Auto Classic Loose Car under W A Anti-hoon Laws

[Elks]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Sorry DH but like a lot on here I think you're full of recycled hay.

[schmidty]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

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.

Could not have put it better myself! But i'm sure DH has some clever retort up his sleeve.

[Iggypoppin']

Someone poke him with the ban stick.

[schmidty]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

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.

He's quite possibly part of the team who were behind the transport reforms and fatigue management BS with such amazing logic and concern for road safety!

[XY GS]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

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.

Didn't that happen another time to some doctor's Lamborghini? The mechanic took it for a 'test drive' but got caught going some ridiculous speed and had it impounded?

[UNR8D]

Durty harry, great example as to why every village needs an idiot... they are fun.

Hoon laws in their own right shouldn't exist, we have existing laws that govern exactly what they do but in a more logical sense, rather than doing a skid = hooning, speeding = hooning, driving in a manner that is seemed 'quick' to granny may is hooning... they are NOT the same offence.

and by far the biggest bunch of crap is the fact that you have your punishment before your trial, where else in law does that rule apply?

[JC]

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.

At the risk of encouraging you, care to tell us how you "look carefully into the reputation and qualifications of anyone that does any work for me"? That's the biggest crock I've read in ages. Good for a laugh though.

In the case of the Doc and the Lambo, would not the dealership have been "reputable" in the first place? They service Lambos, after all. Of course, now they have a "reputation", not necessarily reputable.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by T3man

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

Yah, Labor.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

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.

It's a bit different to that, when you give employees authority to do
something, there is still a link back in responsibility to the employer...

I agree in this case that this oversimplified legislation is totally unfair to innocent parties loaning vehicles
but we have to be equally careful about dismissing all other cases of employee obligations due to negligence...

[RG]

DH, you come across as an academic yet your grammar is far from ideal so that rules that out.

Maybe you just like trying to sound smarter than others and enjoy taking the side of nonsense in an argument because you enjoy the debate.

Either way your views appear rather skewed and really aren't applicable in "the real world". Perhaps stick to one argument at a time and don't go attacking each and every post you see, it makes you appear desperate.

[04redxr8]

Wow, durtyharry, you must be a politician. Ignorant, self righteous, completely missing the point, impractical, having your head where your anus should be, and still expecting us to agree with your idiotically flawed logic. :

Its so simple to fix. Punish the driver not the owner. Take the drivers car and impound it. If the person who was driving, doesn't own a car, lock the driver up for the 28 days. How hard is that to understand?

Its about time the Law and Courts realised that each and every individual is responsible for their own actions. It had nothing to do with the caryard. The test driver would have had his license photocopied prior to the test drive and the appropriate forms would have been filled out. What else could they do?

At least the minister is slowly starting to see he flaw.

[JC]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

Wow, durtyharry, you must be a politician. Ignorant, self righteous, completely missing the point, impractical, having your head where your anus should be, and still expecting us to agree with your idiotically flawed logic. :

Its so simple to fix. Punish the driver not the owner. Take the drivers car and impound it. If the person who was driving, doesn't own a car, lock the driver up for the 28 days. How hard is that to understand?

Its about time the Law and Courts realised that each and every individual is responsible for their own actions. It had nothing to do with the caryard. The test driver would have had his license photocopied prior to the test drive and the appropriate forms would have been filled out. What else could they do?

At least the minister is slowly starting to see he flaw.

Not that I'm an official post judge or anything, but the above is an excellent post! Full of common sense and appropriately identifies how to punish the guilty.

[UNR8D]

^^ only thing I would add to that is punishment after being found GUILTY not beforehand as is currently the case.

[chrisfpv]

The vehicle was allegedly detected travelling at 170km/h in a 100km/h zone on Roe Highway, Beckenham, at 3.44pm on January 30

This part here is what annoys me.

Sure take the car out for a test drive. Drive through some busy areas to get a stop and go feel for the car and how it handles. Then take it out onto the freeway or highway to get some speed up but doing 170km/h is beyond stupidity.

When at all are you ever going to need to do 170km/h in a Mini Cooper?

I feel sorry for the dealership and the fact that they have to take a hit for this, but the driver is a moron plain and simple!!

[UNR8D]

it was 170 on a highway not a school zone.

170 really isn't that big a deal on an open road. yes it was illegal but until 2 years ago perfectly acceptable when traveling from Darwin to Alice springs.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

Its about time the Law and Courts realised that each and every individual is responsible for their own actions. It had nothing to do with the caryard. The test driver would have had his license photocopied prior to the test drive and the appropriate forms would have been filled out. What else could they do?

.

They could have gone on the test drive with him - very simple. They saw making a sale more important then ensuring their vehicle wasnt misued in a public place, unfortunately there is a price to pay.

perhaps they need to forget the idea of giving people the car for a couple of days, unless of course they acceptt some responsibility for who they give the car to.

With ownership, comes responsibility, its a law thing....

just like if you left the keys in a car(yep its illegal for these very reasons) and someone takes it and kills someone.

The handbrake cable fails while the vehicle is parked and cleans up some pedestrians, guess who is responsible, not the person who parked it


Locking up hoons with no assets, geez, only jail for the poor, at least that will make sure they eventually get themselves introduced to the right kind of business partners.!

Id have no problem if there was just a detention centre where we put the hoons for 28 days, regardless of assets, but away from the main prison system.

Originally Posted by UNR8D

it was 170 on a highway not a school zone.

170 really isn't that big a deal on an open road.

Really, and you would care to nominate any road traffic authority anywhere on the planet that is going to say that is a good idea on any Australian road?

[XBROO]

DH I think you should open up your other eye and look at the whole picture. And DH is aberration for another word, which at the moment your fitting right into.

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

^^ only thing I would add to that is punishment after being found GUILTY not beforehand as is currently the case.

Agree. I posted more on my thoughts in a previous thread that any judgement should soley be up to a court, before any action is taken. Left it out this time to stop waffling on. :hihi:

Originally Posted by durtyharry

They could have gone on the test drive with him - very simple. They saw making a sale more important then ensuring their vehicle wasnt misued in a public place, unfortunately there is a price to pay.

perhaps they need to forget the idea of giving people the car for a couple of days, unless of course they acceptt some responsibility for who they give the car to.

With ownership, comes responsibility, its a law thing....

just like if you left the keys in a car(yep its illegal for these very reasons) and someone takes it and kills someone.

The handbrake cable fails while the vehicle is parked and cleans up some pedestrians, guess who is responsible, not the person who parked it


Locking up hoons with no assets, geez, only jail for the poor, at least that will make sure they eventually get themselves introduced to the right kind of business partners.!

Id have no problem if there was just a detention centre where we put the hoons for 28 days, regardless of assets, but away from the main prison system.



Really, and you would care to nominate any road traffic authority anywhere on the planet that is going to say that is a good idea on any Australian road?

I personally, will never buy another new car without an overnight, or weekend testdrive. I bought a brand new Holden once, and a half hour drive with a salesman on board was nowhere near enough time to realise how large a POS that car was.

As for locking up people with no assets, this demonstrates just how far your head is in your anus. I am self employed, and responsible for my own tax. (Business owners will know where this is going).

Every quarter I must pay my tax. If I can't, it is my responsibility to call the ATO and make arrangements. (fair enough), However, since the G.S.T. system came out many people have abused the system, not paid taxes due, not even submitted quarterely BAS'. The only ones the ATO has worried about to date are the homeowners, and other asset holders. If you fall intothat category, and have no assets, the ATO doesn't want to know you.

Why should I bust my back working hard, to have nice things, that could be confiscated from me, if I were to make a bad decision, when others can go on the dole, not stress, have no assets, make all the bad decisions they want and not be punishable, just because they have no assets.

This is why we have so much crime , and an "I will do as I please attitude". Punishments no longer fit the crimes. When they go close, but punish the wrong party fools like you support the outcome. You are a fool, and you are very wrong. Maybe 1 day you will be framed for something you didn't do. If that happens, don't post it here. As far as I am concerned it will be very deserved.

[chrisfpv]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

it was 170 on a highway not a school zone.

170 really isn't that big a deal on an open road. yes it was illegal but until 2 years ago perfectly acceptable when traveling from Darwin to Alice springs.

Highway or school zone, it doesn't change the fact that doing 170km/h is illegal, stupid and unnecessary during a test drive.

[UNR8D]

illegal yes, stupid no *based on it being on a highway not surburban/built up area*, unnecessary.. depends what your buying. FFS he wasn't doing it in a residential street no need for the pitchfork antics.

[chrisfpv]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

illegal yes, stupid no *based on it being on a highway not surburban/built up area*, unnecessary.. depends what your buying. FFS he wasn't doing it in a residential street no need for the pitchfork antics.

You're saying that doing 170km/h on a highway is not stupid? Would you have the same stance if he was caught doing 170km/h on a highway and managed to lose control and kill himself or other people in the process?

Taking any car for a test drive does not put you above the law. It doesn't give you the right to speed and put other peoples lives in danger.

It's not pitchfork antics, it's common sence.

[Wally]

How the govt would have us all pull in the same direction if it could get away with it (all within the law of course):

[UNR8D]

^^^LMFAO wally that's great.. don't pull to fast thou, might confiscate your Orr for 28days for hooning.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by XR

You're saying that doing 170km/h on a highway is not stupid? Would you have the same stance if he was caught doing 170km/h on a highway and managed to lose control and kill himself or other people in the process?

Taking any car for a test drive does not put you above the law. It doesn't give you the right to speed and put other peoples lives in danger.

It's not pitchfork antics, it's common sence.

Like i said, it was legal until 2 years ago in NT, its not the end of the world, and let me tell you now, 170km/h wouldnt be the reason he killed someone on the highway, *which he didnt* there would be other circumstances surrounding it if he did that I can guarantee.

more on topic, he DIDNT so I don't see why we are having this conversation about hypothetical.

[chrisfpv]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

Like i said, it was legal until 2 years ago in NT, its not the end of the world, and let me tell you now, 170km/h wouldnt be the reason he killed someone on the highway, *which he didnt* there would be other circumstances surrounding it if he did that I can guarantee.

more on topic, he DIDNT so I don't see why we are having this conversation about hypothetical.

But it's not legal now. Just because something used to be legal doesn't make it alright so that's really a mute point.

I threw up a hypothetical situation because you stated that you don't think doing 170km/h in what i'd assume would be a 110km/h max zone stupid, but i'm sure you'd have a different opinion if he had've killed himself or someone else.

I don't see this back and forth going anywhere. I have my opinion and I respect yours.

[FBT002]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

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.

WA politicians ARE stupider than they look.... and they certainly look stupid!

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by XR

But it's not legal now. Just because something used to be legal doesn't make it alright so that's really a mute point.

I threw up a hypothetical situation because you stated that you don't think doing 170km/h in what i'd assume would be a 110km/h max zone stupid, but i'm sure you'd have a different opinion if he had've killed himself or someone else.

I don't see this back and forth going anywhere. I have my opinion and I respect yours.

ur right, everyone is entitled to their opinion *for now*

think on this one we will agree to disagree and let it lie, didnt want to hijack the thread but I do see where you are coming from. just for the record I'm not asking to do 170km/h in every rental car/hire car/loan car, and I have had plenty over the years and never done that but the law in this case is an *** and needs to be changed urgently.

back on topic, if they changed the legislation got rid of HOONING laws and just enforced the dangerous driving/speeding/not being in control of motor vehicle laws that already existed, and made it so that the penalty of confiscation was done AFTER the hearing then they would find they would have a fair law with alot more support, currently its a farce.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

I personally, will never buy another new car without an overnight, or weekend testdrive.

.

That is your perogative, but what are you going to do if no one will give you a car overnight, walk?

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

As for locking up people with no assets, this demonstrates just how far your head is in your anus.

I think that was someone else's suggestion(read it again) for what to do if the driver had no assets, I say consficate the car(unless its reported stolen) no matter who it belongs to.

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

Every quarter I must pay my tax. If I can't, it is my responsibility to call the ATO and make arrangements. (fair enough), However, since the G.S.T. system came out many people have abused the system, not paid taxes due, not even submitted quarterely BAS'. The only ones the ATO has worried about to date are the homeowners, and other asset holders. If you fall intothat category, and have no assets, the ATO doesn't want to know you.

.

So you pay tax too, cry me a river......

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

Maybe 1 day you will be framed for something you didn't do. If that happens, don't post it here. As far as I am concerned it will be very deserved.

[QUOTE=04redxr8]

Why will it be deserved? Just because I want to see car dealers be held accountable for their current practices?,that is over the top.

Any dealer selling performance cars knows what happens when people take them away on test drives. To turn a blind eye to the reality of what happens out there on public roads in equipment belonging to them is immoral, and its about time the reality of being more responsible in their practices was brought to their attention.

[green grass]

I think some of you guys are way off beam. Speed limits are for every one. If you speed dont complain when you are caught! I hope the courts impound the idiot mechanics car or better still crush it!! Same goes for the moron who took the mini for a drive. It's no one else's fault but his. I'm waiting for S.A. to crush a few cars. I personally think it may slow a few down, not all because there are far to many idiots out there, and i don't want to be killed or maimed because some moron thinks he's above the law!

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by XR

This part here is what annoys me.

Sure take the car out for a test drive. Drive through some busy areas to get a stop and go feel for the car and how it handles. Then take it out onto the freeway or highway to get some speed up but doing 170km/h is beyond stupidity.

When at all are you ever going to need to do 170km/h in a Mini Cooper?

I feel sorry for the dealership and the fact that they have to take a hit for this, but the driver is a moron plain and simple!!

No doubt about it driving at 170km/h can be dangerous.

Some perspective however; most modern performance cars can cover 400m from stand still in mid 12 to mid 13 seconds. Think FPV F6, GT, HSV's line of vehicles, common cars such as XR6T's, SS Commodores and a whole line of family cars. These cars can reach terminal speeds at the end of 400m of 160-170km/h, from a standing start. Being able to do 170km/h in most modern cars occurs very quickly and safely.

Where would one need to do 170km/h? Around a race track, at any timed event, and with any luck in the NT.