QLD hooning laws

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

Not to take your car for 30 days they don't, to press charges they do.

Really?

Your intimate knowledge of the traffic laws in QUEENSLAND (not Victoria where you live) comes from where?

[The Monty]

Id just LOVE to see this new drafted Legislation. It sounds so good, but I cant find it anywhere?

[noflac52]

Whats the attraction of burnouts and similar behaviour on public roads anyway?

A burnout is for preheating tyres before a drag race or circuit race to improve traction off the line at organised sporting events. There are a lot of places to go now where legal participation is allowed and encouraged so my question to the pro burnout members on the forum is why, what is it for, what do you get out of it that is positive?

I really would like to know.

I can list the negatives which seem pretty obvious to me.

Stuff your car up pretty quickly

Wear your tyres out very quickly

Pollute the local area with smoke and noise

Get most of the community offside with car enthusiasts

Lose control and severely bend your car

Void your insurance

Lose control and injure someone in your car ( or yourself )

Lose control and severely injure innocent persons who just happen to be in the vicinity of said behaviour

Kill someone either in your car or in the vicinity

Get booked

Lose your licence

Lose your licence for life

Create a platform for so called do gooders and bureaucrats to bring in draconian laws

These are the negatives that come to mind easily and try as I might I can't think of one positive!

I'm serious about this. I really do want to know. What 's the attraction when it can be done legally with out any of these negatives?

So come on supporters of burnouts why do you actually do it?

[The Monty]

Since noone could find anything of it, so I found it myself. It was drafted in 2011, and as such,
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bi...otVImpAB11.pdf

These are the amendments they wished to have been made.

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...ePowResA00.pdf

This is the current act, so they have not been passed as yet, and inserted/omitted.

Some brief research on the matter,

Most of Chapter 3, but ceratinly this:
54 Power of inquiry into road use contraventions
(1) It is lawful for a police officer to make any reasonably
necessary inquiry, investigation, inspection, examination, or
test for establishing whether or not an offence against the
Road Use Management Act has been committed.

This is the section that people have been whinging about police doing more checks at RBT sights. Police have thepower to make ALL releveant enquiries that a driver in conducting themselves as per the regulation of the act.


They want to add in this:

burn out, for a motor vehicle, means wilfully drive the motor
vehicle in a way that causes a sustained loss of traction of one
or more of the drive wheels with the road surface.

and this:

‘74A Impounding motor vehicles for automatic
impoundment period if second or subsequent
type 1 related offence
‘(1) A police officer may impound a motor vehicle if the driver of
the motor vehicle is charged with having committed a type 1
vehicle related offence and—
(a) the driver of the motor vehicle has previously been
charged with having committed a type 1 vehicle related
offence on 1 previous occasion within the relevant
period and the charge has not been decided before the
initiating impoundment;

Thats the only real difference I can see in all that, and add to that the already existing prescribed circumstances:

The offences which renders a member of the QPS able to impound a vehicle are as follows:
328A Dangerous operation of a vehicle
(1) A person who operates, or in any way interferes with the
operation of, a vehicle dangerously in any place commits a
misdemeanour.
Maximum penalty—200 penalty units or 3 years
imprisonment.
Definitions in relation to this offence:
(6) In this section—
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.
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.
unlawful race means a race involving a vehicle in
contravention of the Transport Operations (Road Use
Management) Act 1995, section 85.
unlawful speed trial mean a trial of the speed of a vehicle in
contravention of the Transport Operations (Road Use
Management) Act 1995, section 85.

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.

85 Racing and speed trials on roads
(1) Any person who organises or promotes or takes part in—
(a) any race between vehicles or animals on a road; or
(b) any attempt to establish or break any vehicle or animal
speed record on a road; or
(c) any trial of the speed of a vehicle or animal on a road; or
(d) any competitive trial designed to test the skill of any
vehicle driver or the reliability or mechanical condition
of any vehicle on any road where a prize or trophy or
other benefit or advantage in excess of the value of $100
may be won by a competitor;
is guilty of an offence, unless the prior permission in writing
of the commissioner to the holding or making of the race,
attempt, or trial has been obtained.
Maximum penalty—40 penalty units or 6 months
imprisonment.
(2) The commissioner has power to grant or refuse permits under
this section.
(3) The commissioner may in any such permit impose any
conditions the commissioner deems necessary in the interests
of public safety or convenience.
(4) Any such permit or conditions may be of general or limited
application.
(5) If any person organising, promoting, or taking part in any
such race, attempt, or trial contravenes or fails to comply with
any condition imposed as aforesaid, that person is guilty of an
offence.
Maximum penalty—40 penalty units or 6 months
imprisonment.
(6) If the court convicts a person of an offence against subsection
(1), the court, in addition to imposing a penalty, must
disqualify the person from holding or obtaining a Queensland
driver licence for a period of at least 6 months.

291 Making unnecessary noise or smoke
(1) A person must not—
(a) start a vehicle, or drive a vehicle, in a way that makes
unnecessary noise or smoke; or
(b) wilfully start a vehicle, or drive a vehicle, in a way that
makes unnecessary noise or smoke.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
Example for paragraph (a)—
driving a vehicle in a way that causes noise or smoke because of—
(a) disrepair of the vehicle; or
(b) the way the vehicle is loaded; or
(c) the condition, construction or adjustment of the vehicle’s engine
or other equipment
Example for paragraph (b)—
driving a vehicle in a way that causes noise or smoke by wilfully and
unnecessarily causing the wheels of the vehicle to lose traction and spin
on the road surface
Note—
An offence against paragraph (b) is an offence mentioned in the Police
Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, section 69A(1)(d).

So to make it even easier for the people reading, I will word it like this:

If you dont:
Dangerously operate a motor vehicle (as stated)
Speed by more than 40km/h
Drive an overly unroadworthy car
Overload your car
Involve yourself in a race
Drive a vehicle carelessly (as outlined)
Engage in a race or speed trial, or
Start or drive a vehicle that makes unnecessary noise or smoke.


All makes sense to me, I dont see what the big deal is about?

Bahhh, to hell with this, Ill jump on the naysayers side. Damn those rascally police!! How dare they enforce the laws on which the government has enabled them!! Its Blasphemy!! Everyone should be allowed to drift VL commies on skid tyres in peak hour out the front of MACCAS!!!!! DAMN THEM ALLL!!!!!!!


(Obviously intended sarcasm)

[Dash_XR]

Originally Posted by flappist

Really?

Your intimate knowledge of the traffic laws in QUEENSLAND (not Victoria where you live) comes from where?

I was talking about Victoria but Queensland may follow suit.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by noflac52

Whats the attraction of burnouts and similar behaviour on public roads anyway?

A burnout is for preheating tyres before a drag race or circuit race to improve traction off the line at organised sporting events. There are a lot of places to go now where legal participation is allowed and encouraged so my question to the pro burnout members on the forum is why, what is it for, what do you get out of it that is positive?

I really would like to know.

I can list the negatives which seem pretty obvious to me.

Stuff your car up pretty quickly

Wear your tyres out very quickly

Pollute the local area with smoke and noise

Get most of the community offside with car enthusiasts

Lose control and severely bend your car

Void your insurance

Lose control and injure someone in your car ( or yourself )

Lose control and severely injure innocent persons who just happen to be in the vicinity of said behaviour

Kill someone either in your car or in the vicinity

Get booked

Lose your licence

Lose your licence for life

Create a platform for so called do gooders and bureaucrats to bring in draconian laws

These are the negatives that come to mind easily and try as I might I can't think of one positive!

I'm serious about this. I really do want to know. What 's the attraction when it can be done legally with out any of these negatives?

So come on supporters of burnouts why do you actually do it?

While I do no support doing burnouts in public places where others may be endangered I do not support your questioning and validation methodology.

While the others are validating their "burnouts" can you validate why YOU should be allowed to drive your XP coupe which has no modern safety technology therefore endangering all other road users and pedestrians AND has no emission reduction so is polluting the planet thereby endangering future generations.

Or is that different........

[cs123]

Originally Posted by The Monty

All makes sense to me, I dont see what the big deal is about?

Bahhh, to hell with this, Ill jump on the naysayers side. Damn those rascally police!! How dare they enforce the laws on which the government has enabled them!! Its Blasphemy!! Everyone should be allowed to drift VL commies on skid tyres in peak hour out the front of MACCAS!!!!! DAMN THEM ALLL!!!!!!!


(Obviously intended sarcasm)

What I object to is the emotive language of politicians (and police). If they are just enforcing laws then why label them "Hoon" laws. It shows they have an agenda to target a specific demographic of car owners, one they deem to be a danger to other road users.

What image comes to mind then for these dangerous road users? Why guys driving modified cars of course. That's me, I own a modified car. I don't speed or hang it out around corners but I don't want to be included in a demographic of people targeted. It's kind of like being at school when the teacher has it in for you. Any transgression will be jumped on.

The second thing I don't like is the subjective nature of some of these laws. Yes, there are a number of laws that can fall into this category but combined with the stance of police and government I have no faith that they will be applied fairly.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

I was talking about Victoria but Queensland may follow suit.

Or Queensland may see that despite their draconain road rules Victoria still has just a fairly similar road toll to the rest of the country and deduce that yet again they got it wrong.

The topic is proposed amendments to QLD laws, other states have no real relevance.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by flappist

AND has no emission reduction so is polluting the planet thereby endangering future generations.

Have you gone green on us Flappist?

[xisled]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

Loss of traction, unnecessary noise OR smoke. Technically getting caught doing 3 burnouts in a period of 6 years (yes 6 years) can get your car crushed.

Police merely need to suspect you of hooning to take your car for up to a month, this could simply be a similar car they saw 6 months ago doing a burnout.

No scare tactics, this IS the law.

This is wrong. About a year ago. My car was on film doing burnouts. Film got taken to the police.

I was in Sydney at the time. So it was not me driving. The car was on a cruise here in Vic. The driver was doing burnouts and such. Police said they could not do anything as they could not prove who was driving, windows up and they could not prove when the offence happened.

They have 1 year to charge the driver with the offence.

Basically cop turned around to the event organisers and said, if we go impound the car and get it wrong we will be sued. They said the only way they can impound a car is if they see the offence happening or the driver admits to the offence.

Not sure what happened, but I posted a link to the legislation on post 5 but the link is not working.

[Dash_XR]

Read my next post.

[V8GT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Or Queensland may see that despite their draconain road rules Victoria still has just a fairly similar road toll to the rest of the country and deduce that yet again they got it wrong.

The topic is proposed amendments to QLD laws, other states have no real relevance.

flappist are you a lawyer at all?

put it this way, if your car was ever sent to be crushed.. you could build pretty compelling argument that it is unconstitutional to do so.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by flappist

While I do no support doing burnouts in public places where others may be endangered I do not support your questioning and validation methodology.

While the others are validating their "burnouts" can you validate why YOU should be allowed to drive your XP coupe which has no modern safety technology therefore endangering all other road users and pedestrians AND has no emission reduction so is polluting the planet thereby endangering future generations.

Or is that different........

Firstly I can drive my xp coupe because it is being built to standards acceptable to the authorities and within all the laws that are in force atm pertaining to it. 100% legal to drive on any road in Australia. So yes it is different!!! Note: four wheel disc brakes, upgraded suspension to rival most modern cars and more but I think they are enough to protect the community from an undue amount of harm.

No extra danger to anyone there! A driver with lots of experience and lots of advanced education in the art of driving so overall probably less danger to anyone than a large percentage of drivers on our roads.

Emissions; with the mileage I will be doing in it the emissions put out over the life of the vehicle will be much less than the emissions created by building a new car and driving the no of kilometres that you say you do. So net result is you are contributing more to the demise of future generations than me because the fuel you use is not clean its just cleaned more than mine.

Validation complete!

Now to the question. I am not asking anyone to validate it because I don't think it can be. Its just a simple question of why do you do it. I am just interested in what drives people to do it. I am not asking them to justify it!

Seeing this is a discussion forum I have put forward some reasons why society ( and myself ) don't think it should be done and asked for comments from pro burnout members.

The irony is that you ask me to validate what I do and tell me that you disagree with me Questioning somone else and asking them to validate what they do even though that is not my intention. Go figure!!!

I think it will be interesting to see if I get any replies addressing the question!

[grandpa_spec_F6]

To give an engineers perspective, my grandfather always stressed to me not to do burnouts as he said "Mechanically, you're torturing the car, putting stress and huge load on parts that are not designed to take such forces over a prolonged period"

He also hated the idea of forced induction as he had to repair early supercharged engines and maintained I should NEVER use forced induction on an engine... I wish he were still around so I could take him for a strap in the F6 and show him how far we've come

For me there's nothing wrong with burnouts... asking someone to justify why they need to do burnouts is like asking why someone likes to collect stamps, both could be equally boring to the other person but hey, they get a kick out of it.

The way I view it is you're making your car do something that it wasn't designed for, maybe it's the cave man in me but you can't describe a burnout, you have to be there. There's the smell, the sound, the energy of the crowd (I'm talking legal here), the smoke, the bits of stuff flying everywhere and of course the thrill of experiencing your car push you side to side with the g-force from 'donuts'.

It doesn't make sense, mechanically torturing your car for the sake of turning rubber into smoke, but it's so much more than that. Maybe it's an empowerment thing, a show off force that "my car can skid better than your car"... others argue it's just bogans being bogans.

Some call it a 'destructive hobby', but the negative implication here only centers around what people wish to perceive, usually tailored to their own interests and agenda. What they DON'T see is the CONSTRUCTIVE side... the countless hours building a decent engine, the tyres, panel work, hours spend in the junk yard in search of parts, mates building and tinking with you in the shed for hours and hours, friendships, excitement, blood sweat and tears, not to mention the money going back into local industry. Burnouts are so much more than bogans, tyres and smoke.

Cars are unique due to the fact that they are used for so many purposes, for enjoyment, for daily chores, for work, for a whole range of purposes. Many people have a very firm idea of what a car SHOULD and SHOULD NOT do. For me it's hard to pinpoint what a car 'should' be used for as my take on it centers around what a car 'can' be used for.

If everyone did what they thought everyone else deemed 'acceptable' we'd have a pretty boring, rhetoric driven world.... my 2c..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Or it might just be our bogan culture... so I'll leave this here just in case:

[flappist]

Originally Posted by noflac52

Firstly I can drive my xp coupe because it is being built to standards acceptable to the authorities and within all the laws that are in force atm pertaining to it. 100% legal to drive on any road in Australia. So yes it is different!!! Note: four wheel disc brakes, upgraded suspension to rival most modern cars and more but I think they are enough to protect the community from an undue amount of harm.

No extra danger to anyone there! A driver with lots of experience and lots of advanced education in the art of driving so overall probably less danger to anyone than a large percentage of drivers on our roads.

Emissions; with the mileage I will be doing in it the emissions put out over the life of the vehicle will be much less than the emissions created by building a new car and driving the no of kilometres that you say you do. So net result is you are contributing more to the demise of future generations than me because the fuel you use is not clean its just cleaned more than mine.

Validation complete!

Now to the question. I am not asking anyone to validate it because I don't think it can be. Its just a simple question of why do you do it. I am just interested in what drives people to do it. I am not asking them to justify it!

Seeing this is a discussion forum I have put forward some reasons why society ( and myself ) don't think it should be done and asked for comments from pro burnout members.

The irony is that you ask me to validate what I do and tell me that you disagree with me Questioning somone else and asking them to validate what they do even though that is not my intention. Go figure!!!

I think it will be interesting to see if I get any replies addressing the question!

Ah so by using your logic it would be ok to do burnouts on an older public road in cars that were built before doing burnouts was made illegal provided the driver has "lots of experience and lots of advanced education in the art of driving". After all, if it was ok then it must be ok now.

Is that what you are saying?

And the last bit, you are only doing a small amount of km with large emissions so I am worse with my new car doing large amounts of km with small emissions?
Is that like selling a small amount of heroin is better than selling a large amount of home grown tobacco?
The deflecting blame by pointing out someone worse defense strategy stopped working round about the time you started high school.

But understand I do not necessarily disagree with any of the reasoning, I just strongly disagree with your position that things are wrong until proven to you that they are not.

That is not how a free society works but it is the way the nannyistas and social engineers are trying push us........

The point I am making is that it is very dangerous to fall into the trap of trading or sacrificing to retain freedom and demanding others do the same.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin February 1775

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

It was just as true then as it is now......

[grandpa_spec_F6]

I didn't know. Benjamin Franklin was a member on AFF!! HOLY CRAP!

Jokes aside, agreed, giving up x because of y doesnt always make it right.

[jpd80]

Vehicles can be released if confiscation will cause severe hardship to person or family..

[260 XR8]

Hey noflac52, while im with you and dont do burnouts mainly because of the damage it does to your car, you lost me big time when you made an assumsion that society along with you were against it. You dont know that to be true, there has been no australia wide referrendum or vote to tally offical numbers as to for or against, it could well be the old case of the minority with a loud voice, we just dont know either way.
I had a couple of cars doing burnouts outside my house a little while back, so what were they a hulking 351 or 350 or even a turbo six falcon or a sr20 rice burner, NO it was a stock standard holden rodeo ute that cops would not even look twice at, and a hyundai excel stock as a rock hub caps and all.
My point, looks can be deceiving and if they simple target cars by looks or sound are they really catching the " hoons ".
Most people that do this have a car they dont care about, hence not all modified cars do burnouts, I think that they should concentrate on unroadworthy and illegally modified cars I have no problem with this there is no to very little police disgression involved and this may actually save lives.
Does anyone have actual statistics of how many accidents are caused by modified cars that are doing untoward things that result in fatality, as apposed to normal cars doing the same thing i.e speed being the main thing.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by 260 XR8

Hey noflac52, while im with you and dont do burnouts mainly because of the damage it does to your car, you lost me big time when you made an assumsion that society along with you were against it. You dont know that to be true, there has been no australia wide referrendum or vote to tally offical numbers as to for or against, it could well be the old case of the minority with a loud voice, we just dont know either way.
I had a couple of cars doing burnouts outside my house a little while back, so what were they a hulking 351 or 350 or even a turbo six falcon or a sr20 rice burner, NO it was a stock standard holden rodeo ute that cops would not even look twice at, and a hyundai excel stock as a rock hub caps and all.
My point, looks can be deceiving and if they simple target cars by looks or sound are they really catching the " hoons ".
Most people that do this have a car they dont care about, hence not all modified cars do burnouts, I think that they should concentrate on unroadworthy and illegally modified cars I have no problem with this there is no to very little police disgression involved and this may actually save lives.
Does anyone have actual statistics of how many accidents are caused by modified cars that are doing untoward things that result in fatality, as apposed to normal cars doing the same thing i.e speed being the main thing.

Yes well...every time I've seen pictures in the paper of "hoons cars" that police have confiscated (such as a story last year in the Rocky paper), you never seem to see nicely modded Silvias, WRX's, Skylines, or whatever that people would normally associate as being "hoons cars"...they always show a yard full of rusty old rattle traps. Old Camrys, rusty Commodores and Falcons, old utes, Hyundais, and other rubbish that has you checking to see whether they've included a photo of a wreckers yard by mistake.

[EVLKNEVL]

I haven't seen one comment on here even remotely to the tune of "I don't like the new laws because I want to be allowed to do burnouts and hoon". Conversely, many people are here showing concern regarding the sloppy structure of the legislation, using 'police discretion' to plug the leaks. Many people have shown concern that the way the hoon problem is being dealt with is not effective, and it serves to generate friction between car enthusiasts and the authorities.

A lot of people who chime in on these topics to wag their finger and politely advise us that if we didn't hoon we wouldn't have a problem, should be aware that they aren't talking to the hoons. They're talking generally to people who are voicing concerns about laws which are poorly constructed. We aren't cop bashers, we aren't hoons, we're reasonable people with reasonable concerns.

If you need to wag your finger, find some hoons and wag it at them. More power to you.

[The Monty]

I think you are missing the point completely in terms of the legislation......
The legislation is watertight, not at all sloppy. Each piece of legislation also has its own dictionary with its own meanings so it cant be misinterpreted. And you are now complaining that police can use there discretion? Ive asked this before in other threads, and have always got the answer that I expected.
A) Have you ever been booked for an offence that could be classified as hooning (I have)?
B) Was it classed as hooning by the police officer (mine wasnt)?
C) Did a police officer make an application to impound your vehicle (mine didnt)?
D) Should the officer not have been given the opportunity to use his discretion and taken your car off you, as you have stated he should have done (thank god mine did)?

In my case, I was in a classic "hoon" car. AU, lowered, 17's, dark tint, loud exhaust, big stereo. Gave it a bit around an intersection, a bit sideways, and was pulled over. I was 19 years old. I was apologetic, pulled over in a safe location, and didnt deny what I had done. The officer used his discretion, and gave me a fine of drive a vehicle in a way that makes unnecessary noise. In your opinion, the police officer should deffinately not have been allowed to use discretion, and I should have had my car impounded, as thats what legislation says.

Thankfully, normal people understand the concept of what is meant by discretion.....

[EVLKNEVL]

Actually, I didn't offer my opinion.

I don't know who you are, my post was not directed at you.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

To add a positive example to this, a friend in his fully hecktek vl got done for "drifting" around a corner. Cop pulled him up, he passed the attitude test and got no points, no impound and a fine + stern warning.

This illustrates legislation can work, but my faith in peoples discretion, including my own at times, worries me and I think that is why law makers and police will always be damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Again, the core issue of hooning doesnt revolve around car enthusiasts, but I think EVLKNEVL summed it up by saying we are being targeted regardless as they see us as an "easy target"

[xisled]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Yes well...every time I've seen pictures in the paper of "hoons cars" that police have confiscated (such as a story last year in the Rocky paper), you never seem to see nicely modded Silvias, WRX's, Skylines, or whatever that people would normally associate as being "hoons cars"...they always show a yard full of rusty old rattle traps. Old Camrys, rusty Commodores and Falcons, old utes, Hyundais, and other rubbish that has you checking to see whether they've included a photo of a wreckers yard by mistake.

I have been around hoon's for the past 10 years. Ever since I have turned 16.

I used to attend the street meets in the Northern Suburbs of Melbourne, that were on 3 nights plus a week. Have not been in the last couple of years, I have grown up.

If you think it is just buckets, you are wrong. I know of many HSV's, Skylines including a R35, SS commodores including VE VY VX etc, BA to FG falcons, XR6 Turbo, Mercs, BMW that have all been impounded.

Even a few older cars used to come out. These are the cars that everyone on here says oh it would never do burnouts, they respect the car to much blah blah blah.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by flappist

Ah so by using your logic it would be ok to do burnouts on an older public road in cars that were built before doing burnouts was made illegal provided the driver has "lots of experience and lots of advanced education in the art of driving". After all, if it was ok then it must be ok now.

Is that what you are saying?

And the last bit, you are only doing a small amount of km with large emissions so I am worse with my new car doing large amounts of km with small emissions?
Is that like selling a small amount of heroin is better than selling a large amount of home grown tobacco?
The deflecting blame by pointing out someone worse defense strategy stopped working round about the time you started high school.

But understand I do not necessarily disagree with any of the reasoning, I just strongly disagree with your position that things are wrong until proven to you that they are not.

That is not how a free society works but it is the way the nannyistas and social engineers are trying push us........

The point I am making is that it is very dangerous to fall into the trap of trading or sacrificing to retain freedom and demanding others do the same.



It was just as true then as it is now......

It was never legal to do burnouts on public roads during my time as a driver.

The reference to driver skill and education and skill had no reference to doing burnouts. I only included it because of your comments about my choice of vehicle being so dangerous to the general public and asking me to validate what I do.

The emissions thing>
You made it personal by requesting validation of what I do, and I use what you do as a comparison because you asked and you were the one who is concerned about me endangering future generations. I'll use a quote here " people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" lol!

I could ask you to validate why you do so many klm knowing that you are polluting the planet but I won't.

I don't sell heroin or tobacco so I wouldn't know and the thread is about hooning laws not the drug trade.

I am not asking people to prove anything to me! I am just interested in the psychology of why it is done in the face of such opposition in our general society which to me is pretty obvious by the nature of these type of threads that keep coming up.
If you are banging your head against a wall and someone informs you that if you keep doing it you will suffer brain damage, assuming the brain damage is not already advanced, the smart person stops.

I actually don't mind a good burnout done in the right place and conditions. Hey! One can earn good money doing it professionally now but my opinion is that it is wrong where it has the potential to kill off the lifestyle that I love and have been associated with for a long time and put a lot into.
I drive modified cars and am a victim of this behaviour too because I am likely to be targeted.

When it comes to burnouts and associated behaviour on public roads this is dangling a carrot in front of the media and the law makers to strut their stuff and eventually stifle our sport/lifestyle until it is not worth pursuing anymore.

It seems pretty straight forward to me. Stop the obvious stupid stuff where the chances of getting caught by the media or society members who have it in for us can see it and eventually they will find someone else to pick on.

Lastly if you have read any of my previous posts you will see that I am against more laws and nannyism but unless a degree of personal responsibility is shown to the nannyists that is exactly what they will do. I don't demand sacrifice of freedom I fully support a more free society but freedom has to be earnt in many ways and one is showing that you are capable of living in a free society without causing harm to it. Easy really!

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Yes well...every time I've seen pictures in the paper of "hoons cars" that police have confiscated (such as a story last year in the Rocky paper), you never seem to see nicely modded Silvias, WRX's, Skylines, or whatever that people would normally associate as being "hoons cars"...they always show a yard full of rusty old rattle traps. Old Camrys, rusty Commodores and Falcons, old utes, Hyundais, and other rubbish that has you checking to see whether they've included a photo of a wreckers yard by mistake.

I agree 100% but I am targeted by authorities and the top of the line modified cars are usually portrayed in the media as the perpetrators of such behaviour. I don't believe that there are many of these involved ( there will always be some ) but we suffer disproportionately by the targeting of law enforcers and bureaucrats.
People who put their heart and soul into building a full on project car don't usually abuse them.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by 260 XR8

Hey noflac52, while im with you and dont do burnouts mainly because of the damage it does to your car, you lost me big time when you made an assumsion that society along with you were against it. You dont know that to be true, there has been no australia wide referrendum or vote to tally offical numbers as to for or against, it could well be the old case of the minority with a loud voice, we just dont know either way.
I had a couple of cars doing burnouts outside my house a little while back, so what were they a hulking 351 or 350 or even a turbo six falcon or a sr20 rice burner, NO it was a stock standard holden rodeo ute that cops would not even look twice at, and a hyundai excel stock as a rock hub caps and all.
My point, looks can be deceiving and if they simple target cars by looks or sound are they really catching the " hoons ".
Most people that do this have a car they dont care about, hence not all modified cars do burnouts, I think that they should concentrate on unroadworthy and illegally modified cars I have no problem with this there is no to very little police disgression involved and this may actually save lives.
Does anyone have actual statistics of how many accidents are caused by modified cars that are doing untoward things that result in fatality, as apposed to normal cars doing the same thing i.e speed being the main thing.

It was an assumption on my part based on a lot of anecdotal evidence that is around and the general media hype and rhetoric by public servants that generates public opinion.
I feel that they would not pursue these stories and policies if they were not popular to the general public which makes up a large part of our society. Please prove me wrong I would love it if we actually had a freer society!
I'm just interested in why its done in the face of such opposition when there is not much good that can come to the perpetrators when its done on public streets; see my reply to flappist on this.

Recent statistics for NSW are. Modified vehicles about .6 of 1%

Speeding " " " 26%

Drink driving " " " 28%

Fatigue " " " 25%

These are close. Not 100% accurate because I am relying on my memory from 12mths ago but the statistic for modified vehicles is pretty accurate as it was less that 1%

[mcnews]

Oh to be back in the day when as a young bloke you could get away with all doing big smokies and putting switchable windscreen squirter bottles full of oil behind the rear wheel arches on your mates cars that didn't have enough power to put on a good laugh without the oil squirting on the rear tyre. Nanny crap does my head in. Do it in a non built up area and have some fun, all this you do a smoky you are a worse than a paedo media/polly/wowser outcry crap is pathetic.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Maybe back in the day but you dont do any of that near the city these days, even city limits.

Few lads recently got done by cameras that were setup in our local industrial estate. They filmed them, then went round the next day with the glove and vaso.

Im all for burnouts but In a controlled environment.

[Angeldust]

ok, the road toll in QLD right now stands at 22.

Out of those 22, 7 (seven) are motorbike fatalities.

For the small percentage of bike vs cars on the roads, should therefore all motocycles be banned? (The road toll would definetly drop.) Even further, if we ban all trucks as well, we can reduce the road toll be an easy 50%.

[2011G6E]

Yes well, one of those was a bike fatality in Blackwater just the other day where the poor bugger came off on an unfamiliar corner in town. Wouldn't have been an issue and he would have most likely have slid to a stop, picked himself up, and said "Bugger, that hurt" if the council didn't decide that it would look simply terrific to put bloody great boulders along the side of the footpath...

People say "Don't blame the roads!", but one look at road design shows it certainly doesn't help. Many motorcyclists are seriously injured or killed after coming off a bike in an eminently survivable way, but then slide into some large piece of road side furniture or bloody great tree a few feet from the road. Cars, to a lesser extent, also fall victim to this.
Roads should be cleared ten meters back from each side of the road...doesn't look all pretty? Tough...after all, as we are repeatedly told, "If it saves one life, it's worth it"...