should we protest against learners in high-powered cars?

[250learna]

Yep. This one for instance.

Better cage than I drive. sure, no boi racer cred. That's the whole point. No different to bikes. If a learner on a bike has to able to afford to stump up for a 250, I don't see a problem in saying that the learner in a car should do similar.

i see what you mean, but on a car like that it is only cheap because it has done som many K's, for instance at 200k the cambelt will surely need to be done again +tensioner i'd say as most people dont do this at the 100k change thats $450 right there,
i guess what im getting at is that these cheap not so old cars will cost alot in maintainance as they are usualy priced that way for a reason.
and even so, thats an extra $1500 that some family could save by letting their kid learn on their family car.

[johnny]

like the idea ... cant wait to see the look on police's face !!!
again.... parents let their kid drive high power car ......hlping them to kill ..... sigh...... they will never learn untill one day they are kill buy another kid's stupid driving (or their own kid)....


this country is run by some stupid people very badly....... spend the money (the tax we paid)on rediculer things... and the law protect criminal......etc.... I mean i like New Zealand more than anywhere else ... but the law has disappointed me .....

[Ixion]

..
and even so, thats an extra $1500 that some family could save by letting their kid learn on their family car.

Yep, and no-one's got a problem with that. Providing the family car is suitable. In fact, the "learning" is not really an issue. Remember a learner has to have a licensed driver along. Just make a change that any car is OK for learning provided the licensed driver is over 30 (which Mum or Dad will be). Want to do your "learning " hooning around with your 17 year old mate. Fine too, but the car's got to be restricted.

And the real rpoblem is not at the learning stage , it's once they get a restricted and can drive alone (and take hoon mates as passengers). And at that stage they'll very rarely be hooning in Mum or dad's car, they go buy one anyway. So I don't see an issue in saying the car they buy has to be a suitable one.

Learner - any car with an accompanying driver over 30.
Any licensed driver (2 year licence) if the cars restricted

Restricted any car with an accompanying driver over 30.
on your own - restricted car

Dead simple.

[Sensei]

What about after you get your learners over with & have your full Bike licence you can buy a 1000cc bike this is worse I think .

[SPORK]

Yay! 15-Year old viewpoint time!

As a FYOLPD (FifteenYearOldLPlateDriver) I totally agree you shouldn't be able to drive 32094720 Litre SexxMobiles on your Learners or your Restricted. Common Sense really.

I regulary (I can't spell) shudder when I see this one guy in my year who's on his restricted (I'm really young for my year, just turned 15) drive to school every morning in his Fagged-Up Mazda 323. It has a big bore exhaust (Remember the golden rule: The bigger the exhaust, the bigger the asshole), an added repco tach (he already has one, this is just for wank factor, having a big clock looking thing in the middle of your windscreen is cool, remember) and a shift light (because he needs all the performance he can get).

In my opinion he is the biggest toss-pot ever, just because of his car. I say he should be made to drive a Honda City-E.

Wait, this turned into a ramble. As you were...

[SPman]

Bring back the CNG-powered Holden Sunbird automatic!

Why you nostalgic romantic, you!

[Ixion]

What about after you get your learners over with & have your full Bike licence you can buy a 1000cc bike this is worse I think .

??? Do you mean that the jump from 250 allowed on restricted to 1000 (1500, come to that) is too great ? or what?

I rather think that if you are going to have capacity restrictions (I'm not a fan myself), then there should be a jump from learner to restricted. Only problem is, a jump to 400 isn't much, and a jump to 600 is too much.

[Pixie]

Compulsary full car insurance, that solves all the problems, especially if there's some sort of equality between the sexes for once.

Why?

I can't learn to drive in either of my parents cars, can't learn in Dad's van because it's got business insurance = only drivers only 25 with full. Can't learn in the family car , because it's a nearly 3L diesel nissan laurel, and I was 17 at the time. I have no idea why my sister can get covered at 15, but I couldn't at 17. Funny thing is that my GN250 has far more grunt than either of their cars, yet I can easily get full insurance for it. Which is the reason why I'm stuck with a 1L on my license.

I was thinking the same thing.
The insurance industry can be relied on the quickly respond to any new risks...Granny racers,for instance.

[Bob]

Coming from the land of much more restrictive legislation than you guys have,
I sympathise with what you are saying, but there is one major problem. Any government that p*sses off the car lobby is going to see their re-election chances head straight into the bin.

Majority drive cars - and more importantly, the ones that have the attention of the politicos... like, other politicos. So there will always be "kid gloves" applied to any form of restriction on cars. Bikes, on the other hand, are a minority thing and are also an easy option for putting in restrictive laws. "Look" says the politico "We are doing out bit to make roads safer, by making bikers do all these things so they will not harm car drivers"... turns to give winning smile to photographers "So vote for US!"

But try to do the same with cars? Imagine it "We are going to save everyone by stopping learners from driving big cars", say the government. And the opposition parties leap in with "Civil liberties taken away - will this Nanny State attidude NEVER end?" And Mr Very Important, who is about to buy little Scummy Scumson III his first Porsche for his 16th birthday goes "I say, politico who is in my pocket, I am taking away my funding for your party"

Bikes? As I said, we're a minority and an easy target, so we'll keep getting the leglislation, while the car fraternity get zero, nada, zip to stop them from doing whatever they want.... relatively speaking of course.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


I've covered our bike licencing before, but here is a quick synopsis:
Get provisional licence
Take CBT (on a 125cc bike) - certificate that says you can manouvre, change gear and do an emergency stop
2 years to pass both a theory and a practical test. If you take test on 125cc machine, you have 2 years at 33bhp - realistically a 250cc bike. You can, if over 21, take Direct Access, which bypasses the 2 year limitation.
After 2 year limitation onto any capacity bike.

UK car licencing? Get provisional licence, pass theory and practical test, drive anything you want.

[250learna]

Yep, and no-one's got a problem with that. Providing the family car is suitable. In fact, the "learning" is not really an issue. Remember a learner has to have a licensed driver along. Just make a change that any car is OK for learning provided the licensed driver is over 30 (which Mum or Dad will be). Want to do your "learning " hooning around with your 17 year old mate. Fine too, but the car's got to be restricted.

And the real rpoblem is not at the learning stage , it's once they get a restricted and can drive alone (and take hoon mates as passengers). And at that stage they'll very rarely be hooning in Mum or dad's car, they go buy one anyway. So I don't see an issue in saying the car they buy has to be a suitable one.

Learner - any car with an accompanying driver over 30.
Any licensed driver (2 year licence) if the cars restricted

Restricted any car with an accompanying driver over 30.
on your own - restricted car

Dead simple.

sorry ixion i see what you mean now, i think thats fair enough
when unsupervised a restricted car wouldnt be a bad idea for a restricted licence holder

[inlinefour]

I've ONLY viewed ONE good idea on this WHOLE thread. Conpulsory insurance, full insurance that is. Would stop a few thats for sure, what with the extreme premiums that they charge. Yea you'll still get the nancy boys/girls, with the "I've got rich parents who don't care what I do as long as I'm outta their face" syndrome. All I see here is a bunch of jealous people who did not get the toys that they really wanted and are pissed about a few who did. Boy racers ain't anything new, nor are the jealousy created by the "have nots" in the world. Get over it, get an education, a job, save the bling and become a "I have one". Otherwise get over yourselves...

[Bob]

Can any of you guys please explain your insurance system to me?

I only ask as from time to time I see comments about "compulsory insurance" or "I really should get insured" etc.

Do you not have to have insurance?

Over here, you MUST be insured, end of story. There are three levels:

Third Party Only (fairly obvious)
Third Party Fire & Theft (same as above, but if your bike catches fire or is stolen, then you'll get a payout)
Fully Comprehensive (pays for everything, inclusive of any damage if you have an 'off')

Obviously, TPO is cheapest, followed by TPF&T and then FC.

Do you guys not have a similar system?

[Ixion]

Can any of you guys please explain your insurance system to me?

I only ask as from time to time I see comments about "compulsory insurance" or "I really should get insured" etc.

Do you not have to have insurance?

Over here, you MUST be insured, end of story. There are three levels:

Third Party Only (fairly obvious)
Third Party Fire & Theft (same as above, but if your bike catches fire or is stolen, then you'll get a payout)
Fully Comprehensive (pays for everything, inclusive of any damage if you have an 'off')

Obviously, TPO is cheapest, followed by TPF&T and then FC.

Do you guys not have a similar system?

Big difference is we have what is, in effect, a compulsory, Government run third party PERSONAL INJURY scheme (ACC) . Which is compulsory, and the "premium" is collected with your registration (= Road Tax)

This gives "insurance" (it's a bit more complicated than that but more or less) to everybody against personal injury.

So there is no need for "private" insurance for third party personal injury claims

Beyond the compulsory ACC scheme you can insure with private companies (exactly as UK) for third party PROPERTY claims(ie damage to someone else's car), fire, theft, or comprehensive (exactly as UK)

Since the "biggy" in insurance world is personal injury claims, and these are covered by your registration (Road Tax), not everybody has any further insurance.

The present debate is whether the Governemnt should extend the compulsory element to include third party property damage.

The reasons for this thinking are not entirely logical or entirely creditable. (IMHO)

[Bob]

Thanks for that - suddenly a lot of posts make perfect sense!

[eliot-ness]

Yes to increasing licencing age, 17 minimum.
Yes to power restriction.
Definite NO to protest. Boy racers are digging themselves a bloody big hole. The cage fraternity are doing all the protesting needed. One group complaining about another invariably has a backlash and bad publicity is something we don't need. Be thankful they are taking the heat off us in election year.
--------------------
He who laughs last thinks slowest