The State Governments plan to crush hoons' cars after third offence.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Feel free to show me the statistics. Most 'hooning' is done at weird hours of the morning like 2am. Definitely more accidents during the day.

Yeah, you're right mate and sorry, I totally missed the point you were making,
not all accidents are caused by hooning but it's an identifiable action
which stands out like speeding and drink driving to legislators and police.
While ever young people feel like giving their cars a squirt, they risk falling foul of the new laws.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by RIPGMH

Picture yourself as a "hoon" who has just dropped a load of cash in mods on your car, you've got 400-500 hp under your right foot and you are on a second or third warning knowing full well that if the police behind you pull you up your car will be crushed. We don't want a spate of high speed pursuits because some tool is chasing votes and doesn't have a real solution to the problem.

We don't need DH's taking the law into their own hands either... people with the propensity to "run" shouldn't have a license in the first place.

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by RIPGMH

Picture yourself as a "hoon" who has just dropped a load of cash in mods on your car, you've got 400-500 hp under your right foot and you are on a second or third warning knowing full well that if the police behind you pull you up your car will be crushed. We don't want a spate of high speed pursuits because some tool is chasing votes and doesn't have a real solution to the problem.

Same applies to them confiscating cars, nothing but Vote grabbing without thinking of the knee jerk effect by "Hoon" drivers in that situation.

Should be nothing more than extended periods of impingement and obviously licence loss for x period, if they get done driving without a licence there are rules in place for these people, no need for this headline grabbing politician grabbing overseas policies and raping them to suit there cause rubbish.

Originally Posted by 4Vman

We don't need DH's taking the law into their own hands either... people with the propensity to "run" shouldn't have a license in the first place.

Is it about saving lives or making a point?

Because if they stop chasing, the "Hoon" will stop running, some of these horrendous accidents we see are a result of Long Police pursuits and going on their message of one life lost is too many, if culling the pursuit at a lower speed meant one life was saved a year, surely it's worth it?

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Those examples are absolute BS... you know full well none of that would amount to a "hoon" charge let alone getting a car crushed, you're just over reacting.

I dont think they are bullplop at all. And no I dont know full well that none of those was a hoon offence, as not being a hoon, Im not subjected to these offences, I have my fun on tracks.
I thought they were fairly valid. P-Plater in a commodore with stockies on the back getting booked 20k over WOULD be subjected to a hoon charge I would expect, but not an old lady doing the same thing.

Sorry I didnt make the best examples, something I will try and do better in the future, maybe be a little more perfect with how I come across like others here that are always right.

So, as my examples were so ridiculously ludicrous, my original question, or maybe I should say thought, is this:

There needs to be classifications, and guidelines set on what an actual "Hooning" offence is. And it needs to be applied to EVERYBODY, not just a smart alec 18 year old, and no less an 80 year old lady.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by FPV8U

Same applies to them confiscating cars, nothing but Vote grabbing without thinking of the knee jerk effect by "Hoon" drivers in that situation.

Should be nothing more than extended periods of impingement and obviously licence loss for x period, if they get done driving without a licence there are rules in place for these people, no need for this headline grabbing politician grabbing overseas policies and raping them to suit there cause rubbish.



Is it about saving lives or making a point?

Because if they stop chasing the "Hoon" will stop running, some of these horrendous accidents we see are a result of Long Police pursuits and going on their message of one life lost is too many, if culling the pursuit at a lower speed meant one life was saved a year, surely it's worth it?

Absolute rubbish... do you think the stuff you post through?
The 3 strike rule is warning enough.
Tell me this, how would a "runner" know if the police called off a chase or we're waiting ahead?????

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Absolute rubbish... do you think the stuff you post through?
The 3 strike rule is warning enough.
Tell me this, how would a "runner" know if the police called off a chase or we're waiting ahead?????

LOL Can anyone say "Easy Fishing"

We Always disagree 4Vman and it does nothing but boost each of our post count so why don't we just save the time and frustration this time.

[ford man xf]

I agree with most people here, it's just vote grabbing, in no way is it going to stop the road toll.

[Andrew92]

crushing cars will do jack all to solve the problem, if anything it will make the road even more unsafe in a way that people with high powered cars and on there 2nd offense will prob try and run, but it will make the politicians looks good in the media and will get them re-ellected. my 2c

[RIPGMH]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

We don't need DH's taking the law into their own hands either... people with the propensity to "run" shouldn't have a license in the first place.

Neither should people who drink and drive, but it would seem having a blower is worse than blowing over .05.

[BHDOGS]

Take there cars and they can suck it and if they dont like it and wanna run then drive there car into a tree so the cops cant take it and while there there take of there seat belt so there fat retarded head smashes into the windscreen followed by there brain problem solved no more hoon worrying about his precious car no more just to add some weight to the other extreme of the argument rather then the poor hoon mentatlity

[ford man xf]

Got to love the hypocrites on here who I'm sure in there day did many illegal dangerous things, yet there the first to have a cry.

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Got to love the hypocrites on here who I'm sure in there day did many illegal dangerous things, yet there the first to have a cry.

No they didnt, they were perfect, didnt drink underage, drove small capacity 4 cylinders with no occupants, didnt start driving till 23, couldnt drive after the street lights went out, drove to the speed limit and never over it.

[HSE2]

Best behaviour people.

Discussion and conversation is about respect. One might not agree with an opposing view but that isn't a barrier to respect and showing some class in the debate.

Argue the merits of the topic and be respectful.

[BA SR FALCON]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

$500 penalty for one, $60,000 for another.

Why don’t we crush houses where a pill press is found because clearly the offence was committed in that abode.

MORONS.

Not do what we pay them to or want from them... POWER CORRUPTS
2 mill for bullyed a kid, what about the kids kept in the brothers CARE ! as wards ECT they got offerd 80k then had it cut in half.. $40 k for your childhood your cherry in some cases.. WA GOVERNMENT U SUCK !
At least do what u said u would for them,after all its our money !

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by FPV8U

While i belive in the Hoon laws as a good preventative attempt compared to other measures they have taken in reducing the younger age bracket road toll, crushing cars is giving the government too much power, they are taking laws from overseas applied to serious street racers (Take a look on some US car forums, won't take you long to find some interesting footage) that race for Cash & Reputation and applying it to Johnno & His mates doing Burnouts in an Industrial estate for 3rd time at 2am in the morning..

Yes i belive there should be Large Fines, Yes i belive the car should be impounded (And for longer durations on 2ND, 3rd, 4Th, Etc Hoon Impounding) and Yes i belive the car should be Sold if the funds cannot be found to pay the debts to the impound yard which belive me after 2-3 months would add up!
.

All true.

Hooning in australia has got a completely different meaning, a 'Hoon' is anything from the bloke with the subwoffers and cannon on his Xcel, to the bloke down the road with the XY GT replica that has a drive every sunday.


What worries me is that they siad unroadworthy cars hinting that getting done for defects could atribute to your car being crushed. Thats down right stupid considering how tight some laws are.

[mrbaxr6t]

I personally believe that the laws as they exist give enough room for the police to make a judgement call on a case by case basis and have sufficient punishment power when used to accomplish the objective, which is lets face it stopping young people doing stupid things and taking themselves out, problem I see is this there aren't enough police out there to use the laws we currently have, the answer isn't more speed cameras or harsher penalties the answer is more police out there on the streets at night targeting this behavior in the areas it occurs (industrial estates etc..)

you can introduce all the laws you want, with little or no police to enforce it then they will do jack ********

[TUF_302]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

You deserve to have your car crushed if you've received 2 fines and warnings it will happen. In the past week, we have seen what irresponsible drivers can do. Drunk, P-Plater with 5 passengers, speeding, killing himself and 4 others. That bloke was a hoon, and where did it get him. 6 feet under.

Time to get tough. And if it means crushing their car. Then they have no-one else to blame but themselves. Demerit point loss or fines are not enough to stop these clowns from reoffending. Jail time should also be part of the deal.

Well said, if they insist on driving so dangerously and acting stupid they should be punished hard

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by TUF_302

Well said, if they insist on driving so dangerously and acting stupid they should be punished hard

Yes, via license suspentions or jail time.

Whats the point of crushing some idiot's car when he can go out buy another one and do the same?


Also, the problem should be looked at from a addicion point of view, just as drugs or alcohol.

[BHDOGS]

addiction? youve got to be kidding

[388cube_edxr8]

RBTs - Because enough people have died on our roads.

Anti-Hoon Laws - Because preventing real crime doesn't make money.

Nuff said.

[vztrt]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/54418/an...l-vote-winner/

Anti-Hoon Laws – Road Safety or Political Vote Winner?

January 25, 2010 by John Cadogan

Any lingering doubt that Australian governments are exclusively PR driven were put to rest last Friday in Victoria when Tim Holding, Minister for the Transport Accident Commission, announced tough new laws to sell or crush the cars driven by so-called ‘hoon’ drivers.

It’s an election year in Victoria, and public policy is being crafted around conservative sentiment. At these times, in politics, ‘Are there any votes in it?’ is a far more important question than ‘How many lives will it save?’. Law and order agendas – press releases that kick off with the words ‘get tough on…’ – are vote-winners with middle Australia. They’re easy to distill to a sound bite, and made for prime-time news. Which is why the Victorian opposition fell all over itself to echo the Government’s anti-hoon sentiment. It’s a potential vote-winner for both sides, because nobody likes ‘hoons’ (not even me).

The Victorian Government’s proposed three-step anti-hoon agenda is this: For a first offence, the so-called hoon’s car is impounded for 30 days. A second bout of ‘hoonerism’ sees the vehicle sent up the river for three months. And a third offence will see the recidivist hoon’s car sold at auction, with the proceeds purportedly used in some governmentally administered but as yet nonspecific way to benefit the victims of crime or road trauma. Occasionally, a hoon’s car would be crushed, with press conference invitations to all the major news networks – and, presumably a front-row seat reserved for the soon-to-be-carless hoon himself.

The official line is that crushing cars would be done sparingly, in cases “where we see a demonstrable opportunity to send a powerful message to the community and to set a powerful example for a young person who has repeatedly breached our road laws in Victoria,” Mr Holding said.

Crushing cars across the board would be impractical, according to Mr Holding, since many cars driven by those of a ‘hoonish’ persuasion are in fact owned by innocent parties (a fact admirably demonstrated in WA last month when a Lamborghini Gallardo, driven at an alleged 160km/h by a mechanic commissioned to service it, was impounded even though it was owned by an innocent doctor, whose pleas for its early release fell on the Police Minister’s deaf ears until the doc threatened a compensation claim, after which the minister’s hard line promptly turned to water). Many more hoons’ cars would presumably be subject to finance agreements – and there’s no way the banks would cop a public policy that legalised the large-scale destruction of loan security assets.

So, in a nutshell, car crushing would be reserved for an occasional law and order PR stunt; the 21st Century equivalent of public flogging.

Due process – having the matter adjudicated by a court, basically – wasn’t discussed by the minister. Nor was the exact definition of ‘hoon’ – because keeping this term loose makes selective interpretation by the regulators very convenient. What constitutes a hoon, precisely which driving behaviours are hoonish (the five-year-old Victorian girl whose parentally supervised mini-bike was confiscated in Victoria last year under anti-hoon laws springs to mind), and the legal process surrounding the whole issue – not discussed, which is typical of public policy on the fly. The sound bite is always more important than the substance there.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not an apologist for hoons. (Even if there’s no exact legal definition of the word.) And I’m not a hoon myself. Even if I knew what one was – precisely – I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t qualify. Nor is this a case of sour grapes. I’ve got a clean driving record; all my points are intact.

If a hoon is a person who, for example, drives a car at 160km/h in a 60 zone, then I reckon that person should go to jail. Same as if you were to crank up a chainsaw in a crowded shopping mall and start waving it about. If said hoon kills or maims someone in the process, well, they should probably remain there for a rather long time. In fact, I don’t even think we need the term ‘hoon’ in the legal lexicon. There are more than enough offences – starting with dangerous driving – available to the regulators, should they wish to start belting anti-social fools over the head. I also think that the sum total of a dangerous or culpable driver’s assets should be up for grabs to compensate the victims of their actions – in cases where the victims are, for example, unable to work ever again, or are substantially disabled, and they or their families are placed well behind the financial eight-ball as a result of some idiot’s decision to drive irresponsibly.

However no amount of anti-hoon rhetoric uttered by useless politicians will be capable of kicking a big goal for road safety – or any other type of goal except maybe the ‘own’ kind. And we do need rather a large goal to be kicked here, because road trauma is personally horrific and, collectively, prohibitively expensive. It’s a major health problem and a significant financial impost on the community.

To put this last point in perspective, the Australian Crime Commission recently pegged the cost to the community of organized crime in Australia at $10 billion. The official estimate for road trauma is closer to $20 billion. It makes you think – about regulatory policies and the allocation of resources.

The reason why anti-hoon rhetoric is easy to utter is because real solutions are hard. They would require regulatory resolve – and the admission that there are some glaring problems with the way offenders are dealt with under the current legal system. And the best way to describe that process is ‘broken’.

How about you take your best guess at the number of unlicensed drivers around you in the traffic, on an average day in Australia, on an average Aussie road. It’s a staggering 10 per cent. The number of unregistered vehicles is about the same. It’s mind-bending. And these are the official estimates, usually buried in some obscure link, on some obscure page of an obscure government website. Politicians don’t want to ‘get tough’ on unlicensed drivers or unregistered vehicles because that announcement would be a de facto admission of the size of the problem – and a potential goal-kicking opportunity for their respective political oppositions. And that’s the last thing you’d want in an election year – handing the opposition a gilt-edged opportunity to take a swipe at the way you’ve run the ship.

However, that’s exactly what we need – fessing up about entrenched problems, and the steely resolve to cop the flack and get on with the job of fixing them. Have a listen to a few radio news broadcasts – all too often there’s the traffic story highlighting the textbook moron we desperately need off our roads. You know the bloke I’m talking about – he’s speeding, unlicensed, drunk and driving an unregistered car. He’s ticked all the boxes marked ‘scumbag’. And often he kills an innocent party (or parties) and walks away unscathed. What we need is a real, serious, ‘get tough on scumbags’ policy – not just the soundbite that sexes it up. We don’t need a new label for these people, because we already have one: they’re called dangerous drivers.

The reason the roads have degenerated to the extent that one in 10 drivers qualifies as a potential scumbag is because the courts in every state have the limp-est of limp-wristed attitude to unlicensed driving. It’s pathetic.

Let’s say thousands of people lose their licenses every year, which they do. Most of those people respect the law. They refrain from driving, go through the process, do their time (maybe even drop a few kilos seeing as they walk a fair bit more than before), get their licenses back and start driving again. But a proportion – a significant proportion – are scumbags. They lose their licenses and drive anyway.

If they get pinged by the cops, you know what happens? They go before the court. The magistrate tells them they’ve been very, very naughty. He disqualifies them for a longer period. Often, in this situation, they drive home from court. (A reporter I know on A Current Affair, Ben Fordham, once famously citizen’s-arrested one such scumbag for national TV – a great story. Pity it didn’t catalyze a wave of regulatory reform.)

This process often repeats itself. Again and again. And let’s face it – if you’ve been disqualified from driving for 10 years because you’ve driven, and been caught, again and again, how much of an impact on you will it really make on your driving if a magistrate ups the ante to 15 years next time? Or 20? Another contact of mine, a traffic specialist solicitor, claims there is a growing number of drivers he refers to as the “long-term unlicensed”. It’s a significant social problem.

We don’t need to start confiscating cars and, occasionally, crushing them because it’s the court system that’s broken. The cops catch plenty of dangerous drivers, who go before magistrates and are disqualified from driving. The system is broken because many of these people simply ignore their disqualification and keep driving. It’s not until they kill or maim somebody that they’re likely to see the inside of a jail cell – and that’s a bit late to start fixing the problem in my view. The damage has already been done.

Driving unlicensed is the kind of thing the regulators would focus on if they weren’t blindsided by what the former deputy Prime Minister and devout car enthusiast, John Anderson, once told me was a “singular obsession with speed”. In my view, Mr Anderson was – and is – one of the very few good ones. Maybe that’s why he got out of it.

As I understand it, you might be committing an act of hoon driving if you simply accelerate a little harder than you intended when the traffic lights go green. A small degree of wheelspin – and I’m not talking a burnout or a donut here – and you might be up for having your car confiscated. There’s no due process. I mean, you’re presumed innocent of murder right up to the point where the court convicts you, but as a practical matter you’re charged, convicted and penalised as a hoon right at the roadside. And, while you’re being booked a couple of dozen unlicensed drivers will probably drive right past you. So, while they’re stomping on you for a minor offence, the long-term unlicensed get a virtual free kick. It’s unconscionable.

Society would benefit more if the cops carried out large-scale random license checking, and if the people convicted of dangerous driving went inside for contempt of court if they ignored the court’s orders to refrain from driving for whatever period.

If any government minister thinks targeting hoons – whatever they really are, officially – and holding the odd press conference in front of the compactor at the nearby scrap-metal yard has any chance of lowering the road toll, then I have some swamp land in Florida he can buy, dirt cheap. Developers are snapping at my heels, but he can have it for just $10,000 an acre – that’s less than half of what they’re offering. It’s the bargain of the decade – guaranteed.

[ED Classic]

I am far far far from being a labor voter but this is a waste of a thread as Ted Ballieu (if thats how you spell his surname) has next to no chance of getting in. In fact I may even vote against them, not that I am a hoon or like hoons but I am not into communism or nazi powers being introduced any more than they already are (weve already seen the DR in QLD and their rufusal to give his pride and joy back even though he was 100% innocent) and thats just 1 example. We have courts and theres plenty of other measures or penaltys that can be introduced 1st.

Why doesnt he get up on the 6pm news and say what hes going to do about people carrying knives and are caught before INNOCENT people get stabbed and killed at gatecrashed parties and in the CBD etc? Oh wait that would cost money because they wouldnt be able to sell parts etc...Tricky one that...What a joke

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

addiction? youve got to be kidding

Not at all, it can be an placebo for some people. It's not hard to understand that in some people hooning has addictive qualities, especially when the terms "rush of blood" and "Adrenaline" are used to describe how a person was feeling or what they thinking at the time.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by The Monty

I dont think they are bullplop at all. And no I dont know full well that none of those was a hoon offence, as not being a hoon, Im not subjected to these offences, I have my fun on tracks.
I thought they were fairly valid. P-Plater in a commodore with stockies on the back getting booked 20k over WOULD be subjected to a hoon charge I would expect, but not an old lady doing the same thing.

You have to be doing 45km/h+ over the speed limit before it is classified as a 'hoon' offence.

[4Vman]

I think it would help bring some common sense to the topic if some of the hystericaly paranoid doomsayers took a bit of time to actually understand the rules, proposals and relevance to each state in question....
Some very inaccurate unnecessary panicking here....

[auxr]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I think it would help bring some common sense to the topic if some of the hystericaly paranoid doomsayers took a bit of time to actually understand the rules, proposals and relevance to each state in question....
Some very inaccurate unnecessary panicking here....

+ 1, no more to say.

[XDV800]

John Cadogan
If a hoon is a person who, for example, drives a car at 160km/h in a 60 zone, then I reckon that person should go to jail. Same as if you were to crank up a chainsaw in a crowded shopping mall and start waving it about. If said hoon kills or maims someone in the process, well, they should probably remain there for a rather long time

OMFG he is absolutely right you know. Hoons are like chainsaw wielding maniacs. In fact i saw 2 down at the shops today waving the noisy things about. They should have their chainsaws crushed.

On another note i don't think they will just crush every single car that is confiscated at the top end of the legislation. They would have to factor in some selling of valuable vehicles then forward the proceeds to TAC or some body like that. That would be a better idea. Maybe just crush the odd vn commodore or 2 :

[prydey]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

OMFG he is absolutely right you know. Hoons are like chainsaw wielding maniacs. In fact i saw 2 down at the shops today waving the noisy things about. They should have their chainsaws crushed.

On another note i don't think they will just crush every single car that is confiscated at the top end of the legislation. They would have to factor in some selling of valuable vehicles then forward the proceeds to TAC or some body like that. That would be a better idea. Maybe just crush the odd vn commodore or 2 :

have you even read any of the news releases/articles in this thread. the govt themselves have said that very few cars will be crushed, and probably no roadworthy ones.

like 4vman says, a lot of paranoid people. maybe its all the guilt?

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by coupe king

As a driver of 18 + years the skills of car control and evasive driving techniques I was taught at slow and fast speeds in a controlled envoironment and some not so controlled by my mother of all people taught me when I was 14-18 and has saved my life and hers literally thousands of times. And I hear you say thousands of times?( do the numbers)

On average in a normal day 100 to 150 kms and one close call per day, not hard in modern current traffic volumes. In one week I would have travelled a minumim of 1,000 km's. That's min 52,000 kms a year. And 365 close calls.
Thats 18yrs x 52,000 kms/pyear = 936,000 kms travelled min. And 18 x 365 close calls a year = 6,570 near misses on average over 18 yrs. All minding your own business going from a to b.
That does not include travelling for holidays, social activities, shopping, towing cars and trailers or just taking the v8 out for a drive cause you can. So I could probably double those figures in reality.
So after learning to drive in a 7.9ltr 460 big block thanks mum close to 2 million kms of all types of driving various cars usally over 5 litres in capacity
(get rather embarressed if seen in anything smaller) I can honestly say that I have caused 1 accident. I backed into neighbours illeagly parked car at night in middle of winter and was foggy at the time. oops my mistake. I have how evr caused some close calls my self .
!!!

Your life has been saved thousands of times by those advanced driving technigues? Australia’s road toll should be in the millions given not everyone else shares your these advanced skills to avoid these daily near death experiences?

The more reasonable explanation is that you dont know how to recognise dangerous situations and get yourself into trouble on a regular basis or drive too close, too fast etc.

Many have been driving two to three times twice as long as you and do similar miles and have never had to use any advanced driving skills to keep their vehicles out of trouble, think about it.

[Copie]

If he had that many near misses, i think its him we should look at not others, i cover close to 4 times that amount of km a week and im lucky to have one 'close' call a month.