Victoria’s first permanent car seizure.

[TUF514]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

There are protections included in the new laws to protect civil liberties.

The situation you describe would not result in confiscation. Stop being alarmist. The only people who have to fear losing their cars are the people who are idiots on the road. Pure & simple.

How do i get to Fantasy Island?

When you say idiots on the road, do you mean people that have a worn boot rubber seal? Or people that let their washer bottle run below the half way line? Because here in QLD that is a defect/unroadworthy.

Under these new laws, thats classed as hooning.

But yeah, i agree with you, they are protecting out liberties. :

[irlewy86]

Queensland have changed thier hooning laws to allow the siezing of vehicles on your own property for stirring up dust or causing too much noise. I think they have gone overboard.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by TUF514

Under these new laws, thats classed as hooning.

Unroadworthy is not a hoon offense... yet. The precedent has been st that it could become so though.

[xr6ist]

I agree with most people this guy is obviously a f head who doesnt deserve a license but i to am troubled i have a decent amount of power in my car and lsd and even with 18inch tyres with almost full tread sometimes in the wet at the lights my wheels spin if you accidentaly press it down to hard like a quarter of the throttle this would be considered hooning if the cops saw it and id be out of a car for 48hours if it happens 3 times bam your ******. Obviously id assume there is some appeals procedure in place atleast for regular people who make an honest mistake or people who have cars under finance surly they cant come take your car and saw now pay the bank back the 20 thousand bucks that car just cost you just because you got a good car doesnt mean your well off enough to go buy another one willy nilly you could just be **** loads in debt!

[SpoolMan]

Originally Posted by Casper

I agree he shouldnt be on the road, I doubt anyone would dispute that. What concerns me is the legal "creep" happening now in regards to the "Hoon" definition. If unlicensed driving is Hooning then the scope to make other offenses hooning too has broadened considerably. This concerns me greatly as we have, as car enthusiasts, been in a long running and ultimately losing battle with the Scruby's of the world to be wiped out and turned into Camry driving robots.

Unless someone CLEARLY defines what is considered part of the hooning laws then the courts get to set precedents.. and these become the laws.

Yes I do understand and agree with what you are saying is he a ''hoon'', you would like it defined should no license driver come under the same catorgy as a speeding driver or someone doing burnouts in a public place..
If he is driving with no licence should he be treated any different to you or I if we are court speeding... IMO I don't think so.
Having his car confiscated 2 times before this because he broke the law and then jumping back in the car again they had no option but to lable him with the hoon laws.
If he got his car back today he would be driving out on the road again tomorrow, he got tagged a hoon because they want him off the road.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Yes I do understand and agree with what you are saying is he a ''hoon'', you would like it defined should no license driver come under the same catorgy as a speeding driver or someone doing burnouts in a public place..
If he is driving with no licence should he be treated any different to you or I if we are court speeding... IMO I don't think so.
Having his car confiscated 2 times before this because he broke the law and then jumping back in the car again they had no option but to lable him with the hoon laws.
If he got his car back today he would be driving out on the road again tomorrow, he got tagged a hoon because they want him off the road.

Yup, I agree. They did it for convenience sake. It was there and they used it. Unfortunately they have now set the path of using this again and again. What if the next guy they want off the road is caught doing 10kph over the limit? What if they have bald tyres? Will they use this hoon law to get them off the street too?
I'm all for law enforcement and getting tools off the road.. but when its done and creates a massive loophole in the law that can be exploited and profited on then I get concerned about it.

[Bucket]

Originally Posted by arby

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...366276974.html



Well there goes all the media's stereotypes.

No Big loss...he's just saved himself the Dosh for having a Wrecker come collect it...Vic Govt. Wrecking Services- Have a fang in your car and then Dump it with us!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

There are protections included in the new laws to protect civil liberties.

The situation you describe would not result in confiscation. Stop being alarmist. The only people who have to fear losing their cars are the people who are idiots on the road. Pure & simple.

What does that have to do with anything?

Spoken like a true believer.....

Similes are used to explain situations to those who are having difficulty comprehending complex issues. Sometimes, unfortunately, some concepts are just far to complex or heretical anathema.
**edited by Casper****

[SpoolMan]

It does need tinkering it well be interesting to see what happens when someone has a good cash fund and takes them on.
That young guy in Bendigo he has a case soon about loosing his car, this one will be interesting because he sold it to his Girl Friend a few weeks before it happened.
Speaking to a Sergeant yesterday he said what should happen is now if he has another car the the court will take that one, but they already know he dosnt have another car, we await the courts outcome on this one..

Over the speed limit by 25 klm comes under hoon laws, even if your snapped by a speed camera they can come and get your car...

[Casper]

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Over the speed limit by 25 klm comes under hoon laws, even if your snapped by a speed camera they can come and get your car...

I've got no issue with that.. you dont go 25+ over by mistake and you are a threat on the roads. Prolonged and deliberate burnouts, street drags, donuts, roof surfing, whatever. These are all clearly defined and antisocial/dangerous behaviors that had the hoon laws brought in in the first place. As far a that goes I think its a good law. I'm just concerned it will now start to (has started to) creep outside of its premeditated scope of use and become a convenient way of dealing with targets. If this scope creep continues then someone going to Easternats (or similar canary traps) can be quickly and easily targeted and their car confiscated. Its not there yet..... but the stage is set and I hear a fat lady warming up in the background.

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by flappist

Similes are used to explain situations to those who are having difficulty comprehending complex issues.

Duuuuhhhhhh........ Fanks for ya ecksplanayshun. Wen i grows ap i wanne be wike u.

Originally Posted by TUF514

When you say idiots on the road, do you mean people that have a worn boot rubber seal? Or people that let their washer bottle run below the half way line? Because here in QLD that is a defect/unroadworthy.

More alarmist crap. Get over it. People WILL NOT be losing their cars willy-nilly.

These laws are not really that complicated. Behave on the roads and you have nothing to fear.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Casper

I've got no issue with that.. you dont go 25+ over by mistake and you are a threat on the roads. Prolonged and deliberate burnouts, street drags, donuts, roof surfing, whatever. These are all clearly defined and antisocial/dangerous behaviors that had the hoon laws brought in in the first place. As far a that goes I think its a good law. I'm just concerned it will now start to (has started to) creep outside of its premeditated scope of use and become a convenient way of dealing with targets. If this scope creep continues then someone going to Easternats (or similar canary traps) can be quickly and easily targeted and their car confiscated. Its not there yet..... but the stage is set and I hear a fat lady warming up in the background.

You can go 25km/h over the limit when it is roadworks, they have actually finished but have not removed the signs yet because they are lazy and it is 3am....

This is a VERY common occurence in QLD, particularaly when they are mowing the grass on the side of the road during the day.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

More alarmist crap. Get over it. People WILL NOT be losing their cars willy-nilly.

These laws are not really that complicated. Behave on the roads and you have nothing to fear.

You do understand legal precedent dont you?

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by Casper

You do understand legal precedent dont you?

Yes I do. This bloke's license was cancelled. That gives this case a pretty narrow application.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by flappist

You can go 25km/h over the limit when it is roadworks, they have actually finished but have not removed the signs yet because they are lazy and it is 3am....

This is a VERY common occurance in QLD, particularaly when they are mowing the grass on the side of the road during the day.

If the signs are there the speed limit stands. It isnt a case of ooops, I was too lazy to slow down. My concern is more the ability for the law to now move out of accepted hooning practice and into anything the court can deem to be a public threat as an excuse to getting someone off the roads. The moment these precedents are set then Officer Plod has the legal right to use them day to day. Effectively from this day on anyone caught driving without a license has got 1 "hoon" strike and a 48 hour car seizure. Not such a bad thing however what if the next case uses unroadworthy or speeding to get that "last strike"? Then they become accepted hoon offences and the target group for this law grows exponentially.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

Yes I do. This bloke's license was cancelled. That gives this case a pretty narrow application.

If thats your explanation then no you do not understand it at all. The precedent set is that traffic offenses, if deemed to be threatening to public lives or property, can now be considered part of the "hoon" laws if brought before a court of law. This includes any and all traffic laws if need be. The argument that allowed unlicensed driving to be included now stand true for effectively any other traffic law so long as it can be justified to a judge.
The precedent is that now the courts get to decide if its a hooning offense, not the government who's position it is to make clear and concise laws. Given that the government is an elected body and the judges are not, the hoon law is now in the hands of an unelected, aged and predominantly conservative group of individuals.

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by Casper

The precedent set is that traffic offenses, if deemed to be threatening to public lives or property, can now be considered part of the "hoon" laws if brought before a court of law.

I haven't read the judge's obiter dictum (nor do I want to) so can't verify your claim, but even if it is true, I don't see a problem with it. I'll stand by my previous statement. If you do the right thing on the road, you don't have to worry.

Originally Posted by Casper

Given that the government is an elected body and the judges are not, the hoon law is now in the hands of an unelected, aged and predominantly conservative group of individuals.

Hasn't that always been the way? Judges have been "interpreting" the law for centuries. There are English precedents (which apply in this country) dating back to the 1200's.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

I haven't read the judge's obiter dictum (nor do I want to) so can't verify your claim, but even if it is true, I don't see a problem with it. I'll stand by my previous statement. If you do the right thing on the road, you don't have to worry.

Well googled!
I also have not read the cases transcripts (didnt need to google that one) however it is plainly clear that they have interpreted a new definition to hooning. Never since its release has anyone associated unlicensed driving with hooning, nor would they have reason to. Like you and unroadworthy vehicles, there was no clear and obvious link between that and hooning... there is now.

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

Hasn't that always been the way? Judges have been "interpreting" the law for centuries. There are English precedents (which apply in this country) dating back to the 1200's.

All our laws are English based.. its why this country's democracy is called the Westminster system (no google needed) and why our legal system is based on English law (unlike American or Dutch, the other 2 major Anglo legal systems). And yes, judges have been interpreting laws since day dot. This isnt to say they are right though. These are the same people that interpreted that if a robber is injured in your home you can be held negligent and sued. These are the same people that interpreted that if a criminal is injured escaping from prison they can sue the prison. These are the same people that interpreted that if are caught drink driving and have a slight build then you can use this to get off the charges.. so long as your family is wealthy (Sydney case of 2006 well discussed on this very forum). In all these cases the judges interpreted the law, in all these cases they set disturbing precedents, in all these cases they were socially and morally WRONG.

You keep saying it will be ok, it will never happen. I commend your faith in the law. We all know they never make stupid or unreasonable precedents don't we?

[Casper]

There is an old poem (WW2 anyhow) that this reminds me of..

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Except I see it like this:

When the Laws came for the Hoons,
I remained silent;
I was not a Hoon.

When they locked up the ricers cars,
I remained silent;
I was not a Ricer.

When they came for the muscle cars,
I did not speak out;
I did not drive a muscle car.

When they came for my car,
there was no one left to speak out.

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by Casper

Well googled!

???

Originally Posted by Casper

I also have not read the cases transcripts (didnt need to google that one) however it is plainly clear that they have interpreted a new definition to hooning. Never since its release has anyone associated unlicensed driving with hooning, nor would they have reason to. Like you and unroadworthy vehicles, there was no clear and obvious link between that and hooning... there is now.

But the point of all this is safer streets, no? Why would you have a problem with that?

Again, if you obey the law there will be no problem.

Originally Posted by Casper

Stuff about our legal system

Thanks for the education. You could have saved your keystrokes though, because my second major (way back when) was a law one...

Originally Posted by Casper

In all these cases the judges interpreted the law, in all these cases they set disturbing precedents, in all these cases they were socially and morally WRONG.

Maybe. But who is to say what's right and wrong? Are your morals and values the same as everyone else's? Our legal system isn't perfect, but if you stay on it's right side you won't be in trouble.

Originally Posted by Casper

You keep saying it will be ok, it will never happen. I commend your faith in the law. We all know they never make stupid or unreasonable precedents don't we?

Name one precedent which has affected you negatively while you were within the bounds of the legislation interpreted by it.

[XAGSV8]

Guys from my limited knowledge of Victorian laws regarding confiscation of vehicles there is no where it says the word hoon. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) it also mentions taking vehicles away for unlicensed driving. It also leaves alot open for interpretation. Keep in mind this is the first that has happened so it is not a frequent thing to lose a car. I am pretty sure there has been a couple of people who have lost their cars in QLD now.

As I said please correct me if I am wrong because I am going on second hand information.

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by Casper

I also have not read the cases transcripts

You were trying to tell me what precedent has been set by this case and you haven't even read it? :

Originally Posted by XAGSV8

Keep in mind this is the first that has happened so it is not a frequent thing to lose a car.

Don't go bringing logic into this, pal. People are trying to be alarmist here. :yeees:

[HOON69]

43 and a corona fastback

Hmmmm the vic goverment should quickly add that to their sucess rate.

look fellas our first siezue and its a 50 buck POS :

nice work

[Ives]

Bottom line is, I like that 'permanent impound' rule. Bring it on I'd say.

[GRNKPR]

he s not a HOON but a P#SS DRINKIN F##KWIT that will never learn and this is labled as hooning he probarly couldnt drop a skid if he tried !!!!!! LOL

[Tiga_EL]

Apparently if the car is under a business name or something. They arent able to confiscate it at all? Can someone verify this, or is this a rumour?

[Miller]

It was probably the government's money that bought that car anyway, so they just wanted their money back lol.

[TheSneakiness]

I read an interesting post someone made on another forum saying that it's been sometime since the law has been introduced and this is the first ever impoundment of a car...

[stockel]

I don't know why people are surprised to see that it is a 43 yr old corolla driver, maybe you are all slowly starting to fall for the governments narrowminded BS approach to road safety more than you realise.

Personally it is this exact group of drivers (i.e. corolla, camry etc etc), that are nearly running me off the road (a generalisation I know, however if I started recording the statistics they would back me up : ), while I can't comment so much on the age bracket.

My point is inattentive, inexperienced, uncaring drivers are dangerous.

Yes doing burnouts etc on a public road is dangerous and stupid, however this is a SMALL sample of general dangerous behaviours on our roads.

EXAMPLE: My missus was driving me home earlier and nearly ran into the back of a car that was reversing out of a car park. She was flabbergasted when I told her she was driving too close to the back of the parked cars and also not paying enough attention to what was going on around her, she replied with "but I was driving under the speed limit".

So maybe if people weren't so concerned about doing a few km's over the speed limit they could spend more time concerntrating on the road and its surrounds, they also may not be lead to believe that by doing the speed limit or under this makes them a safe driver....

Sorry to go a bit off topic with the long post...

[TEaaron]

I don't get how this is being a hoon was he doing a 1 wheel burnout.. well 80's toyota making screeching noises around a sharp corner in 1st gear