VICTORIA, improving 'vehicle specifications'.

[Ext User(Mot Adv)]

CREDIT WHERE IT IS DUE

VIC Premier, Hon Mr Brumby was on that odd media 'television' today,
announcing a range of new initiatives that will please many here. Take the
link to read the full media release. This concerns VIC P platers too.

I remind folk here that WA 'went it alone' a few years ago, and created a
unique state-based regulation that mandated 'Engine Immobilisers' on new
market vehicles - that were to be registered in that jurisdiction. That
action caught the FEDS off guard you might recall, forcing them to play
catch-up which resulted in our delightful ADR82!

I 'know' NSW studies this VIC notification carefully, and *will* action a
few 'extras' of its own.

Note the BRACKETS.

STARTS;-
* "Mandating the instalment of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) in all
new cars built after 31 December 2010 (in the absence of an equivalent
national requirement);".

* "Mandating the instalment of head protection technology, such as
side-curtain airbags in all new cars built after 31 December by 2011 (in the
absence of an equivalent national requirement);".

"Showing leadership by introducing ESC and head protection technology to the
Government fleet over the next three years, thereby giving manufacturers an
incentive to deploy ESC to all cars;".

"Victoria has a proud track record of leading the nation in road safety,
with the introduction of seatbelts, the roll out of drink driving technology
and random drug testing," he said.

"And we're doing the same with this new life saving technology. From 2011
all new cars will have electronic stability control. From 2012 all new cars
will have head technology".

"And I will write to all State and Territory Premiers and the Prime
Minister, calling for a national mandate of this technology in the interest
of saving lives."

"Minister for Roads and Ports, Tim Pallas said that the Government had
undertaken extensive research and planning to develop its road safety
strategy, consulting road safety experts and monitoring the success of
strategies in other states".

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/News/MediaReleaseRoadSafetyStrategy/

JP
MotAdv-NSW

[Ext User(sheik_yerbhouti@yahoo.com)]

On Feb 6, 7:39*pm, "Mot Adv" <mot....@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> I remind folk here that WA 'went it alone' a few years ago, and created a
> unique state-based regulation that mandated 'Engine Immobilisers' on new
> market vehicles - that were to be registered in that jurisdiction. *That
> action caught the FEDS off guard you might recall, forcing them to play
> catch-up which resulted in our delightful ADR82!

actually i thought WA requires immobilisers on all vehicles at change
of ownership, not just new vehicles.

>
> * *"Mandating the instalment of head protection technology, such as
> side-curtain airbags in all new cars built after 31 December by 2011 (in the
> absence of an equivalent national requirement);".
>
> "Showing leadership by introducing ESC and head protection technology to the
> Government fleet over the next three years, thereby giving manufacturers an
> incentive to deploy ESC to all cars;".

what a ****ing peanut.

what is he going to do? force the withdrawal from sale of all models
without ESC and side airbags? doesn't he realise that most overseas
manufacturers place zero weight on what australia, let alone victoria,
requires? they will just withdraw them and our model choice will be
restricted.

a more workable option would have been to provide incentives, such as
pricing rego according to fitment of those items. note that this
option would mean work for the govt, while the adopted one means work
for car makers (i.e. not govt). you'd be mistaken for assuming that's
a coincidence.

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

sheik_yerbhouti@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:39 pm, "Mot Adv" <mot....@internode.on.net> wrote:
>> I remind folk here that WA 'went it alone' a few years ago, and created a
>> unique state-based regulation that mandated 'Engine Immobilisers' on new
>> market vehicles - that were to be registered in that jurisdiction. That
>> action caught the FEDS off guard you might recall, forcing them to play
>> catch-up which resulted in our delightful ADR82!
>
> actually i thought WA requires immobilisers on all vehicles at change
> of ownership, not just new vehicles.
>
>> * "Mandating the instalment of head protection technology, such as
>> side-curtain airbags in all new cars built after 31 December by 2011 (in the
>> absence of an equivalent national requirement);".
>>
>> "Showing leadership by introducing ESC and head protection technology to the
>> Government fleet over the next three years, thereby giving manufacturers an
>> incentive to deploy ESC to all cars;".
>
> what a ****ing peanut.
>
> what is he going to do? force the withdrawal from sale of all models
> without ESC and side airbags? doesn't he realise that most overseas
> manufacturers place zero weight on what australia, let alone victoria,
> requires? they will just withdraw them and our model choice will be
> restricted.
>

I can't think of too many new cars that don't have that sort of safety
equipment as an option and many already have it standard, by the time
2011 arrives all new cars would have had the gear for years so the
regulation is just an attempt by the Govt to win brownie points for
doing sfa.


> a more workable option would have been to provide incentives, such as
> pricing rego according to fitment of those items. note that this
> option would mean work for the govt, while the adopted one means work
> for car makers (i.e. not govt). you'd be mistaken for assuming that's
> a coincidence.

The incentive already exists in that the market demands those sorts of
safety items so if the car companies want to sell cars they have to fit
that gear to meet market expectation, the car companies are way ahead of
the Govt so the new rules are already obsolete.


Daryl

[Ext User(sheik_yerbhouti@yahoo.com)]

On Feb 6, 10:14*pm, Daryl Walford <dwalf...@internode.on.net> wrote:


> I can't think of too many new cars that don't have that sort of safety
> equipment as an option and many already have it standard, by the time
> 2011 arrives all new cars would have had the gear for years so the
> regulation is just an attempt by the Govt to win brownie points for
> doing sfa.


the ones that don't have it are obviously the cheapies. 2011 is just
around the corner in terms of model cycles. the Vic Govt is going to
have a lot of egg on its face if half the cheap new cars are withdrawn
from sale.

>
> The incentive already exists in that the market demands those sorts of
> safety items so if the car companies want to sell cars they have to fit
> that gear to meet market expectation, the car companies are way ahead of
> the Govt so the new rules are already obsolete.

but you're ignoring market segments. the bargain cars don't have that
stuff and some almost certainly still won't by 2011.

if we were in the same room i'd bet you fair money they'll be forced
to go back on this policy. when the implications finally dawn on them
they'll feel pretty stupid.

[Ext User(zb)]

Mot Adv wrote:
<snip>
> "And we're doing the same with this new life saving technology. From 2011
> all new cars will have electronic stability control. From 2012 all new cars
> will have head technology".
> http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/News/MediaReleaseRoadSafetyStrategy/

Well a simple solution .. make all P-platers wear Helmets while driving.

Hey, how many lives have been saved by the use of helmets, in say, the
V8 supercar series or Formula One?

__
zb

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

sheik_yerbhouti@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:14 pm, Daryl Walford <dwalf...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I can't think of too many new cars that don't have that sort of safety
>> equipment as an option and many already have it standard, by the time
>> 2011 arrives all new cars would have had the gear for years so the
>> regulation is just an attempt by the Govt to win brownie points for
>> doing sfa.
>
>
> the ones that don't have it are obviously the cheapies. 2011 is just
> around the corner in terms of model cycles. the Vic Govt is going to
> have a lot of egg on its face if half the cheap new cars are withdrawn
> from sale.
>
>> The incentive already exists in that the market demands those sorts of
>> safety items so if the car companies want to sell cars they have to fit
>> that gear to meet market expectation, the car companies are way ahead of
>> the Govt so the new rules are already obsolete.
>
> but you're ignoring market segments. the bargain cars don't have that
> stuff and some almost certainly still won't by 2011.
>
> if we were in the same room i'd bet you fair money they'll be forced
> to go back on this policy. when the implications finally dawn on them
> they'll feel pretty stupid.

Even cars at the bottom of the market have that sort of equipment as
options, abs, traction control, esp and front and side airbags are
optional on a Getz so it wouldn't take much effort to make them standard.
Of course those options will increase its price but when something is
standard across the range the cost of fitting those options comes down
because of the economies of scale so the price increase shouldn't be a
huge amount.



Daryl

[Ext User(Dan---)]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:49:39 +1100, zb PCM code reading says:

> Mot Adv wrote:
> <snip>
>> "And we're doing the same with this new life saving technology. From
>> 2011 all new cars will have electronic stability control. From 2012 all
>> new cars will have head technology".
>> http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/News/
MediaReleaseRoadSafetyStrategy/
>
> Well a simple solution .. make all P-platers wear Helmets while driving.

Oh yeah give them instant 100% confidence on the road eh!

>
> Hey, how many lives have been saved by the use of helmets, in say, the
> V8 supercar series or Formula One?

Some P platers think they are race car drivers on the road they don't
need any more encouragement. :-p


--
Regards
Dan

[Ext User(zb)]

Dan--- wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:49:39 +1100, zb PCM code reading says:

> Some P platers think they are race car drivers on the road they don't
> need any more encouragement. :-p

Dan, lol!

Yup, you're probably right there too! :)

__
zb

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

zb wrote:
> Mot Adv wrote:
> <snip>
>> "And we're doing the same with this new life saving technology. From
>> 2011 all new cars will have electronic stability control. From 2012
>> all new cars will have head technology".
>> http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/News/MediaReleaseRoadSafetyStrategy/
>
> Well a simple solution .. make all P-platers wear Helmets while driving.

Have you ever driven a car on the road wearing a helmet?
I have and it restricts your sideways vision too much, to make it worse
add a 5 point harness done up properly so you can barely move, "head
checks become impossible.
>
> Hey, how many lives have been saved by the use of helmets, in say, the
> V8 supercar series or Formula One?

By themselves probably not that many, if you take away the roll cages
and other safety features designed into the race cars a helmet isn't
going to save you in a major crash.



Daryl

[Ext User(GrassyNoel)]

On Feb 7, 11:49*am, zb <zac.baden...@pantsgmail.com> wrote:

> Hey, how many lives have been saved by the use of helmets, in say, the
> V8 supercar series or Formula One?

I wonder if it is still illegal to wear a helmet while driving a car
on a public road.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Daryl Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13ql041dr24e03d@corp.supernews.com...

> Even cars at the bottom of the market have that sort of equipment as
> options, abs, traction control, esp and front and side airbags are
> optional on a Getz so it wouldn't take much effort to make them standard.
> Of course those options will increase its price but when something is
> standard across the range the cost of fitting those options comes down
> because of the economies of scale so the price increase shouldn't be a
> huge amount.

I actually like the idea of them being optional, as that way you get the
choice of paying for them *if* you want them.

The "safety pack" on the Getz apparently includes ABS and ESC (or whatever
it's called) for about a grand, yet very few people are keen to take up the
offer it seems.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

Noddy wrote:
> "Daryl Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:13ql041dr24e03d@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Even cars at the bottom of the market have that sort of equipment as
>> options, abs, traction control, esp and front and side airbags are
>> optional on a Getz so it wouldn't take much effort to make them standard.
>> Of course those options will increase its price but when something is
>> standard across the range the cost of fitting those options comes down
>> because of the economies of scale so the price increase shouldn't be a
>> huge amount.
>
> I actually like the idea of them being optional, as that way you get the
> choice of paying for them *if* you want them.

Me too, I'm not convinced making it mandatory will make a big difference
to the road toll.
>
> The "safety pack" on the Getz apparently includes ABS and ESC (or whatever
> it's called) for about a grand, yet very few people are keen to take up the
> offer it seems.

People who buy cars like a Getz are generally very price conscious, when
those items become compulsory the price will increase but most likely
those items will cost less than they currently do as option so IMO the
price rises won't be huge.



Daryl

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Daryl Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13qlfh2cdv6g0ea@corp.supernews.com...

> Me too, I'm not convinced making it mandatory will make a big difference
> to the road toll.

Neither am I.

> People who buy cars like a Getz are generally very price conscious, when
> those items become compulsory the price will increase but most likely
> those items will cost less than they currently do as option so IMO the
> price rises won't be huge.

I wouldn't expect so, but the fact that it's a seldom selected option for
not a lot of money suggests that safety isn't the prime concern many people
think it is.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:56:59 +1100, Noddy blathered on in :

> "Daryl Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:13ql041dr24e03d@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Even cars at the bottom of the market have that sort of equipment as
>> options, abs, traction control, esp and front and side airbags are
>> optional on a Getz so it wouldn't take much effort to make them
>> standard. Of course those options will increase its price but when
>> something is standard across the range the cost of fitting those
>> options comes down because of the economies of scale so the price
>> increase shouldn't be a huge amount.
>
> I actually like the idea of them being optional, as that way you get the
> choice of paying for them *if* you want them.
>
> The "safety pack" on the Getz apparently includes ABS and ESC (or
> whatever it's called) for about a grand, yet very few people are keen to
> take up the offer it seems.

Local Bris dealer was offering those out at 10 grand, plus some of the on-
road costs.
For weeks.... Seemed like a decent enough deal, but the fact that they
advertised for so long...
I reckon they didn't have Air conditioning - nothing sells in Brisbane
without A/Cir in January:-)




--
Toby

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:36:03 +1100, Noddy blathered on in :

> "Daryl Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:13qlfh2cdv6g0ea@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Me too, I'm not convinced making it mandatory will make a big
>> difference to the road toll.
>
> Neither am I.
>
>> People who buy cars like a Getz are generally very price conscious,
>> when those items become compulsory the price will increase but most
>> likely those items will cost less than they currently do as option so
>> IMO the price rises won't be huge.
>
> I wouldn't expect so, but the fact that it's a seldom selected option
> for not a lot of money suggests that safety isn't the prime concern many
> people think it is.

It's a prime 'concern' alright - but evidently second to debt level - and
that will always be the case. People selling 'safety' have the matter
utterly obscured by GovCo peddling 'safety' at them 24/7 - and they
*know* most of that is hot-cock. So what would you expect?


I feel shitloads better now I've introduced GovCo Clowns into the act;-)




--
Toby

[Ext User(sheik_yerbhouti@yahoo.com)]

On Feb 7, 2:52*pm, Daryl Walford <dwalf...@internode.on.net> wrote:

>
> Even cars at the bottom of the market have that sort of equipment as
> options, abs, traction control, esp and front and side airbags are
> optional on a Getz so it wouldn't take much effort to make them standard.
> Of course those options will increase its price but when something is
> standard across the range the cost of fitting those options comes down
> because of the economies of scale so the price increase shouldn't be a
> huge amount.

i can't be bothered looking right now but there are definitely a
number of small cars without ESC and side airbags even as options.

obviously for the Getz it's easy as they just couldn't import the base
models anymore but for others, if there's no side airbag option,
that's it, you can't sell it in Vic anymore. anyway i'd imagine a lot
of people would just buy them in NSW and bring them down as 2nd hand.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Toby Ponsenby" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:foenqm$g9c$1@registered.motzarella.org...

> It's a prime 'concern' alright - but evidently second to debt level - and
> that will always be the case. People selling 'safety' have the matter
> utterly obscured by GovCo peddling 'safety' at them 24/7 - and they
> *know* most of that is hot-cock. So what would you expect?

Perhaps, but it's not like adding an extra grand to the hire purchase
payments over 3-5 years is going to make a huge difference. I'd bet pretty
good money that most people would spend the extra grand on a stereo or
wheels or other crap they can see & use than shit they *might* need *if*
they get into trouble.

> I feel shitloads better now I've introduced GovCo Clowns into the act;-)

I'm sure :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Toby Ponsenby" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:foenkd$e6t$1@registered.motzarella.org...

> Local Bris dealer was offering those out at 10 grand, plus some of the on-
> road costs.
> For weeks.... Seemed like a decent enough deal, but the fact that they
> advertised for so long...
> I reckon they didn't have Air conditioning - nothing sells in Brisbane
> without A/Cir in January:-)

I would have thought that would be all year round. June in QLD is like
December in Melbourne :)

10 grand plus onroads is a pretty damn good price, as they're a great little
car for that money.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:30:18 +1100, Noddy blathered on in :

> "Toby Ponsenby" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:foenqm$g9c$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>> It's a prime 'concern' alright - but evidently second to debt level -
>> and that will always be the case. People selling 'safety' have the
>> matter utterly obscured by GovCo peddling 'safety' at them 24/7 - and
>> they *know* most of that is hot-cock. So what would you expect?
>
> Perhaps, but it's not like adding an extra grand to the hire purchase
> payments over 3-5 years is going to make a huge difference. I'd bet
> pretty good money that most people would spend the extra grand on a
> stereo or wheels or other crap they can see & use than shit they *might*
> need *if* they get into trouble.
>
>> I feel shitloads better now I've introduced GovCo Clowns into the
>> act;-)
>
> I'm sure :)

Strange, though - I haven't received so much of a scratch from car
prangs. Helps not to have any of the inconvenient things.
But...,
I know if I was in the market for a new car ATM, I'd certainly be looking
at ABS and side protection air-bags. Because they're there, FFS. I mean,
would I buy a car without a heater/demister (and Air Condactor) - no way.
They're advances in design and safety elements that even the Victorian
GovCo can see is a Good Thing. So it's gotta be bleedin obvious.
**** the traction/stability control shite - that's defo for people who
probatively can't drive and is certainly there for those who do something
stupid and blame the car for it.
Interestingly, the Insurance Shysters are probably poised like a fart in
a lift waiting for that golden opportunity to refuse claims for drivers
whose cars are pranged due loss of traction/control in areas with really
low Stupid Arbitrary Speed Limits :-)

I'm on a roll!!
I've collected Insurance Shysters and Stupid Arbitrary Speed Limts. Whoo-
hooo!


--
Toby

[Ext User(Athol)]

Toby Ponsenby <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:30:18 +1100, Noddy blathered on in :

> I know if I was in the market for a new car ATM, I'd certainly be looking
> at ABS and side protection air-bags. Because they're there, FFS. I mean,
> would I buy a car without a heater/demister (and Air Condactor) - no way.

On that, I'd suggest that improving driver conditions (superior demisting
plus increased thermal comfort reducing stress and fatigue) would make it
more logical to mandate A/C on new vehicles as a higher priority than the
ABS and ESC...

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.