Just heard some Nat speeches about yesterday’s boy racer legislation, suggesting these are the answer and nothing has been done previously. Labour is supporting these changes to select committee so as to assess how effective they will be. It’s worth remembering that during Labour’s term in office there were various measures to deal with boy racers including:
- The Illegal Street Racing bill, which gave police the power to take boy racers off the street
- Gave judges the right to confiscate cars on the first offence – not three strikes as now proposed
- Police were given powers to order noisy cars off the street, require a noise test (at owner’s expense) and keep them off the road if not legal
And note what has not emerged. There were repeated pledges by National MPs to introduce a 90 deceibel maximum for car exhauts. No sign of that, nor of the call by police earlier this year for a “cease and desist” law to stop boy racers congregating.
Hi Brendon, nice post. Just wanted to clarify, does your second bullet-point mean that judges will no longer be able to confiscate cars after the first offence? Or do they retain that power, but force a mandatory confiscation after three offences?
Harleys, Nortons, Indians, so many ridiculously noisy bikes ridden by middle aged Nacts and their ilk…
Why are we so jealous/pissed off with the kids and their blingblanged cars but turn a deaf ear to these two-wheeled gonad trolleys posing as motorbikes.
Anyone?
Nice to know that Labour didn’t give a rats arse about due process and the rule of law, or human rights, either. And is proud of the fact.
There are already laws that cover what is offensive to society about these racers. Reckless, dangerous driving, speeding offenses, and a multitude of other things. Too much to ask that the Police actually enforce them. The solution is laws which allow punishment on mere suspicion…
We’ll await the select committee – yes this one is going to a select committee – but methinks the judges will keep the exisit, though rarely used, power to confiscate.
Try living in Christchurch Central for a while George – then you’d understand why now successive govts are trying to deal with a problem with varying degrees of success.
“Try living in Christchurch Central for a while George”
No thanks.
I remember hanging round with boy racers in Auckland when I was in my teens (not one myself, in my tiny Daihatsu), and have a fair idea of what behaviour is engaged in. I believe the vast majority of it could be stopped with existing law – if it was applied. It’s a policing problem, rather than a law problem.
Still, if it allows National and Labour to appear tough, it’s a good thing.
Good post Brendon. Glad to see it’s not JUST a knock of the other guys policies.
Watching Parliament question time yesterday was disgrace. Trevor Mallard wasted a question on SPELLING? Surely Labour can focus on productive issues and, as you point out above, work WITH the Gov’t to make things better for all NZ’s.
Brendon Didn’t some f the change that that were made allow for a new car at 90 db but all other cars could be 95db. How did this effect the noise levels in general.
It is not only about noise it is about responsibility for actions but the we understand that you do not need to be responsible for your actions.
I think the boyracer problem in urban areas comes from all the stupidly wide streets everywhere. If Queen Street in Auckland were to be pedestrianised then half the problem would go away immediately. Have a few sharp corners on Quay Street and you wouldn’t have drag races…..
…. and so on
Hi Trevor and co,
I was just wondering, what was the justification for having the car owners pay for objective noise tests?
There would be outrage if the same was applied to breath testing:
Mr Plod: I think your drunk, here’s a $400 dollar ticket, but if you want to pay $150 dollars to prove your innocence!
I have no problem with the owner of the car having to pay if the test comes back over the limit, but to me the who system smacks of guilty until you have paid to prove yourself innocent.
Yep, 95db max for existing cars, 90db for new. The reason the Nats won’t do as one or two of their candidates repeatedly promised and cut it to 90db is that there are tens of thousands of motor enthusiasts and others who’ve bought cars with modified cars, who don’t roar around town repeatedly causing problems. Hence the ongoing attempts by successive govts to address the problem with other methods
Brendon, tell me why we are not using the existing laws relating to disorderly conduct, breach of the peace (introduced by Muldoon for just similar purposes), dangerous and reckless driving, and interfering with roads and traffic?
Why, in spite of the fact that what these people are doing is already highly illegal, and offensive because it is dangerous and recklessly threatens the public, do we need new laws?