My wife works for a company where one of the Directors has a habit of constantly talking on his phone while driving. Being a bit tech challenged, he doesn't use Bluetooth, but talks into the handset, and has therefore racked up a stack of fines, to the point where he is about to lose his license. So he has offered some of his employees cash to take the points (not for the phone ones as they are obviously pull-over fines, but for some of the other camera fines like speeding, and red light offences).
What would you do if he asked you?
Would You Take Someone Else's Driving Infringement Points for Cash?
billy_bob on 10/06/2016 - 19:02
Last edited 15/06/2016 - 14:57
Last edited 15/06/2016 - 14:57
Poll Options
- 1211. Take the money as you have plenty of points left.
- 1032. Politely decline.
- 2973. Tell him to suck it up, and accept the consequences for his actions.
Comments
yeah but the chances of actually getting jailed for it? pretty much zero even if you get caught. our court system is a joke.
Are you stupid?
Providing a false statutory declaration is a criminal offence. This means that you WILL get a criminal record.
If convicted in court, it is punishable by up to five years in prison.
Not even $1,000 cash is worth the small risk of being jailed for up to 5 years.
Not even $1,000 cash is worth the small risk of being jailed for up to 5 years.
Depends how small the risk is.
No, the Australian courts are pathetic. First five or so trips to court will all be without conviction unless it is something really bad.
If only courts worked that way.
Actual robberies don't even get that kind of jail time.
http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_media_releases/201…
"Average prison terms also vary according to the nature of the charge. The average term of imprisonment for a domestic violence offender convicted of common assault is 4.6 months.
By contrast, the average term of imprisonment for a domestic violence offender convicted of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm is 12.6 months"
Okay. the court system is really a joke.
No worse than this: http://www.smh.com.au/world/stanford-rape-case-brock-turner-…
Stupid judge Aaron persky gives a rapist who was raping an unconscious girl in the alley 6 months from a potential 14 years max term. Apparently his judgement was that he doesn't see the rapist "coping" in Jail. WTF, since when was Jail a Holiday?
if prosecution tried to use that case as persuasive argument against someone that took cash for demerit points then they'd probably lose their job and get scolded by the presiding judge because they're straight up incompetent.
Considering you would be committing a jailable offence,
Why would you worry about the maximum penalty? o_0
I would say no.
How can you say no without knowing the amount of the payoff? :/
Can't a company already take the hit when a company car is used and the driver not named, just paying more than for a named individual?
These fines are pull over ones not red light speeding etc.
Looks like he does all three and is just palming off the speeding and red light camera fines
The company fine is significantly higher an in individual, from memory its close to 10 times. Besides, no matter how big the company fines are seldom absorbed by them and the onus is always on the individual, company car or not.
Yes, we must be obedient servile good little citizens. Never dare to break convention and carry on with obeying your masters blindly. Civil disobedience is not what our society needs at all. Money is your god, keep consuming, pay your taxes and keep voting.
Taking advantage of an employee like that is a pretty good measure of his character. Would you want to reward that?
I love how no one has voted to "politely decline", rather "tell him to suck it up" hahahaha.
True, it's easy to say "suck it up" when you are hiding behind a PC, but in reality, I think most would just politely decline.
Speaking for myself…. but yer most would be too polite.
Bikies ?
Doesn't matter if he was on a bike or car
Where is the option to convince another employee to take it up, record evidence and then blackmail them both?
Honestly polls these days..because blackmail is such a lesser crime than taking a ticket for someone ?
It's not about the crime, it's about the return!
So effing Australian! Working out the odds on which law is best to break!
Ok, retarded anti-Aussie racist overtones aside…how's about you have a little think about the exquisite stupidity of your assertion that in a world that comprises over 200 countries, crimes involving extortion & fraud are somehow the sole domain of Australians.
That's just embarrassingly uneducated on so many levels…
Is that insult supposed to be directed at me?!
@outlander: Sorry dude, not this time; but rest assured I'll feel free to abuse you whenever I feel it is warranted…
In the meantime, have a hot cocoa, that'll sort those winter blues! ;)
Wow Australian is a race now? Unless you mean indigenous?
@tomkun01: http://www.racismnoway.com.au/about-racism/understanding/
Racist attitudes may be manifested in a number of ways including common expressions of racial prejudice towards and stereotyped assumptions about other cultures…
Simply being a pedant doesn't make you right, just apparently too arrogant to see the point.
@StewBalls: that's funny. You seem to have been triggered by a self depreciating joke, yet used retarded as an insult. Sheesh. Your sjwness is spot on
@tomkun01: Please, do feel free to point out this subtle joke, as I do seem to have missed it…and for the record, "retarded" is exactly the right word when describing bigotry in any form, unless of course you're a big fan of prejudice???
@StewBalls: an Australian pointing out the ridiculous attitude prevalent in this poll is the joke. Anyway, hopefully you can learn to take a joke in the near future, lest you get triggered for the rest of your life. Have a nice evening sir
@tomkun01: Nonsense, if you read the comment the second time that person used the very same slur on the following page, you'll note from his grammar that it's absolutely not meant to be "Australian" self-deprecating humour. Nice try at a backflip though.
You might want to take some of your own advice, you seem to have triggered yourself into the argument rather well buddy boy…
It's our culture. What do you expect from a nation developed from convicts?
Call Bikies
Definitely do not. It's not worth the risk. It's one thing to do it for a family member, but to accept cash is another story. Could get into a bit of trouble doing that.
Also, who knows? Maybe one day you'll need the points yourself and you'll be left in the cold. Kinda like sick leave. You keep thinking all that accrued sick leave is wasted..right until the point you have something major happen and use every last bit of it.
Thats what income protection is for.
*That's what savings are for.
Income protection is for the financially clueless…and the poor
Can you elaborate?
I get it as part of my pay package. If I had the option I would take the money instead.
It is kind of hard to elaborate clearly without talking about indifference curves, utility functions and stochastic calculations of liabilities and risk margins, because its the modelling insurance actuaries use. It changes depending on age, occupation class, if your a smoker etc…
Generally the basic intuition is that the person chooses to be insured if the relief outweighs the consumption utility. If you are a high income earner and not being able to work will masssively effect your lifestyle (i.e living hand to mouth - good cash flow / financially poor ) then it must say a lot about how you manage your money. Statistically, you would be better off self insuring by putting sums away in index funds, because you reap the gains of capital growth and interest and not the insurance companies. However most 'middle-high income' earners would rather become indentured servants to the bank by financing a lifestyle teetering on the edge of collapse.
insurance usually provides reduncancy claims duration of 3 months, and disability claims duration around 2 years and it depends on the contract. So yeah if you can't afford to live for 3 months without an income, reassess your priorities.
Of course it can benefit some people but you can't confuse statistics with hindsight. You will here stories of 'hubby getting an auto immune disease and he was a big time engineer and thank god he had income protection insurance' are great adverts to make everyone insure. Australia also has a lot of safeguards like being able to withdraw from super, centrelink, medicare and you can even get interest stalled on credit card debt. It is also a good way to think how one should diversify their income like they diversify their investments.
Of course there will be stories of it benefitting someone, but it is few and just like gambling, they lucked out.
Of course there will be stories of it benefitting someone, but it is few and just like gambling, they lucked out.
Spot on, throughout my very long life, having known literally thousands of people, I know exactly one person who came out financially ahead due to income protection insurance.
Mind you, I wouldn't have his health for quids…
@jenkemjunkie: Interesting viewpoint.
But isn't that the way all insurance systems work? Do you not have car insurance? House insurance?
@x d:
Generally, but insurance will have different statistical modelling depending on the product.Yes, i have both house and car insurance.
Use a bit of common sense, read the PDS and you will realise there are heaps of junk/con/unnecessary policies.
Funeral insurance
Income protection insurance
Credit card insuranceAll designed to be massive money spinners.
@jenkemjunkie: Hmmm… My income protection is till 65 yo, indexed to inflation and has 90 days wait. My income is very high, and I can't imagine my family without it. Premium is quite high but tax deductible as you know. Sure if I don't claim, your theory of putting the premium into a fund has merits.
If my income is perhaps less, the risk would be worth it.
I agree that all insurance are designed to be money spinners though.
@jenkemjunkie: Not everyone has the same approach to finance as you do. Just as not everyone is a good cook or gardener.
Some people are finacially savvy. They know how the stock market works, how to minimise their tax etc. Some people don't have a clue when it comes to finances and have no interest in finding out. Some people can't cook and wouldn't know a braise from a broil. And they have no interest in finding out either.
None of these 2 are wrong, they are just different.
Therefore, if someone cannot live for 3 months without an income, I don't believe they deserve criticism, it's just the way they are. And maybe they need income insurance just in case?You're right, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, but I never proposed one needs to be some financial savant to have a modicum of financial literacy. Just like someone that can cook a basic, healthy meal for themselves need not be a Michelin chef.
What has happened is people have construed my bagging of 'income protection insurance' as some insurance/no insurance dichotomy and then entertain that I probably don't have a car or house insurance because they've conflated the insurance thing.
The 'just in case' sentiment is how these 'junk' insurance companies prey on those that claim they are too financially illiterate to realise they are getting screwed. Screwed with overlapping cover they already don't realise they have so they're paying twice, screwed that you can't claim both as they may off-set each other. Screwed at how narrow the scope of cover actually is.
Sure people can do as they wish, choose your partner, choose how you want to live, choose to let the bank screw you with fees Coz she'll be alright. I can tell you setting up a managed fund is probably easier than signing up for insurance and the beauty is they are ideal for people that don't know stock markets and other zany financial things…and it's completely ok for you to do what your comfortable with
@x d:
pretty much re: less income and risk..Of course there will be terms and circumstances that would be relative to you…etc…How long have you had the insurance for? have you used it and how long have you been making decent money? Rhetorical questions, just some food for thought
@jenkemjunkie: Have held insurance for 15 yrs and have 20 yrs or more of working life left.
Insurance for me is not about having poor money management and not having enough money to live on after 3 months. It's about providing years of financial security protection for my family in case something happens.
As I have said before, all insurance works on the principle of the many paying premiums to support the few who need it, and the insurance companies benefit by being the middle man running it, making a profit in the process (ie money spinners for the companies). Everybody who pays insurance in any form is "screwed" by the insurance companies.
Coming back to the car insurance questions I raised? If you are careful on the road, really all you would need for it would be third party property and theft insurance. Now if you believe in your principles, this is all you would have on your cars. Is this the case?
As is with income protection, if your income is not too high, Australia's "safeguards like being able to withdraw from super, centrelink, medicare" maybe adequate and make income protection insurance unnecessary. But imagine driving around in a Ferrari and only have third party and theft insurance because you don't think that you will ever crash that car. Now that would be a challenge. For me the stress is just not worth it even if I would save an amount of money by not buying the comprehensive insurance.
Perhaps when it comes to having maybe 5 yrs or so before retirement, I might give the income protection insurance away.
@x d:
My job involves making sure PDS statements conform to legislation as well as the financial viability of financial products and their release to market, it also requires I have professional indemnity insurance. Obviously I am very aware of how insurance works.
Seems you don't understand what I'm conveying when you again conflate car insurance and income protection insurance. Comparing ferraris and 3rd party car insurance to income protection insurance is a ridiculous, non-comparable analogy. Car insurance isn't inherently scammy like income protection insurance is and the risk modelling is completely different and the margins/returns are completely different.
Coming to a decision to discontinue your income protection insurance in your last 5 years just shows how off your economic decision making really is. Those 20 years of income protection insurance premiums could've had you that Ferrari. lastly, I have full comprehensive insurance on my car and it's not a Ferrari, that must really boggle your mind right!
@jenkemjunkie: I am not in the industry and maybe income protection insurance to companies do provide companies with more margins of returns but I can't see how income insurance is completely scammy. It is up to the purchaser to work out the level of cover and what they want covered, and how much the premiums would be. If the premiums is too high what do you think will be the success of the product? Do you think that all the high income earners are financially clueless? None of my specialist surgeon/anaesthetists friends go without income protection. Do you know how long it took them to get to their level of income and to take the chance? Admittedly, not all of them insure to the maximum of their income and reduce their premiums to what they are comfortable with. I also don't insure to my full earning capacity and the premium is only an acceptable fraction of what my income is. I could also stop insuring right now and my family would not be in financial stress.
Why can't I use the car insurance as a analogy. If you drive an inexpensive car, your income and saving can easily replace it (same as Centrelink, super and Medicare to replace your lost income in your words above), and so comprehensive insurance should not be needed. If you have a Ferrari, or heaven forbid Bugatti Veyrons, it will much harder (though you can argue that those who have Ferraris would have so much money that they themselves can replace it).
Fact is if you drive a car carefully enough, you should not have a crash that you would be liable for. So unlike other forms of insurance (house and income), where there are factors outside of the policy holder's control, driving a car with caution should eliminate the need for comprehensive insurance. The fact that you do have comprehensive insurance on your car is puzzling and does show how you really don't believe in your principles. Imagine how much you could have saved and put into your managed fund and earn after 50 yrs of driving!
@x d:
Imagine how much I could have saved if I put all those office lotto tickets in my managed fund!
@jenkemjunkie: I have just been reading this again. Can you clarify "Screwed with overlapping cover they already don't realise they have so they're paying twice, screwed that you can't claim both as they may off-set each other"?
Thanks.
nice try Marcus Einfeld
Pub test?
to the point where he is about to lose his license.
Good, the asshat should lose it…before he kills someone.
How about ring the roads office and tell them what he's offering to employees. That's the right thing to do and could actually save someone's life. Try explaining to the family of the person he kills or permanently disables that you accepted a bit of cash and that's why their loved one is like they are.
Nobody trusts a snitch, even the person you're snitching to will think you're untrustworthy
Who gives a toss about that? Cars are lethal, poorly driven cars especially so.
You're right… cars are lethal, but under this context, I'd never associate with someone that feels the need to dog on someone because they don't like their actions and then try and draw correlations that by doing so they have prevented a death or someone being disabled lol… By all means though, call, all you are doing is wasting everyones time with your hearsay evidence and your crime prevention that is analogous to the movie minority report.
feels the need to dog on someone
Don't really get why people think dog is an insult. dogs are loyal and they don't snitch. Sometimes they even take the blame when someone farts, and they will give up their life for you more often than not. If your going to call someone a dog - make sure they live up to what a dog really means.
@kima:
Dog: Australian prison slang for police informant. I'm sure you could educate some inmates on that, they'll definitely be calling you a 'chat' ;)@jenkemjunkie: yes i know exactly in what context its being used but its not just some made up word is it.
It really isn't… My foray into my career started with criminal law and the Australian Prison vernacular kind of stuck unfortunately. Calling someone a dog, or calling someone a chatttttt is a pretty bold thing to say to someone inside. I don't even think Google has the meaning of 'chat' but if you know anyone that has been inside in Australia they're gonna know that word, know what it means, and will hate it. It doesn't mean to dob or have a chat either.
Snitch is more an American term, like the whole bubba in prison joke that always comes up with prison talk, so American … On another tangent Funniest shit I ever saw were long timers that were so good at tennis coz that's all they played day in day out doing their stint.
@jenkemjunkie: So… chat is more potato-related then?
EDIT: I just joogled it on Urban Dictionary and it came up with a picture of Zed Seselja. God I love urban dictionary.
haha nah, its not on google or urban dictionary or any of that which is kind of suprising
To bring this back to OzBargain, you get a discount in your car registration if you have had no demerits.
And in NSW, license fees are 50% off for clean records
Clean in the past 5 years I believe.
And if you happen to get caught with something like red light camera, they can wave the fine.
Can't believe no one has asked "how much"?
For a million bucks, yep
If it was a million bucks it would be cheaper for him to loose his license for a while and hire a chauffer driver.
*lose
Sheldon doesn't take sarcasm really well
- a Small Loan
Depends how much. A couple hundred bucks? Might consider it. A grand? Well now we can negotiate.
A couple of hundred bucks, really?
That reminds me of something I heard on the radio. They were talking about selling organs, and the lady said she would consider selling her kidney for $6K. When I heard that I couldn't help but say aloud "seriously!?"Evidently, my value system is a skewed a little differently to yours.
Everyone has a price.
Some higher…some lower…
A couple hudred bucks? A couple hundred thousand bucks? A couple of millions?So whats yours maxi?
Thats a lot of eneloops! at the average price of $20 a pack, thats a profit of 500million.
You could line the walls of your house with them. At 2000mah 1.2v each cell, thats a total of 480 MW of power.
Enough to power the average house for the next 65 years.Me? I'm a little simpler to please. All I want is a pinky.
Yes, I think I'd very much enjoy watching a man cut of his finger, and the ops boss sounds like a man that could be convinced to do so.Plus, chances are he'd start and wouldn't have the gall to finish, so I wouldn't have to pay out anyway. win win (Well really its me doing all the winning, but thats a win win to me)
@outlander:
Great. Thet would sort my problem of Origin rising the electricity price.
You are not from the japanese yakuza by any chance? They use to cut fingers.The one hole in an otherwise perfect plan…
Not to mention your physics skills:
200 million…eneloops ;-).
Thats a lot of eneloops! at the average price of $20 a pack, thats a profit of 500million.
You could line the walls of your house with them. At 2000mah 1.2v each cell, thats a total of 480 MW of power.
Enough to power the average house for the next 65 years.@Scrooge McDuck:
Ah, E.coli, you have escaped from your petri dish and somehow got onto the internet.
I knew this day would come…Time to pull out the dettol and emergency squeegee.
Not everyone has a price. Some have morals.
and the lady said she would consider selling her kidney for $6K. When I heard that I couldn't help but say aloud "seriously!?"
Maybe she needed and found a donor offering a partial liver, lung or bowel for $6k.
Considering you would be committing a jailable offence,I would say no.