P-Plate Restrictions (2 Viewers)

[Jiga]

I think alot of people are 100% right on this. Personally, like many others, the ban on passengers is a crock of sh*t. Even the NRMA guy on TV said something to the effect of 'I dont want my 17 year old daughter being stranded in the middle of nowhere because the designated driver cant take her'... classic case of why this would be stupid. And there is also the whole designated driver system, everyone I kno does this (cant say the same for older people!)... by limiting passengers they are going to encourage drink driving, at the very least they cant have it both ways, its either no passengers & an increase in the BAC allowed or passengers and keep it at 0!!

As for the testing and 1 strike idea, I am ok with these... I think the 1 strike and your out system will work very well tbh, I know whenever its double demerit weekends on your reds... you dont speed at all because its one strike and your out!

Only thing I can add though as others have said, is scrap this idea of increasing L's to 100hours or whatever... driving with mummy and daddy is piss easy, they need to bring in driver training courses... so that younger drivers understand first hand (as opposed to some boring speaker telling them) the limitations of their cars... and then also teach them how to control the vehcile in an emergency situation (Particularly important when you consider that younger drivers usually have older cars without ABS etc... so the chances of them getting into a bad situation and not having the same back up as many full licenses holders have in newer cars is higher - like basic things like no power steering so response is slower, no abs so simple braking in the wet is a hazard, and newer things like stability control which let cars fitted hit corners at like 100km/h and maintain control while da avg p-plater car loses it at 50km/h as a result of mis-judgement etc)

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Are there any P-platers on this committee thing?

There was going to be, but he slammed into a tree after losing control of his vehicle on the way to a committee meeting. Police say the male driver aged 17 was driving alone and exceeding the speed limit by 150, and had received several warnings and fines for speeding in the past, prompting calls to reduce speed limits for P-Platers and ban passengers.

This takes the national P-plater toll in the last arbitrary time period possibly bounded on one end or the other by a public holiday to 31.3, and the total national road toll in the last arbitrary time period possibly bounded on one end or the other by a public holiday to 32.3.

---

I personally would like to know why a national road toll is kept at random times of the year but the national Killed By Falling Vending Machine toll is never reported. The Suicide Toll would also be far more interesting and eye opening reporting.

Anyway, I think the solution is to abolish P-Plates and simply let those who pass a test go straight from Ls to Gold License.

 

[Uncle Jonny]

Anyway, I think the solution is to abolish P-Plates and simply let those who pass a test go straight from Ls to Gold License.

Brilliant. This plan will eliminate 100% of P plater related incidences.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Brilliant. This plan will eliminate 100% of P plater related incidences.

That was the plan.

 

[HotShot]

I really think we should increase the speed limits, 50km/h is just too slow. Increasing the speed limits will means a reduction in the travelling time.

We should also improve traffic lights, the roads and signs. In general Sydney has shittest roads compared to all the other state capital cities. We have some of the worst roads, traffic lights and signs.

Until we improve the condition of the road - have a autobahn these accidents will continue to happen.

 

[Jiga]

I stand by my previous comments - the restrictions that will apply to people on their red Ps are hardly as unfair as many young people would have us believe, no matter where they may live.

Yes and this MASSIVE over-representation of P-Plate deaths on the road is hardly realistic as many media soruces would have us believe .

Typical news bulletin "A massive shocking car crash today with yet ANOTHER [insert age] p-plater involved, shocking injuries etc... how many more must die b4 the govt does something? 5 other crashes occured today, 20 ppl died. Now onto other news..."

Funny how only now there is a crisis... only now when getting your p's etc is most heavily regulated.... 10 years back they didnt do 1/4 things yet there wasnt a crisis. Go back further (albeit less exposure to vehicles) and you rock up and have your full license on the day if you want. Yet it is now, after the system has been in place for a while, that suddenly this year p-players have all decided 'lets die'.... open your eyes, the media is having a field day with this one!

EDIT : And alittle note, Im on my greens.... my friends (who also agree with my logic) some of which have full license or at least greens.... agree this is BS. So this isnt just red p-platers here whinging about the restrictions, anyone with half a brain disagrees with most of the changes taking place!

Heh this point alone deserves its own standalone debate. Who will be responsible for the training courses? How much will they cost, and who will bear the cost? There's little doubt that we could all go on. Ultimately, I think that there will have to be a subsidised system put in place and that increased education will have to be the responsibility of the RTA and the police.

People wanting the license would obviously pay... they already do pay for their test and license!!! Maybe the RTA can cut their 1000% profits on the p's down just alittle (they would bear the cost Id imagine)... and for once actually use the ridiculously high fee's to good use... instead of charging $100 for a 5mins HPT, $2 piece of plastic and $10 worth of labor! These current restrictions will have minimal effect on the road toll (edit: except 1 strike and ur out)... most of the recent crashes for example didnt even have passengers in the car or as the cause... its called the govts PR stunt, lets make it look like we are solving the claimed issue at hand when we are not. Now, something that could save likes... like a driver education course, isnt even considered no doubt!

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Firstly, driving isn't a privilege, it's an integral part of the world we live in. If all cars and trucks disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't be an inconvenience, it would be anarchy.

My memory of legal studies is fairly poor, but isn't the main idea behind the penalties applied for breaking the law, that the severity of the penalty is meant to sort of represent how bad society considers a particular offense to be?

If so, just change the penalty for speeding and other infringements from a small fine and loss of "points" to a jail term, and similarly for other road related crimes. Some people don't seem to be bothered by getting a fine or losing a couple of points, many of whom might be frightened by the idea of going to jail "just" for doing 20 over the limit. I think this would address what appears to be the increasing concern among people about acts committed by drivers that might compromise road safety. It would also apply equally to all drivers and not unfairly target "p-platers" which is an unfair division in light of driving skills not being linearly determined by age for all drivers, or even most drivers.

Cars are really very dangerous things, just as much as say, guns, I think. So you want to look at changing attitudes, once again young and old, about the seriousness of breaking the law while driving.

Things like imaginary "points" being deducted and token fines of a few hundred dollars, and referring to "road rules" instead of "road laws" and calling things "infringements" instead of "crimes" and so on sort of gives the impression that it's not a big deal. But if we are to believe (though it may just be the media) that people are increasingly bothered by the deaths caused by crime on the road then I think it could be worth looking at whether the laws and associated penalties currently match the seriousness of the issue. (Imagine a fine being issued for breaking the sex rules because you happened to have sex without consent with a 10 year old)

Education programs with videos of disfigured people won't work as well because dumb people (the ones killing themselves) will see it as something boring and unnecessary they have to sit through before they can start driving (kinda like school).

A P1 test that a chimp couldn't pass would be pretty good though. I agree that the P2 license is completely pointless, they might as well have 7 different colours so you can get a new one every four months with incremental increase in speed limit of 2km/hr by doing a computer touch screen test or something. Yay, I have my purple P7 license, only $1000 down and I'm almost finished, and I can do 108km/hr!

Generally though if they are serious about anything they would apply any restrictions to P-Plate Drivers to ALL drivers, until they do I'll think it's a token effort somewhat like the P2 license, being seen to be Doing Something^TM, probably after lots of Official Research that the public couldn't read because they wouldn't understand how academic it is, anyway.

 

[Sparcod]

As someone said before, those multiple-choice computer tests are so pathetic. They're too easy and nearly everyone can pass.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...s/2007/01/09/1168104983564.html?s_cid=rss_smh

But the author of the research, Mark Stevenson, from the George Institute for International Health, said the panel's recommendation to restrict the number of peer-aged passengers carried by a P-plater to one between 11pm and 5am would save lives.

Professor Stevenson said young people who carried more than one peer-aged passenger increased their crash risk 15-fold.

15-fold?!???!??!

 

[Azamakumar]

Read The Whole Damn Thing I Thought About It For Ages

Whilst the whole passenger restriction thing doesnt exactly seem practical, I guess you could approach it from the angle that yes, there will be more cars on the road, yet an accident between two cars will only result in 2 deaths, as opposed to 5-8. You will always get some idiot driver that succumbs to peer pressure, but whilst the majority of us like to think that we are safe and resposible, noone can tell what kind of driver you are going to turn out to be if you've only been on the road for a few months. Some people can handle the pressure and responsibility of passengers, and the curfew is one simple way to control those that can't.

The whole one demerit thing also seems like a good idea, but i'd say possibly only on red P's; make a mistake, back to square one. Like it or not, it means you have to go through 12 months of flawless driving until your skills as a safe and reliable driver are recognised.

If the majority of you guys weren't so focused on how the state government is just pawning us off as reckless and irresponsible idiots, you would realise that MOST of the laws implemented in the state actually do save lies.
There will always be people that spoil it for everyone, and while restricting vehicles that P platers in general can and can't drive may not seem helpful (for the idiot which made that one up, 200km/h in mums camry will still fuck you up as much as 200km/h in a pimped beamer or any kind of turbocharged vehicle for that matter), I can only guess that it's aimed at seeing who can handle the responsibilty of being able to drive without someone holding your hand for the duration of the journey making sure that you obey every last word of the law, and "cutting off the oxygen" of those that can't. It's not like the whole performance thing makes a huge difference, any car will get you from point A to point B in the same amount of time.

At the end of the day, it's the honest one's that suffer the most, and you'll just have to suck it up 'til you get a full license. The laws only affect the REAL problem, and if you're not going to break the law, they ultimately won't affect you.

Or you could let P platers just have at it with a turbocharged monster, and let the problem solve itself. =/

 

[HotShot]

Re: Read The Whole Damn Thing I Thought About It For Ages

Whilst the whole passenger restriction thing doesnt exactly seem practical, I guess you could approach it from the angle that yes, there will be more cars on the road, yet an accident between two cars will only result in 2 deaths, as opposed to 5-8. You will always get some idiot driver that succumbs to peer pressure, but whilst the majority of us like to think that we are safe and resposible, noone can tell what kind of driver you are going to turn out to be if you've only been on the road for a few months. Some people can handle the pressure and responsibility of passengers, and the curfew is one simple way to control those that can't.

More cars on the roads = more deaths. More oppurtinties for cars to hit pedestrians, more traffic jams = more people being frustrated, angry etc increasing the chances of an accident. Add to that to the fact you have to travel alone which is just the last thing you need for the environment.

The best you can do, is make the roads safer, by improving, better and more visible signs. Wider roads, fix up black spots etc.

If the majority of you guys weren't so focused on how the state government is just pawning us off as reckless and irresponsible idiots, you would realise that MOST of the laws implemented in the state actually do save lies.

You must be joking? the government trying to save us?

 

[scarybunny]

I like the stuff they're going to implement. In theory, red P platers would be 17 so they wouldn't need desos. Obviously that's a bit presumptuous, but it's only for the first year, while they get their independent driving skills. When you've been driving by yourself for a year, you'd be more prepared to handle a car full of presumably drunk passengers late at night. Teenagers could still car pool during the day. This part also doesn't effect teenagers with late-night jobs, which was my main problem with a curfew.

The zero-point thing is good. Nobody needs to go over the speed limit. I'm assuming P platers would still get the 10% leeway, and if you're minding your speed you won't go over the limit, even accidently. This is like the legislation that was in place when our parents learned to drive, so now we'll see if it helps at all, or if it's just our generation that apparently kills themselves.
The only difference between the new laws and laws back in the old days is that we have P2 licences, so we can't have any alcohol and drive for another 2 years, which I'm fine with. (i'm so tiny i'd probably go over the limit with one cruiser and stay over the limit for a looong time)

So hurrah for new legislation

 

[iamsickofyear12]

The zero-point thing is good. Nobody needs to go over the speed limit. I'm assuming P platers would still get the 10% leeway, and if you're minding your speed you won't go over the limit, even accidently.

I don't like it at all.

Firstly to make sure you aren't speeding you need to look at your speedo every 5 seconds. I would consider that much more dangerous than speeding a little bit.

Secondly, maintaining and constant speed rather than changing speeds to suit traffic conditions is monotonous and makes it a lot easier to lose concentration. You can say all you want about how illegal speeding is but speed limits in Sydney are ridiculous.

Finally I think people have forgotten that plenty of first year P platers rely on their cars just as much as older people. It is completely unfair that they get no chances. It is so easy to lose track of your speed just for a split second and get busted for hardly speeding at all.

 

[brightsea]

Originally posted by Schoolies_2004
Yes and this MASSIVE over-representation of P-Plate deaths on the road is hardly realistic as many media soruces would have us believe

Schoolies_2004 is right. The media has blown all the recent P-plate deaths out of portion. If you look at the number of cars involved in fatalities in 2006 (652) and then the number of drivers involved aged between 17 and 20 (67), it works out that P-platers (red and green) were involved in 10.27%. (All stats are from the RTA - the maths is my own so it could be wrong ). And that is just saying P-platers were INVOLVED, not directly responsible/accountable for the fatal accident.

I agree with Captain Gh3y, driving is not a privilege - it's often a necessity. Since the dawn of the wheel humans have been moving whether it be horse and cart, or car. Young people often need cars for work and although the government says there will be exemptions, exactly how will one apply for an exemption?

Provide proof of employment? Well, that doesn't prove that you work after 11pm and have to ferry two friends home. Provide proof of a roster? Rosters often changed frequently, especially in shift work. All this does is increase bureaucracy for those who have done nothing wrong except be born around or after 1988 (assuming the majority of red P-platers are 17).

Originally posted by Stott Despoja
That said, young people will be young people and plans may sometimes go awry, but surely in such cases the people in question will stick together and work out a suitable alternative that doesn't involve leaving others in limbo... Hmmm. Blind optimism in a post like this seems out of place, doesn't it?

Yes, I would stick around to make sure my friends found an alternative way home but unfortunately, often even the most meticulous can unravel. Let's rely on an anecdote to illustrate. I put two friends (A and B) in a taxi, which dropped A off and continued with B. Once A was gone, however, the taxi driver proceeded to grab B on the leg while driving and tried to kiss her. Now she extricated herself from the situation but what if the driver had been more aggressive? Once I get my red Ps (I'm 19 by the way) I would prefer to drop my friends directly to the door rather than having them catching a taxi alone at 2am.

Originally posted by Stott Despoja
Responsbile drinking can help to improve any night, don't get me wrong, but it isn't as though a group of five or four only needs a single designated driver for the night.

Under the proposed laws a group of five would need three designated drivers. Kind of kills any improvement alcohol can have on a night out.

As others have said, a practical driver education program is the best way to go. A defensive driving course, as well as the normal 50 hours, would work well. As for who should pay, well the learner driver should. If driving is "privilege" then you earn it, and to do that you pay for course. Saving $10/week for the compulsory six months of Ls will almost meet the fee charged by these entrepreneurial fellows. As for who should conduct it - private business with accreditation, a criteria and a resultant "certificate of achievement/accomplishment", much like the RSA and RCG.

As for the mobile phone thing...fair enough.

 

[Raginsheep]

How would the passenger restrictions work if a P-plater is drving with 3/4 passengers at 10:50pm? If they don't make their destination by 11, would the driver be forced to abandon their passengers on the side of the road? Would the driver speed up and break the speed limit in order to make their destination before curfew? Would the drivers these regulations are targeted at even care about following them?

 

[Jiga]

^

THATS A GOOD POINT! Never thought about that, I wander what provisions they have in place of such an event... or is it going to make this restriction useless as its impossible to police (at least around 11pm).

Schoolies_2004 is right. The media has blown all the recent P-plate deaths out of portion. If you look at the number of cars involved in fatalities in 2006 (652) and then the number of drivers involved aged between 17 and 20 (67), it works out that P-platers (red and green) were involved in 10.27%. (All stats are from the RTA - the maths is my own so it could be wrong ). And that is just saying P-platers were INVOLVED, not directly responsible/accountable for the fatal accident.

Right on... although I have read different figures from the media (I think the RTA only has up to 2005... where the number of p-plater drivers and the deaths from them on the road were both around 10% - not major over-repesenation in the stats at all), but even then the stats suggest P-platers accounted for only 18% of fatalities. And the main thing they are pushing is how the overal deaths on roads declined (by a MASSSIVE lol 6 people - from 516 to 510) while P-plate deaths went up by 30%. Now, you may think... oh we need restrictions based on this. But look for example at the passed road tolls in the christmas period... 13 deaths in the 2004-05, 24 in 2003-04, 14 in 2002-03 and 24 in 2001-02. Do you see a trend? The number of deaths is all over the place... which would indicate that an increase this year of 30% among p-platers overall, just like for previous years with full license holders, is totally unrelated to being a p-plater and more just the circumstances of the year! To back this up.... from 1999 - 2003 the deaths among 17-25 year olds has fluctuated, 207, 229, 187, 163, 187... there is, just like the full license holders, no linear relationship.... it increases one year, and decreases the next... during the same time in which restrictions increased as well Im prity sure, showing that they have no effect as the causes of the crashes aernt for example a lack of basic skills (which they try to correct by making more hours on L's etc)

The ONLY legitamacy in bringing in more restrictions is the fact that p-platers account for 8% of drivers yet are 18% of the overall deaths for 2006 at least. However... I strongly believe this is mainly due to a number of things, and not just a lack of skill (as like Ive said previously, regulations are now more then ever... 20years ago you get your license on the day... now we are more regulated in NSW than any other state). Id say the main contributing factors are things like the fact that p-platers drive more, on avg, then the remainder of full license holders (backed up by the fact that Australia has an aging populating... which will drive nowhere near the same amount as younger drivers) at night!! I read this stat on the rta site, p-platers are 6 times more likely to have a fatal crash between 10pm and 5am.... now tell yourself, how many 25> year olds are out driving between those times. FFS they try to say its driver distractions etc, no its merely the fact that although p-platers account for less drivers, they are proportionally more of them driving at night!!! And on top of this, we are forgetting that the majority of younger drivers have vehicles which lack even basic safety like ABS.. so they are either put into an emergency situation because of their cars lack of safety (no ABS in the wet turns a simple stop in a car with ABS to a slide that can cause a car to spin etc), dont have the same safety features to avoid a crash which may not be of their own fault and they lack the safety features which can potentially save them in the event of impact with another object like air bags.

As others have said, a practical driver education program is the best way to go. A defensive driving course, as well as the normal 50 hours, would work well. As for who should pay, well the learner driver should. If driving is "privilege" then you earn it, and to do that you pay for course. Saving $10/week for the compulsory six months of Ls will almost meet the fee charged by these entrepreneurial fellows. As for who should conduct it - private business with accreditation, a criteria and a resultant "certificate of achievement/accomplishment", much like the RSA and RCG.

I personally think it should hypothetically be done via the RTA... they already charged a shyteload for a piece of plastic/5min test/20min test drive... they can cut their massive profit margins, and maybe charge alittle more... it would easily account for the driving training fees (esp when you consider they would decrease fees as business fight for contracts)

N e way... I could go on, but its useless.... I think the main thing is they have been looking at the wrong causes to the recent crashes (for eg, distractions...resulting in a crash - so they have brought passneger limits in)... and as a result, havent addressed the issues at hand correctly. Now they have brought in new regulations that will have minimal effect of the road toll, instead of realising that more advanced skills are required among p-platers, instead of more basic skills which they already have (not more hour of L's learning basic sh*t... or doing more basic skills theory tests.... or making the practical skills test involve doing more BASIC things) the govts new regulations will have less of an impact that changes which are directed at correcting the actual causes of crashes for younger drivers (not to mention, how impractical these new changes are)

 

[sparkl3z]

these new restrictions suck and i think it's really unfair man, like not all p-platers drive poorly, and if they want to use the excuse that p-platers are inexperienced and can't drive at night, they need to remember that not all p-platers are directly on p plates from l's, they can basically stay on red p's forever if they want to renew their thing and never go for their greens-ok u'd have to be extremely lazy etc whatever, but what i'm saying is there are ppl who have been on red p's for ages and have enough experience, and they shouldn't be punished for that. as for the accident part, i've seen some full licensed drivers who drive worse than some p platers do, they don't give signals when turning somewhere or they go into roundabouts without lookin who's comin from the right whatever AND i've also seen some of the younger full licensed ones trying to provoke ppl to do somethin stupid like crash as soon as they see the p plater sign on the car so yeh..i think all this pressure on p platers r really unfair. i do agree that overall full licensed ppls may be less likely to crash since they have more driving years than us whatever but i don't think these extra rules will do anything much but cause more frustration. they should actually make compulsory driving lessons like somebody said cos some ppl or i shall say most don't even read that rta road book. i've heard about it being in place in some other countrys n i think if they did the compulsory lessons with someone professional teaching them and increasing their practical drivin exp hours they would actually be doin somethin useful.

 

[scarybunny]

I don't like it at all.

Firstly to make sure you aren't speeding you need to look at your speedo every 5 seconds. I would consider that much more dangerous than speeding a little bit.

Secondly, maintaining and constant speed rather than changing speeds to suit traffic conditions is monotonous and makes it a lot easier to lose concentration. You can say all you want about how illegal speeding is but speed limits in Sydney are ridiculous.

Finally I think people have forgotten that plenty of first year P platers rely on their cars just as much as older people. It is completely unfair that they get no chances. It is so easy to lose track of your speed just for a split second and get busted for hardly speeding at all.

Oh come on, it's not hard to keep your speedo on the same number. After 100 hours driving as an L plater I'd hope P platers would at least be able to maintain their speed. If conditions change because of traffic or whatever, I'd think that in most cases that would require a reduction of speed anyway.

And yeah sometimes 60 feels a bit slow, but deal with it. The police are going to have a big crackdown on P plate speeding, and if going 60 is what it takes to keep your licence then just do it, especially if you rely on your car. The system was like this years ago, and it worked fine then.

 

[Azamakumar]

Re: Read The Whole Damn Thing I Thought About It For Ages

More cars on the roads = more deaths. More oppurtinties for cars to hit pedestrians, more traffic jams = more people being frustrated, angry etc increasing the chances of an accident. Add to that to the fact you have to travel alone which is just the last thing you need for the environment.

The best you can do, is make the roads safer, by improving, better and more visible signs. Wider roads, fix up black spots etc.

You must be joking? the government trying to save us?

I am willing to bet that 70 year old man is more competent at predicting and avoiding a dangerous situation whilst behind the wheel than most P platers (even though they may be significantly underrepresented in terms of qualified drivers in that age bracket =/), simply because they have that 30+ years of experience on the road, which is why the are one of the most low profile age groups on that graph. (Although a much more accurate measure which I would like to see published somewhere in one of these media crazes is what percentage of drivers in each age group have a fatal crash.)

The curfew is aimed at controlling teenaged P platers, though the statistics we are constantly fed by the media do represent a larger proportion of society (and are also blown out of proportion), as people transferring licenses are sent straight to P's etc. No shit the curfew is ridiculous, and no shit its going to be hard to enforce, and no shit its going to get abused until some idiot from parliament makes an even more ridiculous law. The curfew isn't trying to say "hey, he/she looks like an irresponsible idiot, lets stop 'em from taking anyone home" as much as address the fact that you only have had 50+ hours on the road with someone next to you holding your hand every step of the way, and havent exactly had a lot of experience going solo.

If your friend were to offer you and your significant other a lift home from a party (thus breaking the terms of the curfew?), would you risk costing them their license, or make your own way home, ie, call your mum? It's not like before you got your P's you didnt have a social life/job.

Oh and btw, could someone tell me if all the new changes apply to P1 and P2 or just P1? D:

 

[brightsea]

Originally posted by Schoolies_2004
I think the RTA only has up to 2005... where the number of p-plater drivers and the deaths from them on the road were both around 10%...

The stats I quoted are from the RTA's December 2006 "Monthly Bulletin" (link), although it's only titled as preliminary traffic crash data, and the total number of fatalities has yet to be "finalised".

Originally posted by Schoolies_2004
I personally think it should hypothetically be done via the RTA... they already charged a shyteload for a piece of plastic/5min test/20min test drive... they can cut their massive profit margins, and maybe charge alittle more... it would easily account for the driving training fees (esp when you consider they would decrease fees as business fight for contracts)

I still think out-sourcing to private enterprise is the way to go. Simply because the undertaking would be too large for the RTA when they are already (so it seems) understaffed. The HSC graduating class for '05 was about 65 000 (take away international students, people who never get their licence, add older people getting their licence etc. etc.) and for the RTA to run a drivers education course for they would need to raise the money (yes, I agree they overcharge), develop a course/format and employ extra people to teach it. It would be much better to use existing infrastructure and just send a RTA rep to all the different places to give them official accreditation.

Originally posted by Azamakumar
If your friend were to offer you and your significant other a lift home from a party (thus breaking the terms of the curfew?), would you risk costing them their license, or make your own way home, ie, call your mum? It's not like before you got your P's you didnt have a social life/job.

When you don't have your licence the benefits of catching a taxi etc. outweigh the risks. When I've got my licence and if I am the designated driver I would much prefer to drop my friends home rather than have them go it alone. Plus, I don't think my mum would appreciate a 4am phone call

Originally posted by Azamakumar
Oh and btw, could someone tell me if all the new changes apply to P1 and P2 or just P1?

At the moment, they're just for P1 drivers - The Age.

EDIT: Just found this.

Night buses for P-platers
THE State Government says it will provide more late-night buses if new P-plate laws create extra demand for public transport.

The restrictions will ban P-plate drivers from carrying more than one passenger under 25 between 11pm and 5am.

A spokesman for the acting Transport Minister, John Della Bosca, said yesterday the Government would be willing to put on more buses if demand dictated it, and the situation would be monitored as the laws took effect.

An increase in Nightrider services and extra suburban bus services were two of the possibilities to help cope with any increased demand.

The new P-plate laws are due to come into effect in July.

Although they are designed to protect new drivers, concerns have been raised that the "curfew" provision could leave young people stranded late at night.

Source: SMH

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Oh come on, it's not hard to keep your speedo on the same number. After 100 hours driving as an L plater I'd hope P platers would at least be able to maintain their speed. If conditions change because of traffic or whatever, I'd think that in most cases that would require a reduction of speed anyway.

It's not too hard to keep your speedo around the same number but you have to also consider that plenty of roads in Sydney aren't flat, speed limits are completely inconsistent and generally slower than what they should be. It's not difficult at all to end up 5km/h over the speed limit without noticing.

I want inexperiences drivers focusing on the road not the speedo. Something that should be used to crack down on the morons that drive around at 20km/h over the speed limit all the time is going to end up hurting the safe drives who don't brake hard enough down a hill.