• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

P1 Restrictions coming July07! (1 Viewer)

faintygirl83

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
69
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Will the 'earlier reforms' towards the bottom of the first post actually be in place? Or were they just reforms that were proposed but not taken up?
 

iamsickofyear12

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,960
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Libbster said:
What is the difference between having a conversation on a mobile hands-free and having a conversation with a person in car?! :confused: Both are equally distracting.

I think it's a stupid idea, how are they going to police it? Cops aren't going to be able to see into the car to see a mob phone and car kit when you go driving past.
People do research to support their ideas and get what they want. I doubt anyone has ever done a real test comparing talking on the phone to talking to someone in the car because they want phones banned. If they did a test that showed talking on the phone and talking to a passenger was the same thing then that is less likely to happen.

I know for a fact that a lot of the research that has been done has been completely unrealistic. Asking someone to drive a difficult track with constant turns at high speed with a phone in their hand is nothing like driving on a straight open road while talking on the phone.
 

mr_brightside

frakfrakfrakcackmackshack
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
1,678
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
faintygirl83 said:
Will the 'earlier reforms' towards the bottom of the first post actually be in place? Or were they just reforms that were proposed but not taken up?
Thats means they already exist sweetie
 

volition

arr.
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
1,279
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
mr_brightside said:
Mobile phones should be banned for everyone. Its not holding something to your ear that causes the distraction. It's having a conversation that is the distraction.
So you'd also be for a ban on conversation inside the car (between the driver and passenger) ? That's would be consistent with your reasoning.

I don't really think that hands free mobile phone conversation should be banned because it's not really much different to changing the station on your radio, or talking to other people in the car, or any number of other things you could be doing.
 

iamsickofyear12

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,960
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
volition said:
So you'd also be for a ban on conversation inside the car (between the driver and passenger) ? That's would be consistent with your reasoning.
It would be consistent with research that shows its the actual conversation that causes accidents.
 

seremify007

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
10,062
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2009
Haha i agree about the conversation in the car being equally distracting- but the driver should know when to stop thinking about the conversation and focus on what's ahead.

Not too fond of the blanket ban on phone usage for all drivers... whilst it seems fairer, the reality is- it ain't gonna happen. A lot of the people who pay loads of taxes rely on their phone to conduct business in the car... not necessarily just when driving, but even when stuck in traffic.

So far, education has done the most IMO. All those stupid advertisements do leave a bit of a "Maybe I shouldn't speed" in the back of my mind... and learning about drink driving and the way that TV/media represents drink driving as being totally irresponsible are on the right track.

Although I have to admit.. even when my friends are smashed/drunk, I've never had any issues with them in the back seat. Maybe I'm just lucky? :)
 

iamsickofyear12

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,960
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
seremify007 said:
Not too fond of the blanket ban on phone usage for all drivers... whilst it seems fairer, the reality is- it ain't gonna happen. A lot of the people who pay loads of taxes rely on their phone to conduct business in the car... not necessarily just when driving, but even when stuck in traffic.
That's true but based on most research banning phones cannot be justified if you can still use hands-free.
 

Legham

Active Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
1,060
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2001
I dunno about any of you, but i drave far safer with more people in my car :S I also drive way safer at night cause you can't see whats around you (especially police)..

The mobile phone law is complete bullshit.. either do it to every driver, or do it to no driver.. who cares how much businessmen need to use their phone on their way to work? if the laws are there to save lives, like they've been saying so much, then they should stick to their goal.. It actually is rather offensive, like someone said, about how they discriminate to our age groups! It's no different than if they were to ban aboriginals from buying blades.. Is there a word for this type of discrimination? like racist and sexist.. but.. ageist?

I agree with making L's test harder.. not necessarily about making the hours longer though.. Gets a bit tedious for people who are naturally good drivers (like me according to the driving instructor :) )

As for the zero tolerance for speeding thing, that's just more discrimination.. Make it for everyone, or make it for no one.. And anyway, it just means that people will start speeding when they get off their P's now, instead of when they get on their P's.. then they'll just have to make more laws later on for people just getting their full license..

One last thing:
nah i was fine, but when they are screaming shit out the window and waving their hands in front of you from the back seat and rubbing yr hair, it DOES become distracting lol.
Get new friends.. your ones are douches..
 

iamsickofyear12

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,960
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The words you are looking for are age discrimination.

Think about what would happen if they tried to apply these restrictions to old people. There would be outrage and they would never let it happen.
 

volition

arr.
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
1,279
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
iamsickofyear12 said:
The words you are looking for are age discrimination.

Think about what would happen if they tried to apply these restrictions to old people. There would be outrage and they would never let it happen.
yep, and at least the old ppl have a vote lol
 

Sprinkles~

splashing in puddles
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
387
Location
Terrigal
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
volition said:
yep, and at least the old ppl have a vote lol
And at least people actually pay attention to what old people have to say, nobody listens to the opinions of young people.... even though we're the ones this is going to affect.

The passenger rule is the stupidiest thing I've ever heard. They're just punishing us, even the ones who drive responsibly (better than some full liscence drivers I bet). It's just going to enourage drink driving and have more P-platers out on the roads because they can't all go in one car etc...

I read an article in the paper this week about how they should educate young drivers rather than punish them because it's sending the wrong message to young people. I agree totally. These laws won't lessen the death tole because they won't stop the ones out on the roads who drive like idiots because they think they're invincible when they're not, only education and a big reality hit will fix that.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
3,550
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
the governemnt will use cheaper measures (ie. stricter laws) rather than education which would cost a fortune more, its a shame but reality
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2003
Messages
3,333
Location
gold coast
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Sprinkles~ said:
The passenger rule is the stupidiest thing I've ever heard. They're just punishing us, even the ones who drive responsibly (better than some full liscence drivers I bet). It's just going to enourage drink driving and have more P-platers out on the roads because they can't all go in one car etc...
word.

i love how the media has just turned every p-plater into a scapegoat at every opportunity possible over the past few months, and now every responsible young driver in nsw has to deal with this shit. gotta love kneejerk over-reactions to keep the voters happy, as opposed to education and proper testing that actually ensure kids know what the fuck they're doing on the roads.
 

scarybunny

Rocket Queen
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
3,820
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Like I've said before, everyone knew the govt HAD to put some new rules in, or the voters would crack the shits with them, so this is what they've done. Education is dandy but the voters wanted a bandaid solution. I think they've got driver education on the books anyway, it's just slower to implement.

In all fairness, passenger restrictions aren't that bad. The aim of them is to stop 17 year old, inexperienced drivers from carrying a car full of drunk, distracting passengers at 3am, and that's reasonable. So some 17 year olds have to be home by 11. Boo fucking hoo. It's not really going to effect anything other than some teenage kid's social life, and that's not a government priority.

About zero tolerance, I think a lot of people are just whiny bitches that absolutely need to speed because the limit is ridiculous. Slow down and get over it, you're not the road king you think you are, and your licence should be worth more to you than getting to your destination 5 minutes earlier.

Maybe I'm just showing my age =X Damn kids and their drugs and rock music.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
3,550
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
you're right but they need too not blanket it so far out, perhaps only first 6 months on P plates, or only over 18-19 year olds (some red p platers are that age)
 

scarybunny

Rocket Queen
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
3,820
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
It only applies to red P platers under the age of 25, and when you consider that heaps of the P plate accidents you hear about happen to people in their early 20's, I think that's reasonable.

But then obviously there's the distinct possibility that P platers just won't display their plates, and those that are already inclined to break the law won't be perturbed by a new set of stricter laws.

Also, I think a major aim of the new laws is to imprint good habits on new drivers, so they're safer drivers in the future. It's much harder to change the habits of old drivers than it is to mould the habits of new drivers.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18
Location
Earthling
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
:mad1: They could've at least made the restriction time start from 12am or even 11:30pm! If I was to be out and about at 11pm and still had to drop off friends I'd probably just not display the plates... rather than them having to find unnecessary alternatives! Now I wish I went and got my P-plates one year earlier...
 

Legham

Active Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
1,060
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2001
^Mm.. i agree it should be far later.. The nights still young at 11pm! I think 2am or even later would be more appropriate.. by then the drivers usually aren't driving to get from A to B, they're usually driving cause they have nothing better to do..
 

iamsickofyear12

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,960
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Legham said:
^Mm.. i agree it should be far later.. The nights still young at 11pm! I think 2am or even later would be more appropriate.. by then the drivers usually aren't driving to get from A to B, they're usually driving cause they have nothing better to do..
I think a properly consider restriction (something that would actually do some good) would be much better than media pressure forcing a knee jerk reaction from a committee of morons that includes someone who is apparently now an expert just because his son died in a car accident.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top