P'platers & Restrictions

SVT8 · 30-03-2007, 12:42 PM

Im aware of the current VIC laws about V8's and power to rate ratio restrictions for p'platers. I currently drive a EB V8 (have been, for just over a year now), no dramas what so ever, not crashes, inccidents, speeding or even parking fines. I guess that can prove that all p'plater that drive V8's arnt hoons.

Anyway, my old man has just purchased something he has wanted since he can remeber, a GT. About a couple of weeks ago we managed to get a good deal on BF 6 speed auto GT (sorry we had to get rid of the au :hihi: ). We now own 3 V8's, and there all fords!!! (one clevo, windsor and now a boss engine). Hey im not complaining!!

: . Besides, when you have that many V8's you dont really worry about petrol prices.

The new car is fantastic, and with 290kw.......i cant beleive the people who complain about the boss engine being a slug!!! Back to my query, the old man actually wants me to drive the GT from time to time. I keep saying to him i cant becuase its illegal, but there will be days when i wont have my car with me and the only way for me to get into school/work would be to take the GT.

My question is, in regards to the p'plate laws....... is there any LEGAL way that a p'plater could drive a high powered vehicle. In my case, driving the GT. I dont want to start issues about p'platers being irresponsible with high powered vehicles and that we should stay away from them all together. I just want to find out if i would be able to with a few exceptions.

I have heard that if the car is issued by work or registered in the family's name, that a p'plater can drive a high powered vehicle?. Is any of this true?. Because i can definitly get permission from the owner to drive the GT, and my old man has even said if its possible for me to drive it, under the supervision of him as a passenger (just like people learning how to drive on there L's). Would i be able to drive the car with my old man in the car, just like in a L's condition. Because Learners are allowed to drive any high powered vehicle, due to the presence of the instructer/parent/superviser. So basically is there anyway for me to be able to legally drive the car?

Regards

SVT8

groops · 30-03-2007, 01:07 PM

In NSW the only way that P Plater can drive 'high powered vehicles' is to submit a letter to the RTA proving that in certain situations that that will be the only car around for you to get to and from different places. Basically telling then that it's your only mode of transport in certain cases. You're a lucky person to have someone insist that you drive the car from time to time...Dad won't let me anywhere near his cars (AU Fairmont Ghia, VZ Monaro, etc) As to why one needs a letter for this as a P Plater, I'm confused...cause they have no restrictions on people on their L's...AND there are plenty of smaller engine'd cars that can run alot faster than some of the older V8's...example...last night on the way home in the boss's 2002 Liberty RX, absolutely smashed a VL Calais...he initiated the run too....anyway, that's the law as far as I understand it. Good luck...and don't kill yourself.

Mike

Bill_R · 30-03-2007, 01:22 PM

P2 doesn't come in in Victoria until July 2008? Those licensed as a P before then are under teh old system. If you have been driving for a year you wont' have too long on your P's until you go full and then could drive it. Assuming that your year of driving isn't mostly on L's.
If the BF GT was the only family car you might get an exemption (in NSW anyway - not sure on Vic) under "special circumstances but I doubt they would do it with other cars in the family.

UNRULY · 30-03-2007, 04:09 PM

Dont stress too much because the fine is just over $100 and carries no demerit points. Might be an issue if you need to claim insurance.

XR-351 · 30-03-2007, 04:13 PM

so you only get a 100 fine if you get caught driving a v8 with no points taken off... is that in vic???

**Professor Farnsworth** · 30-03-2007, 04:15 PM

ring vicroads eren

gcm · 30-03-2007, 04:18 PM

I wouldn't even bother attempting to apply for the exemption in NSW, one of my little bro's friends family has over a dozen private / work (farm) vehicles all of which are V8 with the exception of one V6 landcruiser. After paying the fees and applying with all the appropriate documentation he was rejected. Now when he goes out on a weekend he has to be back by 6am so they have the work vehicle there, meaning he has to drive home still drunk in many cases or be taxied by his parents (35km+ home). Its a joke.

savagE · 30-03-2007, 04:21 PM

Ought to just outlaw Ricers, it would make more sense.

Allen · 30-03-2007, 06:33 PM

Off topic, but I have cruised past your house a few times recently, and the GT looks hot! The EB is looking good too...

I'm sure if you drive it sedately, the police wont take to much intrest... Plus, in our area, there are many shiny go fast buzz boxes to keep them occupied.

brendo83 · 30-03-2007, 07:07 PM

Well you'd actually have to risk more than one fine, because you'd have to drive without your p plates up, P plates on a GT would be pretty obvious to any cop that spots you.
The fine for no p's is over $100 and carries one demerit point I think.
Exemptions are only granted in fairly extreme circumstances, not just because your family only owns V8's.
Imagine how easy that would be to abuse, every P plater would get their license, go and buy the most powerful V8 they could afford, and then say, I need an exemption because my only car is a V8.

4Vman · 30-03-2007, 07:54 PM

You'd hope parents would be responsible enough to allow the laws to play out and teach their kids to respect the law rather then authorise exemptions to allow their kids to drive these high powered cars and BREAK THE LAW......

fordel · 30-03-2007, 08:12 PM

Ring vic roads and ask them easy as.

Bit irresponsible to suggest not to worry as there is only a $100 fine and no demerit points, thats just outright stupidity to flaunt about breaking a law.

Chris

TEaaron · 30-03-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

You'd hope parents would be responsible enough to allow the laws to play out and teach their kids to respect the law rather then authorise exemptions to allow their kids to drive these high powered cars and BREAK THE LAW......

So what as long as he isn't doing anything stupid, do what is right not what some greedy ******** who steals a slice of your pay each week tells you.

4Vman · 30-03-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XDaaron

So what as long as he isn't doing anything stupid, do what is right not what some greedy ******** who steals a slice of your pay each week tells you.

"Doing what's right" is obeying the law...., and teaching your kids to obey and respect the laws and authority, not just doing what ever you please just because you "think" its right....
If you dissagree with the laws there are ways and means of objecting legally and safely, taking matters into your own hands isnt one of them.

GXL078 · 30-03-2007, 09:13 PM

Should be restricted from any license until age 21 when their brain is more fully developed. Should be restricted from car loans and insurance in parents names. Restricted to a car they can afford like the rest of us had to. No ABS, traction control, airbags, and learn how to drive a car properly as if their life depended on it, because it does. The real world is not a Playstation game, if you are not phycologically ready to hold a license don't drive any car. How do I know that when I look i the paper tomorrow morning there will be news of another young driver loing his life, there will be one on the northern outskirts of Melbourne, several in Brisbane, another WRX in South Western Sydney out past Liverpool somewhere, maybe one South of Perth, sound familiar?

private9 · 30-03-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UNRULY

Dont stress too much because the fine is just over $100 and carries no demerit points. Might be an issue if you need to claim insurance.

Absolutely an insurance issue - would not be covered!

Yaw · 31-03-2007, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by private9

Absolutely an insurance issue - would not be covered!

That is not 100% correct.

It depends upon the circumstances. If the driver is at fault your screwed but if your not at fault or liable it would still be covered regardless as his driving did not contribute to the accident.

It's just the same as this scenario....You turn right at an intersection you had to give way at, and an unregistered, unlicenced drunk driver that has a BAC in excess of the legal limit drives through and you cause the smash, you are still liable for thier damages as you should have given them way.

groops · 31-03-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xcgxl

Should be restricted from any license until age 21 when their brain is more fully developed. Should be restricted from car loans and insurance in parents names. Restricted to a car they can afford like the rest of us had to. No ABS, traction control, airbags, and learn how to drive a car properly as if their life depended on it, because it does. The real world is not a Playstation game, if you are not phycologically ready to hold a license don't drive any car. How do I know that when I look i the paper tomorrow morning there will be news of another young driver loing his life, there will be one on the northern outskirts of Melbourne, several in Brisbane, another WRX in South Western Sydney out past Liverpool somewhere, maybe one South of Perth, sound familiar?

What about us hard workers, that got a loan to buy the car they wanted (19 and still on P's at the time, now on full 5 year licence.) and are paying it off??? I fail to see where this is a problem.

Bill_R · 31-03-2007, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

It's just the same as this scenario....You turn right at an intersection you had to give way at, and an unregistered, unlicenced drunk driver that has a BAC in excess of the legal limit drives through and you cause the smash, you are still liable for thier damages as you should have given them way.

Really? I've heard of cases where the opposite has applied. It happened to my grandfather. He made an illegal left hand turn across the path of a motorbike with an unlicensed rider and the unlicensed rider copped all the liabilities and fines.

SVT8 · 31-03-2007, 04:48 PM

Just from readig a couple of the responses, i think it might be best to give vic roads a call. Well the insurance company wont cover anyone under the age of 23 apparently, so even if im off my p's and im under the age of 23 i still wont be covered. I think on the basis of driving the car to get into school/work when there is no other car, doesnt seem like a good enough excuse.

I would figure granting permission from the owner, along side with even the owner of the vehicle attending as a passenger would be legal for a p'plater to drive. Its not everyday that people (especially your parents) would grant you permission for you to drive a high powered vehicle anyway. So im approaching this matter in a sensibile fashion. Of course i can get away with driving the car with no p'plates, but id rather not take the risk. If my old man didnt trust me with a 60 thousand dollar car, than he wouldnt insist to let me drive the car at all.

What i would really like to do is attend many events, cruises and outings in the GT as my old man doesnt have a lot of time on his hands now a days. But im only going to be doing this if i can find a legal way to drive it though.

Yaw · 31-03-2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill_R

Really? I've heard of cases where the opposite has applied. It happened to my grandfather. He made an illegal left hand turn across the path of a motorbike with an unlicensed rider and the unlicensed rider copped all the liabilities and fines.

The insurance company may see if the unlicenced driver accepts it witout a fight but under current regulations and guidlines from the insurance ombudsman the descion would have been reversed. Don't forget a person can just accept liability without a fight because they think they would be in the wrong.

Also you said "the unlicensed rider copped all the liabilities and fines"

Do not forget the rider was unlicenced and if the police were involved he still commited an act against the traffic act, so it is right and proper he got fined for that. As for liability that does not come under the traffic act, liability is an appointment of blame for the damage the act that caused it.

his the legal thinking may have been since he was unlicenced he should not have been there, therfore the accident would never have happened. and hence the unlicenced person just says "yeah I should not have been there" and accepts the blame. In a court of law if he denied liability he would have won.