Call To Ban Poor Safety Performers

[munners]

From Go Auto

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/8105A387076B3C21CA257B8000238969"

Important parts....

AUSTRALIA should consider banning the sale of cars with poor safety records, federal parliament was told yesterday.

Shadow parliamentary secretary for roads and regional transport, Darren Chester, made the call to ban all strong-selling vehicles from Australia that do not have a three- or four-star crash safety rating in a speech before federal parliament.

He also asked for more to be done “to help reduce the enormous impact of road trauma on our nation”.

The National Party member for Gippsland said there were vehicles on sale in Australia that the federal government would “not let any public servant drive” because their crash safety fell outside the government’s compulsory five-star rating.

“It is my personal view that we should ban the importation of any vehicle sold in volume which does not achieve a minimum three- or, preferably, four-star ANCAP safety rating,” Mr Chester said.

“Right now, we have vehicles on sale in Australia that the federal government would not let any public servant drive but that we are allowing to be imported and driven on our roads.

“In safety terms, these are duds and they should not be on our roads. They may be cheap but they are potentially deadly, and there is no logical reason why we should import vehicles with comparatively low ANCAP (Australasian New Car Assessment Program) safety ratings.”

What do you think? Does he have a valid point?

I didn't realise that cars for public servants had to be 5 stars...

Munners

[GQ_Smooth]

Couldn't agree more, with China developing a wider car manufacturing industry with their own brands, I can see this becoming a very real issue in 10-15 years time for once we could be ahead of the game.

[tranquilized]

Fair enough, would be a good way to quietly protect whats left of our car manufacturing industry.

[Kable72]

Small steps, however seeming too late.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Fair enough, would be a good way to quietly protect whats left of our car manufacturing industry.

Doubt it would help. Often the difference between x / y stars could be a seatbelt chime, or the fact the car has ESP which have become very cheap with mass production.

We get what we get here because the import standards are low. If they had to raise the bar the offshore manufacturers would just raise their standards to whatever is needed to enter our market.

Great for the locals wanting low cost safer motoring.

[flappist]

Be careful.

Old Falcons are not "5 star".

All wedges have a thin edge.......

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by flappist

Be careful.

Old Falcons are not "5 star".

All wedges have a thin edge.......

The article seemed to specify imported Vehicles.

[turbodewd]

ANcRAP is a fraud. If you visit their website you see that a certain crash - the frontal offset one - consists of 2 cars of a similar size colliding.

This makes no sense and inflates the score of smaller cars. All cars should be made to collide with an SUV or pickup. You prepare for the worst when it comes to safety.

[Elks]

Originally Posted by flappist

Be careful.

Old Falcons are not "5 star".

All wedges have a thin edge.......

Like all ADR's it would have to apply to vehicles complianced after a certain date.

ie: Stability control is now mandatory on passenger cars, but you don't have to retrofit it to an XY.

[2011G6E]

Indeed...be careful what you wish for, it might come true...

Not the first time a big maker has suggested...purely for "safety reasons" you understand ...that cars older than five to maybe ten years old be banned from the roads...not to sell more new cars of course, just to keep the public "safe".

It pops up every five to ten years or so...I think last time it may have been Toyota, the time before that it was Mazda. It's usually big Japanese makers who suggest it, as in Japan, strict roadworthy testing laws and expensive testing mean that most cars are only about three years old at most before it becomes uneconomic to keep them going and they're scrapped.
Keeps the economy ticking along nicely with nearly everyone buying brand new cars every couple of years.

So yes, be careful supporting such an idea as banning new cars which don't meet certain safety standards...it wouldn't be long before a slippery slope started where they could convince the public it was a peachy keen idea to get all those "old death traps" off the road...


It's been tried before, it'll be tried again, and sooner or later they'll find a sympathetic ear from someone in some political party and then watch out...

[DJR-351]

Nothing more than political grandstanding.....

Pick a subject that portrays yourself as caring for the safety of the people, point out how the opposition doesn’t, then start beating the drum to the tune of “The current Fedral Government blah blah blah....”

Whether i agree with him or not is irrelevant, it's the validity of his motivation that interests me more......

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Elks

Like all ADR's it would have to apply to vehicles complianced after a certain date.

ie: Stability control is now mandatory on passenger cars, but you don't have to retrofit it to an XY.

Unless of course they just changed the rules crapping on about "public safety" or "think of the children".

Not that there is any precedent for that.........

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

ANcRAP is a fraud. If you visit their website you see that a certain crash - the frontal offset one - consists of 2 cars of a similar size colliding.

This makes no sense and inflates the score of smaller cars. All cars should be made to collide with an SUV or pickup. You prepare for the worst when it comes to safety.

Hell why not just drive them into a road train doing 120kph. I've seen numourous crashes involving a few members on here and other forums in smaller cars and they came out unscathed.

If it ever happened to me I reckon I'd be pretty safe in my car.
Some small cars aren't quite small anymore though. Crashing into an SUV would be good idea though considering there is so many on the road.

[FGII-XR6]

I doubt they would make ADRs retrospective. if a car complies with ADRs at the time of manufacture it will remain legal.
like all new car standards they rely on redundancy to phase them in. as cars are removed from the road as they age or are written off the introduced standards become the norm

Originally Posted by flappist

Unless of course they just changed the rules crapping on about "public safety" or "think of the children".

Not that there is any precedent for that.........

[GQ_Smooth]

My support is for new cars sold in the Australian market to meet a minimum safety standard, not old ones. I don't believe there has ever been a law passed retrospectively regarding safety for motor vehicles in Australia (happy to be proven wrong).

Even with seat belts, if your car was manufactured before seat belts were mandatory, you do not need to install them, same with indicators, leaded fuel, stability control and so on.

[Mad_Pom]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Indeed...be careful what you wish for, it might come true...

Not the first time a big maker has suggested...purely for "safety reasons" you understand ...that cars older than five to maybe ten years old be banned from the roads...not to sell more new cars of course, just to keep the public "safe".

It pops up every five to ten years or so...I think last time it may have been Toyota, the time before that it was Mazda. It's usually big Japanese makers who suggest it, as in Japan, strict roadworthy testing laws and expensive testing mean that most cars are only about three years old at most before it becomes uneconomic to keep them going and they're scrapped.
Keeps the economy ticking along nicely with nearly everyone buying brand new cars every couple of years.

So yes, be careful supporting such an idea as banning new cars which don't meet certain safety standards...it wouldn't be long before a slippery slope started where they could convince the public it was a peachy keen idea to get all those "old death traps" off the road...


It's been tried before, it'll be tried again, and sooner or later they'll find a sympathetic ear from someone in some political party and then watch out...

Agree - you have to remember, even the poorest performing imports are much better than most cars >10 years old.

No retracting seatbelts, no pretensioners, no airbag - off the road
Then no DSC - off the road
Then no curtain airbags - off the road

Where will it stop ?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GQ_Smooth

My support is for new cars sold in the Australian market to meet a minimum safety standard, not old ones. I don't believe there has ever been a law passed retrospectively regarding safety for motor vehicles in Australia (happy to be proven wrong).

Even with seat belts, if your car was manufactured before seat belts were mandatory, you do not need to install them, same with indicators, leaded fuel, stability control and so on.

No but there have been quite a lot on other subjects.

The standard run is "lots of deaths" "not needed as others can do the same job" "danger to public" "vilify those who try to talk sense against the rambling do-gooders" "ban the item" "introduce propaganda into schools and media state how much safer Australia is now that the dangerous items are gone until anyone who disagrees is thought of as a nutter"

You think it won't work?

Ask shooters.......

[kevino]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Indeed...be careful what you wish for, it might come true...

Not the first time a big maker has suggested...purely for "safety reasons" you understand ...that cars older than five to maybe ten years old be banned from the roads...not to sell more new cars of course, just to keep the public "safe".

It pops up every five to ten years or so...I think last time it may have been Toyota, the time before that it was Mazda. It's usually big Japanese makers who suggest it, as in Japan, strict roadworthy testing laws and expensive testing mean that most cars are only about three years old at most before it becomes uneconomic to keep them going and they're scrapped.
Keeps the economy ticking along nicely with nearly everyone buying brand new cars every couple of years.

So yes, be careful supporting such an idea as banning new cars which don't meet certain safety standards...it wouldn't be long before a slippery slope started where they could convince the public it was a peachy keen idea to get all those "old death traps" off the road...


It's been tried before, it'll be tried again, and sooner or later they'll find a sympathetic ear from someone in some political party and then watch out...

A heck of a lot of 2nd hand Jap cars are exported from Japan to places like NZ, Russia, and the Pacific Islands.

[FNQracing]

I smell a rat from someone with a vested interest in keeping those pesky Chineese and Indian cars from eroding their market share.

Safety is very rarely the genuine cause.

[2011G6E]

Hell yes, it was very big business there for a while, the old Grey Import business.

Retrospectivity? I thought that if you put, say, a new engine into an old car (such as my fantasy project of a new 4 liter turbo XR6 motor and six speed ZF auto into an XY), then you had to fit an exhaust system with catalytic converters, all emissions stuff, even down to the unleaded filler neck and little sticker saying "unleaded fuel only". In other words, you had to make the car fit the new requirements of when the engine was made...

[Road_Warrior]

What's all this kerfuffle about second hand cars? My understanding is that this would apply to new cars and couldn't possibly be retrospective - it would mean the government would have to buy non-conforming cars off people, and I can't see them doing that.

[mik]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

ANcRAP is a fraud. If you visit their website you see that a certain crash - the frontal offset one - consists of 2 cars of a similar size colliding.

This makes no sense and inflates the score of smaller cars. All cars should be made to collide with an SUV or pickup. You prepare for the worst when it comes to safety.

agreed, and no rear end safety crashes? you cant tell me a small car with a cut off boot with the rear seat one foot away from the rear windscreen for rear seat passengers is safer than a large car with 3 or 4 feet of sheet metal behind it, it`s bs.

heres a question , do our local cars still use asbestos friction materials ? the reason i ask is a mate had a look at one of those very cheap imported utes that come from that place where just about every thing in Australia is now produced,
any way he reckons it had asbestos warnings on it, surely if our own brands are doing the right thing with friction materials(and that is the question i ask ?? ) imported stuff should tow the line as well,............. so do we still use asbestos products in our local cars??

[GQ_Smooth]

flappist
Shooting laws passed because 90% of the population don't shoot so it doesn't affect them. If the majority of people owned guns the laws wouldn't have passed as it would have inconvenienced them.

The vast majority of the of the voting population own a car, and wouldn't want to be told by the government that they can no longer drive their car because it didn't meet certain safety standards. Very inconvenient, based on that, my support still stands. If it ever gets to the stage of them taking classic cars off the road then I'm off the bandwagon.

[2011G6E]

Shooters weren't, and still aren't, a tiny minority...there were many hundreds of thousands of us that were affected by the laws.

See, the problem is that people think that the government cares about their hobbies.
They brought in unleaded fuel and did away with leaded even though many peoples cars couldn't run it without an additive...at the time they said it would probably "encourage people to buy newer safer cars". They didn't care about people who, oddly enough, wanted to own old cars instead of the latest shiny toy.
Now there are demands that we mandate 10% ethanol in unleaded, despite the fact that even less older cars can run on the stuff...and even some newer cars won't run on it. They don't care...go and buy a new car like a good little consumer!

If you have anything at all to do with the classic car movement, you will know there is always some push somewhere to get all those nasty polluting unsafe (pick your hate word of choice) old cars off the road and people into nice pleasant safe new cars. It goes on all the time. Restored Cars magazine has a regular two page feature column called "Is there an old car in your future?" keeping people up to date with little things hidden in government discussion papers and other information that isn't generally spread around as "it only affects a minority of road users".

"Clunker Laws" are a favourite, that at first blush seems sound logic...get unsafe rustbuckets off the road.
However, in many places around the world, they have evolved into something far beyond that idea, all in the name of safety. In some places in the USA, they mean that if an unregistered car is on your private property and visible from the road, they will come and take it away. If a car is "disabled" and unable to be driven...say no engine in it or wheels on it...again, they'll take it. All it takes is a neighbour to complain or a council worker to see it. One notable instance from many years ago was a guy who was restoring an Oldsmobile 442, and it was sitting unregistered in his driveway with the motor out of it and bonnet off. He came home from work and it was gone...he assumed it had been stolen, but was informed it had been towed away under the clunker laws. It took quite a legal fight to get it back again.
Don't think this sort of thing hasn't been thought about here...

The government doesn't care, hell, the general motorist doesn't care about your desire to keep driving that nasty smelly noisy old car.

[IDT]

Another politically correct moron who wants to take away every opportunity to reduce our own ability to make decisions. If you want an ultra safe car then buy one!
If you want to drive in an unsafe manner accept an appropriate punishment which should match the crime.
If this got through the only thing to come from it would be just another reason for importers and dealers to up the price on their cars forcing more people to buy used (and sometimes unroadworthy) cars.

[GQ_Smooth]

2011G6E
This is a Ford forum, don't make me change my mind with facts and examples!

We require personal attacks, 4th hand information from a brothers, girlfriends, mothers, sisters cousin that overhead someone that said.....

Your point is well made.

[2011G6E]

Thanks...it's just a long history of being involved in the classic car movement, hanging around vintage car guys, and hot rodders has given me a healthy wariness when it comes to governments coming up with "safety" proposals like this latest one...and what they could possibly expand to once they're law or regulation...

The unfortunate thing for the government is that it's human nature to remember the bad things in life more than the good. I honestly can't tell you the last "good" thing the government did for old car owners/enthusiasts...but as my last posts have said, I sure can remember all the bad things they've done/proposed...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GQ_Smooth

flappist
Shooting laws passed because 90% of the population don't shoot so it doesn't affect them. If the majority of people owned guns the laws wouldn't have passed as it would have inconvenienced them.

The vast majority of the of the voting population own a car, and wouldn't want to be told by the government that they can no longer drive their car because it didn't meet certain safety standards. Very inconvenient, based on that, my support still stands. If it ever gets to the stage of them taking classic cars off the road then I'm off the bandwagon.

There were and still are FAR more shooters than performance car enthusiasts........