Power NOT a factor with young drivers

[browny]

I feel that if they want to try and get rid of the stupid drivers then they need to be resitricting the raods to people who earn the privilage.

I'm not so sure that restricting peoples access to licenses is really the way to go, this is not all that different to what the Govt is doing with these rules, and look at the reaction it is causing.

I'm not going to profess to know what the solution is, because I simply don't know enough to make that call, but the elements that I would like to see emphasised are training and education (primarily risk avoidance rather than the 'everyone should do a skid pan day' approach) and more "safe to fail" methods of road design.

What I think isn't fair is to make it really difficult to get a license, unless some sort of viable alternative is provided to those who either won't make the grade or can't afford the training/testing. Many Australians rely on having relatively cheap and easy access to a motor vehicle and most of our transport infrastructure has been developed with this in mind. You won't convince me that the current Public Transport system will be able to effectively pick up the slack if all of a sudden we have a whole lot of people who can't get licenses.

[SuAvE-1]

Quote:

If you commit a crimial offence and you are 18 years old, you are looked at just as badly as someone who is older. You are considered to be just as responsible, therefore, if the law acconts us this much responsibility, why believe we are not responsible enough to drive any vehicle we desire?

So are you saying that driving skills are only age related?

I'm not sure where you derive this question from, but it seems to be the government/media who claim that driving skills ARE age related as the vast majority of new licenses are issued to young drivers.

I'm sure many would agree that you become a better driver with age and experience, but it is not fair to limit the choices (and effectivly, freedom) of a young person who is of 'legal age'. This is especially true when claims that having a high powered car are the main cause of accidents:

Is almost illogical due to the many other factors of driving, and

As far as I know, ineffectively substantiated.

There is a distinction between provisional drivers and fully licensed drivers so the law can differentiate certain laws, such as blood alcohol content, demerit point system and other reasonable expectations of a new driver.

However, to have a power restriction, effectively limiting the cars we can choose to own, drive and have as a part of our lives is unfair to the other 'adults' of this society.

If we were to get our P's at 17 and get our full license at 18, and this restriction was in place, I wouldn't have a problem.

[browny]

Hang on, I don't completely understand what your argument is?

I'm not sure where you derive this question from, but it seems to be the government/media who claim that driving skills ARE age related as the vast majority of new licenses are issued to young drivers.

You start off by saying that it is the government who claims driving skills are age related.

I'm sure many would agree that you become a better driver with age and experience, but it is not fair to limit the choices (and effectivly, freedom) of a young person who is of 'legal age'. This is especially true when claims that having a high powered car are the main cause of accidents.

Now you say that you agree that driving skills comes with age, but it's unfair that they can restrict certain types of cars, because you don't like the justification behind it.

However, to have a power restriction, effectively limiting the cars we can choose to own, drive and have as a part of our lives is unfair to the other 'adults' of this society.

Lets get his straight right. It's not like they are restricting one our basic rights to free speech, food and shelter. It just means you can't own a god damn luxury/sports car for the first few years of driving.

If we were to get our P's at 17 and get our full license at 18, and this restriction was in place, I wouldn't have a problem.

So overall I read that you agree with the concept, just not the execution?

[wishaw]

well it is only restricting people on their P's. 3 years thats all it is (in qld at least). You never hear anyone chuck a big stink because they can't drink. If that means you have to wait a few years to get a decent car then so be it. Perhaps by thrn you will have the skills to control that car and the respect for the car because you have been waiting so long for it.

And correct me if i am wrong but what 17yo is going to have EARNT the mnoney for a decent car? The award wages in this country are pathetic.

[Ruffels]

I know laws are different around australia, but in victoria, where I live, you get your P's at 18 (and how much the wait killed me when NSW could drive at 17). My point is, you are considered an adult when you are 18 (and in some courts, 17). You should be allowed all the rights and freedoms available experience as possible.  

If you commit a crimial offence and you are 18 years old, you are looked at just as badly as someone who is older. You are considered to be just as responsible, therefore, if the law acconts us this much responsibility, why believe we are not responsible enough to drive any vehicle we desire?  

Everyone on their P's passed their test at one stage or another, and should not be treated different simply because they are inexperienced. It comes down to the driver: if they are going to be stupid in a high performance vehicle, they are going to be stupid in a s***box.  

I'm not entriely clear what the objective or motivation for this law comes from, i believe it is to contribute to the overall effort of reducing death on our roads. Given this, there are many better laws that could be introduced. If everyone had to pass a mandatory advanced driver course, our roads could be a lot safer.

This is a very good point however unfortunatly when people are handed responsibility at the age of 18 (17 in most states) for the control of thier own vichicle without supervision, an outstanding amount decide to abuse this responsibility, and unfortunatly see it as a given rather then something that should be taken seriously.... it is then the minority of these who arnt so lucky with thier actions and end up on the 6'oclock news..... only they play it out like everyone who drives a high powered vichicle on thier p's is going to die..... if only they portrayed the thousands of p-platers who drive high powered vichicles safely and successfully from a - b every day on the evening news

-Ruffels

[SuAvE-1]

Browny, by using that annoying quote by quote display of evidence to use my own argument against itself, you have simply answered your own question.

I start off by saying that the government/media claim that driving skills are related to age, and i then simply agree with this.

Then you quote me saying I don't like the justification of the law in question, which is absolutely true, because, as you have found, i don't agree with it.

Now, in your last paragraph, you believe that because they are not restricting something so essential to life, that it is simply okay?

I suppose it depends on your value system, on what each individual values and on personal believe, but any restriction on what I can and can't do I hold very personally. I mean, for someone who couldn't car about which car they drove, this law wouldn't particularly affect them, so why complain however, for me, instead of driving my beloved skyline which I do treat with care and respect, because of some stupid f...kn law, i gotta get rid of it????? NO F.K.N WAY!

Imagine if you couldn't drink until you were 21 (regardless of driving), people who don't consume alcohol wouldn't have a problem, but people who like to drink and party would feel pretty oppressed. Many may regard alcohol as being essential to life (or liveliness, or liveleyhood) and if the same restriction was in place, the same argument would be present, but you would be okay with such a restriction, even if you liked to get s...tfaced on the weekends? Well, during this semester break at uni, i can't think of a hobbie which i've spent more time on than my car.

I think the principle is the same. I think it all essentially comes down to what you can do as an adult vs a minor. It comes down to personal opinion of whether or not you think the law is valid, i think it isn't, and this is what (imo) law is/should be based on in this country - the opinion or belief of the people.

Don't get me wrong, take this for example, the law which states that provisional drivers cannot have alcohol in their blood. It is well proven that alcohol can alter driving capability and this coulpled with inexperience could be dangerous. I do agree with this, I make sure i'm completely sober before i hop into my skyline. However, to take the argument back a level, where are the hard facts stating that driving a high powered vehicle is dangerous? Its not like the car is constantly on full throtle. It is up to driver, in his right mind to act appropriately.

It seems like I might be going back and forth in my argument, and I will clarify anything that sounds ridiculous.

Wishaw, I hope this answers your statement as well, but seriously, there are many out there who at 17 have a nice car, and they've claimed to earn it (read: SAU). Anyone can work at 15 years of age and not every young person works at coles or maccas to earn frk all.

I hope you can all see where i'm coming from.

[SuAvE-1]

I do agree with you Ruffels. There are always a small minority who will not use their own discretion/common sense and end up on the 6pm news and this law is probly such an attempt to idiot-proof a society. This law effectivly serves a few (idiots) and is a burden on many such as myself.

I'm don't know how to say this clearly, but the drivers in high powered vehicles will do something dumb in them and it will make statistics appear in favour of the argument that high-powered vehicles cost lives, when it is the driver's choice. However, for the citizens who prefer not to break the law, they have to put up with shitty little laws such as this one because of a small group of citizens who will go much further than breaking this law, as well as excessively speeding and street racing and so forth.

To hopefully clarify, you can own a high-powered vehicle and not do anything stupid in it, but there are some who will own the high-powered vehicle, be stupid and break further laws, which creates the b.lls..t reason why this law exists. It is only minor, but I have to worry about being pulled over for having a high powered vehicle, even though i'm not doing anything really wrong.

[Ruffels]

dont worry man.. i hear ya.... after all im only 17 with an R33

and yes i worked my arse off at 2 jobs since i was 14 to get it .. lol

nothing will ever change the fact that the minority allways wrecks it for the majority.... you just gotta live with it... people will call me stupid, but there are alot of guys on here who do this.... but i know my car is illegal to drive.. how ever i will still drive it on my P's, and if i cop the fine for being over power/weight i will take it on the chin, but thats just something that comes with the risk i am taking...

however im not inclined to do extreamly stupid shit... i mean sure i enjoy my car, and why not i worked extreamly hard for it, but on the same note, im not going to waste years of hard working and saving and blow it all by showing off to my mates by being fully sick and trying to drift a corner or something like that.

my theory.. you only live once... and i wanna live now.. not in 5+ years time (i mean that 100% metaphorically, not litterlally) lol

-Ruffels

[Style32]

Hey all just thought id drop in some thoughts

Im 18 and have a R33gts-t and it was my 18th birthday present from my parents, that by no means has meant that i do nto care about the car, that car is treated with the most respect, i do not have the money to repair any damage from joyriding or general stupidity i cruise around at the speed limit (most of the time) hey the people around get a better look that way but occasionally you want to feel the rush as anyone does. I do not believe that because i did not pay for my car it is a toy to be thrashed, i can only speak for myself. I have many friends that have crashed their cars through wreckless driving and many of them believed that they were great drivers nearly all of them believed i would be the first to crash, and here i am without a crash in my history of driving.

Rather than putting in the restrictions on all drivers a better way would be to review each person as an individual, neither the time or money would be available for such a system. There is always going to be wreckless drivers maybe the restriction would give those who come off it the idea that they are now capable of driving any car, I went from a Ca18DE Exa to a R33 Gts-t skyline ( go nissans) and i was very careful with such an upgrade only now nearly 2 months after getting the skyline have i gotten used to controlling the car.

Cheers, Semo

[wishaw]

I never meant any insult by my ags comments and i an glad to jere that you 2 have respect for your cars. Well done.

I think that is poeple want to drive without the restrictions they should be able to have their driving examined. And not make it a "can you find the ignition test" but something you need to try for. That way the idoits can't pass it and the people who don't care about it don't care but can still drive.

[Style32]

Hey

Yeah i agree, there is much that can be done to ensure that drivers who are not ready are not on the roads, my parents made sure i went with a well respected driving instructor not someone who would just pass me and send me on my way.

There are many things that could be done without the need of restrictions but many of them are more costly, to more closely follow the actions of driver instructors would cost more simply puttin in a restriciton is the easiest option.

Cheers, Semo

[browny]

SuAvE-1

Fair enough, although you seem to be more concerned with the way government works and the execution of the particular legislation rather than the actual concept behind it. Can I ask what is your opinion about the concept of regulating inexperienced drivers access to certain vehicles?

Personally I think its a good concept, and with the correct implementation could actually benefit car enthusiasts and the general community. The problem with the current 'ban everything' slant on road policies is that it generally seems to be be pissing people off because people have an ethical objection to being told what they can and can't do.

But, for example, what if this concept was approached in the following manner:

* For the first year certain car types are restricted (suggest kW/kg + outright kW).

* After this you can opt to do a driving course for say a nominal fee of $1,000-2,000, after which you can drive everything except for say the really high kW and kW/kg stuff.

* When you are fully licensed you can drive anything, but those drivers who have done the course get an insurance break.

So what this does is keeps the public/media happy by stopping really fresh drivers from using certain vehicles and it gives drivers a year to settle down on the roads (not very long in the overall scheme of things, so I don't really see it as impinging on anyones 'freedom'). After a year it then lets the driver make their own decision, ie do the course or don't drive the cars. The highish fee (which I don't see as an issue because the reality is that we aren't talking about cheap cars here) hopefully means that only people with a real interest are attracted to the course and therefore are able to drive performance cars, so hopefully the general dickheads are deterred. Fully licensed drivers also have the incentive to do the course because of the reduced premium.

Now I can actually see this sort of thing being beneficial for car enthusiasts in general, because it allows enthusiasts to differentiate ourselves from the general driving population and to stand up and say that we are being responsible drivers. Also because the Govt is running the program, they will be looking to prove that their efforts are succeeding. So I would hope that overall it would appear that car enthusiasts were leading by example, as opposed to the present failing by example situation the media is promoting.

Then if the Govt was really smart, they could start to roll this sort of program out to all new drivers, with hopefully the result being an all round improvement in driving standards, which should help everyone.

[Style32]

You make good points, there are many reasons for and against so i think ill just sit back and watch. very interesting topic.

Cheers

[SuAvE-1]

Browny, thats probably the most progressive post in this thread. I enjoyed reading your possible 'solution', which is more than what I can say for myself.

You are correct in saying that I am concered with government actions, but as with all government actions, this certain issue is affected. My point basically is, if you are considered to be as responsible as middle aged adult in the eyes of the law system, it should be only fair to be considered the same on the roads.

I won't comment on your proposed approach, I will say it is definetly a 'workable' solution. We can't have everything we want. I would prefer to see a complete removal of this law however, a compromise is usually required, and this is what your solution seems to propose.

It can be beneficial to those who are real enthusiasts, although it will effectively cost (in the eyes of a young person) a lot more in monetary terms. Perhaps a rebate of the fee could be given if one incurrs less than two speeding fines or something, or is not busted 'hooning' or something to help relieve the cost.

It would be beneficial to researchers because they would be able to reliably discern P platers with high powered vehicles, and the effect of proper traning. After a certain time, it will be clear as to which opinion is correct, whether high powered vehicles are unsuited to new drivers or not?

The results would certainly shut me up! All in all, the government would probably not implement such strategies due to the costs and time involved, when they probably have many more urgent issues to give attention to.

There are many more solutions to the problem. For one, I could see a lot more time spent on L's would be beneficial. In my personal experience, I got me L's pretty much the day I turned 16, and drove approximatly 10 times the reccommended hours in all conditions so by the time i got my p's, pretty much when I turned 18, I felt i was quite experienced compared to a close friend of mine who probly only got half of the reccommended hours (about 60). Ofcourse, it would be very difficult to monitor such a requirement, but as previously mentioned in one my other posts, we cannot idiot-proof society, and laws such as the one in question aim to do so.