NationStates Jolt Archive

I am so fucking mad right now, it's time to use the nasty smiley: :upyours:

I just heard...the Queensland government is trying to reduce the number of casualties in car accidents on our roads. Especially young drivers seem to be considered a risk (damn punks, back in our day...).

So the glorious government has decided to punish young drivers for being young. A bit of research has revealed these changes to the law, to apply from the 1st of July next year.

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/ReferenceLookup/young_drivers_fact_sheet_provisional.pdf/$file/young_drivers_fact_sheet_provisional.pdf

Particularly interesting for me:
Power restrictions

Why implement power restrictions?
Research suggests that drivers take more risks, such as deliberate speeding and reckless driving when in charge of high-powered vehicles or 'performance
cars'. This contributed to a rise in crashes during night time hours when risk taking was greater.

Who will vehicle power restrictions apply to?
From 1 July 2007, provisional licence holders under 25 years of age must adhere to vehicle power restrictions.

What type of vehicles will be restricted?
Vehicles such as V8 or turbo charged cars, or modified vehicles will be restricted from use by provisional licence holders.
A list restricted vehicles will be on the Queensland Transport website www.transport.qld.gov.au and available through licence issuing centres from late 2006.

When do power restrictions apply?
This restriction will apply for the full provisional licence period (P1 and P2 stages).

What happens if I breach vehicle power restrictions?
A penalty will apply. Details will be determined closer to the implementation date.

Am I the only one who considers this absolutely outrageous? That f*cking soccermum that ruined my car wasn't young, was she.

But hey, why not. It's not like young people can defend themselves.

What do you think? Is fascism okay, as long as it doesn't hurt you personally?

Lesson learned: move to Victoria :D

And this is the natural result of an aging population. Someone on the internet actually predicted age-based civil wars in the West after the young people get sick of the shit being piled on them, and I have to admit, I don't see it as entirely implausible.

Heh. I just wish they'd do something like this where I live. I'm tired as hell of the obnoxious asshole 16 to early-twenty-somethings screeching their stoopid "pimped out" rice rockets around my neighborhood at 2-3 AM.

Seriously though. It is a little extreme, but I can't say that I'd fight against it if it happened where I live.

Seriously though. It is a little extreme, but I can't say that I'd fight against it if it happened where I live.
Oh, you can bet your arse I will.

yeah, well, welcome to the World police-state. Get used to it, it is only going to get worse. Soon, there will be a terrorist attack in Australia JUST to scare your people into fighting a war, just like the UK and US.

They have been conditioning you for years now, first with school ID's with RFID chips, then will come the bombardment of camera's on every corner like London and the US, soon will come the militarized police. Driving should be the last thing you are worried about!

yeah, well, welcome to the World police-state. Get used to it, it is only going to get worse. Soon, there will be a terrorist attack in Australia JUST to scare your people into fighting a war, just like the UK and US.

They have been conditioning you for years now, first with school ID's with RFID chips, then will come the bombardment of camera's on every corner like London and the US, soon will come the militarized police. Driving should be the last thing you are worried about!

Just as Orwell predicted......*shakes head*

Just as Orwell predicted......*shakes head*

yup, it is all part of a grand scheme. I wonder if it will all work out in his predictions... for the love of us all, lets hope not, but for our friend in Australia, just wait until they toll every road, and it costs him 20 or so dollars to travel. I am sure the Australians are waiting to sell off their highways to private corperations just like the US is starting to do.

Am I the only one who considers this absolutely outrageous?
NO way. It's re-friggin-diculous. How far can they push this one!? :mad:

Oh, you can bet your arse I will.

Personally, I've heard too many stories about kid killing themselves with "first" cars that were too much for them (including five of my own friend/classmates) to sympathize too deeply on this one issue.

My first car was a '78 Datsun B210 hatchback. It was perfect for my needs (as in something that runs and drives the speed limit).

I say get something that will allow you to learn the rules of the game before you get the "slick shoes".

I thought they already had age restrictions on high powered vehicals, at least in Victoria?

Lesson learned: move to Victoria :D


I thought they already had age restrictions on high powered vehicals, at least in Victoria?

^ Listen to her, she's right.

Anyway, I could care less in this instance. If you're under 25 and can afford to buy and run a V8 or "high powered vehicle", you're probably well off in so many other ways. You'll just have to hold off on that WRX.

I am so fucking mad right now, it's time to use the nasty smiley: :upyours:

I just heard...the Queensland government is trying to reduce the number of casualties in car accidents on our roads. Especially young drivers seem to be considered a risk (damn punks, back in our day...).

So the glorious government has decided to punish young drivers for being young. A bit of research has revealed these changes to the law, to apply from the 1st of July next year.

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/ReferenceLookup/young_drivers_fact_sheet_provisional.pdf/$file/young_drivers_fact_sheet_provisional.pdf

Particularly interesting for me:


Am I the only one who considers this absolutely outrageous? That f*cking soccermum that ruined my car wasn't young, was she.

But hey, why not. It's not like young people can defend themselves.

What do you think? Is fascism okay, as long as it doesn't hurt you personally?

My knee-jerk reaction was to condemn this as well. But then again... I suppose it depends on how serious the street-racing scene is, and how much of an impact it is having on street safety.

My reaction is to set heavier fines and punishment for street racing, but there's an argument for the 'ounce' of prevention. Seems more like a 'ton' of prevention though...

Well, it's a lot more reasonable than a ban on all drivers under the age of 25 between midnight and five AM. :eek:

^ Listen to her, she's right.

Anyway, I could care less in this instance. If you're under 25 and can afford to buy and run a V8 or "high powered vehicle", you're probably well off in so many other ways. You'll just have to hold off on that WRX.

She is? Well, then the police just don't have a very good grip down here.

Read it carefully. This isn't a ban on high-powered cars for young drivers; this is a ban on high powered cars for provisional license holders. Not qualified drivers. Provisionals.

Which makes sense. You don't allow people to drive insanely powerful machinery until they can demonstrate an ability to handle their less powerful equivalents.

Read it carefully. This isn't a ban on high-powered cars for young drivers; this is a ban on high powered cars for provisional license holders. Not qualified drivers. Provisionals.

Which makes sense. You don't allow people to drive insanely powerful machinery until they can demonstrate an ability to handle their less powerful equivalents.

Doesn't look like the ban is working here.

Isn't a provisional license like a learner's permit?

Isn't a provisional license like a learner's permit?
Exactly.

Exactly.

Then I agree with you, I don't see the big deal. It makes sense that people learn to drive before getting into 400hp cars.

Exactly.

Provisional is a step up from learners...

Then I agree with you, I don't see the big deal. It makes sense that people learn to drive before getting into 400hp cars.

To be honest I do think that people who are driving cars with more than 250 Bhp should be trained before driving on public roads.

Notice...training...not testing...

The amount of times I've seen people do really stupid moves in powerfull cars and then fek it....like when the car's back end is about to slide out...they take their foot off the power....not the right thing to do really....power it through...otherwise you'll spin... etc...

As for the OP....if its provisionals ... then yeah I can understand...and its not about punishing the driver...its about making the road safe for me...and others...

Then I agree with you, I don't see the big deal. It makes sense that people learn to drive before getting into 400hp cars.
I want to know what insurance company insures a new driver in a 300+ horsepower car?

Provisional is a step up from learners...

Depends on the country...in the UK you either have a provisional or a full on license...

To be honest I do think that people who are driving cars with more than 250 Bhp should be trained before driving on public roads.

Notice...training...not testing...

The amount of times I've seen people do really stupid moves in powerfull cars and then fek it....like when the car's back end is about to slide out...they take their foot off the power....not the right thing to do really....power it through...otherwise you'll spin... etc...

As for the OP....if its provisionals ... then yeah I can understand...and its not about punishing the driver...its about making the road safe for me...and others...

I actually wouldn't be against extra testing either. Though it should apply to everyone, not just people under 25.

We give extra tests for vehicles over a certain size and weight because they respond differently, why not because they are exceptionally powerful too? I'm not saying it should be impossible to pass, but just so people demonstrate they contol a car of that power comfortably.

I want to know what insurance company insures a new driver in a 300+ horsepower car?

It's fairly common here.

I actually wouldn't be against extra testing either. Though it should apply to everyone, not just people under 25.

We give extra tests for vehicles over a certain size and weight because they respond differently, why not because they are exceptionally powerful too? I'm not saying it should be impossible to pass, but just so people demonstrate they contol a car of that power comfortably.

I think testing is too much...and I don't think there is much to justify that....I do understand and am quite sympathic to that but I want less government interferrence...but I also want proper punishment for people who throught reckless driving kill people...

Anyway...we are seeing the beinging of the end of the superpowerfull car as the green lobby are making great strides in curbing the excesses of car drivers like me.

Bastards. (/as in young ones)

It's fairly common here.
Man, I dunno. I find it unlikely that an insurance company is going to insure a 16 year-old behind the wheel of his first car -- a Corvette. At least not at any non-astronomical price.

Man, I dunno. I find it unlikely that an insurance company is going to insure a 16 year-old behind the wheel of his first car -- a Corvette. At least not at any non-astronomical price.

I see a lot of under 25s in the tri-state with V8s, or hi-performance ricers. I imagine they are jsut carrying liability tho'.

Oh no, now you can't make your ricer!!!

Who gives a fuck, just get a car with less pointless power. You're minimum wage job flipping burgers will be able to better afford gas that way, not to mention insurance.

I see a lot of under 25s in the tri-state with V8s, or hi-performance ricers. I imagine they are jsut carrying liability tho'.
Well, if your State even requires them to have insurance. Which tri-state? Chicago or New York?

Well, if your State even requires them to have insurance. Which tri-state? Chicago or New York?

New York. And yeah, you have to have insurance.

Edit: And there is only one tri-state, all others are pale imitations. ;)

I don't view that as being any different than insurance companies charging different rates based upon age.

I don't view that as being any different than insurance companies charging different rates based upon age.
Do they really discriminate (price-wise) according to the power of the car?

I had hoped that the insurance companies would price SUVs out of existence when they started to become road hazards. But that didn't happen. It still doesn't mean it's the government's job to make us all safe. This is a similar problem. I wish the insurance companies would make it too expensive for 16 year olds to have licenses. In fact, I would make it prohibitively expensive for anyone to drive without a proper driver education class.

This nonsense, however, seems like a proposal that could only be from government.

Do they really discriminate (price-wise) according to the power of the car?
They would certainly discriminate based on the liklihood of the car needing to be fixed.

Isn't a provisional license like a learner's permit?
Not quite.

When you're 16 and a half (I think) you get to take a theoretical test. If you pass that test, you get a Learner's License, with which you're allowed to drive if an Open License holder is in the car with you.

Once you've done that for a year (I think), you can take a practical test. If you pass, you get a Provisional License. All that means (or used to mean) is that you don't get an allowed minimum alcohol level and that you have fewer points they can take away. Other than that, it's allows you to do whatever you want (or used to), as befits someone who's passed both theoretical and practical driving tests, and doesn't have a brain haunted by senility.

Now, personally, this doesn't even affect me. I'll be on my Open License by July next year.

But it's still an outrage. Because of some sort of statistical likelihood, they're engaging in collective punishment. Don't talk to me about making the roads safer, if they wanted that they would make it more difficult to get your license, and offer more and better courses. Not to mention retesting old people and taking away licenses from everyone over 60. And that hag who crashed into my car.

No, this is cheap vote-buying. It's exactly the same thing as saying "A disproportionate number of Muslims have been involved in terrorist activity, therefore we outlaw the use of mobile phones, fertilisers, photo- and video cameras and other potential accessories to terror acts by Muslims."

But it's still an outrage. Because of some sort of statistical likelihood, they're engaging in collective punishment.

Hmmmm I'm discriminated in my car insurance, a private company, payments because od some sort statistical likelihood of accidents. Why should I be punished for things other people did?

Hmmmm I'm discriminated in my car insurance, a private company, payments because od some sort statistical likelihood of accidents. Why should I be punished for things other people did?
a) You shouldn't.
b) An insurance company is a private business. If you want to deal with them, you can work out the terms together...with obviously them being in the stronger position. But this is government we're talking about, which makes it an entirely different cup of tea. If I don't want to deal with the terms of an insurer, I can choose another. Here, I don't get to choose another government (and don't start with "democracy", it wouldn't surprise me if both parties were going after the senior's vote with this).

a) You shouldn't.
b) An insurance company is a private business. If you want to deal with them, you can work out the terms together...with obviously them being in the stronger position. But this is government we're talking about, which makes it an entirely different cup of tea. If I don't want to deal with the terms of an insurer, I can choose another. Here, I don't get to choose another government (and don't start with "democracy", it wouldn't surprise me if both parties were going after the senior's vote with this).

LOL. All American car insurance companies do it that way. And car insurance is mandatory.

LOL. All American car insurance companies do it that way. And car insurance is mandatory.
And I can still choose whatever deal is best for me.

Not in this case however, because the government has a monopoly.

I just don't see how this fits into the job of government. They are violating my individual freedoms in an inexcusable way, to achieve absolutely nothing (other than buying themselves votes), based on an inaccurate profiling of me.

Fact of the matter is this: I have done absolutely nothing wrong. I have given no one a reason to suspect me of anything. My only crime is that I still have full control over my bodily functions and all my hair. And for this they punish me, they brand me with a plate that warns other people of my full head of hair, and which I get to fish out of the wreckage next time some 40-year old smashes my car.

You know, I wouldn't have gotten a V8 normally because of the fuel cost - but if this goes ahead I'll get one and supercharge it.

We're talking about provisional drivers. It's totally reasonable. Sorry, but there's no fascism here. Move along.

Let's hear it for socialist nanny governments at work.

:D

Wonder if they'd throw a fit over a turbo diesel car?

We're talking about provisional drivers. It's totally reasonable. Sorry, but there's no fascism here. Move along.
Sorry, dude, but I don't fit their category. I've driven more than 800km a week in all conditions, all weather, both rural and suburban for a year now.

I've got way more driving experience than a good number of 25-30 year olds. But hey, as it says in one of their info packs: 17-24 year olds don't have fully developed sensory perception. Not like those experienced 70-year olds.

But it's still an outrage. Because of some sort of statistical likelihood, they're engaging in collective punishment. Don't talk to me about making the roads safer, if they wanted that they would make it more difficult to get your license, and offer more and better courses. Not to mention retesting old people and taking away licenses from everyone over 60. And that hag who crashed into my car.


Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. You sound like those second ammendment people.

I think is is perfectly reasonable to restrict access to V8 and turbocharged cars, it's not like they serve any purpose anyway. And if it saves a few lives the effort has been worth it.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. You sound like those second ammendment people.
How come?

Is it not right to do whatever I damn well please, as long as I don't start encroaching on other people's right?

And the second ammendment people do have a point. Government cannot grant any rights. Government can only take them away, and it better have a pretty good reason. In this case, it doesn't.

I think is is perfectly reasonable to restrict access to V8 and turbocharged cars, it's not like they serve any purpose anyway.
Hardly your decision, is it. I don't think modern art serves a purpose, but some people enjoy it, and I'll be damned if I start telling people what they can and can't do with their money.

And if it saves a few lives the effort has been worth it.
It won't. They acknowledge freely that the relationship isn't a strong one, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with age. Victoria introduced a scheme based on power-to-weight ratios in 1991, and we still don't know whether it works...because they never bothered evaluating it.
These things are done on gut feeling, without evidence.

Or, to use their own information booklet (http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/ReferenceLookup/Young_drivers_paper.PDF/$file/Young_drivers_paper.PDF) they offered people months ago before they pushed these laws through:
Pros
• Research shows greater crash risk for all drivers when driving
high-powered vehicles
Cons
• New high-performance cars have extra safety features that
provide added protection
• Administrative burden associated with updating banned vehicle list
• There is no evidence in Queensland that high-powered vehicles
are a higher crash risk for young drivers

Also, to take your point...locking up all Muslims in special camps where they only get to eat with plastic cutlery might prevent a terrorist attack. That would probably save lives.
Hey, wouldn't that be worth it?

How come?

Is it not right to do whatever I damn well please, as long as I don't start encroaching on other people's right?

And the second ammendment people do have a point. Government cannot grant any rights. Government can only take them away, and it better have a pretty good reason. In this case, it doesn't.


Hardly your decision, is it. I don't think modern art serves a purpose, but some people enjoy it, and I'll be damned if I start telling people what they can and can't do with their money.


It won't. They acknowledge freely that the relationship isn't a strong one, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with age. Victoria introduced a scheme based on power-to-weight ratios in 1991, and we still don't know whether it works...because they never bothered evaluating it.
These things are done on gut feeling, without evidence.

Or, to use their own information booklet (http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/ReferenceLookup/Young_drivers_paper.PDF/$file/Young_drivers_paper.PDF) they offered people months ago before they pushed these laws through:


Also, to take your point...locking up all Muslims in special camps where they only get to eat with plastic cutlery might prevent a terrorist attack. That would probably save lives.
Hey, wouldn't that be worth it?


If it was a right to drive you wouldn't need a license would you?

Anyhoo, I'm not saying ban the things, I'm just saying that the only purpose of high performance vehicles is to break the law, unlike modern art, so regulating them is perfectly ok. In fact if you read this thread I'm perfectly happy to have an extra test for everyone; not just <25s. So I don't discriminate at all.

And if it saves one or two lives, which the victoria scheme probably has, it's worth it. There is absolutely no reason for people to have high perfomance vehicles. They serve no purpose other than breaking the speed limit.

If it was a right to drive you wouldn't need a license would you?
Perhaps the government is taking away a right of mine by persecuting me if I didn't get one of their licenses?
If you want we can get into a big discussion about this (not now though, I need to go to work and endanger people's lives...afterall, my sensory perception might not be fully developed yet), but I'd say that buying and using whatever machine I want is a right of mine, as long as I don't start hurting other people with it.

Anyhoo, I'm not saying ban the things, I'm just saying that the only purpose of high performance vehicles is to break the law, unlike modern art, so regulating them is perfectly ok.
[...]
There is absolutely no reason for people to have high perfomance vehicles. They serve no purpose other than breaking the speed limit.
The purpose of performance cars is to derive enjoyment from driving them, just like the purpose of modern art is to derive enjoyment (or whatever you feel) when looking at it.

And if it saves one or two lives, which the victoria scheme probably has, it's worth it.
The important word being "probably". You don't have evidence, but you're happy to keep taking people's freedoms on a hunch.
I also note that you didn't respond to my Muslim-example.

I actually wouldn't be against extra testing either. Though it should apply to everyone, not just people under 25.

We give extra tests for vehicles over a certain size and weight because they respond differently, why not because they are exceptionally powerful too? I'm not saying it should be impossible to pass, but just so people demonstrate they contol a car of that power comfortably.

Isn't that what heavy-vechicles licences are about?

But they only apply to big truck and buses here...

Perhaps the government is taking away a right of mine by persecuting me if I didn't get one of their licenses?
If you want we can get into a big discussion about this (not now though, I need to go to work and endanger people's lives...afterall, my sensory perception might not be fully developed yet), but I'd say that buying and using whatever machine I want is a right of mine, as long as I don't start hurting other people with it.



Licensing is clearly a common sense option. I don't think you have any problem with it really either.

That said, we can continue with this when you have the time, but I will note that there are already many regulations in respect of what types of car you can and cannot put on the road. It's not like you can strap a prat and whitney turbine on the back of your beetle now is it, even if you don't want to hurt anyone?

Isn't that what heavy-vechicles licences are about?

But they only apply to big truck and buses here...

Yes, they only apply to HGVs at the moment. But I don't think it would be a horrible intrusion on rights to require extra licensing for high performance vehicles.