New Vehicle Law, Vodascam and World Destruction

[Lou Girardin]

Hang on - should someone get away with sustained loss of traction because they are a pillar of society in a Merc ? Is he a good enough driver to control the vehicle in that situation any better than a boy racer ? Maybe, maybe not.

Good one them for applying the law consistently.

But the legislation was sold to the great unwashed as a measure to deal with boy racers. That's why they thought it was a great idea.
Now it's used to target anyone they want.
As were speed cameras, "they are only being used to target the 15th percentile fastest drivers".
As were laser guns, "we only want to catch the clever speeders" - ad infinitum.
This is why you don't give away rights or grant Police powers lightly.

[Patrick]

It was actually introduced to deal with the problem of "thier actions," regardless of age, race, religion etc etc...not just the "youth" aspect. Boy racers come in all shapes and sizes...and ages!!! If a "pillar of society" wants to re-live his misspent youth, bad luck. He is not above the law.

[Deano]

It was actually introduced to deal with the problem of "thier actions," regardless of age, race, religion etc etc...not just the "youth" aspect. Boy racers come in all shapes and sizes...and ages!!! If a "pillar of society" wants to re-live his misspent youth, bad luck. He is not above the law.

Apparently he is claiming it was an accident and not intentional.

It is also reported that the traction control of the Merc was 'off'.

So, looks to me like this dick should'nt bite off more than he can chew. (If it was him that turned it off)

Removing the traction control is for people who know how to handle a car.

Suck eggs and pay the fine like every other pleb.

[Grahameeboy]

Apparently he is claiming it was an accident and not intentional.

It is also reported that the traction control of the Merc was 'off'.....

I still reckon guilt should be based on 'intent'....so he was stupid and turned off the traction control but does that make him guilty of 'Drag Racing' if he was not actually 'Dragging'.....I mean he had his Wife and Mum in the back for Bhudhas sake.....

[Ixion]

Hang on - should someone get away with sustained loss of traction because they are a pillar of society in a Merc ? Is he a good enough driver to control the vehicle in that situation any better than a boy racer ? Maybe, maybe not.

Good one them for applying the law consistently.

My understanding was that the law was enacted to deal with people doing do-nuts and burnouts. Not someone pulling out of an intersection.

I have mentioned before that Mrs Ixion (as timid and lawabiding driver as could be found - refuses to go over 70km, never drives on the motorway etc) has on occasion to negoitate starting off on a steep hill intersection in her Nissan Sunny. Almost invariably, the weight transfer of the front wheel drive car, and her "rev it up real high and then bunny hop away" technique, means that she gets a tyre squeal as she gets under way. She lives now in dread of being ticketed and having her precious Sunny impounded, for "sustained loss of traction". Was this what parliament intended? I doubt it.

I wonder what the REAL reason the cops had a down on the guy was?

[Lou Girardin]

1)


3) I guess the world has had a "good" run so far, so we can't complain. We can't complain about bird flu arising from people in "certain" countries insisting on breeding so many poultry that they are forced to live inbetween them. We can't complain that those same people breed so many transitional animals, pigs for example, that they are forced to live inbetween them too, causing the transition of bird flu from bird to humans. We also can't complain that people are given so little information, that they allow their children to play with dead birds they've found in the wild, causing them to catch the H5N1 (bird flu) virus. Now we just wait for those birds to migrate, infect other species of birds which then migrate, etc... It seems more and more likely each day that bird flu as a pandemic is not a matter of if, but rather WHEN!

When the virus mutates to be transmittable by other than direct contact. Until then you're at more risk from lightening

Hell, that doesn't matter, Iran starting up their nuclear research program against nuclear restrictions might be much more of a risk than bird flu. Being told by countries who already have nuclear arms, that they can't have, must be rather insulting. Noone having nuclear programs (for weapons) seems such an easy answer, that it'll never happen.

If you were the Iranian Govt being treatened by the worlds largest imperial power, wouldn't you want them too. Korea's looking pretty secure from attack isn't it?

But what do I know.

[Grahameeboy]

My understanding was that the law was enacted to deal with people doing do-nuts and burnouts. Not someone pulling out of an intersection.

Agreed

I wonder what the REAL reason the cops had a down on the guy was?

Flash 'Fanny Magnet'...perhaps

[Darryboy]

She lives now in dread of being ticketed and having her precious Sunny impounded, for "sustained loss of traction".

That got me thinking, how long does the loss of traction have to be for it to be deemed 'sustained'?

[mstriumph]

.............................
Iran should have nukes, it will stop further aggression by that shithole Israel .....................

nice to see someone who doesn't allow his personal prejudices to colour his viewpoint lol

............................. and also stop 'Amerika' invading should they need more natural resources. Funny how North Korea has been left alone isn't it? No natural resources and they have actualy got nukes already...................................

i'm confused - you mean that north korea needs nukes to protect against amerika invading them for natural resources they haven't got?

.... i suppose that makes sense if you consider that america is also leaving zimbabwe alone [that is awash in natural resources and has NO nukes
to protect them] ...

............................. I would prefer there to be no nukes at all in the world ........

i just KNEW there was something we could agree on

............................. Look at how India/Pakistan has stabilised quite a bit more than it used to now they both have nukes.
/rant

now you are scaring me again ........

[Grahameeboy]

Maybe not, but giving the Police more and more powers tempts too many of them to use it indiscriminately.
The latest is the UK giving their Police the power of arrest for ANY offence "if the Officer believes it is reasonable to do so".
"He called me a power mad nazi, your Honour. I thought it was reasonable to arrest him for jaywalking"

I guess the Govt are now delegating powers to the Police to make them decision makers so poor old plod ends up in a dilemma and you are gonna get the over zealous plods doing anything that moves and the nice joe plod feeling peer pressure and of course the Govt will need figures to show that their dirty work is being carried out...........what a mess

[scumdog]

That got me thinking, how long does the loss of traction have to be for it to be deemed 'sustained'?

From my experience (with a soft judge) more than 2 seconds - less than that and he ammended the charge to 'Careless Use'

Screwed either way - unless you appear in Court less than 28 days after your car was impounded, at least then you get it back earlier (but MAYBE not your licence).

Let the Judge decide!

[Grahameeboy]

Geeze that is tough.....crazy world......does 'Careless Use' really cover less than 2 seconds.....I mean, say traffic is busy and to filter into traffic from an intersection you see a reasonable size gap (knowing that no one will let you out) and accelerate quickly to filter safely and the tyres squeal.......you can be found guilty of 'careless use'..........but to put in prespective, you go to the pub, drink just enough to keep you under the limit, you get stopped but intoxication 'legal' and you are not charged........which means that you can intentionally drink and drive upto a point but if you accidentally squeal your tyres you are 'careless' and you are charged for it.....gotta be something wrong there........

[Lou Girardin]

It looks like we're all 'careless' most of the time.
It's actually just another catch-all offence, "not the actions of a prudent driver"

[WINJA]

But the legislation was sold to the great unwashed as a measure to deal with boy racers. That's why they thought it was a great idea.
Now it's used to target anyone they want.
As were speed cameras, "they are only being used to target the 15th percentile fastest drivers".
As were laser guns, "we only want to catch the clever speeders" - ad infinitum.
This is why you don't give away rights or grant Police powers lightly.

I THINK MORE BOY RACERS WILL DO RUNNERS CAUSE OF THIS NEW LAW , IF YOU HAD 90 POINTS WOULD YOU WANNA STOP AND LOSE YOUR LICENCE FOR A NOISY EXHAUST , ESPECIALLY AS YOU KNOW ITS NO LOUDER THAN A BUS , TRUCK OR TRAIN BUT IN THE PIGS OPINION IT IS , FUCK YEAH MORE RUNNERS BRING IT ON .
I LIVE ON A 100 K STREETCH OF ROAD AND BOY RACERS TEST THEIR CARS HERE , BLOWN V8S WITH DUMP HEADERS , ROTORIES WITH A RUBBISH BIN SIZED MUFFLER OUT THE BACK YET THE ONLY THING THAT ANNOYS ME IS THE FUCKEN TRUCKS USING JAKE BRAKES AND MAKING A HUGE BANGING SOUND GOING OVER BUMPS WHEN THERE EMPTY , THE LAWS AN ASS AND SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL NOISY VEHICLES EVENLY OR NOT AT ALL, FUCK THE PIGS

[scumdog]

Geeze that is tough.....crazy world......does 'Careless Use' really cover less than 2 seconds.....I mean, say traffic is busy and to filter into traffic from an intersection you see a reasonable size gap (knowing that no one will let you out) and accelerate quickly to filter safely and the tyres squeal.......you can be found guilty of 'careless use'..........but to put in prespective, you go to the pub, drink just enough to keep you under the limit, you get stopped but intoxication 'legal' and you are not charged........which means that you can intentionally drink and drive upto a point but if you accidentally squeal your tyres you are 'careless' and you are charged for it.....gotta be something wrong there........

'Squealing' the tyres is a shit-load different to smoking them and leaving 10 metres of black strip on the road - we all know when our Dunlops a skidding, we all know to back off if we don't want trouble - and doing it on front of a cop is asking for trouble.