New Trinidad Traffic Fines + Demerit + Fixed Penalty System

[88sins]

I have a question. For those that have "work to own" arrangements, who looses the points ? - Is it the driver or the registered owner of the vehicle ?

iirc depends on how the infraction is spotted & perp charged.

If the driver is pulled over in a speed trap and he is asked to product his license and insurance, would the violation be applied to him ?

yes

These proposed cameras. Let's say one of those cameras pick up a vehicle breaking a red light, would the ticket and loss of points go to the registered owner ?

correct.



hence my saying, the instances of ppl borrowing vehicles from friends & family will soon be drastically reduced. and ppl that like to give ppl vehicle to wuk ph go hadda watch out.

[aaron17]

Adjustments.JPG

Based on all I've read, this army vehicle should be charged for a blown right side bulb ?

Just asking...

The amount of police I see with blown tail light, headlight, fog light

Sums up the goverment.

[cosmo]

Adjustments.JPG

Based on all I've read, this army vehicle should be charged for a blown right side bulb ?

Just asking...

That's joke I does see police driving with no seat belt and on the phone. But say what them is the law..

[Kenjo]

Adjustments.JPG

Based on all I've read, this army vehicle should be charged for a blown right side bulb ?

Just asking...

That's joke I does see police driving with no seat belt and on the phone. But say what them is the law..

That’s actually an exemption for them. It’s disadvantageous for safety but it’s been discussed countless times

[rebound]

OSHA should step in and stop that to save our officers

Adjustments.JPG

Based on all I've read, this army vehicle should be charged for a blown right side bulb ?

Just asking...

That's joke I does see police driving with no seat belt and on the phone. But say what them is the law..

That’s actually an exemption for them. It’s disadvantageous for safety but it’s been discussed countless times

[bluefete]

I do not know where some people get their info but there is a huge rumour that back seat passengers must wear seat belts from March 2.

Some people need to learn to read - only the driver and front seat passengers must have on their seat belts. That is the DOTISH law that we passed many years ago. It has not been updated since.

[bluefete]

So is it that ALL passengers in a vehicle MUST wear seat belts?

https://drivingtt.com/demerit-points-system/

"Failure of a driver and any passenger seventeen years and older to wear a seat belt while the vehicle is in motion" - $1,000.00 fine and 4 demerit points.

That is followed by:

"Driving a vehicle with a person in the front seat who is not wearing a seat belt." - $1,000.00 fine and 4 demerit points.

[bluefete]

https://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/laws2/A ... /48.50.pdf

However, the LAW (Section 43A,B and C) only refers to front seat passengers for seat belts.

[sMASH]

OSHA should step in and stop that to save our officers

Adjustments.JPG

Based on all I've read, this army vehicle should be charged for a blown right side bulb ?

Just asking...

That's joke I does see police driving with no seat belt and on the phone. But say what them is the law..

That’s actually an exemption for them. It’s disadvantageous for safety but it’s been discussed countless times

ttps are exempt from the laws of physics
... and specially trained to operate mobile devices while driving.

[De Dragon]

I do not know where some people get their info but there is a huge rumour that back seat passengers must wear seat belts from March 2.

Some people need to learn to read - only the driver and front seat passengers must have on their seat belts. That is the DOTISH law that we passed many years ago. It has not been updated since.

There should not be a law for you to wear your seatbelt, or to insist that your passengers in the rear seats do so also. In an accident, while you may be restrained, think about someone unrestrained in the rear seat, colliding skull to skull with you That is concussion, brain damage/ death.

[ru$$ell]

I do not know where some people get their info but there is a huge rumour that back seat passengers must wear seat belts from March 2.

Some people need to learn to read - only the driver and front seat passengers must have on their seat belts. That is the DOTISH law that we passed many years ago. It has not been updated since.

There should not be a law for you to wear your seatbelt, or to insist that your passengers in the rear seats do so also. In an accident, while you may be restrained, think about someone unrestrained in the rear seat, colliding skull to skull with you That is concussion, brain damage/ death.

thats why most trucks over a certain tonnage, you dont see drivers wearing their seatbelt,its not by law to wear them

[MaxPower]

Adjustments.JPG

Based on all I've read, this army vehicle should be charged for a blown right side bulb ?

Just asking...

And the person using their cell phone while driving.

Typical excuses:

Dash cam
Passenger took pic
Car was not in motion.

Riiiiight

[Chimera]

Cant expect the police to roll up in a shootout and have to unclip seatbelt. U never forget to unclip seatbelt and try to jump out a car?

[adnj]

I have a question. For those that have "work to own" arrangements, who looses the points ? - Is it the driver or the registered owner of the vehicle ?

iirc depends on how the infraction is spotted & perp charged.
...
hence my saying, the instances of ppl borrowing vehicles from friends & family will soon be drastically reduced. and ppl that like to give ppl vehicle to wuk ph go hadda watch out.

No points unless the ticket is issued to the driver.

You're probably right about loaning a vehicle. There might be some changes in how people loan them soon.

[rollingstock]

OSHA should step in and stop that to save our officers

Adjustments.JPG

Based on all I've read, this army vehicle should be charged for a blown right side bulb ?

Just asking...

That's joke I does see police driving with no seat belt and on the phone. But say what them is the law..

That’s actually an exemption for them. It’s disadvantageous for safety but it’s been discussed countless times

ttps are exempt from the laws of physics
... and specially trained to operate mobile devices while driving.

Before the legislation was passed these issues were discussed with stakeholders and the reasoning for the exemption. But of course cyakkers will cyak.

[sMASH]

OSHA should step in and stop that to save our officers

Adjustments.JPG

Based on all I've read, this army vehicle should be charged for a blown right side bulb ?

Just asking...

That's joke I does see police driving with no seat belt and on the phone. But say what them is the law..

That’s actually an exemption for them. It’s disadvantageous for safety but it’s been discussed countless times

ttps are exempt from the laws of physics
... and specially trained to operate mobile devices while driving.

Before the legislation was passed these issues were discussed with stakeholders and the reasoning for the exemption. But of course cyakkers will cyak.

as i said, exempt

[rollingstock]

Like you exempt from common sense.

[sMASH]

where i worked, if u was dealing with acid, u needed to wear the appropriate ppe. the supervisor wasnt more resistant to acid because he had a higher rank, more experience or different role compared to the rest of us. safety precautions was because of the humans and how humans behave, not their role.

if the boss walk outside without hearing protection, the noise eh saying, 'well u exempt from the rules compared to the normal worker, so ur hearing wont get damaged'. hearing getting impacted just like every one else.

[sMASH]

wrt the mobile device usage, police rarely ever in a car by themselves, so its easy to let it apply to them to, cause the other person, the non driver could take the call. leaving the driver to focus on the road.

wrt to the seatbelts, i find the seatbelt laws foolish in the first place, for those above 18yrs. the seatbelt only protecting who wearing it. not wearing it, isnt hazardous to any one else in or out of the car. so once u above 18, the choice should be yours if u want to protect urself in an accident.

[maj. tom]

All arguments on the seat belts thing for active duty officers have already been made.

It's similar to the US where officers are exempt. But times and statistics have changed the outlook of individual officers on not wearing seat belts while on duty. Look all these cops have said they same thing: they're exempted (in most states), but it's better to wear it because they're not magically exempted from inertia.
https://www.quora.com/Why-don-t-America ... -seatbelts

[sMASH]

^^ wtf!!! hoss, police are exempt from the laws of physics.

[De Dragon]

wrt the mobile device usage, police rarely ever in a car by themselves, so its easy to let it apply to them to, cause the other person, the non driver could take the call. leaving the driver to focus on the road.

wrt to the seatbelts, i find the seatbelt laws foolish in the first place, for those above 18yrs. the seatbelt only protecting who wearing it. not wearing it, isnt hazardous to any one else in or out of the car. so once u above 18, the choice should be yours if u want to protect urself in an accident.

Wrong, that idiot could become a projectile. Imagine a big man flying around a vehicle in an accident

[maj. tom]

wrt the mobile device usage, police rarely ever in a car by themselves, so its easy to let it apply to them to, cause the other person, the non driver could take the call. leaving the driver to focus on the road.

wrt to the seatbelts, i find the seatbelt laws foolish in the first place, for those above 18yrs. the seatbelt only protecting who wearing it. not wearing it, isnt hazardous to any one else in or out of the car. so once u above 18, the choice should be yours if u want to protect urself in an accident.

Wrong, that idiot could become a projectile. Imagine a big man flying around a vehicle in an accident

But we all know that in Trinidad inertia stops by magic in the back seats so you don't need to wear seatbelts in the back. Only the front seat do the laws of motion apply!

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

First good thing the government ever do yes, why did it even take them so long?

Charge all them nasty fckers breaking red lights and speeding killing innocent people. Trinidad has a new culture of breaking red lights even infront of police while they do NOTHING. On the bus route last year a man break a red light and nearly mash up a police vehicle the police eh even give him ah lil siren or horn they just gone about their normal business and saying how they will leave it in the hands of the lord......

Breaking red light 2 seconds after it has gone red should come with prison sentence I see Maxi Taxi and PH drivers often break red lights 3 seconds after it has gone red blowing horn like mad men nearly killing pedestrians and nobody ever does anything about it.

Why the hell is it taking them so long to implement this new system?

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

But them AD Wagon wukking Taxi doh even have seat belt in the back seat. No head rest nothing to protect you in an accident, staggers the sane imagination how people are allowed to license AD wagon as Taxis in this banana republic

[sMASH]

wrt the mobile device usage, police rarely ever in a car by themselves, so its easy to let it apply to them to, cause the other person, the non driver could take the call. leaving the driver to focus on the road.

wrt to the seatbelts, i find the seatbelt laws foolish in the first place, for those above 18yrs. the seatbelt only protecting who wearing it. not wearing it, isnt hazardous to any one else in or out of the car. so once u above 18, the choice should be yours if u want to protect urself in an accident.

Wrong, that idiot could become a projectile. Imagine a big man flying around a vehicle in an accident

right good point. but windscreens, tho... suppsed to withstand that.

[hydroep]

[redmanjp]

wrt the mobile device usage, police rarely ever in a car by themselves, so its easy to let it apply to them to, cause the other person, the non driver could take the call. leaving the driver to focus on the road.

wrt to the seatbelts, i find the seatbelt laws foolish in the first place, for those above 18yrs. the seatbelt only protecting who wearing it. not wearing it, isnt hazardous to any one else in or out of the car. so once u above 18, the choice should be yours if u want to protect urself in an accident.

Wrong, that idiot could become a projectile. Imagine a big man flying around a vehicle in an accident

right good point. but windscreens, tho... suppsed to withstand that.

ppl does go through windscreen

[redmanjp]

so wait 3 days to go for BOTH the Red Light Camera enforcement and the Demerit Points system to take effect?

Have all the white lines in the country been redone to ensure ppl don't accidentally trigger the sensor by stopping a lil to far?

[aaron17]

so wait 3 days to go for BOTH the Red Light Camera enforcement and the Demerit Points system to take effect?

Have all the white lines in the country been redone to ensure ppl don't accidentally trigger the sensor by stopping a lil to far?

We live in ah society.