![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Linux:
Correct and if caught driving a vehicle while suspended it's crushed no questions
Surely not if the vehicle has been stolen?
Mike
gzt:Every time there is a media report on any crime, it is usually accompanied by a breathless exclamation of the maximum penalty that can be applied.
The report you linked to above does not contain this information.
What point are you trying to make? This is about a serious issue that I think needs to be dealt with in a better way than it currently is, if at all possible. If you have any suggestions that would help with that, feel free to contribute.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
Wheelbarrow01:
tdgeek:cadman:
I suspect the incentive to flee is the existing punishments for many minor transgressions are excessively punitive. Perhaps that could be addressed first.
They know the police will cease the pursuit if it endangers the public
Yes, this is precisely why they do it IMHO. It really makes no difference what the punishment is when they know that they only have to flee for 30 seconds before the Police give up.
Unfortunately our roads are not freeway-like enough for our Police to be able to perform PIT maneuvers on fleeing vehicles safely, although I really wish they could because it would sort a lot of these d*ckheads out.
It doesn't always have to be hot pursuit. If there are enough cops they can radio ahead and put out road spikes or set up a roadblock. If any authorities cared enough to make the resources available, they could have helicopters on call, as is done in America and Britain (if you believe the police shows). There are many ways of tackling this if people think it is important enough to spend money on.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
MikeAqua:
Linux:
Correct and if caught driving a vehicle while suspended it's crushed no questions
Surely not if the vehicle has been stolen?
Of course not. But if it was done a couple times in other cases, people would be very careful about who they let use their cars.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
tdgeek:
Ugh
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/88915412/joyride-ends-in-arrest-for-13yearold-boy-in-hamilton
That is why a major education campaign in primary and secondary schools should be part of this. Attempting to flee the police or an accident should be regarded as seriously as being drunk behind the wheel.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
Rikkitic:
MikeAqua:
Linux:
Correct and if caught driving a vehicle while suspended it's crushed no questions
Surely not if the vehicle has been stolen?
Of course not. But if it was done a couple times in other cases, people would be very careful about who they let use their cars.
What if the vehicle is owned by a finance company, as is typical in hire-purchase agreements?
I think that "crush the car" has great emotional appeal, but isn't practical. And it's completely unfair; it's a $5000 or $50000 fine whose amount depends solely on the value of the car you're driving.
Rikkitic:
tdgeek:
Ugh
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/88915412/joyride-ends-in-arrest-for-13yearold-boy-in-hamilton
That is why a major education campaign in primary and secondary schools should be part of this. Attempting to flee the police or an accident should be regarded as seriously as being drunk behind the wheel.
Yeah, but the same problem still applies; if a life-changing consequence is going to happen if you do stop, then there's an incentive to not stop. Adding an even bigger punishment for not stopping isn't going to change the decision to run. "As well hung for a sheep as for a lamb"
Life is unfair. Just think how unfair it is for the pedestrians doing nothing wrong that get hit on the pavement (has happened recently). If a car or two got crushed, it might change people's perceptions.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
frankv:
Yeah, but the same problem still applies; if a life-changing consequence is going to happen if you do stop, then there's an incentive to not stop. Adding an even bigger punishment for not stopping isn't going to change the decision to run. "As well hung for a sheep as for a lamb"
It can't be only about punishment. That is why education has to be part of the equation. And if the punishment for not stopping is significantly more life-changing than any other punishment would have been, it might yet have a deterrent effect. To return to unfairness, there are provisions in civil law to sue for damages and these could be strengthened in the case of runners, so that the finance company (or friend) would have a legal basis for claiming the value of the crushed car.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
richms:
How about this?
Ah crap, its eating my embed.... try this
https://www.facebook.com/uniladmag/videos/2442034842486227/
How does that work on a 4x4, I've seen vids of perps still escaping with a blowout.
Need one of these
Someone break the law and a police patrol catches them, they have been dumb and done something stupid and avoidable. If they hit the accelerator and run from the patrol they have made conscious decision to this and in doing so have placed the safety and lives of many people at risk. There has to be a serious consequence for that and one that sends a very clear message. The Courts owe it to the persons who have been put at risk and were not part of the decision making.
Rikkitic:
tdgeek:
Ugh
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/88915412/joyride-ends-in-arrest-for-13yearold-boy-in-hamilton
That is why a major education campaign in primary and secondary schools should be part of this. Attempting to flee the police or an accident should be regarded as seriously as being drunk behind the wheel.
Agree. 13yo is protected by his age, he doenst care about the value of a car, if its impounded, a fine, or have any awareness of the gravity of what he is doing as regards his and others lives and property.
frankv:
Rikkitic:
MikeAqua:
Linux:
Correct and if caught driving a vehicle while suspended it's crushed no questions
Surely not if the vehicle has been stolen?
Of course not. But if it was done a couple times in other cases, people would be very careful about who they let use their cars.
What if the vehicle is owned by a finance company, as is typical in hire-purchase agreements?
I think that "crush the car" has great emotional appeal, but isn't practical. And it's completely unfair; it's a $5000 or $50000 fine whose amount depends solely on the value of the car you're driving.
Fines are too hard to get paid. Impound the car, sell it, bank the cash = PAID
Good point. Also, crushing doesn't have to be the only response, though it does have the advantage that it gets people's attention. Confiscation or impounding for a month with a big charge to get the vehicle back could also be effective.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |