STUPID V8 LAWS IN QLD [Archive] - Australian Land Rover Owners

rangietragic

29th October 2013, 08:56 PM

incisor

29th October 2013, 09:06 PM

there is definitely a (budget?) driven blitz under way...

am up your way in a couple of weeks for a server instal... best behave myself :angel:

Eevo

29th October 2013, 09:09 PM

If u knew the law why were u lending him thr car???

Mick_Marsh

29th October 2013, 09:09 PM

Yep. The law sucks but, it is the law.
I've often remarked how a modern 6 cyl motor is more powerful than my HSV enhanced 185kW V8 but still a P plated cannot drive my V8 but can drive the 6 cyl.
A law created by bureaucrats.

phibbzy

29th October 2013, 09:50 PM

Lotz-A-Landies

29th October 2013, 09:56 PM

I thought they were considering a change in the law to make it a more sensible power:weight ratio.

rangietragic

29th October 2013, 10:09 PM

I thought they were considering a change in the law to make it a more sensible power:weight ratio.
That would make too much sense:)

Homestar

29th October 2013, 10:11 PM

there is definitely a (budget?) driven blitz under way...

am up your way in a couple of weeks for a server instal... best behave myself :angel:

Didn't know you were on P plates Inc...:D

rangietragic

29th October 2013, 10:13 PM

If u knew the law why were u lending him thr car???
I thought that they might not worry about it because it was not his car and by no stretch of the imagination is it "high powered",as evidenced by the ones that ignored it.

MR LR

29th October 2013, 10:14 PM

And that is why I now live 400km away from where I actually do, to get an exemption... :D

Bloody stupid rule, my Td5 Disco runs rings around the Rangie, guess which one I did my licence test in...

Mick_Marsh

29th October 2013, 10:27 PM

"V8" is a fear word like "assault rifle". Plastic politicians will legislate around the soft emotional appeal of these words because it would be harder to actually deal with the issue (if any) in a beneficial way. It's simply easy political points.
Yep. Certainly appears to be.

I thought they were considering a change in the law to make it a more sensible power:weight ratio.
I think it was like that here in Vic some years ago.
A mate worked out he was able to drive my V8 Calais on P plates but not able to drive the neighbours V8 Commodore ute. I think this sort of thing created confusion for the constabulary.

S3ute

29th October 2013, 10:29 PM

I thought they were considering a change in the law to make it a more sensible power:weight ratio.

Hello from Brisbane.

I was frustrated by the so-called "high-powered" ruling which prevented the two S3ute juniors driving our Volvo XC70 and Golf 1.4 litre TSI with P plates. Why? Because both had turbo-charged petrol engines............. Turbo diesels were OK.

A round of lobbying to anyone who would listen got us nowhere, other than platitudes to the effect that "the blanket rules were under review"....

Anyway, after a year I was advised that the rules had been changed and you could apply for an exemption based on a power to weight ratio threshold. Got it for both kids, but the catch is an exhorbitant application fee and need to carry the exemption letter when driving. It would have made more sense to make a simple ruling on vehicles exceeding the limit rather than arguing separate cases for vehicles below the limit - high performance?

Not sure if V8s now fall under this revised arrangement, but it would be worth checking.

Incidentally, if you drive a "high performance vehicle" without the official exemption then your insurance is almost certainly voided by driving without an appropriate license. Worth a thought before you hand over the keys.

Cheers,

rangietragic

29th October 2013, 10:36 PM

Hello from Brisbane.

I was frustrated by the so-called "high-powered" ruling which prevented the two S3ute juniors driving our Volvo XC70 and Golf 1.4 litre TSI with P plates. Why? Because both had turbo-charged petrol engines............. Turbo diesels were OK.

A round of lobbying to anyone who would listen got us nowhere, other than platitudes to the effect that "the blanket rules were under review"....

Anyway, after a year I was advised that the rules had been changed and you could apply for an exemption based on a power to weight ratio threshold. Got it for both kids, but the catch is an exhorbitant application fee and need to carry the exemption letter when driving. It would have made more sense to make a simple ruling on vehicles exceeding the limit rather than arguing separate cases for vehicles below the limit - high performance?

Not sure if V8s now fall under this revised arrangement, but it would be worth checking.

Incidentally, if you drive a "high performance vehicle" without the official exemption then your insurance is almost certainly voided by driving without an appropriate license. Worth a thought before you hand over the keys.

Cheers,
We checked out an exemtion,got the forms ready to hand in and he picks up a low speeding ticket going down a hill,part of the form says past driving history taken into account,so we did'nt take it any further.

carlschmid2002

29th October 2013, 11:02 PM

These laws sound strangely similar to what bike laws used to be. In the past you coul;d buy a 250cc two stroke that was designed for the track and ride it on your learners, but most of the larger trail bikes were not allowed. Now you can ride most 600cc trail bikes with learners. The two stroke 250s were a dangerous beast in the wrong hands.

mools

30th October 2013, 01:15 AM

We checked out an exemtion,got the forms ready to hand in and he picks up a low speeding ticket going down a hill,part of the form says past driving history taken into account,so we did'nt take it any further.

I don't get it. You know the law yet flaunt it and see fit to call the law an ass. It's not the law that's stupid.

So you void your insurance and your son is involved in an accident with a third party. Not exactly beyond possibility since he clearly doesn't have the best observational skills (crossing double white lines in view a copper), speeding. What then? Who / what would be stupid then?

Like I said, I don't get your point here.

Ian.

JDNSW

30th October 2013, 06:56 AM

I thought they were considering a change in the law to make it a more sensible power:weight ratio.

The problem with that is that if the power weight ratio is set low enough to have any effect, it would exclude almost every car on the market.

But it is not just about performance. It is about perception of performance - and a large cohort of drivers, especially those who are likely to be "hooning", believe that V8=performance, and hence are demonstrably more likely to drive badly when seated in a V8, even if it is lesser performance than another type of engine in the same vehicle. Consider for example the difference in performance between a County V8 and a modern diesel Defender.

John

Redback

30th October 2013, 07:23 AM

My son finally got booked for driving my "high powered v8 "d1 today:mad:.He has prevously been pulled over for other matters,one speeding,cracked windscreen ect,but the coppers have ignored the fact he was driving a v8 on p plates,untill today.Fair enough the idiot crossed double white lines pulling into a servo[hey look at me]but the v8 thing sucks.Now he has $550 worth of fines.Copper's quota must have been down!!I have seen p plates on ss commodores,toyota supras ect,no worries.He can drive my td6 rangie which would leave the d1 in its dust,my td5 defer would also give it a run,or the copper told him he could drive a v8 diesel cruiser,but not a v8 d1.Not happy Jan!!:mad::mad:

This I don't understand, so how do you drive into a servo from the other side of the road, or any driveway for that matter:confused:

Is there some new law they've introduced regarding turning into driveways!!

If u knew the law why were u lending him thr car???

I agree with this, was only a matter of time!!

benji

30th October 2013, 07:57 AM

It's exactly the same in Victoria.
When I was on p plates it was 180kw per tonne. But, alas, now its no v8s and turbo petrols.
My brother couldn't drive dad's 88, yet he was dragged of by a 96 corolla. My wife won't be able to drive our p38, but can drive a Peugeot 306 hdi which will do 0-100 in 6 seconds.

I looked into exemptions as we've got kids and she's 28, but was told she'd only be able to drive to doctors or legal appointments (ie, not for shopping or driving to mum's group etc). Soon after I was politely asked to leave vicroads.

It's not only politically lazy, but allows p platers to drive some very quick cars.

On the Vicroads website is a list on non-v8 cars that are also banned (Falcon Typhoon, Toyota Soarer etc). All that needs to happen is for them to put up an exempt listing.

PhilipA

30th October 2013, 08:28 AM

Under the NSW version of the standardised Australian Road Rules page 111 of the NSW Road Users handbook it is NOT illegal to cross a double line if leaving a road.

Drivers are permitted to cross a single dividing line enter or
leave a roadexamples below.
So either the cop doesn't know his law or your kid is fibbing as to what he did.
Regard s Philip A
BTW if I ever want to do a Uturn across double lines I try to drive into a car park or similar and out again.

Lotz-A-Landies

30th October 2013, 08:49 AM

Under the NSW version of the standardised Australian Road Rules page 111 of the NSW Road Users handbook it is NOT illegal to cross a double line if leaving a road.

So either the cop doesn't know his law or your kid is fibbing as to what he did.
Regard s Philip A
BTW if I ever want to do a Uturn across double lines I try to drive into a car park or similar and out again.

The intent of this exception is to turn directly into the driveway or come directly across it.

If the kid drive across the line down the road a bit before entering the driveway IMHO its a fair cop, who knows what the truth is.

Lotz-A-Landies

30th October 2013, 08:49 AM

Under the NSW version of the standardised Australian Road Rules page 111 of the NSW Road Users handbook it is NOT illegal to cross a double line if leaving a road.

So either the cop doesn't know his law or your kid is fibbing as to what he did.
Regard s Philip A
BTW if I ever want to do a Uturn across double lines I try to drive into a car park or similar and out again.

The intent of this exception is to turn directly into the driveway or come directly across it.

If the kid drove across the line down the road a bit before entering the driveway IMHO its a fair cop, who knows what the truth is.

vnx205

30th October 2013, 09:21 AM

I can understand that having to pay a large fine is annoying.

However as you and your son have discovered, the fact that you have done something illegal in the past and got away with it is no guarantee that you will be able to continue to get away with breaking the same law.

It is also the case that the fact that others break a law does not give you the right to break that law.

Perhaps instead of berating the police for enforcing the law, you should be berating yourself for assisting your son to break the law.

While I agree that the law is an ill considered attempt to deal with what is a real and serious problem, I think your anger is misdirected.

Mick_Marsh

30th October 2013, 12:49 PM

I don't get it. You know the law yet flaunt it and see fit to call the law an ass. It's not the law that's stupid.

So you void your insurance and your son is involved in an accident with a third party. Not exactly beyond possibility since he clearly doesn't have the best observational skills (crossing double white lines in view a copper), speeding. What then? Who / what would be stupid then?

Like I said, I don't get your point here.

Ian.
Although you may be right, this law is stupid.
There are quite a few very quick and powerful fours and sixes out there that are more powerful than a lot of v8's. It just highlights the ignorance of the bureaucrats.

UncleHo

30th October 2013, 01:02 PM

You must remember,that there are people in various transport department's that spend all their working life thinking up obscure rules to justify their jobs and to give another of their collegues something to do.

I remember when I turned 17 I went out and bought my first V8 Ford sedan,1934 Ford complete with mechanical rod brakes,and over the years had 13 sidevalve V8's from that 34 to 54 Customlines and a few overhead Customlines

Treads

30th October 2013, 01:24 PM

... the idiot crossed double white lines pulling into a servo...

Under the NSW version of the standardised Australian Road Rules page 111 of the NSW Road Users handbook it is NOT illegal to cross a double line if leaving a road.

So either the cop doesn't know his law or your kid is fibbing as to what he did.
Regard s Philip A
BTW if I ever want to do a Uturn across double lines I try to drive into a car park or similar and out again.

I have a feeling that the cop knows QLD law better than you Philip...

Where there is a double continuous centre line, you are not permitted to cross it at all. Section 132 and 134 of the Queensland Road Rules (http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Queensland-road-rules.aspx) apply.

Likewise there is no exemption in Victoria; but in NSW you can cross double lines to exit the roadway.

Copper's quota must have been down!!

Or maybe he simply detected a blatant offence (or two) with his MkII eyeballs and acted accordingly ;)

Lotz-A-Landies

30th October 2013, 01:53 PM

I have a feeling that the cop knows QLD law better than you Philip...

Likewise there is no exemption in Victoria; but in NSW you can cross double lines to exit the roadway.

Or maybe he simply detected a blatant offence (or two) with his MkII eyeballs and acted accordingly ;)Except that in Qld under "Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Regulation 2009 - Rule 134 Exceptions to keeping to the left of a dividing line:
(3) If the dividing line is a single continuous or broken dividing line, or a broken dividing line to the left or right of a single continuous dividing line, the driver may drive to the right of the dividing line—
(a) to enter or leave the road; or
(b) to enter a part of the road of 1 kind from a part of the road of another kind (for example, moving to or from a service road or emergency stopping lane).

So crossing a single unbroken line to enter or leave the road is O.K. but not if its a double unbroken line or a painted median strip, except if there's an obstruction.

Confused yet? :o

ROMAROVER

30th October 2013, 01:53 PM

qld also charge rego on cylinders, very high for v8, weras in nsw they use to charge on axle weight, so my old v8 county would be less in nsw than a heavy 4 cylinder Isuzu.
don't start me on the new bikie laws, takes us back to the bjelkie assimilation laws (more than 3 men together on a street corner not allowed.. move on laws)

Treads

30th October 2013, 01:56 PM

Confused yet? :o

Single = Cross to enter or leave roadway.
Double = Do not cross.

Pretty simple really.

Much like the P-Plate rules in regard to Petrol V8's....

isuzutoo-eh

30th October 2013, 02:02 PM

Saitch

30th October 2013, 02:23 PM

qld also charge rego on cylinders, very high for v8,
Hence why I sold my beloved Rangie!
At least where I live there aren't too many roads with line marking.

Why does my Quote thingy do this ?
Works OK for most times then does this.
Is it me doing something I'm not aware of?
Steve

cjc_td5

30th October 2013, 03:23 PM

Except that in Qld under "Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Regulation 2009 - Rule 134 Exceptions to keeping to the left of a dividing line:
(3) If the dividing line is a single continuous or broken dividing line, or a broken dividing line to the left or right of a single continuous dividing line, the driver may drive to the right of the dividing line—
(a) to enter or leave the road; or
(b) to enter a part of the road of 1 kind from a part of the road of another kind (for example, moving to or from a service road or emergency stopping lane).

So crossing a single unbroken line to enter or leave the road is O.K. but not if its a double unbroken line or a painted median strip, except if there's an obstruction.

Confused yet? :o

It's not that confusing. Double lines, don't cross, single unbroken line is OK.
That rule has been around for years. For at least 10 years, where required, we have been marking centrelines in urban areas as single unbroken lines so that residents can legally access their driveways. The residents may not have noticed the difference, but at least we were looking out for them. :)

Bush65

30th October 2013, 04:12 PM

Since moving to QLD, i have noticed, at least where I am, that double white lines are discontinued for a short distance where a driver would need to cross to enter a drive way.

Lotz-A-Landies

30th October 2013, 05:37 PM

It's not that confusing. Double lines, don't cross, single unbroken line is OK.
That rule has been around for years. For at least 10 years, where required, we have been marking centrelines in urban areas as single unbroken lines so that residents can legally access their driveways. The residents may not have noticed the difference, but at least we were looking out for them. :)Ah yes but if the single continuous line is surrounding a painted island, then you can't cross it unless there is an obstruction on the road according to rule 139 (4)

And 137 (2) if a there are two continuous lines separated by a dividing strip then you can cross them so long as the dividing strip isn't a painted island (3).

So it does get confusing! :D :p

cjc_td5

30th October 2013, 06:41 PM

Ah yes but if the single continuous line is surrounding a painted island, then you can't cross it unless there is an obstruction on the road according to rule 139 (4)

And 137 (2) if a there are two continuous lines separated by a dividing strip then you can cross them so long as the dividing strip isn't a painted island (3).

So it does get confusing! :D :p

And the moral to the story?
If you cross a line, make sure noone sees you do it. :):)

Lotz-A-Landies

30th October 2013, 06:58 PM

And the moral to the story?
If you cross a line, make sure noone sees you do it. :):)The moral of the story is don't break the rules unless you can afford the consequences.

Looking out for the coppas is too much effort.

CraigH

30th October 2013, 07:00 PM

I was working for the RTA in NSW when these laws came in and commented on how stupid they were then too, sighting the example you have with your D1. The departments theory was to make it simpler for the authorities to enforce. You can apply for a letter of exemption from the RTA under certain circumstances (not sure about QLD).

Just recently the NSW government has said it would change it to power to weight ratio formula.

Arrgh!! Why didn't they do this in the first place!

Craig

Sue

30th October 2013, 07:22 PM

I agree that this law (and others) has some flaws in it - and yes it hardly seems reasonable that your P plater son is not legally allowed to drive your D1, we also have a V8 Disco and a P plater son who is not allowed to drive the Disco because the law is the law.. whether we approve of it or not and I feel that as parents it is our duty to teach our son to respect the law (yes; even the ones he and we do not agree with) or that if he doesn't do this there will be consequences.

Every action has a reaction and generally we can pick the reaction by the action we choose to take. Your son chose to drive the car full well knowing that he was breaking the law (and by what I have read he did this with your blessing) and now that he has a reaction (fine etc) that you and he do not like you have chosen to blame the reactor rather than the action takers... (yourselves)

May perhaps there will be a lesson learnt here.. (don't do the crime if you can't do the time).. or not.

Ralph1Malph

30th October 2013, 08:09 PM

Let me put a further twist on this.
A few posters have indicated that the rules (right or wrong, good or bad) were created by bureaucrats. Probably.
However the law bit of the rule is passed on the parliament floor by our elected representatives. It is they whom you should lobby. Letters stating that you expect them to vote <insert voting intention> in the parliament on <insert issue> or you will not vote for their re-election next time.

It actually works. Recall 2006 QLD state election where Queensland's Environment Minister Andrew McNamara lost his seat of Hervey Bay largely because of the anti Traveston dam mood of his electorate.

Similarly, I bet we all secretly hope that that motoring enthusiast Senator is able to re-open a few tracks. It works.

I suppose what I am saying is that rules may be made by shiny bum city dwellers, but if the the laws are passed, it's our fault because our reps voted for it against our wishes.

Cheers
Rlaph

Mick_Marsh

30th October 2013, 08:25 PM

rangietragic

30th October 2013, 08:39 PM

Was the crossing the double whites into a driveway a right hand turn, or left hand turn? There's a fair few people that seem to think they need to need to swing right before making a sharp left hand turn, almost collected an example on Monday.
It was a right hand turn into servo,which has two entrys.He chose the first one,if he had chosen the second entry it was single line,ok.The cops were in an un marked car.

Eevo

30th October 2013, 08:45 PM

However the law bit of the rule is passed on the parliament floor by our elected representatives. It is they whom you should lobby. Letters stating that you expect them to vote <insert voting intention> in the parliament on <insert issue> or you will not vote for their re-election next time.

this isnt the Jokes thread

Lotz-A-Landies

30th October 2013, 08:49 PM

Collins

30th October 2013, 09:12 PM

Actually Laws are made by Parliament, Regulations are usually made by bureaucrats to operationalise the respective Law. The Road Rules are regulations.

In reality, bureaucrats , that draft Acts & Regulations, are public servants that work for the Government, State or Federal. Generally such regulations are developed in response to representations from members of the public, i.e. a person or persons speaking to their local member, petitions etc.

Before a Regulation can be enforced and become law it must be supported by an Act passed by Parliment.

RVR110

30th October 2013, 09:14 PM

Laws usually either embody or evolve into the collective views of society. They are quite dynamic and hopefully over time they improve to more accurately implement those views. In this case, the sentiment is that it is dangerous for novice drivers to drive high performance cars. I think that a majority would agree with the intent.

The difficulty comes with the practicality of implementation - how can the average policeman determine if a car is a high performance vehicle or not? It is easy to determine the number of cylinders that a car has and if a turbo or supercharger is present and if the car is petrol or diesel. Hence the current laws. Unfortunately this test is simple but inaccurate. Over time they will improve the definition and in NSW at least this is already under discussion (http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/nsw-backflips-on-pplate-turbo-ban-20130807-2rg9o.html).

However, until the laws are amended I must agree with mools and vxn205. As a parent with a P plater (and an L plater) this has actively been discussed in my family and I would never let them drive a car that exposed them to the kind of penalties and insurance issues that could result from breaching this law.

I can understand that having to pay a large fine is annoying.

However as you and your son have discovered, the fact that you have done something illegal in the past and got away with it is no guarantee that you will be able to continue to get away with breaking the same law.

It is also the case that the fact that others break a law does not give you the right to break that law.

Perhaps instead of berating the police for enforcing the law, you should be berating yourself for assisting your son to break the law.

While I agree that the law is an ill considered attempt to deal with what is a real and serious problem, I think your anger is misdirected.

V8Ian

30th October 2013, 10:11 PM

Laws usually either embody or evolve into the collective views of society. They are quite dynamic and hopefully over time they improve to more accurately implement those views. In this case, the sentiment is that it is dangerous for novice drivers to drive high performance cars. I think that a majority would agree with the intent.

The difficulty comes with the practicality of implementation - how can the average policeman determine if a car is a high performance vehicle or not? It is easy to determine the number of cylinders that a car has and if a turbo or supercharger is present and if the car is petrol or diesel. Hence the current laws. Unfortunately this test is simple but inaccurate. Over time they will improve the definition and in NSW at least this is already under discussion (http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/nsw-backflips-on-pplate-turbo-ban-20130807-2rg9o.html).

However, until the laws are amended I must agree with mools and vxn205. As a parent with a P plater (and an L plater) this has actively been discussed in my family and I would never let them drive a car that exposed them to the kind of penalties and insurance issues that could result from breaching this law.Not by some; my son and his Volvo 240 were detained on the side of the road by a (none to bright) constable who insisted the Volvo was fitted with an illegal supercharger. Fortunately the sergeant who came to sort it knew an air conditioning compressor from a supercharger. :Thump:

Sprint

31st October 2013, 08:15 AM

I don't get it. You know the law yet flaunt it and see fit to call the law an ass. It's not the law that's stupid.

Lets see.... the law prohibits P platers driving V8's and turbo'd cars, and in queensland, any vehicle with over 200kw (untill Holden released the SIDI SV6 that had just over that.....then unexplicably the limit was raised slightly..... go figure....)

A 20yo v8 falcodore has less power than a brand new current model, but which one is legal for a P plater to drive?

A Saab 900 turbo isnt P plater legal, but my mechanics ex track car, an LX torana which regularly embarassed V8's at hillclimbs and short circuit sprints was perfectly legal....

And you're saying the law isnt stupid?

Lotz-A-Landies

31st October 2013, 09:15 AM

In reality, bureaucrats , that draft Acts & Regulations, are public servants that work for the Government, State or Federal. Generally such regulations are developed in response to representations from members of the public, i.e. a person or persons speaking to their local member, petitions etc.

Before a Regulation can be enforced and become law it must be supported by an Act passed by Parliment.Yes but Parliament rarely ever sit around debating Regulations in the same manner they will debate an Act of Legislation. It is frequently the case that Regulations will merely be tabled and approved without most of the pollies voting on them even opening the cover.

Also don't be misled by the notion of members of the public making representations to their local member which then becomes law. Mostly its Government Departments or Public/Government "Councils" that recommend or even draft the leislation. Remember it is people like Harold Scruby that sit on these councils and get listened to by the Government.

Hence the illogical legislation that results.

solmanic

31st October 2013, 11:13 AM

Treads

31st October 2013, 12:20 PM

Disco Muppet

31st October 2013, 12:52 PM

Not by some; my son and his Volvo 240 were detained on the side of the road by a (none to bright) constable who insisted the Volvo was fitted with an illegal supercharger. Fortunately the sergeant who came to sort it knew an air conditioning compressor from a supercharger. :Thump:

My cousin had the same thing, except it was the alternator :D
Do I think that particular law is stupid? Maybe over-simplified, or a poor 'one size fits all' type approach, but I know plenty of people my age who I wouldn't want behind the wheel of any vehicle, let alone a high performance one :lol2:
And for the most part, cops are just like you and me; decent, hardworking, honest people. Sure there are some who are ****** but you get that in any sample of society.

No, you're wrong!

We're just dumb coppers out there picking on people we don't like who drive cars we don't like the look of, for no apparent reason except to fill our quotas!

Geez, get it right! :angel:

Book lots of Land Losers then treads? :p

Mick_Marsh

31st October 2013, 12:59 PM

No, you're wrong!

We're just dumb coppers out there picking on people we don't like who drive cars we don't like the look of, for no apparent reason except to fill our quotas!

Geez, get it right! :angel:
Thought so.

(If you say it often enough, it becomes true. Right?)

Eevo

31st October 2013, 01:04 PM

police have to fill quotas, thats a given in our modern police force.

Treads

31st October 2013, 01:35 PM

police have to fill quotas, thats a given in our modern police force.

Not here we don't! :p

No such thing as a quota for offences; but we have a target for intercepts, PBT's, POFT's, etc.

Lotz-A-Landies

31st October 2013, 02:02 PM

mools

31st October 2013, 04:24 PM

Lets see.... the law prohibits P platers driving V8's and turbo'd cars, and in queensland, any vehicle with over 200kw (untill Holden released the SIDI SV6 that had just over that.....then unexplicably the limit was raised slightly..... go figure....)

A 20yo v8 falcodore has less power than a brand new current model, but which one is legal for a P plater to drive?

A Saab 900 turbo isnt P plater legal, but my mechanics ex track car, an LX torana which regularly embarassed V8's at hillclimbs and short circuit sprints was perfectly legal....

And you're saying the law isnt stupid?

Sprint,

No not really. When placed in its original context it is easy to see that the statement I made was comparative. In case you still struggle with it my point was that regardless of how stupid the law may be the OP was at fault for sanctioning the law breaking in the first place and his son was at fault for breaching a separate law which brought this to the attention of the police. All this, coupled with making a post bemoaning those facts does, IMO, reflect a degree of stupidity; comparatively more stupid than the law itself which, IMO, is just seeking to preserve life and property by restricting the vehicles that holders of a provisional licence may legally drive on the road.

And in answer to your first question....

A 20yo v8 falcodore has less power than a brand new current model, but which one is legal for a P plater to drive?

Neither because both are V8s.

I guess laws are no different than many other things that when considered in more detail end up appearing stupid.

Ian.

scarry

31st October 2013, 04:37 PM

Yesterday I followed a clean very straight recent model HiLux. This vehicle has a rear spring over, lifted front, no mudflaps and tyres that protruded at least 50mm outside each respective mudguard.

I bet he has never been pulled over for it.

If vehicles like this are out there, there are no quotas or very few highway patrol vehicles operating. Any wonder people think they can break the regs with impunity! :(

But if it had a P plate hanging off it,good chance it would be pulled over......

The P plate does seem to attract the attention of the police,whether that is a good thing or not, is debatable.

But thats just the way it has always been,even years ago before they took them away last time.

VladTepes

31st October 2013, 04:42 PM

and not to mention the stupid registartion system which charges based on number of cylinders....

a V8 diesel costs more to rego than a V6 commodore - and the commodore prob uses more fuel and pollutes more.

Whats even sillier - a TD5 costs more to register than a Tdi or TDci !

****ing silly !

vnx205

31st October 2013, 04:51 PM

police have to fill quotas, thats a given in our modern police force.

How does that old joke go?

A driver complains that he is only being booked to fill the cop's quota.

The cop replies that they used to have quotas, but now they are free to book as many as they like.

:D

Eevo

31st October 2013, 04:55 PM

How does that old joke go?

A driver complains that he is only being booked to fill the cop's quota.

The cop replies that they used to have quotas, but now they are free to book as many as they like.

:D

lol, i like that one

rangietragic

31st October 2013, 06:30 PM

Regardless of whether or not the V8 - P Plate laws are confusing, you just shouldn't do anything to give the cops an excuse to pull you over and work out that you are breaking them... like crossing a double white line. The moment you are stopped for one breach, the police are going to naturally exercise due dilligence and see if there is anything else you're doing wrong before they let you go. That's not revenue raising, it's just proper policing. A small indescretion on the road could be seen as evidence that someone is a genuine danger behind the wheel.
While he has been told in no uncertain terms what a tool he was for crossing double white lines,he was pulled over about a month ago[he was driving it fairly regularly] and given a notice for a small windscreen crack.The copper went over the car and checked tyres,lights,jumped on the side steps,pulled on the rear mounted hi lift jack ect and didnt mention the v8,as he had been pulled over before and police ignored the v8,even after he started it and drove off, we assumed that as it wasnt a falcadore but a boring old 4wd,they werent particularly concered about it.Till now.Yes the copper was well within his right to book him,it is STILL A STUPID LAW!!!

isuzurover

31st October 2013, 06:53 PM

... recent model HiLux. This vehicle has a rear spring over, ...

Don't all hiluxes come from the factory with SOA leaf springs???

Lotz-A-Landies

31st October 2013, 10:31 PM

Don't all hiluxes come from the factory with SOA leaf springs???NFI but this one had about a 4" lift or more. (or 3" lift and 36" tyres) whatever it had it was one of the tallest HiLuxes I've seen for ages and one of the cleanest and straightest and it wasn't black!

carlschmid2002

31st October 2013, 10:49 PM

I agree the laws are stupid. I used to be one of the biggest baggers of traffic cops. I used to own a Honda Blackbird. One day I was driving from Canberra to Toowoomba up the Newell and just out of Dubbo this blue XR6 Turbo went past me like I was standing still. I was doing 115km/h. About an hour later I came across an accident that I hope no one else ever sees. It involved 4 vehicles. I believe the XR6 Turbo was overtaking a caravan and hit a Cruiser ute head on. There was another car towing a caravan behind the cruiser. I think the tally was 7 dead. I would have thought for sure that the driver of the XR6 Turbo was some young idiot. I think I heard on the radio that he was 58 or 68. There was a young digger there in an Army truck and another aircraft mechanic from the Army. We offered assistance to one of the coppers who was white as a ghost. There wasn't much we could do. There was an old couple still trapped in there dual cab ute. Both doors has been damaged. We tried to open the doors and then the firies arrived. I still don't like speed cameras or traffic cops but I do have a new respect for them.

ScottW

31st October 2013, 10:53 PM

Yes the copper was well within his right to book him,it is STILL A STUPID LAW!!!

Whilst I think it was a dumb move to be driving in a prohibited car, we need to look at what these laws are trying to achieve, and determine if that was achieved by issuing this particular fine.

Police discretion seems to have gone out the window the same time that common sense did.

The purpose of these laws is to keep inexperienced drivers out of high powered cars. First, the government brings in these poorly planned laws, then the police officer applies the law in a situation that is obviously not the intent of the initial law.

Does this make the road any safer? I think not.

Does this build good police/civilian relations? I think not.

Will this kid have a very much lowered opinion of ALL police officers in the future? At a guess I'd say yes.

As for not having a quota, the government allows for a certain amount of $$$ from speeding fines etc in the budget. People are behaving and getting fined less, so what happens? They reduce the tolerance for one. Also they start picking on other offenses, such as loads not properly secured inside cars (my father recently was fined for this).

The rules on this are pretty vague, but it's a fairly safe bet that the majority of cars leaving bunnings could be fined for unsecured items in the car. Once again, a rule made to protect other drivers and pedestrians from obviously dangerous situations is being used in a way it was never intended for.

Criminals are easier to manage than civilians. So it's easier to make everyone a criminal and just pick them off when you need to.

It won't be long before these stupid new bikie laws are used against normal people for minor indiscretions either. Just wait.

UncleHo

31st October 2013, 11:18 PM

At the moment late 2013 the current Qld Govt.is having all and any road regulations enforced,from having a lowered speed tolerance,I believe limit +1kph to minor infringements, such as the one that I recently received,as follows,peak hour traffic 17.56pm, in Ann St. Fortitude Valley Brisbane put my left front tyre on/over a painted arrow,and not turn in the direction of the arrow,$88 :( with 3 lanes of slow lane changing traffic I was watching said traffic not a painted arrow in a 10 ft square. :twisted: Said police officer was 100+ yards up the road watching traffic and with a helmet mounted camera (M/cycle officer)and whilst booking me mentioned that I was one of several he had caught that afternoon, road safety, Nah! revenue raising.

THE BOOGER

31st October 2013, 11:34 PM

It was a right hand turn into servo,which has two entrys.He chose the first one,if he had chosen the second entry it was single line,ok.The cops were in an un marked car.

Does that mean he also drove IN the OUT driveway;)

Sprint

31st October 2013, 11:45 PM

Neither because both are V8s.

To clarify, a 20yo falcodore has less power than the current model 6 cylinder equivalents.

Standard Mid 90's V8/Falcodore is 165kw, top guns were the 215/220kw stroker HSV's

FG Falcon 6 cyl: 195kw (std) 198kw (LPG)
FG "Ecoboost" 4cyl: 179kw (Turbo'd but P plate exempt in Queensland, Legal in Vic & SA) <---- see that? even a bloody 4 cylinder falcon has more power than an older V8.....
VF Commodore 6Cyl: 180kw (LPG) 185kw (std 3.0L) 210kw (SV6 - 3.6L)

Just for giggles:
2013 Toyota Aurion - 200kw
2013 Toyota Hilux - 175kw
2013 Mitsubishi Pajero V6 - 183kw

Its been said many times before, and I'll say it again. The law is an ass.

Treads

1st November 2013, 12:47 AM

Police discretion seems to have gone out the window the same time that common sense did....

...Does this make the road any safer? I think not.

Does this build good police/civilian relations? I think not.

Will this kid have a very much lowered opinion of ALL police officers in the future? At a guess I'd say yes.

Of course the officer in question was able to use discretion in this instance - he chose to write a ticket for a blatant offence AFTER having that offence bought to his attention by a prior blatant offence.

But go ahead - like the OP, continue to lay blame on the person enforcing the law, not the people who knowingly offended :bangin:

pop058

1st November 2013, 07:30 AM

Mick_Marsh

1st November 2013, 07:47 AM

This is not correct. I know one of the local coppers around my area and yes the limit has been lowered (do not know what to though) , but NOT to an unenforceable + 1Kph
Why is +1km/h unenforceable? The Victorian government seems to have no trouble enforcing +3km/h.

Dougal

1st November 2013, 08:46 AM

Why is +1km/h unenforceable? The Victorian government seems to have no trouble enforcing +3km/h.

The radars aren't accurate enough to enforce that level.

ScottW

1st November 2013, 08:53 AM

Why is +1km/h unenforceable? The Victorian government seems to have no trouble enforcing +3km/h.

Because up until around 1994 to 1996 (not exactly sure when), the ADR rules for vehicles required the speedometer to be to be accurate to +/- 10%. After this point it was changed to 0 to 10% over only.

ScottW

1st November 2013, 09:04 AM

Of course the officer in question was able to use discretion in this instance - he chose to write a ticket for a blatant offence AFTER having that offence bought to his attention by a prior blatant offence.

But go ahead - like the OP, continue to lay blame on the person enforcing the law, not the people who knowingly offended :bangin:

And I repeat: Does this make the road any safer? I think not.

Typical police attitude. Blatant or not, a V8 disco is not a high powered vehicle. Thanks once again for lowering my opinion of all police officers, which upsets me because I have a few mates that are coppers. They are good guys (not traffic cops), but every time respect for the police drops, the more likely police officers are to get shot or beaten up in the line of duty.

Perhaps think of that next time you are standind up for what is an act of blatent revenue raising because the government coffers is low.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, as it's hard to get the background feeling of the writer via a block of text on the internet, but you really need to look at the big picture and realise the full consequence of an overly heavy hand of the law.

Lotz-A-Landies

1st November 2013, 09:14 AM

And I repeat: Does this make the road any safer? I think not.

Typical police attitude. Blatant or not, a V8 disco is not a high powered vehicle. Thanks once again for lowering my opinion of all police officers, which upsets me because I have a few mates that are coppers. They are good guys (not traffic cops), but every time respect for the police drops, the more likely police officers are to get shot or beaten up in the line of duty.

....Not impressed by this attack on Police Highway Patrol, there are a lot of rules and regulations that aren't made by the Highway Patrol and many don't seem to make the law any safer. Take those arguments out on the people who make stupid legislation.

Highway Patrol get a tough lot, frequently the first on the scene of major crashes they get to deal with the carnage and often there to watch someone take their last breath without the ability to save that life.

If people don't break the rules they have nothing to fear from the highway patrol.

No I am not in the Police or justice system.

Treads

1st November 2013, 09:27 AM

In Victoria speed tolerances for the cameras are different to radar/laser.

Cameras ARE NOT set to 3kph over the limit, due to the fact that their tolerance is +/-3kph in the first place. To be booked by a camera for say 103kph in a 100kph zone you would have to be travelling at least 106kph.

Moving Mode Radar and static Radar/laser are a different beast and are subject to the discretion of the member operating the equipment. They have a +/-2kph tolerance and must be tested by the operator at the beginning of a shift via tuning fork (radar) and distance/accuracy (laser).

So for instance if I detect a vehicle travelling 111kph ;) :angel: in a 100kph zone I write the ticket as:

Detected Speed = 111kph
Alledged Speed = 109kph

Hence why you can potentially get detected for Exceed speed in vehicle other than heavy vehicle by 10kph or more but less than 15kph ($289 & 3 demerits); but receive a penalty for the lower offence of Exceed speed in vehicle other than heavy vehicle by less than 10kph ($180 & 1 demerit).

PS: This is all freely available information and anyone who's been issued a PIN can see the two readings on the ticket.

Treads

1st November 2013, 09:33 AM

Typical police attitude. Blatant or not, a V8 disco is not a high powered vehicle. Thanks once again for lowering my opinion of all police officers, which upsets me because I have a few mates that are coppers. They are good guys (not traffic cops), but every time respect for the police drops, the more likely police officers are to get shot or beaten up in the line of duty.

Perhaps think of that next time you are standind up for what is an act of blatent revenue raising because the government coffers is low.

I'm pretty sure this post says more about you, than it does about police ;)

sam_d

1st November 2013, 09:36 AM

Unfortunately the law is the law and no matter how pointless you think a law is, you have to be prepared to face the consequences of breaking a law if/when you get caught.

The only way to effect change is to get engaged with the people who do make the laws, rules and regulations. Moaning about being caught breaking the law on an internet forum will change nothing.

If you really want to stick it to the cops, don't break any laws and make their days really boring by giving them nothing to do!

mudmouse

1st November 2013, 09:39 AM

This thread started off with a whinge because someone GAVE a family member a set of keys to a vehicle they KNEW was against the LAW for the family member to drive, who was subsequently booked for breaking that LAW.

At this stage I don't see a problem.

The problem may lie with who has to fork out to pay that fine, or who has to drive said (now suspended) driver around.

The law, good or bad, has been in place for a few years now, so unless it changes, civil disobedience or blatant disregard isn't the answer. If it's got 8 cylinders, a turbo/blower, or is just too fast, you (novice drivers can't drive it), so get on with life and stop being a sook.

A vent is never a drama, but get over it....

Matt

THE BOOGER

1st November 2013, 09:45 AM

MR LR

1st November 2013, 10:04 AM

MR LR

1st November 2013, 10:09 AM

I haven't seen anybody come with a better, workable way to keep performance cars out of the hands of p platers. Blanket rules with their faults are the easiest way to do this:( A list of car that they can drive doesn't take into consideration that some people WILL modify their cars:)
The current laws for non-banned cars are that they can have no performance enhancing mods, so how can't this still apply if they get rid of the moronic blanket ban?

Btw, I dealt with the RMS exemption department a fair bit, to get mine, a 1983 Range Rover 3.5 carby is still classified as a high performance vehicle (despite everyone knowing otherwise) and does not class as a "low performance prohibited vehicle" allowing you to get an exemption. Anyone saying the Law is not dumb can try and explain that to me, I'd love to hear it; 4 wheel disc brakes, 2 tons and ~120kW... WTF.

rangietragic

1st November 2013, 10:12 AM

Does that mean he also drove IN the OUT driveway;)
No,two entrys,one exit.

rangietragic

1st November 2013, 10:26 AM

The current laws for non-banned cars are that they can have no performance enhancing mods, so how can't this still apply if they get rid of the moronic blanket ban?

Btw, I dealt with the RMS exemption department a fair bit, to get mine, a 1983 Range Rover 3.5 carby is still classified as a high performance vehicle (despite everyone knowing otherwise) and does not class as a "low performance prohibited vehicle" allowing you to get an exemption. Anyone saying the Law is not dumb can try and explain that to me, I'd love to hear it; 4 wheel disc brakes, 2 tons and ~120kW... WTF.
My point exactly.All you coppers on here read the headline of my whinge STUPID V8 LAWS IN QLD,not 'stupid coppers in qld'.Aparently they were d's and not highway officers.Another point is if di's and rr classics were removed from the banned list,how many more of our kids could get a start in landrovers instead of tojos and datsuns ect:)

Redback

1st November 2013, 10:30 AM

I have an idea... it's a crazy one... and most of the people in Australia probably won't like it... as they're under educated morons who can't drive anyway... BUT instead of having stupid rules to protect stupid people, who Darwin should be taking care of anyway... if you know what I mean ;) why don't we teach people to actually ****ing drive?!?!?!?!

Will

Unfortunately that it's not that simple, most only here what they want too and once they have passed their test all knowledge of what was drummed into them seems to vanish once they get they get out there.

Trust me I know first hand from 10yrs as a driving instructer in both heavy articulated vehicles and cars/buses/forklifts and so on.

There's an old saying,

"you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"

MR LR

1st November 2013, 10:44 AM

Unfortunately that it's not that simple, most only here what they want too and once they have passed their test all knowledge of what was drummed into them seems to vanish once they get they get out there.

Trust me I know first hand from 10yrs as a driving instructer in both heavy articulated vehicles and cars/buses/forklifts and so on.

There's an old saying,

"you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"
No offense to you as a driving instructor Baz, but in my observations, both in an instructors car, and observing instructors with students at the RTA on my numerous trips there. I've observed that they only teach students how to pass the test, that is not teaching someone to drive, and the test really does not assess their ability to drive, it's the education that is the issue, and what they actually test, people with no actual driving ability (and I see this a lot around Hurstville...!) just do lesson after lesson until they know all the test routes and could drive them with their eyes closed. These people should not have licences, and they are the reason for low speed limits and all the other idiot protecting rules.

It could also be extended beyond those with no practical ability in their life (the clue less morons that can't work out how to park etc). And into the over confident tools that get their licence due to the ease of the test, with no real understanding of vehicle dynamics or how to drive, these are the idiots that these laws are for, the red P platers in lowered Commodores. My point is if these people were taught how to drive, not how to navigate a car slowly around the streets, and had some idea of what to do when things go wrong, we wouldn't have the issue in the first place.

Of course you may be different to the generalization I wrote above, but can you honestly say that 100% of your students that passed could have handled the vehicle in adverse conditions when something went wrong? This is the issue I see.

Cheers
Will

isuzutoo-eh

1st November 2013, 10:59 AM

I have an idea... it's a crazy one... and most of the people in Australia probably won't like it... as they're under educated morons who can't drive anyway... BUT instead of having stupid rules to protect stupid people, who Darwin should be taking care of anyway... if you know what I mean ;) why don't we teach people to actually ****ing drive?!?!?!?!

Will

Because you can't teach experience!

Just because you have paddock bashed or driven tractors for years doesn't mean you are a capable driver.
A P plate, Permit, allows you to drive with restrictions, because you aren't considered a fully fledged driver. You are permitted to keep learning with less restrictions than an L plater. Be happy you don't have Daddy in the seat next to you!

Heck i've been legally driving a decade longer than you have and other road users still give me new experiences...and I probably give them new experiences too ;)

P.S. The trouble with Darwin's law and motor vehicles, the one that Darwin takes out, all too often takes out one that Darwin didn't select.

Redback

1st November 2013, 11:10 AM

No offense to you as a driving instructor Baz, but in my observations, both in an instructors car, and observing instructors with students at the RTA on my numerous trips there. I've observed that they only teach students how to pass the test, that is not teaching someone to drive, and the test really does not assess their ability to drive, it's the education that is the issue, and what they actually test, people with no actual driving ability (and I see this a lot around Hurstville...!) just do lesson after lesson until they know all the test routes and could drive them with their eyes closed. These people should not have licences, and they are the reason for low speed limits and all the other idiot protecting rules.

It could also be extended beyond those with no practical ability in their life (the clue less morons that can't work out how to park etc). And into the over confident tools that get their licence due to the ease of the test, with no real understanding of vehicle dynamics or how to drive, these are the idiots that these laws are for, the red P platers in lowered Commodores. My point is if these people were taught how to drive, not how to navigate a car slowly around the streets, and had some idea of what to do when things go wrong, we wouldn't have the issue in the first place.

Of course you may be different to the generalization I wrote above, but can you honestly say that 100% of your students that passed could have handled the vehicle in adverse conditions when something went wrong? This is the issue I see.

Cheers
Will

You can't do much else I'm afraid, the rest is up to the new driver,

Refer to quote below;)

Because you can't teach experience!

Just because you have paddock bashed or driven tractors for years doesn't mean you are a capable driver.
A P plate, Permit, allows you to drive with restrictions, because you aren't considered a fully fledged driver. You are permitted to keep learning with less restrictions than an L plater. Be happy you don't have Daddy in the seat next to you!

Heck i've been legally driving a decade longer than you have and other road users still give me new experiences...and I probably give them new experiences too ;)

P.S. The trouble with Darwin's law and motor vehicles, the one that Darwin takes out, all too often takes out one that Darwin didn't select.

People think they can drive and don't want to hear that they can't, as far as they are concerned I'm just an annoying part of their rush to get out there and show us how good of a driver they are and knowone is going to tell them otherwise.

MR LR

1st November 2013, 11:44 AM

Because you can't teach experience!

Just because you have paddock bashed or driven tractors for years doesn't mean you are a capable driver.
A P plate, Permit, allows you to drive with restrictions, because you aren't considered a fully fledged driver. You are permitted to keep learning with less restrictions than an L plater. Be happy you don't have Daddy in the seat next to you!

Heck i've been legally driving a decade longer than you have and other road users still give me new experiences...and I probably give them new experiences too ;)

P.S. The trouble with Darwin's law and motor vehicles, the one that Darwin takes out, all too often takes out one that Darwin didn't select.
When was this about me?

I acknowledge I'm still learning, and always will be, I just know that for a green P plater I have a half reasonable idea of what's going on, primarily because I pay attention.

But I think everyone should learn to drive in a RWD paddock basher, and one without brakes! Nothing teaches you the fundamentals like that, and especially not the present system.

The driver education system is rubbish, that is my point, I'd be willing to bet more than half the people on the road wouldn't know what to do in a lock up or slide.

101RRS

1st November 2013, 11:47 AM

A P plate, Permit, allows you to drive with restrictions, because you aren't considered a fully fledged driver. You are permitted to keep learning with less restrictions than an L plater.

P plate licence is not a Permit to drive - P stands for Provisional licence.

beefy

1st November 2013, 12:03 PM

I think that a power to weight ratio and a limit on how many people are in the car are most important. do you really want a p plater with one day on the road driving a hi ace van with 12 people in it? no

I think the driving test should include some
more things. gravel, rain, towing and time in a truck to see how they handle.

in wa you have to do log booked hours and the problem people lie about how many they do and also the person doing the instructing let l platers drive along on the phone, speeding etc just creating more life long poor habits.

keith

isuzutoo-eh

1st November 2013, 12:08 PM

Sorry Will, it wasn't meant to be pointed solely at you, but at your (and others) arguments.

Garry, thanks for that, the meaning is much the same isn't it? A P plater can drive on the provision they abide by certain restrictions that a full license holder doesn't have to abide by?

Disco Muppet

1st November 2013, 12:40 PM

Too many people also seem to think that having a driving license is something other than a privilege.
Power to weight ratio would be a sensible way of doing it, as well as better education, mandatory defensive driving courses IMHO.
I have friends from lots of different walks of life, some who've spent a while driving for family businesses, farms, etc and ones who think that because they've been driving around like an idiot for a while and haven't died yet, they're a good driver.
Pick the ones I'd rather get in the car with? ;)

isuzurover

1st November 2013, 12:58 PM

I think that a power to weight ratio and a limit on how many people are in the car are most important. ...

It has already been proven in this thread that a power-weight ratio wouldn't work. If you set it low enough to be effective then all new cars would be excluded (except maybe the 130 puma :D ).

VladTepes

1st November 2013, 01:49 PM

isuzurover

1st November 2013, 02:44 PM

Power to Weight ratio is how the LAMS motorcycle scheme works - much better than the old "250cc" rule where lotsof young blokes went out and killed themselves on 2 stroke pocket rockets.....

Don't see why it wouldn't be a BETTER option than the simple "not above a 6 cylinder" stupid rule....

OK, here are some current and older models with power-weight ratios shown (in kW/kg). The first section is old and new ford models.
Where would you set the limit?

Car kW/kg
GTHO 0.19
XD/XE 4.1 0.08
XD/XE V8 0.11
FG 6cyl 0.12
Ecoboost 2.0 0.11

WRX 0.15
NA Impreza 0.1
Golf Diesel 0.1
Swift Sport 0.11

Either you set it at 0.12+ and only exclude a small number of VERY high performance vehicles, or set it lower and exclude most new vehicles.

Either way you would still keep all the old falcodore v8s in the list. I think it would be safer for young drivers to be driving a newer falcon than an XD 6cyl/v8.

isuzutoo-eh

1st November 2013, 02:52 PM

OK, here are some current and older models with power-weight ratios shown (in kW/kg). The first section is old and new ford models.
Where would you set the limit?

Car kW/kg
GTHO 0.19
XD/XE 4.1 0.08
XD/XE V8 0.11
FG 6cyl 0.12
Ecoboost 2.0 0.11

WRX 0.15
NA Impreza 0.1
Golf Diesel 0.1
Swift Sport 0.11

Either you set it at 0.12+ and only exclude a small number of VERY high performance vehicles, or set it lower and exclude most new vehicles.

Either way you would still keep all the old falcodore v8s in the list. I think it would be safer for young drivers to be driving a newer falcon than an XD 6cyl/v8.

The problem with that argument is, there is nothing to say you absolutely must have a modern car. There is a market for Lams approved bikes, why not a market for P plater approved cars?
Driving is still a privilege, not a right, right?

PeterM

1st November 2013, 03:46 PM

I remember it was 100kw/t when I was on P plates. That covered a lot of vehicles back then and given the advances in passive safety systems I see no problem with raising that measure. Use a benchmark vehicle and go from there.

It is all a moot point though as any vehicle will only go as fast as you apply the throttle. I'd prefer to have people in vehicles with decent brakes/suspension and safety design than a rattly ****box that they bought because it was all they could afford to buy/insure.

There is a pilot scheme going on in NSW where there is closed circuit training and road training being undertaken with learner and provisional drivers. The scheme is starting to show positive results and is quite similar to what I've been saying for years with respect to driver training.

As for traffic police, well they are often referred to a jury ****ers. This is due to the likelihood that someone on that jury has been pinged for a minor traffic infringement and was not a happy camper about it. I'm all for 'do the crime, do the time' but the application of common sense should prevail when it comes to the formulation and application of regulations.

Mick_Marsh

1st November 2013, 06:56 PM

Got to say that it is not only the government bureaucrats that have little understanding of the practicalities of the rules they make. I paid my car insurance today. The company I'm with for that car has an option for direct deposit at the NAB. I have had trouble in the past with my renewal being lost, so I thought I'd try that. I fronted up to the teller who noticed a business opportunity.

Teller: Buying car insurance?
Me: Renewing my policy.
Teller: You realise we sell car insurance. Do you want a quote?
Me: You wouldn't insure my car. It's modified.
Teller: We insure modified vehicles. You'd be surprised.
Me: It's so modified, it has an engineers report.
Teller: I'll ask the underwriter, what modifications?
As I talk, he types a message to the underwriter.
Me: Modified chassis, shortened wheelbase, shortened propshafts, coil suspension instead of leaf spring, disc brakes instead of drums, power steering, 3.9 litre 4 cyl diesel replaced with 3.5 litre v8 petrol motor.
Teller: We won't accept the motor change.
Me: What about insurance for my daily drive?
Teller: Is it modified?
Me: No, Its a stock standard 1994 VR Calais with the 185kw V8 HSV option and heavy tow kit.
Teller: We don't insure performance vehicles.
Me: What about a 2012 Falcon F6?
Still tapping away, messaging to the underwriter,
Teller: Is that a V8?
Me: No. It's a six.
Teller: Yes. We'll insure that.
Me: Pity I haven't got one.

Oh, for those that don't know (including NAB insurance salespeople), the F6 is a 310kW car.

I see silly people everywhere.

rangietragic

1st November 2013, 08:03 PM

Good one Mick,reminds me of the story i read in a LRO mag about a guy trying to insure his defender.
insurer.Is the vehicle modified?
yes,it has a snorkle
ins.what is that for?
So it can go through deep water
ins.So you are going to take it off road then?
Um,yes
ins.Well we cant insure you if you take it off road:p:p

Eevo

2nd November 2013, 10:37 AM

P plate licence is not a Permit to drive - P stands for Provisional licence.

P stands for police.

So they know who to pull over

Eevo

2nd November 2013, 10:40 AM

If people don't break the rules they have nothing to fear from the highway patrol.
.

Experience has taught me that is a load of crap.

Eevo

2nd November 2013, 10:44 AM

Too many people also seem to think that having a driving license is something other than a privilege.

It's not a privilege. I pay for the right to drive by paying taxes, licence, lessons, rego and my for car.

BigJon

2nd November 2013, 10:55 AM

If people don't break the rules they have nothing to fear from the highway patrol.

You would think so, but a looming court date set for me to defend myself after being wrongly accused and fined for failing to stop at a stop sign would prove otherwise.

sheerluck

2nd November 2013, 10:59 AM

It's not a privilege. I pay for the right to drive by paying taxes, licence, lessons, rego and my for car.

Wrong. What you consider a right can be withdrawn under the laws of this country. Therefore it is only a privilege. "Rights" cannot be withdrawn.

Mick_Marsh

2nd November 2013, 11:14 AM

You would think so, but a looming court date set for me to defend myself after being wrongly accused and fined for failing to stop at a stop sign would prove otherwise.
Keep us posted on that one. It would be interesting to see how you go.

I'm surprised you have to stop at stop signs in SA, after all, if the way the locals drive is anything to go by, you are allowed to pass on double lines over there.

Eevo

2nd November 2013, 11:45 AM

Wrong. What consider a right can be withdrawn under the laws of this country. Therefore it is only a privilege. "Rights" cannot be withdrawn.

But a privilege is not paid for.
If its a privilege to drive, why am I paying for it.

Dougal

2nd November 2013, 12:00 PM

If people don't break the rules they have nothing to fear from the highway patrol.

In New Zealand this is not at all true. I'd expect the same for most countries. Put simply you are at the mercy of the officers and if they want to prosecute you, it is your word against theirs.

I have been pulled over and slapped with an extremely vague speeding offence (we caught you doing 114km/h several km back up the road). On a trip where I hadn't broken 100km/h once.

I fought it and the charge was only dropped when I turned up to court.
Research found this is quite a common occurance. Afterall, there are no time, date or location stamps on the Stalker DSR radars that are used for speed measurement across much of the world. A corrupt officer can obtain one reading and use it all day.
Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, it could be a bad reading from interference or improper use, it is still extremely difficult to get off any speeding charge.

I now drive with a GPS in every vehicle. So I can provide evidence if it ever happens again.

UncleHo

2nd November 2013, 03:18 PM

Yup! the Garmin goes on before I back out the gate :) as I am used to seeing the unmarked cars with a camera in them and the little sign in front facing the scrub stating "Speed Camera in Use" but then I am in Qld,unlike NSW where it has to be clearly signed.

sheerluck

2nd November 2013, 03:41 PM

But a privilege is not paid for.
If its a privilege to drive, why am I paying for it.

Are you really asking that question?

You have to pay to access pretty much every privilege known to man. If you want to access a theme park, you have to pay. You have no right to be there as it is not your land.
If you want to fly to Sydney, you have to pay, and if you don't meet the airline's rules and regulations, they can kick you off.
If you want to drive on the roads, they have to be maintained, and you have to pay a fee in the form of registration.
If you want to show that you know how to mix with other road users, you have to pay to maintain that proof in the form of a driving license.

Definition:
1. a benefit, immunity, etc, granted under certain conditions

Homestar

2nd November 2013, 04:47 PM

But a privilege is not paid for.

Since when?

sheerluck

2nd November 2013, 05:03 PM

Since when?

Privileges are free in the land of pixies and fairies. They should be here as well.

Saitch

2nd November 2013, 06:03 PM

An absolute privilege to follow this thread however tangential it becomes :D

vnx205

2nd November 2013, 06:34 PM

An absolute privilege to follow this thread however tangential it becomes :D

Even better, it is one example of a privilege you didn't have to pay for. :p:p

sheerluck

2nd November 2013, 07:08 PM

An absolute privilege to follow this thread however tangential it becomes :D

Tangential is what we do well. Eventually this thread will get back to P plate drivers and the vehicles they are permitted to drive, having touched on the subject of local government, bureaucracy, conspiracy theories, man on the moon, television programs, war in the Middle East, Toyotas.

Not necessarily in that order though

Eevo

2nd November 2013, 07:15 PM

Since when?

isnt that the definition of privilege?

if you pay for it, its just a business transaction.

vnx205

2nd November 2013, 07:24 PM

Tangential is what we do well. Eventually this thread will get back to P plate drivers and the vehicles they are permitted to drive, having touched on the subject of local government, bureaucracy, conspiracy theories, man on the moon, television programs, war in the Middle East, Toyotas.

Not necessarily in that order though

That is true as long as no-one mentions the dreaded "H" word or the "N" word so that Godwin's Law is applied. :p

For the benefit of those who don't know about Godwin's Law.
Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

Redback

2nd November 2013, 07:45 PM

isnt that the definition of privilege?

if you pay for it, its just a business transaction.

True, but it's a business transaction that gives you a privilege:p

Eevo

2nd November 2013, 08:09 PM

True, but it's a business transaction that gives you a privilege:p

i have a lot of privileges then.

anyway, how did we get here.

list of a few rules i think shouldn't exist, dont exist or should be policed more often

120 hours to get drivers licence. its easier to get a pilots licence.
having said that, lack of proper training. no classes/theory.
lack of testing every 2 years for current drives. both theory and practical.
our slow speed limits and the policing of them
our rego and licensing system. pay for multiple cars but can't only drive one at a time, put the CTP on the licence and not the car.
lack of mandatory insurance.
keep left unless overtaking never enforced.
0.05 alcohol limit. should be 0.00

im sure there are more, but im tired and not thinking straight.

101RRS

2nd November 2013, 08:40 PM

Crikey this thread has got boring over the last 10 posts or so - right, privilege - who gives a toss.

bob10

2nd November 2013, 09:58 PM

Crikey this thread has got boring over the last 10 posts or so - right, privilege - who gives a toss.

You're right mate, I agree, besides, anyone driving a V8 over any LR diesel has a right to be underprivileged. Poor sods. :( Bob

bobslandies

2nd November 2013, 10:32 PM

i have a lot of privileges then.

anyway, how did we get here.

list of a few rules i think shouldn't exist, dont exist or should be policed more often

120 hours to get drivers licence. its easier to get a pilots licence.
having said that, lack of proper training. no classes/theory.
lack of testing every 2 years for current drives. both theory and practical.
our slow speed limits and the policing of them
our rego and licensing system. pay for multiple cars but can't only drive one at a time, put the CTP on the licence and not the car.
lack of mandatory insurance.
keep left unless overtaking never enforced.
0.05 alcohol limit. should be 0.00

im sure there are more, but im tired and not thinking straight.

Some good comments Eevo.

What about a law mandating Government Departments being required to inform licence holders of all types of new legislation and more particularly regulation "modification" and changes within fourteen days of them being published in the Government Gazette rather than the onus be placed with the licence holders to absorb them from the air. A direct letter would have to be cheap but they cry it would cost too much yet pay for massive newspaper, television, etc advertising :no2:(of course your mates wouldn't get big bucks)

Bob

Eevo

2nd November 2013, 10:58 PM

Some good comments Eevo.

What about a law mandating Government Departments being required to inform licence holders of all types of new legislation and more particularly regulation "modification" and changes within fourteen days of them being published in the Government Gazette rather than the onus be placed with the licence holders to absorb them from the air. A direct letter would have to be cheap but they cry it would cost too much yet pay for massive newspaper, television, etc advertising :no2:(of course your mates wouldn't get big bucks)

Bob
thats a good point. i dont buy the newspaper, or listen to radio. how do they expect me to be informed of the latest laws? call the police non emergency number every day to check?

MBZ460

3rd November 2013, 08:55 AM

justinc

3rd November 2013, 09:34 AM

^^^ thats just the issue too, most drivers are ignorant and rude and rarely even CARE about courtesy and road rules.

JC

Ralph1Malph

3rd November 2013, 10:25 AM

list of a few rules i think shouldn't exist, dont exist or should be policed more often

120 hours to get drivers licence. its easier to get a pilots licence. Good one, I never thought of it that way!
having said that, lack of proper training. no classes/theory. agreed
lack of testing every 2 years for current drives. both theory and practical. mmmm, at who's cost? good in theory. That being said, there are few skills that are re-tested regularly, certainly not doctors, nurses, chefs, engineers or indeed vehicle inspectors!
our slow speed limits and the policing of them A1! faster speed limits means less time on road, more traffic throughput and actually rewards car makers and good drivers for their products!
our rego and licensing system. pay for multiple cars but can't only drive one at a time, put the CTP on the licence and not the car. Agreed, but why not same with rego? Have mandatory 'road worthy certs', but pay for the rego plate/sticker.
lack of mandatory insurance.:mad: only fools don't have insurance.
keep left unless overtaking never enforced. :eek:
0.05 alcohol limit. should be 0.00. Not at all. 0.0499 is legal, unimpaired. 0.05 is illegal coz you are drunk! Let's keep it like that. I am sure fatigue, ipods, gen y vagueness and justin bieber cause thier fair share of road incidents and we don't regulate them, although I wouln't complain about a driving ban on beiber!

im sure there are more, but im tired and not thinking straight.

I'd like to add a couple more.

Impeding and deliberately slowing traffic by travelling 55 in a 60 zone.:mad:
Lack of a law that makes it illegal not to pull over/off and allow cars to pass you if there are five or more in a queue behind you.
Make it illegal to stop in a shopping centre car park and hold up everyone behind you because you want to wait until granny has loaded her car and returned her trolley. In short, if there is no vacant park to wheel straight into, don't stop.:mad:

Actually that last one gives me much merriment. I am the guy who waves at you when you pull up patiently waiting for me to unload and return trolley, knowing you have brought the whole carpark into gridlock. I wave again, return my trolley and walk back into the shopping centre. When really peeved, I have actually approached drivers asking why they have stopped when there are no parks? Many get very embarrassed. Fun for the whole family.:twisted::twisted:

Ralph

bobslandies

3rd November 2013, 12:02 PM

The govt should legislate that all TV stations should make a few minutes an hour available for public notices, tax payer free, and in peak viewing times. Plenty of other countries do it.
Make it part of a channel's broadcast license.

Would love to see more notices about littering, using your indicators, stopping at stop signs, vehicle mods, tread lightly and many, many other things that people seem to be ignorant of, or just forget.

Great idea - but also require these be prior to and following news broadcasts and "current affairs" programs and on "social media" like facebook , twitter, etc. as "social information".

Bob

UncleHo

3rd November 2013, 12:15 PM

:BigThumb:

scarry

3rd November 2013, 12:34 PM

I'd like to add a couple more.

Impeding and deliberately slowing traffic by travelling 55 in a 60 zone.:mad:
Lack of a law that makes it illegal not to pull over/off and allow cars to pass you if there are five or more in a queue behind you.
Make it illegal to stop in a shopping centre car park and hold up everyone behind you because you want to wait until granny has loaded her car and returned her trolley. In short, if there is no vacant park to wheel straight into, don't stop.:mad:

Actually that last one gives me much merriment. I am the guy who waves at you when you pull up patiently waiting for me to unload and return trolley, knowing you have brought the whole carpark into gridlock. I wave again, return my trolley and walk back into the shopping centre. When really peeved, I have actually approached drivers asking why they have stopped when there are no parks? Many get very embarrassed. Fun for the whole family.:twisted::twisted:

Ralph

Wouldn't work until first you would have to teach them what mirrors are for and secondly how and when to use them!.:p

What peeves me off are the pram spots that have appeared all over the place:mad:

Half the people that use them don't have prams anyway,and a short walk for someone pushing a pram was never an issue,in fact is probably helpful to ones fitness.

BigJon

3rd November 2013, 12:41 PM

What peeves me off are the pram spots that have appeared all over the place:mad:

.

How many kids do you regularly take to the shops?

Eevo

3rd November 2013, 12:54 PM

I park in pram spots. Most are not legally enforceable.

UncleHo

3rd November 2013, 01:01 PM

Well one day you may get a surprise,be it a nail under a tyre or chopped off valve stems, and yes, I have seen it done to a particular offender who consistently parked in disabled parking areas, so somebody "Disabled" his car all 4 wheels :D it drew quite a crowd as he waited for a tilt tray recovery truck.

Treads

3rd November 2013, 01:03 PM

I park in pram spots. Most are not legally enforceable.

Surprise, surprise.... :no2:

Eevo

3rd November 2013, 01:28 PM

I'm talking about pram spots. Not disabled spots.

Disables spots are legally enforceable.
In SA pram spots are only legally enforceable at Elizabeth.

vnx205

3rd November 2013, 02:25 PM

What peeves me off are the pram spots that have appeared all over the place:mad:

Half the people that use them don't have prams anyway,and a short walk for someone pushing a pram was never an issue,in fact is probably helpful to ones fitness.

When was the last time you lifted an infant out of a child restraint in a car park?

It is a lot easier in the pram spots I have seen because they are wider than normal so that you can open the door fully to deal with the infant.

It is the width of the pram spot rather than the distance from the shops that my daughter appreciates when she goes shopping with a three year old and an 18 month old.

In fact she will regularly park further away if she can pull into a spot that gives her a vacant space beside her the get the children out. Of course that space isn't always there when it comes time to get them back in.

Sometime people who don't have to deal with the problem themselves can't see how much benefit some small modification can make and sometimes they are unaware of the important modification.

sheerluck

3rd November 2013, 04:07 PM

......Sometime people who don't have to deal with the problem themselves can't see how much benefit some small modification can make and sometimes they are unaware of the important modification.

Or they are too arrogant to care.

Eevo

3rd November 2013, 05:00 PM

You should have thought about it before you had kids.

I'm sick of parents with kids who think the world owes them. You are not special.

bee utey

3rd November 2013, 05:08 PM

Surprise, surprise.... :no2:
Betcha he does ripper dummy spits, too.:p

Dougal

3rd November 2013, 05:51 PM

You should have thought about it before you had kids.

I'm sick of parents with kids who think the world owes them. You are not special.

Ever said that to your parents? :D

justinc

3rd November 2013, 05:55 PM

Just on the pram spot comments, I see it another way; EVERYTIME somebody gets the side of their car slammed by struggling parents with babies and inattentive kids throwing their door open into your car, it causes unnecessary costs for insurance companies, and agro/ inconvenience for car owners. If you doubt where I am coming from in the last 8 weeks our car has had almost 4k worth of repairs quoted to fix through 2 different incidents caused by inattentive people in car parks, 1 with door slamming (And I mean SLAMMING:()and one reversing/ scraping along our vehicle.

I tend now to park that particular vehicle, (not my old 110 of course), in pram spots as I am sick to death of the 'who cares it's not my car ' attitude of people. Obviously if there is a busy thursday night or saturday and the carpark is buzzing then I'll park further away and walk it. I only take those spots on quiet days when there are others vacant.

Don't get me started on disabled spots being used inappropriately:mad::mad::nazilock:

JC

Eevo

3rd November 2013, 06:06 PM

Ever said that to your parents? :D

na, they got in first and told me. :( :p

scarry

3rd November 2013, 10:27 PM

How many kids do you regularly take to the shops?

Not any more,they have grown up.
In those days went very regularly and had no problems at all with normal parking spaces and a little walk......bla bla

Oh,and big cars such as HZ holdens.....

Anyway,seeing they are not regulated might even use them myself,particularly when doing jobs at shopping centres,carting heavy gear around,and all the loading zones are full of CARS that shouldn't be in them.

JC,i feel your pain.Someone put a big racing stripe down the side of my van with thier bumper recently, and bolted. It will be around2K to fix:mad:

justinc

3rd November 2013, 11:04 PM

Not any more,they have grown up.
In those days went very regularly and had no problems at all with normal parking spaces and a little walk......bla bla

Oh,and big cars such as HZ holdens.....

Anyway,seeing they are not regulated might even use them myself,particularly when doing jobs at shopping centres,carting heavy gear around,and all the loading zones are full of CARS that shouldn't be in them.

JC,i feel your pain.Someone put a big racing stripe down the side of my van with thier bumper recently, and bolted. It will be around2K to fix:mad:

:(, the two words that make our quotes so huge are 'Lexus' and 'Paint'.:(

their insurance companies are paying but it is all avoidable with just a little care and attention.

We are trying to sell this car, and it is so frustrating to have it off the road for a week and hire a car etc as it is used every day.

In the last 12 months, it has seen the panel shop 4 times for small damage and a new rear bumper, (ALL from carparks! none our fault :mad:), they do a fantastic job but I so wish it didn't have to happen:mad::mad::mad:

JC

DoubleChevron

4th November 2013, 03:32 PM

I park in pram spots. Most are not legally enforceable.

Back to this old chestnut :wasntme: Pram spots are a brilliant idea ... It's nothing to do with "closeness" to the door, or any of that crap that in particular DINKS go on about .... Feel free to park in them.... Next time you get nice big dents in you car from doors being opened too wide, don't whinge though.

The idea of pram parks is they are wider .......... So you can fully open your doors without crashing them into the car beside you.... Which you NEED to do to get the kid out of the kids seat.

I never park in the pram parks unless I have a child in a car seat in the back. force the middle aged women in **** tanks (every chubby middle aged women with a baby needs a 3ton 4wd after all) to park in non-pram spots, and they'll just slam there doors into your car trying to get there kids out.

It really is simple common sense.

seeya,
Shane L.

Eevo

4th November 2013, 03:48 PM

So you can fully open your doors without crashing them into the car beside you.... Which you NEED to do to get the kid out of the kids seat.

how on earth did we do without prom parks for the last 50 years or so?

the pram parks at my local shopping centre are no wider than normal car parks, just right next to the door

DoubleChevron

4th November 2013, 03:56 PM

how on earth did we do without prom parks for the last 50 years or so?

the pram parks at my local shopping centre are no wider than normal car parks, just right next to the door

Yeah right .... Ok, I'll take my car down to the local carpark and park next too a commonbore and a camry (forget even 4wds) and lets see if you can even open the doors let alone get to the baby seat in the middle.

Carparks are bloody tiny, miniscule these days. Just try and even fit a decent car into say a big w carpark and see how you go.

Try this on for size .... ALL CAR PARKS would have been at least the size of pram parks 15years ago. These days you struggle to fit a hi-undi excel into them.

When I park not even a 4wd ... an old citroen ds in the car parks at big w.... It hangs out by a considerable margin at the back ('cos the parks are long enough), and if I park next to a commadore sized car I almost need to climb out the windows to get out, 'cos you can't open the doors. If it's a **** tank beside me, you'll be trapped in the car by the side steps (which are all important for **** tanks that never leave the sealed road ... it helps the chubby owners climb in ... ).

seeya,
Shane L.

copba

4th November 2013, 05:43 PM

Carparks are bloody tiny, miniscule these days. Just try and even fit a decent car into say a big w carpark and see how you go.

.

The size of car parks is an Australian Standard, which hasn't been updated since the mid 90's, the size can vary depending on use. eg all day office type parking spaces can be smaller than high turnover shopping centre ones etc. :twisted:

The problem is two fold as cars are a lot bigger now than before, compare a new Corolla, or Camry to the same model ten years ago, and secondly the cars people are driving has changed, now everybody 'needs' a great big "**** Tank" to drive around the city in.

I don't know how developers get away with the size and number of car spaces provided in all shopping centres, residential developments etc.

I seldom go near shopping centre car parks, I park on side roads and walk, if I do go in its only when they're quiet and I don't park anywhere near the entrance. I avoid damage, and its quicker :)

laney

4th November 2013, 05:54 PM

Stupid law a young lad at work red p plates drives a toyota supra v6 twin turbo runs rings around any v8 I know off.

Dougal

4th November 2013, 05:55 PM

Stupid law a young lad at work red p plates drives a toyota supra v6 twin turbo runs rings around any v8 I know off.

Is it legal?

s7000

4th November 2013, 06:22 PM

If you want an exemption... Get an ABN.

If your business can support a P plater, you're sorted...

It's the easiest, and cheapest way around the V8 rule.

ramblingboy42

4th November 2013, 06:29 PM

my son has just purchased a new VW with turbocharger and supercharger. He applied for p plate exemption and the boost thing is assessed on a power/weight scale which he has been approved for. The same goes for a V8.....there are laws which allow for p plate drivers to drive both V8's and turbo/supercharged cars on their individual merit. Obey the rules.....no penalties. Yes, the police will pull you over but if you have the proper exemption it's all ok.....it's their job to check.

rangietragic

4th November 2013, 07:25 PM

Off down the gold coast tomorrow to pick up a 300tdi.Anyone want to buy a v8?

Eevo

4th November 2013, 09:15 PM

Is it legal?

In SA, turbo or v8 = no p plater

so a turbo supra is a no no

a v8 or td5 disco is a no no

(unless the car was purchased before the law came in)

isuzurover

4th November 2013, 09:29 PM

...

a ... td5 disco is a no no

...

Sorry you are incorrect. A turbo diesel <8 cyl is OK.

High-powered vehicles

A high powered vehicle is a light vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Mass of less than 4500 kgs that has:

8 or more cylinders
a turbocharged or supercharged engine (except diesel powered vehicles with less than 8 cylinders)
been modified to increase engine performance (see vehicle modifications section below)

- See more at: My Licence - Safe driving tips - High powered vehicles (http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/safe-driving-tips/high-powered-vehicles#sthash.qsXp5KMw.dpuf)

Eevo

4th November 2013, 10:12 PM

Sorry you are incorrect. A turbo diesel <8 cyl is OK.

tell that to the cop who took away my sisters licence driving my parents 2L diesel turbo while she was on her p's.

BigJon

4th November 2013, 10:22 PM

Good thing it is a while before my kids are at driving age. My currently running and registered vehicles consist of a petrol V8 and a diesel twin turbo V8. The only car I have looking in the future to add to the list is also a petrol V8.

Sprint

4th November 2013, 10:32 PM

entertainingly, apparently in Queensland if its not a restricted/banned car, engine mods are fine as long as you dont need a engineers report or a modification plate....

funny how one of the local mechanics apprentices has an LX torana with a triple weber'd 202 that has embarassed a few people...

JDNSW

5th November 2013, 06:56 AM

....
When I park not even a 4wd ... an old citroen ds in the car parks at big w.... It hangs out by a considerable margin at the back ('cos the parks are long enough), and if I park next to a commadore sized car I almost need to climb out the windows to get out, 'cos you can't open the doors. If it's a **** tank beside me, you'll be trapped in the car by the side steps (which are all important for **** tanks that never leave the sealed road ... it helps the chubby owners climb in ... ).

seeya,
Shane L.

What you fail; to mention is that the DS had a longer wheelbase than a 130! And as for overall length - when I moved to Melbourne in 1971 I had trouble finding a rental place with a garage long enough for the DS!

But the width is not great compared to most cars, but the doors are wide by modern standards.

John

DoubleChevron

5th November 2013, 09:58 AM

What you fail; to mention is that the DS had a longer wheelbase than a 130! And as for overall length - when I moved to Melbourne in 1971 I had trouble finding a rental place with a garage long enough for the DS!

But the width is not great compared to most cars, but the doors are wide by modern standards.

John

They have a longer wheelbase than a Chev Impala of there era .... One of the (many) reasons they look so weird is they had a wheel in each corner... As opposed the the crazy "rear wheels in the middle of the car" look of the US cars. (over the last decade most cars have gone the "wheel in each corner" layout, so it doesn't look so strange any more). I think the wheelbase is about 142" ... but there still only 5meters long. There not real wide at the front though, and very skinny at the back.

I pulled the roof off the the old "D" I'm driving a couple of nights ago just for the hell of it ..... I was asked numerous times "what are you going to do if it rains ??" ... Everyone that knows me just shrugs ... they already think I'm nuts :angel: :cool:

seeya,
Shane L.

MR LR

5th November 2013, 01:26 PM

In NSW atleast, all diesels are (or maybe 'were' once we get our power to weight rules) exempt from the whole prohibited vehicles scheme, so no problem with a red P plater piloting his parents 2.7 ton, twin turbo, V8 diesel RRS down the street...

Lotz-A-Landies

5th November 2013, 06:34 PM

A P plater would not even be legal in a 1932 221CID Ford flat-head V8 even though they only produce 65HP (48kW).

MR LR

5th November 2013, 09:26 PM

A P plater would not even be legal in a 1932 221CID Ford flat-head V8 even though they only produce 65HP (48kW).
You can't drive them as they don't have seat belts anyway... not that it's ever stopped me... :wasntme:

Lotz-A-Landies

5th November 2013, 09:36 PM

You can't drive them as they don't have seat belts anyway... not that it's ever stopped me... :wasntme:Not always, belts have often been retrofitted, but still not legal for P platers because of the high power of 48kW. :o

MR LR

6th November 2013, 01:07 AM

Not always, belts have often been retrofitted, but still not legal for P platers because of the high power of 48kW. :o
True point, the ruling is stupid; nothing teaches you, like having no option but to learn!

Technically I shouldn't be driving any of our old cars due to the no seat belts ruling, there might even be something about having brake lights and indicators, I'm really not sure, I've spoken to plenty of police, at Motorfest etc. as I've been driving it, they had no issue.

digger

6th November 2013, 01:36 AM

SA rules (just for interests sake)

My Licence - My car licence - P1 provisional licence (http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/my-car-licence/p1-provisional-licence)

list of exempted high powered vehicles as listed for SA lic conditions.

http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/98795/High_Powered_Vehicle_list_2013.pdf

My Licence - Safe driving tips - High powered vehicles (http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/safe-driving-tips/high-powered-vehicles)

Schedule 2—Vehicles excluded from the definition of high powered vehicle <<<snip>>>
Land Rover Freelander 2 2012
LF MY13 Si4 SE Wagon 4dr Spts Auto 6sp 4x4 730kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2011
L538 MY12 Si4 Dynamic Coupe 3dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2012
L538 MY12 Si4 Dynamic Coupe 3dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2011
L538 MY12 Si4 Dynamic Wagon 5dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2012
L538 MY12 Si4 Dynamic Wagon 5dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2011
L538 MY12 Si4 Prestige Coupe 3dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2012
L538 MY12 Si4 Prestige Coupe 3dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2011
L538 MY12 Si4 Prestige Wagon 5dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2012
L538 MY12 Si4 Prestige Wagon 5dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2011
L538 MY12 Si4 Pure Coupe 3dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2012
L538 MY12 Si4 Pure Coupe 3dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2011
L538 MY12 Si4 Pure Wagon 5dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2012
L538 MY12 Si4 Pure Wagon 5dr CommandShift 6sp 4x4 605kg 2.0T
1999

<<<snip>>>

High-powered vehicles
A high powered vehicle is a light vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Mass of less than 4500 kgs that has:
8 or more cylinders
a turbocharged or supercharged engine (except diesel powered vehicles with less than 8 cylinders)
been modified to increase engine performance (see vehicle modifications section below)
been nominated high performance vehicles - refer to the list of Included Vehicles in the High-powered vehicles notice below.
Excluded vehicles - vehicles listed under the list of Vehicles Excluded in the High-powered vehicles notice below have turbo charged or supercharged engines for fuel efficiency improvements and therefore are not classifiied as high performance vehicles. High-powered vehicles notice (PDF 65Kb) (updated May 2013) - See more at: My Licence - Safe driving tips - High powered vehicles (http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/safe-driving-tips/high-powered-vehicles#sthash.AKKyMnMb.dpuf)

rangietragic

6th November 2013, 08:12 PM

Down the gold coast yesterday picking up a 94 300tdi unreg for $2005.Good buy.At hungry jacks and here is a black hilux,i think,looked modified with a chrome v8 badge and guess what was directly above the badge?Yep a red p plate!Dont actually know if it was one though.

MR LR

6th November 2013, 09:44 PM

Disco Muppet

6th November 2013, 09:59 PM

A V8 in a hilux, now THAT'S a waste of money.

PeterM

7th November 2013, 09:25 AM

A V8 in a hilux, now THAT'S a waste of a V8.

Fixed.

Disco Muppet

7th November 2013, 04:20 PM

Fixed.

I think it's a waste of everything to be honest :D

VladTepes

8th November 2013, 03:49 PM

It's good to know the kids can learn to drive in an Evoque ! (rolls eyes).

Means either:
1. Mummy and Daddy have too much money and bought one for Junior. OR
2. Mummy and Daddy are silly enough to have a driver with no experience drive their $$$ car !

rangietragic

9th November 2013, 08:36 AM

Sure it wasn't a chrome V6 badge? That's what they have on them if it was.
Son with younger eyes says v8

UncleHo

9th November 2013, 10:02 AM

Mummy & Daddy probably have him as their nominated driver after they have had a few to many drinkies!!!

trog

9th November 2013, 10:30 AM

As there are already L and P plates for our new drivers, how about something for the supposedly mature , expereinced road users ? The number of low fliers in their hero V8 holdens racing up the street this am has been spectacular. Then there has been the wanna be racers in the hotted up older cars doing laps of the area at top speed. Maybe for them a a nice M plate to denote moron or more money than sense.

C00P

9th November 2013, 11:23 AM

The rules are intended to curb the exuberance of young drivers. Their brains are known to be mush from onset of puberty until about 25. They have very good reaction times, very precise visual motor skills, and all the judgement of an earthworm. The insurance companies know this and that's why they charge about half the gross national product of a small country for insurance if you are under 25. Especially if said driver intends to drive anything more powerful than a pedal car.
The P-Plates are there to warn other drivers to leave the area of they see one coming, and as a signal to traffic police to beat them down with a large stick in a (vain) attempt to reduce said exuberance.
Natural selection (the Darwin effect) is producing changes. Puberty is commencing earlier and earlier with each generation. With luck it'll eventually come in so early it'll all be over before they are allowed to drive.
Mind you, this will have implications for the supply of condoms in kindergarten......

Coop

Sprint

9th November 2013, 07:42 PM

The young torana owning apprentice I mentioned earlier now has an exemption to allow him to drive V8's..... God alone knows why but it only applied between 6am and 6pm, so at night he has to drive the torana, which has a LOT more power than the WB statesman (308) and ute (253) that sit beside it in the family garage....

Bigbjorn

12th December 2013, 10:39 PM

Yeah right .... Ok, I'll take my car down to the local carpark and park next too a commonbore and a camry (forget even 4wds) and lets see if you can even open the doors let alone get to the baby seat in the middle.

Carparks are bloody tiny, miniscule these days. Just try and even fit a decent car into say a big w carpark and see how you go.

Try this on for size .... ALL CAR PARKS would have been at least the size of pram parks 15years ago. These days you struggle to fit a hi-undi excel into them.

When I park not even a 4wd ... an old citroen ds in the car parks at big w.... It hangs out by a considerable margin at the back ('cos the parks are long enough), and if I park next to a commadore sized car I almost need to climb out the windows to get out, 'cos you can't open the doors. If it's a **** tank beside me, you'll be trapped in the car by the side steps (which are all important for **** tanks that never leave the sealed road ... it helps the chubby owners climb in ... ).

seeya,
Shane L.

A mate has a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado. The last of the big cruisers. This year he took it off Special Interest reg. and put it on full reg as he is 73 and wants to get some use out of it before he bundies off or gets too old and silly to drive. He was only doing about 2000 miles a year going to authorised events. Anyhow, he goes to the shopping centre and has no compunction about parking fair across two parking spaces. The car doesn't fit in one!. He says he gets some dirty looks, mainly from young women in 4WD private school taxis.

LandyAndy

12th December 2013, 10:53 PM

A mate has a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado. The last of the big cruisers. This year he took it off Special Interest reg. and put it on full reg as he is 73 and wants to get some use out of it before he bundies off or gets too old and silly to drive. He was only doing about 2000 miles a year going to authorised events. Anyhow, he goes to the shopping centre and has no compunction about parking fair across two parking spaces. The car doesn't fit in one!. He says he gets some dirty looks, mainly from young women in 4WD private school taxis.

Tell him at that age he should be steering a gopher cart:p:p:p:p:p:p
Andrew

ozscott

9th May 2014, 06:21 AM

Homestar

9th May 2014, 06:54 AM

Why were Land Cruisers (including v8 petrol) exempt...popular school mum and farm vehicle?? Rubbish legislation.

Provisional licence restrictions | Transport and motoring | Queensland Government (http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/licensing/driver-licensing/applying/provisional/restrictions/index.html)

I think it is funny - the Land Cruiser has been lumped in a pile with Smart cars, Daihatsus and a Suzuki Cappucino...:D

That's more of a slap in the face for Toyota than anything else IMO...

Anyway, can't you apply for an exemption for an RRC or V8 Disco? Power to weight is waaaay down. I would have thought you could apply under the 'Moderately powered vehicle' grounds?

davidsonsm

9th May 2014, 07:10 AM

You know there are countries out there where the insurance companies dictate what young people can and can't drive. Not saying thats a better system as that hurts your wallet.

Exhorbitant premiums for young drivers (particularly male) make driving anything over a 1.3 litre prohibitive. It never ceases to amaze me some of the cars out there with P plates on them. An Austin Allegro (estate - my mums) was all I had once I had my licence.

I still managed to prang it a few times as well through the exhuberance of my youthful brain.

ozscott

9th May 2014, 04:28 PM

I think it is funny - the Land Cruiser has been lumped in a pile with Smart cars, Daihatsus and a Suzuki Cappucino...:D

That's more of a slap in the face for Toyota than anything else IMO...

Anyway, can't you apply for an exemption for an RRC or V8 Disco? Power to weight is waaaay down. I would have thought you could apply under the 'Moderately powered vehicle' grounds?

Yep mate. I have the form ready for my eldest ...v8 95 disco.

Cheers

AndyG

9th May 2014, 06:12 PM

A V10 Tourang should keep the P plater legal?

V8Ian

9th May 2014, 07:15 PM

Make 'em all operate bromfiets for the first year.

Pedro_The_Swift

10th May 2014, 07:15 AM

Make 'em all operate bromfiets for the first year.
cool--
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/05/958.jpg

UncleHo

10th May 2014, 09:24 AM

Hey! that kinda looks like a Kriedler :)

MR LR

10th May 2014, 11:50 AM

When I got my exemption I rang up and spoke with the guy who basically makes the decisions in NSW, he told me even though my Rangie is low powered and heavy, it still doesn't fit in the NSW moderate power guidelines, as they only cover forced induction, so we decided the best thing for me to do was move my licence to the farm and go through as a country driver (save a **** load at rego time too!).

So I can't see you having any luck with the moderate power ruling.

Cheers
Will

superquag

10th May 2014, 12:04 PM

ramblingboy42

10th May 2014, 12:38 PM

so, if we take a look at the car crash at Nerang last night.....then think about the laws.

Homestar

10th May 2014, 12:54 PM

so, if we take a look at the car crash at Nerang last night.....then think about the laws.

Yes, I get that, but I think the conversation here is about why low powered V8's get caught up in these rules in big heavy vehicles when they can go out and legally drive something much more powerful in a much lighter vehicle.

Does anyone here truly believe that an old V8 Rangie or Disco is overpowered?

The crash you're talking about had older driver and passenger than what we are discussing here - 26 and 27, and speed seems to be the contributing factor. nerang-crash-claims-two-lives/ (http://www.mygc.com.au/news/nerang-crash-claims-two-lives/)

You don't need a powerful vehicle to get up to a speed which is going to cause you damage. An old Rangie or Disco is the very opposite IMO.

Greatsouthernland

10th May 2014, 02:05 PM

there is definitely a (budget?) driven blitz under way...

I may be cynical :o OK I am cynical, in the last few weeks leading up to the budget, federal police have been really busy busting drug labs and of course getting the media to sensationalise it, ice use at highest levels etc.

Amazing how we haven't heard of this scourge for a while, but in the last month or so .... It's out of control! (According to the Feds)

Bigger police budget / don't cut the police budget...something along those lines.

Tin foil hat firmly on. :ninja:

Mick_Marsh

10th May 2014, 04:44 PM

I wonder what sort of speed they got up to?
I've been known to get my thumping V8 in the 100" up to 110km/h going downhill with a tail wind. Yep, I know you don't believe me but, I do get a little help. I get dragged along in the vortex created by the little 4 cyl Korean things that constantly pass me.

V8Ian

10th May 2014, 05:08 PM

cool--
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/05/958.jpgCool for us Pedro, but let them have...

rangietragic

10th May 2014, 06:43 PM

IMO it's just easier for beaurocrats to put a blanket ban on something than to actually think it out logically.Power to weight ratio is a start,but it should cover ALL vehicles,not just post 2010 ones.Much as i love the sound of my td5 and 3ltr td6,you can't beat a rover v8.It's just music:pIf i could design an exhaust system that made a diesel sound like a rover v8,i would be a rich man in under 1 year!:D

Bigbjorn

10th May 2014, 07:06 PM

Gentlemen, young especially...
The solution is clear... rip out the thumping dangerous V8 and replace it with a 4 or 4.3 litre Valiant engine.

* Legal number of cylinders,
* Rugged, - NO migrating liners, head gaskets last forever, and decent ignition system as standard.
* Quiet, even with sensible extractors,

-And if three Webers find their way onto it....:twisted:

For a street car, use a Rochester Quadrajet and CM split exhaust headers with 2 1/2" pipes from each all the way out the back. Use the 265 (4.3) as it has big valves, clean out the ports, get an appropriate camshaft particularly if you have one of the later engines with the low speed emission controls camshaft. Easy 300 tractable horsepower and bags of grunt all across the rev. range.

superquag

10th May 2014, 09:37 PM

Bigbjorn

11th May 2014, 08:48 AM

Mine was a CM...4.0 litre with 'ELB'. (which sort-of worked)
As you say, bags of grunt, even sitting for ages at 160km/h in a heatwave with the air-con turning us into icicles...
- Would never dream of that in a Rover V8. :wasntme:

I'd be surprised if it hasn't already been done.

Get rid of the ELB. While its performance as a straight spark producer is excellent, it also incorporates two other systems, a "limp home" and emissions control which slows and/or limits spark timing advance and stuffs performance. There are no ways of by-passing these. The three systems are integrated and sealed up in epoxy. At least that I could find in many attempts. There are a couple of alternatives. Use the pre-ELB electronic system complete, distributor and module. Use the points distributor from a 215 and fit it up with a Jaycar (or other) electronic ignition kit. Wire this in so when the electronics fail you can just swap over two wires and proceed on Kettering points and coil system. This is my preference. I am suspicious of all auto electronic systems. Had too many failures.