Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Anti-Hoon Laws

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by jd, Oct 13, 2005.

  1. Full Article
    Seems the Victorian Government is looking at imposing new laws against "hooning", first time offenders will have their vehicle impounded for 48 hours, a second offence carries a 3 month impoundment and third time offenders will have their vehicles confiscated. Probably more than likely these laws will apply to motorcyclists too and it seems the definition of what consistitutes "hooning" is fairly broad (could lane-splitting or trying to beat cars away from the lights be considered street-racing for example?).

  2. :shock: scary thought, but then lane splitting surely is no more serious than passing on the left (hardly a hoom offence) and taking off at the lights, as long as you don't exceed the speed limit.. i'd hope it's not considered worth more than a slap on the wrist if that... hope being the key word
  3. What about if it's not your car...

    I hate the Police.
  4. VicPol have no idea.

    I bet they will auction the cars and all proceeds will go into feeding Bracks and Batchelor at the xmas party.
  5. It sounds like total rubbish. 8) Given that it's the Victorian government, I can then only assume that it is entirely factual an correct. :shock:

    Once again the gov decides that the best way to combat a problem is by fighting a different probem. If the problem is that P platers drive high powered vehicals then why target they WAY they drive them. Target the actual problen Bracksy ya fcuk wit!

    P platers drive about in cars the are not allowed to all the time. I see it daily. The problem is that the police don't seem to be booking them for it. Are the Police too lazy? Do they not care or are they simply not proberly trained for the job of knowing what cars are and are not illegal for a P plater? :? I'm not having a go at cops here. Personally I commend them for doing a dangerous job that no-one else wants to do. Hoever, I do a dangerous job no-one else wants to do (and so do a few other netriders) though I admit not usually life threatening, but I have to remember the rules to do it. Why don't the police? I was handed an A4 page of blacklisted cars when I got my licence. Surely this piece of paper was made available to the police. :?

    Regardless of the issue they want to target, lets look at the issue they actually target. Burnouts, speeding., reckless driving..... Aren't these already illegal? :? If anyone is doing this they should be booked and punished. It doesn't matter if it's a P plater in a GTR Skyline, a P plater ind a Dato 1200 or my Gran in her Dato 1200. 8)

    Why would they make a new law to say that if one group of people does it it's worth taking their car, but for everyone else we'll simply ignore it? The answer is simple. Bracks, Bachelor and Lenders have no fcuking idea what they are doing. 8) They completely fail to address the actual cause of colissions time after time because they're too interested in raising money through tax cameras and selling kids cars cause they can't afford the legal fees to fight the bastards. 8)

    (Note: I've never voted for the Liberal Party. For anyone questioning my hoon credentials, 10 years ago I was fined because I started to pull out from the park before I turned on the headlights and 3 years ago one of my cage wheels clipped a Double line after overtaking a Toyota Crown. No speeding tickets yet.)
  6. The article does say that the vehicle will be impounded/confiscated even if it doesn't belong to the driver though you'd hope there'd be some exceptions. I can just imagine someone getting a call from the police saying "we've found your stolen vehicle, but it was being driven by a hoon so we're keeping it".
  7. Yep. otherwise the call will be "thanks for the led of your car mate. I owe you the market value, sorry."

    If you get caught driving home with undersize fish in a borrowed car thay can take that car so I guess the rules would be similar.
  8. I agree that this is rubbish and that there are already laws for this.

    The biggest part that gets me is the property confiscation. How dare the government take property for a non criminal offense? Ok, if you're a proven drug dealer and have 4 cars and 3 houses from being a criminal, fine, take them, but someone who is not a criminal but drives in a manner that a police officer thinks makes them a hoon and they can have their property taken away? What the? Do they get sent to their room as well? Without dinner? No tv for a week? Come on...

  9. If this law ever comes in i'll guarantee that you'll see more police chases with people willing to take a chance trying outrun the cops rather than knowing that they'll lose their vehicles.
  10. Agreed Kraven. And more violence against police in general, especially when you consider how meat headed most of the hoons are that this law is targetted against.

    I don't think too many people think it's ok to drive/ride like an idiot, even those that do it realise that they're doing the wrong thing and will get in trouble if they get caught, the issue is the severity of the punishment. No takey my stuff, no matter what I do with it. Fine me out of house and home, take my licence for life, but no confiscation of property for non criminal offences.

  11. This has got a LOT of potential to be used as "Well I can't get you for anything else" stop gap.

    If you don't have a witness (hell even if you do) and the cop decides to be an arsehole you can say goodbye to your car or bike for 48 hours. Furthermore, when is it confiscated and do you get a chance to challenge that confiscation first?

    Also...I love the line at the end...

    Funny...I don't see my bosses clubman on that list. 500kg, 190 kW, not on the list....must mean it's legal :p If News LTD want to write blatent FUD they could at least go to the effort of making it half believable.
  12. I see, as usual, a lot of bitches about laws here, and the "potential" for police to abuse those laws.

    Personally, I've never met cop "who wanted to be an ass-hole" and I've driven in every state except WA since 1977. I've seen times when the cop became an ass-hole, to match the personality of the person they were talking too. (I really deserved it as well :oops: )

    Where would we be without the much maligned police anyway? Much rather see twice the cops and remove speed cameras myself.

    Don't shoot the enforcers because your alledgedly democratically elected Govt makes legislation that's "on the nose".

    Now, has anyone put up alternatives to these "anti hoon" laws?
    Anyone spent a few (enjoyable) hours writing to pollies, explaining their shortcomings and obvious deficiencies in cognitive skills, in great detail?

    I do, try it, it's quite therapuetic really.

    If you live in a street that's used by "hoons", being woken at all nights by the sounds of idiocy on the roads, watching turds drag racing in a 50kph zone, in a street that contains a corner shop, primary school, doctors surgery and nursing home that finishes at a safe beach used by Kids.
    Then like me you might actually think these laws are required.

    Pollies ownly introduce legislation as a reaction to peoples behaviour and a perceived chance to get more votes. If some road users showed a bit more respect to others, pollies wouldn't have the excuse to introduce draconian law.

    Similar laws are in place here in Tas, have had qualified success as well, main restrictions against good results are a lack of cops to properly enforce the laws.

    So what if it's not the offenders car, If the c0ckhead driving has so little respect for the "friend" who owns the car (or parents) then they deserve the flogging they'll get from the owner. Here, the owner can apply to get the car returned, and it happens. Better the hassle of getting the car from an impound than getting it written off and the insurance company trying to get out of paying up due to a loophole. Any car stolen and used for illegal purposes gets held as evidence anyway, no change there.

    Face it, the vast majority of cops are just trying to do a job, they see horrendous results of "accidents" all too often, and too often needlessly caused by stupidity by one or more vehicle operators. These cops have got the brains to know a "hoon" from a careful "filtering" recognise dragging from lights is not the same as quickly getting away from the tintops.

    Direct you indignation towards the CAUSE, (the idiot hoons), not the SYMPTOM, (a cop trying to do their job)

  13. Sydney police have been doing this for a couple of years to great effect, although I do agree with your concern for the 'open-endedness' of this proposed regulation. It has only been used in specific known areas where guys in hot cars congregate and disturb the peace, and to my knowledge only a couple of cars have been seized, but in those cases they certainly deserved it.
    Most of the cars being driven in an anti-social manner in places like Brighton le-Sands and the Rocks have been being piloted by 25yr olds and upwards, from a couple of racial groups, and in many cases known to be connected with the drug trade, and the car re-birthing rackets rife in Sydney's Western Suburbs. Not too many teenagers can afford $60,000 fully-sik Celicas or Skylines.
    I should add that this regulation has been pursued at the request of residents of areas where these layabouts congragate and treat public streets like race-tracks; they get what they deserve, and the complainants get a good night's sleep!!
  14. I hear what you guys are saying but taking property is NOT the answer. If the current laws carry an inadequate penalty, then they should be reviewed before new draconian laws are put in place.

    This is not like getting a fine, a fine is set by guidelines or a magistrate. The "fine" imposed by confiscation of a vehicle could be $500 or $500,000, and that is ridiculous.

  15. How about automatic short term licence suspension as an alternative to seizing. Obviously they are not going to seize and sell your car on a first offence. You would have to prove you are a Sik Mate Dic*Hea% before they take your car for keeps. How about automatic licence suspension if it's not your car? That keeps mum and dad ok if Jr "borrows" the family s/wagon and floggs it (he would need a flogging then). Personally I don't really mind if rice boys or the hip hop kids get pinched for driving like morons.

    Big fines and loss of licence should keep some of them on the right side of the law but lets face up to facts, most kids think they are bullet proof etc and that it's not going to happen to them so all these measures aren't going to stop it all.

    I'm going to the local High School today at lunchtime to do a RAP Program (Road Accident Prevention) to try and keep these kids alive till they can get cheap insurance (25+ :p ). Trying to talk them out of drink driving, racing etc is bloody hard we just need one life saved and it will be worth it though.

  16. Studies of Crime prevention invariably show that the one thing that prevents this sort of behaviour is increasing the chances of being caught.

    If they don't think they'll be caught then it won't prevent it. in the 18th & 19th Centuries the possibility of being executed for all sorts of crimes didn't deter people. What did reduce crime was the fact that a real police force was introduced and improved methods of crime detection developed. We're talking about real crime here like - not the old "stealing a loaf of bread to survive" type the fall in which had as much to do with changing social conditions as anything else.

    A $50 fine would be enough - IF they had a 99% chance of being caught every time they did it...
  17. Thats right, inadequate enforcement is the problem and it's not a police problem it's a state gov / pollies problem. It costs too much to provide really effective traffic enforcement which is why speed cameras are so popular, they pay for themselves + extra. It's easy to see why state govs rely on them so much. More police are needed and not the sort with obscure arts degrees we need common sense coppers who have a bit of CDF about them.

    *Sorry if I've offended anyone with an obscure arts degree :p
  18. In tas it's a tiered system

    First offence, coupla days, second offence, more days, third, you're just too dumb to learn a lesson, lose the car d!ckhead.

    I see no problem with that, first time it's inconvenience, and the cost of a coupla bus trips, or taxi (or a coupla sickies) second time, more inconvenience, cos a little inconvenience is not enough. etc etc etc

    but yes, we need the current laws enforced adequately, by HUMANS in real time, not camera's

  19. Seems similar to the system they want to introduce in Victoria. Certainly has some merits but is to open to interpretation (ie a group of riders all exceeding the speed limit by a few kays could be deemed to be a street race). Probably better that driving offences be met with licence suspensions/cancellations, with vehicle impoundment/confiscation for people caught driving without a licence. Still for any system to work it's going to need better policing.
  20. It'd be interesting to see the legislation for this. Like some have said, there could be concerns that police may interpret it in a way that wasn't in the intent of the original laws. Cops, for example, who hate bikes targetting a Netride or something similar.

    What course of action would you have under the legislation to challenge it? The netriders doing 110 km/h in a 100 km/h zone weren't "hooning". How do you prove that (yeah, I know, it's up to the cops to do the "proving")? Or, if you lend your car to your son and he gets done. Why should you suffer as a result of his actions? And how do you fight that, particularly if you need your car for work?

    Sounds like more bad laws on the way. The federal government's new anti-terror laws seem to be a bit of a worry too. That's the problem when you get a Parliament where the government has a majority in both houses. No accountability (until the next election, if the electorate isn't too dumb to have forgotten the pain that it's gone through...)