KEY POINTS:
As far back as 2002, the South Auckland police were suggesting they were probably fighting a losing battle against boy racers. The previous Government responded with several measures but none came close to solving the problem.
As much was confirmed by a series of incidents in Christchurch last weekend, including a run-in when a police officer's car was ambushed, bottled and shot at. That prompted the Prime Minister to say that law changes to crack down on street racing would be "a matter of priority", and the Police Minister to paint a picture of boy racers' cars being crushed as their owners watched.
That portrayal doubtless appealed to those appalled by the police's inability to stamp out this blight. Calmer reflection might suggest, however, that a more likely, if less spectacular, answer lies in the cease and desist orders sought by the police. As used in Scotland, this would see notices issued to offenders. If they breached these within two years, they could be jailed for three months or fined $2000, be disqualified from driving for six months, and have their car impounded for up to 28 days. Any subsequent offences would lead to an increased disqualification period or court-ordered confiscation of a car.
These orders overcome what police say is the major deficiency in the current law, the difficulty of identifying and apprehending individual offenders amid street-racing crowds that number in the hundreds. Areas where the racing is taking place could be cordoned off, and the police could methodically deal with every person present. The threat posed by the order would probably be enough to persuade many to forsake future gatherings. The more draconian aspects could be used against the hard-core racers who chose to continue to endanger public safety.
Clearly, such a law would have to be specifically tailored to street racing. Any legislation that bans a group from assembling risks running foul of human rights law. There must be no possibility of wider application to, say, groups involved in protest action. The police seem to appreciate this and say a new offence of vehicle disorder - using a car in a way that alarmed or distressed the public - would have to be established.
Standard recipes have not worked. The previous Government's prescription of fines for noisy cars failed largely because the fines were simply ignored. Likewise, the impounding and selling of cars foundered on a loophole that allowed offenders to sell the car first and keep the proceeds. Another of that Government's proposals, compulsory third-party insurance, became the subject of a discussion paper, but nothing more. This was unfortunate because such insurance would provide a powerful incentive for young motorists to moderate their behaviour. Blemished driving records would mean extremely expensive insurance premiums.
The police have also suggested other remedies, such as licence suspension for the failure to pay fines, increased demerit point penalties for speeding, and serious penalties for failing to stop for an officer. All may play a part in tackling a problem that has become so severe that it was featured last month in a German television documentary on Christchurch.
But more than anything, that focus pointed to an extraordinary problem which requires something a little out of the ordinary to address it.
Last weekend's attack on the police officer underlined the increasing ugliness of these gatherings. It also provided a cause celebre for action. The introduction of cease and desist orders would equip the police to regain control of the streets. They should be the focus of the Government's response.
