Victorian Government to pay cash for old cars

[Greg N Smith]

Are any of you older (and young) regional Victorians driving around in old clunkers ?

I have got a few that might be able to make it all the way to Victoria !

[46 deluxe]

Huh ? what's this all about ?

[Greg N Smith]

https://au.newschant.com/auto/victorian ... -old-cars/

[Mudgy]

Rudd & Gillard tried this. FAILED.

Cheers, Mudgy

[Jacksbits]

Rudd & Gillard tried this. FAILED.

Cheers, Mudgy

Must be a Labor thing to get ready for the electric cars.

Just remembered we can't get political on the forum, so I will just say a Government thing to get ready for the electric cars.

Jack

[FRANK BASILE]

Still trying to figure the logic. it is supposed to be about "safety" and still no one puts any thought to the reality that cars do not cause accidents. Drive a "safe car" and young folks will drive as if bullet proof. Teach folks how to drive rather than simply teach them how to get a licence.

[Harv]

Still trying to figure the logic. it is supposed to be about "safety" and still no one puts any thought to the reality that cars do not cause accidents. Drive a "safe car" and young folks will drive as if bullet proof. Teach folks how to drive rather than simply teach them how to get a licence.

Agree. My kids learnt to drive in an FB Holden (3 kids down, one to go). They learnt to look ahead, make space, brake early and steadily, and that you need to use the gears just as much as the loud pedal. They still drive hard, but recognise there is a time and a place, and that vehicles are different. Great education for them.

Cheers,
Harv

[Mudgy]

Still trying to figure the logic. it is supposed to be about "safety" and still no one puts any thought to the reality that cars do not cause accidents. Drive a "safe car" and young folks will drive as if bullet proof. Teach folks how to drive rather than simply teach them how to get a licence.

Agree. My kids learnt to drive in an FB Holden (3 kids down, one to go). They learnt to look ahead, make space, brake early and steadily, and that you need to use the gears just as much as the loud pedal. They still drive hard, but recognise there is a time and a place, and that vehicles are different. Great education for them.

Cheers,
Harv

Dead right guys. Same as saying guns don't kill people. People kill people. And, "accidents don't happen - they are caused".
Kids can get a license. But that doesn't mean they can "drive".
It takes time and experience, which can't be bought... rather taught. How to "read" traffic, instead of blindly following the vehicle in front... anticipation, braking, control...
The ABC that's shared in a defensive driving course, which I believe should be a component of obtaining those P plates.

But I digress.

Cash for clunkers is a "never gonna happen" pipe dream. Probably designed to curry favour in back room deals/score preferences.... ahhh shit getting political again. DAMN.

Cheers, Mudgy

[The 40]

Well done. Hope Jet provided you with plenty of assistance. Regards

[zedman8]

Maybe they should teach defensive driving in schools

[FRANK BASILE]

In Victoria they hand licences out via interpreter to permanent residents. Scary that there are so many out there with a lack of common sense to some road rules.

[38Chevy454]

Cash for Clunkers was done here in US some years back. All it did was remove some portion of the lower end used cars, which drove prices up for the remaining. The rules here were that the engine had to be made unable to be used, they put something in the oil (I think water glass or similar) and it plugged the oil passages while the engine ran until it seized up. Then cars could go to junkyard and be used for parts, but never to be resold and put back on the road. Many just went straight to the crusher. Since many lower income people were the market for those cheaper older used cars, it made it tougher for them to find cheap cars that still had some life left in them, because it raised the prices of their used car market. It basically gave $3500 credit towards new car purchase, which only benefited the higher income folks. It was originally intended by gov't as a means to increase new car sales, I think all it did was move forward some car purchases, but not really cause a significant increase in actual newer cars on the road. In the end it stopped and was not very well liked by the public, except a small percentage that got more trade-in type value for their old car on a new car purchase. It was not originally sold as a safety measure, but the emissions aspect was touted as getting the older "more polluting" cars off the road.

[FRANK BASILE]

Cash for Clunkers was done here in US some years back. All it did was remove some portion of the lower end used cars, which drove prices up for the remaining. The rules here were that the engine had to be made unable to be used, they put something in the oil (I think water glass or similar) and it plugged the oil passages while the engine ran until it seized up. Then cars could go to junkyard and be used for parts, but never to be resold and put back on the road. Many just went straight to the crusher. Since many lower income people were the market for those cheaper older used cars, it made it tougher for them to find cheap cars that still had some life left in them, because it raised the prices of their used car market. It basically gave $3500 credit towards new car purchase, which only benefited the higher income folks. It was originally intended by gov't as a means to increase new car sales, I think all it did was move forward some car purchases, but not really cause a significant increase in actual newer cars on the road. In the end it stopped and was not very well liked by the public, except a small percentage that got more trade-in type value for their old car on a new car purchase. It was not originally sold as a safety measure, but the emissions aspect was touted as getting the older "more polluting" cars off the road.

Interesting. Here the the "safety" spin is used as it touches hearts. Just like the fixed and mobile speed cameras. Referred to as "safety cameras". Fine in principle, but here in my state over 72% of infringements are for 10KPH over or less. This is where I get cynical. They remove a tolerance factor of 3kph from the "detected" reading. I have no sympathy for those blatantly over the limit, but see it blatant revenue raising when people labelled as dangerous speeders for momentary straying over get infringements for being 1kph over [original detection would have been 4kph]. This is virtually a speedo needle width over. The camera in a parked vehicle roadside simply takes a snapshot of what happens on normal speed fluctuation. A police vehicle following you would never book you under those circumstances. You were booked for sustained bad behaviour over a measured distance. We do have point to point cameras on some highways. These are in my opinion fair and operate on the same principle as a following police vehicle. They allow for momentary stray over, in the end if your average speed over the journey was within the limit you are ok. The other stupid hypocrisy of the cameras is the red light cameras. They actually trigger some second or two after entering on the red. Police will ping you for entering some seconds after the amber light has come on, using judgement that you could have stopped safely as the amber is the beginning of the red cycle. This is what the cameras should do. Most accidents happen when someone races through clobbering a turning vehicle, or someone jumping a green light or arrow not watching for that early red runner coming across.