Legal Minded, Not So Legal Minded, Opinionated, Maligned, Cheesed Off Or Plain Scared

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I'm cynical I know but it about limited dollars and ensuring they are spent to get the most votes for those holding the purse strings.

This is what really jacks me off (and makes me even more determined!)...this country spent 135 million dollars on social welfare alone 08/09 FY...and sweet FA on maintaining roads... :(

[Franco Cozzo]

Cynical? Just means you see it as it is I reckon.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

This is what really jacks me off (and makes me even more determined!)...this country spent 135 million dollars on social welfare alone 08/09 FY...and sweet FA on maintaining roads... :(

http://www.smh.com.au/national/plea-...0102-lmix.html

In 2007-08 the total amount spent on roads was $13.9 billion including $2.7 billion in federal money; $7.3 billion from states and territories; $3.1 billion from local government and; $800 million from the private sector.

[388cube_edxr8]

I would like to propose a change to the P Plate laws, so that low powered older V8s and turbos are P Plate legal providing they are within the current power restrictions. Having this ridiculous law just further discredits the Government in the eyes of a Provisional driver and makes them even less likely to respect the road rules.

"If they are going to be unreasonable about my interests, why should I cooperate with them?"

I know this because I have seen this first hand. In fact, all cars should be P Plate legal, regardless of mods, providing they are within a reasonable power or power to weight restriction. I would also like to limit P Platers from towing with vehicles over a certain total length or weight without proper training.

Also, we need more marked police cars on the road. Most 'spirited' drivers have figured out that can can do pretty much whatever they want on the road, as long as they don't offend Constable Kodak.

Also, traveling below the posted speed limit on a single lane road with an 80km/h limit or above should carry a penalty. Maybe a percentage of the penalty for driving the same amount above the limit or something.

And a period of no offenses between license renewals should result in free or heavily discounted license renewals.

[aussiblue]

Seems most of us agree on what is needed

Actually I can't agree with a lot of them.

I also can't find any evidence that the current minor differences in "road rules" between states has had any significant impact on road safety. I agree for mere convenience it is still desirable to have them uniform.

There is also a lot of evidence that, like with children, reward rather than punishment is more effective in changing human behaviour. So, while from a selfish revenge perspective, I would like to see harsher penalties, perhaps in the context of improving road safety, rather than harsher and firmer penalties we should look at ways of rewarding good behaviour.

Thinking aloud perhaps significant and increasing license discounts and Platinum, Gold, Silver, Diamond and Bronze drivers licenses that you earn after so many accident and conviction free years (1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 maybe) of driving. Maybe start with and expensive driving license fee (yes hitting the poor old new driver again) with a 50% discount after the 1st blemish free year then a 25% discount after 5 years the 5% for more for 10, 15 and 20. Perhaps a free licence after 40 or 50 years blemish free all reverting to zero or 25% after any traffic conviction. Needs more though as the current insurance premiums effectively work this way and don't seem to significantly change the behaviour of young male drivers.

Are there any reward mechanisms that anyone can think off that might work in changing driver behaviour? Young males are likely most motivated rewardwise by access to attractive young females but I can't see any practical, equitable and non sexist way of working that into a reward (or punishment) system. Maybe they convicted offenders should be made to have a sticker on their car saying something like: "I make up for my impotence by driving like a looney"

[aussiblue]

Interesting bit of research on the effectivenes on anti hoon laws:

“There’s no way in hell I would pull up”: Deterrent and other effects of vehicle impoundment laws for hooning"

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29395/1/c29395.pdf

Traffic law enforcement is based on deterrence principles, whereby drivers control their behaviour in order to avoid an undesirable sanction. For “hooning”-related driving behaviours in Queensland, the driver’s vehicle can be impounded for 48 hours, 3 months, or permanently depending on the number of previous hooning offences. It is assumed that the threat of losing something of value, their vehicle, will discourage drivers from hooning. While official data shows that the rate of repeat offending is low, an indepth understanding of the deterrent effects of these laws should involve qualitative research with targeted drivers. A sample of 22 drivers who reported engaging in hooning behaviours participated in focus group discussions about the vehicle impoundment laws as applied to hooning offences in Queensland. The findings suggest that deterrence theory alone cannot fully explain hooning behaviour, as participants reported hooning frequently, and intended to continue doing so, despite reporting that it is likely that they will be caught, and perceiving the vehicle impoundment laws to be extremely severe. The punishment avoidance aspect of deterrence theory appears important, as well as factors over and above legal issues, particularly social influences. A concerning finding was drivers’ willingness to flee from police in order to avoid losing their vehicle permanently for a third offence, despite acknowledging risks to their own safety and that of others. This paper discusses the study findings in terms of the implications for future research directions, enforcement practices and policy development for hooning and other traffic offences for which vehicle impoundment is applied."

[aussiblue]

After spending most of the afternoon skimming through hundreds of road safety research literature I have come to the conclusion that we are less equipped than the various experts that have failed to develop effective road safety solutions. There is no quick fix and we risk further promoting some existing populist views that are based on what are perceived as self evident truths and logical solutions (e.g. more driver training, harsher penalties, aged driver tests, uniform road laws, annual vehicle examinations) but are not supported as effective measures by almost exhaustive, extensive, often repeated and peer reviewed objective research.

Billions of dollars and lots of brain power around the world over many decades have been focussed on this issue and I don't think that we can solve it within this forums limited resources.

The only uniformly proven effective ways to improve road safety, aside from banning young male drivers from the road, are better road and safer cars and perhaps that's what we should push for.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by vztrt

http://www.smh.com.au/national/plea-...0102-lmix.html

I've made slight technical oopsy...it's 135 billion... :(

[aussiblue]

This sort of study from the UK Department of Transport's Behavioural Research in Road Safety 2006: Sixteenth Seminar Killer crashes: a multiple case-study of fatal road-traffic collisions -David D. Clarke, Pat Ward, Wendy Truman and Craig Bartle
School of Psychology
University of Nottingham
Nottingham NG7 2RD

shows why bans on V8's and turbos are being considered:

This 16–20-year-old passenger group had a peak in their accident involvement late in the evening, with the highest percentage of accidents occurring between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. This four-hour period accounted for 37% of all 16–20-year-old passenger fatalities. It is suggested that the 16–20-year-old male subset of passenger fatalities may have been essentially ‘younger versions’of the drivers with whom they became involved in accidents. Two-thirds of the cases in this subset seemed to involve driving for what might be described as ‘recreational’purposes, and over half involved a car that could be described as a ‘performance’model (usually denoted by a variety of suffixes such as GTi/GTE/Turbo, etc.)

Of course the cause and effective has been assumed. I'm not sure the high performance car - greater chance of fatal accident has been established conclusively. The drivers involved might still have had the fatal accident whatever they were driving and doubtless lots of young drivers of high performance cars were accident free. Nonetheless given these sorts of finding, and the possibility of a cause and effect, it's understandable the concerned voting majority wants to place restrictions on young drivers driving such cars and the politicians wanting to be reelected, or even those with genuine concerns and higher ideals, are happy to consider such proposals.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Jim Goose:

Driver Ed:

As appealing as it sounds the research (and there's been a lot) doesn't support it at least in the ways previously implements as an effective road safety measure. If someone can find a way so it can be used to instill a sense of mortality and acknowedgement of driving incompetence in young males perhaps so. As it is now it can even increase their level mistaken belief in their own driving competence ("I've been driving since I was 15 so I know it all")

Seehttp://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S...115-9/abstract
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...2/ii3.abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6b349af90d19eb

etc etc
There was some research that those who did driver ed drove more safely between ages 15 and a 16 but then the hormones kicked in just giving a delay before they became part of the high risk group high accident group.

Vehicle Regos


As I previously stated it seems that compulsory vehicle inspections doesn't reduce accident rates either:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...f00b87ba5df84ad


I will see if I can find any research on the other idea in terms of any proven effectiveness (or otherwise) for road safety.

Actually I have been driving since I was 15...
Most if not all kids out in the bush learn to drive a 4WD by age 10.
(I was driven around a property by an 8yr old once, scarey sometimes as he couldnt really reach the pedals, but thats another story).
Over-confidence is a big issue and this is what gets them killed in nearly 28% of all road accidents.

As for instilling them with good morals... etc etc.. well thats a social/ family issue. And yes that also is a big problem in todays "im too busy to care" society...

I dont think anyone has said that having a roadworthy vehicle check every so often will reduce the road toll (as morons will continue to drive unregistered and unroadworthy vehicles), but knowing that at least the cars around me have working brakes, tyres with tread and a steering wheel attached to the front wheels is reassuring that everyne must keep the standard up.

If you cant afford to maintain your car to that standard, sorry you loose your right to drive it on the road.

I have seen plenty of **** boxes out there with missing headlights, tail lights, windscreens, rusty panels with holes in them, bald tyres etc etc... yet these cars remain "roadworthy" because they are paying their rego fees.

How is that adding to safety?
By paying your fee every year it makes your car safe to drive?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I've made slight technical oopsy...it's 135 billion... :(

I picked up on that as I had a look at the fed gov site.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

:



Of course the cause and effective has been assumed. I'm not sure the high performance car - greater chance of fatal accident has been established conclusively. The drivers involved might still have had the fatal accident whatever they were driving and doubtless lots of young drivers of high performance cars were accident free. Nonetheless given these sorts of finding, and the possibility of a cause and effect, it's understandable the concerned voting majority wants to place restrictions on young drivers driving such cars and the politicians wanting to be reelected, or even those with genuine concerns and higher ideals, are happy to consider such proposals.

One need only observe the traffic around oneself to see the boy racer in his supra, WRX, V8 crumpledore as the majority of young males who race each other.
Or let me put it this way, if they are driving a normal car(ie: boring), they are less likely to be seen racing another male in the same age bracket in a normal car.
Its all to do with self image etc... that "his" car is faster then the other guys.
If you put them in an old *******, then its less likely they will try and race anyone.
When I was a lad (groan) I owned a dull boring car, as did most of my mates.
Those few who owned a V8 were more inclined to race etc...
Its a mindset.
Im in a "sporty" car, I wanna drive fast.
Im in a Hyundai, I dont want anyone to see me in this hairdressers car.

[MAD]

I remember seeing a show on Discovery channel or something, but it showed a technique that one small town used to curb speeders. They used speed cameras, but they didnt fine drivers, but it would trigger the traffic lights just up the road, so if you speed, you get a red light, if you're a good boy/girl you got to keep going through the intersection.

[aussiblue]

I hate to admit it but in the early 70's when I was a young irresponsible wantabe hippie (all that promised free sex) I drove a Mini Moke, and while it was no performance car, we participated in our share of traffic light and drive through drag races. I was lucky as I had no self caused accidents and survived several significant unavoidable hits from other drunk and speeding motorists. Indeed going to a larger more powerful car followed marriage, and a more responsible attitude and an end to all that racing stuff.

I was also driving a tractor on a farm from age 5 and a jeep with crash gearbox a few years later. On reflection I think there were some real safety issues around letting a child that young drive even in the confine of the farm but all farm kids did it then albeit there were some fatalities. I don't really think that had any impact on my later on road driving or attitude to road safety. It certainly didn't make me a safer driver in my youth and indeed may have made me more overconfident. I guess it taught me how to back trailers and carry larger load on trucks and trailers but I don't think that was relevant to driving on the street.

I hooned as youth (spun wheels at take off) and while I liked to think I did it safely I still did it and find it hard to condemn today's youth for the occasional controlled wheel spin. Indeed with a light bodied Mini Moke, with a slightly tuned 1100 motor and with stock thin wintertread or mud and snow tyres avoiding wheel spin at takeoff took considerable effort and self control.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

I would like to propose a change to the P Plate laws, so that low powered older V8s and turbos are P Plate legal providing they are within the current power restrictions. Having this ridiculous law just further discredits the Government in the eyes of a Provisional driver and makes them even less likely to respect the road rules.

Very true. I remember when these laws were first introduced they got the minister on the wireless to ask a few questions regarding the classification of certain turbo cars.

At that stage.. and prob currently, almost EVERY Saab was a turbo.. yep, and all on the banned to drive list. As were many Volvo cars. Some of the safest cars on the road with low boost turbos to increase mostly torque and a little power.

As was the mighty Dihatsu Copen.. that micro 660cc 'turbo missile'.

But 5 very well known, and traditional 'sports' cars were NOT on the list. Because they had NA engines....

[Jim Goose]

Motor bike riders are limited to 250cc (or 400cc i believe if they do an approved riding course?) when they first get their licence.
I have never heard a bike rider complain EVER that it was a bad thing.

Simplify the rules for P platers : Only allow them cars up to 4 cyclinders, normally asperated, up to certain KW output.
Seriously what are some parents out there thinking when they buy their son a $50000 car as their first vehicle?

[SLO AU XR8]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

I would like to propose a change to the P Plate laws, so that low powered older V8s and turbos are P Plate legal providing they are within the current power restrictions. Having this ridiculous law just further discredits the Government in the eyes of a Provisional driver and makes them even less likely to respect the road rules.

"If they are going to be unreasonable about my interests, why should I cooperate with them?"

I know this because I have seen this first hand. In fact, all cars should be P Plate legal, regardless of mods, providing they are within a reasonable power or power to weight restriction. I would also like to limit P Platers from towing with vehicles over a certain total length or weight without proper training.

Also, we need more marked police cars on the road. Most 'spirited' drivers have figured out that can can do pretty much whatever they want on the road, as long as they don't offend Constable Kodak.

Also, traveling below the posted speed limit on a single lane road with an 80km/h limit or above should carry a penalty. Maybe a percentage of the penalty for driving the same amount above the limit or something.

And a period of no offenses between license renewals should result in free or heavily discounted license renewals.

I agree with low powered V8's (under current power limits) being made legal for a P-Plater. A current P-Plater can drive a 200KW Toymotor Aurion, yet isn't allowed to drive a 140KW HT Holden, Because it has a V8. On the same note, My AU is a 185KW V8, why is it that is banned, yet a 195KW FG is legal? (Yes, I've seen a Green P-Plater in an FG)...

Banning a car due to it's engine is ridiculous, Basing bans on a power figure is ridiculous. It should be based on Power to Weight ratio. Anything with under say 150KW/Tonne becomes legal (That is what QLD's limit is for P-Platers on motorcycles!!! What's going to kill you faster, a crashing a car, or a bike?)

[Bundy]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Seriously? My Prado is more than ten years old, and I'm willing to bet that it has less rust in it that a two year old Territory.

How far back do ANCAP ratings go? When you were a P-Plater, could you have afforded a car less than five years old? I couldn't.

Yes Seriously.

Let me explain a little more. Removing older poorly maintained cars from our roads must be a PIROITY if we want road SAFTEY to take the serious steps needed; light vehicles are one of these aspects, there are others too, like road conditions, driver training/retraining, LV & HV fatigue management etc etc. If we need a national system like whats done in NSW with pink and green slips to help, maybe that needs to be looked at too.

As for "how far back do ANCAP Ratings go?" Who cares, my point was to give discounts on those that do now.

Also IF P-Platers were to be given a Govt substity, like trade apprenctices get for tools or even a specific low interest rate loan for the sole purpose of buying a 4-5 star ANCAP rated car and other discounts are in place like I've listed in my previous post, car manufaucturers can mass produce and move a higher volume for those cars prices would come down a lot sooner too.

These are just ideas, like the thread suggested. If you, like me are wanting to keep vehicles over 10yrs old then thats our choice too.

[King Nothing]

Can't believe I missed this thread! I'll try to keep it brief;

Speeding tolerances - Expecting a tolerance of less than 10% on speeding is unworkable and technically impossible. ADR 18/02 (here http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/CE8FB62999AD4D2CCA2571CD007A1C21/$file/ADR1802FINALFRLI.pdf ) section 18.5.1.1.2 states that speedometers are manufactured with a tolerance of +-10%, and is applicable to cars made up to July 2006 when ADR 18/03 is applicable. So a driver can travel at what they understand is the speed limit yet be fined if a 4km/h (or 3km/h in Vic) tolerance is applied.

Industry support - We need industry support, or else we won't be listened to. Especially in regards to vehicle modification regulations. If it will impact on businesses then we need to get them on side.

Contacts - A couple of contact from the RTA
Dan Leavy: Dan_LEAVY@rta.nsw.gov.au - Principle Policy Manager
Gabriel Denoury: Gabriel_Denoury@rta.nsw.gov.au - Project Engineer, Safer Vehicles Branch
Keith Simmons General Manager, Safer Vehicles (I guess email is in the same format as above)

Industry groups
- Australian National Four Wheel Drive Council - involved in discussions with RTA about VSI 50
- NSW-ACT Four Wheel Drive Council - as above
- Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association (AAAA)
- Australian Street Rods Federation (ASRF) - in talks with RTA about incoming NCOP rules and how they apply to street rods, "Elvis" has indicated that they are considering an umbrella group involving a large range of industry groups similar to NZ LVVTA.

I'd be willing to donate some time, PM me if you want.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by SLO AU XR8

I agree with low powered V8's (under current power limits) being made legal for a P-Plater. A current P-Plater can drive a 200KW Toymotor Aurion, yet isn't allowed to drive a 140KW HT Holden, Because it has a V8. On the same note, My AU is a 185KW V8, why is it that is banned, yet a 195KW FG is legal? (Yes, I've seen a Green P-Plater in an FG)...

Banning a car due to it's engine is ridiculous, Basing bans on a power figure is ridiculous. It should be based on Power to Weight ratio. Anything with under say 150KW/Tonne becomes legal (That is what QLD's limit is for P-Platers on motorcycles!!! What's going to kill you faster, a crashing a car, or a bike?)

It is not the power or perforance per se that is the issue it is more the "mindset" of the driver that they are worried about.

The sort of person who wants a V8 or turbo is usually a car enthusiast is is much more likely to drive in a more aggressive way.
There is a lot of emotion in this as can be readily seen even on this forum when discussions involving various V8 or turbo configurations are debated.

The whole "I WANT A V8" or "I WANT A TURBO" idea, especially with no logical reason (please note that emotion is not logic) is a huge red flag for psychologists that the driver is more likely to act in a "hoony" manner and they are trying to restrict the possible results from "hooniness" gone wrong until the driver has more experience and emotional maturity.

The whole idea that a P plater would rather drive an old relatively unsafe extremely uneconomical less powerful V8 than a newer safer more economical more powerful 4 cylinder is extremely frightening to many.

Emotion completely overruling logic is a very dangerous thing.

N.B. If you think that this does not apply to you just think how feel about it.

If you can see the logic and accept that there is some truth in it then it probably does not apply to you.

If, on the other hand, you think it is utter crap and anyone should be able to drive anything they want and you are upset about it then......

[SLO AU XR8]

Originally Posted by flappist

It is not the power or perforance per se that is the issue it is more the "mindset" of the driver that they are worried about.

The sort of person who wants a V8 or turbo is usually a car enthusiast is is much more likely to drive in a more aggressive way.
There is a lot of emotion in this as can be readily seen even on this forum when discussions involving various V8 or turbo configurations are debated.

The whole "I WANT A V8" or "I WANT A TURBO" idea, especially with no logical reason (please note that emotion is not logic) is a huge red flag for psychologists that the driver is more likely to act in a "hoony" manner and they are trying to restrict the possible results from "hooniness" gone wrong until the driver has more experience and emotional maturity.

The whole idea that a P plater would rather drive an old relatively unsafe extremely uneconomical less powerful V8 than a newer safer more economical more powerful 4 cylinder is extremely frightening to many.

Emotion completely overruling logic is a very dangerous thing.

N.B. If you think that this does not apply to you just think how feel about it.

If you can see the logic and accept that there is some truth in it then it probably does not apply to you.

If, on the other hand, you think it is utter crap and anyone should be able to drive anything they want and you are upset about it then......

I completely understand where you are coming from flappist, I had the exact midset you are talking about 3 years ago when I had my old ED XR6. I was 18, and thought I was king ****. Writing that car off gave me the lesson I needed that I wasn't the best driver around. I moved on, and got my AU XR8 when I was 19, still on my Provisional licence, but under the old QLD system, which allowed me to drive it. I'm now 21, turning 22 this month, and still have the XR8, my licence, and my life.

I personally think low power vehicles, regardless of what engine they have, be it I4, I6, V8 or turbo/supercharged be allowed. It should all be based on a power to weight ratio, and keeping with the current ban on Performance enhancing modifications.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Simplify the rules for P platers : Only allow them cars up to 4 cyclinders, normally asperated, up to certain KW output.

What's quicker, (both stock) XD 302 or Focus Zetec?

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Seriously what are some parents out there thinking when they buy their son a $50000 car as their first vehicle?

Agreed!

Originally Posted by bundy

Yes Seriously.

Let me explain a little more. Removing older poorly maintained cars from our roads must be a PIROITY if we want road SAFTEY to take the serious steps needed

Then most of the member on this forum loos there car. Most would be pre 1998 and whilst not poorly maintained, this will be the discresion of the police/RTA.

Originally Posted by bundy

If we need a national system like whats done in NSW with pink and green slips to help, maybe that needs to be looked at too.

OK, I have never had to get a slip, I only hear about them, I also hear they are incredibly easy to get, also based on cars I have seen from NSW, I wouldn't think they are thorough.

[Ibrox90]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Uniform national driving standards and road rules, we're half way there with vehicle and license classifications so its time to complete the package.

Uniform national standards on the usage and deployment of revenue-generating traffic enforcement devices (speed cameras) with greater transparency of use to avoid "predatory" deployment (ie so they can't be hidden).

Compulsory minimum 3rd party insurance for all motorists.

Prohibition on local government from conducting traffic enforcement functions - this should be the reserved authority of the Police and no one else.

Accountability of government bureaucrats who invent some of the twaddle policy that the rest of us have to swallow. For example, the Office of Road Safety in WA is 'under the wing' of the Department of Premier and Cabinet; the ORS resisted calls to be moved under the Department for Transport because they "enjoyed the clout" that comes with being with the Department of Premier and Cabinet to "get things done". More like, they wanted to keep hiding behind the Premier's office so they didn't need to be accountable to the public.

Woeful idea this will destroy the Australian car culture this exist in the uk and you find that no one under 25 can afford a car

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Ibrox90

Woeful idea this will destroy the Australian car culture this exist in the uk and you find that no one under 25 can afford a car

Which idea is woeful? Can you suggest something better?

[XESP351]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Very true. I remember when these laws were first introduced they got the minister on the wireless to ask a few questions regarding the classification of certain turbo cars.

At that stage.. and prob currently, almost EVERY Saab was a turbo.. yep, and all on the banned to drive list. As were many Volvo cars. Some of the safest cars on the road with low boost turbos to increase mostly torque and a little power.

As was the mighty Dihatsu Copen.. that micro 660cc 'turbo missile'.

But 5 very well known, and traditional 'sports' cars were NOT on the list. Because they had NA engines....

I know two of those cars that stood out back then was the BMW M3 of the day, 252 kw NA six, and the Porsche Boxter S, similar power figure. A P plater could actually drive them if mum and dad bought him/her one.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by bundy

Also IF P-Platers were to be given a Govt substity, like trade apprenctices get for tools or even a specific low interest rate loan for the sole purpose of buying a 4-5 star ANCAP rated car and other discounts are in place like I've listed in my previous post, car manufaucturers can mass produce and move a higher volume for those cars prices would come down a lot sooner too.

I listened to my parents and did the whole buy a new small safe car thing for my first car, shelled out $18,000 of my hard earned, I service it every 7500km with top quality oils and OEM filters, then the insurance company turns around and demands $2040 a year for insurance with me listed as driving my own car, 50% of the time?

I like the idea of the subsidy, like I get for my tools, but the insurance companies are just going to turn around and stick it up where the sun don't shine like they have done with me. You make the sensible choice then get done over badly. Now if I go to sell it, I'm going to lose $5000 on it when I tried to sell it because I bought a new car, I get the crappy end of the stick in all situations (except if I stack it, which is still crap anyways).

I got some quotes, it turns out its not much more to insure a jap import than it is for my bloody Fiesta. Its $2500 for a 1994 JZA80 Toyota Supra with me driving 100% of the time at just car, compared to $2040 with Dad (50 y/o rating 1, me 18 y/o worst rating) with me only 50% of the time at AAMI. Me 100% of the time at Just Car is $2226 for my Fiesta.

I've never been so angry in my life when I found out about that, it makes me very angry just thinking about it no.

Better off just buying a few $500 XF Falcons, third party insurance and drive them all into the ground over the next few years.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I listened to my parents and did the whole buy a new small safe car thing for my first car, shelled out $18,000 of my hard earned, I service it every 7500km with top quality oils and OEM filters, then the insurance company turns around and demands $2040 a year for insurance with me listed as driving my own car, 50% of the time?

I like the idea of the subsidy, like I get for my tools, but the insurance companies are just going to turn around and stick it up where the sun don't shine like they have done with me. You make the sensible choice then get done over badly. Now if I go to sell it, I'm going to lose $5000 on it when I tried to sell it because I bought a new car, I get the crappy end of the stick in all situations (except if I stack it, which is still crap anyways).

I got some quotes, it turns out its not much more to insure a jap import than it is for my bloody Fiesta. Its $2500 for a 1994 JZA80 Toyota Supra with me driving 100% of the time at just car, compared to $2040 with Dad (50 y/o rating 1, me 18 y/o worst rating) with me only 50% of the time at AAMI. Me 100% of the time at Just Car is $2226 for my Fiesta.

I've never been so angry in my life when I found out about that, it makes me very angry just thinking about it no.

Better off just buying a few $500 XF Falcons, third party insurance and drive them all into the ground over the next few years.

You know AAMI are the underwriters for Just Car??

The other half and I were discussing this last night, and we determined that the only one's who win here are the insurance companies...my premium goes up every year, despite my driving history being immaculate.

The rich get richer and the rest of us get screwed...it's just that simple...I am personally very fond of user pays - I calculated that in twelve years driving, I've spent nearly $9000 on insurance, to receive stuff all back for my good driving ability...

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

You know AAMI are the underwriters for Just Car??

The other half and I were discussing this last night, and we determined that the only one's who win here are the insurance companies...my premium goes up every year, despite my driving history being immaculate.

The rich get richer and the rest of us get screwed...it's just that simple...I am personally very fond of user pays - I calculated that in twelve years driving, I've spent nearly $9000 on insurance, to receive stuff all back for my good driving ability...

Yep, you see a few incentives for a new car, but in the end the only thing that pays off about them for young drivers like me is safety, reliability and the new car smell (which goes away in like 2 weeks).

[04redxr8]

AussieBlue, why are you so negative? You seem to have an negative point for every suggestion here. You also seem to think that our little group here can't contribute to improving driving standards. Now you seem old enough and wise enough to understand that most of the policies that we have in place are not the work of our politicians. They are the work of independant and so-called experts. Most of the studies and reports you have dug up were most likey approved for publishing by our Government.

We pay a fortune for these studies year after year, and the only ones that are published and acted upon, are those that conform to Governments proposed propaganda. (Think Speed cameras save lives). We can make a difference, because we just want safer roads, not extra revenue.

You also say that learning to drive on the family farm hasn't served you well. I bet you really enjoyed it at the time. Childhood innocence learning to play on the tractor. Sounds like fun to me. The thing is though, you grew up, had fun in cars, and your still here to talk about it. I think its a good thing.

Originally Posted by flappist

It is not the power or perforance per se that is the issue it is more the "mindset" of the driver that they are worried about.

The sort of person who wants a V8 or turbo is usually a car enthusiast is is much more likely to drive in a more aggressive way.
There is a lot of emotion in this as can be readily seen even on this forum when discussions involving various V8 or turbo configurations are debated.

The whole "I WANT A V8" or "I WANT A TURBO" idea, especially with no logical reason (please note that emotion is not logic) is a huge red flag for psychologists that the driver is more likely to act in a "hoony" manner and they are trying to restrict the possible results from "hooniness" gone wrong until the driver has more experience and emotional maturity.

The whole idea that a P plater would rather drive an old relatively unsafe extremely uneconomical less powerful V8 than a newer safer more economical more powerful 4 cylinder is extremely frightening to many.
Emotion completely overruling logic is a very dangerous thing.

N.B. If you think that this does not apply to you just think how feel about it.

If you can see the logic and accept that there is some truth in it then it probably does not apply to you.

If, on the other hand, you think it is utter crap and anyone should be able to drive anything they want and you are upset about it then......

I would disagree Flappist. A few months ago there was a series of high speed accidents by P-platers that claimed quite a few lives. These teens were labelled as Hoons by the media, and also wrongly labelled as car enthusiasts.

What surprised me was that most P-platers that use this forum, condemned the actions of this group of idiots that were hellbent on braking all the rules. The number of P-platers on this forum at the time who came out saying that they were the granny drivers in their group was very surpising. (quite a fair few). I would call our Forum users enthusiast. The group driving at break-neck speeds, I would call morons.

Our Forum using P-platers seem to have listened to the stories and views of us older enthusiasts and appear to actually care about their on road actions.

As for the bold part. You telling me you wouldn't enjoy a Sunday cruise in nicely restored '57 Chev or an old T-bird or Stang?? I know I would. Why shouldn't a P-plater get the chance to enjoy something like this if He or She is a responsible young adult? Maybe they helped Dad everyday after school and on weekends with the restoration, why couldn't they enjoy a V8?

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I listened to my parents and did the whole buy a new small safe car thing for my first car, shelled out $18,000 of my hard earned, I service it every 7500km with top quality oils and OEM filters, then the insurance company turns around and demands $2040 a year for insurance with me listed as driving my own car, 50% of the time?

I like the idea of the subsidy, like I get for my tools, but the insurance companies are just going to turn around and stick it up where the sun don't shine like they have done with me. You make the sensible choice then get done over badly. Now if I go to sell it, I'm going to lose $5000 on it when I tried to sell it because I bought a new car, I get the crappy end of the stick in all situations (except if I stack it, which is still crap anyways).

I got some quotes, it turns out its not much more to insure a jap import than it is for my bloody Fiesta. Its $2500 for a 1994 JZA80 Toyota Supra with me driving 100% of the time at just car, compared to $2040 with Dad (50 y/o rating 1, me 18 y/o worst rating) with me only 50% of the time at AAMI. Me 100% of the time at Just Car is $2226 for my Fiesta.

I've never been so angry in my life when I found out about that, it makes me very angry just thinking about it no.

Better off just buying a few $500 XF Falcons, third party insurance and drive them all into the ground over the next few years.

Damo, don't get down about it. next year you will be entitled to slight discount due to being older, and on top of that, an extra 20% discount if you don't claim. Thats $400 off.

Right now your an unknown to them. By paying a higher premium and proving yourself, you will get discounts on insurance as time goes by. The more you accumulate and insure the more discounts you will get on all policies. It will get better, just hang in there and do the right thing.

I'm not trying to rub it in, But I rang my insurance company to insure my SSV ute when I ordered it. Now bare in mind, I'm 36, no claims, no loss of license, been with same insurer and had same policy for 10 years. (You can keep the same policy, just change the car on it), and an agreed value of $52,000, costs me $550 per year.

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Yep, you see a few incentives for a new car, but in the end the only thing that pays off about them for young drivers like me is safety, reliability and the new car smell (which goes away in like 2 weeks).

What about the pride you feel when you see what your hard work has payed for? Nothing can take that away from you. Be proud, I was driving rusted out Kingswoods at your age.