Jump to content


Photo

regular hoon drivers


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#21 Zedman240®

Zedman240®

    The 2000+ club

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,198 posts
  • Location:Way out SE Melbourne
  • Tagline:I want your old SHOGUN bike! PM me now...

Posted 26 January 2010 - 09:50 AM

lol.  Stationary speed cameras (not the point to point ones) are the real revenue raisers, they don't slow anything down, bu then again, don't speed...

They do slow things down..... for only about 100 meters along where the loop sensors are placed on the road..then after that it's pedal to the metal!

Another great revenue raising thing is the fines for talking on a mobile..I've seen drivers so distracted chatting to their passenger, that they are driving 20 kays under the limit, while waving their arms about swerving all over the road...maybe we should build cars with a single seat and radio isolated like a Faraday cage...

#22 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 26 January 2010 - 09:52 AM

lol

#23 waxhead

waxhead

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts
  • Location:Gold coast

Posted 26 January 2010 - 10:17 AM

I dont think i mentioned running red lights etc i do believe your getting a bit carried away
actually i am 41 years old and normally have my baby in the car i am a very cautious driver, they are not getting rich of me

But I do rememeber a time when you would get pulled up and they would give you a fine for one thing now they will go over the car looking to make as much money as possible " in the interest of safety"

#24 tbscobraZ

tbscobraZ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Sydney- Normanhurst

Posted 28 January 2010 - 01:24 PM

Leave the car alone punish the drivers. Older models aren't being remade and I'd rather see the stupid driver in the mint S15 hit with a ridiculous fine rather than destroy the car.

#25 620Z

620Z

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,710 posts
  • Location:VICTORIA - Rowville

Posted 28 January 2010 - 03:05 PM

Hmmm this is a touchy subject.
In my opinion they should not crush a car. Crushing say a $100,000- car is way too much over kill for say a 20 second indescretion. Burn outs / speeding to me not that big a deal in moderation.
But drink driving, driving with out a licence and and people who are repeat offenders say 5 times then yeah sure crush there cars. I have read people caught drink driving 5-10 times and still never go to jail. Same for killing a pedestrian even while drunk. Fines and good behaviour at worst. Then they want to crush a car for a far lessor offence of speeding in the middle of nowhere or doing a burn out. Come on let's get some consistency or reality here. Everyone one has sped at one time or another.
Drug dealers, bashing indians, maiming people and leaving them in a coma is less punishment. This sort of crime is rampant. No jail time a small fine and a bit of probation is a joke. Then someone speeds and we crush a 50-100K car as punishment.
Believe me it's to easy for cops to get you speeding than catch a drug dealer or basher. Too much paperwork getting them. So they just pick on the easy target because they really don't care about up holding the law on real crime. Just go for the soft target. Book them, take their licence, they might lose their job/mobility disrupting their entire lives. But hey knife someone, go to court get probation and a couple hundred dollars fine, go home, back to work. Nothing changes for them.
I say no crushing!
Sorry to get on my high horse but this high moral ground on "Hoon's" with no definition really P's me off.  >:(

#26 Quandary

Quandary

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 29 January 2010 - 09:40 AM

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. ::)

#27 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 29 January 2010 - 09:49 AM

Not to mention adding to their already inflated confidence...

#28 reverendzed

reverendzed

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,717 posts
  • Location:Gold Coast QLD
  • Tagline:I'm Dave & Yes! I'm a real Revhead..er Reverend...

Posted 29 January 2010 - 10:41 AM

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.

#29 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 29 January 2010 - 10:43 AM

Well said Rev, couldn't agree more.

#30 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 29 January 2010 - 11:13 AM

Certainly doesn't sound like the free country so many died for...

#31 Philthy

Philthy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Location:Perth West Oz
  • Tagline:New Member

Posted 29 January 2010 - 12:53 PM

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. ;)

#32 620Z

620Z

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,710 posts
  • Location:VICTORIA - Rowville

Posted 29 January 2010 - 02:11 PM

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.

#33 .

.

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Tagline:Past member

Posted 29 January 2010 - 02:27 PM

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)

#34 Zeddophile

Zeddophile

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 987 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 30 January 2010 - 05:58 PM

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.

#35 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 30 January 2010 - 06:06 PM

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

#36 nizm0zed

nizm0zed

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,310 posts
  • Location:Canberra
  • Tagline:260z coupe in slow build, Now with RB25DE powah!!

Posted 30 January 2010 - 06:15 PM

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.

#37 Mr240z

Mr240z

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,067 posts
  • Location:sydney nsw
  • Tagline:The one and only Mr240z

Posted 30 January 2010 - 07:29 PM

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.

#38 MaygZ

MaygZ

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Website:http://www.viczcar.com/forum/index.php/topic,7841.0.html
  • Location:Springfield, Victoria
  • Tagline:We all started somewhere. Where are you Lurch???

Posted 30 January 2010 - 08:43 PM

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.

#39 Dinsy

Dinsy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:Yeppoon - QLD

Posted 30 January 2010 - 11:26 PM

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.


#40 mtopxsecret6

mtopxsecret6

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 377 posts
  • Location:Sunnyspank Brisbane

Posted 31 January 2010 - 08:28 AM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users