Here on the Gold Coast, all the ricers gather at a huge carpark, every weekend, bothers no-one, all in one place, not resi area. But the police stop every car coming out and do spot checks. Now that just forces the ricers out of town onto the open roads.
Another example, Surfers Paradise esplanade is closed off on a Friday and Saturday night to stop the ricers, travelling at no more than 10 kph, showing off thier cars. so what do they want them to do ??
Its not these guys that need regulating, when do you see a police presence when someone is speeding or acting stupid, but when someone is riding a pushbike with no helmet thats a different matter.
I saw a 17 year old lad laid out flat on his back the other week, I was in my bus , turned it around, followed the culprit who was walking towards a group of 12 police officers. Pulled up explained and they told me to move my car or get a ticket, did not care about the real law breaking.
I'm not talking abotu giving extra freedom, just not restricting it too much.
What about making a higher level of insurance compulsory for all drivers? If every P-plater had to buy comprehensive insurance for their tricked out Skylines, that would probably reduce the number of them. I have a friend who owns a Celica and the insurance on that is killing him, and it's only third party.
That just makes the Insurance companies richer .
all i will say is, what ever happens it needs to be policed, and have patrol cars pulling over drivers, and checking age etc.
it would be ok for you ppl to have powerful cars etc, if they could cause no harm to other drives etc. let them kill themselves, as long as it doesn;t cost the public anything to pull them off a lamp post.
its dangerous to walk out the door, yet well all do it. its a risk such is driving, and that should be remembered. also driver is not a right and alot of your drivers see it this way, cars should be impounded for weeks not days. and lisence bans should be for years not months!
I have no sympathy for my car, only the wallet that pays for it!
Go hard or go home!!!!
ClassicVW(pacific) wrote:That just makes the Insurance companies richer .
True, but the idea was that the cost would be so prohibitively high, that the average P-plater can't afford to pay for it after spending all their money on a fast car.
BTW, I sent you a U2U about some parts.
[Edited on 23-1-2005 by andrewh]
Think about it as natural selection. If you survive your teenage years as most of us have then you have either learnt to control a vehicle in various hazardous situations or you have injured yourself or others. If you have injured yourself and others then you find that these drivers are a lot more wary of dangerous situations. You learn from making mistakes. Banning the young from fast cars doesn't make them safe drivers, learning how to control a car comes from experiencing the effects of messing up.
Some people will die in car accidents, it is unfortunate but it is a reality. If we try to make everything nice and safe, (a nice sentiment) then all we do is not allow the young to grow up strong and confident in their abilities to handle dangerous situations. The world isn't a safe place, people will die form car accidents, spider bites, snake bites, cancer, gun shots etc....Learn to accept that we will all die one day, overcoming your own fear of death by facing it head on (no matter which way) allows you to appreciate life in a much greater way than before.
We all have to take responsibility for our own actions, we all speed, we all ignore the road rules, we all push the envelope of driving conditions for the adrenaline rush or thrill. I am guilty of it and have done it many times. Before we start blaming others, look at ourselves and see if we can change our own driving habits. Lead by example, don't egg the young P plate driver on when drag racing at the lights, don't fly past them in a big powerful sports car.....sit back and cruise, it can be boring but if you don't try to race someone, then invariably they slow down.
As for drivers who can't park, have no idea what is on the road around them, drive large vehicles that are beyond their own limits of control, it is to do with ego usually. Having a big 4wd driven by mum to do the shopping and take the kids to school is pointless in the city. The reason for these vehicles in the city is usually associated around status, snob value and showing off. A 4wd drive is a country vehicle, not a city vehicle. They should be limited to those who have a need of them in their everyday work or to those who live outside the city limits on a property.
What is so wrong with driving a van around anyway? Plenty of Kombi drivers here.
Final thoughts.
Before delegating responsibility to the Government and giving up more social freedoms, we need to learn to think about how our actions affect others. It is amazing how often that when you run through the end result of a course of actions (or words) that you don't go through with the said course of action. We need to change ourselves, attitudes and behaviours so that we can lead by example to the young. Think about how many of your actions are a result of learnt behaviours from your parents.
Food for thought. We can't blame others for behaving in exactly the same way we do when we drive. We have to change ourselves first before we can achieve change in others.
[Edited on 24-1-2005 by Freddie Fender]
real, not plastic! Chrome, chrome and more chrome.
Good point about leading by example. I think my brother has picked up on all of my dad's bad habits, but without picking up on the stuff he does well. The end result is an accident waiting to happen.
mmm..... some interesting opinions on here indeed.
i also personaly attended an advance driving course for car and bike also, so i'm with two guns.
now insurance issue comes up, again to relate to what we do back home in europe (france) you cannot purchase a vehicle ,new,used,dealer or private without having a full comprehensive inssurance for the purchased vehicle. i think that is also a good thing that everyone has compulsary insurance, as as a driver you still have that peace of mind that even if you get involved in an accident, you would not have to worry about a non inssured person you had the accident with, the person doing a runner.
and also by having a compulsary inssurance it limits car modifications with aftermarket performance parts.....so if this would apply to australia, i think that there would be less rice boys, less modified cars (illegaly), less powerfull cars (aftermarket mods) .....that would be a start. but in a situation like this that means the government will lose revenue as there will be less fines for vehicles too low, vehicles without mod plates, defective vehicle, so i know the answer, the government will do nothing in that sense and keep getting revenue related to that matter......
😎
in less than a week, i'll be 25.
and im on my P's till august.
i work nights, sometimes till 2am...
the fact is, if i didnt work nights, then i wouldnt have even bothered getting my DL... i go to uni in the city and work is a 40 minute walk away.
so try pulling those restrictions on me... i wont be very impressed:duh
i think the heart of the problem is teaching young drivers to act responsibly and thoughtfully in society, driving, human interaction etc etc etc... and thats not going to happen unless we stop teaching boys to be boys (hooning, speeding, driving like idiots) and girls to be girls (applying makeup while driving, taking up 2 lanes when parking, driving like idiots)
where do kids learn these behaviours? parents and adults in general... and so the cycle repeats itself.
it sounds very new age psychobabble, but if everyone taught their children from a young age to treat every other person as an equal no matter of age or sex, and think before their actions, then the person telling their friend to race would think twice before saying it and the person behind the wheel would think twice before doing it.
the problem is that people these days dont know the meaning of CONSEQUENCE and dont want to know because their rights can probably get them out of it.
in the beginning, the universe was created.
this made alot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move.
freddie... i think we read eachothers mind!! 😀
in the beginning, the universe was created.
this made alot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move.
Starbuggy,
I teach many young kids to play music, I see the results of absentee parenting vs kids were a parent is a home. The difference in attitude, levels of self confidence, behaviour etc......is astounding. In many case there are kids there who look to me as a role model. How I behave, what I do and say has a profound affect on these kids. often they will listen to me where they wont listen to others.....I feel like a social worker more often than I do a musician. It was never part of the job description.......
It makes you take stock of yourself when you see young kids emulating your behaviour without them realising that you have seen them doing it. It is one of the best reality checks there is to how you behave and how you come across to others. A wake up call.......It took cancer to get me to wake up to myself and losing my licence for drink driving before I started to take stock and change things around. The scariest thing is I'm not yet 35.......
real, not plastic! Chrome, chrome and more chrome.
wa baja answer the rich fuckers on the north shore,
bring on power 2 weight restrictions
hellbus u are 100% correct its the dickhead driving not the car that counts,
school driver training is also a great way 2 go, govt should fork out for some they are prepared 2 pay for all the other stuff so whats wrong with paying more for a more sucessful solution
i don't particulary think government should have to offer some funds for advance course driving but inssurance company should offer a rebate on their full comprehensive inssurance for drivers that have done so.....i think that will entice more people to attend an advance training course....
I agree with most things here too. I think it's revenue related, as is everything. If people drive well then the govt makes no money. If they advertise for people to slow down then people will speed up.
"Don't do that Johnny...." (guess what Johnny does?).
As for less modifications, my car has heaps of them. It now stops in half the distance, has more than twice the grip, is much more stable on any road surface, and more power. Safer for overtaking. The irony is that some of the mods may be illegal even though they are all engineered with certificates. Surely it's what you do with the responsibility that you assume when you have any car. The world was a MUCH more dangerous place when there were 6 cyl Leyland Marinas and ford cortinas everywhere on the road, with leaf springs and cross ply tyres, or retreads. I learnt to drive in a KE10 corolla (1st car) and I wasn't safe because I couldn't drive. I learnt to drive like most people AFTER I got my licence. They way of the world is that we ALL learn as we get older, so of course younger drivers are worse, but a minimum standard has to be set to get a license and it has to be a lot higher than it is now. Responsibility has to be increased with time. e.g., At first you can only drive yourself around, but not in peak times (with exemptions for those who NEED car transport for work). A year later you can have passengers, but not in peak times. 2 years later do another test. If you pass, restrictions are lifted. This is just a quick example, but with some thought a good working system could easily be introduced and the Govt wouldn't lose any revenue. Extra tests are more revenue for eg.
It's true that there are twice as many accidents now, but there are also 4 times the number of cars on the road, so relatively the accident rate has gone down a lot.
"Tell him 'We've already got one'"
i know i've said it before but power/weight restrictions wont work IMO in the real world. How can we measure output of modified cars and make sure they wont just crank up the boost after it is tested? Even still will it make much difference.
I think there is too much emphasis and scapegoating of modified car owners and P platers. I mean look how many big articles there are in the paper in the last few months about P platers in big crashes in modified cars. yet statistics say under 25 driver deaths have dropped consistently year to year in the last decade.
Media bias perhaps?
Freddie Fender I agree wholeheartedly with you. If we want to improve the situation we have to do it starting with ourselves and our attitudes, rather than making ineffective and unenforceable harsher laws.
Jon
Im a P plater, and I think that most restrictions on P platers only serve to exacerbate reckless driving in young people. I believe in not allowing P platers demerit points, and as soon as an offence is committed, the licensce is stripped and car impounded/detained. Perhaps disallowing a 18+ person their ID cards as well would further deter young revheads, thus ensuring a young person cannot enjoy their freedoms if they drive like idiots.
Lots of money for fines + licencse renewal would go far as well...
Reality leaves alot to the Imagination
Some interesting and effective ideas...
1. In order to drive a car properly you have to know how it works, so you should have to build your own from scratch... This also means you tend to be more careful with it. (some of us already do this anyway).
2. For P platers or learners, speeding up to 15kph over limit, gets $1000 fine and a night in jail watching videos of crash scenes and safer driving practices. Over 15kph above the limit, shoot them on sight...
3. If a person is caught in the act of hooning, their car should be impounded for a week and deliberately dented and scratched up, (If it's someone elses car, they'll be responsible for it). Second time caught hooning, their car should be taken to a wrecking yard and crushed, while they watch. Third time crush them while the car gets to watch.
4. For everyone, for every kph over the limit, you have to do an hour's community service. That's on top of the fine and all...
5. For people that none of this works for, meaning they are going to keep being a danger nomatter how much "education" they get thrown at them, sentence them to being tied to the front of someones car and be used as a bumper. That might change their perspective on how dangerous driving is without even doing the wrong thing...
Seriously, what it boils down to is, people have to be held accountable for their actions with much heavier and more drastic penalties. And maybe a good roadside caning for young smartarses...
Seriously, what it boils down to is, people have to be held accountable for their actions with much heavier and more drastic penalties. And maybe a good roadside caning for young smartarses...
obvioulsy the rest of what you wrote was a dig... but hte above shouldnt be the case.
all you hear everyday is how everybody should be held accountable. and that everybody should be punished in some form.
sorry but that is bullshit.
everybody should be responsible for themselves. take more self accountability. get off their arses and do things for the benefit of themselves and those they love.
im sorry but i am so sick of everybody wanting 'laws' to govern rahter than people to 'think' and 'act 'for themselves.
laws are only going to be broken. i dont think it matters how long you say someone should be on their p's. or hwo fast they should drive, or what they should drive and when. people will do what suits and if it means breaking a law, then they probably will. if it means they take risks, then they will.
its got to be taught to people that you are responsible, and you alone. it s hte only way that someone is going ot improve the chances at anything they do. they are then educated about risks,a nd chances, and maybe even better prepared when they do.
[Edited on 24/1/2005 by twoguns]
Simply Cruzin'...
exactly twoguns.
The over emphasis on speed that they have is ridiculous and is just a $$$ raising venture. This is the rationale the RTA have:
Height Kills
By Andrew Bent
The traffic engineer was quite pleased with himself, he had finally managed to stop the local bus drivers trying to take their double deckers under the low bridge under the railway, so Councillor Prescott might finally concede that he knew what he was doing. But as he entered Prescott's office he saw that the councillor was in an ominously thoughtful mood.
'I see we've had a reduction in accidents in Railway Terrace' said Mr Prescott, 'Yes' said the engineer, anxious to demonstrate his success, 'You see I did a survey and found that the maximum safe height under the bridge was 12'2", so I arranged for some warning signs to stop anyone taking a vehicle more than 12' high...'
But the Councillor had already lost interest. 'I've been studying some statistics' said the Councillor (the engineer winced, Councillor Prescott's grasp of mathematics was notoriously shaky) 'and it seems that when those new warning signs went up the average height of vehicles using Railway Terrace fell by 9 inches', 'Well, yes..' replied the engineer, 'and accidents dropped by 18%' continued the Councillor triumphantly'. The traffic engineer tried to figure out where this was leading, 'Do you realise what this means? Every inch of average height reduction leads to a 2% reduction in accidents! All we have to do is alter the warning signs to read 11' and accidents will drop by another 24%!'
His head spinning, the traffic engineer tried to reason with the Councillor, 'but if a 12 foot vehicle can get through perfectly safely, what is the point in imposing extra restrictions?' Councillor Prescott was having none of this, 'you don't seem to understand, Height Kills, if every inch of height reduction causes a 2% drop in accidents, surely we must have a height limit reduction program, let's speak to the bus company and see if they can lower the single deckers somehow.'
The traffic engineer thought quickly, there was no point in trying to explain the facts, Councillor Prescott always regarded knowledge of road traffic and accident causation a fatal disqualification for making decisions on the subject, but there was a possible way to turn the situation to advantage. 'There is another low bridge, under the disused railway in Beeching Close, where lorries do sometimes get stuck, but I haven't had the funds to tackle the problem before, I suggest that should be the first priority for the height reduction program'. Councillor Prescott agreed and the traffic engineer set off for Beeching Close with measuring rod in hand.
At first it wasn't clear why there was a problem at this particular bridge, there was already a height restriction of 7 feet, so why on earth were drivers ignoring it? After an examination of the bridge the reason became clear, the maximum safe height was over 14 feet. On receiving a recommendation that the 7 foot height limit was unrealistic and should be raised, Councillor Prescott was apoplectic, 'lorries are getting stuck because they are too high' he yelled, 'surely the limit needs to be lowered'. The engineer tried to point out that it was precisely because the limit was obviously ludicrous that it was being ignored, and that raising the limit would increase compliance, but the Councillor did not understand. 'In Railway Terrace, reducing the height reduced accidents, therefore Height Kills' he argued, 'surely raising the limit in Beeching Close will increase average heights, therefore increase accidents,' 'But it isn't the average height that matters' the engineer tried to point out, 'a 14 foot limit will be taken seriously and will reduce instances of excessive height, therefore reduce accidents, whether the average goes up or down is totally beside the point'. 'But Height Kills' bellowed the Councillor, 'no it doesn't' the engineer bellowed back, of course he should have said 'not necessarily' but this is not an easy thing to bellow.
'How can you say height didn't cause this?' Councillor Prescott produced a press photo of the mangled remains of a double decker wedged under the Railway Terrace bridge and dropped it on the desk with the air of one producing the ace of trumps. 'The point was that the height was excessive for the situation, it is excessive height that causes the problem, not height itself' the engineer protested, but the Councillor wasn't listening, 'I've already decided to introduce a height reduction program, reducing all existing height limits by a foot, if this succeeds in reducing heights, I'll introduce a host of new height limits, if it doesn't I'll reduce the limits further until it does....'
The engineer stopped listening; once Councillor Prescott had made up his mind, there was no point in giving him the facts.
Jon
twoguns, the point is, there has to be some incentive for irresponsible inconsiderate people to start taking responsibility for their actions. Do you really think an "honor system" would work with today's society? So many people these days will not concede that the consequences of their actions are their problem, unless they are punished for their lack of consideration for other people's safety and welbeing. Education alone cannot acheive the desired result...:blah
their is already. its called surviving. punishing doesnt work as people make choices adn are aware of the concequences. some jsut dont like to accept them, but they know they are there already. i dont think it matters.
education is the key. problem is many dont understand this or dont want to 'spend the money'.
got a mate who didnt want to do the first rider traing course with me a few years back, cause it cost 380 bucks. he thought it a bit rich. well he has fallen of a few times, done himself some injury and bike damage, and i would hate to see his insurance premium. he thinks that 380 is more than his life or more htan the feelings of his loved ones.
people jsut have to know that its about self awareness and self preservation. if they dont then let em die. its survival of the fittest. although that theory seems very quickly going out of fashion.
[Edited on 24/1/2005 by twoguns]
Simply Cruzin'...
So, if some silly little self centred prick loses control of his turbo Silvia while hooning and crosses into the path of a station wagon carrying a young family and they get run off the road, hit an embankment and all die, including the boy and 2 little girls, while the prick in the Silvia gets some bumps and bruises, he should just go hame and smack his own arse. Personally, I think he should be charged under the law.
The real trouble is, you're not just playing with your own life when you go out there and "have fun" in a 1.3 tonne weapon of potential mass homocide.
Here's an idea. How about we just not worry about rego, licences, drink driving or vehicle roadworthyness and just all get out there and see what happens.:duh
no he should be charged... what i am saying is you hope to get to the silly little prick before it gets to that point. ie he understands responsibilty and consequeneces, and there for wont put himself in that position.
i heard a bloke at the F1 boat races on the weekend, say he thought that schools should bring back to cane. that kids today get away with to much a nd lack respect, and that the cane fixed all that. he was carrying on like a lout and having a few drinks himself. then a nother bloke yelled out, did they have the cane when you were a kid. the first guy responded yes, and that he got it himself. the second bloke said... and it didnt help you then so why your kids now.
the second guys right. teaching and understanding first, punishment second.
Simply Cruzin'...
I reckon it's all our parents' generation for having us in the first place 🙂
The idiot in the silvia shouldn't get a licence in the first place if Licencing was more than 3 point turns and reverse parks. Even if he/she did then they should go through a lengthy process to learn how to drive and be responsible. Wheras the system now is a joke.
Anyone can walk in to a RTA and get a licence, and drive unsupervised.
With regard to speed limits, the introduction of 50 zones is more about politics than real world driving. It has been shown that drivers will drive at the speed that they think is appropriate rather than what is signposted. As often the signposted speedlimit is somewhat arbitrary. There is no national standard for setting them and it is more at the will of politicians.
Prevention before cures I say.
Jon
twoguns wrote:the second guys right. teaching and understanding first, punishment second.
But somehow, the Punishment never seems to be forthcoming..
Spare the rod......
When I went to school we had canes and we had respect for the Law... You knew that if you got in trouble with the police, the fat seargent would take you out the back of the cop station and flog you himself...
Now days I feel Really guilty just changing lanes without indicating and I never had a police flogging....!!!
As for the rich parents that give their rich kids fancy (Go-Fast) cars... That's life... If the laws prohibited it, they'de be giving them a new 1.8 Hyundia Accent instead...
Perhaps they should take a look at a prime example over here where a rich guy gave his kid a Turbo Charged Nissan Silvia as a present for turning 17 and getting his licence..
He gave a a coffin and a grave a week later....!!!
[Edited on 24-1-2005 by WABaja]
I hate to admit it, but man, I think you're right....
take out seatbelts, airbags and all the other 'safety' features of modern cars
then remove everyone's brakes (except maybe a parking brake which can only be used when stationary :P)
im sure people would soon figure out that if they drive like dickheads they will die, so the roads will be much safer
just my opinion
WABaja wrote:As for the rich parents that give their rich kids fancy (Go-Fast) cars... That's life... If the laws prohibited it, they'de be giving them a new 1.8 Hyundia Accent instead...
Perhaps they should take a look at a prime example over here where a rich guy gave his kid a Turbo Charged Nissan Silvia as a present for turning 17 and getting his licence..
He gave a a coffin and a grave a week later....!!!
[Edited on 24-1-2005 by WABaja]
If someone wants to drive a fast car, they will - regardless of the laws that are in place.
The problem is not with the car itself, it is a machine. The problem is with the person. Fixing the machine doesnt fix the person.
A hyundai accent 1.8 can still reach over 130km/h. Most accidents happen below 60km/h.
If the driver is an idiot there is no driving curfew, speeding limit or power restriction that will stop that.
Jon
I know that after driving after getting my liscence for almost 2 years that i'm a far better and safer driver for it. But only because i drive every day and regulary do long trips in a 43 year old baja with muddies on the back and only a disc brake front end to help out. So i drive according to the situation and the vehicle i'm driving. When I drive my parents early SWB Non-turbo Diesel Six Patrol around i adjust my driving habits to suit.
My sister's boyfriend just got his liscence about a week or two ago and his parents have responded (in my view) in a stupid manner. Yes he does drive a six cylider commodore but it is a far safer car than mine or the Patrol or a barina in my view. It has enough power to get you out of dangerous situations and handles well. Anyway his parents have decided to ban him from having passengers for two-three months, which in my view the idea is right but the time is way too long. For me it was about a week and a half. Also his keys are taken off him and he maybe is allowed to drive three times a week. He is not allowed to drive at night, in wet conditions or on highways! His parents have lied to him on numerous occasions about it and now he does not trust them. I have driven with him and he is a very good driver and is very safe but has limited experience. How can he gain experience if he isn't exposed to those situations?
I know i probably should have done a driver training course before now and I will as soon as I get the time and money together. All i'll say is that the more that young drivers are restricted they lose access to situations from which they will gain experience and so are more dangerous. I know that up untill three months or so ago I only had one dangerous fault with my driving- i tailgated. Then I got distracted for a fraction of a second and i rearended a guy. Not much damage, easily repairable as it was a low speed but now i don't tailgate and hang far back. I learnt from my mistakes.
I'm just waitin for the next speeding campaign: SPEED CAUSES CANCER!:thumb
THe MC Bat Commander's motto: "Never do now, what you could do for 24 hours straight, all night, the night before."
Ok i started off with a small post and then it got bigger...wierd.
THe MC Bat Commander's motto: "Never do now, what you could do for 24 hours straight, all night, the night before."
