First car crushed under 'unlicensed laws'


The first vehicle confiscated under Western Australia's unlicensed driver laws was crushed today.

Police and Road Safety Minister Rob Johnson said police had successfully applied to the courts to have the 1989 Mitsubishi Galant hatchback permanently confiscated after its owner was caught for unlicensed driving offences on three occasions in less than a year.

Mr Johnson said he hoped today's crushing would send a clear message to anyone driving without a licence.

"My message to unlicensed drivers is simple - if you get behind the wheel, you will be caught and you will lose your vehicle," he said.

"While most drivers do the right thing and use our roads responsibly, there are some who continue to snub their nose at the law and at the safety of others.

"About 20 per cent of unlicensed drivers are involved in serious crashes in WA, posing a serious threat to themselves and other road users.

"Unlicensed motorists, along with hoon drivers, put lives at risk and do not deserve to be on our roads."

Mr Johnson said the vehicle was crushed due to its low-value.

The vehicle's engine and gearbox were donated to students to use in their mechanical studies at the Swan TAFE Carlisle Campus.

In November 2009, the vehicle of a repeat reckless driver was the first car to be crushed under the state's hoon laws.

Under the unlicensed driver laws, if a person is detected driving without a valid licence, police can impound the vehicle on-the-spot for 28 days.

If a person is caught for their third offence, the Police Commissioner can apply to a court to have the offender's vehicle permanently confiscated.  It is then crushed or sold, with proceeds going to road safety projects.

From July 2009 to August 2010, police have impounded 10,333 vehicles under the legislation.

Great idea. Hope to see more of it. Especially some of the hooligan's $50 000 precious toys.

locutius wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 9:44am:

Great idea. Hope to see more of it. Especially some of the hooligan's $50 000 precious toys.

Awesome.....Now they just need to bring the same legislation in across the rest of the country...

wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:09am:

First car crushed under 'unlicensed laws' The first vehicle confiscated under Western Australia's unlicensed driver laws was crushed today. Police and Road Safety Minister Rob Johnson said police had successfully applied to the courts to have the 1989 Mitsubishi Galant hatchback permanently confiscated after its owner was caught for unlicensed driving offences on three occasions in less than a year. Mr Johnson said he hoped today's crushing would send a clear message to anyone driving without a licence. "My message to unlicensed drivers is simple - if you get behind the wheel, you will be caught and you will lose your vehicle," he said. "While most drivers do the right thing and use our roads responsibly, there are some who continue to snub their nose at the law and at the safety of others. "About 20 per cent of unlicensed drivers are involved in serious crashes in WA, posing a serious threat to themselves and other road users. "Unlicensed motorists, along with hoon drivers, put lives at risk and do not deserve to be on our roads." Mr Johnson said the vehicle was crushed due to its low-value. The vehicle's engine and gearbox were donated to students to use in their mechanical studies at the Swan TAFE Carlisle Campus. In November 2009, the vehicle of a repeat reckless driver was the first car to be crushed under the state's hoon laws. Under the unlicensed driver laws, if a person is detected driving without a valid licence, police can impound the vehicle on-the-spot for 28 days. If a person is caught for their third offence, the Police Commissioner can apply to a court to have the offender's vehicle permanently confiscated.  It is then crushed or sold, with proceeds going to road safety projects. From July 2009 to August 2010, police have impounded 10,333 vehicles under the legislation.

This stat seems a little spurious to me, are they saying 1 in 5 serious road crashes are caused by unlicensed drivers?  

If they are then clearly it's licensed drivers who are the bigger problem.

How on earth can an unlicensed driver put anyone at greater risk than a licensed driver?

Hoons are a separate issue again, and whilst their actions are certainly unsafe, aren't responsible for the majority or even a significant majority of road fatalities.

Why crush the car, aside from being symbolic it destroys it's value, which if going to road safety campaigning would be ideal to preserve.  Just sell the damn thing as a whole or for parts.  

qikvtec wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 3:25pm:

wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 11:09am: First car crushed under 'unlicensed laws' The first vehicle confiscated under Western Australia's unlicensed driver laws was crushed today. Police and Road Safety Minister Rob Johnson said police had successfully applied to the courts to have the 1989 Mitsubishi Galant hatchback permanently confiscated after its owner was caught for unlicensed driving offences on three occasions in less than a year. Mr Johnson said he hoped today's crushing would send a clear message to anyone driving without a licence. "My message to unlicensed drivers is simple - if you get behind the wheel, you will be caught and you will lose your vehicle," he said. "While most drivers do the right thing and use our roads responsibly, there are some who continue to snub their nose at the law and at the safety of others. "About 20 per cent of unlicensed drivers are involved in serious crashes in WA, posing a serious threat to themselves and other road users. "Unlicensed motorists, along with hoon drivers, put lives at risk and do not deserve to be on our roads." Mr Johnson said the vehicle was crushed due to its low-value. The vehicle's engine and gearbox were donated to students to use in their mechanical studies at the Swan TAFE Carlisle Campus. In November 2009, the vehicle of a repeat reckless driver was the first car to be crushed under the state's hoon laws. Under the unlicensed driver laws, if a person is detected driving without a valid licence, police can impound the vehicle on-the-spot for 28 days. If a person is caught for their third offence, the Police Commissioner can apply to a court to have the offender's vehicle permanently confiscated.  It is then crushed or sold, with proceeds going to road safety projects. From July 2009 to August 2010, police have impounded 10,333 vehicles under the legislation. This stat seems a little spurious to me, are they saying 1 in 5 serious road crashes are caused by unlicensed drivers?   If they are then clearly it's licensed drivers who are the bigger problem. How on earth can an unlicensed driver put anyone at greater risk than a licensed driver? Hoons are a separate issue again, and whilst their actions are certainly unsafe, aren't responsible for the majority or even a significant majority of road fatalities. Why crush the car, aside from being symbolic it destroys it's value, which if going to road safety campaigning would be ideal to preserve.  Just sell the damn thing as a whole or for parts.

No, not "1 in 5 crashes are caused BY unlicensed drivers"  it actually says  "1 in 5 unlicensed drivers will be involved in serious crashes"....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 3:29pm:

qikvtec wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 3:25pm: wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 11:09am: First car crushed under 'unlicensed laws' The first vehicle confiscated under Western Australia's unlicensed driver laws was crushed today. Police and Road Safety Minister Rob Johnson said police had successfully applied to the courts to have the 1989 Mitsubishi Galant hatchback permanently confiscated after its owner was caught for unlicensed driving offences on three occasions in less than a year. Mr Johnson said he hoped today's crushing would send a clear message to anyone driving without a licence. "My message to unlicensed drivers is simple - if you get behind the wheel, you will be caught and you will lose your vehicle," he said. "While most drivers do the right thing and use our roads responsibly, there are some who continue to snub their nose at the law and at the safety of others. "About 20 per cent of unlicensed drivers are involved in serious crashes in WA, posing a serious threat to themselves and other road users. "Unlicensed motorists, along with hoon drivers, put lives at risk and do not deserve to be on our roads." Mr Johnson said the vehicle was crushed due to its low-value. The vehicle's engine and gearbox were donated to students to use in their mechanical studies at the Swan TAFE Carlisle Campus. In November 2009, the vehicle of a repeat reckless driver was the first car to be crushed under the state's hoon laws. Under the unlicensed driver laws, if a person is detected driving without a valid licence, police can impound the vehicle on-the-spot for 28 days. If a person is caught for their third offence, the Police Commissioner can apply to a court to have the offender's vehicle permanently confiscated.  It is then crushed or sold, with proceeds going to road safety projects. From July 2009 to August 2010, police have impounded 10,333 vehicles under the legislation. This stat seems a little spurious to me, are they saying 1 in 5 serious road crashes are caused by unlicensed drivers?   If they are then clearly it's licensed drivers who are the bigger problem. How on earth can an unlicensed driver put anyone at greater risk than a licensed driver? Hoons are a separate issue again, and whilst their actions are certainly unsafe, aren't responsible for the majority or even a significant majority of road fatalities. Why crush the car, aside from being symbolic it destroys it's value, which if going to road safety campaigning would be ideal to preserve.  Just sell the damn thing as a whole or for parts.   No, not "1 in 5 crashes are caused BY unlicensed drivers"  it actually says  "1 in 5 unlicensed drivers will be involved in serious crashes"....

So how are they posing a serious threat then?

4 out of 5 drivers are licensed; why are they not the greater threat?

Just for the record I am not in any way shape or form condoning unlicensed driving; just pointing out the ridiculous emotive unobjective claims that get bandied around on this and other subjects.

True, but you need to think about 'why' these people are unlicensed too....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 4:14pm:

True, but you need to think about 'why' these people are unlicensed too....

In Queensland that could be for simply refusing to pay a parking fine.  Not sure on the license cancellation laws in other states.

A goodly portion of them could be for speeding; though an even greater portion is likely to be for drink driving which is a far more insidious charge.

I'm not really sure where I stand on this.  

On one hand, they're unlicensed for a reason (hopefully a reason related to driving, not non-payment of fines) so shouldn't be on the road, so if confiscation of the vehicle keeps them off the road, so be it.

On the other hand, they will just go and buy another $500 rust bucket that may not even be roadworthy, thus posing even more of a risk.  I'd also like to see working cars be sold, given away, used in some way rather than just being crushed.  It seems more symbolic than useful.

In my book it's theft. They have absolutely no right to steal a person's property, beit unlicensed or hoon drivers.

They really need to look at other measures which don't encroach upon our basic rights.
Maybe the requirement of a license to purchase a vehicle might be an idea worth looking at, but stealing a person's property is just plain wrong.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 4:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 4:14pm: True, but you need to think about 'why' these people are unlicensed too.... In Queensland that could be for simply refusing to pay a parking fine.  Not sure on the license cancellation laws in other states. A goodly portion of them could be for speeding; though an even greater portion is likely to be for drink driving which is a far more insidious charge.

I think here in NSW, non payment is usually rego cancellation...but I'm not sure

Although there's a person around here who's a repeat offender.....In the last year he's been caught on PCA while unlicensed about 6 times....

License is suspended now, for about 35 yrs or something....but he won't stop doing it.....I reckon crushing the car would work though...

The state can take people's property if it wants, duh. It's called coercion.


Quote:

No, not "1 in 5 crashes are caused BY unlicensed drivers"  it actually says  "1 in 5 unlicensed drivers will be involved in serious crashes"....

Even if what Qitvec said was true, it would still be a staggering statistic regardless. How many people on the road are actually unlicenced drivers? I doubt very many. If a fractional proportion of the total number of drivers are responsible for 1 in 5 accidents on the road, that would imply a vastly larger per capita accident rate for unlicenced drivers than licenced drivers.

I don't see why we have to waste the car either. Just confiscate it, sell it off, and subject the licenced driver to temporary slave labour for a period of time, or corporal punishment.

Amadd wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 4:53pm:

In my book it's theft. They have absolutely no right to steal a person's property, beit unlicensed or hoon drivers. They really need to look at other measures which don't encroach upon our basic rights. Maybe the requirement of a license to purchase a vehicle might be an idea worth looking at, but stealing a person's property is just plain wrong.

I don't know Amadd...is it really any different to when the Sheriff impounds your good on a court order to be auctioned for debt???

And when you get right down to it.......to avoid having you're car crushed, all you'd really need to do is NOT drive while suspended.....


It's really about taking responsibilty for your own actions...

Amadd wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 4:53pm:

In my book it's theft. They have absolutely no right to steal a person's property, beit unlicensed or hoon drivers. They really need to look at other measures which don't encroach upon our basic rights. Maybe the requirement of a license to purchase a vehicle might be an idea worth looking at, but stealing a person's property is just plain wrong.

WA has all sorts of crazy laws allowing the state to steal your property.  Hers one example:


Quote:

A middle-aged businessman hit with a $750 fine after being found with cannabis plants for his own use faces having his family home seized by the State Government in the latest test case of WA's criminal property confiscation laws. The State's move to confiscate the Warnbro house he shares with his partner and young child comes despite a magistrate ruling his offence was not worthy of a criminal record. Lawyers said yesterday the case showed the confiscation legislation was being used disproportionately by the Director of Public Prosecutions to satisfy a "lust for money". The man's lawyer, Shash Nigam, told _The West Australian _his client had pleaded guilty to one count of simple cultivation on the basis that the 10 cannabis plants were meant solely for his personal use, an argument accepted by the prosecution. But despite the court ruling the offence deserved only a spent conviction and a fine, the man's bank accounts and property remained frozen for confiscation by the State. A spokeswoman said the DPP was reviewing the confiscation, which is believed to be the first involving an offence for which a spent conviction was granted. The DPP's policy stated that one of the goals of confiscation was deterrence and that "undue hardship" was avoided. She said the man's property had been frozen while he faced the more serious offence of cultivating to sell or supply and before police accepted the lesser charge. Australian Lawyers Alliance WA president Tom Percy said the mere possibility it could go ahead "should send a chill down every person in Western Australia's spine" because it showed how out of control and disproportionate the laws were. "There is a glaring need for the Act to be amended to reflect that, because otherwise the Act facilitates outrageous injustices," he said. Mr Nigam warned that if his client's home was confiscated, anyone convicted of an offence with a maximum penalty of two years jail or more would be open to losing their home regardless of what penalty they actually received. "It just seems like a perverse way to deal with a matter where someone has received a spent conviction and fines," he said. "It would seem that it's a lust for money and basically they just want to get it from wherever they can even when they know they are not rightfully entitled to it." His client had a previous conviction for dangerous driving and two charges of drug possession from almost 20 years ago. Spent convictions can only be granted if the court is satisfied a person is unlikely to reoffend and is of good character, or the crime is trivial. Mr Nigam said he was preparing legal action to end the confiscation process.

If the road toll was actually increasing I could perhaps see a need for such returns to a bygone age of symbolic punishment, but as the road toll isn't increasing I think it's probably best we stop continuously bleating about it and simply accept that there will be a road toll and that any further legislation to reduce it only results in greater and greater inconveniences for the rest of us.

No to zero tolerance. Yes to an acceptable road toll.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 4:54pm:

qikvtec wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 4:20pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 4:14pm: True, but you need to think about 'why' these people are unlicensed too.... In Queensland that could be for simply refusing to pay a parking fine.  Not sure on the license cancellation laws in other states. A goodly portion of them could be for speeding; though an even greater portion is likely to be for drink driving which is a far more insidious charge. I think here in NSW, non payment is usually rego cancellation...but I'm not sure Although there's a person around here who's a repeat offender.....In the last year he's been caught on PCA while unlicensed about 6 times.... License is suspended now, for about 35 yrs or something....but he won't stop doing it.....I reckon crushing the car would work though...

At least until he acquires a new vehicle; clearly this guy has no intention of obeying these laws.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 6:25pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 4:54pm: qikvtec wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 4:20pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 13th, 2010 at 4:14pm: True, but you need to think about 'why' these people are unlicensed too.... In Queensland that could be for simply refusing to pay a parking fine.  Not sure on the license cancellation laws in other states. A goodly portion of them could be for speeding; though an even greater portion is likely to be for drink driving which is a far more insidious charge. I think here in NSW, non payment is usually rego cancellation...but I'm not sure Although there's a person around here who's a repeat offender.....In the last year he's been caught on PCA while unlicensed about 6 times.... License is suspended now, for about 35 yrs or something....but he won't stop doing it.....I reckon crushing the car would work though... At least until he acquires a new vehicle; clearly this guy has no intention of obeying these laws.

Granted....but the expense 'might' open his eyes a little....or at very least convince his 'friends/family' not to lend him their cars...


Just personally, I'd opt for a gaol sentence until his license restriction runs out.....But that's just me...

[edit]Just personally, I'd opt for a gaol sentence until his license restriction runs out.....But that's just me... [/edit]

A local "pillar of society" in the town near here got done for driving with a suspended license three times (within a month) and received a min sentence of 18 months jail time and a loss of license for 5 years.

The 18 months jail is probably appropriate, but to make it 5 years????
The impact of the 18 month sentence goes beyond him to his family and business. It's not like he's caused any injury or death - he hadn't even broken any other road rules apart driving with a suspended sentence.

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 6:47pm:

[edit]Just personally, I'd opt for a gaol sentence until his license restriction runs out.....But that's just me... [/edit] A local "pillar of society" in the town near here got done for driving with a suspended license three times (within a month) and received a min sentence of 18 months jail time and a loss of license for 5 years. The 18 months jail is probably appropriate, but to make it 5 years???? The impact of the 18 month sentence goes beyond him to his family and business. It's not like he's caused any injury or death - he hadn't even broken any other road rules apart driving with a suspended sentence.

Well maybe they were 'hinting' that driving while suspended incurs a further lose of license...and AFTER he does the 18 months.....it'd be a good idea NOT to drive during the suspension???


Once again....it seems that extreme action is needed to get the point across....

After all, most people understand that if you stick your ....finger....in a powerpoint, you get shocked....but very few people have the same understanding of legal penalties....

I'm pretty certain that in NSW there's a mandatory 6 months jail if you get caught driving twice whilst under the same suspension (or an extension of it).

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

I'm pretty certain that in NSW there's a mandatory 6 months jail if you get caught driving twice whilst under the same suspension (or an extension of it).

Not that I've seen...it 'might' be a maximum of 6 months gaol....

Cause it sure doesn't happen very often around here....

I`ve got a crush on the Harley down the road.