Hooning.....and the gov. response to it....

[Swordsman88]

Ok chaps came accross this editorial on the caradvice website. The recent thread on the terrible crash involving 5 deaths in Vic (driven by an unlicensed driver in XR6) brought up a thorough debate on various road safety issues.

I thought this story, though rather long, was worth a read by forum members given the way it addresses hooning, the gov (esp Vic.) response and other safety issues. The journo has made some good points esp related to licensing....

Originally Posted by Caradvice

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

January 25, 2010 by John Cadogan

65 Comments

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.

I hope members can read this with an open mind and discuss the issue likewise. Previous threads have been closed due to inappropriate personal attacks that contributed nothign to the issue at hand. Mods should you view this is as unecessarily inflamatory then feel free to close but i woudl hope that is not the case... At worst i felt this was an article AFF members may like to be made aware of....

Some points i would make after reading this to start things off:

1. The issue of 'value of a license'. In this country it is seen as a 'given right' to have a license, regardless of achieveing a basic standard of driving skill or behaviour. Moreover, it is very hard to remove one's license in a meaninful manner if that motorist persists in poor driving behaviour. Other countries (germany comes to mind) it is far more difficult (albeit expensive) to obtain a license and so people value it, and drive accordingly.

2. having specific hoon laws is a bad step in general. For starters, you must 'define' hooning. If i get a short burst of wheelspin taking off up hill in my EF on a wet day at the traffic lights (purely by accident) am i a hoon? Why do murderers get the presumption of innoncence but i don't? The local cop is the judge and jury on the spot.... We already have laws for dangerous driving and other offences why have specific laws for a given reason for the behaviour (being a lout basically)??

3. With all the hoopla against car manufacturers (e.g. toyota a present) for delaying recalls, obfuscating the truth to make money while potentially unsafe cars are buit and driven on the roads, it is telling people don't apply the same scrutinty to politicians. These pollies know deaths are occuring on our roads yet instead of attacking the real causes (or bothering to aquaint themselves with what those reaons are) they go for simplistic, unhelpful on the fly policy that does nothing other than increasing their chances at the next election....and killing more motorist... Then again, maybe its the voters...

[ROBBO1981]

well i need to take my car in for a service do i have to go in there with a contract stating that if my car gets done in a "hoon law" that they will pay for all cost including hire car cost's?

i belive they should but im not a rich doc with a lambo im a middle class labourer with a bfxr6 so were do all us middle class people stand?

[UNR8D]

I never thought Id see the day where a journalist spoke common bloody sense.

the crush this/ban that approach hasn't worked, wont work and yet the seem to keep pushing the same barrow? he is right about it being a publicity stunt, especially when only 2% of the road toll is even attributed to 'dangerous driving' and like he has mentioned, we already had/have appropriate measures/offences with out having the HOON laws in place, except they don't get used in the appropriate manner, or like with most things, police do their job then get phucked by the courts.

yes sometimes Justis is wrong, that's why we don't have the death penalty anymore because they got it wrong ALOT.

as far as im concerned you shouldn't by right and legally loose your car *if they want that rule imposed* until after your hearing? i mean EVERY other offence your punishment isn't given until a verdict is handed down? why at the side of the road are you issued your punishment of car impoundment then given another reaming of loss of licence once your case has been heard?

there has been 2 such cases in qld where a car has been impounded and police red faced after having the case thrown out, however unfairly the car has been impounded for 48 hours in the mean time with no right/option to recoup or file for losses due to someones stuff up? the world has gone mad.

[ozrunner]

Well done JC.

This should be a full page notice in every major Oz newspaper.

[GTP owner]

Part of the problem with unlicenced drivers is that it is so easy to lose your licence over a few minor speeding infringements. Try two fines on a double demerit long weekend and you are potentially gone. Anyone could do this. I did in a 50 zone, thinking it was 60 - caught doing 59km/h. I drove this stretch of road twice on a long weekend morning with my 4x4 towing a trailer. Safe? Absolutely, as there was noone around. Guilty....well according to the law yes. So would losing my licence (as would happen in NSW) result in me stopping driving to uni, taking the kids to school, or going to work? Hell no. I would just become another "scumbag" unlicenced driver. Is this right? With no real public transport available, the nearest taxi 30mins call away, all for an easy mistake. That is just my take. The speed laws and hooning stuff is popularist rubbish.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

So would losing my licence (as would happen in NSW) result in me stopping driving to uni, taking the kids to school, or going to work? Hell no. I would just become another "scumbag" unlicenced driver. Is this right? With no real public transport available, the nearest taxi 30mins call away, all for an easy mistake. That is just my take. The speed laws and hooning stuff is popularist rubbish.

this is why you take it to court or something to explain the situation.


in my opinion (<- please note) the govt should get a LOT tougher on unregistered cars and unlicenced drivers. try deter people from doing these things.

the people writing themselves off aren't adhering to any current laws/rules, so why would bringing out new ones make a difference.

here's an issue that i see as being part of the major cause

Originally Posted by AdelaideNow

CITY paramedics say they spend at least half their Friday and Saturday nights treating vomit-soaked drunks.

They say increasing binge drinking and drug use is putting added pressure on stressed emergency services.

Adelaide-based intensive care paramedic Stacey Solomou, who spoke to The Advertiser on behalf of the SA Ambulance Service, said the "larger percentage" of night-time weekend patients were drunk.

"That's the nature of the area," she said.

"We see patients who are unable to stand up and function, on the ground vomiting or collapsed in the toilets.

"A lot of the time intoxication will lead to assaults or just the inability to get home safely and look after themselves."

Ms Solomou said there had been nights when every one of their cases was alcohol-related.

"In my personal experience, after 10 years of working in the city, we definitely seem to go to more alcohol-related and assault-related cases," she said.

"I've also seen a significant rise in recreational drug use.

"Drugs have changed a lot in the past 10 years. A lot of the time they are cheaper than alcohol.

"I think our workload has increased significantly too - we seem to go from case to case now."

But she urged people to call on paramedics if they had concerns for a friend while out drinking. "Call triple zero and let us make the assessment," she said.

Ms Solomou said people should not drink to the point where they could no longer look after themselves.

"There is nothing attractive about sitting in a gutter covered in vomit," she said.

"They don't see the airways obstructed from vomit, the hostile hospital admissions and the people who end up in ICU. They don't see the long-term effects that come from drinking alcohol."

Health Minister John Hill said people needed to take responsibility for their actions when drinking.

"Ambulance officers are highly trained, committed and caring professionals who are experienced in dealing with volatile and difficult patients," he said.

"Their work can be very stressful and confronting at times and we are determined to do all we can to protect them.

"Assaulting an ambulance officer is now an aggravated offence with tougher penalties."

[Belial]

Originally Posted by prydey

this is why you take it to court or something to explain the situation.

Here's me a few years ago.
I was stuck behind a Gemini, blowing thick smoke, non-working driverside tail light and sitting 10+ km/h under the speed limit.
I finally had an chance at passing them as we drove under the West Gate Bridge heading towards Williamstown.

I indicated, moved over to the left, put my foot down a bit (NOT enough to drop back a gear in the Auto) over took the ancient driver and then indicated to move back into the left lane.
For those of you from Melbourne you may know that there is a BP refinery just after the bridge, hence why I wanted to move back over incase of a B Double leaving BP.

Through a reserve a Police car was watching me with their radar gun.
They came and pulled me over and asked why I was doing 71km/h in a 60km/h zone? I explained as above and was told to sit tight while he went back to his car.

The officer returned with a fine and said "Watch your speed"

I wanted to take it to court and received a transcript from the Police before my court date.

The police statement said that:
I was driving a Blue Pulsar (Well actually it was a Green EB Falcon!) and
the passenger from the Police car checked my registration sticker (He never got out of the car!)
And I stated that I was in a hurry........
When infact I was almost 1hr early to a friends dinner party.


When I was in court the Magistrate asked if I was guilty and I said
"I overtook an un-roadworthy vehicle with a driver driving well below the speed limit and was at a senior age, I would like to add the Police statement is grossly incorrect"
To which she replied "Did you travel at 71km/h in a 60km/h zone?"
I said "Well, yes"
And she struck her little hammer and said "GUILTY"

I have the upmost respect for the Police and was a Security Guard (Bouncer) for 8 yrs.

I will always bat for the Police, but what does this say about the courts and the rushed statements of Police when the courts get involved.

Guilty until proven innocent by a manipulating lawyer!

[chuckles]

That is one of the best articles i have read about hoon driving. JC is 100% correct in everything he says. The police need to move off the speed/hoon targets and onto the idiots that think its ok to drive around with no licence in an unregistered vehicle. These are the people whos cars should be confiscated and crushed not us car enthusiests who might accidently let the clutch out a bit quick and chirp tyres or accelerate hard. Thats my 2c

[mrbaxr6t]

I didn't think it was possible to miss so badly not even the government! come on, 3 strike policy when it is oh so easy to (in error) commit an offense that can be deemed "hooning" I posted quite a while ago that I took off from a carpark across from a police station, the angles of the guttering and the like unsettle the rear of my car, and not just mine I see several others at that same spot chirp/slip wheels and in general hoon, one was a little old lady in an old magna, she took off (albeit slowly) and hit the guttering wrong angle and chirped one of the tyres! (just like I did) did the police go and knock on her door and get all ****y/tough with her? I am guessing not, but get me and I spose I fit the profile of a hoon early 30's nice car with lots of power (XR6T) so they jump on me, if the police were to camp that entrance to the road out of that carpark they would get every 2nd to 3rd car for wheelspin, and now they are introducing a 3 strike policy? all I can hope for is that the boys in blue use these rules and powers appropriately. I personally apart from that one instance have never had any problems in regard to "hooning".

What constitutes excessive wheelspin anyway? is it smoke generated?

[chuckles]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

What constitutes excessive wheelspin anyway? is it smoke generated?

Thats the problem. Nowhere in the law does it have guidelines about what constitutes hooning. its all up to the police at the time. if one certain officer has a problem or vendetta against you he can use this law to impound your car even if you dont do anything wrong.

[Spaniard]

Originally Posted by lorosfalcon

its all up to the police at the time. if one certain officer has a problem or vendetta against you he can use this law to impound your car even if you dont do anything wrong.

Which makes it easy for the whole your word against mine and that is just stupid. All in all, (strictly speaking) it's a very shaky legal position for the common person but, because they are an officer of the law, their word is considered valid and, for some ridiculous reason, accepted. Why the double standard?

[Poetic Justice]

Originally Posted by Spaniard

Which makes it easy for the whole your word against mine and that is just stupid. All in all, (strictly speaking) it's a very shaky legal position for the common person but, because they are an officer of the law, their word is considered valid and, for some ridiculous reason, accepted. Why the double standard?

Can't say I necessarily agree with that.

A decent lawyer talking to a judge about your take on the events, especially if you have not offended before (no priors), will work wonders on telling the Judge that you have been treated a little more harshly than was necessary.

[04redxr8]

This article is probably the best I have ever read on the subject. The Hoon label should be dropped and replaced with "high percentage Re-offender". The sort of person who doesn't learn. Continuing with stupid and dangerous behaviour. Then I am all for the suggested 3 strike policy. After it has been to court only. The drivers vehicle should be impounded, Not the car that was driven. (e.g. The doctors Lambo. The mechanics personal car should have been impounded.

The only flaw I see, if they do sell the car, and payout the finance, the "hoon" gets a nice credit rating, and can therefore go and buy a dearer car with finance and do it all again. If they added "Vehicle Confiscated" to the persons credit rating, and made the stigma as bad as being bankrupt, that may stop them in future.

Again, any action should only be carried out by a court of Law. Police would have to present evidence, the person charged would have to defend themselves and explain their actions. And a Judge would then decide. This way the persons entire driving record could either help them, or hinder them.

I heard awhile back (In Queensland anyway), that excess wheelspin was anything lasting longer than 10 seconds. I think thats fair. Especially in the wet, with so many cheap, poor quality tyres available on the market. Apparently, our speed camersa have a 10% buffer on them also. So 11%over the speed limit and your booked. 9% and your safe. This too I think is fair thing taking speedo discrepencies into account.


Cheers
Ned

[sgt_doofey]

Great article.
We've had a shocking January here in SA. 20 lives lost on the road in one month, compared to 6 last year! http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...9-2682,00.html

In that article, it states that 19 of the 20 deaths were on rural roads. How many of those 19 deaths were attributed to hoonish behaviour? My guess would be none. Of the 1 that wasn't on rural roads, was it caused by hoonish behaviour? Who knows, but my guess again would be no.

Hoons don't cause normally cause road deaths, the majority would be attributed to speeding, inattentiveness, drowsiness and lack of education.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Great article.
We've had a shocking January here in SA. 20 lives lost on the road in one month, compared to 6 last year! http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...9-2682,00.html

In that article, it states that 19 of the 20 deaths were on rural roads. How many of those 19 deaths were attributed to hoonish behaviour? My guess would be none. Of the 1 that wasn't on rural roads, was it caused by hoonish behaviour? Who knows, but my guess again would be no.

Hoons don't cause normally cause road deaths, the majority would be attributed to speeding, inattentiveness, drowsiness and lack of education.

Perhaps the one at Mount compass might eventually come out as a hoon prank gone wrong, just don't know. But having said that, everything else seems ok i.e. not alcohol or unlicensed driver etc. related.

I would rather see an advertising campaign that identified unlicensed drivers instead of the usual brain dead malarky they usually roll out. Something along the lines of "Unlicensed Drivers" they don’t care about the law, so why would they care about you. This is an anti social behaviour and should be outed as such, no different to the very successful "Drink Drive Bloody Idiot" campaign.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

The only flaw I see, if they do sell the car, and payout the finance, the "hoon" gets a nice credit rating, and can therefore go and buy a dearer car with finance and do it all again. If they added "Vehicle Confiscated" to the persons credit rating, and made the stigma as bad as being bankrupt, that may stop them in future.

I hate this bit, it's this sort of limp wristed punishment that is removing respect for authority figures. Like kids staying down a year at school these days, it doesnt seem to happen anymore cause "we dont want to emotionally scar them by keeping them away from their friends and potentially opening them up to ridicule by the lower year students"

If the moron crashed the car into a pole without insurance (high likelihood if they dont have a licence or registration) then they are left to pay the loan for that car even though it is shaped like a banana. If its impounded and sold, same should apply. Stiff ********.

Time to harden up and actually dish out some decent punishment.

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by MAD

I hate this bit, it's this sort of limp wristed punishment that is removing respect for authority figures. Like kids staying down a year at school these days, it doesnt seem to happen anymore cause "we dont want to emotionally scar them by keeping them away from their friends and potentially opening them up to ridicule by the lower year students"

If the moron crashed the car into a pole without insurance (high likelihood if they dont have a licence or registration) then they are left to pay the loan for that car even though it is shaped like a banana. If its impounded and sold, same should apply. Stiff ********.

Time to harden up and actually dish out some decent punishment.

The Dictatorship is more interested in protecting the RICH finance companies than it is concerned about the general public.

Secondly the scumbag element won't repay a loan for a car they don't have. That means everyone else with a loan of any kind will be hit with higher interest and fees to compensate. I think somewhere it was stated (in another thread) that only secured loans would be paid out. Personal loans would not.

I still think it should be noted on the credit rating so it affects these idiots long after the car is sold. No money= no car. Call it preventative medicine.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by Caradvice
Anti-Hoon Laws – Road Safety or Political Vote Winner?

January 25, 2010 by John Cadogan

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

Spot on! There are laws already in place. Why not initiate them properly. If they did then the individual that cause the deaths of his mates (along with his mates) may still be alive today.

Originally Posted by Caradvice
Anti-Hoon Laws – Road Safety or Political Vote Winner?

January 25, 2010 by John Cadogan

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.

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?

The system is broken because many of these people simply ignore their disqualification and keep driving.

What if the magistrate banned the said individual in this case for 99 years? How far can they go? 200 years? What does all this mean? Nothing. Me thinks that it still would not change a damn thing in the mind of the perpetrator. This law is a total farce. Am I alone who thinks that much much harsher penalties for a first offending "unlicensed driver" would be appropriate??? Remember the individual that caused his and his mates deaths may have been in gaol instead of wrapped around a tree if the magistrate was tougher the first time round. I know goal is extreme but so is 5 bodies littered around a scene delt by a non caring "unlicenced" driver as well.

Originally Posted by Caradvice
Anti-Hoon Laws – Road Safety or Political Vote Winner?

January 25, 2010 by John Cadogan

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.

I like this one. At least the former deputy Prime Minister John Anderson is referred to as a "car enthusiast" and not a "hoon". It is my experience that car enthusiasts look after there cars better than most and respect other peoples property better than most and even respect the law every bit as well as the average Mum and Dad. It is also my experience that the hoon is the very bane of the car enthusiast as well.

Originally Posted by Caradvice
Anti-Hoon Laws – Road Safety or Political Vote Winner?

January 25, 2010 by John Cadogan

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.

And a round and round we go while our own civil liberties are eventually eroded in a misguided attempt to buy more votes from the do gooders while the real problem is not tackled.

Good read.

[JC260]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

I like this one. At least the former deputy Prime Minister John Anderson is referred to as a "car enthusiast" and not a "hoon". It is my experience that car enthusiasts look after there cars better than most and respect other peoples property better than most and even respect the law every bit as well as the average Mum and Dad. It is also my experience that the hoon is the very bane of the car enthusiast as well.

Truer words were never spoken.

I'm sick to death of car enthusiasts and 'hoons' being put in the same basket. :
But it seems the media and government (even the police) are quick to tar them with same brush. I watched a report on TV some time ago (might have been today tonight, can't remember) and the police officer being interviewed reffered to 'hoons' as car enthusiasts. :togo:
Driving a modified or performance car does NOT automatically make you a hoon.

It makes my blood boil.

[jpd80]

I see on the news tonight that New South Wales has got tough on people causing high police chases.
Froom now on, people doing this will face up to three years jail and up to five years for a repeat offence.

No if only we could get instant license suspension for bullies driving aggressively....

[Markwr400426]

A very good article. I'm far from convinced that speed alone is the single biggest issue. I'm probably more of the view that it's the offence that can most cheaply generate the most revenue for the authorities (speed cameras). I don't have an issue at all with red light cameras. I wouldn't appreciate being t-boned by some impatient @rsehole!
Mark

[Spaniard]

Unfortunately, the "Speed Kills" campaign is so deeply entrenched (at least in Victoria) that speeding is all the government concentrates on. Only recently has the word "hoon" been absolutely overkilled by the government and sensationalised by the media that it is the new word for all facets of speeding AND wreckless driving (not just the latter, as it should to be).

All it takes is the smallest of chirps and the police will follow you, waiting for you to go that 1 km/h above the accepted threshold then come down like a tonne of bricks and be labelled as a hoon. On top of that, because you have a nice sounding exhaust and actually properly maintain and enjoy the use of your car, they might even try to give you a canary for that modification that has no bearing on the roadworthiness of your car. Don't forget that they will also invest resources into releasing a statement stating what just happened.

What I would like to see, just like many people here, is for these wreckless drivers to take their urges off public roads and onto legal offstreet sites however this brings up another issue as there is currently a lack of those said sites, at least in Victoria there is. If people had access to these sites, I am willing to almost guarantee that incidents of hooning will reduce dramatically and all the hype with the introduction of deterent legislation will subside along with it.

If any level of government is serious about tackling road toll reduction and bringing down high speed infringement incidents then they will certainly assist the public by giving them access to more suitable local sites to do as they please without having to worry about affecting innocent road users and potentially losing their licence.

[Stattic]

If there was a cheap, local skidpan or track I can guarantee I wouldn't even think about ripping a skid on the streets
there would be plenty of people to watch, first aid, guidelines, money to be made from spectators and people wanting to have a drive
I don't see how some rich bugger hasn't made more money off car obsessed youth, it's a good investment

[mrbaxr6t]

Originally Posted by Stattic

If there was a cheap, local skidpan or track I can guarantee I wouldn't even think about ripping a skid on the streets
there would be plenty of people to watch, first aid, guidelines, money to be made from spectators and people wanting to have a drive
I don't see how some rich bugger hasn't made more money off car obsessed youth, it's a good investment

but the problem with this as I was told in another thread is there will still be rules to skidding etc.. the ones that need to be removed from the street (the ones that drive irrespective of rego and license status) will not attend a skidpan or drag strip because there are rules attached, these ones don't like being told what to do or when to do it and most certainly HATE waiting. I do agree that if there were more accessible and affordable ways to enjoy your car the law abiding among us would use it.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

but the problem with this as I was told in another thread is there will still be rules to skidding etc.. the ones that need to be removed from the street (the ones that drive irrespective of rego and license status) will not attend a skidpan or drag strip because there are rules attached, these ones don't like being told what to do or when to do it and most certainly HATE waiting. I do agree that if there were more accessible and affordable ways to enjoy your car the law abiding among us would use it.

I think it was in QLD where a xfalcon member had purchased some land in an industrial area, which had no noise restrictions for car enthusiasts to play around on and they had a few events like burnouts and car shows, but the council and residents got ****y about all the "hoons" it was attracting and residents complaining about the noise even though there was no legal restriction on noise at all.

[Spaniard]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I think it was in QLD where a xfalcon member had purchased some land in an industrial area, which had no noise restrictions for car enthusiasts to play around on and they had a few events like burnouts and car shows, but the council and residents got ****y about all the "hoons" it was attracting and residents complaining about the noise even though there was no legal restriction on noise at all.

Was that on the news? I vaguely remember something similar to that effect that made the news for whatever reason. It may have been because of the "hoons" doing their legal burnouts and the council shutting them down even though it got the burnout cars off the streets.

[durtyharry]

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.

Hardly a good excuse for not crushing cars.

Banks give unsecured loans(rely on repossesing the car) to young people?, times have changed.

Surely if the practice were true, the lending institutions would adjust their policies accordingly to cater for any laws: either not lend so much money without a more substantial security, ie find a guarantor for the loan or get out of giving young people 30000 grand for a car in the 1st place.

I agree, unlicensed drivers and the lack of real penalties is a problem that needs addressing,

However, the proclaimed article posted above has no clear statistical link on how much the unlicenced problem overlaps with the owner/driver hoons out there that are still legally able to drive on the roads and endanger the public.


Those newly licenced young guns need the threat of some severely abrupt consequences to stop being tools in the first place. For many the threat of losing their licence down the track is something that doesnt get past their child like mindsthat seek instant gratification, whereas the crushing of their vehicle before their eyes, would always be a realistic detterent

[Neeek]

Excellent article. Nuff said.

[XR6_190]

The problem with any of these laws is much bigger than any politician is game enough to admit too. It doesn't matter how big the penalties, or how many different restrictions are placed on cars and drivers, people like the idiot that wiped out himself and his poor 4 mates the other weekend will always find a way to be an idiot. Speed governors can be taken off If you know how, Speed limits will always be broken, certain people will always drive unlicensed, and certain people (some of which are on this very forum) will always drive a car they are not permitted to drive. At the end of the day, there are some people that believe that the law doesn't apply to them, and there are some people who think they are invincible.

No I don't have the answer, but I do believe that this problem can not be fixed with a quick band-aid solution, it will take an attitude change similar to what we have seen with cigarettes. 30 years ago it was acceptable to smoke just about anywhere, now it is illegal to smoke in most public places, and most people look down on smoking. I believe a similar approach needs to be taken with "hooning" or otherwise we will always have these degenerates that cause carnage on our roads.

[sxckevo]

not to do with 'hooning', 'speeding' but i reckon the goverment and police should 'really' crack down on drink driving. i have NEVER drink drove for the reason that there is a 100% chance i would crash. i don't get what people think when they believe they can drive. IMO there needs to be massive penaltys for this. most accidents i hear of on the news involve drink driving. like the one the other week with the 5 teens killed. yes he was speeding excessively but alcohol probably made the driver think he could push the boundrys more