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)

[Yellow_Festiva]

Do you need to leave a deposit, or swipe your credit card when taking a car on an overnight test drive?

Perhaps these dealers should write into the paperwork that if this sort of thing happens then $x is withheld as compensation.

Shame the dealer needs to suffer...

[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?

[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.

[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

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

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.




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

and who would pay for a closed raceway? sure as hell wont be the salesman... same as speed limiters, costs will be passed onto joe average

also since when did you need a 'performance car' to do 60km/h over the limit?


and how the hell is someone supposed to know that the mechanic in a workshop is secretly a 'hoon'?

last time i looked they dont have 'hoon' written in big letters on their overalls. or are you just saying all mechanics are hoons at heart?

[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..

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Absolutely no sympathy here.

you're kidding, right?

[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.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

and who would pay for a closed raceway? sure as hell wont be the salesman... same as speed limiters, costs will be passed onto joe average
?

Who do you think would pay? ffs.

Australians are going to go broke, their families are going to starve because we wont let them do hoon test drives, you can not be serious!

Perhaps poor "old aussie joe average" that wants to test out the performance of the car should pay, if not he can go for a legal test drive for no cost

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Who do you think would pay? ffs.

Australians are going to go broke, their families are going to starve because we wont let them do hoon test drives, you can not be serious!

Perhaps poor "old aussie joe average" that wants to test out the performance of the car should pay, if not he can go for a legal test drive for no cost

if speed limiters were to be put in cars for a test drive then obviously the caryard would do it to every car that drives out the gate, which means that every sale would attract a percentage increase to cover the costs.

salesman isnt going to know whos gonna hoon and who isnt...

as said, simple answer is that the salesman goes out on every test drive.

oh, wait, what does that mean for the small yards when there is only one person working, say, on a sunday arvo... "yeah mate its a great car, oh nah, you cant test drive it cos the boss says i cant let a car go out unless i go with it, and im here alone" potential buyer will probably go to the next yard...
or the small yard hires an extra person, more costs to be passed on.

i certainly dont condone the actions of the person who was driving, but there is no way i can see it being the fault of anyone other than the one driving.


thats the problem with the world these days, it always has to be someone elses fault.

[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 nstg8a

salesman isnt going to know whos gonna hoon and who isnt...

as said, simple answer is that the salesman goes out on every test drive.

oh, wait, what does that mean for the small yards when there is only one person working, say, on a sunday arvo... "yeah mate its a great car, oh nah, you cant test drive it cos the boss says i cant let a car go out unless i go with it, and im here alone" potential buyer will probably go to the next yard...
or the small yard hires an extra person, more costs to be passed on.
.

Big deal, car dealers suddenly have to take some responsibility(once upon a time the dealer always came on the test drive), the extra costs passed onto the consumer by employing another person?(would they really need to?), small price to pay to make our roads safer.

Surely dealers can be more discriminating, a ferrari dealer isnt going to hand the keys over to some pimply kid and say see ya in half an hour is he?

Car dealers have a very good insight into their customers, they are as good as judge as reading people as anyone and would be able to minimise the number of people they actually go for a drive with.

[nstg8a]

how does it make it safer? how many people have been killed by someone taking a car for a test drive? be a very very low number im guessing.

same as hooning in general, more die during 'normal' driving every day than so called hooning. its just the media likes to tell everyone about the deaths caused by 'hoons' so it seems more prevalent.

[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.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

how does it make it safer? how many people have been killed by someone taking a car for a test drive? be a very very low number im guessing.
.

you dont see anything inherently dangerous in people doing 60km/h above the posted limit, we should just allow it all the time, or just for people on "test drives" ....you cant be serious

[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.

[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.

[blueluvr]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Big deal, car dealers suddenly have to take some responsibility(once upon a time the dealer always came on the test drive), the extra costs passed onto the consumer by employing another person?(would they really need to?), small price to pay to make our roads safer.

Surely dealers can be more discriminating, a ferrari dealer isnt going to hand the keys over to some pimply kid and say see ya in half an hour is he?

Car dealers have a very good insight into their customers, they are as good as judge as reading people as anyone and would be able to minimise the number of people they actually go for a drive with.

Mate, This has to be a gee-up surely?

The only person responsible for what the guy does in that car is the guy driving the car, not the dealer, not his mother, not the next door neighbor.

The sooner this world stops trying to put blame and responsibilities on everyone but themselves, the better it will be. The guy had all the qualifications to drive the car legally, and assuming the car was roadworthy, the second he went on that drive the responsibility to the dealer stops right there.

The Ferrari guy doesn't let the "pimply kid" take it for a ride because he can be pretty confident it's not going to amount to a sale, not because he might speed in it.

The idiot chose to drive it like a moron and he got busted, fine, but don't put this back on to the dealers to start employing more staff for this purpose, what an absolutely stupid thing to even contemplate.

Maybe they should also employ psyhc doctors to screen every one who wants to test a car as well? You never know who's going to break the law on a test drive!

The law IS flawed which is why they are changing it. If it happened after the 23 of Feb, this discussion wouldn't even exist, yet you want them to employ more people so you can feel safer on the roads? BAH HA, that's gold!

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

you dont see anything inherently dangerous in people doing 60km/h above the posted limit, we should just allow it all the time, or just for people on "test drives" ....you cant be serious

im beginning to think your not all there...


your attitude is just bizarre, at no time did i say everyone should be allowed to travel at 60km'h over the limit, on a test drive or not.

[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.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

im beginning to think your not all there...


your attitude is just bizarre, at no time did i say everyone should be allowed to travel at 60km'h over the limit, on a test drive or not.

Weren't you the one complaining that you wouldnt want should have to put up with a car that was speed governed for your test drive?

One can only assume that you would intend to exceed the limits on your drive. that is bizarre?, no its an entirely reasonable deduction

(by how much, who knows, 60km/h would be a good guess given that you think hooning is a problem not worthy of attention),

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Weren't you the one complaining that you wouldnt want should have to put up with a car that was speed governed for your test drive?

One can only assume that you would intend to exceed the limits on your drive. that is bizarre?, no its an entirely reasonable deduction

(by how much, who knows, 60km/h would be a good guess given that you think hooning is a problem not worthy of attention),

oh yeah, doing 60km/h over the limit in a car im unfamiliar with, on public roads is what love most.

[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...

[Iggypoppin']

DH-you've got a faint air of clutching at straws. Picking arguments for the sake of it isn't going to help you or your reputation on this site.

[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.

[T3man]

Geez - here's another one to add to my ignore list - who wants to read that garbage?

Maybe he's practicing for when he gets elected to parliament - seems to have the right kind of logic and reasoning powers.