P-Plate Restrictions (1 Viewer)

[em_516]

for those of you against the new restrictions, you should consider Jordie Bodlay at the state election..he's against it too suss here: www.votejordie.com

 

[HotShot]

for those of you against the new restrictions, you should consider Jordie Bodlay at the state election..he's against it too suss here: www.votejordie.com

No!

 

[echn]

I think this whole thing sucks---- the rules get tougher and tougher by the year, and nofing's changing--- still so many crashes, u only catch out da good drivers. Firstly, 1 passenger, dat will just encourage speeding cos da 2 of u run out of conversations and then it becomes boring, so u just wanna go home faster.

2nd, even 4 demerit points are too little when u consider most offenses already take away 3. Admit it, on a steep downward road that has a speed limit of 50, due to careness or temptation, hu doesn't speed a little? (I will) And even going at 55-60 for a slight second, bang--- there goes ur licence. dats y people @ Carlingford road, Sydney are always stupidly caught. Its just gay.

As someone said, da law just makes those who abide suffer, if ur offending it in da 1st place, u won't even hesitate to drive wifout a licence. So y bother, just revert to da old system, which means if ur only speeding below 15 km/hr, u only cop 1 demerit point cos if I had 0 demerit points (luckily I took da test early), I just wouldn't drive until green p's and then drive even sloppier wif my green p's cos I didn't accumulate da experience I should have done when I'm on reds. Y create so many obstacles for younger people, it just makes them nervous when they drive so they just don't until a higher class licence, which is even more dangerous cos they didn't gain the experience they need.

 

[latch]

The problems with P-plate laws that the government and media tend to avoid;

Admittedly, high-powered cars, in a suburban environment, should probably not be in the hands of inexperienced drivers. However, most of the fatal crashes that are seen on the news etc are not of people in these high-performance cars. The dead p-platers you tend to see are people in old cars that are not that powerful. The fact is there are still many cars that can be driven and are quite fast. It would be easy to kill yourself in a V6 falcon or commodore, or a 6 cylinder Liberty. These cars are not rockets, but it is easy to drive them fast.

Notice that most of the cars, wrapped around poles on TV, are not expensive or high-powered? Perhaps this is because high powered cars come with better safety features, better brakes, better tyres, better suspension etc. All the features that are really useful for avoiding power polls and other hazards... Also, how many P-platers can afford high-powered cars? The bans really just disadvantage parents.

In fact, the first time I began to agree that bans on, truly, high-powered cars was when a policeman came to speak at our school. Telling us of a police chase in Sydney CBD that ended clocking a green P-plater and a full license driver at over 200kmh who were driving V8 Commodore Utes. This I understand, but it is foolish to believe that such bans will reduce any death toll.

Also, I think the gov and society needs to accept that P-platers are young. 18 year olds do stupid things. You cannot change that. So is it such a big issue? Sure, some people drink drive. Some people speed. But compared to older generations when they were young, and taking into account the much more significant police presence and focus on young drivers, we really are not that bad. In fact, if anything, the number of P-plater deaths has fallen, along with the death toll for everyone else. This is really due to increased safety of vehicles... So if the proportion of P-plate deaths has increased, (as I think I read somewhere), perhaps it is because car safety has improved significantly but these improvements have not really flowed down to cheaper older cars that many young drivers own.

But, at the end of the day, what does it matter? Perhaps we simply need to accept that young, inexperienced drivers are just that. Young and inexperienced. It should be no surprise that the death toll for P-platers is higher then that of older, more experienced drivers. So, I think the gov and the media need to accept that this is how things will be and that there is nothing they can do, without being radically draconian, to make a difference. Stop looking for a legislative solution that does not exist.

A note about the dq for drivers and things like that. At the end of the day, you want P-platers to drive, and drive a lot. It is not until you get your P's that the real learning starts. To treat P drivers too harshly is to interfere with the establishment of the skills they must develop. The legislation should not treat every P-plater like they are a simple group. P platers represent all sections of society and cannot be simply generalised as idiots. It's about time the RTA began to represent the interests of motorists, and its time that the media and the government stopped the exaggeration on the dangers of speeding and being a p-plater.

The P-plate debate really reverts back to the current emphasis on speeding. The emphasis is unneeded. There are too many variables on the roads and whilst driving to be able to blame any particular thing. The main lesson on speeding I have learnt as a young driver, is that driving at 80 (as an L-plater) or at 90 (as a P-plater) on a freeway where the speed limit is 110 is more dangerous then driving at or above the speed limit. Speed is one factor of many in any crash. Unfortunately it is the easiest to determine and measure post-crash. Rather then a simple emphasis on speed as deadly, which most drivers would know to be not that true, we should emphasise how to drive and judge conditions.

Speeding doesnt kill. Crashing does. Ergo, fix up the roads and train drivers properly (not just make them do more hours as that is a waste of time) or do nothing. Because over-legislating is just a pain in the arse for all road users.

 

[HotShot]

good Essay, latch.

Just edit it a bit more, add few extra things and then mail to the RTA, the Transport Minister and the Premier and the Opposition Leader and to your local newspaper and to the Telegraph, australian and the SMH.

Then create a blog and put it up there as well. Then create a speech and upload it to youtube.

You could change this you know!.

 

[pete_mate]

I think this whole thing sucks---- the rules get tougher and tougher by the year, and nofing's changing--- still so many crashes, u only catch out da good drivers. Firstly, 1 passenger, dat will just encourage speeding cos da 2 of u run out of conversations and then it becomes boring, so u just wanna go home faster.

2nd, even 4 demerit points are too little when u consider most offenses already take away 3. Admit it, on a steep downward road that has a speed limit of 50, due to careness or temptation, hu doesn't speed a little? (I will) And even going at 55-60 for a slight second, bang--- there goes ur licence. dats y people @ Carlingford road, Sydney are always stupidly caught. Its just gay.

As someone said, da law just makes those who abide suffer, if ur offending it in da 1st place, u won't even hesitate to drive wifout a licence. So y bother, just revert to da old system, which means if ur only speeding below 15 km/hr, u only cop 1 demerit point cos if I had 0 demerit points (luckily I took da test early), I just wouldn't drive until green p's and then drive even sloppier wif my green p's cos I didn't accumulate da experience I should have done when I'm on reds. Y create so many obstacles for younger people, it just makes them nervous when they drive so they just don't until a higher class licence, which is even more dangerous cos they didn't gain the experience they need.

for fucks sake, how hard isit to write the, instead of "da" and who rather than "hu"

the bonus is you don't sound like a moron

 

[robert12208]

I dont know if this has already been answered but if ur still on ur L's and it gets to the June deadline or woteva, do u then have to do 120 hours or how ever much it is? or if u have had ur L's before that u still do ur 50 hours?? i am really keen to know!! thanks

 

[Collin]

for those of you against the new restrictions, you should consider Jordie Bodlay at the state election..he's against it too suss here: www.votejordie.com

Here are the reasons he asserts why we should vote for him:

"Because I am only 20 -- electing me would make me the youngest Australian member of parliament, ever. Guinness Book of Records here I come!"

Right. I will vote for him so that he can get his name into the Guinness World Records.

"Also, being young, I would be a voice for all the younger generations who are not represented or understood by the current older politicians. e.g. Stopping further P-Plate restrictions."

Bloody moron.

"You could vote just based on my name, 'Jordie'. I think its pretty cool."

Bloody moron.

"I'm not one of those traditional politicians making crazy promises that I won't keep. I'm telling you like it is."

Perhaps it's because he hasn't made any real promises.

"I am an Independent, so I don't have to vote "along party lines" and can make honest moral and ethical judgments."

Empty rhetoric.

"I'm not spending your tax-money on trying to get elected"

Thank God.

 

[shawngray3227]

i didn't mean everyone at the same time, only when they have to renew their licence.

something like the final test you do before you go on your full licence - that one with road rules and hazard perception. i think it would encourage people to read up on their road rules, and then that way there is no excuse for p platers to hide behind. if everyone's knowledge of the road rules was monitored using the same parameters, there would *logically* be safer driving on the roads.

Agreed...*logically* there should be safer drivers, but there are always some morons out there who dont have brains and just do as they please...and usually they are the dead ones, unfortunately they don't realise that they can affect other drivers lives... No matter what rules the NRMA puts in place, there will always be unsafe driving and deaths. I just disapprove of the way the NRMA and everyone are looking at the situation. Sure lots of p platers crash, moslty minor, but lately lots of major ones, but compared with the full licenced drivers, there would be much less. :burn:

But yeah, we can only do whats neccesary, and thats abide by the laws, cause they are only there for our own safety.

And with the 120 hours needed for your L's is just stupidity, EVERY single person I know that have their p's, wrote in fake hours to pass 50. Its not only a waste of time for the younger people, but for the parents. My parents, although they're arseholes, dont have time to take me driving at all, and i could've gone for my p's nearly 5 months ago! with this it'll just be stupid, and a pain... I'm against it

 

[Rafta kayaks]

I believe that Learners should only be able to have the instructing driver in the car no more and that "P" platers right from the start for 12 months should only be able to have one passenger, How many ppl do you want to be responsible for in the event of an accident, one "L" plater killed her whole family and a friend when she was distracted, how many more lives do we realy want to see put at risk,... no distractions in the car please.... no peer pressure. Be responsible it is not someone elses fault it is yours....

 

[Rafta kayaks]

Agreed...*logically* there should be safer drivers, but there are always some morons out there who dont have brains and just do as they please...and usually they are the dead ones, unfortunately they don't realise that they can affect other drivers lives... No matter what rules the NRMA puts in place, there will always be unsafe driving and deaths. I just disapprove of the way the NRMA and everyone are looking at the situation. Sure lots of p platers crash, moslty minor, but lately lots of major ones, but compared with the full licenced drivers, there would be much less. :burn:

But yeah, we can only do whats neccesary, and thats abide by the laws, cause they are only there for our own safety.

And with the 120 hours needed for your L's is just stupidity, EVERY single person I know that have their p's, wrote in fake hours to pass 50. Its not only a waste of time for the younger people, but for the parents. My parents, although they're arseholes, dont have time to take me driving at all, and i could've gone for my p's nearly 5 months ago! with this it'll just be stupid, and a pain... I'm against it

Hey try getting a masters ticket for a fishing vessel u have to get 2000 hrs, get real do the time, and become a better more patient driver/road user

 

[Josie]

I believe that Learners should only be able to have the instructing driver in the car no more and that "P" platers right from the start for 12 months should only be able to have one passenger, How many ppl do you want to be responsible for in the event of an accident, one "L" plater killed her whole family and a friend when she was distracted, how many more lives do we realy want to see put at risk,... no distractions in the car please.... no peer pressure. Be responsible it is not someone elses fault it is yours....

That's all well and good- but for a serious attempt to actually get the 50 hrs, 100 hrs, 120 hrs, etc, the best/only way for people to actually do that is on family holidays/trips/etc, since it's actually a reasonable distance, and also a good example of highway driving.

 

[jimmayyy]

And p platers have no business driving supercharged or modified cars at all anyway, and unless you need a v8 for work purposes you don't need that either. I think the restrictions are very fair.

lmao, then EVERYONE should be banned from them with exceptions given to those who need them, p plate or not

wat business do full liscence drivers have driving them, then?

lame argument

i rekon the restrictions are whack as fuck and just another example of leftist interference in our lives.

 

[kokodamonkey]

i couldnt be bothered to read 23pages.. so here are my points and opinions. some of you may agree. some of you may disagree. but hey this is the point of this. to debate.

I think these restrictions are wrong. These are Reactive solutions. We need to be Proactive. We need to focus more on driver education and training, and have schools take a greater part so its just like doing maths or english, you do driving. I think 50hours is efficient. I think it is wrong to ban everyone from having a v8 or a "supercharged car" just because some idiots drive too fast. That is no reason to ban everyone else that may want to drive one. For example if i was to get my parents to buy me a $120k Jaguar S type for my 18th thats a v8. do you really think im going to go driving 120 in a 60zone? hell no i dont want to even get dust on it...

point being. Restricting cars isnt goin to fix anything. The same idiots will still do the same damage in a toyota corolla then in a skyliner.. We need to focus on the training instead of restricting them.


Another thing. People say that at night time young people / p platers are a higher percentage of being involved in road accidents then other demograhpics compared to during the day time. Well lets see. During the day whos on the road? everyone. At night time its mainly just.. young ppl. so Yes it may be a higher percentage. But its an even higher percentage of road users of this demographic. Which just shows how they screw with statistics.

I hope you can understand my ramblings and therefore agree with me.

 

[volition]

The thing that pisses me off the most is that the government wouldn't have the balls to do it to some other identifiable group. They play the probabilities, but there's a clear double standard here and it takes away from young drivers' rights.

Let's say, for argument's sake that Indians crash more often than non-Indians. Would it be fair in such a scenario to say "All Indian drivers may only take 1 person in the car with them"? What do you think the public response would be to this? (and we can replace 'Indian' here with anything ranging from "left handed" to "black hair" to "sleeps in bed with head facing north"

There would be uproar that the government is discriminating based on race! But apparently it's ok for the government to make this discrimination based on age. (Red P platers over 25 aren't subject to the one passenger restriction, presumably they're more mature. What about that 42 year old driver on her L's who crashed into a bus stop and mowed a few people down eh?)

Also, let's not forget that there'd be plenty of P platers who aren't even 18 yet so they don't have a vote.

 

[UnleavenedBread]

and he was like 'wos yo name' and i was like 'my name is old dirty bastard and I'm an alcoholic'

 

[pete_mate]

volition provides an excellent summary of the hypocricy of the situation. Furthermore, we see this double standard operating in the .00 alcohol limit imposed on P platers.

According to the RTA's own statistics, drivers at twice as likely to crash at .05 alcohol than at .00. Twice!

Finally, the Daily Telegraph openly admits to fighting a campaign about P platers.

so if there's a 0.004% chance of me crashing on the way to uni tomorrow, then if ive had 2 beers its a .008% chance. wow.... i'd rather have my own civil rights back and let me make that extra .004% risk. The government doesnt need to babysit me, ill pay for them to clean my guts off the road in the highly unlike event that i crash.

and you talk as if your under the impression the daily telegraph is a respected journalistic institution. who cares if they run a campaign against p platers, its only senile old people, blue collar uneducated woman's weekly reading people that read it anyway, and who cares whether their opinions are influenced, who'd want to listen to them

 

[Stott Despoja]

and you talk as if your under the impression the daily telegraph is a respected journalistic institution. who cares if they run a campaign against p platers, its only senile old people, blue collar uneducated woman's weekly reading people that read it anyway, and who cares whether their opinions are influenced, who'd want to listen to them

Telegraph readers aren't as bad as many people make them out to be, but it has to be said that a such readers do tend to inhabit the marginal seats (state and federal).

 

[jimmayyy]

i cbf going back through the whole thread, i replied somewhere a few pages ago but there has been some good points raised

1) the cars are NOT the problem - its the drivers. whoever said we need to remove this "i am invincible" attitude young drivers have is totally correct. we need to work on more education etc at a younger age, not just take good cars off young drivers has a sweeping generalisation. doing so is just another bullshit knee jerk reaction and a short term fix for a long term problem

2) i know drivers on their L's who are better than some old people on the road. moot point. its got little to do with experience. driving is a large part basic instinct, some have it, some dont. yes, more driving will obviously improve your skills, but some people are just shit drivers, full stop.

3) the law about not having many passengers is total bullshit. its going to cause more P-platers on the road which means more chance of accidents, more people drink driving as they will not be able to get lifts and more people driving on their own, which means they have no supervision or pressure to drive well.

4) like someone quoted a few pages before, the statistics cannot back up any of these restrictions. less than 20% of accidents are P-platers, while p-platers make up more than 20% of total drivers. p-plate accidents are horribly and disproportionately reported by our media as well. if they covered every accident involving a regular full liscence driver, i think the misproportion would become clearer.

like i said a few pages ago, bullshit laws. typical reactionary law making and uneeded leftist interference.

 

[Azamakumar]

I totally agree with everyone from pages 16-21, or anyone at all that posted saying that the new laws are discriminatory. Because frankly anything that targets people of ANY race, aged 17+, OF ANY religion and both MALES AND FEMALES simply HAS TO BE discriminatory. In fact the only logical thing in this thread is the quote from schoolies about being tested in a high performance car, even though that would have its flaws, it would only affect the idiots on the streets, not everyone. And why the hell doesn't zero tolerance apply to everyone. If me, schoolies and say my dad all took the same corner at 90, who's to say that we won't all end up around telegraph poles. Putting all the focus on us does nothing but make us wait a little longer to break the laws.