Printable View
There will always be flaws in the system no matter what rule they make - the current turbo rules though it doesn't cover all the loopholes it really isn't that bad i do believe they should add more high performance N/A on the banned list though
the select few who try to get exemptions when they know its totally unnecessary are the ones who should be frowned upon though this is another story...
Colour / state/ DEEEEETS!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayfox
not quite sure how 180kw / 700kg is considered slow, but if you say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by EKVTIR-T
Pfft the whole idea of a probationary license is a total load of Sh*t. The driving test should assess whether a person is able to make the correct desicions or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by muzukashi
If people feel that there needs to be some restrictions on who can drive what cars, then a seperate license should be implimented for certain 'performance car' ranges. This shoudl apply to EVERYONE.
Want to drive a VE GTS? Go get HP1 class license so you can.
Different rules for different groups of people is DISCRIMINATION. I do not care at all how long things have been this way, and i will say that this is one of the most stupid things in Australian laws.
car for getting A to B why it matter fast
maybe if is late when get for plane to vietnam can flight quickQuote:
Originally Posted by charliebrown
^ what the? LOL
the value of honda will drop for sure
180KW/700KG is not slow, but the amount of time/money needed to obtain those figures is mind boggling. Yes I've driven a cap (kayfours) and yes I've been in his car even with turbo/intercooler/injector/ecu upgrade, still slow compared to a bog standard wrx or silvia, I think he is still only pulling dyno figures in the 50s. Not denying it's a fun car (around corners) but in pure speed, it's not fast (unless you, as quoted, achieve that power output).Quote:
Originally Posted by Chernoby1
Secondly, the road is not a race track, the purpose of probationary licensing is to teach people how to drive, even if you are a good driver (being able to control a car in a range of conditions) doesn't mean you drive in a manner which is safe to the community, i.e. abiding by road rules etc.
If you have the need to drive an overly powerful car, you are more than welcome to at any track event, where you can legally go as fast as you like in a safe controlled environment.
No, it's not discrimination, all people are subjected to the same rules. 1 year of red Ps, 3 years of green Ps then full license (in vic). The idea behind probation is to create maturity in the driver so they don't wrap themselves around a tree with their ego and reduce their chances of having an accident/violation, yes there are F*KWITs out there, but you can never have a perfect sample. I don't see any issues with that, if you feel the need to drive a faster car, trackdays are always at hand, the road is not a speedway.
I think Danny's car has some big issues. Mine pulled 43.4kw 100% bog stock on same dyno/day as his pulled 54kw(i think) with all his mods. When i went back with my horrible road tune i pulled a 54.5; everything other than ecu is stock... His car should be ~70kw with the f111 kit. Pulling ~90kw from our engines isnt difficult at all and doesnt even require opening the block up. Sure 180kw is a tad hardcore (300kw/L) but i was responding to a guy that did say:Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
Full mod is full mod.Quote:
Originally Posted by EKVTIR-T
My argument is that the power of the car is irrelevant to how it is driven. I might want to have an overly powerful car that i can take to a drag strip but i do not have the space/nor money to have a dedicated drag car AND a car i drive everyday. Why must it automatically be assumed that coz it is powerful i will hoon it? Should we assume that everyone with a gun (inc police/security) will shoot someone with it when they bear it in public? Seems retarded to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
If they dont have the maturity to not wrap themselves around a tree, i dont want them on a road. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
Why the F*ck are the Permitted to 'learn' and 'mature' on the road in an uncontrolled environment that is unsafe? The rest of the planet (well majority) doesnt have any sort of probationary laws.. why? Because if you arent ready to drive everything on the road, you simply ARENT READY. None of this "You can drive some of the stuff some of the time to learn" crap.
The fact that the Licensing test is held on public roads is beyond stupid. Until someone is fully lisenced they shoudlnt be on the road. want a license in japan? Do al lthe written test and then go through the practical exam in a Controlled Environment that is namely, NOT THE PUBLIC ROAD.
If someone wants to drive a vehicle with largely different dynamics for the 'average' car they need to get 'certified' for it. Want to drive something more than 4500kg? Need a LR y0.
Have a car that doenst have any sort of ESP/ESC/TC/ABS/ECT, Get a certification for the use of "Unassisted vehicles"
If someone wants to drive a 1000hp Supra, Get certified for "High Power Vehicles"
Just making the call on the capp as I see it, as you own the car I'm sure you have more of an idea than I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chernoby1
The argument with restricting P platers from having high powered cars is due to "reducing" the risk of accidents, since the implementation of these restriction laws we have seen a decline in road fatalities, on a less tangible aspect the brain matures as you age and generally reaches it''s full development at around 25 which is also why they were looking to extend Ps to that age.
The law is there to protect the wider communities, because you want to have a overly powerful car to take on the dragstrip and drive around everyday, doesn't mean they would want to put additional risk on your life, the lives of your passengers and the general public (inexperience in a high powered car). An analogy would be that you want a Ferrari but can't afford one, so you do extensive modifications on your car to comparable performance, that's not an argument when you get defected, although you're increasing the performance of your car, you're not abiding by the written laws which is for the greater good (granted some things are stupid like EPA, coilover rules etc.)
Sadly even though you don't want morons on the road there will still be some, they ruin it for the others (fact) think about all the guys who rip skids getting out of meets even when explicable advised not to.
Not sure what you mean by "Why the F*ck are the Permitted to 'learn' and 'mature' on the road in an uncontrolled environment that is unsafe?" however I'll forward my own interpretation, well to get your Ps you're required to do 120 hours on Ls, this is to increase the knowledge and experience on the road (yes the system get's abused by can't say more hours behind the wheel is a bad thing). What I would ask here, how is letting people drive over powered cars on public roads for them to learn is safe? Well it's not safe? I don't want to drive down the road whilst some c*nt is practicing skids around the corner.
The rest of the "developed" world does have probationary licensing, two examples I'll use is the US and Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%..._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_driving_licence
Although there are variants and there may be less/more time spent in probation (or equivalent).
"Because if you arent ready to drive everything on the road, you simply ARENT READY", most people driving on the road would never drive/purchased a high powered sports car, they are simply driving A to B in their fwd hatchback or family car, I can't see why we need to change a rule that doesn't affect the MAJORITY of road users.
The licensing will need to conducted on a public road to see their ability to drive in comparable conditions to when they have their license. Keep in mind there is an instructor/tester to accompany the driver, therefore they are being supervised. Using your argument it means that L platers cannot drive on public roads, I'm not sure how they can attain their licenses? I do agree that there should be a defensive portion of the licensing test, perhaps a DECA section? However there are costs involved with that and it's unlikely to be implemented any soon.
While you have the idea of different licensing depending on cars, it will be ridiculously hard to enforce. Basically everyone will rort the system and cops will have to be pulling every tom dick and harry over to check their license conditions. Current systems works, if you car is over 4500kgs and you don't have the licensing you get fined. If you're driving a high powered car and you're not full licensed you get fined, yes people don't put up Ps for that reason, but then you're running a double fine and it's instant loss of license.
Instead of having a license for vehicles without ESP/ESC/TC/ABS/ECT, I think the mandatory DECA course is more practical as they can do testing in vehicles without those assistances. All new cars nowadays are required to have electronic aids anyway, so soon enough the majority of cars on the road will have these safety features by default.
It is a red in NSW, Warrawong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chernoby1
Was thinking more of a way to prevent P platers from getting V6 commodores and falcons.Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
Something like a Civic sport.
150hp or less, 2L max , 4cylinder
That should be the limit.
If you need a more powerful apply for exemption.
Heck even 120hp or less is even better.
My method of reducing the risk by simply not allowing those who are not ready ofr the responsibilities of driving ANY lisence. Im not saying they shouldnt be restricted, im saying they shouldnt be permitted to drive. IE, the car is never the problem it is always the driver so restrict the drivers not the cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
The idea of the certification is to enable me to gain said 'experience'. My problem is that there is nothing stopping some old fart who has never driven a high power vehcle from getting behind the wheels of one.Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
My argument here is that yes experience is necessary but it also has to be the RIGHT sort of experience. Putting around in a hyundai getz for 20 years will not mean you are safe to drive a air-cooled porsche (unstable as all funk). They should also be forced to undergo training for high power vehicles.
When a license is easy to get and maintain, people will abuse it. The problem with these morons is that licensed or not they will do what they do. Restricting the people who do follow the laws makes no sense at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
im saying Learning on public roads should be forbidden. You should get all the expirience you need in controlled environments where things cant go incredibly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
Again im not saying that a learner driver should be permitted to drive a high power car on the road, im saying a learner driver shouldn't be permitted to drive ANY car on the road.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/r...countries.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by fillit
Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Switzerland had no Graduate licensing systems pre EU.
Norway and sweden had a system whre it is easier to loose (not suspend but you have to go back to the beginning) within the first two years of getting your license.
As far as i know, none of the european/american countries restrict the use of 'certain' cars. Each category of vehicle has a related license and that license enables you to drive ALL vehicles in that category (probationary or not).
Hence my reason to introduce a new category for high power vehicles so the rest of people dont need to make any changes. This also helps prevent the general public getting behind the wheel of a powerful car and wrapping it around a pole. Dont see how someone who has been driving an econbox for the last 20 years will be safer and in more control of a vehicle than someone else who has 5 months of experience driving a high power vehicle and being forced to actually experience many of the possible things that can happen due to the higher power... And to make sure you understand what im saying, i mean 5 months of on track/motorkhana/other non public road environment and absolutely no driving of a high power vehicle on the road until you have got that license.Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
Why should i, a member of the public be put at ANY risk at all so that other can be assessed on their safety and adherence to the law? I took my test in a vehicle that didnt have double controls and i cant see how there is any safety in another 'qualified' person being in that vehicle with me. IF i panicked and stomped on the accelerator pedal instead of the brake, there is nothing that person can do that reduces the risk of injury to the public or myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
By my argument a mock setup of streets and roads should be made to simulate the road, but not be part of the public road network (japan does exactly this). This also means that the person needs to do all their training in this environment to make sure the REST of the publics safety is not compromised by this learner being on the road.
Is this expensive? Yes. Is this going to make getting a license expensive and difficult? Yes.
If the reason you are not increasing safety is cost, then you/the politicians are effectively putting a monetary value on a persons life. That is a very slippery path to go down.
Not really hard to enforce. A powerful vehicle would need a different registration from a 'non-high-power' vehicle. You said it yourself, the majority of the public wouldnt drive/own these sorts of vehicles, so it would be easy for the police to pick the high power cars out (especially with new rego plate scanners) and check if the operator has a high power vehicle license.Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
I dislike the fact i cannot purchase a vehicle without electronic safety ads, im baised as all hell so please bear that in mind. I simply wanted to make a point that a "non-standard car" needs to have its own certification. This is already in practice in industry environments (Verification of Competency) which as the name implies, is a test that verifies you are competent to operate the equipment. This MAY mean that i special cases, a VOC test may have to be created for that specific vehicle.Quote:
Originally Posted by fillit
If you ever get a chance to drive most pre WW2 vehicle, lets just says its very different (some dont have the accelerator as a pedal but rather a knob on the dash handle on the door)... yet anybody is permitted to drive the thing without any special certification. Sure due to the lack of occurrences it hasnt been a big issue but F*ck me.... Safety > Practicality.
If i remember correctly, in japan you can only learn to drive by an instructor and it is expensive to learn by an instructor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chernoby1
In japan those kei cars have yellow license plates where as the normal sized cars have a white.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chernoby1
So maybe a dedicated color for low power cars