Hi Mike

Yes we should have a conversation about it. But we should have a conversation about a lot of contentious ideas but the gutless pollies avoid them like the plague. 

One problem about the 'cars made before 2002' is the fact that just stating a date and bald statistics means a lot of 'babys' will be thrown out with the 'dross' bath water, to mix my metaphors badly. Some cars do need to be culled for sure but who will pay. Some other are quite good.

Jaahn

It is also a matter of economics. Old cars are cheap. People with little money have little option, and mostly could only dream of having a newish car. The first car for a teenager almost certainly is not going to have the latest safety features, even though it is probably them who need it most.

At least in NSW, an annual rego roadworthy check is required on cars over 5 yrs old, and if that is done correctly, at least the older car will have good tyres , lights and exhaust for a while, whereas a new car can wear out a set of tyres easily inside a year, but no check on them. Personally, I hate the annual check - it costs heavily and is a nuisance, but there are not as many 'bombs' running around on NSW roads as in other states.

Gday...

Some interesting figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics -

Motor Vehicle Census, Australia, 31 Jan 2017
LATEST ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 28/07/2017

AVERAGE AGE

• • Average age of all vehicles registered in Australia was 10.1 years, unchanged since 2015.
  • Tasmanian vehicles reported the oldest average age at 12.8 years, whilst the Northern Territory had the youngest fleet with an average age of 9.2 years.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0

Cheers - John

"Gday...

An interesting comment erad. Do you have some statistical data, and the source of that data, to back up that claim?

A definition of what determines a "bomb" would be helpful as well.

Cheers - John"

John: I don't have any statistical data. It probably doesn't exist - how do you define a B'bomb'. It is simply a matter of driving in other states. I often shake my head at what I see, especially in Victoria and to a lesser extent in Qld. Bald tyres, brake lights not working, rusty vehicles, general condition of the cars seems worse in Vic and Qld. From what I have seen in WA and SA, the cars seem better. As for NT, there are some howlers there. Tasmanian cars generally seemed to be OK as far as I could see. As I said above, I personally hate the annual roadworthy checks, but I do recognise their merit.

-- Edited by erad on Sunday 18th of March 2018 08:59:00 PM

Yea well ?? They want to replace sports stadiums every 15-20 years . In NSW . This EB Falcon has only 120k on it . Doesnt look as old as it is . Well maintained . 

-- Edited by Aus-Kiwi on Sunday 18th of March 2018 10:08:00 PM

swamp wrote:

---

Hi
Ozzy have kept there vehicles longer than most in the world at various times .
WHY
COST of New cars is a ripoff re car makers .

-- Edited by swamp on Sunday 18th of March 2018 09:02:45 PM

---

Not sure that's 100% accurate Swamp I am currently residing in a part of the world where the cost is around half to 2/3s of what you would pay in Australia for the same vehicle. I don't believe that it's the manufacturers who are doing the ripping off you might want to look at the taxes that both the state and federal governments are slugging people with. I just bought a new vehicle and got hit with a luxury car tax that I believe was introduced to encourage people to buy the our locally built products - the problem is Australia doesn't actually have a car industry anymore just the tax to remember it by.

Cheers

BB

vehicle inspection are only good the day they are done
cheers
blaze

Hi
tax maybe a component of vehicle purchase BUT.

The economies of scale ,
Hiluxs are far cheaper in Thailand and equiv in the Usa
Far superior utes for the money are available in these countries especially Usa if u want a full size budget diesel --cheap

IF the ruling were to apply and even regardless there is no reason to be banning LHD cars after xxxx year . Bring em all in .

Craig1 wrote:

---

The ANCAP Rep on talk back did not get into the statistics of " young drivers drive older cars, almost like they are stolen", so an old car in an accident is quite often driven a a much higher speed, hence when it hits anything, bad results. He did also say that no 1960's, 70's cars had featured in the latest deaths. These now generally driven by safe drivers ,both young and old protecting their investment.
As I live on the NSW/ Vic Border there is ample evidence that NSW Roadworthy scheme does work. Check any supermarket carpark!. Vic = dodgy tyres,rust, windscreens, lights etc. A NSW inspection slip at the very least, braking test( almost impossible to fudge), tyre check, all lights work, no, or minimal engine oil leak, as some clean up prior to inspection and for under $40 and fifteen minutes out of your precious time poor day,. once a year.
I do think that the five year time frame on from NEW is too long, but as a responsible owner am happy in my case. cheers Craig

---

 Craig, I guess that you can use statistics to back up all sorts of assumptions  - here's one of my own one the main reason why deaths are fewer in cars made in the 60s and 70s is because they make up a small percentage of the cars that are on the road today. I can almost guarantee that the odds of a car built in that era being involved in a fatal accident will continue to decrease each year. If we did the same number crunching with fatalities over the last 10 years involving cars built in the 20s the statistics for that group would probably look even better.

I'm with you on the checks for cars that are older than 5 years (I thought it was 3) they are a useful tool in determining a vehicles road worthiness. Here's an idea that should create an animated debate - maybe states that don't have these type of checks need to carry a current road worthiness certificate with them when they drive on NSW roads because their registration doesn't prove anything other than they own the vehicle and that they have paid their own state governments tax. 

Cheers

BB

rockylizard wrote:

---

Gday...

I can only speak for Victoria - but a Road Worthiness Certificate RWC is only valid for 30 days from the date of the examination.

I would be interested in the time frame of validity for other states .. including the 'green slip'

I imagine that, like Victoria, the RWC/greenslip becomes worthless after that stipulated time frame and the check is to only determine that it is fit for use for that length of time.

Cheers - John

---

Good point John but the inspection for road worthiness in NSW isn't actually the green slip (that's just the 3rd party insurance certificate)  the inspection is the pink slip which they now refer to as an E slip as it's sent electronically rather than the old paper copy which you had to take with you to the RTA when you paid the rego.  A pink slip is only valid for 42 days from the time of the inspection but that's a lot better than having no check done at all. It means that you are forced to take actions such as replacing tyres, fixing emission problems, brakes or what ever else is deemed to be defective on your vehicle before they will pass it. In NSW for a vehicle greater than 5 years you will need a pink slip (inspection), a green slip (3rd party) and registration (state tax) add to that your comprehensive insurance. Without any repairs you are probably up for between $1500 to $2000 each year before your car even leaves the garage. When you buy a used car they will also slug you a transfer fee and stamp duty at $X for each $100 that you paid for the vehicle or if they think you're cheating they may even ask you to rethink or pay at the market value. 

BB

 

-- Edited by The Belmont Bear on Wednesday 21st of March 2018 06:03:36 PM

vehicle inspection are only good the day they are done
cheers
blaze

Far from correct . Tyres and brakes do not degrade in one day or one week even. Lights can and do fail at any time. It seems to be a forgotten art to check these things by reflection in a shop window, or indeed from the tailgater behind you.

Thank you Cupie I thought I would get a reaction from the cane toads who use the great state of NSW as their playground - obviously that idea isn't workable and just like in the origin series you guys wouldn't bother following the rules anyhow.  The only other solution I can see is to build a wall (got that from the Donald) with gates that only open if you have an electronically tagged road worthy vehicle.....phew sure is hot over here today.

BB

blaze wrote:

---

vehicle inspection are only good the day they are done
cheers
blaze

---

 But better than never having them done at all!

Get all those fuel guzzling polluting vehicles off the road and replace them with electric cars. No more fuel tankers rolling over and catching fire, service station would have lots of under cover parking to support the solar panels and wind turbines to recharge their monster battery packs so they can recharge the electric vehicle in under 30 mins. Guaranteed captive customers for at least 30 mins to grab a coffee and a bite to eat. A force rest stop to solve the fatigued driver problems ... I'm sure there are a heap more advantages to this shift to all electric transportation.
Businesses could be set up to retrofit the old fuel guzzler to battery electric for those that love their vehicle or have a specialty built vehicle like a motorhome.
How about something like, if it's not electric it can't be sold as a new vehicle after 2022 and can't be re-registered after 2025, that would give plenty of time to get things sorted.
Add autonomous driver options and running into each other or into the other lane would be eliminated. Might need to stop people walking out in front of them though, but Darwin Law will sort out that problem soon enough if an education program doesn't do the trick. I seem to remember the "Look left, look right then look left again and only cross when it is safe to do so" not hard to learn and follow was it.

T1 Terry