In the manifesto SafeSpeed wrote:
It will be possible for a court to remove higher training scores from an individual's driving licence if they are convicted of a motoring offence.
This sounds like a good idea, but if other things are introduced, and I'm thinking particularly of the performance restriction here, that could have knock on effects for a driver. For example, say we've got an advanced driver with something powerful that requires an advanced licence or a higher score than whatever the regular L test would put on your licence. Let's say he then get's caught doing something he shouldn't and has enough points knocked off to prevent him from driving his performance car (for the sake of argument let's imagine it's either the only car he has access to or his alternative is subject to the same performace restriction). What are the options? Far as I can see they are
a - tough, he shouldn't have been doing (insert offence)
b - he pleads hardship and get's let off more lightly than he really should
c - he can go do some advance training again and get his points back fairly quickly, depending on what his wallet will put up with
An alternative might be to allow the courts to fine according to disposable income and apply points according to the maximum perceived deterrent which doesn't actually screw his life up. This would mean kicking fixed penatlies out the window and getting the magistrates to deal with it all, but that might actually work better. What if the usual fine for a given offence was a month's disposable income, and for advanced drivers sufficient points to take them back down to the bare minimum needed to drive their car? That would be a fairly serious offence, but the penalty would be similar regardless of wealth or licence.
Or would it be better for advanced drivers to be treated more harshly? After all, they should know better.
In the manifesto SafeSpeed wrote:
Consider scrapping VED... Consider charging a premium on fuel tax to fund third party motor insurance
Why not merge those two ideas and simply have the VED fund 3rd party insurance? I'm sure the Aussie contributers will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think part of the costs of the "rego" there is used this way.