125 replies to this topic

[StephenSLR]

 

A NAMBOUR man may be forced to watch his $50,000 rare American muscle car being crushed or sold after he was caught allegedly doing burnouts for the second time - in front of police.

 

http://www.dailymerc...Brh-hqFg.mailto

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 29 October 2014 - 07:39 PM.

[xu2308]

Still sounds NAZI to me, ummm take your Licence from you for a year, childish like destroying the car in this over regulated world

[Tyre biter]

Don't agree with crushing - selling the car at auction atleast puts $ into consolidated revenue and thereby 'gives back' to the community in some way, shape or form.

This may well be a prime example of Darwanism at its finest - to have one black mark against you and to then go risk forfeiture of your pride and joy is not entirely clever.

Cheers, TB

Edited by Tyre biter, 29 October 2014 - 08:04 PM.

[xu2308]

My state as far as I know just impound the car for so many days, unless they have changed the rules, but new Laws that come in you don't seem to hear about them unless u break the rule, it's not like u get a letter in the mail saying hear are the new rules

[WA1TNC]

the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I'm all for them taking the car off you for extended periods of time like 6-12-18-24months or canceling rego but crushing it over the top.

Get caught speeding more than once...crushed. Speeding kills 100% more people than burnouts....
Get caught drink driving more than once...crushed... Kills 100% more than burnouts.

I'll tell you why they won't, because you'd see the cars of judges, pollitians & so on getting crushed every other wkend.

Cheers, Nig.

[LXCHEV]

Yeah this rule really shits me. Why not send the offender to jail for 1 month following the 2nd or 3rd strike. If they re-offend again, 6 months. Again, 12 months etc. That would be a much more effective deterrent and teach real lessons. How can you crush someone's car? I don't get it. It's not the cars fault, it's the person behind the wheel.

If you shoot someone inside your house, you go to jail. You don't have your house burnt to the ground.

[StephenSLR]

The article does say 'or sold' and that's as good as a confiscation.  Personally, I can't see them crushing it; I think that would apply if the car is a sh!tbox that shouldn't be on the road.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 29 October 2014 - 08:41 PM.

[Tyre biter]

Its about deterrence Nig.
These laws exist because of community sentiment - enacted by parliaments in response to lobbying from constituents who complain about not only the danger (real and potential) but also the affect on amenity.
Subsequently the police are tasked with targeting 'hoon and anti-social behaviour' and government ups countermeasures including penalty regimes in support.
Seizure and subsequent forfeuture for repeat offenders is about deterrence - if behaviours wont change by education, then a stern regime is brought in to effect behaviour by other means.
Not saying these laws are right, not saying they are wrong and not saying I agree with them or not - just trying to shed some light on why laws of this ilk are enacted.
Cheers, TB

Edited by Tyre biter, 29 October 2014 - 08:47 PM.

[xu2308]

I get what you say TB, I find the Rule very NAZI and don't believe in crushing cars, there is Jail or loss of licence for one or two years, or impound the car for a year, very wrong in my eyes these laws

[rexy]

It is hard to see the natural justice in what is essentially a $50,000 fine for a second burnout.

[Tyre biter]

There isn't Rexy - this outcome has always bothered me about vehicle seizure laws and other immediate sanctions.
The thing being, this behaviour has become so prevalent and complained of that essentially the parliament has been able suspend this trait (natural justice) because it serves both the majority and the greater good, meaning dickheads dropping skids in residential streets, shopping centre car parks and other places where the general public congregate have brought this law into effect.

And sorry Al and GMH-001, I think I appreciate where you are coming from but you lost me in your alignment between crushing repeat offender's cars with Nazi-ism. Having said that, I think I get what you meant - excessive weilding of power, heavy handedness, draconian, et al but if indeed you are suggesting the laws are fascist in way of the Nazi variety, then we'll have to agree to disagree sorry. But I am with you - I don't agree with crushing.

Cheers, TB

Edited by Tyre biter, 29 October 2014 - 10:16 PM.

[Uncle Chop Chop]

A young lad who lives very close to me has had his car impounded several times as well as giving his license a holiday. The cops won't keep it or crush it as the petrol in the tank is worth more than the car.

 

In years gone by I got caught silly things, I just wore it. And if you decide to argue with a cop, we all know who will win.

[WA1TNC]

Ok TB, I'm not thick, I read/heard the whole reasons as to why they brought them in but it baffles me as to how anyone, a petrol-head or church go'er see's any sence to the harsh penalties.
I can't see how anyone sees having someone's car crushed/sold is a suitable punishment. That's all.
My point was that there are at least 10 things off the top of my head that are far more worthy of a harsher penalty than doing a skid. I'm not condoning it but how about these:
1. Drink driving
2. Speeding
3. Drug driving
4. Driving while tiered
5. Talking on your mobile phone
6. Dangerous overtaking
7. A vehicle that is totally un suitable for the roads it travels on(eg, semi's driving near schools)
8. Unsafe cars that shouldn't be anywhere near a public rd.
9. Excessive speeding(different from the normal 4-5k's over & a camera gets you & you find out 2-3wks after the fact)
10. Running red lights

Just a quick list of things that deserve a penalty far greater than old mate dropping the clutch leaving the footy club in front of his mates.

Cheers, Nig.

Edited by WA1TNC, 29 October 2014 - 11:38 PM.

[xu2308]

Crushing a car for a skid is NAZI, no Goverment should have that right unless it's the 3rd Reich, There is take there Licence or Jail of impound the car for 12 months etc but to crush a car is More of Over Regulated we have become, seems NAZI or Childish by the people that make the rules is how I see it, but I am glad TB u don't believing in crushing the cars as well, (Yes I mean in a over use of power in NAZI not in any other way). AL

Edited by xu2308, 30 October 2014 - 12:02 AM.

[Potta]

It is hard to see the natural justice in what is essentially a $50,000 fine for a second burnout.

 

BOOM!!

 

Exactly!!

 

[Potta]

If this guy was doing donuts in front of cops, he is an idiot, but I think this law needs to be changed.

 

Taking people's license off them doesn't work, because most people who disregard the rules of the road enough to lose their license don't worry about getting caught driving without one.

 

$50k + whatever fines and other punishments he got for doing donuts?

 

Lets face it, the main reason they don't like it is because it scares the oldies, I don't condone "hooning" for one second and I don't have any figures but I'm guessing there wouldn't be many burnout related deaths over the years

 

Maybe this guy

 

.http://www.youtube.c...h?v=gEge4SDlFjo

[Steve TPF]

Was this guy ACTUALLY doing burnouts - or was he just unlucky?

 

When these laws were brought in politicians told us they were aimed at "hoons" who deliberately did "burnouts". But the laws were pretty open about what's considered a "burnout" - and the cops promptly interpreted it as ANY BREAK OF TRACTION, no matter how small or accidental.

 

Melbourne drivers will know that it's easy to have a wheel slip when crossing over a tram track on a wet day - according to cops, that's a "burnout". I remember soon after these laws were introduced reading a letter in a car mag from an overseas visitor who was outraged that he got a $350 fine because one of his wheels slipped while turning a corner on a wet road.

 

The way these laws are applied by the cops is utterly ridiculous. I'd like to disconnect the traction control on their police cars and see how many of them break traction...

[StephenSLR]

you lost me in your alignment between crushing repeat offender's cars with Nazi-ism.

 

It's just a figure of speech; often abused these days with words like feminazi, etc. He surely doesn't literally mean Nazi of the gas chamber, bigoted, jew hating type.

 

s

[Tyre biter]

Ok TB, I'm not thick, I read/heard the whole reasons as to why they brought them in but it baffles me as to how anyone, a petrol-head or church go'er see's any sence to the harsh penalties.
I can't see how anyone sees having someone's car crushed/sold is a suitable punishment. That's all.
My point was that there are at least 10 things off the top of my head that are far more worthy of a harsher penalty than doing a skid. I'm not condoning it but how about these:
1. Drink driving
2. Speeding
3. Drug driving
4. Driving while tiered
5. Talking on your mobile phone
6. Dangerous overtaking
7. A vehicle that is totally un suitable for the roads it travels on(eg, semi's driving near schools)
8. Unsafe cars that shouldn't be anywhere near a public rd.
9. Excessive speeding(different from the normal 4-5k's over & a camera gets you & you find out 2-3wks after the fact)
10. Running red lights

Just a quick list of things that deserve a penalty far greater than old mate dropping the clutch leaving the footy club in front of his mates.

Cheers, Nig.

 

Sorry Nig,

I didn't mean to be lecturesome - if I came across that way (seems that I did) I apologise.

Mate, I agree with you, but like I said, these provisions were enacted for reasons in addition to the prevalence of risk this type of conduct poses and were in direct response to commmunity-wide complaints to government regarding the anti-social nature of the conduct and the spoiling of the public amenity.

Whilst laws of this ilk are populist in this regard - probably not a good basis for enacting laws but unfortunately a common outcome - their purpose is to deter - whether they do so is another proposition altogether

Cheers, TB

[Tyre biter]

When these laws were brought in politicians told us they were aimed at "hoons" who deliberately did "burnouts". But the laws were pretty open about what's considered a "burnout" - and the cops promptly interpreted it as ANY BREAK OF TRACTION, no matter how small or accidental.

 

The way these laws are applied by the cops is utterly ridiculous. I'd like to disconnect the traction control on their police cars and see how many of them break traction...

You are dead right as to the stated purpose of the law.

But sorry, it is the law which prescribes what constitutes a burnout and not the coppers.

A 'sustained loss of traction' seems to be a common definition - sadly the law desn't define what amounts to 'sustained'.

Therfore it is left to the police to interpret and ultimately the Courts to decide, whereby it becomes an opinion based test (subjective) as opposed to factual (objective). 

Being fair, it would be darned difficult to specify when something is or isn't a burnout.

I do agree, it is often poorly applied by police but this is why we have bodies of review (Courts) to determine and why many jurisdictions (if not all - I am unsure) have clauses (defences) which talk about the vehicle not deliberately being operated in such a manner for defendants to rely upon 

Cheers, TB

[Rockoz]

Will put my perspective on it.

 

He has previously had his car impounded, so he was well aware of the consequences of repeat offences. He chose to do it again.

 

The police have been tasked to clamp down on this practice.

The offence is highly visible.

The results of being caught are well publicised.

The police are then seen to be doing something.

Its probably as much a PR exercise as well.

 

Sympathy for the offender from me?

NONE.

He knew the consequences of being caught and chose to do it anyway.

 

Although there are far worse offences, this one is highly visible.

Its not just the oldies who dont like it. I live in an area with a high dickhead to police ratio.

There are idiots doing it every night within earshot of my place.

It pisses me and my neighbours off. I dont consider myself old and my neighbours are younger.

 

I am a rev head myself and I have left black marks on selected areas many times.

But always where they wont piss people off.

Its called consideration.

 

Around the corner from my place 2 guys lost their lives from doing skids.

They built up some speed doing it and ended up on a tree.

There were over 20 houses affected by that act of stupidity.

The residents of those houses were basically locked in for about 8 hours.