Thread: I reckon this was unfair

The people making these rules have no Idea of reality. They seem to think the more cylinders, the faster it goes.

And that's it in a nutshell.

One of the then NSW RTA safety mandarins said something along the lines of "If motorbikes were invented tomorrow we'd outlaw them as they are dangerous" when discussing this very subject.

Bicycles are dangerous, and a kids tricycle, and lets not forget how dangerous getting out of bed of a morning is......

Reactionary 'safety' experts are allowed to dictate policy.
Those (and it's only my opinion, and I'm biased ) such as Dr Michael Henderson aren't listened too.

Oh, that's right, the mandarins don't like Dr Henderson as he's scary, he challenges the notion that 'speed kills' and advocates better and more rigorous driver training etc., but worse than that, he actually likes cars, and even races them.
Heaven forbid someone looking at a conveyance that's something more than getting from A to B and actually liking the experience.

As for those saying 'rules are rule's', sorry, but I have no respect and will not adhere to a rule which is plainly stupid and/or wrong.

Call me a rebel, call me an anarchist, but I'm at that stage of life where I don't give a damn.

I believe we have a social responsibility towards each other.
Mutual respect and tolerance is a pre-requisite of a functional and coherent society, but I also feel we have a responsibilty to flout those laws which are stupid.

Discuss

Several people seem to have started with the assumption that the young woman in the story was telling the truth when she said she didn't know that she was driving a V8 powered vehicle.

There is another possibility. She may have been well aware. So it may not have been a case of not knowing; it may have been a case of not caring.

Given the number of people who seem to think that they can just ignore laws that don't suit them, it is a possibility worthy of consideration.

Originally Posted by Disco Muppet

2. What happens if they're required to drive a different vehicle for work?

I'm not too sure about full time driving but the apprentices here can get an exemption allowing them to drive V8 & turbo cars for work (test drives, moving cars around building...)

Vnx it's not about the law not suiting people but that it is a STUPID piece of legislation that's purely a pollies grab for the headlines with no thought of the issue. Please tell us which one you would rather see a p plater drive: merc C/E250 or a commodore, falcon, aurion? Which range rover is going to go faster, a v8 RRC or a new/2-5yr old RR(sport or vogue) tdv6/8 but guess which cars are legal for a p plater and which are not getting the picture yet?

The rta woke up years ago about bikes power to weight as you had 250cc bikes making more power than bikes with three times the capacity. The biggest hurdle is a majority of our local manufacturers product would make to much power. How do you state a Camry/aurion is ok at 200kw and 1525 kg but a WRX is wrong with 169kw and 1395kg?

When I came to oz on my uk licence we had a V8 disco which I drove daily, after 3 months I had to change my licence because Planned to stay in Australia and I was on a citizens visa so I did.

Because I had not had my licence long enough they up me on Ps and then told me I could no longer drive the one and only car we had because it was a V8 and not safe for P platters....

So why is it safe for me at the time a 26 year to drive around my car for 3 months and then suddenly its not safe as soon as the plastic I carry around changes.

Stupid rule!!!!

If they are that worried let them have any car they want and make them have a speed limiter like they do trucks if they get caught speeding at all! means limiter has been tampered with and bang goes the licence full stop

Originally Posted by dullbird

If they are that worried let them have any car they want and make them have a speed limiter like they do trucks if they get caught speeding at all! means limiter has been tampered with and bang goes the licence full stop

It isn't just about speed though - you can be driving with the speed limit but still be doing dangerous/silly things. For example, you car might be able to get from 0-60kph in 2 seconds or brake from 60-0kph in the same time but that doesn't mean you are driving safely if you do these things.

Besides, all vehicles have a speed limiter. It's called the driver.

I think it's a dumb law too, but what else could they do for a quick fix - that's what Governments do.

It only can to pass because at the time novice drivers were killing themselves in cars with monotonous regularity, and the media/masses demanded it - supercar scare crap again.

It doesn't make anyone safer as exemptions are available at the drop of some BS application letter to the RMS (RTA).

The law is there whilst you're on your P's, so that's what, three?? years of driving. Big deal. She knew it to get her licence in the first place, and if she didn't know then I can only imagine what other rules she 'doesn't know' and uses the same excuse after wrecking someone's day.

I don't like waiting for traffic lights to change and I think the speed limits are crap, and I want to drive a '70 Challenger with a supercharger hanging out the bonnet, but I can't because that's the law.

To quote someone somewhere, "When are you (they) gonna learn".


Matt.

Originally Posted by frantic

Vnx it's not about the law not suiting people but that it is a STUPID piece of legislation
.... ..... ....

I'm not defending the law and I can't argue with the examples you offer.

Most of us spend a lot of time obeying laws that we know very well are stupid. I'm sure many of us drive well maintained vehicles on straight, isolated sections of road where speeds in excess of 140km/h would be quite safe. However most of us drive at 100, 110, 130 or whatever the speed limit is because we know that is the law. We mightn't like the law, but we obey it.

There has to be a better way of changing bad laws than simply disobeying them if they don't suit us.

Years before there was any notion of restricting motorcycles that novices could ride, i was acutely aware of the fact that the registration categories treated some bikes unfairly.

I owned a Honda SL125. Some people who are old enough might remember it being described in some reviews as the perfect bike to teach your girlfriend to ride. As a 125, it cost more to register than a Honda SL100. That was in spite of the fact that the 125 was just a bored out 100 with heavier flywheels. So the 100 was actually a bit more lively than the 125 because it revved higher. The 125 had more torque and was easier to ride.

I could never see any logical reason why I should have to pay more to register a 125 that was virtually identical to the 100 with slightly more manageable power. I just accepted the fact that most regulations or laws have anomalies.

At the moment we have a regulation about vehicles for inexperienced drivers that few people regard as logical or sensible. However, the fact remains that it is the law.

A situation where people decide for themselves whether a law is stupid and ignore or deliberately disobey a law that they regard as stupid leads to anarchy. We live in a democracy and there are better ways of changing bad laws.