75 year old hoon gets car confiscated after 'chase'

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by RG

Maybe try a little investigation into the actual laws and not just go on your interpretation of it.

You may find that the two are a little different.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content...ument_ID=16502

Hoon laws - frequently asked questions
...
If my child is caught hooning in my car, can my car be impounded, immobilised or forfeited?

Yes, Victoria Police may impound or immobilise the vehicle used for the hoon driving offence, regardless of who owns that vehicle. However, if the individual is charged with a second or third hoon-related offence, Victoria Police may ask the court to substitute the vehicle for one registered to the offender, for the purposes of the three-month impoundment or permanent forfeiture. Vehicles can only be forfeited on application to the court by Victoria Police following conviction of a third relevant offence being committed within a three year period.


Will my car be exempt from impoundment, immobilisation or forfeiture if I need it for work?

Not automatically. These provisions apply regardless of the importance of the vehicle to your employment. However, all cases of impoundment or immobilisation must be reported to a senior police member who may decide that it is reasonable or necessary to release the vehicle. Further, any person whose interests are substantially affected may apply to a magistrate for the release of an impounded or immobilised vehicle on the grounds that the continual impoundment or immobilisation causes exceptional hardship to themselves or someone else.

If my car is stolen and used for hoon driving, can it be impounded, immobilised or forfeited?

No. Victoria Police will not impound any vehicle that is deemed to be stolen. If a vehicle is impounded and it is subsequently found to be stolen, it will be released as soon as possible.

If a car is hired and used for hoon driving, can it be impounded, immobilised or forfeited?

No. Victoria Police will not impound, immobilise or forfeit a vehicle once they are satisfied it belongs to a fleet which is owned by a person who operates a short-term, vehicle hire business. If a vehicle is impounded and it is subsequently found to be a short-term hire vehicle, it will be released as soon as possible.
...

Can police take my car without my permission?

Any vehicle that has been used to commit a hoon-related offence may be impounded or immobilised by Victoria Police for 48 hours. Police may seize the vehicle on the spot or up to 48 hours after the offence, or serve notice on the driver within 10 days of the offence, or 28 days if detected by a speed camera.

Seems pretty clear to me...

[Jason[98.EL]]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Right. And by the time I've got my phone out of my pocket we've hit 180+ km/h (or the nearest tree).

I've never actually lent my car, my point is the law is ridiculous as it potentially punishes an innocent third party (yes, even though they can apply to get the car released, it's still a massive imposition).

You don't even have to have "lent" the car - say you leave it at the mechanics and an apprentice decides to give it a bit of a thrashing... oh well, I guess you should have known about that and taken it somewhere else. :

my car has only seen a mechanics shop 1 time since i have owned it

what work i cant do gets done by my old man or a mate that i would trust my 20 month old son's life with

as for what if the mecanic was a tool and drove my car like it was stollen well that is your bad judgment in my book

sorry for being a tad over the top

[FPV+fteT3]

The thing I dont like about the impounding of the car you have no say in what happens there is no independent arbitrator if according to plod you are guilty there seems to be no proof of wrong doing by the police you are automatically guilty with no way of arguing your case.I realise you can go to court later but by then your car has been damaged at impounding lot and has been gone over by who knows.

Also I would be really p--sed if my car was towed and left outside for 2 days with god knows what happening to it. Can you camp in your car?

[RG]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content...ument_ID=16502



Seems pretty clear to me...

Ok, stick to your simplistic view and just go by the overview.

As I said, try reading the law, not just an FAQ section on a website.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by RG

Ok, stick to your simplistic view and just go by the overview.

As I said, try reading the law, not just an FAQ section on a website.

Ok, sure:

Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) (consolidated as at 13 May 2009), s 84F:

84F. Powers of Victoria Police

(1) If a member of the police force believes on reasonable grounds that a
motor vehicle is being, or has been used in the commission of a relevant
offence, he or she may-

(a) seize the motor vehicle or require it to be surrendered; and

(b) impound or immobilise the motor vehicle for the designated period; and

(c) authorise any person under section 84J to assist in seizing,
impounding or immobilising the motor vehicle.

(2) If a member of the police force has exercised a power to seize and impound or immobilise a motor vehicle under this Division and that motor vehicle has since been released, the power to seize, impound or immobilise a motor vehicle under this Division for the same relevant offence is exhausted.

s84G:

84G. Seizure of motor vehicle

(1) For the purposes of impounding or immobilising a motor vehicle under this
Part, a member of the police force may seize the motor vehicle-

(a) from a public place; or

(b) from a place that is not a public place with the consent of the owner
or occupier of that place; or

(c) from a place that is not a public place with a search and seizure
warrant issued under Division 4.

(2) The period within which a motor vehicle may be seized under subsection (1)
is-

(a) in the case of seizure from a public place or a place that is not a
public place with the consent of the owner or occupier of that place-

(i) 48 hours after the alleged commission of the relevant offence; or

(ii) if a notice is served under section 84H(1), 10 days after the expiry
of the period specified in that notice; or

(b) in the case of seizure from a place that is not a public place under a
search and seizure warrant issued under Division 4, the period
specified in that warrant.

(3) In order to seize a motor vehicle a member of the police force may-

(a) require the driver of the motor vehicle to stop the motor vehicle and
cause it to remain stopped;

(b) enter the motor vehicle, using reasonable force if necessary, for the
purpose of moving the motor vehicle;

(c) direct the driver, or any person in possession of the ignition keys or
other keys to the motor vehicle, to give the keys to a member of the
police force or an authorised person;

(d) if, after having taken reasonable steps to obtain the keys, the keys
are not available, cause any locking device or other feature of the
motor vehicle that is impeding the exercise of the power to seize the
motor vehicle to be removed, dismantled or neutralised, and start the
motor vehicle by other means.

Bear in mind that under s84H, the police may require surrender of a vehicle "more than 48 hours after the commission of a relevant offence", so they can use "reasonable force" or cause "to be removed, dismantled or neutralised" any "locking device or other feature" to seize the car.

So, it doesn't take much to imagine the following scenario:
You get your car back from the mechanics... meanwhile, the speed camera picture showing the apprentice hooning in your car is processed, the police find your car parked outside of work. You're not available, so they use "reasonable force" to seize your car. Of course, under s84K, they'd be required to give the driver and registered operator notice.

S84K:

84K. Notice to driver and registered operator

(1) As soon as is reasonably practicable after a motor vehicle is impounded or immobilised under this Division, a member of the police force must serve
written notice of the impoundment or immobilisation on-

(a) the driver of the motor vehicle; and

(b) if the driver is not the registered operator, the registered operator
of the motor vehicle.

(2) If the registered operator of the motor vehicle is not the owner or sole
owner of the motor vehicle, the registered operator must, as soon as is
reasonably practicable, take reasonable steps to serve a copy of the notice
served under subsection (1) on any owner of the motor vehicle.

S84K explicitly makes provision for circumstances where the driver or registered operator is not the owner of the vehicle. Notice the wording of s84F, it refers to use of a motor vehicle and nothing more.

Need I go on?

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by Jason[98.EL]

i cant beleive some of the stuff people are posting

as has been posted above if you fail to pull over for the police you are breaking the law

that is the reason the driver had thier car taken unfortunatly for the driver that falls into the hoon aspect now

from memory there were links posted other times about the laws and i think that if one of the mods or admin can get the right info for all of us and put it in a sticky or the likes we wont see threads like this

my thoughts anyway

Jason

ARE you serious.
if i break into a shop or house and steal your belonging's that makes me a Criminal but not a hoon, failing to indicate is an offence, does that make me a criminal? or a Hoon?
i DONT think so.
according to our dictionary --
Hoon is a derogatory term used in Australia and New Zealand to refer to a person who engages in loutish, anti-social behaviour. In particular, it is used to refer to one who drives in a manner which is anti-social by the standards of contemporary society, that is, fast, noisily or dangerously. Hoon activities can include speeding, street racing, burnouts, doughnuts or screeching tyres.[1] Those commonly identified as being involved in "hooning" or street racing are young, predominantly male although increasingly female drivers in the age range of 17 and 35 years.[2]
you must be a Do- gooder .
Start using your common sence,
if you think about it sensibly you will realise like most people do that the Hoon laws are being completly ABUSED

[AGRO]

Reads black and white for me.
They can take a vehicle whenever they deem.
And they will whenever they can, so it justifies this law, by the stats the media report all the time.
It's like, "look we are doing the right thing by introducing this law, as look how many cars we have confiscated since it's introduction". But truth be known, how many of these cars have been confiscated due to actual "hooning", to which this law was bought in for?
That's my 2 cents worth.
AGRO.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Jason[98.EL]

my car has only seen a mechanics shop 1 time since i have owned it

what work i cant do gets done by my old man or a mate that i would trust my 20 month old son's life with

as for what if the mecanic was a tool and drove my car like it was stollen well that is your bad judgment in my book

sorry for being a tad over the top

It would be great if I could do all the work on my car myself, or I had someone I knew that could do it... most people don't. If I remember correctly, I think a bloke left his Monaro at a Holden dealership for servicing, only for the car to be taken by one of the mechanics, thrashed and, ultimately, crashed. How could any one foresee that?

But you're missing my point - how is the hoon law at all fair and reasonable when it can potentially punish an innocent third party?

The fact that the owner can jump through hoops to attempt to have the car released does not make the law any more just. What happens if, as someone already mentioned, the car is damaged while they're impounding it?

[LTDHO]

Dangerous driving is still dangerous, excessively slow speeds is still dangerous. Hoon laws apply. Most people assume that you need a commodore on bumper stops with stockies on the rear to get done. Not true.

Unfortunately this type of driving will continue as it is 99% un-policed.

I have to say out of the last 20 incidents I have reviewed, over half were aged over 60! I don't even specialise in elderly drivers (like APIA for example).

+1 for licence retesting at 60.

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Dangerous driving is still dangerous, excessively slow speeds is still dangerous. Hoon laws apply. Most people assume that you need a commodore on bumper stops with stockies on the rear to get done. Not true.

Unfortunately this type of driving will continue as it is 99% un-policed.

I have to say out of the last 20 incidents I have reviewed, over half were aged over 60! I don't even specialise in elderly drivers (like APIA for example).

+1 for licence retesting at 60.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]];;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The problem is you guys think Police have the rite to escalate these laws anytime they wish.
The Hoon laws were not brought in to ping a driver who makes a mistake while driving,
They were brought in to get dangerous drivers who acted like complete tools off the street.
When are you drivers out there going to realise we are being conditioned to accept anything our Governments decide without any sort of Referendom.
Australia is Fast becoming The very same POLICE STATE most free People around the world despise

+ 2 i agree 100% with you on this one

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by yift

funny how at the bottom of the article it states male hoons. they are forgeting the lipstick leadfoots out there

The media are about encouraging reactions through their own agenda, not the truth in full.

That article was very selective in what they released.

I do not think this lady is a hoon.
She is just a senior Australian who may need to have her license torn up. She broke the road rules and law.

The 'hoon' tag only allows the article to take a different direction towards the end, crapping on about young men blah blah blah.

That is why I dislike the Herald Sun. Front page-worthy news is Ron Barassi's moustache, or the fact that the local mayor wears a toupee.
Their articles have pretty pictures, written by fourth graders who heard something from the friend of a friend who knows some person who bumped into a bloke who was using the urinal next to him.

Judgement is there for a reason. I suggest that we all exercise it.

[devilcv8]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Yes, true. But why should I have to take (valuable) time out of my day to defend something which I didn't do?

same reason you'd have to use your (valuable) time dealing with insurance companies and smash repairers if the driver had a crash.

Again, it's BS. If I'm in the passenger seat, I have no control over the driver - and it'd be dangerous for me to try and intervene.

If you are in the passenger seat and the driver takes no notice of you telling them to stop the effing car then I suggest new mates are in order.

And it doesn't have to be lending your car to a mate. If you're an employer, and one of your employees "hoons" in a company car - you have to take time out to try and get your car back. If you don't get your car back, you could be losing serious amounts of money. Yes, you'd fire the employee, but that doesn't get your car back, or make up for 2 days (or more) of lost productivity.

That is just another cost of doing business, same as if the driver has a crash. By all means the driver may be out of a job.

Considering the "hoon laws" have been in for a number of years now all the above examples will have happened and will continue to happen.

That said, I don't in any way shape or form agree with these laws as they are up to the discretion of the cop, and as we all know, some cops have issues with using their discretion.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by devilcv8

same reason you'd have to use your (valuable) time dealing with insurance companies and smash repairers if the driver had a crash.

Surely you're not suggesting it's the same thing? In one case, the driver has an accident (which may be their "fault"), in the other, an unjust law has required you to attempt to get your car back through no fault of your own.

If you are in the passenger seat and the driver takes no notice of you telling them to stop the effing car then I suggest new mates are in order.

I absolutely agree. But it's not like this stuff doesn't happen:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...30-421,00.html

That is just another cost of doing business, same as if the driver has a crash. By all means the driver may be out of a job.

Considering the "hoon laws" have been in for a number of years now all the above examples will have happened and will continue to happen.

That said, I don't in any way shape or form agree with these laws as they are up to the discretion of the cop, and as we all know, some cops have issues with using their discretion.

So you disagree with them because they give a police officer discretion (it's not like this is the first law to do so), yet you have no problem with the law potentially allowing an innocent person's car to be impounded?

[Airmon]

I think a few may have misread some posts. No one has suggested she didn't break the law. Yes it is an offence to not stop at the direction of a police officer, no one is refuting that. Most are simply questioning the confiscation of the car under the 'hoon law'.
Clearly an unsafe driver, and while the article is very vague, was it necessary to confiscate the car?

Confiscating her car keeps her off the roads, yes, moreso then just taking her drivers licence, but who's car is it, and does anybody else use it? A point balthazarr is trying to make is who is to say that confiscating a car wont have adverse effects on innocent parties?

[Yellow_Festiva]

While not wanting to get into the debate of who broke what law under what act.. this happened several years ago... to a member of the Royal family.

Can't remember who, or if it was even the British royals, but some bird was driving along in a Range Rover or similar and soon enough had a trail of cops with lights and sirens blaring behind her.

After several KM she finally pulled over to see what all the fuss was about. Why didn't she stop sooner?? She thought it was a police escort. Don't know if she got done for it... Prob not.

[ST]

Originally Posted by Airmon

Confiscating her car keeps her off the roads, yes, moreso then just taking her drivers licence, but who's car is it, and does anybody else use it? A point balthazarr is trying to make is who is to say that confiscating a car wont have adverse effects on innocent parties?

Whoever else owns or drives the car shouldn't be letting her drive it in the first place, she is clearly an unsafe driver. It's your responsibility when you let somebody else drive your car, not the police.

I cannot believe people are actually defending this old woman.

Even if she didn't have her hazards on and wasn't doing anything dangerous, she drove for TWENTY FIVE KILOMETERS completely oblivious to a police car trying to pull her over, even when it drove beside and in front of her.

Somebody like that should definitely be off the road, for her own and others safety.

[balthazarr]

Well, to all those that said it doesn't/won't/can't happen - http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11261446

A car is to be crushed because the driver was caught hooning six times... in a car that he didn't own.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Well, to all those that said it doesn't/won't/can't happen - http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11261446

A car is to be crushed because the driver was caught hooning six times... in a car that he didn't own.

If it was a mate of mine, I'm sure I would have known that he had been caught for hooning 6 times and if I lent him my car then I deserve an uppercut and every car I'll even own in the future, crushed within 2 days of purchase.