Yet another "Hoon" article

SLO AU XR8 · 26-06-2011, 05:37 PM

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226081923215

Quote:

Let's call time on hammered hoons

AN astonishing 600 motorists are caught drink-driving at three times the legal limit every month in Queensland.

Despite years of relentless awareness campaigns, police figures show drivers are routinely getting behind the wheel hammered.

At .15 per cent blood alcohol concentration or higher, drivers suffer blurred vision, confusion, nausea and delayed reaction speeds.

State Traffic Support Branch Acting Superintendent Craig Hanlon said motorists recording .15 per cent could not simply misjudge their consumption.

"We are talking people who are well and truly intoxicated, a deliberate act, and I struggle to understand how some of these people start the car, let alone drive it,'' he said.

An average of 680 drink or drug-driving charges were handed out to motorists with a blood-alcohol concentration of more than .15 per cent per month in 2009-10.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

And so far this year an average of 573 drink/drug- driving charges have been issued.

The rate of high-range drinking has prompted calls for mandatory rehabilitation for high-range and repeat drink-driving offenders.

Professor Barry Watson of QUT's Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety said drivers with blood- alcohol levels above .15 per cent were a "disaster waiting to happen''.

He said impoundments and ignition interlock programs were "the way of the future'', warning that hefty fines were "probably not enough of a deterrent''.

"High- range offences are a major concern because we know that the higher the blood-alcohol concentration, the higher the crash risk,'' Prof Watson said.

Police Minister Neil Roberts told Queensland Parliament in May that police had conducted 3.17 million breath tests between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011, resulting in 28,294 drink-driving charges.

A QPS snapshot of the number of drink/drug-driving charges issued to drivers with blood alcohol levels .15 per cent or higher shows that the North Coast region, from the Sunshine Coast to Bundaberg, recorded the most offences with more than 2200 high-range drink driving charges between July 1, 2009, and March 31 this year.

The South East police region (Coomera, Gold Coast, Logan) recorded the second highest with 2042.

Ford_The_Win · 26-06-2011, 05:40 PM

I don't see the problem with that, drink-driving is abhorrent and disgraceful. It's not like they were bagging out car enthusiasts.

IAM58L · 26-06-2011, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ford_The_Win

I don't see the problem with that, drink-driving is abhorrent and disgraceful. It's not like they were bagging out car enthusiasts.

Have to agree, I cant see anything against car nuts.

"He said impoundments and ignition interlock programs were "the way of the future'', warning that hefty fines were "probably not enough of a deterrent''

Its about time they started doing this, evens the playing feild a bit as far as hoon laws and impounding of cars go.

**Full Noise** · 26-06-2011, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ford_The_Win

I don't see the problem with that, drink-driving is abhorrent and disgraceful. It's not like they were bagging out car enthusiasts.

Off with their heads as far as I’m concerned.

AWD Chaser · 26-06-2011, 06:37 PM

So what does this have to do with hooning? Not questioning the post title, rather the quoted article.... Is hooning driving while over the limit or is it speeding, burnouts, etc...

It seems the media uses the term hooning for any act that is in breech of any motor act...

2011G6E · 27-06-2011, 01:48 AM

No time for drink drivers at all, couldn't care less what happens to them. The general public has some sympathy for most "hoon" attack laws as they can see they go a bit overboard and target the wrong people a lot of the time, but there's no sympathy for drink drivers.

People really wouldn't like what I've always proposed for them...
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...

|Nate · 27-06-2011, 02:00 AM

2011G6E.... Run for Victorian Transport minister, seriously, do it now.

kpcart · 27-06-2011, 05:17 AM

i have no time for people who break road rules, whether they call themselves car enthusiasts or not. the funny thing about australian drivers, is they often are hoons on the very first day they get their licence. i have heard many storys of aussies getting there licence (essentially signing a contract stating they will obey australian road rules or face the consequences), and on the first day of having their licence, they take their mates or their female friends for a drive, and decide to show off and start racing their cars on public roads, doing burnouts and poweslides and speading. the other thing i have noticed is that there are thousands of people who call themselves "car enthusiasts" and secrectly routinely test the limits of there cars on public roads, they will deny it because they havent been caught, and then when they are caught for a basic road infrigment like driving 9km over the limit, they cry foul about revenue raising. revenue raising is the best way for governments to make money, its a voluntary taxation of the idiots of society who routinely voluntarily break road rules.

mik · 27-06-2011, 07:16 AM

no doubt the hoon word has an application, but it seems to be covering more and more crimes every day, a few days ago some dilberry (i think it was a politician) was calling someone who purposely ran some one down with their car and then backed over them again a hoon,............... what the hell has that got to do with some person horse playing in a motor car in a wreckless fashion, and lets face it thats what hooning is about, nothing to do with attempted murder .

Bucknaked · 27-06-2011, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

No time for drink drivers at all, couldn't care less what happens to them. The general public has some sympathy for most "hoon" attack laws as they can see they go a bit overboard and target the wrong people a lot of the time, but there's no sympathy for drink drivers.

People really wouldn't like what I've always proposed for them...
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...

$100k fine for those so plastered they can hardly stand. If they can't afford it, they get the option of losing their licence for 25 years.

AC · 27-06-2011, 08:49 AM

There was one in the Adelaide Now a few days ago as well...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/h...-1226081669456

Quote:

Have hoon-car laws misfired

THE sale of 68 cars under anti-hoon laws has raised an average of just $564 a vehicle.

Court Administration Authority figures obtained by The Advertiser reveal the sale of the 68 forfeited cars under the 2007 Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture Act has raised a total of $38,389.80 after the agent's commission for handling the sale is deducted.

The laws were introduced to target high-performing, hotted-up vehicles and tackle hoons and repeat dangerous drivers.

Lawyer Paul Simionato from D'angelo Kavanagh - who has represented a number of drivers charged with hoon offences - said the relatively small amount raised serious questions about whether the correct types of cars were being targeted.

"It's just ludicrous," Mr Simionato said.

"This was meant to get high-performing vehicles, but what is it achieving?

"When one looks at the maths, you get $560-odd each for tying up all the resources of the state. The economics are not good."

Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire said it showed that rather than confiscating and selling cars, the government should be focusing on targeting hoon driver's licences.

"The Rann Government made great fanfare about these laws targeting drivers' "prize possessions" but it seems hoon driving is only occurring in bombs that, if sold or crushed, doesn't worry the hoon driver," Mr Brokenshire said.

"The better deterrent is to target hoon drivers' licences rather than crushing their car. The Advertiser understands the forfeiture and sale of expensively modified cars has been complicated as many are partly "owned" by finance companies who have provided loans to their owners.

But Attorney-General John Rau yesterday hit back, saying the Government didn't "seize, crush or sell hoons' cars to make money."

"The Government's only concern is to get dangerous drivers and their vehicles off the road," Mr Rau said.

"Hoons kill and injure people, with incalculable consequences of pain, suffering and loss. In light of this human cost, it is ridiculous to suggest that the return per hoon vehicle is too small," he said.

2011G6E · 27-06-2011, 10:16 AM

Good article, despite the "hoons kill everyone on the planet" philosophy.

In a Rockhampton Bulletin article last year they proudly showed a view of the police import yard with the "hoon vehicles" confiscated over the weekend. They comprised such magnificent vehicles as a crappy old Camry, a ratty VN, a primered rough looking ute, and a few other crapbuckets. Not one single Silvia, WRX, Skyline, or other well-modified and expensive vehicle...

NAK302 · 27-06-2011, 10:36 AM

i'll admit it, i hoon occassionally, i speed on country roads, i'm 46 years old, had my licence for nearly 30 years and never killed anyone or had an accident that involved another party. was i lucky or do i do things logically?

kpcart you are the perfect citizen my friend, kudos to you

p.s i do not drink drive, it's courtesy bus or cab.

R1XSTA · 27-06-2011, 10:52 AM

Quote:

"It's just ludicrous," Mr Simionato said.

"This was meant to get high-performing vehicles, but what is it achieving?

"When one looks at the maths, you get $560-odd each for tying up all the resources of the state. The economics are not good."

Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire said it showed that rather than confiscating and selling cars, the government should be focusing on targeting hoon driver's licences.

"The Rann Government made great fanfare about these laws targeting drivers' "prize possessions" but it seems hoon driving is only occurring in bombs that, if sold or crushed, doesn't worry the hoon driver," Mr Brokenshire said.

"The better deterrent is to target hoon drivers' licences rather than crushing their car.

That is the truth right there.

There is a group currently on fb. "There is no regular open safe place to do burnouts, But Junkies get 'safe rooms.' "

There is no real place for these 'hoons' to go. I admit that i have gone 120 instead of 110 on the hume at night. I'll admit i did it last night to get my partner who was feeling ill to the service station as soon as possible for water.

Sure we have places such as Calder, all the 'Nats' throughout the year, Your Powercruise, cruise for charities. but there is no actual place for "come in, do skids. change your wheels, go home." If a place like that was founded and open weekly, You will see a DRAMATIC drop in "hooning" on the streets.

At the end of the day, no one in their $500 eBay VN Commodore wants to pay $199 to get into the 'Nats' to have to do skids, when you can do it for free in public places. There is no logic.

My friend recently decided he wanted to learn how to control his car if it 'lost control' around a corner. We went to a local Stockyard's carpark, Blocked off the entrance and seeing as it was raining, we drove and turned sharply to loose control and tried to safely gather control back. You may consider it "trying to drift." Someone reported the police, They came, but we had all the basis covered, we had the entrances blocked. And it was a blocked off carpark with 15M high fences. No harm could be done to others, we were smart about it. The police congratulated us for taking smart choices doing it in a carpark at 2AM and not on the street.

/rant.

2011G6E · 27-06-2011, 11:18 AM

Once again, the eternal questions arise about "burnout venues":

I'll just cut and paste something I wrote in a thread quite some time back about legal burnout venues...

Quote:

who will pay to build them?
Who will pay for the land?
Who pays for the planning and architects?
Who pays for the engineers and land reports before building can be undertaken?
Who pays for the materials?
Who pays the construction companies to build the place?
Who pays for the power poles and supply to the location? Who pays for the sewerage and drainage?
Who pays for the running of the facility and pays the wages of the people who will do this?
Who pays for the ongoing upkeep of the place?
Who pays for eventual repairs?
How much would entry fees be to cover costs?
Most importantly, who arranges and pays for the insurance on the place?
Our motorbike club had one small observation rally a year to which the general bike riding public was welcome to attend to win prizes, coupled with a bike display for trophies. This one small event on one day cost us a yearly premium of $500. Heaven knows what a year-round insurance policy on a racing facility would cost...

If you say "The government/councils should just do it!", then you are the one ignoring reality. I am sure ratepayers would be very happy to see a large increase in rates to pay for all this, when it is for a tiny minority of the public. Same with taxpayers, who would rightly say "how about the idiots who do truly dangerous things on public roads exercise a little self control?".

This sort of thing would not be built for free and would not be free to use...someone would have to pay, and pay a lot. Can you see Clancy Numbnuts turning up and paying a large fee on a friday night to do a few burnouts in his $900 VN with steel wheels and more rust than paint?

I think that about covers it...

Ben73 · 27-06-2011, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Once again, the eternal questions arise about "burnout venues":

I'll just cut and paste something I wrote in a thread quite some time back about legal burnout venues...

I think that about covers it...

Speed camera revenue could pay for it.
Doesn't need to be anything fancy. Just the basics.

How do councils open skateparks?
There is a big chance for someone to get injured at a skate park.
Does anyone pay for insurance or liability? Most I see these days have a sign that basicly says. "You hurt yourself here, your fault. You know the risks so don't come whinging to us"
Obviously its worded better, but that is the message.

R1XSTA · 27-06-2011, 11:48 AM

A simple paper work at the door stating

"We are not liable for any damage done to your car, nor yourself while on the premesis. You will change your tires to roadworthy ones before leaving." to get people to sign would suffice.

$10 entry spectate, $50 to pop some tires .. Open Fri or Sunday - 12PM to 5PM.

20 cars x $50 = 1k for 1 day.. Not including spectators, Surely you would clear your overheads..

SEZ213 · 27-06-2011, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R1XSTA

A simple paper work at the door stating

"We are not liable for any damage done to your car, nor yourself while on the premesis. You will change your tires to roadworthy ones before leaving." to get people to sign would suffice.

$10 entry spectate, $50 to pop some tires .. Open Fri or Sunday - 12PM to 5PM.

20 cars x $50 = 1k for 1 day.. Not including spectators, Surely you would clear your overheads..

According to some, this waiver of liability doesn't work, because despite paperwork...the liability is still theirs - some big shot lawyer will argue that the person didn't read the waiver properly and instead of said person being labelled the idiot they are, the judicial system will pander to them. Which begs the further question, how do sky divers, bungy jumpers, etc...cover their rear ends?

The problem is there are many who will complain that these venues don't exist, and there are those who don't want to be seen to support them, and then further there are those that will put up every argument under the sun as to why they're not viable...and they have crap attitudes about everything, not just hooning.

Again, media will print anything that will sell their papers, although I'm not sure they can be called 'newspapers' anymore, they're becoming more like tabloids, with 'intelligent' articles hidden in the middle.

The original article is just further proof that the media can seemingly print whatever emotive headline sells and the AJA don't seem to do a damn thing about it. The content of the article might be true...it's the headline that's BS and a complete lie, or is the word 'hooning' now becoming synonymous with DH of any variety?

There is supposed to be 'truth' in journalism, not just the 'truth' that you want to see. Balanced articles are being pushed by the wayside for 'opinion' based pieces, and we all know about opinions. Often misguided and poorly thought out prior to presentation to the world...

The article is about drink driving, not hooning - and whatever bozo came up with that headline, should be sacked for stupidity (among other things).../end rant.

Rockape · 27-06-2011, 12:07 PM

If they made it i would go all the time.

xisled · 27-06-2011, 01:58 PM

In Victoria drink drivers are not part of the Anti hoon Laws. It has got me why they are not.

In Victoria with the updated hoons laws from the 1st of July this year, if I decided to drive and take 5 of my friends home when my car can only fit 4 passengers, I leave my car open to be impounded if pulled over by the police. But if I decided to drink a bottle of Vodka and drive home, my car will not get impounded. I just do not get it.

2011G6E · 27-06-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben73

Speed camera revenue could pay for it.
Doesn't need to be anything fancy. Just the basics.

How do councils open skateparks?
There is a big chance for someone to get injured at a skate park.
Does anyone pay for insurance or liability? Most I see these days have a sign that basicly says. "You hurt yourself here, your fault. You know the risks so don't come whinging to us"
Obviously its worded better, but that is the message.

This, and the other mention of a waiver, aren't worth the paper they're written on.
There can't be "just the basics"...can you imagine someone getting injured and then having to stand up in court and explain why you didn't have adequate first aid facilities, emergency services on site, run off areas, armco railing to protect spectators, etc, etc, etc...? It wouldn't be pleasant. Sad but true, nowadays you can't just lay a strip of bitumen and say "go for it" without covering yourself for all consequences...workplace health and safety would ream you out with a pineapple if you didn't.

As for waivers, you can have a sign with three foot tall illuminated letters saying it, you can get the most carefully worded waiver that someone has to sign with a drop of blood and sign in triplicate, but none of it means jack squat when someone gets hurt.
Our motorcycle club used to have a once a year rally, and for that rally we had insurance of $500 or so for the one day. This was purely to cover us in case someone got somehow hurt by one of the bikes on display at the show (I don't know...knocks on over on themselves? They were stationary). Legal advice we had about a waiver for the observation rally was that we didn't have to be very detailed in what it said, as they are meaningless. If someone got hurt, and decided to sue, the judge wouldn't even consider the waiver. This is why the insurance industry nearly ruined so many local clubs some years back, as pony clubs, race clubs, BMX clubs, etc, all had waivers, but the insurance companies knew it was still a huge risk as they mean nothing when push comes to shove.
Someone gets hurt at a skate bowl and decides to sue, it comes out of the councils pockets. Someone gets hurt at a burnout strip after signing a waiver, they can still take you to court and sue.

The idea of a waiver is just a means of trying to dissuade people from suing...many don't know that they mean nothing, but trust me, if they get hurt at your facility, plenty of injury lawyers will damn soon point it out to them...

Of course, it could all be fixed with the stroke of a beaurocratic pen by making waivers legally binding once you had signed them, and writing it into law that once signed, you give up all legal rights to recompense from the organiser or officials at the event. Easy.
Can't see it happening...but it's a nice idea...

aussie muscle · 27-06-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

"Hoons kill and injure people, with incalculable consequences of pain, suffering and loss. In light of this human cost, it is ridiculous to suggest that the return per hoon vehicle is too small," he said.

Who's more dangerous, 'hoons' or drunk drivers?

mik · 27-06-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

Who's more dangerous, 'hoons' or drunk drivers?

very good question, but truth be known i`d have a bet there are more people under the influence of............ alcohol,drugs, prescription drugs, poor health, old age than crazy hooners, you get your licence and don`t have to have a medical till your nearly one foot in the grave

2011G6E · 27-06-2011, 09:57 PM

Well, a "hoon" is probably only a danger if they are doing a burnout in a public street, and only while they are doing that.

A drunk however is a danger from the moment he staggers out and turns the key in his car all the way up to the moment he (maybe) makes it into his driveway and turns the car off...

I'd say drunks pose a much higher danger to the general public than "hoons"...which is a sweeping generalisation anyway and covers everything from truly dangerous morons who speed in quiet residential streets and do burnouts in crowded city streets, to someone who merely chirps the tyres away from the lights...

Riksta · 27-06-2011, 10:04 PM

2011G6E, I really like what you're saying in this thread. Thinking with your brain and making some really valid contributions. I agree with what you're saying.

fmc351 · 28-06-2011, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

According to some, this waiver of liability doesn't work, because despite paperwork...the liability is still theirs - some big shot lawyer will argue that the person didn't read the waiver properly and instead of said person being labelled the idiot they are, the judicial system will pander to them. Which begs the further question, how do sky divers, bungy jumpers, etc...cover their rear ends?

Its a bit simpler than that, but still complicated but anyway, basically you cant be contracted out of your statutory rights. Like I said, its more complicated but thats the gist of it.

To help, lets use the Sky Diving example. If you jump from a plane and through no fault of the operator (ie: appropriate conditions, suitable and correctly operating equipment, qualified and satisfactory instruction etc) you died/seriously injured, then there would be very little to sue the operator for. There are risks that a person assumes when they engage in a dangerous activity, and you wont successfully sue on those grounds alone. The lawsuits are generally (and beofe anyone chimes in with my aunties uncles brother etc, yes there are aberrations) only successful when the operator has in some way been negligent in the duty of care. Note, care, not guarantee of safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Of course, it could all be fixed with the stroke of a beaurocratic pen by making waivers legally binding once you had signed them, and writing it into law that once signed, you give up all legal rights to recompense from the organiser or officials at the event. Easy.
Can't see it happening...but it's a nice idea...

No, its not that simple, and for good reason. That insurance nonsense you were talking about, made the ignorant point their fingers at the legal system, instead of the insurance companies who used community groups and events to hold the nation to ransom.

Same way that people who through no acts of their own now have to make do with compensation of less than 200k for life, when that amount wont cover one year of the costs for some. Might seem fair if they were on the Dole before, but hardly fair if they were on $200k a year.

But hey, lets just point fingers at the easy target, much like the hoon laws have. Lets not concern oursleves with the purpose of the law in the first place, to encourage operators to ensure that the obligations to public safety are met, instead of a an attitude of "Oh she'll be right" due to a cost benefit analysis which says the risk of lawsuit is waived so lets roll the dice, by providing both remedy and punishment for breaches.

In other words, the complications that sometimes arise from such laws are the balance struck between public safety and counteracting that human nature to cut corners. Much like why many criminals are found not guilty. The failure to provide adequate proof (the standard of proof) also protects the innocent from being found guilty of a crime they never committed.

Its far from simple. Every law is a double edged sword and there will always be aberrations.

SLO AU XR8 · 28-06-2011, 11:48 PM

My question is how is Drink Driving hooning? What is the definition of hooning etc. I'm all for harsh punishments for anyone busted over 0.05. It's the hoon wording in the title that has me stumped.

xisled · 29-06-2011, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLO AU XR8

My question is how is Drink Driving hooning? What is the definition of hooning etc. I'm all for harsh punishments for anyone busted over 0.05. It's the hoon wording in the title that has me stumped.

The word hoon or hooning is a made up word by the media. If you get caught doing burnouts and such and go to court, you are actually charged with careless driving loss of traction, not hoon driving.