off-road license (?)

Some of you are spending some time trying to devise a logical form of legislation to deal with this problem. You are devoting considerable energy to trying to avoid unfairness and anomalies.

I am not convinced that you can assume that "logical" and "legislation" go hand in hand. There also seem to be plenty of examples of anomalies, particularly in new legislation.

Remember the SL 100 Honda from the 1970s? It produced 11.5HP at 11,000 rpm. When the same bike was released in 1972 as the SL125, it was the same bike with an extra 25cc. It produced 12HP at 9,700 rpm. The 125 had the same head and the same size valves, but had heavier flywheels. It produced no less than 94% of maximum torque all the way from 2,000 to 9,700 rpm. A lot of diesels would struggle to have a torque curve as flat as that.

Clearly with those specifications, the SL125 was an easier bike to ride than the SL100. It was no more powerful and the flat torque curve and heavy flywheels made it just about the most docile predictable bike on the market.

In spite of that, the SL125 cost significantly more to register than the 100, because its engine was big enough to put it into the next category. That was a classic example of registration classes based on engine capacity producing an anomaly.

Legislators frequently seem to produce laws that suggest that they don't think things through, particularly when it is a populist, knee jerk reaction to some incident.

During the fuss that followed the Port Arthur incident, legislation was rushed through, one part of which was designed to get rid of easily concealable handguns. They decreed that handguns with a barrel shorter than about 120mm would be illegal. When they realised that some specialist target pistols like the Walther GSP and Pardini with the magazine in front of the trigger had barrels shorter than that even though the overall length of the pistol was the same, they had to create a whole new category of "Target Handgun"

There was a much simpler solution than creating a new category of handgun.

So while it may be an interesting intellectual exercise to try to think of a workable set of regulations, I'm not convinced that legislation rushed through to make it appear that the politicians are "doing something" about a perceived problem will be strong on logic and fairness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Driving in sand is not so different to driving on snow - just that snow is wetter and slipperier.

But don't forget, when you stop in sand - you stop... in snow that doesn't always happen. And I've never hit a patch of ice on the beach :p.

I still find it ludicrous that the rules people are proposing would mean that you need a 4x4 licence for one of these:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...009/12/692.jpg

Looking at the kit and location - that seems reasonable.

yet you wouldn't for one of these:
http://licia83.files.wordpress.com/2...v4_muriwai.jpg

I think if you're silly enough to take a Rav4 to the beach, you're not likely to get far enough to cause any real trouble. But in answer to your question, no. No low range = no special classification. I would simply argue that a Rav4 is not designed to go off-road seriously.

And you would need a 4x4 licence for the 4x4 version of this:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...009/12/693.jpg
But NOT for the 4x2 version!!! Despite the fact that they have the same GVM and CofG.

Except it comes down to the intended purpose of the vehicle. The 2WD version is not designed to go off-road, the 4WD one is.

Your arguments basically seem to boil down to CofG vs track width issues in vehicles. And the ability of drivers to account for such offroad. I would argue that much the same applies on-road, and that consideration of CofG and stability issues should be included in standard driver training/licencing (C class).

... and the vehicle's intended purpose. If it's not intended to be driven off-road, then the lack of a C4 classification makes this more obvious to the buyer.

Although the system you propose above may technically be possible, it would impose huge additions in cost and bureaucracy to implement and police. Very few people out there would want to increase the capacity of their minivan beyond 12 seats. However heaps of people want to fit slightly larger tyres or new springs - which may then push them over the limit into the "high/heavy" 4x4 class.

The only vehicles I can think of that people would want to lift would already be classified as off-road vehicles. When I dreamt up the figures I'm proposing it was based on a quick scan of existing vehicle heights and 190mm seemed to be about what most serious 4WDs exceeded. If you have a soft-roader with no low-range and you lift it (most posers seems to lower them though), it still wouldn't change the classification.

I think this thread could go on for ever and not reach a consensus, so that will be my last post on the matter.

---

I on the other hand will keep returning serve until my keyboard breaks. :D.