QLD Hoon Laws - New Changes

[MEGOMONSTER]

OK, I give in you Qlders better be careful, cos you can't even wear hoodies at night, unbelievable.

[04OFF]

Mega, you are most likley thinking (and i did too at first), oh this is the usual forum speak, it can't be so bad, some guys are just over reacting to some new law they dont like or understand, it wont effect me as i am law obiding, and respect Police etc....... well unfortunatly these guys are 100% right !


(writing in RED are quotes from original documents, link below)


Below is a prime example of breaking the law, yes, the punishment is to Automatically,loose your car for 90 days (tell me who on here, who has not done this before ?)

• driving a motor vehicle in a way that causes a sustained loss of traction of one or more of the drive wheels with a wet or gravelled road surface, regardless of whether or not the tyres smoke because of the loss of traction”
The reason for this amendment appears to be three-fold:
(a) to cover those instances where there is a loss of a vehicle’s traction and no smoke is produced such as when a vehicle is driven on a wet or gravel road


Yes, you are reading it right, a "Burnout" now needs NO smoke to be a burnout ! (WTF ?), so acording to this law, your mum could be driving her car on a beach and could be seen doing illeagal burnouts if she spins the wheels, "one person" can decide, she now gets her car confiscated for 90 days for this infringement , with no court judgement involved.


Yes sure, most resonable people would interpret this law (although its quite vague) ,as im sure it is ment to be, that is, to catch extreemly very dangerous criminals who do burnouts, and previously its all overseen as we had some sort of court involvement ,this assured us that the law is/was used for the correct and just reasons, now take away the courts, and what protection do we have that we will actually be treated fair under our own legal system ?






The Bar Association of Queensland raised several concerns about these aspects of the Bill in its submission:

"the police may proceed to actual impoundment and forfeiture without any supervision by a court"

"... The Society is particularly alarmed that forfeiture does not require consideration by a court before a vehicle can be forfeited."



I could go on with many examples, but here,

Read through these yourself.............



https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/..._Bill_2012.pdf


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/..._Bill_2012.pdf






This is not a bag at Police, most of them are such great people and do a difficult awsome job, this is more about un-fair and un-clear laws, laws that are unjust, punishments that do not fit the crime, plus leave the door wide open for misinterpritation and misuse like never before !

Like i said, what comes next, they can just shoot you on the spot ?

[NP99]

Most front wheel drives, the type nanna drives can spin on a hill start in the wet. Would a cop book her? It's at their discretion, if the son is a known trouble maker to the cops etc etc...... In all probability Nanna is safe

[04OFF]

If you read the links ,they talk about "utes" in the wet on hills doing the same.


I have driven many types of utes from work, the ones with alloy trays when unloaded are so light in the rear, it is sometimes almost impossible to do a hillstart in the wet without spinning a wheel.



Imagine a young driver with little experience driving the work ute, spins the wheels on a wet hill as he is not used to the car, gets busted for doing a burnout (type 1 , automatic impoundment), because he is young, its easy assume he is a Hoon, hes not reckless, nor dangerous, yet can be punished worse than if he was driving drunk as a skunk.

So apart from a nice fine im sure, the ute is confiscated for 90 days, then his work is now without a ute (this would cripple some small buisness), the young kid also loses his job and so on, how is that fair ?



Hed be better of saying, oh nah, its OK officer, "im just really really drunk" (type 2, no impoundment, its a lesser offence !)

[lhurley]

In the first link 04OFF posted it says that Persons described as “hoons” are most likely to be young males under the age of 25 years.(quote)
Ok i get that its a stereotype for a reason, but im not ok with being type cast as a hoon purely because i am a male under 25. That has to be discrimination, right?

I honestly would of thought that high range drink driving, is way worse then doing a burnout. Thats just ridiculous.

[NP99]

Maybe there is less revenue in DUI these days?

[Dominator]

Maybe there is less revenue in DUI these days?

Your probably right. DUI offenses have been declining, perhaps they are seeking other means if revenue.

[04OFF]

I honestly would of thought that high range drink driving, is way worse then doing a burnout. Thats just ridiculous.

It "is" ridiculous, i could not believe it myself, it suggests the new law makers have little concern about real public saftey or reducing our road deaths at all !

Maybe there is less revenue in DUI these days?

Perhaps the law makers/enforcers/people with power and money, are all "drinkers" NP ?

I can only imagine there must be some sort of hidden agenda/motive, when such small automotive crime can be punished so harsh, and yet serious drink driving is always a lessor offence ? (it defies logic)

[macca86]

The old burn out charge use to be " wilfully operating a vehicle making unnecessary noise and or smoke" I copped a few in my hoon days male under 25 was 3 points off the licence $250 fine back then and the old hoon laws were 24 hr loss of car then 48 hrs ten a week then crushed I think. I talked my way out of the impoundment twice so was lucky. Then I got caught driving unlicensed due to unpaid fine on sper I didn't know about had to go to court got a 9 month suspension $1000 fine and a 50 day suspended jail sentence.
I understand that hooning is dangerous but these new was take it too far time and money would e better spent on police patrols I go for weeks on the road without seeing police then they come out for a coupe of days would most people settle down if they knew cops were on the road more frequently I think so.

[lhurley]

I understand that hooning is dangerous but these new was take it too far time and money would e better spent on police patrols I go for weeks on the road without seeing police then they come out for a coupe of days would most people settle down if they knew cops were on the road more frequently I think so.

Its all about police presence, thats why im against the police using sneaky tactics to catch you breaking the law. Whether its speeding or doing a burnout, a radar or "traffic camera" isnt going to stop anything on that day, on that time. It takes weeks to get the ticket. Put a patrol car on the road, catch the idiots in the act, they get a fine on the spot. If someone wants to speed or do a burnout but sees a police car, they, usually/hopefully, slow down or stop. They rethink their actions. The way i see it, without physical police presence on the roads, im talking patrol cars driving around, there isnt going to be any difference.