This bit gets me:

(1) A police officer who reasonably believes that a motor vehicle:

(a) is being or has (on that day or during the past 10 days)

Exactly what Zap said, but also "in the past 10 days". What is up with that?

They can come around a couple of days later and say we believe you were "being naughty – said days ago" we are taking your car. That is crap.

I washed my car last night. It was obvious I had been do burnouts the night before (or some time before), as there was a lot of rubber stuck to the rear guard.

If I tell the cop that I did it at the drags the previous night I doubt that he'd believe me.

Even if I could prove that I went to the drags I could not actually prove that I did the burnout there, unless I purchased a photo to prove it.

This wording of the law is nonsense and has been not given enough thought.

Brian

I washed my car last night. It was obvious I had been do burnouts the night before (or some time before), as there was a lot of rubber stuck to the rear guard.

If I tell the cop that I did it at the drags the previous night I doubt that he'd believe me.

Even if I could prove that I went to the drags I could not actually prove that I did the burnout there, unless I purchased a photo to prove it.

This wording of the law is nonsense and has been not given enough thought.

Brian

If he has no reasonable belief then he can't seize the car ie if he has an unreasonable belief this belief can be tested in court. It is the same wording that is used for any criminal offence and yes all traffic offences are criminal offences we have just toned them down over the years. We may not like our laws but they are our laws the only way to change them is to lobby those in a position to do something about it not react when nothing has happened don't forget this is not new legislation it has obviously recently been amended slightly or advertised but it has been around for several years, yet most of our cars havn't been seized. BCL the reasonable belief is usually based on something real and tangible like someone saw an xr6 falcon doing a burnout and then drive into your driveway, he arrives and you have rubber up the rear guards and you fit the description of the driver then you would most certainly loose your car unless you could prove otherwise this would be a pretty reasonable belief, etc etc.

You would have no chance whatsoever as Slymeat has also reinforced. There is no point dismissing us with ongoing futile arguments with what we say and try to clarify. We do not make any of this up and suddenly pluck it out of thin air.

I.B.

that's bull crap aswell I personally challenged a snr sgt in court as to his intepretation of a law (in this case whats deemed visable regarding p plates on a car window) and I won as his interpretation of the law was wrong so I won the case.

E.g the police sgt fined we for P plate not being as visable as my number plate.

Which is not true hence why I challenged his view and won.

If he has no reasonable belief then he can't seize the car ie if he has an unreasonable belief this belief can be tested in court. It is the same wording that is used for any criminal offence and yes all traffic offences are criminal offences we have just toned them down over the years. We may not like our laws but they are our laws the only way to change them is to lobby those in a position to do something about it not react when nothing has happened don't forget this is not new legislation it has obviously recently been amended slightly or advertised but it has been around for several years, yet most of our cars havn't been seized. BCL the reasonable belief is usually based on something real and tangible like someone saw an xr6 falcon doing a burnout and then drive into your driveway, he arrives and you have rubber up the rear guards and you fit the description of the driver then you would most certainly loose your car unless you could prove otherwise this would be a pretty reasonable belief, etc etc.

I understand your point.

However, there are people out there who are psychos and who know I'm drag racing, and who can describe me from published photos.

In the current climate all they have to do is make 1 phone call. The Castle Hill police around where I live are *beep*, and are not quite as kind as you would have us believe. 2 weeks ago ago my son was defected for running a legal Mitsubishi Ralliart exhaust on his Evo. The police officer believed it was not legal. A lot of inconvenience resulted.

Most police are reasobable, but not all.

Brian

Debate/discuss the topic and leave all of the other crap out of it - and yes Iconic that does go for you; feel free to keep your unprovoked slander to the PM system to save everyone else the trauma

that's bull crap aswell I personally challenged a snr sgt in court as to his intepretation of a law (in this case whats deemed visable regarding p plates on a car window) and I won as his interpretation of the law was wrong so I won the case.

E.g the police sgt fined we for P plate not being as visable as my number plate.

Which is not true hence why I challenged his view and won.

I think you have missinterpreted what was being discussed.

I was talking about seeking damages from a police officer personally, and have been informed that the law has changed.

You can still go to court and prove a cop wrong and win a case, bit you cannot get any cashola from the officer personally.

I am suprised by Sly's comment that these laws have been around for a few years, as I have heard of pleanty of people (on the Skyline Forum) being booked for loss of traction, but none getting impounded (in NSW) for this offence.

It seems to be only for street racing, which I guess is a good thing. I just hate the way our right to be innocent until proven guilty has been consistantly erroded with the beliefe it is good for us, and we should not worry unless we are a criminal.

Debate/discuss the topic and leave all of the other crap out of it - and yes Iconic that does go for you; feel free to keep your unprovoked slander to the PM system to save everyone else the trauma

Does it also go for you?

I think you have missinterpreted what was being discussed.

I was talking about seeking damages from a police officer personally, and have been informed that the law has changed.

I did wonder if he misinterpreted the subject as well, and I did pose the question but TAB keeps deleting what I write of late. None of the other mods seem to be chasing me around as much.

And I have my first warning from him?

I.B.

Edited April 4, 200818 yr by Iconic Bionic

None of the other mods seem to be chasing me around as much.

So if I do a burnout then drive past one police car who was looking the other way does that then mean that when the second patrol pulls me over they can’t confiscate my car?

And your posts were deleted because they contained slander.

Does it also go for you?

Yes it most certainly does, and like I mentioned in the PM to you, after you made a complaint in regards to my actions, seeking for you to point out where I had supposedly committed the immortal sin you couldn’t follow through with the accusation.

Why not throw this in NSFW then let everyone go for gold. It will never come to a logical conclusion because most people don't have any logic in there fact less opinionated statements.

However it is rather entertaining so it would be a shame to close it.