QLD 40 Vehicles a Day Taken off the Road Under Anti-Hoon Laws But not "Hooning"

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

This is 100% correct. Which means the system is so fundamentally flawed, it needs a reboot.

Depends on what side of the fence you sit on.

Remove greed and replace it with common sense and I guarantee this issue will no longer exist. Unfortunately we live in a world where greed is prevalent in nearly all facets of life. No matter what you do to avoid it, there are ones who will think up new inventive ways to try and keeping taking from you whether it be a form of 'new' tax or an in your face crack down on hooning.

[2011G6E]

I remember a large photo of the impound yard at Rockhampton where they had "a yard full of impounded hoons cars", with a stern faced copper in the foreground.

One noticeable thing was that the cars weren't the sterepotypical "hoons cars" that the public automatically thinks of...no Skylines, Silvias, WRX's, or anything similar...they were things like ratty old VN Commodores, EA Falcons, rusty battered Camrys, a ute or two, but nothing outstanding or special looking. They were things you wouldn't look at twice in the street. I wouldn't be surprised if most were there for being unroadworthy which would be a perfectly acceptable reason to impound them and get them off the road.

However, they kept calling them "hoons cars".

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Lets face it because that is where the hoons hang out....no point setting up at an antiques fair.

Probably catch out more people with bald tyres, and dodgy brakes.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by STINKY NINJA

Actually its quite possible and done by the majority of people.

No its not! I would put my house on the fact that very few people actually know all the laws and if you don't know them you find it impossible to obey them for even the majority of the time let alone all the time.

You might think you do!

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I remember a large photo of the impound yard at Rockhampton where they had "a yard full of impounded hoons cars", with a stern faced copper in the foreground.

One noticeable thing was that the cars weren't the sterepotypical "hoons cars" that the public automatically thinks of...no Skylines, Silvias, WRX's, or anything similar...they were things like ratty old VN Commodores, EA Falcons, rusty battered Camrys, a ute or two, but nothing outstanding or special looking. They were things you wouldn't look at twice in the street. I wouldn't be surprised if most were there for being unroadworthy which would be a perfectly acceptable reason to impound them and get them off the road.

However, they kept calling them "hoons cars".

Wouldn't annual roadworthies be a better way of doing this! But no! that wouldn't give the stern faced copper a chance to stand in front of them and malign car enthusiasts in public and on TV as we regularly see on current affairs shows.

[Mowdit]

Originally Posted by noflac52

Wouldn't annual roadworthies be a better way of doing this! But no! that wouldn't give the stern faced copper a chance to stand in front of them and malign car enthusiasts in public and on TV as we regularly see on current affairs shows.

Yes & No
Have lived in NSW (annual RWC) and Vic (RWC on purchase) people find ways around "the rules", sometimes it's an enthusiast who has the qualifications to write the RWC, or revert to stock and go home to modify again (chop the springs on my fully sick ride eh).

We like a bit of fun, and get the rare occasion to get to the track, like was said earlier, there is a time and a place, out of peak hour, though at times I enjoy playing frogga in peak hour.

Am no angel, and have gotten in trouble before, and in doing so have contributed to the state coffers, THAT IS MORE WHAT IT IS ABOUT, good old revenue raising !!!!

Some people are afraid of heights, some people can drive, some people can drink and function quite well, the law doesnt have a "you're an idiot law" ( not yet, not one that they can enforce) maybe this is their compromise ?

My two cents

[tapeworm]

So 99% of speed camera revenue would be from people driving <5km over on safe road you would think? how many of these would be involved in 'speed' related crashes- a direct cause of going 5km over? Would be zero? The cops must love it when there is an actual high speed fatality or crash as they can say 'see, look what happens-speed kills, our money grab is justified and we're out there saving lives by fining you for going 5km over'. Or perhaps if they want to continue down the fine route then maybe they give you the option to donate your money to charity. The revenue raising image they have will be rectified!

[Trump]

Originally Posted by blueoval

Depends on what side of the fence you sit on.

Remove greed and replace it with common sense and I guarantee this issue will no longer exist. Unfortunately we live in a world where greed is prevalent in nearly all facets of life. No matter what you do to avoid it, there are ones who will think up new inventive ways to try and keeping taking from you whether it be a form of 'new' tax or an in your face crack down on hooning.

I fell off the fence a long time ago

[Mowdit]

It would be interesting to see the "true" percentages I agree.

Amazing how much the roads have improved, not only in surface maintenance but design also, as have most modern vehicles.

YET, on the Hume I can still do 110kph at night in an FJ holden with 6 volt lights and no vacuum assist brakes (if I had one, poor example I know) V's a Ford F6 with Brembo brakes ????????

Which would you rather accidentally come across !!!!!

[Kingsley]

I had a set of Nexgens on a Falcon. They were ok in the dry, diabolical in the wet. Should be banned.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by WoodyAU

hey look-automatic censorship! I did not know that happens and apologise if the language in my original post would have offended anyone.

Not a problem, that's what it's there for.
But I don't think anyone would be offended by lots of little stars

[damo76]

Originally Posted by trublu

Keep your car legal & obey the law & you won't have a problem of losing your car, how easy is that!

You must have been the most boring teen then.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by damo76

You must have been the most boring teen then.

I would have lost my car if we had todays hoons law, don't assume.

[2011G6E]

People in Queensland have a healthy dislike of the idea of annual roadworthies, and with damn good reason.

For one thing we know it would be just a way for the government to suck more money out of our frayed pockets.

For another thing we've seen an endless parade of dodgy looking battered crap buckets with NSW plates on them driving around here...and say to ourselves "These are the things that result from annual roadworthies? Why bother??".

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

People in Queensland have a healthy dislike of the idea of annual roadworthies, and with damn good reason.

For one thing we know it would be just a way for the government to suck more money out of our frayed pockets.

If it was run similar to NSW the Gov would get a very small percentage, if any, of the $37.40 that the inspection Station (private workshop) charge.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

For another thing we've seen an endless parade of dodgy looking battered crap buckets with NSW plates on them driving around here...and say to ourselves "These are the things that result from annual roadworthies? Why bother??".

In my travels I've seen more 'dodgy looking battered crap buckets' in Qld than any other State

[noflac52]

The facts on vehicle faults causing deaths. It is minimal at best!
I checked all the statistics on this a couple of years back when we were campaigning for a better deal for modified cars in NSW and over a few recent years which are relevant to our cause the fatality number was 1 caused by vehicle fault.

I'm not a big fan of statistics in regard to formulating road rules because they can be manipulated quite easily to skew them to a particular point of view but it is rather telling that it is 1 when compared to fatigue, alcohol and speeding statistics which are generally around the high 20s.

The interesting thing is that the faults were listed as tyres so that really brings into dispute the idea that bombs or modified cars are causing lots of accidents regardless of whether the cars are modified legally or not but still I think that as real car enthusiasts we should set our own standard of making sure our cars are better maintained than the run of the mill commuter cars to put it out there that we are a responsible group by and large and that we don't condone hoon behaviour on public roads.

Its interesting how you are trying to create the image of things not being so good in NSW compared to QLD 2011g6e. I don't think knocking other states vehicles and systems is a positive way of building any national solidarity of enthusiasts! As a matter of fact NSW has a pretty good system for registering modified vehicles now. If we are to succeed in getting laws that are more amenable to being able to continue with our sport a national consolidation of enthusiasts is what we need. Not negativity.

Most people don't like annual road worthies because it is a pain to make sure that every little thing is working correctly when it needs to be checked but if enthusiasts actually make sure their cars are road worthy and legal regardless of annual checks it will go a long way to helping to change the image the public has at the moment.

Trouble is a lot of enthusiasts like to do it the easy way and cheat. When they are caught and defected it is an excuse for current affairs type media to give us another serve.

[poppa smurf]

I'm not a fan of over regulation in any form but I do get very sick and tired of seeing all these old bombs smoking and squeaking their way around loaded up with ferals when I spend so much keeping mine in such good condition, a lot of these vehicles are unregistered as well.

at least if we had yearly inspections then these things could be kept, at least, registered and roadworthy, dangerous to the public?, not sure on that but they are a pain when behind the stinking oil burners.

[blueoval]

I think govco should be cracking down more on ppl who don't give 2 s**** about their vehicles than targeting a minority group. There are way more folk who drive their cars with:
-no license
-no rego
-no insurance
-bald tyres
-brakes down to metal
-unsafe suspension
-poorly set up tow rigs
-excessively smokey engines
-engines with excessive oil leaks

[Kingsley]

To enter where I used to work you had to drive through a guarded gate. One morning work decided to conduct a rego check on every vehicle entering the premises. Any unregistered car trying to enter was sent back out the gate and told to park it. They ended up with 10 or so vehicles parked on the grass outside the gate. To add insult to injury, they then rang the police who then booked them. It's success led to more blitzes. Strange thing was most of these cars were less than 5 years old and quite a few were unroadworthy with bald tyres etc.

[Dash_XR]

Originally Posted by blueoval

I think govco should be cracking down more on ppl who don't give 2 s**** about their vehicles than targeting a minority group. There are way more folk who drive their cars with:
-no license
-no rego
-no insurance
-bald tyres
-brakes down to metal
-unsafe suspension
-poorly set up tow rigs
-excessively smokey engines
-engines with excessive oil leaks

My last pull over he even said "you obviously look after it" and still wanted to hassle me. This is stock height, tint, factory wheels etc.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by blueoval

I think govco should be cracking down more on ppl who don't give 2 s**** about their vehicles than targeting a minority group. There are way more folk who drive their cars with:
-no license
-no rego
-no insurance
-bald tyres
-brakes down to metal
-unsafe suspension
-poorly set up tow rigs
-excessively smokey engines
-engines with excessive oil leaks

Did you read the article? That is exactly what they are cracking down on! The article is about the majority of cars being taken for repeat offences of the tings you list as well as drink driving.

Dunno what you are all sooking about I have no problem with that.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Tom Tucker

I've got pretty big issues with the criminalisation of traffic offences, and Australia's obsession with traffic law enforcement. As far as I'm concerned it's a product of our Federal system of politics that encourages competition for government funding, which in turn has lead to state and local governments adopting creative ways of fleecing the population. All under the veil of road safety. Heaven forbid anyone advocate pragmatism. That may be unsafe and will surely compromise the children.

Having spent a bit of time in other countries around the world, nowhere else seems to be as concerned as us when it comes to minor traffic offenses. Especially in Europe, roads aren't vastly different (contrary to popular belief), speed limits are generally higher, highways aren't stalked by hwy patrol and speed cameras are used sparingly. Contrary to the scare campaign run in Australia, people aren't dropping dead on the roads. The unfortunate nature of motor vehicle transport is that accidents will occur. You can't legislate beyond reasonable practicality, and the best way to minimise both cause and effect is to build decent infrastructure.

Got no problems whatsoever in throwing the book at some clown speeding or doing burnouts in populated areas, but that is common sense. And that's all the police need apply: common sense. Not oppressive, draconian treatment upon the entire population, who must prove innocence when it comes to these matters.

State police authorities have an economic incentive to prosecute traffic offenders in favour of actual criminals. It's easier, and makes the state government money, instead of costing it money to convict people of criminality. As far as I'm concerned, police are meant to protect the population, not be a source of revenue. Clearly the boat's already sailed on the politicisation of police. It's a pity that revenue raising has followed suit.

Well said, and welcome to the forums. This is seriously one of the best pieces of commentary on policing our traffic laws that I've read.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Did you read the article? That is exactly what they are cracking down on! The article is about the majority of cars being taken for repeat offences of the tings you list as well as drink driving.

Dunno what you are all sooking about I have no problem with that.

Im not sooking bloke. But the term Hooning sometimes is used towards those with modifications which I disagree with. To me, it's demonizing those who like to enjoy their cars visually and performance wise and yet still obey the roads laws when driving.

I am all for it if they are cracking down on stupid idiots who pull burnouts in suburbia in pieces of junk or street race illegally. But that can be in any vehicle. That is what I consider 'hooning'.

I think they should rename those who neglect their vehicle or minimum duties to drive on the roads as 'negligent tools'. There is a difference there.

[MercurySilver]

Be an idiot pay the price
Fair enough
But targeting someone for tint or a filter doesn't really do anything but raise money.

Read in the paper yesterday, only one test in ten is a drug test in SA.
They then go on to say that there's been a huge increase in p plater drug driving and SA has the highest drug testing regime out of all states.

Ummm how about we increase drug testing before p plater with a car full of mmates kills someone

[Trump]

Originally Posted by blueoval

I think govco should be cracking down more on ppl who don't give 2 s**** about their vehicles than targeting a minority group. There are way more folk who drive their cars with:
-no license
-no rego
-no insurance
-bald tyres
-brakes down to metal
-unsafe suspension
-poorly set up tow rigs
-excessively smokey engines
-engines with excessive oil leaks

I've bolded the items which are an actual road safety issue.

Remove the requirement to tie the insurability of a car to its registration status, remove most of the problems associated with protecting one's conveyance.

[damo76]

Originally Posted by damo76

You must have been the most boring teen then.

Wasn't really have a go was just trying to point out that being a bit of a hoon is all part of growing up.
I know i was one and my mates

[Tom Tucker]

Originally Posted by JC

Well said, and welcome to the forums. This is seriously one of the best pieces of commentary on policing our traffic laws that I've read.

Cheers

I might run for state parliament, but even if I get in, I've got no chance of abolishing 90% of speed cameras, re-rolling 95% of hwy patrol into other police departments and banning councils from charging for parking. Damn democracy.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by blueoval

Im not sooking bloke. But the term Hooning sometimes is used towards those with modifications which I disagree with. To me, it's demonizing those who like to enjoy their cars visually and performance wise and yet still obey the roads laws when driving.

I am all for it if they are cracking down on stupid idiots who pull burnouts in suburbia in pieces of junk or street race illegally. But that can be in any vehicle. That is what I consider 'hooning'.

I think they should rename those who neglect their vehicle or minimum duties to drive on the roads as 'negligent tools'. There is a difference there.

The inappropriateness of the tern hoon is mentioned in the article too, did you actually read the article? But changing the name of the law does in no way change the law. So I still don't understand your point.

Confiscation of a car for burnouts, street racing, REPEATED driving unlicenced, unroadworthy, inregistered, excessive speeding, drunk is probably justified. My guess is the vast majority of the public probably agree with it.