P PLATER LAWS CHANGING. Game changer

[fillit]

It is a red in NSW, Warrawong.



Was thinking more of a way to prevent P platers from getting V6 commodores and falcons.

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.

As said, using that method of calculation, P platers would be banned from driving Camrys, Accords, Rav 4s and CRVs etc. Which are all slower than a Civic Sport? Not really understanding.

[fillit]

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.


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.
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.


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.

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.html

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.


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.

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.



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.

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.

Okay, as these posts are getting a bit long I will try and lay them out in point form.

1. The car that someone drives does affect the way they behave, since these restrictions have been placed, there has been a decline in road fatalities. Placing a 18 year old in a hyundai getz is very different to a nissan skyline.

2. This is when my argument of the "maturing of the driver" steps in, if you've been putting around in a hyundai getz for the last 20 years and get into a high powered sports car, you will know (and for gods sakes i hope you know) not to give it a flogging until such point as you can control the car. The mindset of someone who's 40 compares to someone who's 18 is very different, do you honestly think someone with a wife children and mortgage would want to put his life or their lives at risk.

3. The law is put in place, you're the one who's disagreeing with it, statistically speaking it works.

4 + 5, these countries have different rules as they are fundamentally different to Australia, Australia is a large country with lots of roads and the car is necessity. Alot of those countries have their citizens predominately using public transport. Whereas in Australia due to inadequacies, geographical spread etc has a reliance on cars.

Whether they have restrictions on high performance cars or not is a different issue, Australia has one of the lowest road tolls (comparing population/road users/amount of roads) in the world due to these restrictions, this is for the benefit of the community why do we have a need to change it.

6. Have you ever considered the economical cost of 5 months of driver training, revenue wise the government makes about a 33% cut from the luxury car tax alone. Also would you think anyone who can actually afford these cars would bother to go through all this training, they are driving the car A to B, not flogging it around thinking the road is a race track. Most high performance cars with the demographic you're speaking of have their cars driving in CBD traffic during peak. Go down to King/Collins street at 8.30 in the morning to see the plethora of lawyers and bankers driving their cars around bumper to bumper. Most of these gents are probably executive level managers or partners of their firms, you're talking incomes of excess of $500k a year, do you really believe they would endanger their lives by driving like an idiot.

7. It is impractical to not allow people to learn on the public roads, if there is a "pre-leaners" course in an controlled environment, then I would agree. Again this is up to the driving instructor putting you in a safe place, in my first lesson I was in a car with dual controls and he took me to an area which did not have any traffic. If you choose to learn in a car with no dual controls and without a driving instructor, YOU are putting the public to risk. A more practical solution would be to have a minimum of mandatory lessons with a driving instructor, say 10 hours, general expectations would be that you have acquired enough knowledge to drive in a safe enough manner to practice on the open road. Please refer to below diagram (source: betterdrivers.com.au, I think it's part of AAMI). Having an accompany instructor (even if it's mum, dad or sibling) does decrease the chances of an accident.



8 + 9. I'm not sure how many times I've driven a vehicle which isn't rego'd under my own name, friends, family, fleet cars, company cars etc. You're just allowing people to rort the system or alternative cause more congestion from the police, current system works people there are only a finite amount of possibilities when checking a high performance car.

i) full license driver - okay
ii) P plater displaying Ps - 3 point demerit for over powered vehicle
iii) P plater not displaying Ps - 6 point demerit, loss of license

As you know how fkd up the laws are with car modifications, do you want to give these clowns the opportunity to interrogate you on the vehicle you are driving under your proposed changes.

Monetary values are places on peoples lives. I'm sure if you have a superannuation it would come with life insurance which will place a value of the payout on event of your death. Same with insurance policies etc. There is always a risk calculation on the premium and excess of all claims (house/cars/people), these services are to make money, welcome to the world of capitalism.

10. Why are you upset that you cannot purchase a vehicle without electronic aids, these are proven to assist people in situations where they would have been in a serious accident without them. Again, these are people driving from A to B, it may be one day in the 50 years they drive that they rely on these aids, is it practical to make them go through 5 months of training so they can control a power slide? no, is it economical? no. Your WW2 vehicle argument has no validity as it's almost statistically irrelevant in a test example, you would more likely be hit by a bus crossing the road than for a serious accident to occur in one of those vehicles, I can't imagine a museum lending you one to flog around anyway.

From reading your replies I can understand your point of view, but in essence what I get is that you think that there are alot of idiots on the road (yes there is) and once they obtain their full licensed they can drive whatever they want in a manner which they cannot control the vehicle or deemed unsafe to the public (yes they do). However there are always people out there who break the law, people get stabbed all the time, do we ban knives? No, because the majority of people don't do that, it's only a very small statistic who does. Currently the system works (although there are a few flaws). Yes there are probably improvements which can be made, say DECA training or a compulsory track day/skid pan day or compulsory minimum driving lessons, however fundamentally there isn't a need to overhaul the licensing arrangements as you have suggested.

[Chernoby1]

Most of my points kinda flow across a bunch of your points so take the whole of the responses and not just the selected section for my view point. Would probably be able to make is nice and segmented but mega ceebs.

Okay, as these posts are getting a bit long I will try and lay them out in point form.

1. The car that someone drives does affect the way they behave, since these restrictions have been placed, there has been a decline in road fatalities. Placing a 18 year old in a hyundai getz is very different to a nissan skyline.

Im saying that all efforts should be made to deter the change in behavior, not eliminate it. if the majority will do the wrong thing, i want it to be possible for the minority to be able to do the right thing.

2. This is when my argument of the "maturing of the driver" steps in, if you've been putting around in a hyundai getz for the last 20 years and get into a high powered sports car, you will know (and for gods sakes i hope you know) not to give it a flogging until such point as you can control the car. The mindset of someone who's 40 compares to someone who's 18 is very different, do you honestly think someone with a wife children and mortgage would want to put his life or their lives at risk.

You are relying on that 'maturity'. I find it unreliable and thus suggesting making it not possible to rely on people.

3. The law is put in place, you're the one who's disagreeing with it, statistically speaking it works.

Im an Idealist. Statistics mean nothing to me.
Im also the sort of person who cares not of the practicality of the laws, but rather the fundamental reasoning. I believe people should be punished for their wrong doings, but not because they might do something wrong. To me, any sort of restriction is a punishment, even if it is likely to prevent lives being lost.

Freedom comes first > life comes second > everything else comes afterwards

4 + 5, these countries have different rules as they are fundamentally different to Australia, Australia is a large country with lots of roads and the car is necessity. Alot of those countries have their citizens predominately using public transport. Whereas in Australia due to inadequacies, geographical spread etc has a reliance on cars.

Idealist view, the reliance on vehicles and probable inconvenience to the majority with my proposed overhaul means very little/nothing to me. If the entire population underwent the training, i say its better for everyone regardless of the cost.

Whether they have restrictions on high performance cars or not is a different issue, Australia has one of the lowest road tolls (comparing population/road users/amount of roads) in the world due to these restrictions, this is for the benefit of the community why do we have a need to change it.

Because i beleive freedom is more important than life. Making a law to stop other laws being broken is useless.

Fundamental law:
Damage to persons and property is not tolerated.

Car related example secondary law:
Due to the higher likelihood of a crash and the increased damage if a crash occurs, high speed driving is made illegal.

Third tier law:
Young drivers are more likely (statistically) to speed in a high powered vehicle (cough arguable but ill just assume it). [The various other 'benefits' of these restrictions are omitted so to keep things tidy]

As such, not permitting them to drive a high power vehicle removes the likely hood that they would speed and in doing so cause damage to people/property.

In my view, 2nd and third tier should GTFO and we should only have the first tier law. Clearly i dont just have problems with the lisencing system, but the entire legal system of australia and most other countries. The lack of ability to move to a country that works the way i want it, or to even create such a place makes me angry and thus i vent like im doing now (I want my damned freedom!)
[/quote]

6. Have you ever considered the economical cost of 5 months of driver training, revenue wise the government makes about a 33% cut from the luxury car tax alone. Also would you think anyone who can actually afford these cars would bother to go through all this training, they are driving the car A to B, not flogging it around thinking the road is a race track. Most high performance cars with the demographic you're speaking of have their cars driving in CBD traffic during peak. Go down to King/Collins street at 8.30 in the morning to see the plethora of lawyers and bankers driving their cars around bumper to bumper. Most of these gents are probably executive level managers or partners of their firms, you're talking incomes of excess of $500k a year, do you really believe they would endanger their lives by driving like an idiot.

A) I dont care about the economical ramifications. If i/my community was dirt poor but free (or my definition of free at anyrate), id be content lol.

B)
If these people cant be bothered going through all the loops to be able to drive this said vehicle, then they dont get to drive the vehicle? I dont see the problem there.

I didnt mean those people at all. To be specific, i was talking about a mates mum who sometimes takes his 400kw vl to the shops. She isnt aware of the power the thing makes and (proving your point) her mentality on driving means she has never depressed the pedal anywhere near to the floor. God forbid she ever needed to overtake and the car spooled... i've seen that car fry the tires at ~130km/h.

Obviously this is an extreme case but if she was to be 'trained' and made aware of how the thing handles / operates then id be much more comfortable. If you made this mandatory to all drivers, i dont see how it would be possible for them to 'accidentally' do something stupid (which is my main concern, not people doing it on purpose). A few years back a ~40yo guy in his ferrari didnt take to kindly to being overtaken by an SS of somesort. So ofcourse he put the foot down, car spun the wheels, he paniced and hit the brake... ended up in a tree on the other side of the road.

This could have been avoided if he didnt put the foot down, but also if he knew wtf to expect would happen. I would not at all be surprised if this was the first time he flogged the car, especially as he was caught with some ~20yo chick in the passenger seat (again extreme case but yea.)

7. It is impractical to not allow people to learn on the public roads, if there is a "pre-leaners" course in an controlled environment, then I would agree. Again this is up to the driving instructor putting you in a safe place, in my first lesson I was in a car with dual controls and he took me to an area which did not have any traffic. If you choose to learn in a car with no dual controls and without a driving instructor, YOU are putting the public to risk. A more practical solution would be to have a minimum of mandatory lessons with a driving instructor, say 10 hours, general expectations would be that you have acquired enough knowledge to drive in a safe enough manner to practice on the open road. Please refer to below diagram (source: betterdrivers.com.au, I think it's part of AAMI). Having an accompany instructor (even if it's mum, dad or sibling) does decrease the chances of an accident.

repeat: Practicality in laws means zeroooo to me...
The fact some one is LEGALLY ABLE to put me at risk is the problem. (Funnily enough the fact they ARE putting me at risk isnt that worrying lol)

8 + 9. I'm not sure how many times I've driven a vehicle which isn't rego'd under my own name, friends, family, fleet cars, company cars etc. You're just allowing people to rort the system or alternative cause more congestion from the police, current system works people there are only a finite amount of possibilities when checking a high performance car.

Who the car is registered to is irrelevant. I'm suggesting that the car itself must be registered in a different manner. Think of heavy vehicles... Doesnt matter at all who the owner is, the operator needs to have the correct license if he wishes to operate that vehicle. This is a fairly common (i take 10% as common) license and cops dont swarm on heavy vehicles because it is often presumed the person does have the correct lisencing and therefore its not checked.

i) full license driver - okay
ii) P plater displaying Ps - 3 point demerit for over powered vehicle
iii) P plater not displaying Ps - 6 point demerit, loss of license

As you know how fkd up the laws are with car modifications, do you want to give these clowns the opportunity to interrogate you on the vehicle you are driving under your proposed changes.

I would like the ability to carry out any modifications i want as long as it met the ADR's and that my registration record said modifications and certifies its compliance and thus be able to drive it without hassle.

I would also like for modified vehicles to be assessed on an individual basis on whether or not they are considered a high power vehicle and that determines whether or not a person needs a special license to drive the damned thing.

This is increasing the difficulty (and thus cost) of driving a modified vehicle but it gives me a legal avenue to drive a high powered modified vehicle and not be worried about being dicked for shit. If the vehicle has non-certified modifications well BL to you, defects it is.

Monetary values are places on peoples lives. I'm sure if you have a superannuation it would come with life insurance which will place a value of the payout on event of your death. Same with insurance policies etc. There is always a risk calculation on the premium and excess of all claims (house/cars/people), these services are to make money, welcome to the world of capitalism.

Screw capatalism as cultural system. I'm a hard socialist but want the economics of a capatalist nation... A country did pull it off a while ago, but then some external peeps where full wtfing and decided to **** that place up nice and hard.

10. Why are you upset that you cannot purchase a vehicle without electronic aids, these are proven to assist people in situations where they would have been in a serious accident without them. Again, these are people driving from A to B, it may be one day in the 50 years they drive that they rely on these aids, is it practical to make them go through 5 months of training so they can control a power slide? no, is it economical? no. Your WW2 vehicle argument has no validity as it's almost statistically irrelevant in a test example, you would more likely be hit by a bus crossing the road than for a serious accident to occur in one of those vehicles, I can't imagine a museum lending you one to flog around anyway.

I am upset htat i am not ABLE to buy a car without these options.

This is the point i should probably change from a high-power vehicle license to a specialty vehicle license (of which a high power vehicle would be a part of).

If lets say it was possible to get a Ford Falcon with no Abs/tcs/esc//airbags/ect only and ONLY if i had one of these lSVL's, id be happy. But id want the ability to also remove said systems in the same scenario.

The general public wouldnt be effected at all (unless i had a crash), and i highly doubt a manufacture would even bother to change thier lineup in anyway as the market is so minute, BUT, in the case where pople midify cars, i really HATE the fact that we are not legally able to remove or modify these systems even when they become inheently unsafe features due to the other modifications in the vihcle.

EG: Go drive a car that isnoticably more powerful than factory and also changes the rolling circumference of the tyre by like 15%. If that car came with ESC, that ESC system will probably loose the plot and make driving more dangerous as it tries to stabilise the car because the sensor are no longer within a calibratory range.

From reading your replies I can understand your point of view, but in essence what I get is that you think that there are alot of idiots on the road (yes there is) and once they obtain their full licensed they can drive whatever they want in a manner which they cannot control the vehicle or deemed unsafe to the public (yes they do). However there are always people out there who break the law, people get stabbed all the time, do we ban knives? No, because the majority of people don't do that, it's only a very small statistic who does. Currently the system works (although there are a few flaws). Yes there are probably improvements which can be made, say DECA training or a compulsory track day/skid pan day or compulsory minimum driving lessons, however fundamentally there isn't a need to overhaul the licensing arrangements as you have suggested.

Might want to read up on the laws for knives.... carrying a knife at home is fine. Carrying a knife in public is illegal. Driving a high power car at home is fine, driving a high power car on the road is not... very good analogy, but it didnt really illustrate your point too well :P
(If its of any concession, i have no problems at all with people carrying around weapons and that they should be punished if they use said weapons... but not because they have them)

As for the need? There is never a NEED for anything. There is an intense and insatiable desire within myself to live where i/other are free to do what i consider acceptable... which at the moment is not anywhere on the planet earth. LE SIGHS>

[fillit]

I've hit the point where I cannot be bothered anymore lol.

As you've admitted that you do not care about legality, practicality or economic ramifications, which basically all of your "idealistic" view would have to cover before it can be implemented. Most of your responses have such a low probability of occurrence it is statistically irrelevant. Again, as you don't care about it, you will refuse to accept any my statistical evidence.

I can sit here, provide you statistics and the written law, however as mentioned all of the above means "nothing to you". That is your belief and I can accept that, I'm not here to change your views, just seeking your justification for the change in law and how you expect to apply it. For the records, I still cannot see how this would work, I don't think it's a bad idea, just that there is no practical way of implementing it unless you can prove otherwise.

On a few side notes.

ADR Compliance - You can engineer your car if you wish to have modifications on it.
Cars without electronic aids - How many people are actually going to purchase it? If given a choice I'm sure most people if not all people would opt for the aids.
Carrying a knife - You can carry a knife from point A to point B, the law stipulates that it is an controlled weapon, if the knife is not deemed to be a controlled weapon or the object intent is not for bodily harm, it is not illegal. Example would be carrying a swiss army knife, until the point you decide to shank someone, they cannot prosecute you for it.

As for your insatiable desire to live and do what you want, have you ever considered moving to New Zealand? They have very relaxed vehicle laws there, seems to be your haven.

[Chernoby1]

Edit: I swear i tried to keep this short, bt it seems i cant do it. Mcfail.

I've hit the point where I cannot be bothered anymore lol.

As you've admitted that you do not care about legality, practicality or economic ramifications, which basically all of your "idealistic" view would have to cover before it can be implemented. Most of your responses have such a low probability of occurrence it is statistically irrelevant. Again, as you don't care about it, you will refuse to accept any my statistical evidence.

I dont care much with the current laws (not legality on the whole). Most of my responses may have incredibly low stat's but are based on experience and frustrations that came from them lol. I dont like when a law is 'good enough' because is covers 99% of cases. If it doesnt cover 100%, it cannot be a law (Personal definition of what defines a 'real' law). Luckily for a lot of people, i cant be bothered trying to change the system and can only be bothered trying to explain my viewpoint to people in the hopes they do something :P

I can sit here, provide you statistics and the written law, however as mentioned all of the above means "nothing to you". That is your belief and I can accept that, I'm not here to change your views, just seeking your justification for the change in law and how you expect to apply it. For the records, I still cannot see how this would work, I don't think it's a bad idea, just that there is no practical way of implementing it unless you can prove otherwise.

If this is regarding 'high power viehlce registration', i would take the current system for heavy vehicles (they need to get weighed / certififed / ect) and simply apply the same thing to any vehicle with 150+kw/t (pulled the figure out of a hat). If a car is standard no test needed, if the car is modified, you need to provide details. Once a person has got the the license, i would hope they keep the prices for normal cars vs high power cars the same and thus there is no real reason not to rego it as a high power vehicle... ect. Trust me, that part of it would work and actually not be tooooo difficult to implement.

ADR Compliance - You can engineer your car if you wish to have modifications on it.

I know this is meant to be a thread for NSW, but i have NFI what sort of regs you got there. In vic, this is not possible. I can get / have gotten defected for something an engineer has signed off on.

Cars without electronic aids - How many people are actually going to purchase it? If given a choice I'm sure most people if not all people would opt for the aids.

Anyone that plans to modify the vehicle extensively
As i said, i doubt any manufacturers would make such a car, but i want the ability to get rid of said safety systems legally.
At present, most people who modify the cars extensively replace the ECU and also get rid of many of the 'safety' electronics... Even if you are able to provide some form of comparable function, that would count as a modification to a safety system which is illegal and thus 99% of newer cars that are modified to that point are illegal no matter what you do. There is no way to certify such modifications.

99% of the population wouldnt be effected at all, me included as i dont like new cars, but i hate the fact there is no process or possibility of complying to the law while modifying a car extensively.

Carrying a knife - You can carry a knife from point A to point B, the law stipulates that it is an controlled weapon, if the knife is not deemed to be a controlled weapon or the object intent is not for bodily harm, it is not illegal. Example would be carrying a swiss army knife, until the point you decide to shank someone, they cannot prosecute you for it.

So simply because a car is able to kill someone and statistically (assumption) it is more likely to do so if the vehicle has lots of power and is drven by a youth; A youth driving a powerful shows intent to hurt? Bit iffy but comes back to my stubborn belief that supporting laws are retarded lol.

As for your insatiable desire to live and do what you want, have you ever considered moving to New Zealand? They have very relaxed vehicle laws there, seems to be your haven.

Vehicle laws are petty things imo, not going to change where i live based on that. ATM Its aus or canada based on all the other laws. Unfortunately both are slowly turing into america and am considering going to a non-developed nation but am kinda comfortable here with my decent paycheck, stable job and lack of fear of getting shanked walking down the street...

[fillit]

I'm just going to say agree to disagree.

This continued conversation will be ideologies vs statistics.

[viett]

all dem wordz, all dat education

[EKVTIR-T]

in japan the cappas struggle to better low 14s... as I say they are slow and waste of money if you want to go fast

theyre cute though,I actually like them

[RenzokukenJ]

This thread turned into the Muslim thread ay

[blommer]

nuff said.. move to WA and all's good

[Chernoby1]

in japan the cappas struggle to better low 14s... as I say they are slow and waste of money if you want to go fast

theyre cute though,I actually like them

JDM cars are nearly always only stuffed with off the shelf parts... of course its gonna be slow. Theyre more concerned with driving the cars than with making them fast. Try and look up how many of them are runnig standalone ECU's.. if you find more than 10 ill be surprised, especially when you consider theres ~10 cappas in aus that run standalone ecus lol. But maybe im not in the right forum coz i dont like off the shelf shit.

/offtopic.com

[mocchi]

what the fuark just happened here