Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Double demerit points this Anzac Day

By Barcham - 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]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
41 Responses to
Double demerit points this Anzac Day
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Jono 8:36 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.

Jono 8:33 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.

milkman 8:14 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!

IrishPete 6:46 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

Jono 5:13 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.

IrishPete 4:55 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

Jono 10:36 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.

screaming banshee 7:18 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

bigred 10:11 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.

IrishPete 8:10 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

Deckard 12:39 pm 25 Apr 13

KeenGolfer said :

Roundhead89 said :

We’ve had this debate on RA before. Apparently there are two types of lights. Fog lights and Daytime Running Lights (DRLs). Someone said that driving with fog lights on is legal but DRLs are not. Or was it the other way around? Nobody seems to know and nobody has posted the relevant section of the road rules clarifying the situation.

Took me 30 seconds:

ARR 217 Using fog lights
1) The driver of a vehicle fitted with front fog lights or rear fog lights must not operate the fog light unless the driver is driving in fog or other hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility.

2) In this rule:
front fog light means a light (other than a headlight) fitted to the front of a vehicle to improve illumination of the road in fog, snowfall, heavy rain or dust clouds.

rear fog light means a light (other than a brake light, a tail light, a number plate light or a reversing light) fitted to the rear of a vehicle to make the vehicle more easily visible from the rear in fog, snowfall, heavy rain or dust clouds.

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.

As for double demerits, why not double the fine as well?

IrishPete 9:27 pm 24 Apr 13

goggles13 said :

So Anzac Day is a one day public holiday for some and yet the police and government have the hide to enact their double demerit scheme for four days.

maybe I should take friday off from work since some are treating it as a public holiday.

or is this a way of encouraging motorists to do the right thing coming back from school holidays?

Actually, I think it’s five days, from the start of Wednesday to the end of Sunday.

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

bigred 8:23 pm 24 Apr 13

Seems we only have double demerits in he ACT because NSW has them and we cannot be an island of sanity surrounded by insanity.

Why don’t we have enough coppers on the streets? Quite simple really? Because the size of the overhead is such they have all been promoted out of active roles. The coppers need a flatter structure with fewer promotions available.

On foglights? They can be a bloody nuisance depending on the vehicle they are fitted to and they actually impair the near field visibility for approaching drivers. Of a nighttime I mitigate the risk by just driving at them on high beam.

KeenGolfer 6:59 pm 24 Apr 13

Roundhead89 said :

We’ve had this debate on RA before. Apparently there are two types of lights. Fog lights and Daytime Running Lights (DRLs). Someone said that driving with fog lights on is legal but DRLs are not. Or was it the other way around? Nobody seems to know and nobody has posted the relevant section of the road rules clarifying the situation.

Took me 30 seconds:

ARR 217 Using fog lights
1) The driver of a vehicle fitted with front fog lights or rear fog lights must not operate the fog light unless the driver is driving in fog or other hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility.

2) In this rule:
front fog light means a light (other than a headlight) fitted to the front of a vehicle to improve illumination of the road in fog, snowfall, heavy rain or dust clouds.

rear fog light means a light (other than a brake light, a tail light, a number plate light or a reversing light) fitted to the rear of a vehicle to make the vehicle more easily visible from the rear in fog, snowfall, heavy rain or dust clouds.

milkman 6:46 pm 24 Apr 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

watto23 said :

p1 said :

watto23 said :

I should also note, police have more serious offences to deal with. If a driver has fog lights on is speeding and its not bright to their eyes near anyone else, whats the point of booking the driver, when more serious offences need to be dealt with.

Equally valid?

Seriously, if the fog lights are not a hinderance to other drivers, why book people for having them on? Speeding is always dangerous, so they should book someone speeding, the comparison is not valid. There are standard driving liughts that are too bright for my eyes, I just don’t get why people care about fog lights when the majority of the time they are not a hinderance and often help the driver see the road.

Speeding is not ‘always dangerous’, this is the BS that we’re fed to make us believe revenue cameras are there for ‘our safety’.

+1.

Roundhead89 5:17 pm 24 Apr 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

watto23 said :

magiccar9 said :

IrishPete said :

Same with fog lights, which are now left on all the time just in case there might be a little bit of fog tomorrow morning.

Perhaps the police need to stop choosing which offences are interesting enough to pull people up for, and do the job they have been given by the elected parliaments.

IP

YES! I totally agree IP. Although regarding the fog lights, I’ve seen quite a few Police Vehicles committing this offence – including one of the fancy Rapid cars.

You do understand that most fog lights are not fog lights under the law and thus can be turned on at any time? If they are no brighter than the cars standard headlights then they are not fog lights (even if the manufacturer markets them as such) and its not illegal to have them on.

Except the regular lights when not on high beam use prisms that scatter light below the middle of the lens, whereas fog light scatter evenly and thus appear migh brighter to oncoming traffic.

Fog lights are illegal during good weather, as they should be.

We’ve had this debate on RA before. Apparently there are two types of lights. Fog lights and Daytime Running Lights (DRLs). Someone said that driving with fog lights on is legal but DRLs are not. Or was it the other way around? Nobody seems to know and nobody has posted the relevant section of the road rules clarifying the situation.

thebrownstreak69 4:36 pm 24 Apr 13

watto23 said :

p1 said :

watto23 said :

I should also note, police have more serious offences to deal with. If a driver has fog lights on is speeding and its not bright to their eyes near anyone else, whats the point of booking the driver, when more serious offences need to be dealt with.

Equally valid?

Seriously, if the fog lights are not a hinderance to other drivers, why book people for having them on? Speeding is always dangerous, so they should book someone speeding, the comparison is not valid. There are standard driving liughts that are too bright for my eyes, I just don’t get why people care about fog lights when the majority of the time they are not a hinderance and often help the driver see the road.

Speeding is not ‘always dangerous’, this is the BS that we’re fed to make us believe revenue cameras are there for ‘our safety’.

thebrownstreak69 4:33 pm 24 Apr 13

watto23 said :

magiccar9 said :

IrishPete said :

Same with fog lights, which are now left on all the time just in case there might be a little bit of fog tomorrow morning.

Perhaps the police need to stop choosing which offences are interesting enough to pull people up for, and do the job they have been given by the elected parliaments.

IP

YES! I totally agree IP. Although regarding the fog lights, I’ve seen quite a few Police Vehicles committing this offence – including one of the fancy Rapid cars.

You do understand that most fog lights are not fog lights under the law and thus can be turned on at any time? If they are no brighter than the cars standard headlights then they are not fog lights (even if the manufacturer markets them as such) and its not illegal to have them on.

Except the regular lights when not on high beam use prisms that scatter light below the middle of the lens, whereas fog light scatter evenly and thus appear migh brighter to oncoming traffic.

Fog lights are illegal during good weather, as they should be.

watto23 4:26 pm 24 Apr 13

p1 said :

watto23 said :

I should also note, police have more serious offences to deal with. If a driver has fog lights on is speeding and its not bright to their eyes near anyone else, whats the point of booking the driver, when more serious offences need to be dealt with.

Equally valid?

Seriously, if the fog lights are not a hinderance to other drivers, why book people for having them on? Speeding is always dangerous, so they should book someone speeding, the comparison is not valid. There are standard driving liughts that are too bright for my eyes, I just don’t get why people care about fog lights when the majority of the time they are not a hinderance and often help the driver see the road.

Evil_Kitten 3:59 pm 24 Apr 13

So I guess they’re assuming that everyone in the work force is taking Friday off, therefore making it a “holiday period”.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site