Why don't drink drivers cars get impounded?

[Sorted]

Why don’t drink drivers cars get impounded – why do they get off lightly when they are such a high risk?
The government goes on and on and on about Hoon Laws – they keep on bringing in harsher and harsher penalties
So the older generation of this country thinks they are actually doing something constructive
BUT what is the deal with Drink Drivers?

You go through a Booze Buzz – you blow over .05 – where does your car go?
Does it get impounded – NO
Do you lose it for 30 days –NO
Do you have to pay to get it towed and stored for 30 days – NO
Do you have to pay for all of the above – NO

If the Government is so intent on bringing in harsher laws for non-law abiding drivers – why aren’t these laws carried over to drink drivers?

I don’t get it?

Why does a drink driver get treated in such a different way?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Sorted

Why don’t drink drivers cars get impounded – why do they get off lightly when they are such a high risk?
The government goes on and on and on about Hoon Laws – they keep on bringing in harsher and harsher penalties
So the older generation of this country thinks they are actually doing something constructive
BUT what is the deal with Drink Drivers?

You go through a Booze Buzz – you blow over .05 – where does your car go?
Does it get impounded – NO
Do you lose it for 30 days –NO
Do you have to pay to get it towed and stored for 30 days – NO
Do you have to pay for all of the above – NO

If the Government is so intent on bringing in harsher laws for non-law abiding drivers – why aren’t these laws carried over to drink drivers?

I don’t get it?

Why does a drink driver get treated in such a different way?

Why aren't modified cars required to comply with all ADRs?

New cars are required to meet Euro4 so if someone modifies say and E -series, why don't they have to comply also?

Or is that different..........

[Sorted]

Originally Posted by flappist

Why aren't modified cars required to comply with all ADRs?

New cars are required to meet Euro4 so if someone modifies say and E -series, why don't they have to comply also?

Or is that different..........

[blueoval]

I agree, seems to be very lop sided for the booze hounds.

[IAM58L]

Agree with you Sorted,

Drink driving is worse penalty wise once it goes to court sometimes, dependant on the judge but one would have to think that drink drivers should also get the same treatment as the guy who spins his wheels. Drink driving is more of an issue than "hooning". More dangerous as well.
So why is it they get to keep their car which is the tool used to commit the offence? The temptation to drive the car is still there, in some cases as soon as they are released from police custody.

All I can put it down to is the government playing games being a puppet of the media who see "hoons" as such a huge problem and need to be seen to me addressing the issue. At the end of the day the take the car system should be applied to all vehicle offences otherwise its just not fair. I mean in the eyes of the media a young person speeding is hooning so if this is so why is a 50yr old man speeding on the highway not viewed the same and his car impounded? Latley the laws of our so called free country are getting out of hand maybe not when you look at other contries but still this is not the country it was even just 10 years ago.

As for flappist and ADR's, focus lets stay on topic here start a new thread and argue there about it.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Sorted

Off topic:

Translation......my rant based on my personal agenda is valid but your's is not because I don't agree with it.

The abject stupidity of your arguement is that you believe that cars should be crushed if the driver commits a traffic offence.

Unroadworthy mods is a traffic offence, should any E-series that gets a canary be also crushed?

The car does not commit the offence.

How about the driver gets fined the value of a new version of his car?

[IAM58L]

I think what you will find is the original poster is getting at the fact that its not fair that drink drivers for example get to keep their car but spin your wheels and get caught its gone. don't sound real fair does it?

As for ADR's you only have to comply with what is stamped on the vehicle id tags and that is what the law says so if your mods are within the scope of the ADR guides set for the applicatble ADRs thats why old cars don't have to meet euro4 standards.

[MAD]

You're smoking something good today Flap. Even I cant follow your logic or reason for posting what you have.

I agree totally with the OP. There have been two cases recently in Melbourne alone where a drink driver has been caught twice on the same night.
Doesn't that put forward a good case to have their cars impounded?

[2011G6E]

Here's what I've always thought drink drivers should face...I mentioned it in a "hoon" thread a while ago.

First offence: everyones allowed one mistake I suppose...$5000 fine and one years suspension from driving, no "work licences" either...take the bus or walk, and learn your lesson.
Second offence: Didn't learn the first time hey? $10,000 fine, one months jail, and absolute disqualification of all licences you hold of all sorts. That's it, no more "second chances", no work licences, never to hold any kind of drivers licence of any sort again, full stop. Didn't learn from your first penalty, you don't get a second go.
Third offence (for the truly stupid): $10,000 fine, two months jail, and confiscation of the vehicle being driven at the time (unless stolen or a rental), no matter if it's yours or a mate has lent it to you, not to be returned to you unless a $5000 bond paid, auctioned off within a month if bond not paid. Your mate or family member doesn't like that? Well they shouldn't have loaned thier car to someone who is "never to hold any licence again", and should have done the normal thing and taken a bit of care to ensure who was driving thier car...

A "hoon" is only potentially a danger while they are doing thier burnout or street racing, and then only if they do it in a residential area, when they deserve everything they get.
A drunk driver however is a danger from the second they stagger out and put the keys in the ignition to the moment they wobble into their driveway, if they get home at all.

I know which is the bigger danger.

[MAD]

I heard a news snippet last night call throwing a beer bottle at someone from a moving car "hoonish behaviour".
I'd love to see the list of definitions of the word hoon, in the "How to be a journalist without actually being a journalist and how to increase hysteria/ratings for dummies" manual.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by MAD

You're smoking something good today Flap. Even I cant follow your logic or reason for posting what you have.

I agree totally with the OP. There have been two cases recently in Melbourne alone where a drink driver has been caught twice on the same night.
Doesn't that put forward a good case to have their cars impounded?

It is very simple.

If there is a law that says crushing for drink driving then that is the law. There is no room for grey.

The idiot in the unregistered EA worth $50 done for .999 loses his fifty dollar car.

The hard working family man who has had 3 beers then his child gets is hurt so he rushes him off to the hospital (not everyone is in a city where the ambo turns up in 5 minutes) and gets rolled at .06 loses the $30,000 family car that he still owes $29,000 on and causes extreme hardship for everyone involved.

Why do so many have this naive idea that high penalties will prevent anything.

Armed robbery is 10+ years in jail and there were 84 of them this year in the Gold Coast alone.

Murders and rapes happen all the time.

The whole idea of "crushing the car" for ANY offence is unfair and unbalanced.

Why should the penalty be higher for someone who actually contributes to society than a parasite who just takes?

Many of you people are your own worst enemy.

How many screams will there be when a law that unfairly affects you causes you extreme duress?

[Jim Goose]

Flappist where does one begin? ADR laws can not be introduced retrospectively, once you go down that path then there is a massive legal mess and minefield.

Keeping on topic now....
Its quite common to hear that a drink driver is pulled over 2 or 3 times a night because each time he is "arrested" he is released once the paper work is finished. He/she then goes to pick up their car and gets done again.... and again and again.

In the "good" old days if you were picked up drink driving you stayed in the watch house until you were sober enough to drive. Of course this is an infringment of a person "civil" liberties.... not to mention you also needed a lot of cops to mind the watch house etc...

Drink driving and hoonish behavour should have pretty much equal an equal structure on what happens...

Get caught first time, get a fine, car impounded for the day, 2nd time get a bigger fine car impounded for 2 days, 3rd strike your out, loss of licence and car impounded for 30days... or something along those lines.

The disparity in how "hoons" and drink drivers are delt with is quite stupid.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by flappist

Why aren't modified cars required to comply with all ADRs?

I propose we start with impounding strawmen...

[IAM58L]

Originally Posted by flappist

The whole idea of "crushing the car" for ANY offence is unfair and unbalanced.

Exactly the point, your getting hung up on all the irrelevant points the drink driving is just an example of another offence. So why is it that the car crushing is just a hoon thing? in the interest of fairness it should be applied to other deliberate driving offences or done away with, should it not?

[AWD Chaser]

Originally Posted by flappist

The hard working family man who has had 3 beers then his child gets is hurt so he rushes him off to the hospital (not everyone is in a city where the ambo turns up in 5 minutes) and gets rolled at .06 loses the $30,000 family car that he still owes $29,000 on and causes extreme hardship for everyone involved.

What if said man didnt drink anything but chirped the wheels at the lights trying to get to the hospital quickly?

There is a million situations that could happen... this is where Police discression comes in... and they are allowed to use it....

[302 XC]

A DUI over 0.05 depending how much over is licence disqualified on the spot
Disqualified till your court case is heard , then depending on the judge a duration after that
IF you are caught driving between your offence and your court hearing
Your then done for driving unlicensed
A first offence DUI again depending on the amount will entail a $1200-$1500 fine
Plus your loss of licence
Get done 3 times over 0.05 for 3 times (??)like a local up here done
You till will enjoy the comforts of new love in her majesties palace

As for the car crushing issue
How many have been crushed for first offences ???
How many get done for hoon laws,then learn
(Or hide )???
Same as DUI,
How many have been done once but not twice ???

[Sorted]

I think flappist has been done for drink driving

[Bucknaked]

Originally Posted by Sorted

I think flappist has been done for drink driving

If you can't accept objective discussions why post the the topic to begin with. That's a pretty childish comment.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

If you can't accept objective discussions why post the the topic to begin with. That's a pretty childish comment.

+1

Flappist has a point, if you are actually open to understanding it, you will see - but for some reason, I don't think you are.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Sorted

I think flappist has been done for drink driving

I have never been done for drink driving ever.
Nor have I ever been to court on any traffic matter whatsover.

[Feathers]

Crushing of cars was never mentioned that I could see in the first post..
But for repeat offenders I agree their cars should be taken off them.

[Fireblade]

In SA any DUI, booze or drugs has an on the spot impound with it, and makes up around 66% of so called Hoon impounds here.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

If you can't accept objective discussions

where was the objective discussion of drink driving penalties?

[Sorted]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

In SA any DUI, booze or drugs has an on the spot impound with it, and makes up around 66% of so called Hoon impounds here.

I did not know that - why hasn't the government made this the same across all the states?

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by flappist

It is very simple.
The hard working family man who has had 3 beers then his child gets is hurt so he rushes him off to the hospital (not everyone is in a city where the ambo turns up in 5 minutes) and gets rolled at .06 loses the $30,000 family car that he still owes $29,000 on and causes extreme hardship for everyone involved.

I can see where your coming from
BUT
If someone lived in the 'sticks' partner has (Insert Serious Health issue here) Gets in the car with her and does the run to hospital and gets caught speeding.
Loses the family car in the same way you posted above.
Works the same way as being over the limit.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Sorted

I did not know that - why hasn't the government made this the same across all the states?

Which government?

[Fireblade]

Originally Posted by Sorted

I did not know that - why hasn't the government made this the same across all the states?

Its a state guvment law not federal.

[Maggot]

There was a guy on one of the cop shows the other week who was..

three times the booze limit
speeding
high speed chase
tried to esacpe on foot
small quantity of drugs

He did not receive ANY fine, no loss of car, he did get some community server however..

So.. financially at least.. he is far better off than if he had been caught doing a bit of a burnout.

[DMXR6T]

The driver is the law breaker, not the car!! So if somone borrows my car and is drunk, then my car gets impounded. Why am I penalised when I did not commit an offence? Typical "look we are doing something" rubbish! Solve the problem with the driver - the actual cause of the problem. I am sick of useless government bureaucrats coming up with silly schemes like this and no turbo cars for P platers because they do not have the capacity to come up with any real solutions.

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

In SA any DUI, booze or drugs has an on the spot impound with it, and makes up around 66% of so called Hoon impounds here.

Exactly. I always thought S.A was behind the times, however judging by the comments in this thread, the rest of Aust is behind.