Dob Road Rule Breakers in for a Reward - What Could Go Wrong?

tik tok on 17/09/2020 - 08:44

Since the earnings and the earning potential of a lot of people has gone down in the current scenario I am coming up with a proposal that will help everyday Aussies earn money. Help the government earn money AND keep people in the tow with following road rules.

Either using a dash cam or a smart phone, within legal boundaries, anyone should be able to capture photos and videos of vehicles breaking the road rules as laid in the state's road users handbook. For example, vehicles parked in no parking, parking on nature strips, texting while driving, not indicating turns, weaving into lanes etc. All of this is very simple to report and verify. The government can then send the fines to the offending party and offer 50% to the reporting party.

What could go wrong if the governments were to run with this idea? Poke holes into my theory kindly?

Financial

Comments

  • 87percent on 17/09/2020 - 08:52
    +9

    unless the driver is doing something highly dangerous, i doubt the cops (or whoever) have the capacity to do this

    • tik tok on 17/09/2020 - 09:46

      Infringements attract penalty. I doubt if the degree of the infringement will make any difference - other than a greater/lesser penalty

  • Nugs on 17/09/2020 - 08:59
    +5

    "What Could Go Wrong?"
    Retaliation
    And I'd probably get fined
    .

    • tik tok on 17/09/2020 - 09:45

      Good point. The reporter should never be revealed to the offender. This could be tabled under the right to privacy of the reporter - or the politicians can come up with a better sounding name.

      • spackbace on 17/09/2020 - 11:32
        +4

        The reporter should never be revealed to the offender.

        Except in a court of law, you're allowed to face your accuser.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 11:59
          +4

          The accuser would be the police/council after review of photographic/video evidence.

          • spackbace on 17/09/2020 - 12:35
            +3

            @[Deactivated]:

            after review of photographic/video evidence.

            Just imagine how many extra staff they'd need to employ to sit at desks and deal with the extra crap from the Karens

            • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 12:42
              +2

              @spackbace: Maybe the legislation could read "You have the right to face your Karencuser"

  • ProlapsedHeinous on 17/09/2020 - 09:04
    +12

    This happens in some provinces in China, and people game the system by deliberately driving slow and creating angry reactions, thus creating violations. I believe one example is they sandwich a car in, one comes to a stop at the front, the middle target car drives around the front car, over marked lines, while the rear car is filming or taking pictures. then they send it in for reward. Unfortunately people will game the system, and create drama for the sake of a bit of extra cash. I'd rather the government put more police on the road instead tbh.

      • SydStrand on 17/09/2020 - 11:56
        +7

        What a pointless, meaningless deflection.

      • cwongtech on 18/09/2020 - 12:56

        Isn't gaming the system a part of the system now?

        Provocatively driving to deliberately cause other drivers to drive erratically in response, just so someone can make a quick buck?

        By provocatively driving, other people's lives on the road are endangered by "gaming the system"
        Is this really worth the "incentive"?

        In economics, gross domestic product can be measured by income, the production value of an economy can be measured by the total aggregate income in a country.

        What value-add does gaming the system produce?

  • Ryanek on 17/09/2020 - 09:04
    +2

    You can report someone for littering, too smokey or for unsafe driving.

    • tik tok on 17/09/2020 - 09:42
      -6

      Yeah, but my proposal would reward people for doing it. Just encourages people to go above and beyond social or civic sense of duty.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 09:58
        +1

        Just encourages people to go above and beyond social or civic sense of duty.

        I didn't realise that above a civic sense of duty is being a rat.

      • SydStrand on 17/09/2020 - 11:54
        +4

        You're creating a unnecessary incentive that's ripe for perversion. Before long, you'd have ex-Uber drivers crawling the streets reporting (or fabricating) infringements for a finder's fee, clogging the justice system with meaningless reports. You'll have people who'll use it as a cudgel in existing grievances, snitching on neighbours, family, etc. You'll create an environment of paranoia and distrust akin to 1960s China. Stupid idea.

  • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 09:15
    +10

    I believe the government can piss off where private citizens can handle the scenario themselves.

    You're suggesting where there isn't even a scenario, you want to get government involved.

    "It's going to save lives". Yeah, no stats to prove any of that. In fact, a lot of road offences that come with big fines do not have stats that support the large fines. They've twisted the data to fit the narrative of "prevention". Practically every country in the world has a declining road fatality rate (exceptions are countries with increasing road usage). There is more evidence to suggest that if they've kept the same rules and penalties, we would see the same decline in road fatalities.

    So, more police more fines = safer road? Unless you can show proof, don't even.

    • trex on 17/09/2020 - 09:19

      Don’t know about you but when I get a speeding fine it stings and makes me take more care to keep within the speed limit.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 09:22
        +4

        You are looking at the isolated response but there are many other components to your reaction.

        You got fined, you want to not get caught speeding again. So you spend pay more attention to your speedo, by extension less on the road. Some people will use their cruise control to set a speed.

        Cruise control both reduces driver attention and can cause severe loss of control in the wet.

        So, whilst the intended and good outcome of the harsh penalty is that you've decided to not speed as much, we've introduced many other potentially more fatal problems into the equation.

        • trex on 17/09/2020 - 11:50

          I know what you mean unfortunately not everyone is like you to follow the rules and do what is right even if there is no $ fine. Believe me, it would be a much better world. There must some sort of a penalty for breaking the rule (eg speeding). Without enforcement of a penalty, then there is no point to the rule. Jail time is too harsh so $ fine seems to be the generally accepted method. When I was in US, I was shocked to see so many drivers openly using their phones and speeding. From what I understand, there are laws against that but since the police don't enforce it so no body cared.

          There will always be some other factors to cause accidents (like your cruise control example) but that's something else to be tackled. I don't use the cruise control in watching my speed, and I think there are others like me. So at least having $ fine have reduced some speeders from the road like me.

          There won't be a magic fix or one size fits all solution. At least a part solution is better than nothing until a more effective solution comes along. Also to bear in mind that there will always be those that breaks the rules no matter how harsh the penalty.

          • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 12:03

            @trex:

            There must some sort of a penalty for breaking the rule

            We do not disagree on this. See, "kept the same rules and penalties".

            There is a difference between enforcing the law when a breach is observed vs setting up entire taskforce, assets, campaigns and fining the daylights out of people.

            So at least having $ fine have reduced some speeders from the road like me.

            Like I said, when the penalty is financial crushing, the over reaction to mitigate the possibility of receiving the fine may infact cause more incidences.

            If the only justification is that it will be a deterrent, why not set the fine at $100,000. Even bigger deterrent.

            There won't be a magic fix or one size fits all solution.

            Try telling that to road authorities that seem interested in keeping the roads uniformly at 40kmph. They will probably lower it when they realise that fatalities can still occur at 40kmph.

            It is just as bad outside the metropolitan areas. We have long stretches of straight unbroken road with 100kmph limits. They were 110 before and higher before that. In many cases, the fatalities inn the road isn't truly caused by speed, ie people falling asleep. They would have died going at 80. In most cases, these roads have no fatalities whatsoever. Just some dingdong do gooder wanting to "save lives".

            • trex on 17/09/2020 - 12:30

              @[Deactivated]: Sorry if you misunderstood me, I wasn't supporting dobbing for $. My point was on $ fines in general when caught and issued by police. Personally I think dobbing for $ will lead to abuse and other unintended consequences.

              Like I said, when the penalty is financial crushing, the over reaction to mitigate the possibility of receiving the fine may infact cause more incidences.

              So what deterrent/penalty are you proposing? IMO any deterrent/penalty will always lead to "more incidences" ie no 1 magic pill solution catered to everyone.

              If the only justification is that it will be a deterrent, why not set the fine at $100,000. Even bigger deterrent.

              LOL, if the fine is $100K, I would probably give up driving so yes, it will definitely be a deterrent but will also affect ordinary drivers. Deterrent needs to be in the Goldilocks zone ie something harsh but not extremely so and not too light.

              Fatalities can still occur even below 40kmph. Heck, one can even die from a fall while walking/cycling alone. Lower speed is to allow for reduced braking distance which should reduce accidents and hence fatalities. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree to 40kmph in all roads as I think that is a bit too extreme and 40kmph should be only for school zones. We just have to acknowledge that lower speed will save lives but at the same time we have to consider the overall big picture. We can't have 40kmph in all roads just because it saves lives. It would be like getting rid of motor vehicles to save lives :D

              In many cases, the fatalities inn the road isn't truly caused by speed, ie people falling asleep. They would have died going at 80.

              At the same time, you have to admit that there are also some people whose lives were saved because they fell asleep going at 80 instead of 110 and survived due to the lower speed? The change to lower speed was probably to save those lives. Again I don't have answers for this and its getting the Goldilocks zone solution for this. Something not too fast that will kill 100% of people falling asleep but not too slow that will cause other incidences. Anyway I think we are digressing far from OP topic.

        • FlipCrank on 17/09/2020 - 12:12
          +1

          How does cruise control cause a severe loss of traction in the wet?

      • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 12:19
        +1

        Don’t know about you but when I get a speeding fine it stings and makes me take more care to keep within the speed limit. in spotting speed cameras.

        FTFY

        • trex on 17/09/2020 - 12:31

          With my vision, If I can see them, it's too late :D

    • GG57 on 17/09/2020 - 09:36
      +1

      Are there many countries with decreasing road usage?

      • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 09:43

        No, but many are stagnant. There are countries where road traffic has actually reduced due to introduction of mass transit but I can only think of a couple.

    • trex on 17/09/2020 - 12:41
      +1

      There is more evidence to suggest that if they've kept the same rules and penalties, we would see the same decline in road fatalities.

      I don't think decline in fatalities has anything to do with the behaviour of road users. Decline in fatalities is probably more because motor vehicles are getting safer and can protect its occupant better. The true test is whether we see same a decline in number of road accidents even by keeping same rules and penalties. I think the reason governments are trying to introduce tougher rules and penalties is because number of road incidents are increasing but I could be wrong.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 12:55
        +1

        the reason governments are trying to introduce tougher rules and penalties is because number of road incidents are increasing

        I think the latter is an excuse for the former but the motive and outcome is what I question.

        • trex on 17/09/2020 - 13:03
          +1

          Yes, with politicians, no telling what their true motives are. We know for sure that the outcome they want is to be re-elected :D

  • mapax on 17/09/2020 - 09:16
    +12

    You should start a band, you could call yourself ‘Karen und the authoritarians’.

  • uzz30 on 17/09/2020 - 09:24

    The rule breakers might be able to get your details from the Police by making a Freedom of Information Request.

    A friend of mine was attacked by a dog on the street recently, the owner was right there and his excuse was 'he thought you were the postie'.

    The council animal enforcement officer told her if she made a complaint, the idiot owner could get her details by making a FoI request. And if she supplied false details on the complaint, then that would be an illegal act.

    Ridiculous. So no complaint went in, she's now afraid of dogs, won't ever go in that street again and the idiot dog owner and his dangerous dog go on their way.

    • tik tok on 17/09/2020 - 10:45
      +1

      I am saying as this happened with a mate of mine. Your friend can and should complain to the council (and also complain about this enforcement officer to make her back off). Even if the 'idiot owner' does get your friends details ( I highly doubt this is possible ) he is bound to live within the framework of law. The council will first warn the owner (depending, if this is the first complaint), then fine the owner, if complaints keep rising, the dog will be put down.

  • dasher86 on 17/09/2020 - 09:26
    +1

    Can't tell if under living under bridge or srs

  • Bid Sniper on 17/09/2020 - 09:28

    Move to China, that for profit police state dystopia that would be welcome there.

    username "tik tok"….

  • Seraphin7 on 17/09/2020 - 09:40
    +11

    You, sir/madam, are exactly what is wrong with the country these days and why it is inexorably becoming a police state.

    JUST STAY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES

    The population should be allowed to get on with their lives within the bounds of the law, but more importantly and generally, without affecting the ability of others to get on with their lives.

    If "someone doesn't indicate a turn" they will be liable for police sanction if they get caught, and certainly if they cause an accident. But otherwise, the likelihood is that this action has precisely zero impact on you or anyone else. The last thing we need is absolute bellends sending in videos to the police because someone failed to put an indicator on that had no actual effect on anyone.

    • tik tok on 17/09/2020 - 09:47
      -8

      On the contrary, I want other people to stay out of my rule abiding life. If you can't follow rules, I make money Cha'ching.

      • Luo18740 on 17/09/2020 - 09:56
        +3

        Confirmed troll.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 09:57

        They are out of it.

        You're trying to rope them in and then get the rules to kick them out.

    • skid on 17/09/2020 - 10:43
      +2

      The OP's a dibber dobber.

  • bdl on 17/09/2020 - 11:01
    +1

    OP, give me your rego and I'll show you :)

  • Drakesy on 17/09/2020 - 11:40

    China did this, good way for people to make money. That was until people started purposely putting drivers into dangerous positions such as forcing people over solid lines etc and getting incriminating photos for it.

    Personally i'm against it because it'll turn driving into a way to make money and people will go out with the sole intention to look for/make dangerous situations.

  • dogboy on 17/09/2020 - 12:21

    How about rather than a fine the offending people are forced to drive a white Toyota Corolla for a week as punishment. Then the shame and pain of having to drive a POS car like that causes them to behave better in their normal car. No revenue raising for the cops but at least more people would get to realise what a total POS car the toyota corolla is.

  • TheBilly on 17/09/2020 - 13:32
    +1

    You should do it for free. Your reward can be making society a better place on every front - not only will you generate revenue for society by way of fines, you will also make society a better place to live in with more law abiding citizens.

  • Kaz0551 on 17/09/2020 - 17:51
    +1

    I could make a million from a stop sign near me. Noone stops

  • WreckTangle on 17/09/2020 - 21:07

    Its a good idea, i’m sick of following rules on roads and in a society where others don’t and get away with it

    • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2020 - 21:56
      +2

      When you are a passenger in a car and someone breaks a rule, do you report them?

      • cwongtech on 18/09/2020 - 13:10
        +2

        "Get them to drive me to my destination, and make them pay for it too!"
        - Make Freeloaders Great Again

  • Grunntt on 18/09/2020 - 08:39
    +1

    It is worrying when people start asking why they shouldn't report 'wrongdoers' to the authorities - do people have such a limited view of recent history? Reporting law breakers may seem a good thing to do by many but be wary of what you wish for - I will leave this here for those interested enough to read.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-german…

    “This willingness to report others is poisoning civilised behaviour somewhat,” Behr told Reuters.

    “Some people lack the civil courage to confront others but tip off the police anonymously,” said Behr, adding people who had lived under the cloud of East Germany’s loathed Stasi secret police might be remembering how things worked three decades ago.

    One of the most repressive police organisations in the world, the Stasi crushed dissent by infiltrating almost every aspect of life in East Germany and relied on around 200,000 informants who spied on friends, colleagues and relatives.

    “Snooping was widespread then and it’s easier for people to do this if they have done it before,” said Behr. “In any case, it is typically German to wait until there is a law that allows people to do this,” said Behr.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_East_Germ…

    The Stasi had 90,000 full-time employees who were assisted by 170,000 full-time unofficial collaborators (Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter); together these made up 1 in 63 (nearly 2%) of the entire East German population. Together with these, a much larger number of occasional informers brought up the total to 1 per 6.5 persons

    https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/east-german-dom…

  • magic8ballgag on 18/09/2020 - 08:43

    parking on nature strips

    Isn't this enforced/regulated by local council?

  • MontyMacaw on 18/09/2020 - 10:03

    The Sopranos will find you if you snitch.

  • OzHunterNSW on 18/09/2020 - 12:06
    +1

    This is precisely what the govt wants… you to be an informer.

    Then they spend less on policing bc you're the neighbourhood vigilante

  • gth on 18/09/2020 - 14:15

    Hilarious discussion. Folks who speed are:

    • Those who decide to speed as an acceptable risk of getting caught (often because they can afford the fine);

    • Those who aren't paying attention to the road and/or their vehicle's speed;

    • A minority that are not capable of being aware of what they're doing (unfit to drive, for various reasons);

    • a minority that actually have a genuine emergency (who should have probably called emergency services instead).

    Anyone who complains about getting fined after they were speeding has no foundation in their argument, in my book.

    The only aspect I'll give ground on is that serious enforcement is not actually done: such is the revenue from fines. If the government was actually serious about stopping speeding, there would be no speed camera warning signs, and camera-based fines would be mostly mobile-stationary and even mobile-rolling. Fixed position cameras are redundant as soon as the GPS apps have their warning locations updated. Eventually you come to realise the government is dangling the speeding carrot and folks are taking the bait and donating regularly.

    Bring on autonomous driving, I say. In 20-30 years it's going to be considered barbaric to add so much risk to others on the road by driving an old 'analog' car with no 'digital driving safety enhancements.'

  • LFO on 18/09/2020 - 19:45

    Done already in a city in China. Cannot remember the name but was shown in YouTube by the South African guy living in China.

    Problems based on that experience::
    1. There are bounty hunters "causing" other to speed or break rules. Then a well edited dashcam will only show the others.
    2. Monies are received when the fine is paid. No payment no money.
    3. The percentage received is almost nothing.

    Morally is no right as most "traffic of fences" are due to unnecessary restrictions and regulations.
    Example: speeding 1km/h above the signed limit and you are in.
    Keep "right" (not left) forever and … well it is not that bad really …
    Use the phone and you are dead meat. Use a two way radio mic and you are fine.
    Stinks.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join