P-Plate Restrictions (2 Viewers)

[Optophobia]

i dont quite understand this statement!!! ive learnt that the actual offence is Fail to display 'L' or 'p' plates on car as required!! i believe the offence is the non display of p plates as required, you cant have one without the other!!! please feel free to correct me and another 10000 police officers

If you consult that table on the RTA posted above by the moderator, next to "no p plates - fail to comply with conditions of licence" it has "clause 56" of "Road Transport (driver licensing) regulation 1999".

Consulting that clause, we get

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/v...er", Search In="Text"&fullquery=((("Driver")))
56 Licence conditions

(1) The holder of a conditional driver licence or provisional licence who fails to comply with a condition of that licence is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

I think the RTA are delegated the authority to create license conditions. Breaching those conditions breaks the regulation and creates an offence.

 

[scarybunny]

So basically it is discrimination and if they were doing it to any other group there would be outrage. That's the point I am trying to get across. It just so happens that as a group P platers don't have the power to object and somehow respond like another groups would.

But then you could say that the fact that L platers are legally required to have supervising drivers is discrimination also, because it targets one particular group.

The difference between targetting P1 drivers and women/black people/jews is that it's only for a short period of time. You wouldn't usually stop being a woman/black person/jew after one year. A P1 licence is not a part of you that you can never change, it's something you obtain and agree to adhere to the conditions of, and it's gone after about a year.

The reason P platers don't respond like any other group is because a person ionly has to be in the group for 12 months. It's not a big deal, or a considerable fraction of their driving life.

 

[brightsea]

Originally posted by Exphate
Love how the new police action is only targetting P platers.
Fucking discriminatory laws. Awesum.

Originally posted by Optophobia
I know. God those 2 ads piss me off.

I hate them. "Stop a P-plater from speeding and you stop a P-plater from dying." Would have thought that if you stop a driver from speeding, you stop a driver dying. :angry:

Originally Posted by scarybunny
Really I think the main aim of the restrictions is to encourage new drivers to have good habits, rather than prevent their deaths.

The new restrictions won't stop an alone p-plater in their car racing at lights with other cars. They probably won't stop p-platers carrying more than one passenger. Those willing to take risk will always take it, and they'll just get more devious about how they break the law eg. putting people in the boot. Then we'll have more deaths like those Ignatius boys, a couple years back.

Originally posted by scarybunny
But then you could say that the fact that L platers are legally required to have supervising drivers is discrimination also, because it targets one particular group.

You could say they are being discriminated against but then the supervising driver performs a useful function i.e. to teach the learner how to drive. While the restrictions are a function, they are a disciplinary function rather than a helpful one.

Originally posted by scarybunny
The difference between targetting P1 drivers and women/black people/jews is that it's only for a short period of time. You wouldn't usually stop being a woman/black person/jew after one year. A P1 licence is not a part of you that you can never change, it's something you obtain and agree to adhere to the conditions of, and it's gone after about a year.

Just because P-plates are for a limited time, doesn't mean that it's not discrimination for that period. When you are a P1 driver and police are, specifically, targetting P1 drivers simply because they are P1 drivers, it's making a distinction against them.

Originally posted by scarybunny
The reason P platers don't respond like any other group is because a person ionly has to be in the group for 12 months. It's not a big deal, or a considerable fraction of their driving life.

The reason P-platers don't respond is because we have no formal representation or spokesperson, and even if we did, unless they are a respected (read older) member of the community, there is generally no acknowledgement. Sad but true.

 

[Jiga]

^

Yeah those ads really sh*t me... esp when you see every full license holder speeding... and they relate it to all the deaths in 2006... sorry but many didnt involve speeding at all, and some wouldnt have even been the p-platers fault

 

[iamsickofyear12]

But then you could say that the fact that L platers are legally required to have supervising drivers is discrimination also, because it targets one particular group.

The difference between targetting P1 drivers and women/black people/jews is that it's only for a short period of time. You wouldn't usually stop being a woman/black person/jew after one year. A P1 licence is not a part of you that you can never change, it's something you obtain and agree to adhere to the conditions of, and it's gone after about a year.

The reason P platers don't respond like any other group is because a person ionly has to be in the group for 12 months. It's not a big deal, or a considerable fraction of their driving life.

So if I am a boss and don't give someone a job because they are muslim its not really discrimination because it only occurred for 5 minutes, after they leave the interview or whatever I am no longer discriminating against them after that.

By your logic applying restrictions to women for 12 months would be ok then and no one would complain.

 

[LostAuzzie]

^

Yeah those ads really sh*t me... esp when you see every full license holder speeding... and they relate it to all the deaths in 2006... sorry but many didnt involve speeding at all, and some wouldnt have even been the p-platers fault

Agreed, most full licence holders I know speed on many occasions. And with the zero tolerance speeding laws, even if a few kms over the speed limit, all this does is cause more hassle for the responsible driver who drifts over the speed limit by a few Kms on the odd occasion. Lets face it the accidents you see on tv clearly involve speeding in excess of 10-20kms over the speed limit, perhaps they should be more lenient if the offender is say less that 5km over the speed limit.

And anyone who agrees with the limitations on the number of passengers after 11pm needs to get their head checked. It doesnt take a genius to realise that limiting the number of people to a car simply puts more cars on the road leading to more accidents. As well its going to encourage drink driving because P-Platers cant have a designated driver, unless every second person is a designated driver, and thats just not going to happen.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Lets face it the accidents you see on tv clearly involve speeding in excess of 10-20kms over the speed limit, perhaps they should be more lenient if the offender is say less that 5km over the speed limit..

Then there is also the fact that if you go 40 around a corner lose control and hit a power pole you technically aren't speeding so this zero tolerance thing wouldn't help in those situations.

 

[HotShot]

So if I am a boss and don't give someone a job because they are muslim its not really discrimination because it only occurred for 5 minutes, after they leave the interview or whatever I am no longer discriminating against them after that.

By your logic applying restrictions to women for 12 months would be ok then and no one would complain.

Just on discrimination - it has to occur because we have choice to make. When we make one choice over another then we are discriminating.

 

[pottsy44]

its ok guys when i get my full licence in august ill be sure to speed past all you p-platers. :wave:

 

[Evilo]

Then there is also the fact that if you go 40 around a corner lose control and hit a power pole you technically aren't speeding so this zero tolerance thing wouldn't help in those situations.

Some corners have "reduced speed signs" i.e. 35km/hr that are "supposed" to be followed...

And yes i agree - fines should be exponentially (sp?) based on how fast you were above the limit. But at the same time 5km over the limit is still speeding/breaking the law. Why should police give us any "leverage" if we exceed the speed *limit* i.e. the maximum speed? On the other hand i have noticed a few (p-plater) drivers travelling 5km under the speed limit so they wont get caught (extra cautious). Well lets hope the government makes a responcible decision when it comes to P-plate laws... *rolls eyes*

 

[Serius]

because its very easy to slip or accidently go over the speed limit for a bit... the only way to be on or below the speed limit all the time is to be staring at the speedo[and speeds can be different, alot of them are out by a few km] which takes your eyes off the road.

Most people judge their speed by the speed of other traffic, how fast they are passing stationary objects and by listening to the revs/ knowing what gear you are in.

 

[HotShot]

The government has CHOSEN (with this P Plate committee headed by Robert fucking Wells) to put these laws in place! How can you justify the stance it isnmt discrimination?

I never said it wasnt discrimination, I am saying that discrimination has to exist, cos the government has to make choice and when you make choices you choose something over something else which is discrimination.

 

[William_Lawry]

Agreed, most full licence holders I know speed on many occasions. And with the zero tolerance speeding laws, even if a few kms over the speed limit, all this does is cause more hassle for the responsible driver who drifts over the speed limit by a few Kms on the odd occasion. Lets face it the accidents you see on tv clearly involve speeding in excess of 10-20kms over the speed limit, perhaps they should be more lenient if the offender is say less that 5km over the speed limit.

And anyone who agrees with the limitations on the number of passengers after 11pm needs to get their head checked. It doesnt take a genius to realise that limiting the number of people to a car simply puts more cars on the road leading to more accidents. As well its going to encourage drink driving because P-Platers cant have a designated driver, unless every second person is a designated driver, and thats just not going to happen.

how about you stop being so bitter and just agree to the regulations!! if your a p plater the new laws are in place to kerb the amount of p platers dying!! im sure full license holders are dying but not as much per license holders as p platers!!! ive seen more p plate car crash than full license holders in the last 3 months

 

[timmyh]

Every sane person here would agree a reduction in the number of P platers driving is a good thing. what we are debating is how best to make this happen without having overly draconian laws.
these new laws are flawed for a number of reasons.... Firstly, the whole limiting passengers past 11pm thing. by far the most times p platers are driving after 11 is on the way to/from a party/pub. Everyone knows if u drink and drive, u are incredibly stupid. We have grown up with this message... older ppl have not. So we have designted drivers who provide a safe trip home to mates who would otherwise have to drink and drive. (Note this is from the perspective of someone living in the country... no public transport). The new laws make giving drunk mates a lift home after 11 (thus reducing road deaths) illegal. Smart thinking RTA....
So whats the alternative... personally i think its pretty simple... compulsary defensive driving courses... when u pass ur p's test, u have to take one of these courses. it teaches valuable skills and will not be a constant, imposing force on p platers, like these current laws are.

 

[Evilo]

So whats the alternative... personally i think its pretty simple... compulsary defensive driving courses... when u pass ur p's test, u have to take one of these courses. it teaches valuable skills and will not be a constant, imposing force on p platers, like these current laws are.

So whos gonna pay for it? How long will the waiting list be to get to do one of these driving courses?

Think about how long the wait is to do a 10 minute test at RTA for learners? or the P's test for that matter? Could the govt feasibly create a defensive driving day for all drivers?...i think not..

 

[timmyh]

yeh, they're all fair enough points. The thing is the Govt at the moment is promoting a view that whatever the cost, we need to reduce the deaths of P-platers... i think if they were really serious they would implement the defensive driving courses. If they were to be implemented the Gov would subsidise to some extent the cost, but a large percent would also be passed on to those going for their license. I admitt this would be a problem. There would be more problems like training instructers to do it, and as u said waiting lists to do the courses. I would argue the cost of advertising these new laws, training the thousands of extra police needed to enforce them etc could be better spent on at least encouraging ppl to do these courses, and maybe even subsidising them. I admitt this idea has major issues to be sorted out, but i believe it will be more effective than these new laws.

 

[Evilo]

good reply timmyh
But i think the govt will just 'tire kick' forever and nothing will change. Unless they create *another* law that descriminates against P-drivers I dont think they will ever create a practical solution like defensive driving courses. Plus i read somewhere that some of those courses make you over confident.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

Do these defensive driving courses even work? Who here has actually taken then and feels that it has made them better drivers?

 

[w00dy.]

Do these defensive driving courses even work? Who here has actually taken then and feels that it has made them better drivers?

i personally havent taken one of those defensive driving courses, but i will be hopefully sometime this year.

i know of a few incidents where drivers involved in accidents have taken one of those courses, yet they are still involved in accidents, just because you take a driver defence course does not meant you will be less likely to be in an accident, yes they give you the skills to help you in a number of circumstances and situations, but you are sitting in a car with an instructor when you do it. yet when you are out on the open road in the same situations where you were put to the test in the driving course you are either a) driving alone or b) you have a car load of passengers so in a way you are not really being tested in every kind of circumstance, yes your driving skills and habits may change a little, but they may not dramatically change the way you drive.

if anything they may make you just a little more aware of your surroundings and the environments you are driving in, which may or may not save lives

 

[Jiga]

^

There is no be all and end all solution, but if you could compare the effectiveness of say passenger restrictions and a driver training course, the latter would give better results. This whole distraction bullcrap has been spun up, I would really like to know how many young driver crashes per year out of the 90 or so were as a result of a passenger distracting the driver! I would hazard a guess from my own personal experience and that of others that driver fatigue would be a larger factor if anything in crashes with loaded cars. Eitherway, the driver training course teaches you the skills that doing your L's or P's test dont... how to control your car in emergency situations etc. This is more like prevention of a crash rather then a cure so to speak, because realistically you are never going to get rid of crashes among young drivers, what you can do is teach them how to react properly to avoid crashes which an untrained driver would be subject to. The only way to learn this kind of stuff which DOES save lives is through experience, experience gained through a course in a controlled environment... not having a crash on the streets and learning that way if your lucky enough to survive. And having the instructor with you and then not means abolsute sh*t, I dont know here you are coming from... are you telling me you dont know how to steer your car because mummy isnt with you while driving alone? Its the knowledge they give that matters, we are not talking about a task that needs input from the isntructor in which case Id agree with what you have said, its about learning that you need to pump your brakes in cars not fitted with ABS, that when you have oversteer you need to use opposite lock, or with understeer you need to get your foot of the accelerator and point the tyres in the direction you wanna go etc... simple things which an untrained driver doesnt know and has a crash with while a trained driver turns the same situation into a basic manuover and continues on their merry way