I have long been a supporter of this. And I include cars owned by another person other than the person that drove it, if there are indeed different.

This morning I was reminded of the measure when I read….

A man who had been disqualified from driving until 2038 has allegedly led police on a pursuit through the city, before his Range Rover crashed into a taxi and left three people injured.

After the crash in Surry Hills early on Saturday morning, police allegedly found a substance believed to be methylamphetamine, or ice, in the four-wheel-drive.

Officers were patrolling Oxford Street, when they pulled over a Range Rover about 3am. The car stopped, but soon sped off, police said.

Officers began a pursuit, but lost sight of the car at Wentworth Avenue. Soon after, the Range Rover collided with a taxi at the intersection of Elizabeth and Foveaux streets, police said. 

The male taxi driver and his two female passengers were injured and taken to hospital.

Police said they searched the car and found the drug, as well as prescription medication.

Timothy Chidiac, the 25-year-old man allegedly driving the Range Rover, was taken to St Vincent's Hospital, before being released and interviewed by detectives.

He was charged with several offences, including aggravated dangerous driving, occasioning grievous bodily harm and drive vehicle while illicit drug present in the blood.

Mr Chidiac was refused bail and was due to appear in Parramatta bail court on Sunday.

Am I alone in this? Or do you agree? Discuss.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/disqualified-driver-charged-over-surry-hi...

Views: 1137

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Unfortunately this would never get a guernsey because of all of the drink-driving politicians.  I'd support impounding the vehicle for a time, but it would be perceived as being unfair of the government to enact a penalty against the owner of the vehicle when it may have occurred without their knowledge or approval.  The mob mentality would not see that the penalty was caused by the drunken moron driving the car - not the government.

when it may have occurred without their knowledge or approval.

That's fair. However, if the driver was in charge of the vehicle with the approval of the owner then fair game.

, but it would be perceived as being unfair of the government to enact a penalty against the owner of the vehicle when it may have occurred without their knowledge or approval.

No - if that is the case than the owner of the vehicle needs to press charges that the vehicle was used without approval ie : stolen.

And if the car was stolen?

It might need to be the driver that is incapacitated rather than the car. Cars are relatively easy to acquire.

Of course not if it was stolen.

But the lending of vehicles carries some responsibilities. What a clear deterrent in a case where it would be known that someone had lost their licence for decades (by the age of 25).The lender took a big risk and made the wrong decision. There was no car-crushing regime.

Should they have their vehicles absolutely.

My only issue with crushing, is it doesn't seem very environmentally sound

Was talking about crushing of vehicles with someone on the weekend. Scrap metal yards have special machines for this and apparently after crushing and chipping the constituent bits come out separated i.e the steel, copper, plastic so pretty good environmentally as everything can be recycled. The bad bit is when it gets packed into a container and shipped to China - I suppose that's not as bad as shipping iron ore etc but it seems a waste to ship a pretty well pure product that we could use here.  

How does it work in WA?

routine in uk

i think the idea is principally to prevent repeat offending

The system is used in several jurisdictions. The vehicle is impounded normally because of hooning. There is a period of time it is kept. Warnings are given including watching film of cars of prior multiple-time offenders being crushed. Then if there is a second case the warnings are ramped up. More vids. Then if there is a third time the car is crushed. Apparently it is a powerful deterrent and the number crushed (third time offence) is tiny compared with the first time.

For us of course, we are exposed to injury so such measures are helping save lives and helping remove perceptions that cycling is unsafe.

over a million cars crushed in the uk, just for uninsured driving

2012 statistic

RSS

© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service