Tougher "hoon" laws coming...

[Carby]

Originally Posted by GT-E

After watching last night "the force" I have now decided that our politicians have 0% interest in saving lives, only getting money.
Watching this lowlife getting pulled over for DUI, blowing .187, having a suspended license and using the excuse that "everyone does it" as he is driven away in the police car.
Later int he story, we find out he killed a 10yo girl on her pushbike while he was drunk and was aquitted of the death, as he was see drivign safely before the murder of an innocent child. Since he was aquitted in 2006, he has been caught 5 times unlicensed and drunk. He got a $1500 fine and 2 more years of license suspension, yet he was caught 2 MORE TIMES between the filming of the story and last night !!!
The guy is 24 years old and will never learn.
Yet they do not conferscate his car ?????????
I mean WTF.....
Why is the lowlife not in jail, I do not know, but the fact he still has the car is beyond any explanation. If my child was killed, I would be seeking some vigalante justice on this cretin, as the police/courts/government have no interest in stopping the repeat offenders, or punishing people who are doing the real crimes.

I too was disgusted that this Moron was not jailed - I could not believe that he was only fined again and had another term added to when he gets his license - he's been driving for ages without a license!

No wonder the cops are frustrated - the idiot judges are as bad as the offenders............

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Carby

No wonder the cops are frustrated - the idiot judges are as bad as the offenders............

Le issue; "JUDICIAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES". Please learn to be a good extreme left socialist reformer.

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I seriously doubt they'd escort you, they'd call a ambulance and make you wait for it.
As for the question "why were you speeding?" its a means of getting you to admit you were speeding, if you say anything other than you werent speeding you've admitted liability, because there is no "legitimate" legal excuse...

Sorry, but I'll disagree with you there. You are allowed to speed if there is a medical emergency. You can also drive unlicenced and unregistered for the same purpose. Once a copper has determined it is true, they will escort you to the nearest hospital. Once you're at the hospital, the return trip is a different scenario.

How do I know. Been there done that and got away with it.

These comments brandishing Commodore drivers as hoons is crap. There are plenty of other makes out there doing the same thing and getting caught.
I own a Crappadore as a daily while the XC is my weekender. So are these members going to class me as a hoon because of my Crappadore? More than likely

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Sorry, but I'll disagree with you there. You are allowed to speed if there is a medical emergency. You can also drive unlicenced and unregistered for the same purpose. Once a copper has determined it is true, they will escort you to the nearest hospital. Once you're at the hospital, the return trip is a different scenario.

How do I know. Been there done that and got away with it.

These comments brandishing Commodore drivers as hoons is crap. There are plenty of other makes out there doing the same thing and getting caught.
I own a Crappadore as a daily while the XC is my weekender. So are these members going to class me as a hoon because of my Crappadore? More than likely

Speeding is a strict liability offence... meaning they don't have to prove that you intended to speed, or were reckless as to whether you were speeding, only that you sped. There are NO defences to speeding on the books.

Having said that, I'm sure if you had a passenger in the front seat bleeding out, one would think that any officer would see that and be reasonable about it. If you get done by a speed camera, again, you'd think that if you wrote a letter detailing the circumstances, you'd be hard done by to get fined.

However, I don't think you could ever justify 200+ km/h... have you ever seen an ambo travelling that fast? Generally, they drive quite sedately - after all, there's a sick/injured/dying person being treated in the back. At those sorts of speeds, you're more likely to do more harm than good, by getting into an accident yourself.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Sorry, but I'll disagree with you there. You are allowed to speed if there is a medical emergency. You can also drive unlicenced and unregistered for the same purpose. Once a copper has determined it is true, they will escort you to the nearest hospital. Once you're at the hospital, the return trip is a different scenario.

How do I know. Been there done that and got away with it.

Where in the rule book is this loop hole??? Thats a very mis informed statement. More so the copper should slap you around for NOT calling an ambulance. Thats why they are there.... its not an excuse to play ambulance driver. In a state of panic, driving a mate who is in distress to a hospital. Yep ..... of course you can do this ... NOT. There is absolutley no time that a driver can go over the speed limit, unlicenced or un registered.



| [/url] |

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by auslandau

Where in the rule book is this loop hole??? Thats a very mis informed statement. More so the copper should slap you around for NOT calling an ambulance. Thats why they are there.... its not an excuse to play ambulance driver. In a state of panic, driving a mate who is in distress to a hospital. Yep ..... of course you can do this ... NOT. There is absolutley no time that a driver can go over the speed limit, unlicenced or un registered.

So true.

The driver has so many things on their mind with a close one in the car needing hospital treatment, that they are in no state to drive at all, let alone at a speed above the limit. You just cannot concentrate sufficiently on the driving. This action may well endanger the lives of innocent people in other vehicles, pedestrians etc. I know this for a fact from personal experience years ago (fortunately it was only a very minor fender bender).

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

So true.

The driver has so many things on their mind with a close one in the car needing hospital treatment, that they are in no state to drive at all, let alone at a speed above the limit. You just cannot concentrate sufficiently on the driving. This action may well endanger the lives of innocent people in other vehicles, pedestrians etc. I know this for a fact from personal experience years ago (fortunately it was only a very minor fender bender).

I can't agree more, especially if the driver, whether unlicensed or not is in a highly charged emotional state.

In all my service in the police I never heard of this piece of statute which would allow an unlicensed driver drive in an emergent manner on a public road- Officers do have discretion though.

[4Vman]

The insurance and 3rd party liabilities as a result of an unlicenced or unregistered "at fault" accident are mindblowing....

[daniel_rossy]

I think its a great idea..

It may annoy a few hoons but at the end of the day its their lifes that are being saved, the government isn't inforcing these rules to annoy the community they are doing the public and the 'hoons' a favor and saving their lives and preventing accidents.

No one hears about car accidents that didnt kill anyone, not many hear about the little accidents that one or two people end up in hospital. Might be as simple as a hero trying to to a skid and hit a tree at 20k's. Happened to my mate in a accident where a bus was in his blind spot n he pulled out, just reached the local paper n thats it, he is still in hospital, he cant walk, move his arms properly or talk anymore and most likely he will stay that way for the rest of his live.

The government isnt just doing this to reduce statistics, its whats behind the statistics that they are trying to improve and if they can reduce this i fully support it and so should you if you value your life your friend's, family's, children and coworkers because at the end of the day most likely a car accident would of effected your life somehow and if the public hate this idea maybe they should swap shoes with the person who cant talk, cant move properly or walk for a day and then see if taking their foot off the accelerator is worth their quality of life.

[bluestreak]

I really don't see what is the problem that people have with this. 70km/h over is a fair whack of speed, whatever the limit. It's not as if you're "just over." I could understand the argument if they were going to take cars off people for driving 10k's over, but 70 is just ridiculus! WTF do you need to be going that fast on a public road?

But I do agree that politicians don't seem to be intersted in saving lives. They raise a lot of revenue from speeding fines, therefore it isn't in their interest to stop speeding. Just like banning smoking is not in their interests. Whenever WAPOL are negotiating a pay rise, one of their most effective tactics is to let speeding drivers off with a warning. Worked well for them in their last two pay and conditions campaigns.

Let's not forget also that politicians don't actually have to DO anything. They just have to be PERCEIVED to be doing something - hence the media beatups. The angry posts on here confirm that its working. "Hoon laws" are very public and measurable policies that show the pollies are taking action and producing results - just so long as you look at the number of cars confiscated and not the actual road toll.

Driver education, while ultimately more effective as demonstrated in countries such as Germany and Austria, take more time to produce results which are harder to measure. By the time those sorts of policy started to bear fruit, the instigating politician might not even still be in office. They only need to look 3-4 years ahead at a time, because that is their potential life span. That's the problem with politics these days - no real vision. Look at K-Rudd and the 2020 summit - all the ideas to come out of it, and how much has become realised?

In the end, it doesn't matter what laws they introduce for anything if the jokers in wigs let the scum of the earth back out on the streets with a kiss and a kick.



Just my 5c worth.

Cheers,

[4Vman]

I think the biggest problem is not the laws themselves, but getting young drivers to pull their heads out of you know where and COMPLY with them....
In every instance i can think of where a serious crash occured or death had that driver been obeying either a power restriction, passenger restriction, speed limit or traffic signal nobody would have died.....

[Green X]

Originally Posted by auslandau

Where in the rule book is this loop hole??? Thats a very mis informed statement. More so the copper should slap you around for NOT calling an ambulance. Thats why they are there.... its not an excuse to play ambulance driver. In a state of panic, driving a mate who is in distress to a hospital. Yep ..... of course you can do this ... NOT. There is absolutley no time that a driver can go over the speed limit, unlicenced or un registered.

So many situations when sitting and waiting for a Ambo is not a option or getting a Ambo is impossible and driving at the speed limit may result in the death of the injured person, If it is a true emergency you would be hard pressed to find a cop who would book you for conveying a injured person to a hospital at a sensible speed (That may be over the posted limit)

My mate was pulled over for riding his unlicensed Trail bike on a major Hwy (he also doesn't have a bike license either), he was 100km from the nearest town and had no phone reception, the fuel pump on his Ute had packed up. he explained the situation and the Cop escorted him into town so he could organize repairs.

I think there was a case in WA a few years ago where a person was attacked buy a shark on a remote beach, the injured person was loaded into a 4WD and raced back towards civilization and a ambulance was called and met on-route if they had sat and waited for the Ambo the injured person would have bleed to death!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Green X

So many situations when sitting and waiting for a Ambo is not a option or getting a Ambo is impossible and driving at the speed limit may result in the death of the injured person,

Not as many as you think!

I have it on good advice from a senior cop that getting off on the speeding in a dire medical emergency is possible. The catch is you have to be able to defend it and it has to be what a "reasonable person" would call an emergency and life threatening.

I will try and put it into a scenario for you. Imagine your mate has put a chainsaw through his leg, arterial bleed and you can't control it. You have no phone and no way of calling an ambulance. You throw him in the car and drive him to a point that you can call an ambulance at greater than road speed. That would be pretty defendable. Having said this, the advice I got is the cops should not allow the offence to continue, particularly in the unlicensed driver by allowing you to continue driving. They should load the injured person into their car or if this is not possible, drive for you.

Now flip this around. You are in the metro area, same thing has happened but this time no 000 call is made, you play the hero and chuck him in the car and drive above the speed limit to hospital. This is unlikely to cut it as you have not taken the reasonable steps to gain assistance (eg call 000) before doing the hero act. Likely to cop you some big fines.

Alternatively, the wound is not that bad, yes it is deep but the blood loss is well controlled with direct pressure and the pt has no other life threatening injury. You do the hero thing and dash to hospital, cops pull you over and determine it is not life threatening. Now they are all first aid trained so they can determine if it is life threatening to a certain degree. They would then call the friendly paramedics, arrange your friend off to hospital and then entertain you at the station. It would then be up to you to convince a jury of your peers that it was life threatening, which in the light of all the evidence would be hard to do.

End of story is quite simple, for this defence to work, the patient would have to be virtually blue from not breathing, swimming in blood or baby half out for it to work. Anything less than that is playing with fire and you are better off calling 000 and let the professionals deal with it, the outcome is generally much better for all.

Disclaimer, in the country is a bit different, do not try it in the city.

Do not start on the liability of accidents resulting from such actions, it is a whole different can of worms as civil law has a different burden of proof. The catch to use this defence you have to admit to breaking the law, if the defence is inadequate you have stated you are guilty and you are unlikely to get off light. A big risk and not one to be taken lightly. Additionally there are limits to what is reasonable in respect to what laws can be broken, runing red lights in an unsafe manner, running stop sign in an unsafe manner or excessive speeding do not cut it. There have been ambulance officers that have been charged with driving offences (very serious ones) for excessive speeding even with lights and sirens going, the precedence was set in QLD. No I am not going to tell you what the speed was. That would give you a sense of what the limit is and I will not be seen to condone this behaviour, that would be unprofessional, suffice to say it was pretty quick, and he was going to a real emergency!

I hope my police friend agrees with that. If he gives me permission I will post the body of his reply to me on here.

[svo supporter]

I think half the problem with some of these knockers saying you can't drive unregistered, unlicenced or speed due to an emergency are assuming we're driving at break neck speeds and live 5 mins away from a hospital, therefore an ambo would be the best option.

The fact is, out in the sticks, what are you going to do in this scenario. You're 50 Kay away from a hospital and the only going vehicle is unregistered. Your mate has just sliced his arm with a 9' angle grinder. Are you going to ring an ambo and wait 1/2 hour and hope to hell the poor bloke doesn't bleed to death, or are you going to jump in that car and rack off sitting on 130K to get him to a hospital?

And if you're a copper or a judge. You pull over this particular car because it has no plates and is doing 130 in a 100 zone. Are you going to throw the book at him and crack a mickey because you didn't wait that 1/2 hour for the ambo?

Wake up. Not everyone lives in the city and can get to a hospital within 5 mins.

BTW. That's the exact thing that happened to me, when I got escorted to the hospital via Mr Policeman

[Green X]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Not as many as you think!

I have it on good advice from a senior cop that getting off on the speeding in a dire medical emergency is possible. The catch is you have to be able to defend it and it has to be what a "reasonable person" would call an emergency and life threatening.

That's what I'm getting at in country arias where the wait may be too long or their is no phone reception, driving at a sensible speed over the limit to urgent medical attention would be excused most times.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

I think half the problem with some of these knockers saying you can't drive unregistered, unlicenced or speed due to an emergency are assuming we're driving at break neck speeds and live 5 mins away from a hospital, therefore an ambo would be the best option.

The fact is, out in the sticks, what are you going to do in this scenario. You're 50 Kay away from a hospital and the only going vehicle is unregistered. Your mate has just sliced his arm with a chainsaw. Are you going to ring an ambo and wait 1/2 hour and hope to hell the poor bloke doesn't bleed to death, or are you going to jump in that car and rack off sitting on 130K to get him to a hospital?

And if you're a copper or a judge. You pull over this particular car because it has no plates and is doing 130 in a 100 zone. Are you going to throw the book at him and crack a mickey because you didn't wait that 1/2 hour for the ambo?

Wake up. Not everyone lives in the city and can get to a hospital within 5 mins.

True, refer to the last couple of lines in my post. I am not a knocker, I am a realist on both sides of the story and I don't want those that do not know better to get the wrong idea.

The disturbing thing for us is, many here over simplify a very complex situation and give many here the wrong idea. Sometimes bad advice is way more dangerous than no advice.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Green X

That's what I'm getting at in country arias where the wait may be too long or their is no phone reception, driving at a sensible speed over the limit to urgent medical attention would be excused most times.

I would agree with you if you said sometimes. It depends totally on the urgency of the situation and it may not be an automatic, you may and are likely to have to defend your actions in court.

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

True, refer to the last couple of lines in my post. I am not a knocker, I am a realist on both sides of the story and I don't want those that do not know better to get the wrong idea.

The disturbing thing for us is, many here over simplify a very complex situation and give many here the wrong idea. Sometimes bad advice is way more dangerous than no advice.

Wasn't directly aimed at you. There are others that have commented on here that there is no way you can get round driving unregistered/unlicenced speeding with a copper camera and the insurance implications. Other things like, you deserve a clip under the ear hole and call an ambo. blah blah blah. the list goes on. I was just showing that you can in certain situations.

Those particular members obviously have lived in the big smoke all their lives, well sheltered from the reality of bush living and the accidents that can occur. So nexttime they wish to shoot off with those sorts of comments, should stop and think first. Not everyone lives within 5 minutes of help and there are provisions within the road rules that allow them to be broken without being punished

[FreddyDUZ747]

Big risk speeding no matter the situation.What if one speeding to a hospital was to hit someone and seriouslly hurt them?The excuse as "valid" as it sounds doesnt mean its OK.You will be made an example of surely?I know the odds of it happening are slim but.........Is their really a law that allows this?Seems a bit contradicting to me.Surelly getting their safely should be the number one priority with the distraction and all.Very hard though as i never have had the experience of this so in reallity things may change?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I think the biggest problem is not the laws themselves, but getting young drivers to pull their heads out of you know where and COMPLY with them....
In every instance i can think of where a serious crash occured or death had that driver been obeying either a power restriction, passenger restriction, speed limit or traffic signal nobody would have died.....

So do you believe the amendments to the law will help do this?

I thought the hoon laws were meant to deter this from happening in the first place which it clearly hasn't made a difference (except for the first couple of months when people were a tad worried).

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by gilmore

Big risk speeding no matter the situation.What if one speeding to a hospital was to hit someone and seriouslly hurt them?The excuse as "valid" as it sounds doesnt mean its OK.You will be made an example of surely?I know the odds of it happening are slim but.........Is their really a law that allows this?Seems a bit contradicting to me.Surelly getting their safely should be the number one priority with the distraction and all.Very hard though as i never have had the experience of this so in reallity things may change?

I may be able to assist here with some authority because it is an area that applies to emergency services.

For example, an ambulance approaches an intersection under lights and sirens and slows to walking pace at the red light. It waits, rolling slowly until all traffic comes to a stop to let it through. At this set of lights there are 3 lanes each way, so six lanes of traffic need to stop. The ambulance can clearly see that traffic has stopped and they proceed through the lights. What they did not see is the last lane on their left (the far left lane of the 3 lanes) was open. As they go through, ricer boy in his doof doof skyline thinks nothing of why all the traffic is stopped at a green nlight. This particular intersection is in a 80 zone, he punches through the intersection at about 90. In the process he t bones the ambulance and puts it on its side, thankfully no one is seriously hurt but 4 ambulances are needed, along with one more for the original emergency call.

Now how is that relevant to this discussion? Despite all the bells and whistles, the ambo's are actually initially at fault, they ran a red and the other guy had the green. The burden of proof is on the ambo's to prove that they took all "due care and attention" to ensure the intersection was safe and that could not have "reasonably foreseen the accident". this actually happened and it was lucky that they had a heap of witnesses to the incident who backed the ambo's. Ricer boy was found at fault as he did not slow when it was obvious there was something happening at the intersection and he did not drive with "due care and attention". The point is, because the ambulance was not complying with road laws at the time, the burden of proof was on them, not the other guy.

I might add that this incident, along with many of the other stresses ambo's go through, caused the driver of the ambulance to lose his nerve for the job and he never worked again, he had 15 years experience on the job.

This is the same for Joe average doing a mercy dash (at any speed above the limit). If they run a red light, blow a stop sign or exceed the limit in any way, which causes and accident. He would then have to prove that
1 He had reasonable reason for the mercy run
2 He did so with all due care and attention
3 He used all warning system available (flashing his light and using horn)
These are hard to do, best done with the use of witnesses and if he fails to prove any of the aboove, he is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

Originally Posted by vztrt

So do you believe the amendments to the law will help do this?

I thought the hoon laws were meant to deter this from happening in the first place which it clearly hasn't made a difference (except for the first couple of months when people were a tad worried).

What is the answer then, do nothing and let them keep hooning? I am not sure of this one, I am glad it is not my call. I think the government has to get their attention somehow, but I do not truly know how.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by XR8Luke86

I've had my car impounded under the hoon laws for doing 160km/h in an 110 zone, no reason to it i was just daft.
Has it stopped me from speeding, not exactly. I've gone over 200kmh a couple of times since then because two people close to me NEEDED to go to hospital, one would've died en-route if i was following the speed limits, how do you think the cops would deal with that if the followed me to E.R??
Will these laws stop me from saving a mates life, nope.
(btw: no Ambo's either, they were too busy)

At that speed, considering it is 90km/h above any speed limit, you would not be able to defend it as reasonable and would end up in serious trouble. I can guarantee you that. A QLD ambo was found guilty of dangerous driving in the courts for speeding by less than that, he had lights and siren going responding to a real case. In the eyes of the courts, there are limits to speeding in an emergency and that my friend is way beyond them.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Sorry, but I'll disagree with you there. You are allowed to speed if there is a medical emergency. You can also drive unlicenced and unregistered for the same purpose. Once a copper has determined it is true, they will escort you to the nearest hospital. Once you're at the hospital, the return trip is a different scenario.

How do I know. Been there done that and got away with it.

These comments brandishing Commodore drivers as hoons is crap. There are plenty of other makes out there doing the same thing and getting caught.
I own a Crappadore as a daily while the XC is my weekender. So are these members going to class me as a hoon because of my Crappadore? More than likely

I am sorry to contradict you but I cannot allow an Urban Myth to perpetuate:

There is no legislation anywhere in any state that I know of that allows anyone to speed in a medical emergency; particularly unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured etc. There are exemptions for police, fire, ambulance VRA and SES under their respective regulatory Act's to exceed posted speed limits in life threatening situations whilst under warning device activation and in approved emergency vehicles.

If this did happen then the police officer either made a very poor and potentially dangerous decision, or...OR...the medical emergency was so life threatening that an ambulance would be there too late...then the police would [should] have used their own vehicle to transport the 'patient'. His discretionary decision could have cost more lives (if the 'driver' had a collision during the escort) and not to mention the potential for the police officer to lose his/her job and face criminal / negligence charges.

The driver would face charges of unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured, drive in a manner or speed dangerous to the public and probably a few others. The the driver could always take it to court and if the police were sympathetic and handed up a Brief of Evidence showing extenuating circumstances (in a favourable light) then the Magistrate may hand down a conviction but no penalty or potentially dismiss.

Police have a Duty of Care to all members of the public and that includes innocent people that would be harmed as a consequence of poor decisions such as this.

Once again; if you decided not to read the above paragraph: THERE IS NO LEGISLATION ANYWHERE THAT ALLOWS A PERSON TO SPEED IN A MEDICAL EMERGENCY PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE UNLICENSED, UNREGISTERED AND UNINSURED.

If there is, then provide me with a link to the appropriate legislation and I will stand corrected.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by Green X

So many situations when sitting and waiting for a Ambo is not a option or getting a Ambo is impossible and driving at the speed limit may result in the death of the injured person, If it is a true emergency you would be hard pressed to find a cop who would book you for conveying a injured person to a hospital at a sensible speed (That may be over the posted limit)

My mate was pulled over for riding his unlicensed Trail bike on a major Hwy (he also doesn't have a bike license either), he was 100km from the nearest town and had no phone reception, the fuel pump on his Ute had packed up. he explained the situation and the Cop escorted him into town so he could organize repairs.

I think there was a case in WA a few years ago where a person was attacked buy a shark on a remote beach, the injured person was loaded into a 4WD and raced back towards civilization and a ambulance was called and met on-route if they had sat and waited for the Ambo the injured person would have bleed to death!

To be fair, there are EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THESE and a few others that this thread will inevitably receive a few "what if" replies...BUT...no one is "ALLOWED" to drive unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured under ANY circumstance.

Police have what are called DISCRETIONARY POWERS...which means if they chose not to charge/ ticket...then that is their decision. HOWEVER...it also means they take in to account all circumstances including proximity to medical attention, severity of medical emergency, intoxication, roadworthy state of any vehicles and numerous other factors.

DO NOT mistake this discretionary use of their powers as an application of 'special un-written laws' or loopholes in any legislation.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by vztrt

So do you believe the amendments to the law will help do this?

I thought the hoon laws were meant to deter this from happening in the first place which it clearly hasn't made a difference (except for the first couple of months when people were a tad worried).

The laws/restrictions aren't hurting people that's for sure, on the flip side how many people have been spared because they've heeded the laws, done the right thing and drive happily oblivious to what might have happened... that number? we'll never know...
The "hoon" legislation needs to be applied carefully, the problem comes with how its interpreted then applied.
To do nothing though is far worse than trying....

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What is the answer then, do nothing and let them keep hooning? I am not sure of this one, I am glad it is not my call. I think the government has to get their attention somehow, but I do not truly know how.

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The laws/restrictions aren't hurting people that's for sure, on the flip side how many people have been spared because they've heeded the laws, done the right thing and drive happily oblivious to what might have happened... that number? we'll never know...
The "hoon" legislation needs to be applied carefully, the problem comes with how its interpreted then applied.
To do nothing though is far worse than trying....

Problem is the government keep doing the same thing and obviously it seems like it isn't working (I'd like to see if the case of injuries has reduced to be 100% sure). So wouldn't trying to do something different instead of making the laws more harsh be something to look at. The incidents that have happened this year happen every year and after the 'big' commotion dies down they just wait for the next big crash to spread of the evening news.

Wouldn't a shift in people's attitude to driving be smarter (this has been done with people's attitude towards smoking), maybe even testing people's ability to control a car in the event of a car skidding out (it does happen after the rain begins after a long dry spell with brake dust, oil and other crap on the road), if you constantly keep making the laws harsher and nothing changes what happens then?

[hame]

Originally Posted by vztrt

if you constantly keep making the laws harsher and nothing changes what happens then?

The Govt makes more money.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Problem is the government keep doing the same thing and obviously it seems like it isn't working (I'd like to see if the case of injuries has reduced to be 100% sure). So wouldn't trying to do something different instead of making the laws more harsh be something to look at. The incidents that have happened this year happen every year and after the 'big' commotion dies down they just wait for the next big crash to spread of the evening news.

Wouldn't a shift in people's attitude to driving be smarter (this has been done with people's attitude towards smoking), maybe even testing people's ability to control a car in the event of a car skidding out (it does happen after the rain begins after a long dry spell with brake dust, oil and other crap on the road), if you constantly keep making the laws harsher and nothing changes what happens then?

Driving attitude and behaviour IS the problem... i think its fair to say even the govt will conceede the only way to impact that mindset is deter people through punishment or fear of punishment..
Teaching people how to control a car in a skid is all good and well but id rather they didnt drive in a way that got them into trouble in the first place...
The term "accident" is a gross error IMO, because most crashes aren't "accidents" at all, they're the result of poor driving behavior....

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Driving attitude and behaviour IS the problem... i think its fair to say even the govt will conceede the only way to impact that mindset is deter people through punishment or fear of punishment..
Teaching people how to control a car in a skid is all good and well but id rather they didnt drive in a way that got them into trouble in the first place...
The term "accident" is a gross error IMO, because most crashes aren't "accidents" at all, they're the result of poor driving behavior....

Unfortunately its gonna happen, some people will hit the limit of the car.
Once I had my tyres changed and the tyre place decided to put tyre shine on my car (which was fine) the funny thing is I didn't realise they got tyre shine on the actual tread of the tyre. I was a tad surprised when my car decided to go sideways at a roundabout that I use every day and have never before or since broken traction. Now alot of people would hit the brakes and that's when things get interesting.

If the government think that increasing punishment will deter people then they have the wrong attitude and all it does is keep people that normally obey the road rules in check (or as we have seen in the last couple of years make them drive 10kph slower). I know in Scandinavia they had a major reduction in fatalities by going out and looking at the roads in their country and doing simple things like moving poles and taking trees down that are in positions that increase the risk of being involved in a crash. Also how is it that the government is so 'big' on road safety but they let metal coffins into this country to be sold to the public.

I agree something needs to be done, but there are many avenues to look at in terms of road safety rather then increasing punishments that don't seem to be doing anything.

[Grunter]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Driving attitude and behaviour IS the problem... i think its fair to say even the govt will conceede the only way to impact that mindset is deter people through punishment or fear of punishment.....

But hasn't that been the case to this point?

Year after year the inexperienced and "immortal" smear themselves or others across the pavement and year after year the government drones dribble out their usual speeches about the hoon epidemic and whack another few bucks on fines and crush a few more cars. Increasing the punishment has done little to nothing to stop those idiots. And the lack of support given to the police by the legal system in dishing out harsher and relevant penalties to the mindless fools who re offend, is beyond a joke.

Force advanced driver training (and not just a one day course) prior to receiving a license and again prior to retesting for the open license, and some may realise the possible consequences, or at the very least give them the skills to get themselves out of the stupid situations they may put themselves into. Hell, give it a go and see if it does show an improvement in the long term. It may give the inexperienced driver a little more food for thought before putting themselves and/or others in a dangerous position, which in itself makes it worth doing.

For those fools that are busted for similar reoffences, pressure the legal system to enforce the laws that are currently in place and support the police and do something a little more positive for the community. Get them off the street and give them some jail time.