A 20 YEAR-OLD Castlemaine man has become the first person to lose not one, but two cars to Victoria’s tough new anti-hoon laws.
Earlier this year Peter Black posted video and photos of himself on Facebook doing burnouts on a country road, and, after a member of the public alerted police to the video evidence, he was forced to relinquish the keys to his $21,000 Ford ute.
It’s the second vehicle that Black has had permanently confiscated and the latest in a long string of driving-related offences for the man. His case also raises the issue of whether confiscating the cars of ‘hoon’ drivers is an effective countermeasure against hard-core hooning.
So far over 8000 cars have been impounded under the anti-hoon legislation since it was introduced in 2006, including over 1500 cars this year. But, as the now-chastened Mr Black has demonstrated, it doesn’t eliminate a hoon’s ability to re-offend.
Police however are confident that the strategy is working.
“It really does send a clear message to would-be hoon drivers that not only do we have the support of the public, we also have the support of the magistrates when it comes to getting these menaces off the road,” said Senior-Constable Grant Healy of the Castlemaine police.
“Police are removing around 50 dangerous drivers from our roads every week which can only make it safer for other drivers.”
Loading ...
Comments
Click here to jump to Add Comment box
How do you get a picture next to your name?
Get a Gravatar. Click here to find out more.
What a goose ! twice…….didnt he learn the first time to take the plates of !
I dont believe confiscating cars is the answer… or even fair.
Whatever your opinion on burnouts/hoon driving, losing a $20,000 vehicle certainly does not fit the crime when many violent crimes are being punished much less severely.
Well…it’s like this, AB…If you don’t like the rules, don’t play the game.
Clowns like this should not only have their cars confiscated, they should be banned from the privilege of travelling in private vehicles permenantly.
Oh dear.
No doubt this guy’s a goose and I don’t condone his activities, but “banned from the privilege of travelling in private vehicles permenantly” ??? Gimme a break. What, now his d!ckhead mate can’t give him a lift in his private vehicle?
Perhaps everyone should lose their license for traveling 61 in a 60 zone too?
Rules and regulations are only of ANY value if they are ENFORCEABLE…
How would you propose to enforce this one?
Pffft
Motowebbi,
A person can go out in the city looking for trouble (repeatedly) and put someone in hospital, only to walk away with a good behaviour bond and a $500 fine. The court’s see the perpetraitor as ‘troubled’ and needing help…..
Yet another person can get caught doing a burnout, lose their license and lose the value of their vehicle ($21,000+ in this case).
It is overkill & hardly fair.
The Hoon law is a political stunt to combat a small problem which was beaten up by the tv media over the last few years.
I am not defending hoon action but am critical of the punishment.
Hooning is good fun and a part of driving. But only should be done when no one else is around.
Honestly I don’t like burnouts myself though!
But more to the point! Imagine paying off a $20,000 loan for a car you can’t drive? I am pretty sure a deep hatred for the police would grow within that person and quite possible turn them to violent crimes.
In the end this person would want to balance out the fairness. This is how criminals start out.
My apologies!!!
I didn’t realise this forum was reserved for the purpose of making non sequiturs…..
AB, the fact that public brawling is wrong (regardless of your perceptions of the usefulness or otherwise of the courts actions) does not make hooning, or any other anti-social/illegal behaviour, excusable; notwithstanding extenuating circumstances. Furthermore: Dale, “imagine paying off a $20,000 car lone…” it’s enough to make you want to behave yourself, isn’t it? (assuming, of course you’re not as brain dead as our Mr Black).
AB, you’re quite right on on point. Hooning is only a small problem
in that it only really affects the victims but most of them recover….the ones that aren’t killed!
As for the punishment fitting the crime: Machine-gunning drug trafficers seams a bit extreme to me…so I guess you’d still try it in Thailand and then whinge about the outcome?
I say good on the Police for their actions. These idiots should be removed from the road as there is a time and place for this sort of thing and it’s not on public roads.
Unfortunately, the only thing it’s going to stop this clown from doing is posting his idiocy on you tube.
My apologies!!!
I didn’t realise this forum was reserved for the purpose of making non sequiturs…..
AB, the fact that public brawling is wrong (regardless of your perceptions of the usefulness or otherwise of the courts actions) does not make hooning, or any other anti-social/illegal behaviour, excusable; notwithstanding extenuating circumstances. Furthermore: Dale, “imagine paying off a $20,000 car lone…” it’s enough to make you want to behave yourself, isn’t it? (assuming, of course you’re not as brain dead as our Mr Black).
AB, you’re quite right on on point. Hooning is only a small problem
in that it only really affects the victims but most of them recover….the ones that aren’t killed!
As for the punishment fitting the crime: Machine-gunning drug trafficers seams a bit extreme to me…so I guess you’d still try it in Thailand and then whinge about the outcome?
R12s, I think you meant: “enforced”, not “enforcable”.
Motowebbi,
Nope, I meant Enforceable… IE: Capable of being enforced
How would we go about enforcing your suggestion? Pull over every vehicle to see if said clown is traveling in the vehicle? It’s simply not a suitable solution because it can’t be enforced.
Don’t get me wrong. I support you in theory, it’s just that any punishment given needs to be able to be enforced for it to be of any value. I don’t think your “should be banned from the privilege of travelling in private vehicles permenantly” can possibly be enforced.
not enough smoke!
This is a case of when ‘Youtube’ really does mean ‘YOU TUBE’.
Serves him right!