Food for thought

[Taz]

Some controversy in regards to the recent PUBLIC BRIEFING—EXAMINATION OF THE POLICE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES (MOTOR VEHICLE IMPOUNDMENT) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
If you havent read it yet i highly recommend it - as it effects everybody in QLD, "hoon" "enthusiast" or regular motorist. Here is an excerpt in regarding statistics for the amount of cars impounded vs how many of them were "illegally modified"

Mr WATTS: Again, I just wanted to clarify the numbers you have given and this is to give some reassurance to car enthusiasts. Of 49,000-something tickets that were issued, there were 10,000 impoundments and only 23 of those were for illegal modifications?
Chief Supt Morrow: Correct.
Mr WATTS: It would seem that those figures do not bear out some of what has been suggested in the correspondence from car enthusiasts in terms of being targeted.
Chief Supt Morrow: That is what we thought. That is the conclusion we came to. They certainly were not overrepresented. I think 0.2 per cent of all vehicles seized are because of illegal modification. I guess we are at a bit of a loss to understand that particular concern from car enthusiasts.
Mr WATTS: The figures that you have given certainly do not bear that out

QPF claim only 0.2 percent of all impounded cars are illegally modified, however in the same meeting this was stated:

CHAIR: Can I add a rider to that? You mentioned illegal modifications but I did not notice in here it said `illegal' and I do not think `modification' is defined so you might help me with that as well.
Chief Supt Morrow: It is a blanket term we refer to as illegal modifications, but it is defined modifications to a vehicle. The type 2 offences describe what those modifications are. I guess we use the term `illegal modification' to refer to any modification done which makes the vehicle non-compliant for which there is not an engineering certificate issued. In other words, if anyone tampers with a vehicle in a way they are not allowed to and they do not have that vehicle inspected and passed by an engineer, we refer to those in a blanket term as `illegal modifications'.

From my understanding of this, ANY modification to a motor vehicle, regardless of whether or not it is deemed 'legal' after a certificate would of been issued is automatically deemed illegal if there is not a supporting engineers certificate.
I.e. a modification is clearly safe and legal - perhaps even common. However it has not been inspected and a certificate issued - that immediately falls under the illegal category.
This would, in turn surely make a lot more cars on the road today 'illegally modified', however the QPF still claim only 0.2% were "illegally modified" when impoundment issues were received.
This begs the question - how many of those cars were actually inspected for changes over an identical stock equivalent? How many of those modifications were overlooked because they are clearly 'legal and safe'? And how many were automatically deemed 'illegal' through lack of knowledge/ignorance (and failing to listen to the driver about the modifications to get a better judgement on them)?
It begs how much discrimination is actually going on - i.e. a stock family car with say coil-over suspension is overlooked (but still illegal without a supporting engineers certificate) because it is a family car and would generally not be inspected (For argument state it is an SUV) vs a clearly modified enthusiasts car (again for arguments sake lets say the enthusiasts car is an S13) being nailed for the same thing(s) because it is simple discrimination on the officers part, having the mind-frame that it must be illegal in some way because of profiling.

What i am trying to say - is that because of their own regulations, a LOT more cars are deemed illegal by their own standards, yet in spite of this they still only claim 0.2% were modified.
Lets face it - how many modifications made these days - however tiny - are properly inspected and certified? How can this figure be correct in spite of all these factors?
Call me crazy, but how can we - as a car enthusiast community - not get more enraged knowing that statistics provided by the QPF are most likely incorrect (and possibly on purpose) and will ultimately result in the bill being passed?
It also raises a question of what is deemed as a modification? Will they determine a cross referenced part on your car (for arguments sake - lets say aftermarket slotted rotors) a modification? If so how would someone in their right mind deem this as an 'unsafe' modification? Rightfully if this is the case, and it is deemed as a modification without a certificate - the car can go as far as being impounded for something as simple as rotors (which should rightfully be deemed as a safer modification vs stock)
and suffer the same fate as someone who clearly modifies their car in a dangerous manner - i.e. cuts their springs?
How can they rightfully place these two offences in the same basket?

To avoid writing close to a whole books worth of material and scenarios i will leave the rest of the questions and scenarios to your imagination. I just thought i should bring up some relevant material to get the mind on the correct train of thought.

I will also bring up the positive note of all of this - which is that; at least the QPF and associated parties now recognize us as a community, that we are concerned; and the most promising statement in the address; -

CHAIR: Now we are 90 days. I just need to understand what research happened to go from seven to 28 to 90 all in the space of 12 months. Is there something I do not know about? How was 90 days decided as being the deterrent to dissuade—I DO NOT LIKE THE WORD HOONING—people from committing the offences that you have designed it to reduce?

[bjk]

What are the tickets in question being issued for? I'm assuming speeding/law breaking offences, but it's not entirely clear.

Are there standards that govern when a certificate is required? Again assuming that it has to do with the parts of the vehicle that make it function. (i.e. getting impounded for no engineering cert on your aftermarket head unit would be laughable).

[Taz]

They state the majority are for unlicenced/unregistered vehicles - how sure we can be of this we will never know.
The standards seem to be that ANY modification to a motor vehicle requires certification, and since there is not a clause for exceptions, we can assume everything could be liable under this, or at the very least parts that affect the mechanical side of the car. (i.e. not stereos)
Because they even state themselves that its a 'blanket term' used for everything there is a lot of grey area that will definitely need more in depth classification.
All we can do at this stage is interpret the best we can and hope that it doesnt bite us in the ass every day we take the cars out

[bjk]

Given that definition, they're going to be up to their necks in 'offences'. And I hardly doubt that every police officer is going to find the time or motivation to check up on every second P-plater with aftermarket wheels and a cannon muffler to see if they have a certificate with them.

[Taz]

Which is one of my points of 'profiling' or 'discrimination'
I guarantee you, out of those 10,000 cars impounded more than 0.2% were illegally modified, but f**k all of them would of been inspected; because who's going to check for aftermarket poly control arm bushes on an SUV driven by a soccer mum with the kids in the back at the time of the offence? (just want to make it perfectly clear this is only used as an example and exaggerated for effect)
However if an lowered/modified S13 with a young p plater was pulled up chances are they will inspect it on 'profiling' and be defected for them (god forbid an officer checking for them)
(again, purely for example)
That SUV is now not recorded as being illegally modified when impounded and will never show up in statistics/never know to police its illegal. Which is probably how they get that 0.2%

Another side of the coin - that they also "dont know" and refuse to state, is how many of those 10,000 were modified full stop (legally)
I would assume they stated 'illegally modified' as it was a lower statistic, and therefore better to make public to argue against discrimination, being so few modified vehicles impounded.

This however is all speculation, and going off one meeting put on record, and not necessarily the whole story.

[bjk]

Mm. I wonder if any officer will go for the "was like that when I bought it and didn't know it wasn't stock" excuse. But doubt it.

I suppose, like you mentioned, the issue is particularly that not every "illegal" modification is necessarily unsafe. Particularly when it comes to things like suspension/brakes.

[Taz]

Exactly.
What also concerns me, is that they are placing a LOT of discretion at the officers disposal. If you read the entire PDF, you will notice this as a continued theme throughout the various scenarios they go through.
One of them in particular is regarding to traction.
The chair brings up legitimate points regarding the 'sustained loss of traction' clause.
They want to put a time on it, to cement it in and prevent lawyers simply saying they want a literal time frame etc, and when confronted with this they simply deflect and state that it is a situational thing, and at the officers discretion.
This will not solve much - as any grumpy officer on a bad day could not like the offender and slap this fine on someone who genuinely let it slip at the lights/in the wet around a corner etc - which is then a case of officer vs offendant statement.
The chair is also alarmed at the intentions of the bill, and want to know how this will DETER people, rather than just raise revenue for the government (and make it perfectly clear any revenue that is raised is to be put in the general coffers and not go back into the QPF)
It is unclear whether or not this bill will pass or how much of the original draft will be left in tact, but this is certainly not the right direction it is intended to go in as discretion is an open door to officers who already have a biased opinion towards 'hoons'

/end rant =P

[bjk]

At least we've got people like you who are fairly well researched.

Even though I don't live in Queensland.

But the deterrent thing is probably paramount. As an example, here in SA the penalties for being over the limit were changed. From 15kph intervals to 10kph, but the fine for being under 10 over was lessened but the demerit points increased.