Download - Massive Magazine

FEATURE
BOY RACER ACT - EXCESSIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY?
On the 21st of June 2012, New Zealand saw its first crushing of a boy racer car.
However, the question is whether the controversial law was the right punishment for
the crime or a target on teenagers in New Zealand. Harpreet Kaur reports.
hew Zealand’s first crushing of a boy
racer car which took place this year
under the “Boy Racer” Act law was
aimed to be a warning against street
racers. However, the law is perceived as being
discriminatory by some.
The Nissan Laurel was crushed on the morning
of June 21, 2012 at Lower Hutt under street
racing destruction laws, after its owner Daniel
Ronald Briant was found guilty of ‘sustained
loss of traction’, dangerous driving and driving
while suspended.
After the car was crushed it was auctioned
on TradeMe and sold to the Museum Of
Transport and Technology (MOTAT) for $818.
Proceeds were donated to Youthline.
The car will be displayed by the museum
with the aim of educating the public of the
importance of safe driving and to show the
technology used to crush the car.
Minister of Police Anne Tolley, who pushed
the button that crushed the car, says this
crushing process is carried out to protect the
communities by reducing noisy, dangerous
driving and anti-social behaviour that goes
along with illegal street racing.
The “Boy Racer” Act was introduced in 2008
by the then Police Minister Judith Collins
and was passed to tackle the issues of illegal
street racing and reduce the numbers in these
offences. According to this law, the offender’s
car is only crushed after offenders get three
strikes.
The Land Transport Amendment Act 2003
states that police officers can impound vehicles
with the discretionary powers they have.
“At the last count there were 116 offenders
on their second strike. Hopefully the first car
crushing will have made it clear to them that a
third strike won’t be tolerated,” said Minister
Tolley.
Minister Tolley feels that the museum is an
appropriate place for the car to be displayed
so that young people will be warned about the
effects of dangerous driving.
Alongside with that, Minister Tolley defends
herself for smiling in pictures while standing
on the crushed car by saying that it was
done to get media coverage to show that the
Government will not tolerate such behaviours.
She adds that this law is fair and is proving
very effective, with 800 fewer illegal street
racing offences since the law was introduced.
It also serves as a wakeup call for all the boy
racers.
However, some say that the crushing law is
not a suitable punishment for this crime. A
criminologist and sociology professor at the
University of Canterbury, Greg Newbold, feels
that this law is age discriminatory.
“The law itself is not discriminatory but the
way it is presented and the way it is being
carried out is. And that’s why it is for the boy
racer car. They are not going to crush the cars
of older people. They are only going to crush
the cars of boy racers who repeatedly offend.
All they are doing is aiming at young people,”
he said.
“It is just a way of stigmatising the young same
as the zer0-level tolerance law which came
in. There is pressure upon the Government
to lower the drink driving age but the adults
didn’t want that cause that means that we
would not be able to go drinking and then
drive. So instead they just made an zer0-level
tolerance for young people and everyone was
happy with that. This is because the young
people do not have a voice. It is the same in
this case.”
In Professor Newbold’s opinion, this law
should not have been used to punish Briant.
He states that “boy racing” is much safer
than what it was in the past. Today, cars are
equipped with safety features and drivers are
more responsible than they were before. But
no one has the right to destroy the things of
other people.
“And when you see that Anne Tolley standing
on top of a crushed car I think it is disgraceful.
That car would have been worth tens of
thousands of dollars. You confiscate the
24