CLS55 AMG confiscated

[GravelBen]

www.smh.com.au/news/World/NZ-police-impound-car-under-hoon-law/2006/01/11/1136956230849.html

so do you have any laws as stupid as that?

[Fer]

Officer said:

issued him with a ticket for "sustained loss of traction".

Class, how did he keep a straight face?

[GravelBen]

but the penalty if the court finds him guilty (which they probably will, as enforcing that law is almost completely down to the police officer's discretion): up to 3 months jail or a $6000 fine! thats madness!

in fact its significantly worse than if he was caught driving past a primary school in town at 96kph at 8-30am on a schoolday. go figure...

[CupraR]

"hoon" law



I love the way the Aussies and Kiwis just say it like it is. In the UK it would be called "Anti social driving prevention law" or some other BS.

>> Edited by CupraR on Thursday 12th January 08:39

[marki]

Fer said:

Officer said: issued him with a ticket for "sustained loss of traction". Class, how did he keep a straight face?

OK now i see you raise he same point as me

[deltafox]

Has this car got switchable traction control i wonder?

[marki]

deltafox said:

Has this car got switchable traction control i wonder?

I think on these its partialy switchable but with 500 horses and huge torque i guess partialy off is enought to light up the rears

[Zod]

deltafox said:

Has this car got switchable traction control i wonder?

You can't fully switch it off in Mercedes, but the big AMGs will spin wheels at the slightest provocation.

[davidra]

This might seem funny here (UK), but over there they can invoke the hoon law for "offences" including "causing unnecessary noise" and "display of excessive acceleration" both of which are defined as subjective measures meaning they can be applied at the officer's will. Tolerances are much lower for sporty or expensive cars... still think that's fair?

dave

[mcflurry]

Sounds like a good reason to buy a "stealth-mobile"

[7db]

To invoke S59, the car needs to driven without due care and attention and also in a manner so as to cause distress, alarm or annoyance.

jamesson said:

To answer the original question, yes we do. Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 allows police to warn the driver of a car being driven stupidly, ie doughnuts, handbrake turns, burn outs, or anything else considered anti-social behaviour - so it could even be just sitting there revving that 1.4 litre Peugeot with the howitzer exhaust. Anyway, a marker is placed against both the car and the driver on PNC which lasts for the next twelve months and if the same driver does more anti-social stuff in the same or another car, the car gets towed and recovery and storage costs must be paid by the driver. Similarly, if it's the original car but a different driver (to stop them letting their mates have a go) then the car gets towed as well. Off the top of my head, it's £105 to get the car back plus something like £15-£20 per day for storage but I'm open to correction of the money involved. Invoking this priceless bit of legislation also has the added bonus of such an outrage from the driver (even though they've had a previous warning, so must know the risk they're taking) that they eff and blind sufficiently to get themselves arrested for Public Order Act offences too. Brilliant.

[pentoman]

Man everyone is a paranoid schizo!! I'm caused alarm and distress because a car spun it's wheels?

[Parrot of Doom]

I once did a u-turn on a quiet urban road at night but instead of doing a 3-point turn I span the back end around from 0mph, and carried on. Quite safely I might add.

Now if a policeman had seen me do that, what offence might I have committed?

[7db]

Jamesson - np. I think it's an horrific piece of legislation, and I've little respect for any Force that sees fit to use it. The appeal to judiciary and burden of proof is removed. It's a shambles.

[Flat in Fifth]

7db said:

Jamesson - np. I think it's an horrific piece of legislation, and I've little respect for any Force that sees fit to use it. The appeal to judiciary and burden of proof is removed. It's a shambles.

hear hear

It's like so much New Labour legislation.

On the face of it starts out as something which seems to target an activity that most people find unnacceptable, eg doughnuts in Maccy D's car park, only to find that the reality of the legislation has grown like topsy. Then we get inappropriate use of that legislation and people who were never a problem in the first second and third place find themselves criminalised and, to be quite honest, justifiably hacked off.

Section 59 for 43 in a 30 anyone or did I dream that I read that somewhere?.