Thread: Nearly eight-in-10 want city 4WD ban

NSW uses the weight which is half way to fair BUT! I believe it should be weight x number off k's per year, then we would have a fair user pays system!
In all seriousness how can any person short off John laws drive and park a large 4wd with a 2 in lift and 33in+ tyres in the city of Sydney as nearly all parking garages have a 2-2.1 height limit and the longest you will get on the street is 1-2 hrs!
If the person who drives the disco/prado/pajero to work during the week and does the weekend run around with 3-4 children is forced to stop driving a 4wd what will they switch to that can carry 3- 4 kids + a pile off gear? Why a tarago, voyager, trajet(Y),carnivale ,vw Kombi etc and will any off these improve visability for the car behind or be safer in a prang or in the wet / handling, for the occupants? IMHO I dont think so! (The insurer's stats actually support this as 4wd's make fewer claims.)

Originally Posted by Basil135

From News.com.au


Nearly eight-in-10 want city 4WD ban | National Breaking News | News.com.au



Ignoring all of the emotional hype for a moment, the biggest concern is the small number of people surveyed. Especially when you consider how many vehicles are on our roads.

Funny, when they did the survey last December Vote today Melb Herald Sun - banning 4wd from city roads

65% did not want them banned.

S'pose it depends who you ask......

(And how many times they clear their cookies )

How can AAMI honestly expect a survey of approx 2500 individuals (probably carefully selected) from a population of just over 21000000 be representative of peoples opinion........

IMHO, it doesn't really matter what vehicle they drive. Until they teach motorists to actually "drive", and not just pass a licence test, we will always have danger/carnage on the roads..................I have spent 20 yrs picking up peices and/or investigating accidents and I don't personally know of any that can be blamed on the choice of a driver's vehicle.



Gags

Originally Posted by frantic

NSW uses the weight which is half way to fair BUT! I believe it should be weight x number off k's per year, then we would have a fair user pays system!
......

I disagree - I am with spudboy - to a close approximation "weight x number of k's per year" is covered by a fuel tax (driving style has some effect, as does vehicle design, but these are both minor factors compared to the weight and number of kilometres). By far the most equitable way of taxing vehicles is by putting all possible charges (including insurance I suggest) into a fuel tax. One reason for supporting this is that not only would it encourage everyone to use economical vehicles, but it would make it economically possible for more people to have multiple vehicles for different purposes, so that you don't have to use your weekend people carrier to drive to work.

But I don't expect it to happen - for two reasons; fuel taxes are Commonwealth taxes, and most other vehicle taxes are state; and fuel price is too politically sensitive.

John

Originally Posted by frantic

NSW uses the weight which is half way to fair BUT! I believe it should be weight x number off k's per year, then we would have a fair user pays system!

So because I don't live in an inner-city environment, I deserve to pay more for rego simply because for me to do something simple like drive to the shops it happens to be up to a 50km round trip??

Basing it on km driven in any way is the complete opposite to fair IMO.

Seano

I support ban them poxy little cars from out of the city.
Same as I always say. I will keep my 4wd out of your city if you keep your non 4wd out of my countryside.

Originally Posted by spudboy

If you drive more - you pay more. Simple. More KMs means more risk, more road damage, etc, so means you should pay more. Have exemptions for static motors (generators) or farmers who don't go on the road.

So as a worker who travels 50000 Kilometers just getting to work and back I'm suddenly waaayyy out of pocket on that formula.

If Rego and Insurance becomes distance based I'm screwed!

Putting it all on the price of fuel works, except it favours all those that can offset the rise in price against tax, farmers, builders, etc, etc.

fuel is now an esentiel of life, whether we like it or not, and some shouldnt be allowed to off set the cost and not others. (IMHO)