Hooning Fact Sheet from QUT Brings Car Club Cruising into Disrepute

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

See, there's your error right there...
The legislation does indeed say "excessively speeding means driving or operating a vehicle at a
speed more than 40km/h over the speed limit applying to the
driver under the Transport Operations (Road Use
Management) Act 1995."
However, it then goes on to further say "operates, or in any way interferes with the operation of, a
vehicle dangerously means operate, or in any way interfere
with the operation of, a vehicle at a speed or in a way that is
dangerous to the public, having regard to all the
circumstances, including—
(a) the nature, condition and use of the place; and
(b) the nature and condition of the vehicle; and
(c) the number of persons, vehicles or other objects that are,
or might reasonably be expected to be, in the place; and
the public includes passengers in a vehicle whether in a public
or private place."

That right there means that if the speed you are doing is considered "dangerous to the public", it doesn't necessarily have to be over the limit of the area. You could be driving at a speed in conditions ("having regard to all the circumstances") in a place where the officer judges that it is "excessive for the conditions", and you're in the poo.

Please don't tell us that this won't be "interpreted" as seen fit at the time by the roadside by individual officers on any given day. Well all know it will, and now they have the teeth to impound your vehicle for a long time until you prove you were innocent somehow, just to teach you a lesson.

I know you keep trying to push the boundaries and pick holes in everything to make yourself look better than the police. Just remember its not the police who make the laws, it is the government, the police only enforce them.

For the example you gave, I shall make it a bit simpler to everyone, and interpret it the way it is written.
If you get done 40km/h over the limit in the middle of the night, on the Gateway (3 lanes each way) you wouldnt get done for Dangerous Operation, as the other circumstances which MUST be proven by the crown in court, havent been fullfilled by you.

These are the conditions which must have been taken into consideration before being fined by the police:
a) the nature, condition and use of the place; and For instance, is it a highway, back street, school zone?
(b) the nature and condition of the vehicle; and For example, is it a new car, or a car with bald tyres that arent speed rated properly and no front bar..
(c) the number of persons, vehicles or other objects that are,
or might reasonably be expected to be, in the place; and Again, this means that you must take into consideration the amount of people, cars, or oblects that are NORMALLY in the place. Just because you caught a break in the traffic at 9am doesnt mean it was safe as there was noone around, it is reasonably expected that there WOULD be cars around at that time if day (if there usually is)

The legislation is there, I know a lot of you bar up at this comment, but if you dont do anything wrong, you wont get done for hooning. Just think of it this way:
Do you normally drive like a normal person?
Do you normally get hassled by other people on the road for your poor driving?
Do you normally get pulled over by police for hooning offences?

If not, this new legislation will change nothing for you, its not aimed at regular people like us who drive normally.


As for the 20km under thing, as far as Im aware there is no legislation regarding it, but you can be booked for:

83 Careless driving of motor vehicles
Any person who drives a motor vehicle on a road or elsewhere
without due care and attention or without reasonable
consideration for other persons using the road or place is
guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty—40 penalty units or 6 months
imprisonment.

But seeing as this is a simple offence, which requires you to go to court, it would need to be an act of gross negligence, such as 20km/h under on a single carriage way where there is a line up 2km long behind you, and you have passed numerous places you could have pulled over.

Again, if you drive normally, there is no problem. If you think youve been hard done by on any of these offences, once it goes to court (which it will have to), challenge it. The magistrate will usually side with the public over police, especially if they can see (and its usually quite obvious) that a miscarriage of justice has been imposed on you.

Josh

[GasoLane]

(c) the number of persons, vehicles or other objects that are,
or might reasonably be expected to be, in the place; and
the public includes passengers in a vehicle whether in a public
or private place.

I guess if this part was enforced there would be a LOT of concerned farmers in Qld.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by The Monty

As for the 20km under thing, as far as Im aware there is no legislation regarding it, but you can be booked for:


Josh

No the reference was an example given in the road rules about causing an obstruction... there is no defined speed

125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
Offence provision.
Note Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle — see the definition
of drive in the dictionary.
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path
of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road to
which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is no
reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

No the reference was an example given in the road rules about causing an obstruction... there is no defined speed

Received, thanks for the clarification ;)
Just for people to understand a little better, if you were on said road, going slow as you were towing a trailer, and there were no opportunity to pull over at all, you would not be able to be fined for the offence.

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by ZC-Cruiser

TO(RUM)Act:
TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1995

Do you have links to the other legislations you quote?

All of the legislation relevant to QLD can be found at www.legislation.qld.gov.au

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Received, thanks for the clarification ;)
Just for people to understand a little better, if you were on said road, going slow as you were towing a trailer, and there were no opportunity to pull over at all, you would not be able to be fined for the offence.

Police here were patrolling the newly opened motorway here a few years ago (our first and only motorway) because of the regular complaints that people were driving at 70 and 80kmh in the 100zone (initially it was a single lane either way! and NO safe areas to pull over and NO overtaking was allowed). A lot of the times you would see overloaded utes with overloaded trailers barely reaching 80kmh. Its since been upgraded to dual lanes each way thankfully... but you still get idiots on there doing 80kmh!

[xtremerus]

What if a 'Road Safety Expert' comes up with an idea that in the interest of public safety, all vehicles older than 30yrs be deregistered, and not driven on the road, and it became a law.

Those that advocate ' don't do anything wrong, and the laws won't affect you', would you happily comply and get rid of that older car that you lovingly restored and spent a lot of money on? No protest at all?

Just because Govt. make a Law, doesn't mean it is always a good law.
And we don't have to bend over and take it, without a protest.

[Bucknaked]

Originally Posted by DJM83

One in an SS, one in a GT.

Almost a given that the SS had a Chevy badge and the GT was actually an XT with full GT body kit

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Received, thanks for the clarification ;)
Just for people to understand a little better, if you were on said road, going slow as you were towing a trailer, and there were no opportunity to pull over at all, you would not be able to be fined for the offence.

ive been pulled over towing my work trailer..in a work zone...peek hour...and forced by the cop bike to the side of the road after i kept going with no where to pull over. It was the entry to a work site which ended up backing up the entire highway behind us...with many trucks lining up for entry to the site. It was for a random breath test


I believe women need better driver training...instead of this constant focus on hooning.......before i get flamed...start counting how many incidents you notice on the road...including anything from bad driving...no blinkers to pulling out in front of other cars or even driving up the wrong way on a one way street.
Ive said this before...but i started this with my wife because she didnt believe me and what i used to see on the roads with work so much. We stopped counting now because it was easy to notice when you just take notice.

Anyway...the last time i checked...wasnt the biggest case of car accidents, people who were older

[Pedro]

Poor ZC Cruiser. I just read your thread and haven't laughed so much in a long time at some of the inane posts. Good on you mate, I agree with what you initially proposed.

[ZC-Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Pedro

Poor ZC Cruiser. I just read your thread and haven't laughed so much in a long time at some of the inane posts. Good on you mate, I agree with what you initially proposed.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and interpretation of things...

Anyhow, CARRS-Q agreed with my opinion and removed the references to cruising so WIN!!

[cs123]

Originally Posted by ZC-Cruiser

Anyhow, CARRS-Q agreed with my opinion and removed the references to cruising so WIN!!

Excellent result.

I was having a look through the CARRS-Q website. Interesting that elderly drivers represent a more significant problem than hoons according to the stats. Why don't we clamp down on grandpa.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

What if a 'Road Safety Expert' comes up with an idea that in the interest of public safety, all vehicles older than 30yrs be deregistered, and not driven on the road, and it became a law.

Those that advocate ' don't do anything wrong, and the laws won't affect you', would you happily comply and get rid of that older car that you lovingly restored and spent a lot of money on? No protest at all?

Just because Govt. make a Law, doesn't mean it is always a good law.
And we don't have to bend over and take it, without a protest.

Ok mate great point, if it came to a law like that then yeah. I would put up a fight. But not for these hoon laws as if I don't break them, I got nothing to worry about.

[2011G6E]

Be careful what you wish for...

I'm expecting the idea of vehicles older than a certain age to be banned from the roads to rear its ugly head again soon...it's been quite a few years now.
The first time it was brought up was way back in the eighties by, I think, Mazda. They suggested...for "safety" and "environmental reasons" of course, not to increase sales of new cars...that cars older than five years be banned from the road. The next time it was one of the other car makers, with a suggestion of ten years. It's popped up every decade at the most, usually helpfully suggested by one of the big car makers, and it often gets a brief but sympathetic ear from the government of the day, before they can it.

The worrying thing is that every time it pops up, it gets more and more groups nodding their heads sagely saying it might be a good idea, worth looking into.

Sooner or later we will have the perfect storm of a green-leaning government backed by green groups and combined with safety interests who had got very vocal.
The idea could start as simple as not an outright ban as such, but maybe a sliding scale of registration costs, to "discourage" people from driving old cars and to encourage them to "move into safer and more environmentally friendly vehicles" in the "interests of public safety and to help our carbon footprint"...

I'm only 48, but I've seen this pop up at least five times (you would be especially aware of it if you have anything to do with the vintage and classic car clubs), and things have been very quiet for at least eight or ten years...it's time for it to dig it's way up out of the grave again, and let's hope this time motoring groups are there, and strong enough to oppose the green push, to drive a stake through its heart and put it back where it belongs...

[EVLKNEVL]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Be careful what you wish for...

I'm expecting the idea of vehicles older than a certain age to be banned from the roads to rear its ugly head again soon...it's been quite a few years now.
The first time it was brought up was way back in the eighties by, I think, Mazda. They suggested...for "safety" and "environmental reasons" of course, not to increase sales of new cars...that cars older than five years be banned from the road. The next time it was one of the other car makers, with a suggestion of ten years. It's popped up every decade at the most, usually helpfully suggested by one of the big car makers, and it often gets a brief but sympathetic ear from the government of the day, before they can it.

The worrying thing is that every time it pops up, it gets more and more groups nodding their heads sagely saying it might be a good idea, worth looking into.

Sooner or later we will have the perfect storm of a green-leaning government backed by green groups and combined with safety interests who had got very vocal.
The idea could start as simple as not an outright ban as such, but maybe a sliding scale of registration costs, to "discourage" people from driving old cars and to encourage them to "move into safer and more environmentally friendly vehicles" in the "interests of public safety and to help our carbon footprint"...

I'm only 48, but I've seen this pop up at least five times (you would be especially aware of it if you have anything to do with the vintage and classic car clubs), and things have been very quiet for at least eight or ten years...it's time for it to dig it's way up out of the grave again, and let's hope this time motoring groups are there, and strong enough to oppose the green push, to drive a stake through its heart and put it back where it belongs...

It's a scary thought, but you're right. Expect the media to chime in with horror stories involving older vehicles and their effect on road safety, pedestrian safety, Ozone layers etc etc and turn impressionable members of the public into classic-car-hating angry mobs. That's when the Governments love to spring into action with their knee-jerk laws that are purely designed to win favour and ultimately votes. If/when this pans out, I think that owners of classic vehicles would object strongly to people with modern cars who shrug and say, "Well it doesn't affect me so I don't care about the Ban Classic Car rules" or "Don't drive a classic car and you won't have a problem".

[2011G6E]

No no no...I don't want to be right...I want to be wrong, I want people to laugh at me in time to come and say what an idiot I was for bringing up this "foolish old idea that only ever got as far as a suggestion to government".

But having seen many things brought in over the years that people said would "never happen"...restrictions on P platers, mandatory fuel efficiency figures in other countries, the history of harsh registration laws in places like Japan which are the reason for the massive grey market imports of cars and bikes, "clunker laws" in some areas of the USA which mean any unregistered old car in view of a public road may be taken away by the local council, etc...I fear that sooner or later someone in a real position of authority will be in a ministerial position where they can actually do something about suggestions on how to get rid of old cars...

It's happened to other countries in the past and at the moment it still goes on in some countries...no reason in the world it couldn't happen here too...and it's something we have to be aware of and keep a watchful eye for any whisper or rumour that it's on the rise again.

[XBROO]

Yep I know that these laws have been trying to come in, but mostly pushed by car manufactures. There are alot of powerful government member that actaully own and drive classic cars. Ok maybe not holdens and fords, but MG , Mercs, Rollies, Bentlies ect. So when you talk about impressionable members of public, there's equally as many ones in high power position that would fight against it as well ( jugdes, QCs, lawyers, doctors etc). But you're right about Japan and the grey import market, but it's a different kettle of fish over here.

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by EVLKNEVL

It's a scary thought, but you're right. Expect the media to chime in with horror stories involving older vehicles and their effect on road safety, pedestrian safety, Ozone layers etc etc and turn impressionable members of the public into classic-car-hating angry mobs. That's when the Governments love to spring into action with their knee-jerk laws that are purely designed to win favour and ultimately votes. If/when this pans out, I think that owners of classic vehicles would object strongly to people with modern cars who shrug and say, "Well it doesn't affect me so I don't care about the Ban Classic Car rules" or "Don't drive a classic car and you won't have a problem".

Annual roadworthy in all states-no discrimination against any aged cars, or people. That would see the unsafe deathtraps into the scrap metal or wreckers yard.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

Annual roadworthy in all states-no discrimination against any aged cars, or people. That would see the unsafe deathtraps into the scrap metal or wreckers yard.

As long as it's an extremely strictly controlled system with a firmly laid down set of guidelines as a standard for every machanic to follow as to what a "roadworthy" is to involve.

Too many of us I'm sure know that there are various standards of thoroughness between different shops in what is already supposed to be a "standard" safety certificate, where some mechanics will be much more strict on older cars and let newer cars skate through, even ones with faults. The older car will be searched high and low for any excuse to turn down a safety certificate...a bit of worn carpet, a small tear in the drivers seat fabric, a very minor oil leak...while newer cars are given a cursory glance over because they're newer cars so they simply must be safer...
Then there's cost...a safety certificate is supposedly a fixed government-set fee, however in my area there is only one place that does them, and he charges over $160 an hour and a roadworthy will take "at least an hour, possibly more". Go to another area where there are a good selection of shops doing them, and you're looking at the normal $80 or so.

If they had a standard safety certificate system that you could be assured that all cars would be assessed by equally, people would trust it.
However, until that could be guaranteed, I would on one hand support an annual roadworthy, but on the other hand not trust it as far as I could throw it...

[my_gxl]

There are standard guidelines. The system works in NSW.
I do understand that some mechanics interpret things differently. This comes from their experience.

Once at least QLD and Vic get on board with the NSW system-then less death traps on the road will be a good thing.

I love old cars myself, and will point out that newer cars can be a deathtrap as well, esp if driven on harsh roads and neglected.

[2011G6E]

I guess the reason Queenslanders in particular have a few suspicions about yearly roadworthies is that we see an awful lot of staggeringly crapworthy cars visiting from states with yearly roadworthies, and we kind of look, puzzled, and ask "That thing is a result of a state with a yearly roadworthy system...honestly?"

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I guess the reason Queenslanders in particular have a few suspicions about yearly roadworthies is that we see an awful lot of staggeringly crapworthy cars visiting from states with yearly roadworthies, and we kind of look, puzzled, and ask "That thing is a result of a state with a yearly roadworthy system...honestly"?

Ah, but if they made it up as far as you on your roads they must be better than they look from the outside

[xisled]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

There are standard guidelines. The system works in NSW.
I do understand that some mechanics interpret things differently. This comes from their experience.

Once at least QLD and Vic get on board with the NSW system-then less death traps on the road will be a good thing.

I love old cars myself, and will point out that newer cars can be a deathtrap as well, esp if driven on harsh roads and neglected.

Yearly RWC are a waste of time and money. I live in Vic and can get a RWC, even if the car is not up to standard. I am happy I have never had to use this service and will not recommend people to him, but I see no point in it.

It will make the system corrupt.

My ex-partner was from NSW where yearly RWC are in place. I went with her to get the car checked, mechanic jumped in. Hit the brakes checked all the lights and tyres and passed the car.

[xisled]

Originally Posted by ZC-Cruiser

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and interpretation of things...

Anyhow, CARRS-Q agreed with my opinion and removed the references to cruising so WIN!!

Good work on that.

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by xisled

Yearly RWC are a waste of time and money. I live in Vic and can get a RWC, even if the car is not up to standard. I am happy I have never had to use this service and will not recommend people to him, but I see no point in it.

It will make the system corrupt.

My ex-partner was from NSW where yearly RWC are in place. I went with her to get the car checked, mechanic jumped in. Hit the brakes checked all the lights and tyres and passed the car.

I too know where I can get a $100 rwc over the phone, but a majority of people aren't like that.

You can't paint every mechanic with the same brush-although you think you can