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.

Crackdown on pursuit drivers

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Justus, Jul 17, 2007.

  1. Crackdown on pursuit drivers

    Karen Collier and Anthony Dowsley
    July 17, 2007 12:50pm

    DRIVERS fleeing police and booze buses will have their cars impounded and face stints in jail in a State Government blitz on pursuits.

    Runaway motorists face tougher penalties including imprisonment, car confiscation and fines of up to $12,892 under the crackdown. They will also lose their licence for at least six months.

    Drivers failing to stop for police will now face up to six months' prison for a first offence, or 12 months for a subsequent offence. The State Government today also unveiled steeper fines of $6,446 for a first
    offence and $12,892 for a subsequent offence.

    The new laws will take effect later this year. Police have impounded more than 2100 cars since laws targeting hoons were introduced last year. Motorists caught drag racing, doing burnouts, reckless speeding, driving while disqualified and other offences can have their cars impounded for 48 hours for
    a first offence.

    Cars are confiscated for three months for a second offence, and permanently for a third offence.

    Runaway drivers will now face the same fate.

    "These laws are very clear and leave no room for compromise. They build on the anti-hoon laws and will create an even safer Victoria," Mr Cameron said.

    No Cookies | Herald Sun

  2. The grip tightens! :shock:
  3. ouch!
    soon everyone will be using the hopeless public transport system or walking.
    Then they will have to find away to fine pedestrians.
  4. We'll see how serious they are when the next footballer ditches his car and runs away - ala ben cousins!
  5. Personally I don't see an issue with it.

    If you have not committed a crime where is the issue with stopping?
    If you have committed a crime and see that running is the solution, then the cops need a way to be able to prosecute without endangering the rest of the public.

    As such these laws mean that it will be worse for you if you run, and theoretically it will mean less people will run.

    Of course the counter to this is that if someone does run, the chances of them re-considering and giving up are now a lot slimmer.
  6. how can you people be complaining about this law?!??!?!

    it wont effect you unless you try to run from the cops or booze busses im all for this law its going to take more retards off the road.
  7. Only thing I don't get with this is does the 6 months licence suspension start before or after the 6 months in prison :? . And WTF is the point of impounded their car for 48 hours if they facing several months in jail.
  8. The whole issue gang, is as the laws expand, it is how they are interpreted and defined by law enforcement on the scene.

    ATM it is unclear as to what constitutes a hoon related action (even though they make reference to statements on the police site) and make for impounding. The statement of improper use of a motor vehicle is an exteremely broad thing. If they don't like you. Anything that could be construded on this may fall you victim.

    "What not to do:
    Under the legislation, police can impound a vehicle if the driver is detected committing any of the following offences:
    • Participating in a race or speed trial.
    • Improper use of a motor vehicle, which is the intentional loss of traction of one or more wheels such as performing donuts, burnouts, handbrake turns or monos on a motorbike.
    • Dangerous driving committed in circumstances involving improper use of a motor vehicle.
    • Careless driving involving improper use of a motor vehicle.
    • Failure to have proper control of the motor vehicle involving improper use.
    • Causing a motor vehicle to make excessive noise or smoke involving improper use.
    • Exceeding the speed limit by 45 kph or more.
    • Travelling at 145 kph or more in a 110 kph zone.
    • Driving while disqualified or suspended.

    If grandma jones slips the foot on a wet road and spins the wheels, she get let of to go to bingo. Same with a rexxy and doof doof music, instant impound (sterotyping).

    Also with evading police. What actually constitutes failure to stop. A cop that sees someone and attempts to intercept is cut off accidently in traffic. And you, unaware that it you he/she's after you, gets arrested on trupmed up sh*t later.

    I only have a problem with laws that have a high penalty, that is stooped in ambiguity.

    I have no problem with the police jumping on criminals. But when little picky things that don't fu*king matter in the big picture, can turn one mistake you make into a criminal. Thats just orwellian!
  9. +1 to pro-pilot.
  10. does 'cold tires' still hold up as a defence...?
  11. pro-pilot
    This thread is about running from the cops. There is an other thread concerning the hoon laws, how about you head over there and outline your concerns there.

    As for running... If you don't change your speed and pull over at the next safe opportunity, then good luck to em trying to pin anything on you. If you are not sure weather it is you or not, then pull to the left lane and if they sit on your arse flashing there lights, it is probably you.

    Yes the hoon laws are ambiguous and need work, though personally I see nothing ambiguous about doing 140 in a 60 zone but hey maybe that is just me
  12. I like to show cause and evidence when I make my point :grin:

    My point was about legal interpretation concerning the first article.

    Show me the policy regarding this (that the police use to act upon), I bet it does not exist. This is what I mean about inadequacies in policy and policing.

    A cop could see you filtering, flash his beams and lights, by then your at the front of the traffic and not even aware of him/her. Meanwhile, they got your plate and next thhing you know your up for sucking mojos in the remand centre. :? Why because he/she said, you evaded them.
  13. Look if a cop wants to do this then he doesn't have to flash his lights, and S/he can say you were pulling a stand up wheelie wielding a pistol wiht a satin bow tied around your cock. The reality is that if a cop wants to F#$k you over they can claim whater they please. if the law is writen carefully and acccurately they just have to be a little more carfull of the lies they tell.

    So what we need is cameras in all cop cars like in the US or UK, then they would have evidence to show and if they couldn't would not havea leg to stand on. But untill then don't biatch about this set of laws because they can be abused, because at the end of the day we already have enough laws that they can do that with.
  14. #15 [FLUX], Jul 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2015
    A few years a work colleague of mine had a bit of a run in. On his way home a cop had detected him doing 18kph over the limit down Beaconsfield Parade and decided to pursue. Naturally the traffic was moderate heavy as one would expect and my friend didn't even know that the cop was after him 'cos the cop was never closer than a 5-10 cars behind him and he was just zipping through traffic as we all do on bikes.

    Anyway, friend eventually got to his flat about 3kms later, rolled up to a stop in his driveway and got off to check his mail and the cop comes roaring up and demanding that my friend MUST HAVE known that he was after him, had been trying to run from the copper the entire time, and had only pulled over once he realised that he wasn't getting away. My friend was aghast at the accusations and only after pleading his case extensively, and proving that he really has stopped at his place of residence and not for any other reason such as giving up on running, then the copper finally relented.

    The thing is, is that this is not a too unusual circumstance. What exactly constitutes "running from the cops"? If you're up in the hills having some fun, and some cop pulls out behind you to give chase but you're far enough ahead to be completely unaware, and not looking in your rear vision mirror 'cos you're focused on the road ahead, what happens when you pull over for a breather 15kms later? You're now faced with gaol time if the copper wasn't able to get close enough to you to really make his presence known to you, and all you might have been doing was 10-15kph over and no more at any time.

    It is a horribly subjective thing, and completely open to abuse.

    It is correct to biatch about it. Rather than make up a total fabrication which the cop has to absolutely prove in court, now they have a law which is completely subjective and open to abuse.

    While a cop with a bad attitude could mess you up illegally before, now they can mess you up legally because the law is open to interpretation. Unless you can prove that you didn't know some cop was chasing you, which you can't, you're guilty and up for gaol time, and that may even mean if you didn't stop within 500m or so 'cos you were looking for a safe place to pull over.

  15. what a dumb-ass cop. don't they teach these boys to think at Goulbourn? Following him for 3kilometres, and never pulled the sirens
  16. I have to agree with this. You can't prove a negative without infinite time and resourses, as you have to disprove all other possibilities. You probably couldn't ever prove that you didn't know a Police car was chasing you, as the only evidence is in your mind. All other evidence is indirect and requires interpretation. I believe that law enforcement has to prove a positive in order to prosecute, but I could be wrong. In other words, innocent until proven guilty.

    I agree this law is very open to abuse, and as many commentators have noted over recent years, many new road laws have been poorly written, and far too open to interpretation. I would think the only way a Police Officer could know that you knew they were chasing you was if they sat behind you with lights on for at least a period of time, or if you initiated some really evasive driving, for which you could be charged with reckless driving, and so this new law would not be required.

    Let's face it, this new law is just a big stick to make the requirement for a Police pursuit less likely, making the roads safer, and the Police's job easier. The problem with the law is if the Police use it when they shouldn't, and we have no control over that.

    I refer interested parties to my comment on punishment for running on this thread:
  17. He was 5km in excess of the posted speed limit.
    He Crossed a double white line on three seperate occasions
    He removed his left foot from the peg
    Tailgate, mono... ... ...
    does that cover most peoples average ride (Or at least as far as a cop could sugest)?

    The reality is there are small things a cop can grab you on anyway. i am not sugesting that porly worded laws open to interpretation are a good thing... I am sugesting that If a cop wants to get you, there are enough things for him to burn you on. And each of the ones i have described above are fairly well defined.

    I am just amused at how everyone is so insenced by this one which is very valid at its core (Though probably needs some work before it is effectivly enforcable).

    Either we have law enforcment in this country, and when people endevore to avoid it further penalties applied or we have anarchy and all better start arming up now.

    I would expect that to enforce this law cop cars should start mounting cameras (As i stated before) so they could prove (Or not) that they were close enough with lights and sirens going for the person they were pursuing to know they were there.
  18. We're incensed by a law that allows someone to be put into jail for up to 6 months upon the totally subjective interpretation of whether or not the individual was aware that they were being pursued at the time.

    None of those would land you in jail for 6 months, and have your vehicle confiscated (with the possible exception of monoing). Correct me if I'm wrong here.
  19. Nahh the law puts someone in a court room, even the police arn't likely to get someone into jail with a case of he said she said...

    They will have to provide something in the way of evidence.

    You see making laws doesn't get people into jail, there still is the onus of proof.