The Law!

[QLD Calais]

Hey guys, i want to know peoples opinions of these new damnable Car laws! Im refering, in particular, to the modified vechiel laws of NSW and QLD. Stating that a Factory NA car cannot be turbo'd, rather drivin, by a 'P' Plater. And certain Horsepower restrictions would be imposed.. eg, no V8, 2L Turbos and up. all that nonsence.. I mean yeah were young but what the gay man. That Doesnt mean we CANT drive.. MY PERSONAL OPINION is that: If somebody young wants to go fast and crash, injuring themselves, that they took that risk, it was them who choose to, and regardless of the car, YOU CAN STILL GO FAST! So why do young drivers like myself and others get targeted? Isnt it democracy? Shouldnt i be able to choose the motor car i drive?

Well thats my Two cents. Bit Nieve but eh.

I beleive these laws were set to come in Early 2007.

[Patrio7]

on one hand, the idea has merit. i suppose it brings it in line with normal motorcycle licenses, you start with a toy, get used to it, then you can get the real guns, hopefully by then ones hoon bug will be quelled ( yeah right who am i kidding! ) and one would take their newly acquired v8 or turbo with more care.

maybe a small FF is less likely to be involved in corner related accidents. they understeer not oversteer. unless your playing with maccas trays

[Shortstuff]

As I said in another thread, I think this particular law is pretty pointless. There are a good number of cars with small engines (under 2litres) that are fairly fast and would still be legal for a p-plater to drive, and almost any car is capable of doing 160kph plus nowadays, even the ones with tiny engines.

[Patrio7]

give em all golf buggy's ( electric )!

[kenwstr]

Excuse me but if you loose control and wipe out, you will probably wipe out pasengers, pedestrians or people in other cars in the process. So it's clearly not a case of the consequences falling only on you.

Driving is a skill and like all skills grows with experience. People who have not been practicing a skill long do not have as much experience on which to base sound judgment. Do you think that after 1 year of guitar lessons you can get up on a stage and perform like Jimmy Hendrix. You won't hurt anyone with a guitar playing mistake but a mistake driving is potentially lethal to those around you. If you don't get that, I don't think you should be driving at all.

It's not these laws I'm commenting on, Its the attitude in the original post that seems to lack any appreciation that their actions effect others.


Ken

[naf33n]

i rekon its funny, new p platers can drive 190kw 6 clyinder commodores or falcons, but they cant drive 110kw turbo 4 cylinder merc's, audi's and the like because they are turbo, even though the turbo is only the for fuel economy reasons

and its legal drive a a vk commodre with no saftey feature other then a shitty seatbelt, but once again you cant drive the turbo 4 cylinder merc's, audi's which have more airbags then you can poke a stick at, seat belt pretentioners, abs, traction control, esp, a very good structure about them.

if you still think its a good rule you have rocks in your head, i think victoria(it might be some other state) has the right idea, they have power to weight not just what motor the car has

[rawnrg]

i rekon its funny, new p platers can drive 190kw 6 clyinder commodores or falcons, but they cant drive 110kw turbo 4 cylinder merc's, audi's and the like because they are turbo, even though the turbo is only the for fuel economy reasons

and its legal drive a a vk commodre with no saftey feature other then a shitty seatbelt, but once again you cant drive the turbo 4 cylinder merc's, audi's which have more airbags then you can poke a stick at, seat belt pretentioners, abs, traction control, esp, a very good structure about them.

if you still think its a good rule you have rocks in your head, i think victoria(it might be some other state) has the right idea, they have power to weight not just what motor the car has

Victoria is about to cop the same shit rules, but it does have merit in one sense. However, while this wont happen, i personally want to see kids allowed to drive cars that are turbo'd or whatever, but only if they are downtuned to a reasonable level. Sure limiting cars like new XR6T's and such is smart but something like an older VL tuned to a safe level of power lets the kid have his car he wants, and gets to learn how to drive it safely. Instead of now, were kids are gunna buy shitboxes to drive and then once off p's, they gunna be able to drop 10k+ on something way too powerful when they have no experience of driving anything similar. Besides loosing the steering when driving a fwd is definately worse than having the back end step out a little in a rwd car with a bit of power.

[crazyspoon05]

Not all turbo cars are banned for P platers, stuff like Starions, Exa's, 180SX, Soarer, etc are all legal because they fall within the power to weight and capacity to weight ratios

[QLD Calais]

Excuse me but if you loose control and wipe out, you will probably wipe out pasengers, pedestrians or people in other cars in the process. So it's clearly not a case of the consequences falling only on you.

Driving is a skill and like all skills grows with experience. People who have not been practicing a skill long do not have as much experience on which to base sound judgment. Do you think that after 1 year of guitar lessons you can get up on a stage and perform like Jimmy Hendrix. You won't hurt anyone with a guitar playing mistake but a mistake driving is potentially lethal to those around you. If you don't get that, I don't think you should be driving at all.

It's not these laws I'm commenting on, Its the attitude in the original post that seems to lack any appreciation that their actions effect others.


Ken

Look, if people want to go and do drifts and crash, there going to do it in ANY car.. What im talking about buddy is, these gay laws restricting us from driving our, perhaps, dream cars because there turbo or V8's.. What i was saying is just because some people choose to act stupid on the roads means that others who are sensible get kicked in the balls. Its Crazy! And you can loose control of ANY car. not just high powerd ones.. look @ the amount of exels and crap are at the wreckers.. And dont say "seems to lack any appreciation that their actions effect others" I am fully aware of my actions and condone any illegal activity on the roads.

[Nobody Actually]

Look, if people want to go and do drifts and crash, there going to do it in ANY car.. What im talking about buddy is, these gay laws restricting us from driving our, perhaps, dream cars because there turbo or V8's.. What i was saying is just because some people choose to act stupid on the roads means that others who are sensible get kicked in the balls. Its Crazy! And you can loose control of ANY car. not just high powerd ones.. look @ the amount of exels and crap are at the wreckers.. And dont say "seems to lack any appreciation that their actions effect others" I am fully aware of my actions and condone any illegal activity on the roads.

sorry champ, but that last sentance..............not too bright

[QLD Calais]

I dont see how that statement makes me "Not to bright" but if its 2v1 then i must be wrong. goddamnit

[Doubleshadow]

With all the criticism of government, sometimes they get unfairly blamed. Many of these laws are based on objective studies. Chances, if you do a web search on the topic, you probably would come up with a lot of reasons why these laws are enacted. Mind you, the laws are not always complete in that they miss out glaring inconsistencies, but at least they are learning what works and what does not. But let's talk about merits of the law.

I would bet you good money (is 5 bucks a lot of money?), if you take 10 average teenagers with crappy cars, and 10 average teenagers with another 10 souped up cars, and you cut them loose, the turbo-charged group would be taking more silly chances. I cannot ever remember seeing teenagers doing wheelies with beat up Hyundai Excels. Heck, most of them in beat up cars just want to get the heck off the road cause they do not want their friends to see them in the rust bucket. On the other hand, you see a souped up mobile with wicked sound and these guys are seeking attention. What I am saying is that the car does influence behaviour. We who have been driving for a while, on average, have had enough encounters to realize that when flesh and fast moving metal objects collide, we end up swinging from a hospital bed in a coocon of plaster of paris. Some of us even had our lives flash before our eyes, complete with Pepsi commercials.

What I am saying is that more experienced drivers have the legacy experience that usually reminds us the pain of responsibility. Younger drivers take time to learn and while they are learnng, many take foolish chances, with the possibility of hurting themselves and others. 33% of fatal accidents are aged 17-24 despite only being 17% of all licensed drivers. Take a closer look at the stats, it actually says if there were 100 fatalities, 33 were young, but only 17 were licensed drivers. Which means that there were 16 unlicensed young drivers dieing with 17 licensed ones (17-33=16). For many males, and moreso for the young ones, our cars are tied to our sexuality and machismo and if you were to separate that from us, we are nothing. By the way, just another friendly highlight, 90% of drunk driver fatalities are males. Maybe we guys are just not too bright when we start to sniff gas. I know we get pretty stupid when we sniff other things, but if I was to say the word they would kick me so far off this site, they would be picking up remnants of my ass on Mars!

[Nobody Actually]

no, it's just the "condone illegal activity" bit.

[J_D]

33% of fatal accidents are aged 17-24 despite only being 17% of all licensed drivers. Take a closer look at the stats, it actually says if there were 100 fatalities, 33 were young, but only 17 were licensed drivers. Which means that there were 16 unlicensed young drivers dieing with 17 licensed ones (17-33=16).

Thats an incorrect analysis. What those stats are actually saying is that 17-24s have fatal crashes about twice as often as the average of all licenced drivers.

To put it another way if there were 100 fatals 33 of those would be 17-24 but they only make up 17 out of 100 drivers on the road.

[Doubleshadow]

Thats an incorrect analysis. What those stats are actually saying is that 17-24s have fatal crashes about twice as often as the average of all licenced drivers.

To put it another way if there were 100 fatals 33 of those would be 17-24 but they only make up 17 out of 100 drivers on the road.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, J_D. And for the rest of the group, it was not my intent to be misleading as it was a genuine mistake.

[Christina]

its.. good..

but i think i now know what people mean by the government controlling our lives.

[QLD Calais]

no, it's just the "condone illegal activity" bit.

Damnit ! LOL.. I meant Condem.. goddamnit.. it was late okay..

[Mr Squishi]

I would bet you good money (is 5 bucks a lot of money?), if you take 10 average teenagers with crappy cars, and 10 average teenagers with another 10 souped up cars, and you cut them loose, the turbo-charged group would be taking more silly chances. I cannot ever remember seeing teenagers doing wheelies with beat up Hyundai Excels. Heck, most of them in beat up cars just want to get the heck off the road cause they do not want their friends to see them in the rust bucket. On the other hand, you see a souped up mobile with wicked sound and these guys are seeking attention. What I am saying is that the car does influence behaviour. We who have been driving for a while, on average, have had enough encounters to realize that when flesh and fast moving metal objects collide, we end up swinging from a hospital bed in a coocon of plaster of paris. Some of us even had our lives flash before our eyes, complete with Pepsi commercials.

You've obviously never seen an Excel hire car.
Wouldn't it make more sense to stop the people who are taking silly chance from driving, rather than just force everyone to drive a shit car?

[walesy]

Give em all a mightyboy! small car but theyre still pimp IMO

[sganro]

i rekon its funny, new p platers can drive 190kw 6 clyinder commodores or falcons, but they cant drive 110kw turbo 4 cylinder merc's, audi's

Exactly!!

I dont think bringing in these laws will get the response the government is after. Hoons are going to be hoons no matter what they drive. It's like when the government made automatic guns illegal. That didnt end the gun related crime/deaths. Single shot guns still kill people, as do small/non-turbo/v8 cars.

Just my opinion

[Outlaw Torn]

Hey guys, i want to know peoples opinions of these new damnable Car laws! Im refering, in particular, to the modified vechiel laws of NSW and QLD. Stating that a Factory NA car cannot be turbo'd, rather drivin, by a 'P' Plater. And certain Horsepower restrictions would be imposed.. eg, no V8, 2L Turbos and up. all that nonsence.. I mean yeah were young but what the gay man. That Doesnt mean we CANT drive.. MY PERSONAL OPINION is that: If somebody young wants to go fast and crash, injuring themselves, that they took that risk, it was them who choose to, and regardless of the car, YOU CAN STILL GO FAST! So why do young drivers like myself and others get targeted? Isnt it democracy? Shouldnt i be able to choose the motor car i drive?

Well thats my Two cents. Bit Nieve but eh.

I beleive these laws were set to come in Early 2007.

Just think, how fast can a 2ltr + and turbo get up to speed?. sure all cars are capable of high speeds these days, but what hasnt been mentioned is how fast these cars get up to that speed. That may be an area that causes problems because some people may not be able to handle/control that sort of acceleration.

Put it this way, you're not going to plant your foot in little hatchback and run out of room in a hell of a hurry are you? If this is done in a bigger car, the driver, if inexperienced, is highly likely to misjudge what is happening, causing damage.

[Doubleshadow]

You've obviously never seen an Excel hire car.
Wouldn't it make more sense to stop the people who are taking silly chance from driving, rather than just force everyone to drive a shit car?

You solution makes perfect sense. The problem is in its application. Do you really think the government has the police manpower available to track down every driver who takes silly chances? In a civil society, one may have to squeeze on some innocents for the greater good of all. In other words governance is not the avoidance of mistakes, but the making of approximate solutions to impossible problems.

[crazyspoon05]

It will probably be easier to police once GPS Sat Nav gets installed in more and more cars, if you go from point A to point B faster than the time if you were driving at the legal speed limit they may be able to ping you.

[Doubleshadow]

It will probably be easier to police once GPS Sat Nav gets installed in more and more cars, if you go from point A to point B faster than the time if you were driving at the legal speed limit they may be able to ping you.

This is also a very practical solution and well thought out. Do you think it will fly politically, though? This sounds too much like big brother and politicians may be afraid to sound too non-democratic/secret police. I would like to get some more input from the rest of the group as to how the public might react to such a proposal from a politician.

[J_D]

Putting GPS into cars to book people is ridiculous. There is not one person who has NEVER exceeded the speed limit, if they tell you they havent they are lying. Why should the safest drivers on the road be penalized. Its proven that the safest drivers are the ones who exceed the speed limit by a small amount. You could say the GPS will only book people doing say 30 or 40 over and leave the rest alone, but if such a system was introduced you can bet that the margin will be lowered until people doing 1kph over would be getting booked. The same deal with the smart card ID the govt want to introduce from 2008, they have said it wont be compulsory to use it as ID, but mark my words as soon as a large majority have it it will be made compulsory. We have already had enough of our rights trampled on. A lot of this stuff involving terrorism wouldnt of seen the light of day if the USSR was still here. Back then all the democratic nations had to allow as many personal libertys as possible so they wouldnt be compared with the USSR and could hold the high moral ground but now the major adversary has gone we are like a frog in a pot of water. Laws are slowly being changed around us so we either dont realise what is happening or we think it is a good thing and soon people will realise we have ended up like a totalitarian state. A democracy is supposed the be formed on trust of the people to do the right thing, we are supposed to have free will to do as we please unless it impinges on other peoples rights but increasingly we are being told how to live our lives because a statistician says that people that do X have a higher risk of Y. Law shouldnt be dealing with statistical probablities, only what happens as a result. "You made the wrong decision and now you will pay for it". Not "You might make the the wrong decision it the future so we will stop you from making that choice now."