SA Police starts crushing cars :( - Page 2

Day-mow · 10-10-2011, 10:01 PM

they cant crush your car if its under fiance. because its the banks property not yours

punty · 11-10-2011, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Day-mow

they cant crush your car if its under fiance. because its the banks property not yours

so when it belongs to YOU, they have the right to crush it? personally i dont think anyone has the right to do such a thing except the owner... i think it should be more like a loss of license for an extended period than what they have in place now because lets face it, if these cars were under $5k, couldn't the owner just get another one and go again? this doesn't do anything but **** people off so the next time they get followed by cops they wont stop... a car to a hoon is a toy... if you take away the toy they will find another to play with. you need to remove the privilege of playing with the toys altogether or you're just delaying the problem....

UNR8D · 11-10-2011, 12:52 AM

the WH stato was crushed if you read the article, valued at $5500 according to the article, id put it closer to 7k but might of had 300,000+K's and been a lowly v6... either way I’ve never agreed with crushing of cars, never will I be, punishment doesn’t fit the crime, hooning is more of an "annoyance" than a major % of our road toll.

SA gov co at its best trying to "look" like they are doing something with no real net result.

very anti green as well.....

nstg8a · 11-10-2011, 02:37 AM

good time to outfit your car with good cameras etc, protect yourself because the law will not.

burnz · 11-10-2011, 03:10 AM

you first have to define a "hoon", 1~2k's over the speed limit?

yet a habitual drink driver doesent care because he's car wont get crushed, just a fine!!

punty · 11-10-2011, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

you first have to define a "hoon", 1~2k's over the speed limit?

yet a habitual drink driver doesent care because he's car wont get crushed, just a fine!!

isnt hooning considered 40km/h over or drifting/burnouts or dragging off light? i remember reading it somehwhere on the rta website. and apparently they impond your car 3 times (with increasing periods) before they crush it... still they have no right because its not the governments or the police's property (maybe you could argue?)....

mcnews · 11-10-2011, 09:24 AM

It is absolutely disgusting.

**Polyal** · 11-10-2011, 09:55 AM

Surely this happens in extreme cases. Im sure we all know the local clowns who constantly play up, think they can drift when its wet etc. This is hardly targeted at your poor sod who gets done 3kph over a few times within 6 months.

I know people will go "oh oh what about the definition of a strike, its going to be exploited etc"...this si possible, but if someone can be bothered whats constitutes as a strike anyway?

**DJR-351** · 11-10-2011, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streets

To be honest I have no problem with the government disarming a repeat offender of a lethal weapon when he has been using it in a way that puts other peoples' safety at risk. Couldn't give a toss what he spent on it. If he didn't want it crushed, he should've pulled his head in.

Agree, nothing more to add......

THE4RD · 11-10-2011, 10:50 AM

Here are the stats from Victoria announced today:

1000 hoon vehicles in the lock-up
Tuesday, 11 October 2011 05:42

More than 1000 vehicles from luxury sedans to souped-up Commodores and road bikes have been banished to an impoundment yard for 30 days during the first three months of tough new hoon laws.

From 1 July, police have had the power to immediately impound hoon vehicles for 30 days, a significant increase on the previous two-day period.

From 1 July to 30 September:
• Police impounded 1038 vehicles
• 709 were in metropolitan Melbourne and 329 in regional areas
• 974 were being driven/ridden by males
• The age group for most impounds was 18 to 21 years (322 impounds) followed by 22 to 25 year olds (283 impounds) and 26 to 29 year olds (153 impounds)
• 13 vehicles impounded were being driven/ridden by under 18 year olds
• The top offence for impoundments was driving while disqualified/suspended (310 impoundments), followed by excessive speed more than 45km and (240 impounds) and improper use of a motor vehicle (239 impounds)
• 54 vehicles were impounded for excessive speed of more than 70km.

Head of Road Policing Deputy Commissioner Kieran Walshe said the results should send a strong message to would-be dangerous drivers.

“More than 1000 motorists have already felt the impact of tough new impoundment laws, losing their vehicle for a minimum 30 days,” he said.

“This should serve as a warning that police are 100 per cent committed to getting hoon and dangerous drivers off the road.

“It’s concerning that 310 vehicles have been impounded for unlicensed driving.

“These are drivers that should not be on the road.

“If you have been suspended or disqualified from driving, it’s for a good reason. You will be held to account, your vehicle will be impounded, you will be summons to court and it will be expensive.”

Mr Walshe said that speed remained a strong focus for police.

“All up, 294 vehicles have been impounded for excessive speed. Of those, 54 were travelling in excess of 70km,” he said.

“This is outrageous behaviour on the state’s roads and places not only these motorists at risk, but other innocent road users.

“Speed is attributed to about 30 per cent of fatal collisions on Victorian roads and police will continue enforce speed limits in all areas of our roads.”

Vehicle impoundment statistics

Following data from 1 July to 30 September, 2011

Impoundments by gender
Driver Gender Grand Total
Female 64
Male 974
Grand Total 1038

Impoundments by age
Age Group Total
<18 13 (1.25%)
18-21 322 (31%)
22-25 283 (27.2%)
26-29 153 (14.7%)
30-39 141 (13.5%)
40-49 71 (6.8%)
50+ 38 (3.6%)
Unknown 17 (1.6%)
Grand Total 1038

Impoundments by licence type
Driver Licence Type Total
Full 430
Probation 283
Learner 49

Top impoundments by offence type
Offence Impoundments
Drive whilst Disqualified / Suspended 310
Excessive Speed >45klm 240
Improper use of Motor Vehicle 239

Following data from 1 July 2006 to 30 September 2011

Total impounds since hoon laws began
2006* 832
2007 2584
2008 3180
2009 3193
2010 3269
2011 2839
Total 15897

*not full 12 months of laws.

Clearly people don't learn.

Quite frankly I think that if the Police can keep irresponsible and suspended drivers off the road then that is a very good thing. And I don't want to be crossing a road or pulling out from an intersection with some idiot coming at me at more than 45km over the limit. That's 105Km/h in a 60 zone.

Crush more of them.

302 XC · 11-10-2011, 11:01 AM

If these stats above ^^^ are correct
Then yeah 3 strikes it gets crushed
Its not like , it gets impounded you get it back, it gets impounded again, you get it back , then oops it happens again , without goin to court or paying fines or storage costs before you get handed the keys
You get plenty of warning and the hip pocket gets a hammering before the third strike

Its not different to DUI, first offence is harsh
But theres plenty who go twice, three times even four
But after each offence theres a loss of licence for a duration and fines every time

Maybe we should start culling the stupid people

MAD · 11-10-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 302 XC

Maybe we should start culling the stupid people

Save the innocent car, crush the driver.

Brazen · 11-10-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE4RD

Quite frankly I think that if the Police can keep irresponsible and suspended drivers off the road then that is a very good thing. And I don't want to be crossing a road or pulling out from an intersection with some idiot coming at me at more than 45km over the limit. That's 105Km/h in a 60 zone.

Crush more of them.

Been on a 110kmh freeway and once sailed right through a 40kmh roadwork zone without realising it as there was no activity and it was late at night, thats 70kmh over the limit! Lucky no police. Many otherwise law-abiding people can end up a "hoon" through innocent mistakes - not deliberate hoonish behaviour.

I think courts should decide things like impounding or crushing, Ive always hated minimum sentencing or 'three strikes' rules as every situation and person is different. Courts are best placed to make these kind of decisions by looking at the facts and the circumstances of each breach.

benoxr · 11-10-2011, 01:05 PM

This is the '3 strikes' for the XR6 owner.
Car value - $2500
43 yr old owner
driving whilst disqualified
driving unregistered vehicle - 7 times
Driving uninsured vehicle - 4 times
Driving whilst disqualified and exceeding the speed limit by 45kmh

I'd assume its better to get this guy off the road before he either kills / injures someone, or hits your car when he's not insured. Obviously, taking his licence away isnt going to prove much, and he can take an option of paying fines at 5 bucks a week.

MAD · 11-10-2011, 01:14 PM

And now he will go get a $500 bomb and do the same thing.
No need for RWC or transfer papaers, not interested in being legal at all.

GTP owner · 11-10-2011, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benoxr

This is the '3 strikes' for the XR6 owner.
Car value - $2500
43 yr old owner
driving whilst disqualified
driving unregistered vehicle - 7 times
Driving uninsured vehicle - 4 times
Driving whilst disqualified and exceeding the speed limit by 45kmh

I'd assume its better to get this guy off the road before he either kills / injures someone, or hits your car when he's not insured. Obviously, taking his licence away isnt going to prove much, and he can take an option of paying fines at 5 bucks a week.

Can't say i really know what the answer is, but crushing his car won't work - he will buy an unregistered bomb now and drive that around (going by the look of the way he disregards every other penalty).

But for those who believe the "tougher penalties" mantra - why are the stats pretty much the same since introducing them (number of confiscations, road toll, etc)? Maybe it doesn't work???? And making punishments even harsher will not work either if you follow the same logic. (Like prison time, or maybe public floggings)

Like I said - i don't know what the answer is.

**Grunter** · 11-10-2011, 01:30 PM

I wonder how many of the numbers are repeat offenders or did every one of those that had their car impounded learn their lesson?

I think the potential to getting your car impounded, would be a deterrent to the average guy/gal and possibly make them think twice before going a bit wild in their car, but I don't think it's solving the real problem. Going off the number of impounds it isn't working in the context of reducing infringements.

prydey · 11-10-2011, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

No need for RWC or transfer papaers, not interested in being legal at all.

no RWC required in adelaide anyway. can register anything over here. no yearly checks, nothing. if you have a clunker that was registered years ago when it was in good condition, then as long as you keep it registered, and don't speed, no one gives a rats. so many cars here wouldn't have a hope of being registered in any other state!

benoxr · 11-10-2011, 01:33 PM

Your both correct. Crushing the cars will only be a temporary measure for some offenders, and completely successful for just a small minority of offenders I think.
How does the court physically stop and offender from getting back into a vehicle after his car has been crushed? Besides cutting his legs and arms off, cant see how they can.

prydey · 11-10-2011, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP owner

But for those who believe the "tougher penalties" mantra - why are the stats pretty much the same since introducing them

the people that get caught are the ones that already break the rules, so it doesn't matter what new rules or legislation they bring in as the main offenders aren't law abiding in the first place. all it does is penalise the innocent people who do abide by the rules.

**Polyal** · 11-10-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunter

I wonder how many of the numbers are repeat offenders or did every one of those that had their car impounded learn their lesson?

I think the potential to getting your car impounded, would be a deterrent to the average guy/gal and possibly make them think twice before going a bit wild in their car, but I don't think it's solving the real problem. Going off the number of impounds it isn't working in the context of reducing infringements.

There are some that no matter what you do they just dont get it, so eventually it will be jail time for them.

For most I agree its another deterrent, and after the first time atleast they might pull there head in.

At the end of the day who is it hurting? Not the people that can understand the consequences, so thats why I dont have an issue with it. Sure they can just go by another one, but hopefully when/if they get caught again then the penalties get harsher.

MAD · 11-10-2011, 01:40 PM

I'd like to see the stats on how many fatalities have occured from 'accellerating excessively' from the traffic lights, or dropped donuts in an intersection.
I totally dont agree with it and think that that type of behaviour totally depicts the IQ of the person driving the car, but my point remains that these 'hoon' laws are doing diddly squat to the situation.

A dumb druck ******** will still pile his mates in the car and subsequently wrap it around a tree.

Cheese3 · 11-10-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

I'd like to see the stats on how many fatalities have occured from 'accellerating excessively' from the traffic lights, or dropped donuts in an intersection.
I totally dont agree with it and think that that type of behaviour totally depicts the IQ of the person driving the car, but my point remains that these 'hoon' laws are doing diddly squat to the situation.

A dumb druck ******** will still pile his mates in the car and subsequently wrap it around a tree.

exactly... The penalty far out weighs the crime.

mash again · 11-10-2011, 02:49 PM

strike one , mums car
strike 2 dads car
strike 3 hire car................which car do they crush???????

pottery beige · 11-10-2011, 06:16 PM

prise the keys to my GT from my cold dead hands..... what catchs people out is they can drag stuff up from up to 10 years ago..... ding dong ya car is gone.... we all stuff up, now and then, thats life.... this law can and does affect the average joe.. Not your average hoon....

RedWagon · 11-10-2011, 06:31 PM

It's depressing reading that they've crushed cars. Your pride and joy can be as much part of your family as a pet. Atleast they're resorting to crushing as a last resort. If your dumb enough to get caught that many times, i'd be surprised if you'd have enough smarts to know how to even start the car or do a basic service. It still makes you feel depressed.

xisled · 11-10-2011, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottery beige

prise the keys to my GT from my cold dead hands..... what catchs people out is they can drag stuff up from up to 10 years ago..... ding dong ya car is gone.... we all stuff up, now and then, thats life.... this law can and does affect the average joe.. Not your average hoon....

That is incorrect. The offence last for 3 years on your record. Once 3 years are up, and you get your car impounded again, it starts again. In Vic.

Qwik6 · 11-10-2011, 06:49 PM

I beleive only one car that was crushed was releated to 'Hoon' driving.
The rest were multiple offences of drink driving & driving while unregistered/insured etc.

pottery beige · 11-10-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xisled

That is incorrect. The offence last for 3 years on your record. Once 3 years are up, and you get your car impounded again, it starts again. In Vic.

im talkin SA bud.... its 10 years big ears.....

svo supporter · 11-10-2011, 08:04 PM

On the subject of cars being under finance and getting it crushed. There was a write up in Adelaides Advertiser about this topic (along with what the owners of the crushed cars got upto) and it stated that the courts can order them crushed and stiff bikkies to the owner of the car.

I don't have a link to the article, but I'm sure if people want to check up on the validity of my comments, they'll find it. (BENOXR appears to have an extract from the article posted up)

Oh and jailing these knobs won't help. We pay for their holiday, so why should we be punished as well? Public flogging sounds like the way to go.