Auto Classic Loose Car under W A Anti-hoon Laws

[csv8]

A VICTORIA Park car dealership has become the second victim of the State Government's flawed hoon seizure laws, after a potential buyer was clocked speeding during a test drive.

Police today confirmed they had ordered the Auto Classic dealership to surrender a $45,000 Mini Cooper S under anti-hoon laws.



The vehicle was allegedly detected travelling at 170km/h in a 100km/h zone on Roe Highway, Beckenham, at 3.44pm on January 30 - hours after a 27-year-old man had taken the car on an ``extended test drive'' overnight.

Police visited Auto Classic's Burswood Road dealership on Wednesday to investigate and returned yesterday, issuing a notice ordering the car to be delivered to a Kewdale holding yard by Thursday, February 11, so it can be impounded for 28 days.



Although Police and Road Safety Minister Rob Johnson has pledged an overhaul of anti-hoon laws, under the wording of the current laws, police do not have any discretion as to whether they impound the car, irrespective of who is behind the wheel or who is the owner of the vehicle.

Today, Auto Classic principal dealer Darrin Brandon slammed the laws, saying innocent parties should not be penalised for actions beyond their control.

``The dealer and Auto Classic are innocent, yet we are being penalised for it,'' he said.

``We were forthcoming with the person's details. We don't condone that sort of behaviour but we are being penalised and having that car removed for 28 days.

``To me, if they want to penalise the individual then they should go and take their vehicle.

``Quite simply, punishing innocent parties is certainly not in the spirit of the law. We don't condone reckless behaviour, we don't condone any of that.

``Police had suggested to me that we should be a little bit more selective about who we loan cars to, but we are in the car selling business and we don't interrogate people ... It's not our job to lecture people.

``I have no control over them necessarily. They have a valid driver's licence and they meet all of the criteria for test driving a car yet we get caught up in having a car confiscated.''

Mr Brandon said the laws exposed the dealership to serious risk, with 390 demonstrations conducted last month and their offer of 43 service cars a day.

Mr Johnston accepted this was a ``difficult situation'' and said he sympathised with Mr Brandon and the Auto Classic dealership.

He said he could not seek the amendments to the laws until State Parliament resumed on February 23, but would introduce them as a matter of urgency.

``Let’s not lose focus here,'' Mr Johnson said.

``Mr Brandon hasn’t been let down by the law – he’s been let down by someone who chose to drive one of his cars in a dangerous and reckless way.

``It is impossible to consider every contingency with any legislation.

``This is why I agreed to amend the legislation.''

Mr Johnson said his support for hoon laws had not altered.

``This is about making the roads safer and sending a clear message that hoon driving won’t be tolerated,'' he said.

``Situations like these two incidents won’t arise as soon as the legislation passes Parliament."

The incident comes just days after Dr Patrick Nugawela collected his $200,000 Lamborghini, which ws impounded by police after they allegedly caught his mechanic speeding in it on January 6.

The 2006 Lamborghini Gallardo was impounded for 28 days when Dr Nugawela's mechanic, Leone Magistro, was allegedly caught driving it at up to 160km/h in a 90km/h zone along Reid Highway, Balcatta.


The Greenwood GP has had to wait until Wednesday (February 3) to get it back, despite a backflip by Mr Johnson to amend the laws so that innocent owners do not have their cars impounded.

Mr Johnson had initially refused to budge on the laws, but has now agreed to seek amendments making it possible for an offender's car to be substituted for an innocent person's vehicle involved in a hooning offence.

My comment "who would want to buy this car, now ?"

[durtyharry]

Absolutely no sympathy here.



The registered owner of the car has to take responsibility for whoever they give the keys to. They should think of themselves as fortunate that the car wasnt written off in a smash and someone killed, small price to not get the car back for a month for lending the car to an idiot.


Its no different to lending a gun to someone that walks through the door and then getting upset that the police have taken it as evidence when the gun is waved around in a public place.

Car dealers can always accompany people on test drives to stop this happening, or put speed governors on their test cars, whatever..(edit-suggest below by yellfestiva is a possibility)

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Absolutely no sympathy here.

The registered owner of the car has to take responsibility for whoever they give the keys to.

Its no different to lending a gun to someone that walks through the door and then getting upset that the police have taken it as evidence when the gun is used to kill someone.

Car dealers can always accompany people on test drives to stop this happening, or put speed governors on their test cars, whatever...

that is the biggest load of bs ive read on here yet.

so a rental company hires out a car, and unbeknown to them the person who signs the rental agreement then hands the car over to someone else, who then goes and clocks a stupid speed, rental company then loses their car, and their income??

who would buy a car if they can only drive it in a speed limited scenario?

the caryard had no way of knowing what 'buyer' was going to do,

if you put your car into a workshop for a service and the apprentice took it out for a thrash and got it impounded.... would that be your fault?

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

th

who would buy a car if they can only drive it in a speed limited scenario?
?

So you are suggesting that buying a car should involve being able to hoon it? go at least 60km/h over the limit for that state?

Possibly the car dealers think so too, hence, they can carry the risk of it being consficated if they dont put a speed limiter in it or go the hard yards and go on the test drive.

As Ive said to people test driving cars Ive sold, "you can try spinning the wheels and seeing how fast it goes, after you buy it!"

Originally Posted by nstg8a

so a rental company hires out a car, and unbeknown to them the person who signs the rental agreement then hands the car over to someone else, who then goes and clocks a stupid speed, rental company then loses their car, and their income??
?

The solution would be similar to what yellfestiva proposes ^, or maybe running a rental business, speed limiters would be a good investment

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

So you are suggesting that buying a car should involve being able to hoon it?

Possibly the car dealers think so too, hence, they can carry the risk of it being consficated if they dont put a speed limiter in it or go the hard yards and go on the test drive.

As Ive said to people test driving cars Ive sold, you can try spinning the wheels and seeing how fast it goes, after you buy it!



The solution would be similar to what yellfestiva proposes ^

if im test driving the car i would want it in a condition where it can do what it is advertised to do. simple.

and what if you give your car to a workshop? and it got impounded by a numbnuts mechanic ala our good doc...that would be your fault wouldnt it? by your own logic?

the laws an ***, why should innocent people suffer through NO FAULT of their own?

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

if im test driving the car i would want it in a condition where it can do what it is advertised to do. simple.
?

No its not simple. Dealers are more than likely well aware that any performance car that they hand the keys over for a test drive is more than likely going to be driven at the least "spiritedly"
If they want customers to be able to test the performance capabilities of the car, then they have two choices:

1. take on the risk of losing the car if the idiots are caught
2. provide a test facility for people to actually experience the performance of the car, ie provide a test day at a closed raceway etc.

Originally Posted by nstg8a

the laws an ***, why should innocent people suffer through NO FAULT of their own?

Id say poor judgement in selecting hoons to work on your car is YOUR fault

[FPV+fteT3]

Just another example of laws made on the run by people with an agenda who dont have enough brains collectively to think it thru before making it part of the legal system.
Maybe commonsense is lost on some people why cant every case that requires confiscation of any vehicle be heard by a judge and each case penalised accordingly as it stands now the police officer is judge & jury with no way to defend your actions.
The worse the offence the longer time you lose the car multiple offences take the car permanently.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

that is the biggest load of bs ive read on here yet.

so a rental company hires out a car, and unbeknown to them the person who signs the rental agreement then hands the car over to someone else, who then goes and clocks a stupid speed, rental company then loses their car, and their income??

No, I think in that case the rental company can charge the former renter's
credit card with 28 days rental purchase, the period of impoundment.
They do take credit card details for a reason you know......

I'd expect that dealerships will now insist on one of their salespersons going with all test drives..

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by jpd80

No, I think in that case the rental company can charge the former renter's
credit card with 28 days rental purchase, the period of impoundment.
They do take credit card details for a reason you know......

very true, i didnt think of that.

Originally Posted by jpd80

I'd expect that dealerships will now insist on one of their salespersons going with all test drives..

im surprised that some still let people take their cars alone, but obviously on big ticket cars like the cooper, where its an overnight test drive then maybe the caryards will have to put something in writing re compensation if it happened, as already suggested.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by jpd80

No, I think in that case the rental company can charge the former renter's credit card with 28 days rental purchase, the period of impoundment.
They do take credit card details for a reason you know......

In Victoria, rental cars are not impounded. This was one of the issues that was sorted when the legislation was passed. If the politicians in WA didn’t write this clause in, they’re stupider than they look.

[FBT002]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

In Victoria, rental cars are not impounded. This was one of the issues that was sorted when the legislation was passed. If the politicians in WA didn’t write this clause in, they’re stupider than they look.

WA politicians ARE stupider than they look.... and they certainly look stupid!

[S3SR]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

so a rental company hires out a car, and unbeknown to them the person who signs the rental agreement then hands the car over to someone else, who then goes and clocks a stupid speed, rental company then loses their car, and their income??

actually no this would in fact favour the rental company big time...... the person renting it would be liable for not returning it, therefore being charged the overtime rate of it not being returned and after 28days even if you wanted it for that long, thats a damn lot money

im sure hertz would love if you did this, plus any damage to tyres they could also charge, then the state of the car if scratched and such...... they would have a field day on you

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by S3SR

actually no this would in fact favour the rental company big time...... the person renting it would be liable for not returning it, therefore being charged the overtime rate of it not being returned and after 28days even if you wanted it for that long, thats a damn lot money

im sure hertz would love if you did this, plus any damage to tyres they could also charge, then the state of the car if scratched and such...... they would have a field day on you

FFS, why are you people arguing about this for?

In QLD, the police CAN’T impound a rental car.

It’s all on page 107 of this ****ing document, chapter 76.

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...ePowResA00.pdf

In WA, the police CAN’T impound a rental car.

It’s all on page 15 - 80 E of this ****ing document.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/w...aacovb2004539/

Edit. Added this.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/w...4111/s80e.html

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

FFS, why are you people arguing about this for?

In QLD, the police CAN’T impound a rental car.

It’s all on page 107 of this ****ing document, chapter 76.

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...ePowResA00.pdf

In WA, the police CAN’T impound a rental car.

It’s all on page 15 - 80 E of this ****ing document.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/w...aacovb2004539/

Edit. Added this.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/w...4111/s80e.html

lol, you right there buddy? hows that anger management course working for you?

noone is argueing about rental cars being impounded, i used rentals as an example, and some have pointed out that rental cars are exempt from the impound rules... thats it...

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Absolutely no sympathy here.

you're kidding, right?

[Bucknaked]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Absolutely no sympathy here.



The registered owner of the car has to take responsibility for whoever they give the keys to. They should think of themselves as fortunate that the car wasnt written off in a smash and someone killed, small price to not get the car back for a month for lending the car to an idiot.

He had his car in being serviced. How is it the owners fault. Do you sit at the dealership and look over their shoulder when they service your car?

Interesting logic you have.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

He had his car in being serviced. How is it the owners fault. Do you sit at the dealership and look over their shoulder when they service your car?

Interesting logic you have.

I look carefully into the reputation and qualifications of anyone that does any work for me, so far no-one has been clocked speeding in my car, LOL

and I would look even more carefully if I had a high performance car that would be temptation for someone.

If one isnt able to tell for themselves,pay the extra and get the car serviced at a respectable dealer for that make of car and then perhaps if the worse happens you'll be able to sue them or have them lend you a car.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

I look carefully into the reputation and qualifications of anyone that does any work for me, so far no-one has been clocked speeding in my car, LOL

People ACTUALLY work for you? I hope you have a better attitude at work than on here, all you seem to do in your posts is bag everything and everyone. Not to mention that you seem to think that it's you who is right and everyone else is wrong.

Sorry DH but like a lot on here I think you're full of recycled hay.

[Elks]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Sorry DH but like a lot on here I think you're full of recycled hay.

[schmidty]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

People ACTUALLY work for you? I hope you have a better attitude at work than on here, all you seem to do in your posts is bag everything and everyone. Not to mention that you seem to think that it's you who is right and everyone else is wrong.

Sorry DH but like a lot on here I think you're full of recycled hay.

He's quite possibly part of the team who were behind the transport reforms and fatigue management BS with such amazing logic and concern for road safety!

[Bucknaked]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

I look carefully into the reputation and qualifications of anyone that does any work for me, so far no-one has been clocked speeding in my car, LOL

and I would look even more carefully if I had a high performance car that would be temptation for someone.

If one isnt able to tell for themselves,pay the extra and get the car serviced at a respectable dealer for that make of car and then perhaps if the worse happens you'll be able to sue them or have them lend you a car.

Would be nice if that worked in theory. You can't trust everyone, but sometimes you have to put a little faith in people to do the right thing. Like showing a little respect for the customer and their vehicle.

As an example, an FPV owner dropped his car off to an FPV/Ford dealer for a service. He left his GPS hidden in the car. After he collected his car he downloaded the data from the GPS and found that the car during it's time at the service department, had been out for a lengthy test drive, and during this test drive, speeds were recorded as much as twice the sign posted speed limit.

So while this was a reputable dealership, it seems that the mechanic road testing the car deemed it ok to abuse a customers car. Was he to know that the dealership might speed in his car? Not really, but his suspicions were proved correct.

So if you had your vehicle in for a service, and the mechanic on the road test was involved in a fatal accident, lets say by killing children on a school crossing, would it be appropriate that you be charged with their deaths because after all, it's your fault your car was getting serviced at that particular workshop. Owners don't need to take the blame for something they have no knowledge of, or for something totally out of their control.

[schmidty]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

Would be nice if that worked in theory. You can't trust everyone, but sometimes you have to put a little faith in people to do the right thing. Like showing a little respect for the customer and their vehicle.

As an example, an FPV owner dropped his car off to an FPV/Ford dealer for a service. He left his GPS hidden in the car. After he collected his car he downloaded the data from the GPS and found that the car during it's time at the service department, had been out for a lengthy test drive, and during this test drive, speeds were recorded as much as twice the sign posted speed limit.

So while this was a reputable dealership, it seems that the mechanic road testing the car deemed it ok to abuse a customers car. Was he to know that the dealership might speed in his car? Not really, but his suspicions were proved correct.

So if you had your vehicle in for a service, and the mechanic on the road test was involved in a fatal accident, lets say by killing children on a school crossing, would it be appropriate that you be charged with their deaths because after all, it's your fault your car was getting serviced at that particular workshop. Owners don't need to take the blame for something they have no knowledge of, or for something totally out of their control.

Could not have put it better myself! But i'm sure DH has some clever retort up his sleeve.

[XY GS]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

As an example, an FPV owner dropped his car off to an FPV/Ford dealer for a service. He left his GPS hidden in the car. After he collected his car he downloaded the data from the GPS and found that the car during it's time at the service department, had been out for a lengthy test drive, and during this test drive, speeds were recorded as much as twice the sign posted speed limit.

Didn't that happen another time to some doctor's Lamborghini? The mechanic took it for a 'test drive' but got caught going some ridiculous speed and had it impounded?

[JC]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

I look carefully into the reputation and qualifications of anyone that does any work for me, so far no-one has been clocked speeding in my car, LOL

and I would look even more carefully if I had a high performance car that would be temptation for someone.

If one isnt able to tell for themselves,pay the extra and get the car serviced at a respectable dealer for that make of car and then perhaps if the worse happens you'll be able to sue them or have them lend you a car.

At the risk of encouraging you, care to tell us how you "look carefully into the reputation and qualifications of anyone that does any work for me"? That's the biggest crock I've read in ages. Good for a laugh though.

In the case of the Doc and the Lambo, would not the dealership have been "reputable" in the first place? They service Lambos, after all. Of course, now they have a "reputation", not necessarily reputable.

[RSgerry]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Absolutely no sympathy here.



The registered owner of the car has to take responsibility for whoever they give the keys to. They should think of themselves as fortunate that the car wasnt written off in a smash and someone killed, small price to not get the car back for a month for lending the car to an idiot.

so, person A is penalised for person B's actions and that is fair? doesnt matter how you cut it or spin it, that is unjust. further, it goes against the very basis of our legal system, that is, innocent until proven guilty.

if these basic legal concepts are too hard for you to comprehend, then you could moving to a country where legal process is of little importance. i believe North Korea is lovely at this time of the year...

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Its no different to lending a gun to someone that walks through the door and then getting upset that the police have taken it as evidence when the gun is waved around in a public place.

Let's assume this gun is used to kill someone. What you're implying is the manufacturer who designed and manufactured the hand gun, which is used to shoot a person dead, is responsible for the shooting because they've manufacturered a device capable of killing someone? Further to that your logic assumes the person who lent the gun is responsible for the shooting as well? Good god man there is something wrong with you!

It is the person who controls the gun or vehicle who is responsible. The Legislation in WA will be changed when parlaiment resumes late February to rectify this rediculous law.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Let's assume this gun is used to kill someone. What you're implying is the manufacturer who designed and manufactured the hand gun, which is used to shoot a person dead, is responsible for the shooting because they've manufacturered a device capable of killing someone? Further to that your logic assumes the person who lent the gun is responsible for the shooting as well? Good god man there is something wrong with you!

It is the person who controls the gun or vehicle who is responsible. The Legislation in WA will be changed when parlaiment resumes late February to rectify this rediculous law.

It's a bit different to that, when you give employees authority to do
something, there is still a link back in responsibility to the employer...

I agree in this case that this oversimplified legislation is totally unfair to innocent parties loaning vehicles
but we have to be equally careful about dismissing all other cases of employee obligations due to negligence...

[04redxr8]

Wow, durtyharry, you must be a politician. Ignorant, self righteous, completely missing the point, impractical, having your head where your anus should be, and still expecting us to agree with your idiotically flawed logic. :

Its so simple to fix. Punish the driver not the owner. Take the drivers car and impound it. If the person who was driving, doesn't own a car, lock the driver up for the 28 days. How hard is that to understand?

Its about time the Law and Courts realised that each and every individual is responsible for their own actions. It had nothing to do with the caryard. The test driver would have had his license photocopied prior to the test drive and the appropriate forms would have been filled out. What else could they do?

At least the minister is slowly starting to see he flaw.

[JC]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

Wow, durtyharry, you must be a politician. Ignorant, self righteous, completely missing the point, impractical, having your head where your anus should be, and still expecting us to agree with your idiotically flawed logic. :

Its so simple to fix. Punish the driver not the owner. Take the drivers car and impound it. If the person who was driving, doesn't own a car, lock the driver up for the 28 days. How hard is that to understand?

Its about time the Law and Courts realised that each and every individual is responsible for their own actions. It had nothing to do with the caryard. The test driver would have had his license photocopied prior to the test drive and the appropriate forms would have been filled out. What else could they do?

At least the minister is slowly starting to see he flaw.

Not that I'm an official post judge or anything, but the above is an excellent post! Full of common sense and appropriately identifies how to punish the guilty.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

Its about time the Law and Courts realised that each and every individual is responsible for their own actions. It had nothing to do with the caryard. The test driver would have had his license photocopied prior to the test drive and the appropriate forms would have been filled out. What else could they do?

.

They could have gone on the test drive with him - very simple. They saw making a sale more important then ensuring their vehicle wasnt misued in a public place, unfortunately there is a price to pay.

perhaps they need to forget the idea of giving people the car for a couple of days, unless of course they acceptt some responsibility for who they give the car to.

With ownership, comes responsibility, its a law thing....

just like if you left the keys in a car(yep its illegal for these very reasons) and someone takes it and kills someone.

The handbrake cable fails while the vehicle is parked and cleans up some pedestrians, guess who is responsible, not the person who parked it


Locking up hoons with no assets, geez, only jail for the poor, at least that will make sure they eventually get themselves introduced to the right kind of business partners.!

Id have no problem if there was just a detention centre where we put the hoons for 28 days, regardless of assets, but away from the main prison system.

Originally Posted by UNR8D

it was 170 on a highway not a school zone.

170 really isn't that big a deal on an open road.

Really, and you would care to nominate any road traffic authority anywhere on the planet that is going to say that is a good idea on any Australian road?