Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dazzed

regular hoon drivers

Recommended Posts

so many good points from all of yous.

 

Mick ive seen truck from Melbourne bound to Adelaide smacking on 140kmh in 100km zone down the hill reaching well over 150.speedo in a late model car i was driving was working fine even checked it against one of the overpasses in Vic. 

I thought trucks a limited to 100. hmm this one seem to have that feature defeated. hoon or not?

 

Could be any number of reasons because the year and make of trucks vary and also the methods in the way that it recognises the speed has exceeded whatever the limiter is set at, and then again varies by how it goes about limiting speed.  Many trucks are still not speed limited, usually the early model trucks obviously, but also trucks with new or aftermarket boxes or ECU.  Some of the makers have got speed limiters so precise that speeds can't exceed 100 period without some monster tailwind where as the old "speed limited" trucks would still pull 120, or 150+ if they were going downhill with a load... which meant all they had to do to pick up speed was take it out of gear if it is controlled by gearbox ratios.  ;D  Then on some rigs it is known that limiters can be tweaked by playing with the fuses.

 

It may just be a government spin but the claim is that speed limiters have reduced accidents.  I would question that for several reasons but that is off topic.  I wonder how the everyday motorist would feel about a 100km/hour speed limiter put on their car, and see what they think of the guy that actually drives anywhere between 8 to 20 hours a day.  Maybe no biggie for a car driver, going down a hill at 100 still means they can do 100 going up. :P

 

I'm all for getting kids into some kind of driver training or a track facility club.  Unfortunately that is not without problems too.  People go there trying to do the right thing and then get pinged for defects down the road from the raceway where the cops are waiting. ::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could say a lot here...but!  I think it is more of a systemic problem, why? In years gone by most kids had far more involvement with their parents who were the 'driving instructors' it gave Mum & Dad an opportunity to download the values about driving safely with the consideration of others on the road, most times Mum & Dad also helped to buy that first car (that was purchased on a shoe string budget!) and even the kids had more respect for the vehicle, their parents for helping them and a car was a privilege rather than a right.

 

Roll forward a few years...now we have 'expert' driver training, we've taken Dad out of the co-pilots seat with his values and authority and replaced it with a 'professional' who is more concerned about rules than intuitive values, we've got finance companies who prey on the kids to get them spending every dollar of their disposable income on that first 'very powerful' car which they wouldn't normally be able to afford until much later.

 

If the government was serious about saving lives why don't they limit the amount of finance available to under 21 drivers?...because they make a killing through the taxes etc.

 

We have sold our kids the new politically correct thinking that 'adolescence' is an opportunity to be free from responsibility until 21 where suddenly they are expected to overnight become a responsible adult...

 

As I said the problem is bigger than the hoon or the car...reconnect kids to their parents and we'd halve the current problem...Just my opinion  ;D

Rev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I may as well have my two cents worth....Having taught at University and having a job which includes mentoring junior staff, I think the "Powers that be" treat this issue and many others in a reactive fashion. The problem here is, as most of you have said, not particularly the activities of so called "hoons" (although at least some of them shouldn't have a vehicle of any description), but the mentality behind it.

 

The way to deal with these things is not by crushing cars (a reactionary approach) but to EDUCATE people to THINK about what they're doing (a proactive approach).  I LOVE going out and giving the Z a punt, but really don't want to have my car wrecked or to kill someone.

 

Young drivers need to be taught to drive, not given a piece of paper saying they've remembered the road rules (or most of them). Before they get their license, put them through an advanced driving course (including track work if they want). Give them some safe options for letting off steam as most kids will want to do (I know I did...but there was a lot less cars on the road in the 80s) and teach them to do it safely. ..and do all this before they get on a public road and kill themselves/somone else/have their cars crushed. And if their cars do still need to be taken off them, then give it to someone who needs it, or put the revenue back into some serious practical driver education.

 

I feel better now...thanks. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Rev. I particularly like the idea of limiting Finance to kids under 21 to purchase a car. Man that would fix a lot of problem social and financial not to mention on the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Rev. I particularly like the idea of limiting Finance to kids under 21 to purchase a car. Man that would fix a lot of problem social and financial not to mention on the road.

 

Not sure I agree with limiting finance. That just means they would drive a heap of junk and not care if they crash it.

 

I totally agree with the education point. To take that one step further I think there should be efforts to make things like track days and skid pans accessible. I think a lot of younger people would a) learn how to handle a car quicker than driving at road pace for 5 years b) for some it would reduce the urge to speed as it gets out of the system on the track (Yes I know there is an element that are encouraged to speed because they think they are now race drivers. But I think they are the minority)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young drivers need to be taught to drive, not given a piece of paper saying they've remembered the road rules (or most of them). Before they get their license, put them through an advanced driving course (including track work if they want).

 

Could not possibly agree more.  It needs to be compulsory to attend and successfully complete to the satisfaction of qualified instructors at least one racetrack/skidpan based advanced driving course (and preferably two or three,).  Most of the time when I say this, people look at me like I'm an idiot, and then ask how the government is going to subsidise that.

 

My answer?  Forget government subsidies on this - if they want their licence, pay for it.  If they arrive at a driving course that costs them say $300 to attend, with the knowledge that they'll have to do it and pay again if they fail, they might actually pay attention to what is going on and learn something.  And of course, if they continually fail, they won't be able to afford to keep trying endlessly.

 

Its not just limited to kids getting their licences either, I would love to be in charge of a road safety program.  I'd start by sitting in an unmarked car on the freeways, and pull over these idiots that sit one car length behind the one in front at 100km/h, send them off to a special facility to drive their own car around a course at their normal follow distance behind a heavily reinforced truck, which just so happens to have heavily uprated brakes and can stop just as quick as any late model car.  There would be a lot of drivers going home on the back of tow trucks with rearranged cars...  They might actually realise the stupidity of what they are doing then though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other good thing that would come of that, is that a) it would mean bad drivers couldn't get a license and the roads would be safer and b) Revenue from public transport would go up, improving its standard and c) better for the environment due to less cars on the road, though this would also reduce the revenue from vehicle sales taxes.  Still, its not a bad idea at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with that a lot....

 

 

But as for crushing cars, im on the fence on that.

I dont think its right for the government to be able to confiscate and auction off or crush your car.

Its bordering on legalised theft.

however, i do think there are exceptional circumstances where cars do need to be crushed.

I had a young bloke working under me who didnt have a licence.

He drove to work, so i told him not to as he is covered under our insurance and i would be negligent and responsible for it seeing as i knew full well he had no licence.

He continued driving to work, just parked round the corner where he thought i couldn't see him.

When i tipped off the cops for him, i also found out that his car was unregistered and had the plates off another car that was unregistered.

This bloke has had so many chances its not funny. He doesnt care about the rules, he drives drunk and on drugs, unregistered and unlicenced, in dangerously modified or ill maintained cars and if he gets a hint of the police closing in on him, he does the runner.

He had one of his mates bragging to me that he was doing over 200kph around residential areas to evade some cops one night.

In cases like that i agree that he should have ANY car he's driving impounded and crushed, if its not his, then he should be liable for ANY costs lost to the owner of the car.

If thats still not working, put them in jail.

 

Unfortunately the system is soft on the criminals, and uncaring about the rest of us. I do also see that a system in place like that would encourage the scumbags to be more likely to do the runner and never bother registering their cars.

End result would be more likely for innocent people to get hurt or killed.

 

I would like to see changes to the licencing system, more training and compulsory courses as has been mentioned.

I would also like to see compusory retesting of EVERYONE every 4-5 years, perhaps at the same time as renewing your licence.

The retesting wouldnt have to be as strict as the initial test, and there would need to be a period to allow for retraining and retesting where the old licence is still valid.

Say you fail your retest, you go onto a special provisional licence for one year.

If you dont retest and pass after that, you lose your licence and have to start all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see changes to the licencing system, more training and compulsory courses as has been mentioned.

I would also like to see compusory retesting of EVERYONE every 4-5 years, perhaps at the same time as renewing your licence.

Quote from nizmOzed....

 

Agreed 100%...I don't know how some people on the road ever got there licence.

Than after 5 years they still can't drive for sh$t.

And d$ckheads driving while on the phone should be shot...(why aren't they classed as hoons)

They don't care about anyone's safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for those wanting a definition of a 'hoon', just read my earlier post.

 

NimOzed, your employee is just thye sort of bloke who has his car crushed.  Not the first time he's caught, but the third.  Driving while suspended has a manditory one month sentence on second conviction.  His car isn't crushed until his third.  In even the thickest of heads, that should be enough warning.

 

Too many people feel that a licence is a right, rather than a priviledge that needs to be earned and respected.

 

Rev, I agree with you, but the point of punitive measures is to educate ramifications for actions in an attempt to modify behaviour.  This sort of education was leveled on us by parents and teachers.  Now it would seem that both have been disempowered and the youth of today are lacking in that area, to both their and our detriment.

 

ZZ8, you don't have your car crushed for a 20 second indescretion.  It is your third 20 second indescretion.  By the way can any tell me for how long one needs to be 'indescrete' to kill someone?

 

I have never heard of a person having 5-10 convictions for drink driving and not going to gaol.  As for a drink drive who kills a ped not spending some time away, can't recall a single case.  It's called culpable driving and carries a sentence of up to 15 years.  Most sentences I see are in the order of about 7 years.

 

Compared to when I was young, cars are faster, cheaper (relative to wages) and money is easier to get.  They no longer buy the Mazda 1300 or Tyota Corrola, now it's 3litre VR's, Skylines, et al.

 

Reimpower parents before it's too late to prevent the continual carnage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this thread for a little while and finally thought that I'd write down what has been rolling around in my head for a while.

 

Firstly, I do not believe that crushing / auctioning a "Repeat Hoon's" car is going to be an effective deterrent in the short or long term. Mainly due to the ease with which it is to find a relatively cheap mid - high powered car (a good uni friend of mine has recently bought a 2001 Commodore SS for $5k in Rockhampton), especially when combined with number of bolt-on modifications that increase power and penis-length while doing nothing to assist vehicle control (said friend already talking about ECU chips and sports exhausts). So for $10k I really can't see it being too difficult for someone to rebuild another 'Pride & Joy' in a short time frame.

  • Yes $10k is a rather large and inconvenient fine ... but for a young male, working full time, no mortgage, no family to support .... I can't imagine it taking too long to save (This is just the stereo-typed hoon I believe the Police / Politicians / Public /Me generally have in mind.)
  • Furthermore, the pride that 'Hoons' are supposed to have in their cars would be vastly different to the pride felt by active members of this site in relation to their cars. With pride being a status thing of 'Look what I can afford' Vs the pride of 'I have invested my own personal time as well as money into this project, have come out with something personal to me, and have developed new skills along the way'

 

The main problem I believe is that with a car being a major personal asset and something that a lot of people spend significant time in / being seen in, most people will look to own the nicest car they feel that they can afford. I particularly noticed this while I was working in the Central QLD mines, where if you didn’t drive a new model HSV / FPV or a Landcruiser / Patrol Ute you were in the minority …. The number of times I felt terrified as I was overtaken by a performance Falcon/Commodore across double lines, around corners like I was standing still really blew my mind. These cars are designed to have phenomenal performance capabilities stock from the factory, yet cost roughly six months of wages so every bastard owns one, and every second believes he has the right to drive it as if he was on a track not a public road.

 

My proposed solution, the introduction of a tiered drivers licence system similar to that already used in relation to trucks, where just because your qualified to tow a trailer, you’re by no means qualified to drive a semi etc. I feel the same way about, although you may have proven you can drive a 4-cylinder Yaris / Barina, that does not mean that you have the skills necessary to safely drive an 8-cylinder or a turbo-6 etc. My thinking is something along the lines of, coming off your P’s you’d receive a Tier 1 license letting you drive low performance vehicles such as Yaris’, Excel’s, Trady-Utes etc…..thus meaning that you could easily commute / run a business / hold a job that requires transport, however you would really need to try damn hard to ‘hoon’ in one (I know that I personally would feel like a dead-set idiot trying to do a burn-out in a Yaris out the front of Uni / Tafe). In order to qualify for the Tier 2 license you would need to meet a series of prerequisites such as holding a current drivers licence for five CONTINUOUS years and having a current defensive driving certificate at the time of application (Those were just the first two possible conditions that came to mind). With the training and experience requirements increasing with the license tier and thus vehicle performance. If you lose your license you start again at Tier 1, for whatever reason you have proven (most likely on multiple occasions) that you are not capable of driving safely, time to learn again.

 

I’m not sure about other people, but for me personally the possibility of losing my ability to drive ‘nice’ cars for a very long time would be a significantly larger deterrent from doing something stupid than either losing my licence for 6 months, or having my current car taken (Imagine having your beautiful completed project sitting in the garage ….. just sitting there teasing you, and needing to get a mate to occasionally drive it for you to keep everything moving since you’re not going to be able to legally drive it for another 5 years, for me that would be a giant kick in the balls).

 

So yeah that’s it …. Sorry about it being a little rambling, I’ve just had a scotch and felt like a bit of a brain dump.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you  can make any car go fast, from a barina to a ss commodore. All cars are capable to exceed the speed limit, all cars are capable of accelerating swiftly to the speed limit from the traffic lights. Every vehicle is a dangerous weapon.

 

Remember, it's police judgement, we can all try and describe what the hooning laws are, though at the end of the day, were not the one's issuing the fines to ourselves.

 

Time and time again, how many good cops are there really.. once have power.. power usually goes to head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end the cops have recognised that hoons (and not just young adults) don't think about the risk of killing someone. Thats why they are targeting them with something that they do think about. Most of the P platers that I know would feel much more affected if they saw their car crushed than they would if they died. Not that you would actually feel much at all if you died.  But you get my point.

 

Losing their car is more in the forefront of their mind than causing an accident or dying. Thats the reality and thats why these laws have been brought in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given time restraints I haven't been able to look into this in great detail, but there are several problems I see with crushing 'hoon' cars.

 

1) the definition of hoon, despite any legislative base does often depend on the officer. I know people who have been threatened with such charges driving a 1989 Ford Laser (very hard to 'hoon' in one of those.

 

2) the ease of replacement of the typical 'hoon cars' means that crushing would be ineffective, as raised earlier most people have a disposable income and can replace a car. Those with cars that warrant protection usually (not always) have the common sense to restrict their driving indulgences to the track or somewhere safe.

 

3) unfortunately, it is not the car that is the problem, it is the idiot behind the wheel.

 

4) I do not see how 40km over is in anyway appropriate for a hooning offence,  driving on a freeway at 140 (if you know how to.... separate issue altogether) or above is not a problem....driving down a residential street or a school zone 20-30km over is stupidly dangerous, yet would seem to fall outside of the definition.

 

5) It is true that we get our licences out of a weet-bix box, some thought needs to be put into not only expanding the recording requirements for licencing but introducing a system which trains people in appropriate driving techniques and exposes them to the various environments (night time, snow etc).

 

6) suspension of a licence often does not prevent the 'hoon drivers' from driving. I know people who have had their licence suspended for either drink driving or speeding and were driving to and from work the next day.

 

7) Being a strong opponent of unnecessary imprisonment, this is hard to say but given the risks a short term or community service etc may be the most appropriate response.

 

8) However, culpable driving penalties are already quite heavy and introducing a penalty such as this where no one has been harmed......yet, is difficult.

 

9) The entire approach to speeding and hoon driving needs to be rethought. Speed limits need to rethought, as does the policing. Highways and relatively safe roads are heavily policed, while local roads and schools are very rarely policed.

 

10) despite my misgivings about the police enforcement of these laws, whenever I have encountered an officer on a driving related matter, they have been (largely) very reasonable.

 

11) it is important to remember that speed doesn't kill....sudden stops do.

 

O well....that's my brain fart done, sorry if it doesn't make much sense currently sitting in Tokyo fairly drained from a week of work....need to go for a drive but the zed too far away.

 

Although, I did see a beautiful white 240Z parked next to Tokyo Tower a couple of days ago.

 

Huw

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a lot of talk about making young drivers have 'cheap, low performance cars'.  Sorry to say guys, that really doesn't make it any harder to hoon.  For the older ones among you, think about how much power your first car had, and then think about the stupid things I'm sure most of you did in them.

 

Sure, you may not be able to do a massive burnout from a standing start, or hit 200km/h, but you give me one of those crappy early 90's Corollas (the round tail FWD things), with a clapped out motor, the 3 speed auto, and a broken handbrake cable, and I'll still be able to get it bulk sideways.  Cheap econoboxes have cheap econobox road holding.

 

And for those who don't know how to provoke lift off oversteer, they always have the option of going to McDonalds and borrowing some trays, now don't they.  Although I suppose then the government can ban McDonalds from serving food on plastic trays, and everyone will be safe again (seems to be the way Australia is going, following America down the drain).

 

Doesn't matter what the car is, if the intent is there to be an idiot, there's always something stupid that can be done with a car.  Thats why its driver ATTITUDE that needs adjustment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading all these responses with ways to stop the bad behavior with laws to me seems pointless with so many people unable to stick to the current laws we have. Drivers who keep driving with suspended licenses, drink drivers etc. I doubt it will ever stop. Even with the current testing we have, they think it's more imoprtant if you can park a car between witches hats than learn how to MERGE on a freeway on ramp.. I would like to shoot the genius who decided to put lights on a freeway on ramp? Only in Australia..Just when you should be accelerating to reach 100kph, they stop you to start again? Where's the logic?

One thing I would like to do to re-offending drink drivers, place a heap of large labels on their car like "repeat drink driver" for a long period of time.. Same thing to any other repeat offenders with their offence.

As with the original post of crushing cars...yes after the third.. There are only a finite number of crap box Foulcans and Dunnydores around...soon the cheap supply will dry up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see, whether you agree or not that these laws are going to make a difference or are going to infringe on freedom of rights etc. At least it has a lot of people talking about it. That is, as far as I'm concerned, the most effective way to educate people. Bring the subject out in the open as a talking point that goes across a wide range of people. If nothing else comes of it at least people will see the general public feeling on the subject.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree with you more Huw.

All this crap about speed killing. Like someone said it's not the speeding that kills it's the sudden stop. It's been going on since the invention of the car. It's only the media jumping on the band wagon because it's a touchy subject at the moment and sell's papers and makes news.

Anyone can go to CAMS and buy an $88- license and go racing on a circuit at speeds well over 200klms with no training or testing. Infact plenty of people do with no problems or accidents. I know it's a controlled environment. I guess my point is that like someone said 140klms on a freeway is not massively dangerous if you are not driving erratically like the police try and make out. As we all know cars of today are made so safe and can travel at speeds well over 200klms no problems at all. I guess if they are serious about speeding being so "masively" dangerous why doesn't the government put restriction on all new cars and limit them to maybe 140klms only. No that's to hard. Well probably not if they were serious. Instead let's just give it a label and make out all people over the speed limit are dangerous killers which is rediculous.

Maygs - I guess you have never heard of any bashings or knifinings in town either! Come on people walk away from our courts untouched with no Jail time almost daily. We all know there is no room in the prisons for all the criminals. So a slap on the wrist and $200- to the poor box is all that is done. then these joke of Judges go home and sleep at night whilst a rapist, bashers, drink drivers walk free and offend again.

I know police have a job to do. I guess my point is to get some consistancy and make punishments fit the crime. Probably why a lot of people leave the force out of frustration since Judges seem to live in a world of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ZZZ8, whilst I continue to be amazed (I should know better by now) with the serious offenders avoiding gaol by blaming their parents, their drugs/alcohol, society in general etc.  Traffic law is new and quite different.  Traffic law contains many mandatory sentences.  Drink driving is one of them.  (Others are speed and suspended/disqualified driving.)

 

Double penalties for second offence in 10 years and a sentence for subsequent offences.

 

Jeff Kennet brought in mandatory sentences for offences where guns or knives are used.  Subsequent labor govts have reduced these sentences to almost nonexistent.  Brumby is now considering going back to the way Jeff set it up.  But very much off topic.

 

Driving at 140 on most of our freeways would be safer if all were doing 140, but they don't.  Everyone thinks they are good drivers, and we all know that few people really are any good at it.  Even those that are good at it, aren't good at it ALL the time.  A myriad of distractions divert attention (frequently it is the ridiculously high number of signs on our roads, not including the distractions within our own cars (Kids, radio, CD etc).  Just 'cause we can drive at 200 on a race track (without passengers, no radio, no phone, no smokes, not eating lunch and no traffic lights, no side streets, no cars doing 60 in a 100 zone) we are concentrating at our highest ability, doesn't mean we can travel over 100 on the freeway.

 

I believe that speeding is dangerous, selfish and short sighted.  My 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make some valid point Maygz and I agree with your point's re 140klms.

Let's hope Brumby can stop talking and finally actually re introduce some of those laws we speak of. I would love to see mandatory sentences come back as it seems with lawyers spin and Judges discretion most criminals just aren't concerned when they are caught since they know there is a fare chance of either getting off or minimal sentencing. And for a cop who does all the hard work to see a lot of people get off lightly must be as frustrating as anything. Let's hope common sense prevails and the "do gooders" get over-ridden some time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if there are going to be all the restrictions on the car's p platers drive, and with the trends this is causing, i believe there should be one limiting the maximum weight of the car. that is, since p platers can no longer have nice fast sports cars, they get jacked up 4wd's which are much more dangerous for other road users.

 

speed doesn't kill, momentum does. so their 4wd with jacked up suspension which can't corner at 50kmh and weighs 2 tone, is just as likely, if not more, to kill someone in another car, as my 1 tone car going 100kmh etc. then there's the difference in crumple zones, collison heights...

 

maybe instead of speed limit's there should be enertia/momentum limits. so if you're a truck or towing a caravan and have a head on with another car, you are only allowed to travel at a speed which will inflict the same amount of damage as if you were driving a datsun 1200 ute traveling at 100...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Evan it always worries me when I see an "L" Plater in a 2.5 to 3 ton 4WD packed full with the family. That is something I reckon shouldn't be allowed. My mate has a 4WD and when he put's his "Muddy" tyres on the car it wonders all over the road and only just makes it around bitumum road corners doing 60klms. He said one time he actually ran off the road because the tyres were so bad on the road. Just another issue that probably needs review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×