The Press FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1966. The Points System

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31190, 14 October 1966, Page 14

The Press FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1966. The Points System

Parliament should ask to see a draft of the regulations proposed in the Transport Amendment Bill before it proceeds with the section on the points system for driving offences. Better still, the proposed scale of points should be made part of the bill. The “L ” plate scheme has been much confused by the lack of adequate and public consideration of the regulations implementing it. However strong the argument may be for a points system which leads to automatic disqualification after the accumulation of 100 “ demerit *• points ”, Parliament should know the scale on which offences will be rated. Without this knowledge members will be working in the dark. They will not know the full implications of the law they are being asked to pass. The only clues to the scale are the maximum of 60 points specified in the bill for seven serious offences listed in a schedule to the Transport Act for any of which a driver may be disqualified—and the maximum of 40 points for any other offence. The measure does not clash with the principle that conviction for one offence shall not be taken into account when determining guilt in another. Magistrates take into account the record of an offender when sentencing a convicted person. The points system is, in effect, an automatic, comprehensive, and, it may be hoped, an equitable extension of this procedure. Disqualification after a driver has accumulated 100 points for several offences amounts, however, to an additional penalty. For this reason disqualification should not automatically be imposed by the Commissioner of Transport. Ultimate disqualification—if this must be the outcome of a series of offences—should remain a matter for the courts and related in the ordinary way to the penalty for the culminating offence. For the convenience of administrators and defendants this would no doubt require the progressive entry of points in licences as well as in the central registry of the Transport Department. The form of penalty seems, however, to miss the main advantage that might be had from this measure. The purpose of the system is to identify drivers who persistently offend. This procedure to put them off the road for three or six months hardly justifies the elaborate machinery that the system entails for court officers and for the department. Drivers’ licences may be suspended for almost every traffic offence today. Although the bill itself points to a better course it does not follow this course. After accumulating 75 points the offender would interview a senior traffic officer. This might be after two convictions if the regulations employ the maximum scales mentioned in the bill. The purpose of the interview is to assist the offender “ in improving his “ driving habits and knowledge of traffic laws ”. If the bill pursued this theme the accumulation of 100 points would not lead, redundantly, to suspension. Disqualification is a penalty and a deterrent. It may encourage caution and a greater sense of responsibility. It does not necessarily improve a driver’s ability or knowledge unless he is himself disposed to selfimprovement. Since drivers can already be disqualified by the courts for individual offences or for a series of offences a much more positive consequence of accumulating 100 points would be the compulsory retraining and re-examination of drivers.