Why don't drink drivers cars get impounded?

[MexicanBatman]

Repeat drink drivers in VIC can have their car impounded.

[Sorted]

4 Years after I started this thread - FINALLY
better late than never.......Although they have missed out on a ton of money in fines .....

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/b...-1227397976471

mobile.news.com.au

National
New rules to impound Vic drink driver cars
JUNE 15, 2015 8:56AM

First time drink drivers could have their cars impounded under tough new penalties in Victoria. Source: AAP
AAP

MORE Victorian drink drivers face having their cars impounded under tough new penalties.

FIRST-TIME offenders who blow 0.10 - twice the legal blood alcohol limit - will have their cars impounded and licences cancelled for 10 months, even if the car does not belong to them.

The new rules, which include a fine of $627 from August, are expected to see an extra 3,500 cars taken off the roads.
Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Robert Hill says the new penalties will ensure irresponsible drivers and their vehicles are taken out of action.
Police Minister Wade Noonan says a range of impoundment offences already exist for repeat offences of speeding, drink, drug and unlicensed driving.
"In the past people might have seen this as a bit harsh but I think we've got to a point where Victorians would have little tolerance for people blowing 0.10," Mr Noonan told 3AW radio on Monday.


[Brazen]

I don't drink but I think these laws are starting to get a little carried away. Expect to impound 3500 cars?

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Brazen

I don't drink but I think these laws are starting to get a little carried away. Expect to impound 3500 cars?

Statistics are telling the police what to expect, 3500 drunks on the road blowing 0.10 or more is no laughing matter, I'm all for it when they lose their cars with big fines, no excuse.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by trublu

Statistics are telling the police what to expect, 3500 drunks on the road blowing 0.10 or more is no laughing matter, I'm all for it when they lose their cars with big fines, no excuse.

Will this stop someone drinking that extra drink? Maybe? Or has the law got to a point where it is already seen as a serious crime by the community and these extra punishment actually doesn't do anything.

Currently they lose their licence, now they lose their licence and their car. Does that make any difference? They still couldnt drive anyway. Or does it just put a huge burden on the drink driver's family who now lose the car so the remaining family members can't drive. Perhaps its a small price to pay even if it saves just one life.

Not attempting to take away the seriousness of anything that impairs driving. It would be interesting to study the effects of these 3500 families who lose a car and a person who drives. Do people lose jobs? Does the rate of suicide or depression increase, do the kids miss out on school or sport or seeing friends? Perhaps it just is the price they pay for driving impaired.

[Bobman]

Be nice if they took drug (ice) driving more seriously too.

[b0son]

Car impounded even when it doesn't belong to the driver? Pffft, it may be being done by the government, but it makes it no less criminal.

[LoudPipes]

I’m very opposed to drink driving and yet other than as a superficial thought bubble I fail to see the sense in this approach.

Drivers who break the law in this fashion obviously have a problem (we’re talking twice the legal limit then driving) and I’ve no doubt their families have already had to deal with the repercussions of irresponsible actions caused by that degree of drinking.

To impound a vehicle that may belong to someone else or be used by other family members is to cause even further hardship and punishment on the family and doesn’t address the alcohol abuse problem.

Then there is nothing to stop the drink driver from acquiring another vehicle to do the same again.

Even given the unlikelihood it is a one off transgression more thought may offer up other solutions like enforcing the drink driver to participate in alcohol abuse programs where they would be placed in the care of trained professionals and team it with weekend community work.

But of cause to take a proactive education approach would costs the government revenue.

Sadly Australians like no other western nation on the planet accepts the removal of their liberties for the sake of revenue raising without even a whimper.

[Phildo]

Impounding the car if it belongs to the driver = good thing.

Impounding the car if it does not belong to the driver = bad thing.

That means punishing innocent people.

Does anyone remember the 1980s movie, "Brewster's Millions"?

Rich guy dies and leaves everything to his only relative - Brewster, who has always wasted every cent he can get his hands on.

The will states that he must squander $30 million in 30 days, and have nothing to show for it. If he can do that then he inherits $300 million. The theory being that after wasting 30 mill he won't want to waste any more. Lessons from excess, etc.

So, back to drink driving...

If someone gets pulled up and is drunk... then make them drink some more.

Lots more.

So much that they voluntarily have sex with the most hideously ugly person possible.

Photos will be taken, and SMSed to every single person on the drunk driver's phone contact list.

"Greetings from the Victorian coppers. Just a quick note to let you know that we've caught your friend driving with 0.11%. As punishment, we've kept him/her drinking for another couple of hours. Here are some photos of him happily bonking this 230kg behemoth. Drink and drive, and this could be you next weekend. Have a nice day!"

Blow over 0.05 and you bonk the ugly person. Blow over 0.10 and the ugly person also gets the contact details for the drink driver (email address, phone number, added to Facebook friends).

Blow over 0.15 and the cops setup a Facebook page to commemorate the new love that drink driver and ugly person have found together. Facebook page cannot be deleted for at least two years.

Added bonus: Extremely ugly people (eg me) get laid. For free. Awesome.

Blow over 0.20 and the cops strap a kilogram of heroin to the driver, give him/her a valium to put 'em to sleep and put 'em on the next plane to Bali.

[ED Classic]

Impounding the car if its not the drivers is bordering on legal theft even though i hate drink driving and dont lend my car. At the end of the day its revenue and that why theyve done it might come out later its part of the deal theycare chasing to get huge pay increases for working weekends and public holidays will see. As i said i hate dangerous drink driving but i thought if anything terrorism and ice is where work and effort needs to concentrated the latter had an ex police commisioner on 3aw saying they cant control it so should legalise it (yeah no worries mate lol....idiot) but i guess theres no revenue in that

[Trump]

Originally Posted by ED Classic

Impounding the car if its not the drivers is bordering on legal theft even though i hate drink driving and dont lend my car. At the end of the day its revenue and that why theyve done it might come out later its part of the deal theycare chasing to get huge pay increases for working weekends and public holidays will see. As i said i hate dangerous drink driving but i thought if anything terrorism and ice is where work and effort needs to concentrated the latter had an ex police commisioner on 3aw saying they cant control it so should legalise it (yeah no worries mate lol....idiot) but i guess theres no revenue in that

Impounding the car IS legalised theft. There is no offence anyone could commit that would necessitate confiscation of one's car.
The key to understanding the motivation behind such a move as that announced yesterday is this line:

The new rules, which include a fine of $627 from August, are expected to see an extra 3,500 cars taken off the roads.

This move will do nothing to stop the damage and destruction of lives caused by excessive consumption of alcohol. It is just another cash grab by govco.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

This move will do nothing to stop the damage and destruction of lives caused by excessive consumption of alcohol. It is just another cash grab by govco.

Just like when they tighten all the other laws it doesn't change anything. But taking real action against the problem is too difficult.

Guarantee the offenders that this law is meant to punish will not care and will keep driving another car.

BTW I've never been done drink driving....probably because I don't do it.

[EDManual]

They should just clamp cars at their home address rather than give big wads of cash to tow truck drivers and compound yard owners.
I agree with huge fines/etc etc for drink drivers. They are the worst people on the road, with druggies.

Good move.

[blueoval]

It's weird, I don't read it the way some of you guys do.

As far as I understand, impounding the vehicle whether its theirs or not means that anyone stupid enough to hand over their keys knowing that a person like this has an alcohol problem is just as bloodguilty as the drunk person behind the wheel.

I understand there may some circumstances where the drunk is renting a vehicle, or loaning a vehicle from a crash repairer for instance. But surely there will be some laws which will allow these businesses to retrieve the vehicle and all their financial damages from the perpetrator? or am I being to logical?

I reckon there has to be more to this 'law'.

[MercurySilver]

Originally Posted by Fireblade

In SA any DUI, booze or drugs has an on the spot impound with it, and makes up around 66% of so called Hoon impounds here.

are you sure?
first offence if you are stoned was a a fine and i think you cant drive for 5 hrs?
and thats asking a copper
unless thats all changed in the last year?

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Impounding the car IS legalised theft. There is no offence anyone could commit that would necessitate confiscation of one's car.The key to understanding the motivation behind such a move as that announced yesterday is this line:



This move will do nothing to stop the damage and destruction of lives caused by excessive consumption of alcohol. It is just another cash grab by govco.

Not even when it's asset seizure under proceeds of crime?

[kypez]

Originally Posted by blueoval

It's weird, I don't read it the way some of you guys do.

As far as I understand, impounding the vehicle whether its theirs or not means that anyone stupid enough to hand over their keys knowing that a person like this has an alcohol problem is just as blood guilty as the drunk person behind the wheel.

I understand there may some circumstances where the drunk is renting a vehicle, or loaning a vehicle from a crash repairer for instance. But surely there will be some laws which will allow these businesses to retrieve the vehicle and all their financial damages from the perpetrator? or am I being to logical?

I reckon there has to be more to this 'law'.

This! I cannot understand all the sob stories I'm reading. If you give your keys to your mate who has a drinking problem, its your fault. You have a duty of care to the public as the owner of the vehicle.

I'm all for this! In fact, I'd say that this should have been done first rather than the speeding offences. Drink (drug affected) drivers are the scum of the earth. And those that enable them are just as responsible. Might make people think twice before lending their car to someone they shouldn't.

[xxx000]

Yeah it's gone from the "why don't drink drivers cars get impounded" thread to the "whinge about the govt if they impound someone's car" thread

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Yeah it's gone from the "why don't drink drivers cars get impounded" thread to the "whinge about the govt if they impound someone's car" thread

HAHAHA was thinking the same thing....no matter what happens people whinge.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

I’m very opposed to drink driving and yet other than as a superficial thought bubble I fail to see the sense in this approach.

Drivers who break the law in this fashion obviously have a problem (we’re talking twice the legal limit then driving) and I’ve no doubt their families have already had to deal with the repercussions of irresponsible actions caused by that degree of drinking.

To impound a vehicle that may belong to someone else or be used by other family members is to cause even further hardship and punishment on the family and doesn’t address the alcohol abuse problem.

Then there is nothing to stop the drink driver from acquiring another vehicle to do the same again.

Even given the unlikelihood it is a one off transgression more thought may offer up other solutions like enforcing the drink driver to participate in alcohol abuse programs where they would be placed in the care of trained professionals and team it with weekend community work.

But of cause to take a proactive education approach would costs the government revenue.

Sadly Australians like no other western nation on the planet accepts the removal of their liberties for the sake of revenue raising without even a whimper.

Governments have been proactive, how many 0.05 campaigns have been shown over the last 30 years, if people are stupid enough to drink & drive then pay the penalty if caught.
About time people take responsibility for their own actions, no ifs or buts.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Not even when it's asset seizure under proceeds of crime?

Yes. In my opinion, it is not possible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that any so-called proceeds of crime have been acquired via criminal means. Even if one could, rectifying one wrong with another in the form of legalised larceny/theft nullifies the intent of such legislation.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by trublu

Governments have been proactive, how many 0.05 campaigns have been shown over the last 30 years, if people are stupid enough to drink & drive then pay the penalty if caught.
About time people take responsibility for their own actions, no ifs or buts.

There are also plenty of campaigns about smoking, binge drinking, taking drugs etc. Has it really changed the culture?

[Sorted]

So if it was only the convicted that get their own cars impounded you would, like me, register all your cars in a company name and never have a car impounded as it is not yours...........l

Although registration is not proof of ownership anyway............

[GasoLane]

I believe the article said that they're impounding them. Not keeping, reselling or crushing them.

It would be good if the length of time that they're impounded was publicised.

I don't know about your areas but around here I've often heard of people being caught more than once in a night ?

Edit.......... agree with olfella, lock them up and face court the next day.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by trublu

Governments have been proactive, how many 0.05 campaigns have been shown over the last 30 years, if people are stupid enough to drink & drive then pay the penalty if caught.
About time people take responsibility for their own actions, no ifs or buts.

I agree that people must be accountable for their actions. However, if you take a drunk, what will it take to make him stop driving or whatever? It will be the family that suffers. Even large fines - do they stop anyone from drinking? No, but the family must go without so that these are paid. I believe in lock them up up - that is the only way to make them realise the enormity of what they do and the implications.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by DMXR6T

The driver is the law breaker, not the car!! So if somone borrows my car and is drunk, then my car gets impounded. Why am I penalised when I did not commit an offence? Typical "look we are doing something" rubbish! Solve the problem with the driver - the actual cause of the problem. I am sick of useless government bureaucrats coming up with silly schemes like this and no turbo cars for P platers because they do not have the capacity to come up with any real solutions.

People loaning their cars out to others should know a little about the person they're loaning it to...

Take their cars away, big bond for their return with a month to pay or off to the auctions it goes.
Might make people think a little about what they're doing. And if they don't? Well...they'll soon learn.

The days of someone drink driving being just a harmless bit of scalliwag are long gone. Get them off the road, make it permanent, and make it (financially) hurt bad...

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by olfella

I agree that people must be accountable for their actions. However, if you take a drunk, what will it take to make him stop driving or whatever? It will be the family that suffers. Even large fines - do they stop anyone from drinking? No, but the family must go without so that these are paid. I believe in lock them up up - that is the only way to make them realise the enormity of what they do and the implications.

Repeat offenders! Believe me they do lock them up eventually but I think the govco & police is really targeting the fools who think having a few beers thinking they are still ok to drive when in reality they are not.

[raised by monkeys]

Just a though, but isnt drink driving a criminal offence, not a driving offence? As a speeding fine is not a criminal offence but a driving offence?

[BENT_8]

Will be intersting to see how this works out.

I personally know of a man who was booked for drink driving a few years ago and had to fight it in court as he had never consumed alcohol in his life.
He had been at a function where people were drinking and apparently this somehow led to him giving a positive result.
This guy was a Holden dealer Principal, one of the originals from before Holden was called Holden and 80 yrs of age at the time.

It was thrown out of court, but if these new laws were in place he would have lost his Statesman on the spot.

Rex Toop
http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_5079...wsarticle.html

[blackf6]

90 something year old bloke got done under the influence of pot and speed in Qld. Kept his car and didn't even get labelled a hoon.
But 1km over and you can get your car crushed, and thrown in the slammer with Big Bubba.