Loophole puts P-platers into fast cars

[chrisfpv]

Originally Posted by T3ts50

Im still confused about the P plate laws, at least in Vic anyway. Last night I saw a red P plater driving an R33 Skyline, and right behind him was another p plater drivin a VU SS ute. From what I understood, p platers in Vic cant drive V8's or turbos.

This is correct but I think there are certain circumstances where they are allowed. ie work vehicle etc.

[GavL]

Originally Posted by T3ts50

Im still confused about the P plate laws, at least in Vic anyway. Last night I saw a red P plater driving an R33 Skyline, and right behind him was another p plater drivin a VU SS ute. From what I understood, p platers in Vic cant drive V8's or turbos.

Correct to a certain extent. There are the last of the p-platers who will be due to go to full license this year who could actually drive a V8 or a Turbo vehicle that was under 125kw per tonne. Anyone who recieved their P-Plates after July 2007 cannot drive a V8 or turbo vehicle unless its listed as an exempt vehicle.

I'm due of my P-Plates at the start of April and I cannot wait for that day to come so I no longer cop abuse from other road users and being stereo-typed by the media just because I drive a nice car!

[bangm001]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Mate.. seriously.. if you honestly believe that you are clueless....

I think what is trying to be said here is if you are brought up driving any vehicle you like, you will learn to repsect them as I did. But I can see the flip side where SOME people abuse this. But certainly not all.

[04redxr8]

In the past few threads on similar topics here, we have had many P-platers post who do the right thing. This is a pleasing thing to read, that there are those who are young, and obey the road rules for everybodies benefit.

I don't understand the regulations on banned cars. Is it just the base car, or are modifications banned aswell. On the first page is states that the rules were changed allowing turbo 4's and 6's providing they are less than 125KW/ tonne. A Subaru Forester GT would then be legal. It has a WRX engine in it, detuned to 125 Kw, and is easily tuned up to the WRX's 160 Kw.

No-one else has said, and I do apologise to young P-platers here doing the right thing. But maybe we need to raise the legal driving to 21. Revoke every license held by anyone younger, and ban them off the road. It's a huge kneejerk reaction, but it will stop younger drivers being killed on our roads.

After all, its the driver, not the car.

[GavL]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

But maybe we need to raise the legal driving to 21. Revoke every license held by anyone younger, and ban them off the road. It's a huge kneejerk reaction, but it will stop younger drivers being killed on our roads.

And will probably just relocate the age of these things happening to when these same people are older - it also still doesn't stop the ones who go out driving unlicensed (like the crash that occured no long afterwards with underage girl driving).

A move such as this would also cause a number of problems as well for those of us who are under 21 who need to be able to drive for work - apprenticeships, delivery, any client facing roles such as sales, consulting, IT work etc etc).

I think the real problem is these guys do not understand the level of damage their actions can cause - back when I was on my Ls my driving instructor said it perfectly, when being taught to drive, you're being taught how to pass the VicRoads/RTA test; you don't learn about vehicle control, the consequences of what your actions have upon other road users, how quickly you can actually slow down a car at high speed. We need some sort of more advanced driver training - I took some and it really opens your eyes to what can happen on the road when you do some of the stupid stuff that you seen in the news.

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by GavL

And will probably just relocate the age of these things happening to when these same people are older - it also still doesn't stop the ones who go out driving unlicensed (like the crash that occured no long afterwards with underage girl driving).

A move such as this would also cause a number of problems as well for those of us who are under 21 who need to be able to drive for work - apprenticeships, delivery, any client facing roles such as sales, consulting, IT work etc etc).

I think the real problem is these guys do not understand the level of damage their actions can cause - back when I was on my Ls my driving instructor said it perfectly, when being taught to drive, you're being taught how to pass the VicRoads/RTA test; you don't learn about vehicle control, the consequences of what your actions have upon other road users, how quickly you can actually slow down a car at high speed. We need some sort of more advanced driver training - I took some and it really opens your eyes to what can happen on the road when you do some of the stupid stuff that you seen in the news.

It won't happen. The idea came to me from something that a person I know said.

He told me that in a European country, (maybe Holland) that they allow people to start drinking at 16, and start driving at 18. He said that by the time people got their license, they had partied themselves out and settled down. Less crashes involving young drivers.

Unfortunately whatever is done will affect young people such as yourself. I respect young people like you and many other P-platers here, who take the time to come on forums and say that you do the right thing despite peer pressure. It is a good sign. IMO, it also shows that you take the time to listen to what the older people are saying, and take their advice on board.

However, there are so many stupid young people out there, who think its cool to break laws, and do whatever they please. They have no understanding of why the laws and rules exist in the first place. These are the ones that need to be targeted. Until they isolate the "Idiot-Gene", and stop the carriers from holding licenses, any legislation will be useless.

Any car can break the speed limit. Just think of school zones (40kph). Any car or scooter for that matter is capable of doing 60 kph. Combine with school children crossing roads and its a recipe for disaster.

Our government needs to pull its head out of its *** and realise its the Idiot behind the wheel. Not the car. Not every person deserves to hold a license.

[mrniceguy]

Originally Posted by data_mine

I'm a fan of further education, proper driver training being compulsory. You won't stop idiots being idiots, but maybe if they have the right skills, a tragedy may just be some dented pride and panels.

But since that'll cost money, here's a government suitable 'solution' (it won't work but will fill the coffers and appease the masses).

Differing license levels. Motorcyclists need a license, truck drivers need to be licensed to handle bigger and more complicated trucks, race drivers need differing licenses to partake in higher level events, why shouldn't car drivers be licensed to handle bigger/more powerful vehicles. It's recognised for other vehicle types that they are not all the same and extra skills are needed by the driver. Cars too.

A regular license for low risk cars. And a special more expensive license for those that want to drive high risk cars. Use the insurance databases to determine low and high risk vehicles. Throw in some education and practical driving class requirements.

This way John Q. Public can drive around in his Camry/XT/Lancer/etc. as we do now. Us enthusiasts get the privilege (and responsibility) of driving something nice. And the government gets some more $.

Not exactly win-win. But if the license costs keep idiots out of performance cars.

Ensure you can't register a 'high risk' car without the right license, and jail time (30-days) for those caught driving inappropriate cars.

Yeah great idea mate. Make sure all us carbon emitting whale murdering car enthusiasts are on file ready to be hammered by fees and taxes. Wonderful.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by mrniceguy

Yeah great idea mate. Make sure all us carbon emitting whale murdering car enthusiasts are on file ready to be hammered by fees and taxes. Wonderful.

Subtle as a claw hammer but unfortunately accurate.

Allowing differentiation in car type will NEVER work in our favour. It will just make another simple path to an eventual ban.

Only "performance" Cars

Then "performance" cars and other cars with a pwr/wht ratio that is too high

Then "performance" cars and other cars with a phr/wht ratio or a fuel economy less than X

Then a "demonstrated requirement" needed. *Note Driving on road having fun or doing car shows are not considered "requirement".
If another vehicle type can be used then also you do not have a requirement e.g. 4WDs can tow trailers.

Of course "bona fide car collectors" can own as many permanently deactivated performance cars as they like, just not ever drive them.

There is precedence for this.........

[data_mine]

You guys all missed my subtle sarcasm. (there's sarcasm there too)

here's a government suitable 'solution' (it won't work but will fill the coffers and appease the masses).

.

[mrbaxr6t]

don't ban the damn cars hows this for a solution - for repeat drink driver offenders the car gets fitted with an alcohol interlock device why not apply the same stick young person wants to be a knob in car and gets pinged, impound car for hooning and install GPS speed interlock device with auto fine dispatch for burnout - place stipulation on drivers' licence that driver is to only drive an interlocked vehicle under penalty of license removal for 2 years and when license is returned interlock duration is doubled. Such a system will make public the idiots imagine the shame when your mates get in your car and its got some bleeding big box hanging off it that prevents anything. This will punish those that choose to be idiots while those that obey the laws go on unpunished - punishing all for the sins of the few is unfair, and the kids know it. They aren't completely stupid.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by sly_ba

I agree with almost everything that you have said here, however, parents will not always be present to guide a child when they are faced with a tough decision. Having said that, if the child has had a sound upbringing then they need not be present all the time......

In my opinion the youth of today lack both respect for themselves and others. Combine this with a blatant disregard for any form of authority or the law and the downward slide begins.....

As I said, it wasn't foolsafe, but it goes a long way.

If parents teach their children to respect authority and to follow and respect the law and respect others, they are possibly more likely to at least do so rather than a parent who is indifferent and would prefer children to learn on their own.

Part of maturity is taking what you've been given (such as good advice) and using it.

Naturally not everybody is going to listen, and I think we need to get harder on people who do the wrong thing (speeding, drink driving) at a young driving age.

Peer group pressure doesn't help either, but people who are better informed about penisheads and morons are going to be more aware of them and avoid them than somebody who is not taught to discriminate.