1 thing i find hard to grasp is the fact people some how think that everyone else is responsible for them...good example is in this very thread, people expecting the police to taxi or ferry them off somewhere when they have just broken the law.
I fully understand this, but, in this case example, again, we have an obligation to keep pedestrians (etc) off freeway class roads.
IF that means a procedural change with 'confiscation' circumstance in relation to this class road, then so be it.
Example; if this were anywhere within continental EU, or on a GB motorway, you are simply *not* left to your own devices to leave that roadway, - after your car is towed away following a break-down, crash etc, all part of that International obligation (UN Convention on Road Traffic) again, that protects the person, passengers and other traffic.
The person should be 'directed' to wait and to not walk off. I see 'no obligation' on part of the towing industry with this requirement following enforcement action for an offence/s, - 'the state' bears fundamental responsibility for this. The issue IS NOT the persons 'offence or offences' that give rise to the scenario's after effect.
The 'requirement' is not just for the persons safety beneifit as stated above, BUT also for other traffic, which in this case on a prima facie basis, in my view, has been let down by systematic backwardness.
Either this mans family, or that of the 'other traffic' can/should seek legal redress from the state of Victoria. VICPOL, as we read, have made 'attempts' -to find him, a case would be not focussed on this aspect, but rather on requirement and duty of care when under obligation.
I'll chase NSW changes in respects this scenario, so that anyone stopped and who have their vehicles confiscated, are without fail, escorted from a designated signposted 'freeway, motorway or tollway'.
Note that 'freeway', in regards to pedestrian prohibition obligation, can only apply to such 'designated roads', meaning typical rural dual carriageway roads such as the NSW and VIC Hume, may not qualify as freeway, - unless so designated such. By practical example, the VIC Hume, although a 'freeway' as it is called/designated such, is not to freeway construction standards, but his is another issue.
ALTERNATIVE example of this scenario; IF 'the person' was a female with a baby/toddler, would VICPOL have let her walk off down the 'freeway' with aforesaid kid in stroller, even if she was insistent? Just because this was a young man, lends no lesser response.
I note some posters suggesting removal of speeding fines in favour of calling them 'hoon fines' etc. Interesting and cynicisim well understood. We are seeing 'hoon' definition expanding into general driving offences.
It is however a true statement, unfortunately it seems that everyone today thinks it is everyone else's responsibility except their own.
