High Performance Cars And P Platers

[Psycho Chicken]

You mean the government threatened the big 3.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by xdc351

How would you stop the cars built prior to the ADR change from exceeding 120kmh? How does that stop people doing 120kmh in a 40 zone? How does ithelp the economy when everyone stops buying performance cars to use on race tracks?

I can go on forever, 120kmh is not going to happen. Ever.

Firstly, an old saying from an old bloke, never say never, when I was young who would have ever though that you could walk down the street talking on a phone, and there were people back then saying "it would never happen".

Trucks prior to ADR changes that forced truck manufacturers to speed limit trucks to 100 were also expected to retro-fit speed limiters, where there is a will, there is a way. AND YES there are truck doing more that 100, I know that so don't tell me again, but how many die due to speed related incidents?

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

You mean the government threatened the big 3.

Exactly, they were told to stop building or there would be no Government contracts coming their way, and about 60% of cars sold were sold to Government Authorities.




I change my post to suit your post Mr. Pyscho.

[xdc351]

We are talking about an absoloutly massive, australia wide law change, not even compareable to one class of vehicle being limited.

It could not be done in one state alone for the simple reason that the car manufacturers worldwide would not put themselves in a situation where they had to spend millions of dollars on development just for one state. As if a multi national company like BMW or Mercedes really cares if one tiny state in australia (or even the country for that matter... we are small bickies to them) wanted to pull a ridiculos move like that.

So now your costing jobs from importing, no doubt costing jobs locally from building cars (wiping out FPV and HSV), reducing interest in automobile manufacturing in australia, cost an unwilling public billions of dollars in having to fit speed limiting devices to cars they didn't drive that fast anyway.... while they watch idiots disable the limiters and kill themselves anyway.

It would be political suicide and would make whoever made such a call a laughing stock worldwide. I feel quite comfortable saying NEVER.

[Psycho Chicken]

Originally Posted by Chronicle

Exactly, they were told to stop building or there would be no Government contracts coming their way, and about 60% of cars sold were sold to Government Authorities.




I change my post to suit your post Mr. Pyscho.

Exactly, there was no law change involved, the companies would of lost money if they didn't comply.

If what you propose goes ahead the car companies will lose money, bit of a difference in the situations.

I'd probably lose my job if such a law came into effect.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by xdc351

We are talking about an absoloutly massive, australia wide law change, not even compareable to one class of vehicle being limited.

It could not be done in one state alone for the simple reason that the car manufacturers worldwide would not put themselves in a situation where they had to spend millions of dollars on development just for one state. As if a multi national company like BMW or Mercedes really cares if one tiny state in australia (or even the country for that matter... we are small bickies to them) wanted to pull a ridiculos move like that.

So now your costing jobs from importing, no doubt costing jobs locally from building cars (wiping out FPV and HSV), reducing interest in automobile manufacturing in australia, cost an unwilling public billions of dollars in having to fit speed limiting devices to cars they didn't drive that fast anyway.... while they watch idiots disable the limiters and kill themselves anyway.

It would be political suicide and would make whoever made such a call a laughing stock worldwide. I feel quite comfortable saying NEVER.

I will give you the benifit of doubt as you apparently drive an old car, BUT all new cars are already speed limited, but to a higher number, it is a simple computer programming change to limit them lower, a mate of mine is a Ford mechanic, and he says it is a piece of ****.

BTW, ALL cars coming into Australia now have to comply with our ADR, that is why they have compliance plates to our ADR's. Do youself a favour and go and have look at an imported cars compliance plate and list off all the ADR's they have to comply with NOW!

[xdc351]

Yes I do have an older car, quite a few actually. In a discussion like this all factors must be taken into account. ECU mods are easy, but wouldn't it look a little stupid to have a 320kmh speedo in a Ferrari thats limited to 120kmh? And who would buy one for that matter? Worlds fastest car that is forcably limited to 1/3 its maximum speed! Sounds fun doesn't it?

All new cars are limited only by the manufacturer, not the ADR's. Thats why even in the ford range there are massive differences in the limits. I'm fully aware of the ADR's imported cars must comply with, but you'd have to ask yourself how much effort are they going to go to for us considering our comparitively small population. Start throwing in similarly stupid rules where the speedo must show 0-120kmh like the (thankfully) failed 130kmh limit victoria thought about and there is even more dis-incentive to continue selling cars here.

I hope and pray it never happens.

[Trevor 57]

If people drove sensibly then there would be no need, but I am yet to have one valid reason to not have cars limited, other than **** factor. (that comment is not aimed at anyone)

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by xdc351

... but you'd have to ask yourself how much effort are they going to go to for us considering our comparitively small population.

BUT, that is my point, they already have to comply with heaps, what is one small prgramming change.

Start throwing in similarly stupid rules where the speedo must show 0-120kmh like the (thankfully) failed 130kmh limit victoria thought about and there is even more dis-incentive to continue selling cars here.

I would have to agree with you on that one

I hope and pray it never happens.

[xdc351]

Originally Posted by Chronicle

If people drove sensibly then there would be no need, but I am yet to have one valid reason to not have cars limited, other than **** factor. (that comment is not aimed at anyone)

Because highway fatalities are not usually caused by excessive speed, suburban ones are. And they would remain just as high if this law came into effect, all that would happen is more frustrated law abiding citizens being shafted in the hip pocket for laws they never broke anyway.

Originally Posted by Chronicle

I will get really controversial here as I have done on other threads, and I expect an outrage at my post, but I don't care, not only am I a defensive driver trainer, I also spent 14 years with an emergency service pulling dead or near dead bodies from car wrecks on the side of the road mostly late at night or early morning.

BUT I think all cars should be speed limited to 120 km/h.

Righto boys go for it, shoot me down in flames, but in doing so, give me ONE valid reason for being able to do over 120km/h (BTW, the speed limit when overtaking is the posted speed limit - no tolerances, in fact Police will target people who are overtaking)

1. People who go to dragstrips or track days.
2. People who live in the NT.
3. Your overtaking a long truck as your half way past it you see a car approaching, you cannot slow down and pull behind it again because other cars are there now what do you do?

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by lizardmech

1. People who go to dragstrips or track days.

Cars could be modified for that purpose

2. People who live in the NT.

All States and Territories have changed to be similar in laws, why not this one?

3. Your overtaking a long truck as your half way past it you see a car approaching, you cannot slow down and pull behind it again because other cars are there now what do you do?

Trucks are faced with this one everyday, you make sure it is real clear before you go.

Originally Posted by Chronicle

Cars could be modified for that purposeAll States and Territories have changed to be similar in laws, why not this one?Trucks are faced with this one everyday, you make sure it is real clear before you go.

But in the event you make a mistake you should die to improve safety? Not many accidents are at over 120km/h.

[Trevor 57]

So why have the limit higher than 120??????

[T_Terror]

Hmmm going a bit off topic here, but ok.

Facts for facts, Chronicle (and steve Bracks with his 130kmh idea) can make a decent argument. Since we cant go over 110 there is no practical use for having the ability to do 200.

But does that mean we shouldnt be able to? This goes back to the "why do we need V8s?" argument. Why would anyone from Victoria: The Home Of The Speed Camera need to reach 100kmh in under 6 seconds only to slam on the brakes to avoid a fine?

Why the **** do we need a reason for it? I enjoy the power, the sound and the feeling of owning/driving a fast car. As well as the freedom to enjoy all these things. Isnt that all we need?

No other government in the world has decied to take the extreme step of drastic speed liimtation. Can anyone really tell me that Bracks and his friends are that much smarter than everyone else around the world? Lol, i didnt think so...

[XRQTOR]

Originally Posted by KELDO_XR8

Young people, mainly young men kill themselves on our roads almost every day. Some of them are indeed driving high powered cars. Young men especially are going to try and explore the limits of their cars, even a little old bomb is still capable of reaching 100k's in a 50 zone. The problem here is that were not giving young people sufficient training before alowing them to go solo. In VIC the covernment encourages all L platers to gain 120hrs of practice before attempting their liscence. How many people actually go through with that? How many people out there have a few lessons and front up for their tests? its not that hard to drive nicely in a little pulsar or whatever for 20mins during your test. That person can then jump behing the wheel of basically any car he chooses and burn of down the street. This person could be driving a 73 corrola or an AU XR8. The point here is that our young drivers are 'encouraged' to have 120 hours practice and take formal lessons. There are no regulations forcing young drivers to recieve adeqate instruction. Here lies the problem. The fact that a young person can get there license without adequate supervised driving is scary.

For the record im 19 and drive an EF XR8. i had probably double the recomended driving practice and feel comfortable driving an 8. Instead of policing those who drive V8's they should be making it mandatory for new drivers to be prepared for anything that lies ahead.
Keldo.

I got my licence in Sa purely for the reason i could get my L's and p's on the same day, in nsw i would have been on l's for 6months and p's for 3 years. If i had passed my p's test first time round i would have had them in 1 day with NO driving practice. Because i failed i got them the day after.

My first car was an EF xr8 and my parents let me drive it, iv'e always been able to drive a manual no problems there. The old man took me out every arvo for the 4 weeks before i flew to sa and taught me how to drive, not just keep the car on the road stuff but EVERYTHING i really needed to learn. Like what happens if i gave it to much in a round about or on a wet road. Being a fussy old bastard like he is he wouldn't have helped me obtain my licence the way i did. Doing it the way i did helped me learn the limits of my driving ability and the cars limit's.

Anyone can pass a P's test and abide by the law with an instructor in the car. Same thing goes with performance cars, anyone can drive one whilst abiding by the road rules. It's when people push them things start to occur, regaurdless of car/make/model.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Same rule applies with high performance cars.

[T_Terror]

Haha, its funny that this thread turned to the topic of speed limitation.

Here is a wonderful example of the majority suffering because of the actions of the few (and the inability of the government to implement a proper solution).

us poor P-platers are spat on, ridiculed (ok, ok maybe we dont get it that bad) and have ridiculous restricitons aplced on us all becasue of the "fully sik" crowd and other "heroes" who give us a bad name.
And here we have ALL drivers being restricted in their travel abilities because of high speed accidents which arent even the most common accident (most would happen in between the 60-100) and are arguably impossible to completely eliminate anyway.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by XR-ENVI

speed cameras are off the subject but why do people complain about speed cameras? yeah the government is making millions out of them, so what, so they should, you speed you give them the money. Easy fixed......stick to the speed limit.

There's a difference between knowingly speeding to going 3kph over the limit due to either the inaccuracy of your speedo or the needle of the speedo being roughly the width of 3kph.

Being in Sydney, speed cameras can be very forgiving requiring you to go past them at over 10kph over the limit before they'll take a happy snap, but I sympathise with those in Melbourne who can lose a licence by travelling through certain tunnels with an ADR compliant speedo that reads 10% slower than you're actually travelling.

[DivHunter]

Let's not forget that it has ben proven in the US that lower speed limits cause more accidents ;) It is a plain simple fact of the statistics gathered over years in the US. This is reflected in the bugger all change and even higher road tolls seen after all these speed cameras and bullshit 40 zones etc. It doesn't save lives so wtf are they doing it for?

Getting booked for 103 in 100 zone is rediculous.

[Tiges]

Originally Posted by XRQTOR

Copper knew he was going to be able to give him another ticket, makes himm look better. I also bet you didn't slide anywhere near as far as he did going through the round about, makes him stand out more than you.

If that was my mate i'd belt him for trying to get me in the shit, then belt him again for driving a commadore.

I probably did slide around more than him, I just wasn't paying attention to him, I was paying attention to the cop that was dead on my ****.

What do you mean by the cop will be able to give him another ticket, for what?

Yeah I should be giving him a belting of his life but I'm not gonna care about it. I didn't get done so I'm happy. I usually do give him a hiding for having a Commondore.

[SSbaby]

The sad thing is that althogh the law concentrates on hi-po cars and P-platers, I've seen P-platers in Hyundais not wearing a seatbelt and drinking grog as they are driving.

It's an attitude problem they have... a bit like an ego thing... and the government must be partly responsible (just as a parent would also be) for failing to at least implement the infrastructure to educate newbie drivers on the essential lessons of road safety.

[Tiges]

Originally Posted by XRQTOR

Anyone can pass a P's test and abide by the law with an instructor in the car. Same thing goes with performance cars, anyone can drive one whilst abiding by the road rules. It's when people push them things start to occur, regaurdless of car/make/model.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Same rule applies with high performance cars.

Such truth you speak!

[donno]

Originally Posted by lizardmech

Your overtaking a long truck as your half way past it you see a car approaching, you cannot slow down and pull behind it again because other cars are there now what do you do?

Posted this to a similar topic over at ff a while back:

This happened to myself on a trip home during midsemester uni break. I was following a road train doing about 95. I alway sit far back so I don't copy any stones, the truck driver can see me, and I don't have to stray into the oncomming lane to see what's up ahead to overtake. Now the day was hot. There was alot of heat haze comming off the road. I checked there was no cars comming, then accelerated in the slipstream to about 120 in 4th before I started to overtake. I got up to just the 3/4 mark on the first trailer (one behind the truck), when out of the heat haze appeared a white commy sedan, about 400m away, and as you would know, with approach speeds of a combined 220kmh, its not long before he is on you, actually I just calculated 6.5s. I made the decision I was too far up allready to drop down and pull back in, plus there was a car following me before I overtook, so I nailed it. By the time I had pulled back in, I was at ~150, missing the car by not much (about 2.5s), my undies would have smelled pretty bad.

Now if my car was speed limited to 120, and that commy driver was having a look over the adjoing property, lost concentration changing cds, or didn't see me in the sun, for just a second, I'd be pushing up daisies, as well as him, and possibly the truckie.

Look what happened when they tried to speed limit trucks. My **** they all do at max 100. If some young guy wants to fly around in his fully sik mobile, I'm sure he'll find a way to get around the limiter, and then he'll brag about how fully sik his car is, because he's a rebel disobeying the law. These are the exact same idiots who try to get up to those rediculous speeds anyway, so I doubt it would change anything.

[donno]

Originally Posted by XRQTOR

Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Same rule applies with high performance cars.

Amen!

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by T_Terror

No other government in the world has decied to take the extreme step of drastic speed liimtation. Can anyone really tell me that Bracks and his friends are that much smarter than everyone else around the world? Lol, i didnt think so...

Pretty much nowhere else in the world do they give away drivers licences like they are on Weeties packs.

Now to test your merit, in Japan (I think or another Asian country, and some European Countries) to get a drivers licence is pretty much a 2 year full time course, and in some countries they put you in front of a firing squad for your first (and only) drink driving offence.

Nothing is for free, I am of the Dick Johnson ilk, "don't ban high performance cars, ban low performance drivers", and unfortunately we pump out under performing drivers by the thousands.

People go on about the speed you can drive on the European Autobahns, but what they don't tell is how many are killed on them, and how long it takes, and how many hoops you have to go through to get the "privilege" of driving a motorcar over there.

In Australia, what you pay for is what you get, we pay nothing and we get nothing. Are you prepared to give up 2 years so that you can do full time study so that you can drive????NO, then shut up and put with what the Government pushes out.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Fairmont99

Let's not forget that it has ben proven in the US that lower speed limits cause more accidents ;) It is a plain simple fact of the statistics gathered over years in the US. This is reflected in the bugger all change and even higher road tolls seen after all these speed cameras and bullshit 40 zones etc. It doesn't save lives so wtf are they doing it for?

So what you are saying is that a pedestrian is going to bounce off you car and survive at 100k's the sames as at 40k's Oh' for christ sake give me a break!!!

Getting booked for 103 in 100 zone is rediculous.

Firstly you don't get booked for 103, you get booked for 104 or greater.

Secondly most cars have a 5-10% error built into their speedo, this is the maximum requirement under ADR's.

And most speedo read lower than the actual limit.

So lets look at an example of a car with a 10% error.

At 100k's on their speedo, they are "really" doing 91k's, by the radar - True??

So for the radar to pick them up at 104, then they would have to be doing about 114 by the cars speedo - True???

My Fairmont Ghia has about a 4% error, so I set my speed by the trip meter, so when I am doing about 104 by the speedo, I am "really" doing 100k's, so for me to get booked at 104, then I would have to be doing 109 by the speedo, then I deserve to get booked.

If I was a general lay-person, then I wouldn't know that my cars speedo was inaccurate so as far I am concerned I am doing 109.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by XRQTOR

Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Same rule applies with high performance cars.

Great statement of fact, and I agree with the sentiment of the statement, however why has the homicide rate by gun dropped by 60% since the introduction of the gun laws. Mind you that law was introduced Nationally as the result of ONE persons stupidity, and his name was Martin Bryant.

[spoonage]

I'm 19 and on green P's and I've gone from a 6cyl XD, 6xyl VS and now the XR6T. Luckily insurance doesn't come into play because it's a leased gov vehicle (only $900 a year) but I think the gradual jump in performance has been good. Instead of going from an N12 Pulsar to a XR6T, I've learnt rear wheel drive cars decently (not going to say I'm 100% confident I can outdrive anyone on the planet, because I know I'm not), but I drive according to the conditions and my skill level. I know I don't have the experience to be the next Michael Schumacher, so I don't drive like him. However, the drivers of the car's wrapped around the trees are a different story.

[TheSneakiness]

Love how the Vico government has you guys paranoid about speed limits. Watching your speedo cause it's looks like you're going over the speed limit is gonna get you killed more often than not BECAUSE YOUR EYES AREN'T WATCHING THE ROAD.

Stuff the governments, you know your own limits, abide by them.

[Trevor 57]

I think they should ban the use of seatbelts, in some States of America you don't have to wear them as it is a "restriction of your civil libities".

Australia was the first country to enforce the compulsory wearing of seatblets, and people complained about that then, I now hear NO-ONE complain about now, except for NSW taxi drivers and some truck drivers.

Now everyone complains about speed limits, power to weigh ratio's. Get over it, the minority of ****er destroy it for everyone, it has always been that way and it all ways will.

And while I am on my high horse, what about 0.05% BAC, why do people who have had their licences be allowed to drive drunk, when P & L Platers, Truck & Bus drivers are not allowed to.

Studies show that you are in fact youi are affected by alochol at 0.05%, well, you must be or everyone would be allowed to drive at that level. So what the Governments is doing is laying down for the drunks in our society, and letting some drive drunk, but not others. 0.00% for everyone, I say!!