not required to do those things they need to respect that privilege.

Ah yes, I’ve seen this argument used by motorists before – because motorists can be traced, it’s more acceptable for them to break the law. Sorry, doesn’t carry any weight.

IrishPete said :

Judicious use of speed to avoid a more risky situation.

What crap – you said that you were speeding while overtaking. It wasn’t because you were trying to avoid a “more risky” situation, you were breaking the road laws to get to your destination a few seconds earlier.

#37
IrishPete6:46 pm, 28 Apr 13

Jono said :

IrishPete said :

You also may have missed the subtle distinction that the post you quote was about cyclists who were choosing to break the law with impunity because they are untraceable. I’m not suggesting they should be registered and have number plates and insurance (which woud effectively ban children from riding bicycles), but whilesoever they are not required to do those things they need to respect that privilege.

Ah yes, I’ve seen this argument used by motorists before – because motorists can be traced, it’s more acceptable for them to break the law. Sorry, doesn’t carry any weight.

IrishPete said :

Judicious use of speed to avoid a more risky situation.

What crap – you said that you were speeding while overtaking. It wasn’t because you were trying to avoid a “more risky” situation, you were breaking the road laws to get to your destination a few seconds earlier.

As you weren’t there, I’m going to treat your comments as ignorant in both senses of the word.

IP

#38
milkman8:14 pm, 28 Apr 13

Jono said :

What crap – you said that you were speeding while overtaking. It wasn’t because you were trying to avoid a “more risky” situation, you were breaking the road laws to get to your destination a few seconds earlier.

This comments wins the award for ‘Least Real World Relevance’. Congratulations!

#39
Jono8:33 pm, 28 Apr 13

IrishPete said :

As you weren’t there, I’m going to treat your comments as ignorant in both senses of the word.

IP

Feel free to explain the “risky” situation that required you to break the road rules then – I’m always keen to learn, and relieve myself of my ignorance.

#40
Jono8:36 pm, 28 Apr 13

milkman said :

This comments wins the award for ‘Least Real World Relevance’. Congratulations!

Perhaps you’ve missed the point, perhaps not.

See I don’t particularly care if this guy breaks the road rules or not, that was never the point – it’s his hypocrisy that I was trying to highlight. On an earlier thread, he got on his high horse about cyclists not paying attention to a sign, and then admits that he breaks the road rules when it’s convenient to him. You can have one of those, but not both.

#41
IrishPete8:54 pm, 30 Apr 13

Jono said :

milkman said :

This comments wins the award for ‘Least Real World Relevance’. Congratulations!

Perhaps you’ve missed the point, perhaps not.

See I don’t particularly care if this guy breaks the road rules or not, that was never the point – it’s his hypocrisy that I was trying to highlight. On an earlier thread, he got on his high horse about cyclists not paying attention to a sign, and then admits that he breaks the road rules when it’s convenient to him. You can have one of those, but not both.

You didn’t look up the word comeuppance, did you?

And you clearly don’t drive.

IP

Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.