New penalties for dangerous driving

So would Mr Corbell be interested in viewing my dash camera recording of an ACT Traffic Inspector vehicle passing me as I stopped at a red light on Anzac Parade a week or so ago.

No attempt to brake. Came from behind and sailed through on a real red. No element of slightly orange to it.

Jake Arioli only got 3 months jail for terrorising a family during a road-rage incident, smashing a rear window with a metal pole causing glass to spray over a baby.

I’m sure Jake Arioli would of used mental health issues for leniency and regards for the mental health issues now suffered by the family not considered at all.

going to jail for doing 78 in 60 zone or 52 in new town centre 40 speed limits is rather harsh and will never happen . There have been a few parents pulled up for DUI when picking kids up from school none have been charged with furious, reckless or dangerous driving. A cyclist have never been charged with speeding and had furious, reckless or dangerous driving added. So why bring in new laws.

switch said :

Very Busy said :

Oh, thank God for that. For a minute there I thought I was going to have to start using my indicators.

And turn yer foglights off!

And use the left hand lane.

Kim F said :

But when are we going to teach Gulia how to park legally and/or properly?

And Simon, who thinks he is a taxi driver when going shopping.

I think some of you have comprehension issues. The press release relates to the “aggravated version of the offence of furious, reckless or dangerous driving”. The aggravating factors are as listed including, for example, speeding at more than 30% over the speed limit. So you must be charged with furious, reckless or dangerous driving and must have also committed one of the aggravating factors to be charged with the aggravated offence of furious, reckless or dangerous driving.

Harsher penalties hey? So if the deadsh*ts see the red and blue and realise they’ve lost their license either way, are they going to pull over, or go for broke?

I’ve long advocated for increased penalties for those committing traffic offences with minors in the car.

I hope they extend this principle to other offences as it’ll reduce incidences of bad learned behaviours.

I commend this approach.

bigred said :

Ho hum, as if it will actually applied. You see, without enforcement what does a penalty on the statutes matter?

Very true! Hopefully, the police at least will accept footage from the ever increasing number of private cameras as evidence.

bundah said :

Potentially facing jail sentences for travelling at 30 per cent above the mandated limit, including in school zones or construction areas is plainly excessive and besides there’s bugger all room at the AMC as it is…….

What’s wrong with penalising someone more harshly for doing 50+ k’s in a school zone or worksite? I doubt such an offence would result in jail time (at least not the first time) but perhaps it might force people to treat these speed limits – and even lower ones such as 5, 10 or 20 kph – more seriously. At the moment it’s sometimes dangerous to try and do 40 in a construction zone when others still try to do 80 or even 100 kph.

Absolutely nothing wrong with penalising someone for exceeding the limit. We already have fines in place for that however what we don’t need is prison sentences for such an indiscretion.

It’s about applying an appropriate level of punishment which doesn’t include whacking someone over the head with a mallet for speeding!

But when are we going to teach Gulia how to park legally and/or properly?

So will Ministers and senior officials who miss program and project targets by more than 30% be fined 200 penalty units (from their own pockets) and thrown in the clink?

Slightly more seriously, if it’s necessary to have severe penalties to protect pedestrians from motorised vehicles, what about specific protections against the dangers presented by aggressive cyclists. Given the local fondness for obsessively enforcing arbitrary rules and limits, why not have a rule which says that cyclists who weigh over a certain (arbitrary) amount face extra speed etc. restrictions (to be enforced by compulsory GPS tracking devices) because of the special threat which their large mass presents to pedestrians. Just a modest suggestion for our ever-alert and concerned legislators and regulators to chew on…….