1. Traffic Offenders Program Nsw Answers

What is the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program? The Traffic Offenders Intervention Program (TOIP) is designed to educate at-risk drivers about the dangers of driving under the influence, speeding, or other dangerous offences.Please note that the information below only applies to residents of New South Wales. What are the objectives of the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program?The program was designed with three main objectives in mind:. To help offenders develop safer driving behaviour. To provide participants in the program with the information and skills needed to improve driving-related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours. To assist offenders in understanding the seriousness of driving-related crimes.How can I sign-up for the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program?The Traffic Offenders Intervention Program is administered by local courts throughout New South Wales. Those who’ve committed a traffic offence, and wish to participate in the program, can have their lawyer forward an application.

Traffic Offenders Intervention Program (TOIP) in New South Wales The Traffic Offenders Intervention Program (TOIP) in New South Wales is an educational program designed to reduce the incidence of traffic offences such as drink or drug driving, speeding, and other safety-related offences. The TOIP has two main objectives. Our traffic offenders program is a rotating program which means you can start at any week, providing there is availability. You must attend all 3 subjects to complete our program; Arrival – First night at 6.30pm to complete paperwork, each week thereafter, you can arrive at 6.45pm.

Depending on the nature of your offence, the court can also refer you to the program without a pre-existing application. How can I take an approved course?To receive credit for your program, you must complete a course that’s registered with, and approved by, your local court. These approved courses can be found at multiple locations throughout New South Wales. For those living in areas without an approved course, a non-approved course may become eligible for credit. Offenders referred to a TOIP program by the court will have their case adjourned until after the course is complete.Please note that you must register for the class before attending it.

Offenders who choose not to do so will become ineligible for course credit. Why do judges recommend offenders to the TOIP?Participation in the program will be recommended when the court believes:. The course is a fitting penalty for your crimes.

Your completion of the program demonstrates an acceptable degree of remorse for your actions. Those who participate in the TOIP are less likely to reoffend.Why should I agree to participate in the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program?In cases involving drunk driving, the court may consider participation in an educational program a reason to reduce an offender’s sentence. Furthermore, by equipping you with the tools you need to avoid another incident, the TOIP helps you to become a better driver. In summary, taking this program benefits you, the court, and anyone else who may be put in danger by your bad behaviour. Which course should I take?The answer to this question changes depending on course availability and the location in which you live.

Companies who currently administer approved courses include:. PCYC. Road Sense. SAVE Traffic Offender Intervention Program. Traffic Offenders Program. Traffic Offenders Rehabilitation ProgramThe duration of these classes, along with the number of courses available, varies depending on your chosen provider.

While some courses can be completed over one or two days, others may require up to eight weeks. Only a qualified lawyer can give you advice on what specific course is right for you. What are the requirements for TOIP eligibility?While some providers consider anyone with interest eligible, others only admit those referred by the court. The TOIP program is most appropriate for someone who:. Has committed a traffic offence in the past. Has committed a driving offence and not been sentenced. Is interested in becoming a better driverPlease visit the provider’s website to find out the eligibility criteria for any specific program.

What subjects are covered in a TOIP course?Though topics covered vary across providers, most include information about:. What exactly counts as dangerous road use. Emergency services. Legal consequences of unsafe driving behaviours. The dangers of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The effects your dangerous driving behaviour has on road trauma victims and their loved ones. Ways in which you can improve your behaviour on the roadHow much does the typical course cost?While the cost varies, most courses cost between $150 to $200. How did the TOIP start?The program was first established through Part 4 of Chapter 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1986. Additional details can be found in Part 8 of the Criminal Procedure Regulations of 2010.Disclaimer: This article is just a summary of the subject matter being discussed and should not be regarded as a comprehensive legal advice for you to defend yourself alone.

Traffic Offenders Program Nsw Answers

If you are charged with criminal offences, it is recommended that you seek legal assistance from criminal lawyers.

So I recently attended this, not strictly for giggles, as may be assumed by my clear and present preference for road safety over redundant draconian legislation. And it was the funniest shit ever, provided you were as drunk/high as the drunk/druggie side of the room.If you have never seen he results when 100 hoons and 50 alcoholics are kept in a room with nothing better to ponder than 'my car is faster than yours' for 8 hours, I highly recommend it. It was fcuking hilarious. The only better thing was them holding it at an RSL and making the alcoholics walk through a bar to get to their cars on the way out. I didn't wait around.My crime, I attempted to follow the speed limit.

I thought it was 100, it turns out it was 50. For a full 200m before the speed camera. Drizzle, oncoming headlights, glare, bla bla.

I'll save the excuses for court. Fact is I had NO idea I was speeding and it wasn't intentional.

Thanks to strict liability, I attended the TORP, cause strictly, attending it, however stupid it is, apparently counts.overall it wasn't too bad, I learned a lot about drugs. I don't take drugs, so that was informative, I learned fcuk all about anything else, and my typed response to the court will reflect just that. Cause I'm honest. One thing that stood out was the false stats offered by a NSW government employee re speeding (they claimed 40% of accidents were caused by over the speed limit speeding, which is at odds with every government database.

NSW transport, RMS, RTA, RSAC etc. It's the stat for 'speed' as in, 2/3 under the limit but not appropriate for conditions.

Perhaps if they were honest people might slow down when sensible and 30% of accidents could be avoided??. The other thing that stood out was that, despite bikers being over represented, there was ZERO mention of bikes for the whole 8 hours. I'm wondering how the court will view my No. 1 cause of accidents. Inappropriate lines. I think I might have to explain it for them.any questions? I've seen the governments stats for fatalities and serious injury.

Of the 6 major contributing factors, there was a big gap between 5 and 6 and 6th on the list was Speeding, that is travelling above the posted limit.There is another government statistic that puts 'Speed' at number 3 on the list, but that is a seriously distorted statistic because the police must put in a speed at which a collision occurred for without speed, the vehicles would be stationary and therefore could not have collided. On this form of reporting Speed is considered a factor, regardless of it was above or below the posted limit.

Click to expand.drugs/alcohol, policing, legislation, first aid, victim perspective. There was a heavy focus on drugs and speed was largely glossed over. The NSW govt guy (transport dept i THINK) and the cop both elected to skip trying to justify cameras. The govt guy even pointed to the point in the graph where cameras were introduced and the downward trend in the road toll stopped. I was expecting MUCH more on speed, the first aid guy actually said the most about it, and his point, which is valid, is the 'faster you go the bigger the mess' argument. No arguing with that. Click to expand.lol Absolutely.

And its kind of self achieving. After realising I didn't see it I feel like i have a vested interest in doing that without requiring prompting. I can think of a few reasons i may have missed it, fatigue,?

I was 1150km into the days ride. Fact is I may have had a good reason for watching the road not the signs, but would i have seen a cow??? It could be a problem, it could be nothing.

But it's a wake up call and will be in the back of my mind making me ATTEMPT to see more.I don't want to concentrate too much on MY offense cause while it is why i attended, i really just wanted to share my course experience. Inattention wasn't mentioned at all throughout the day aside from the first aid guy, it wasn't in the syllabus. Click to expand. The NSW govt guy specifically stated 40% of fatal accidents involved illegal speed.

In actual fact its significantly less, and OFFICIALLY the definition of 'speeding' includes accidents occurring below the speed limit. So the info he gave was wrong. When you look at accidents overall speed is much much less of a factor, because fatalities basically require speed, or kinetic energy, the number of accidents where people aren't injured very rarely involves high speed. (2.48% of ALL accidents according to the tassie stats i got and NSW would be similar). It doesn't matter MUCH. But it's valid because I can say that I observed the information given was effectively the same standard as so many of those TAC and RTA ads that misrepresent stats to justify their financial goals, and it cast doubt on anything else they said all day.

Click to expand.sort of. I'm not claiming to have a defence, I did the wrong thing and have already admitted guilt.

The TORP questions are loaded in such a way that they're incompatible with my account of events. It's catering to recidivists who chose to engage in behaviour. Eg 'what would make you CHOOSE not to offend in the future'. That implies that I chose to offend in the first place, which I didn't. 'what did you learn from TORP that you will include in your driving to improve safety in the future' NOTHING, I already knew the content, which might be why I was trying to follow the rules at the time.overall I personally didn't get much out of it, but I know that some others did.

I spoke to one guy who found it all really informative. I'm not being dismissive, there are valid reasons for me to have not gotten much out of it:My Mother and my Brother are both permanently disabled as a result of car accidents, so I didn't really need the first aid or victim impact part.I take an involved approach to road safety. We all know 87% of statistics are made up on the spot'It's catering to recidivists who chose to engage in behaviour'that's primarily what it is for, and interesting that people DO find it informative. Like they've never even thought about it before. That is SCARY!they have a similar program in Japan (deliberately during working hours so you have to tell your boss why you are taking time off work ),but also a shorter 1-2hr version when you just RENEW your licence (every time, so. Every 3-5 years?). Most people just sleep through it (presenter dudes included when there is long video).

I told my boss. We've been laughing about 'hoon school' all week, he PROBABLY has suspicions about me after I accidentally lost traction leaving work the other day.like I say, I was there because traffic offenses are apparrently 'strict liability' ( can likely explain this better) so strictly, attending it makes me look apologetic or punished or whatever. It doesn't actually matter if i get anything out of it at all.it's not about fairness, or education, or safety. I initially wasn't going to attend as you can't be rehabilitated from a condition that you didn't intend to occur. My intent was to follow the speed limit, any rehabilitation in my choices would only result in me NOT attempting to follow it, right? It's a little like gay rehab lol, it won't work cause the person didn't CHOOSE to be gay.

But my lawyer seemed to think it would look good if i'd already been punished. Well, I just got out of court again. 18 months good behaviour. This is a reasonable result but to be honest I was disgusted with the magistrates obvious bias.Had she been listening rather than rolling her eyes on at least 5 separate occasions she might have realised the offence was not as bad as she thought it was. In her conclusion she commented on me overtaking a truck in the rain into a speed camera.

The fact presented was that I was riding behind a truck which threw up spray from a wet road and turned off the road at the speed sign, obscuring my view. I did not overtake because of the wet road.I understand that judges are people, I believe I got this one on a bad day, but I will be following it up as I believe judges should make an effort to listen to evidence before passing ignorant judgement. Well, I just got out of court again. 18 months good behaviour.

This is a reasonable result but to be honest I was disgusted with the magistrates obvious bias.Had she been listening rather than rolling her eyes on at least 5 separate occasions she might have realised the offence was not as bad as she thought it was. In her conclusion she commented on me overtaking a truck in the rain into a speed camera.

The fact presented was that I was riding behind a truck which threw up spray from a wet road and turned off the road at the speed sign, obscuring my view. I did not overtake because of the wet road.I understand that judges are people, I believe I got this one on a bad day, but I will be following it up as I believe judges should make an effort to listen to evidence before passing ignorant judgement. Click to expand.like i say, it's a reasonable result, it could have been worse, had the judge actually listened to the circumstances rather than relying predominantly on their preconceptions and bias I feel it could only have worked in my favour.the judge's statement in sentencing showed they had misunderstood the facts of the case in a way that had given an unfavourable opinion of my riding and attitude to safety, and the circumstances that occurred. And their statements during the case showed existing bias and disbelief of facts as presented.

IF the RMS, who brought the case, have admitted on paper, and published it, that the site requires more signage and it's included in upcoming budgeted work. You can't just dismiss someone saying they missed the sign.

But she seemed to. Further, she ranted about speed and safety, despite it not being mentioned once by the prosecution. And the camera comissioners report recommended the removal of that camera due to it offering 'no safety benefit'. So this, again, showed bias which is extremely unprofessional in a judge.18 months is a really long time considering how easy it is to get a minor infraction on our roads. And in that case i cop the full fine and suspension. I've averaged a minor speeding ticket every 4-5 years since getting my license,so the odds are on my side, but in this case i was unlucky not to see the 50 sign just before the camera, and I could be equally unlucky again.

It's all good to say oh just 'be good' but i was actually TRYING to be good, I believed i was doing the right thing. It's beyond anyones abilities to do more than attempt to follow the law so it's illogical to put a sentence like this on there as if it could be avoided as a conscious decision.a really big problem, which is impeding the legal system from delivering justice, is mandatory minimum sentences. This comes down to politicians, not the judge herself. She literally has the option of 6 months, $2500. Or section 10 scott free.

Or section 10 with a good behaviour period. Theres no option to issue me a smaller fine, in line with normal speeding tickets, for an event which was in line with smaller speeding offenses, so short of hammering me, or letting me off for nothing (not strictly true, lawyers, court costs, traffic offenders program etc.) a bond was her only option. I just dispute it's length being fair.the reason I say 'normal' speeding tickets. 30 and 45 over carry massive penalties, at the time when these penalties were introduced 1990's or earlier, you could safely assume that if someone was doing that much over, they would have known they were speeding. To do 45 over you would have to continue at 110 into a 60 zone (or a school zone) and there were no locations where that occurred.

We simply didn't have 50kph changes in speed zone, so you'd have to miss a series of signs, all with minimum distances between them. So it was reasonable to say that 45kph over was deliberate whereas lower range speeding could occur for a variety of reasons unintentionally.

In this case, if I'd made the same mistake prior to 2013, I would have gotten a fine for $438 for exceeding the limit by 20-30km for doing 79 in a 50 zone, or at that exact location, $254 for 19km over in an 80 zone. Which is a MASSIVE difference to $2500 and no license for 6 months living in a rural area. For EXACTLY the same mistake in the same place. Like i say, it's a reasonable result, it could have been worse, had the judge actually listened to the circumstances rather than relying predominantly on their preconceptions and bias I feel it could only have worked in my favour.the judge's statement in sentencing showed they had misunderstood the facts of the case in a way that had given an unfavourable opinion of my riding and attitude to safety, and the circumstances that occurred. And their statements during the case showed existing bias and disbelief of facts as presented.

IF the RMS, who brought the case, have admitted on paper, and published it, that the site requires more signage and it's included in upcoming budgeted work. You can't just dismiss someone saying they missed the sign. But she seemed to. Further, she ranted about speed and safety, despite it not being mentioned once by the prosecution. And the camera comissioners report recommended the removal of that camera due to it offering 'no safety benefit'. So this, again, showed bias which is extremely unprofessional in a judge.18 months is a really long time considering how easy it is to get a minor infraction on our roads.

And in that case i cop the full fine and suspension. I've averaged a minor speeding ticket every 4-5 years since getting my license,so the odds are on my side, but in this case i was unlucky not to see the 50 sign just before the camera, and I could be equally unlucky again. It's all good to say oh just 'be good' but i was actually TRYING to be good, I believed i was doing the right thing. It's beyond anyones abilities to do more than attempt to follow the law so it's illogical to put a sentence like this on there as if it could be avoided as a conscious decision.a really big problem, which is impeding the legal system from delivering justice, is mandatory minimum sentences.

This comes down to politicians, not the judge herself. She literally has the option of 6 months, $2500. Or section 10 scott free. Or section 10 with a good behaviour period. Theres no option to issue me a smaller fine, in line with normal speeding tickets, for an event which was in line with smaller speeding offenses, so short of hammering me, or letting me off for nothing (not strictly true, lawyers, court costs, traffic offenders program etc.) a bond was her only option.

I just dispute it's length being fair.the reason I say 'normal' speeding tickets. 30 and 45 over carry massive penalties, at the time when these penalties were introduced 1990's or earlier, you could safely assume that if someone was doing that much over, they would have known they were speeding. To do 45 over you would have to continue at 110 into a 60 zone (or a school zone) and there were no locations where that occurred. We simply didn't have 50kph changes in speed zone, so you'd have to miss a series of signs, all with minimum distances between them.

So it was reasonable to say that 45kph over was deliberate whereas lower range speeding could occur for a variety of reasons unintentionally. In this case, if I'd made the same mistake prior to 2013, I would have gotten a fine for $438 for exceeding the limit by 20-30km for doing 79 in a 50 zone, or at that exact location, $254 for 19km over in an 80 zone.

Which is a MASSIVE difference to $2500 and no license for 6 months living in a rural area. For EXACTLY the same mistake in the same place.