Potential threat to older vehicle ownership.

[patxbcoupe]

I know full well that this has been raised on these forums already, however, I dont understand why some of us cant see the dangers in the Cash for Old Cars scheme currently proposed by the Labor party...
What has been offered could only be the tip of the iceberg, as Japan for one has a compulsory scrapping policy after a set age limit or kilometers travelled...
Many of our forum members drive older vehicles (not just our modified/classics) but also as work cars, daily drivers, shopping runabouts etc, through personal choice or due to economic reasons, and in the future this choice may be taken away in the name of Environmental concerns...
A well maintained, roadworthy older vehicle makes less emissions to keep on the road, than what is used to produce a new one, especially when considering the amount of resources that go into the battery packs etc of a hybrid vehicle, and yet these are being touted as the miracle answer to the world's problems, mainly by car manufacturers and goverments.

Hopefully this thread wont degenerate into a series of personal attacks or get sidetracked, but surely this is worthy of some thought and discussion with the Federal Election looming?

I'm not a political party member or even that interested in politics at all, but we need to consider this issue along with many others at this time...
cheers Pat

[pottery beige]

dont panic it will just make all the derros think their buckets of crap are worth $2k.....

[jpd80]

Rather than pay people to part with their old clunkers, why not strengthen the existing laws and make these vehicles either comply to their original emission requirements or force them off the road.
If you look around, the oldest most common cars on the road now seem to be from the early 1990s, all pretty much run on ULP and have cat converters or if LPG, diesel are subject to post 1986 emission regulations.

I don't believe the case for cash for clunkers really stacks up economically either for people thinking of buying a new car or for the government. Most of the cars targeted for the C4C will probably be in the bone yard in the near future anyway. IMO, it's all a waste of money - Our Money.

[bluovl]

I couldn't agree more Patxbcoupe. I believe the situation for people with older cars, modified in particular is going to get worse. These 'old clunker' laws together with the banning of importing modified cars, outlawing working on your own car in your own backyard/ garage is a direct attack on what is many people on heres hobby.
I too dont want to put a political slant on this in any parties favour but I believe neither major party will help the situation we will face.

[imugli]

IMO we should be going down the road that Japan has gone down, though not as drastically. I support the idea of a registration levy on cars over (for instance) 10 years old (perhaps with the implementation of some 'classic car' scheme to exclude some older cars)

Not only because of fuel economy or emissions reasons but for safety reasons as well. I think it's important that every car on the road is as safe as possible.

Now, I understand that no car is safe when it hits a tree at 70km/h and that education has more to do with a long term road toll reduction than probably anything else but I'd much rather my kids jumping in a cheap, new, 5 star safety rated car that also uses less fuel and emits less co2 than a 15 year old Hyundai piece of foil.

In Japan, their system of replacement has seen the rise of the K car, which offers registration fee benefits. And while none of us here would probably be seen dead in the likes of a Suzuki Wagon R, they do serve a purpose and, if we're completely honest, do the job for most people.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by imugli

IMO we should be going down the road that Japan has gone down, though not as drastically. I support the idea of a registration levy on cars over (for instance) 10 years old (perhaps with the implementation of some 'classic car' scheme to exclude some older cars)

That's all very well for Japan, who can dump their old cars in China or North Korea, or even vietnam. what are we going to do with our old cars?

Originally Posted by xy500

You're forgetting the most important factor in two vehicle collisions, MASS

:wft
mass has nothing to do with crash survivability. it's how your car can protect you (even at the cost of it's own existance). the car's weight has little to do with you bashing your head on the dash.

[MOND30]

SA doesn't even have annual roadworthy checks for any vehicle, IIRC. These would have to have some sort of impact on the emissions, wouldn't they?

Every time the suggestion comes up, the RAA (our NRMA/RACV) bags it completely - I wonder if this is because it would reduce the number of people taking up a membership, as their cars would potentially be more reliable?

[jixel 78]

Originally Posted by MOND30

SA doesn't even have annual roadworthy checks for any vehicle, IIRC. These would have to have some sort of impact on the emissions, wouldn't they?

Every time the suggestion comes up, the RAA (our NRMA/RACV) bags it completely - I wonder if this is because it would reduce the number of people taking up a membership, as their cars would potentially be more reliable?

Neither does WA. Drove around for ages in a WA Registered car in Melbourne. It wasnt a pig mind you, but the amount of pooboxes on the road in Perth compared to states with Annual Inspections is huge. The percentage of backyarders `doing it properly` is miniscule. I`ve repaired countless butchered cars for DIY heroes. Annual Inspections across the country would improve the health of the fleet and create jobs.

[patxbcoupe]

WMD351, yeah mate that is exactly what I was trying to get across, the pie analogy is a good way to illustrate it.
Unfortunately, I dont think either major party will be much better than the other, however Labor's preference deal with the Greens makes me think that if they get back in, more and more land will be locked up forever, we'll be paying an exorbitant carbon tax that achieves nothing and older cars could be legislated off the road sooner than anyone might think.
Its a scary choice, when most of us are average workers and the alternative could involve some sort of a return to Workchoices...
Its ashame that the old Aussie value of "keeping an eye out for each other" and "standing up for your rights" are all but a thing of the past.
Nuff whinging better get the XB out for a run on the w/end while I still can lol Pat

[Road_Warrior]

Someone told me the other day that the cash for clunkers scheme as proposed is limited to only the first 100,000 applicants anyway. Which is bloody stupid if your goal is getting unsafe & dirty cars off the road.

[imugli]

Quite possibly, but another reason that always comes up is the same reason they don't implement replacement policies like Japan - people can't afford it. It would disadvantage those who traditionally rely on their vehicles more - the poor and the elderly...

VIC only requires RWC when you sell your car as well.

[imugli]

A little off topic, but isn't it also time we looked at changing the ANCAP rating system (and rating systems in general). Surely a 5 star rating has lost it's lustre now that every new car that comes out gets 5 stars. Surely 5 stars should be reserved for the best of the best, not simply a vehicle that has x feature or y feature.

[GasoLane]

From what I've read the scheme is only good if you are buying a new car and have a car that is at least 15 years old.

Most people who own a 15 year old car do so because they cant afford a new car regardless of any rebate!

[Quicksand]

Originally Posted by patxbcoupe

I know full well that this has been raised on these forums already, however, I dont understand why some of us cant see the dangers in the Cash for Old Cars scheme currently proposed by the Labor party...
What has been offered could only be the tip of the iceberg, as Japan for one has a compulsory scrapping policy after a set age limit or kilometers travelled...

I respect what you are trying to say with Japan, but there is almost no comparison to Australia in every right.

Japan is an archipelago of 6,852 islands. Australia has one giant land mass with a few bits tacked around the edges (sorry Tasmania).

Japan has 377,944 km2 of land. Australia has 7,617,930 km2 (20 times the size of Japan!)

Japan crams in an estimted 127,420,000 people into this tiny land space, whereas Australia has just an estimated 22,420,234 people. This means the population density for Japan is 337.1 people per km2 as opposed to Australia which has just 2.833 people per km2.

Japan also ranks 5th overal in terms of countries with the highest Carbon dioxide emissions per year; Australia isn't even in the top 10. Now cram all of that polution into Japan's limited space with all of those people, it is no small wonder that Japan are so focused on cutting Air Polution. It is no small wonder that Japan hosted the first Kyoto Protocol Conference in 1997; it was at this conference that the Kyoto Protocol was initially adopted.

As such, unless there is an entirely politically correct agenda to get what you are suggesting in place, Australia is no where near in the dire straights that Japan is/was in in terms of air polution.

Originally Posted by patxbcoupe

A well maintained, roadworthy older vehicle makes less emissions to keep on the road, than what is used to produce a new one, especially when considering the amount of resources that go into the battery packs etc of a hybrid vehicle, and yet these are being touted as the miracle answer to the world's problems, mainly by car manufacturers and goverments.

Thats a pretty big call, and i would be happy to review some documentation demonstrating this claim. Even if it were true, what is the Net Return on Investment (ROI) for buying a new car over keeping an older car in terms of emissions. Sure it may require more emissions to initially produce a new car, but wouldn't the overall emissions usage be less for the new car after 10/15/20 years of use on the road? Over time, wouldn't the new car produce less emissions compared to an older car? I dont have these answers, i dont know how long it would take for a new car to break even and then better the emissions usage of an older car...just thinking out loud.

Should we stop buying and building new cars or developing new technologies to reduce emissions because a new car requires more emissions to produce it? I know you are not suggesting this, just putting it out there.

[irlewy86]

The scheme seems a little "Non-Core" if you know what I mean. I wouldn't be too worried.

[seduced_xr]

its got 0 merit in getting old cars off the road, i think its purely to win some votes back with the election near.

[vztrt]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/77873/va...rebate-scheme/

VACC speaks concerns over Cleaner Car Rebate scheme
By Brett Davis | August 12th, 2010

The Gillard Government is aiming to provide a cleaner environment by offering all those in possession of a car with a built date before 1995 a $2000 rebate to go towards a newer, more economical car.

Even the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce thinks this cash for clunkers proposal is nuttier than a Kellogg’s commercial though. In a recent report, executive director of VACC, David Purchase, said,

“I am inclined to think this is more about spin and being seen to be doing something for the environment than actually getting inefficient and unsafe cars off the road. If you drive a clunker, chances are you are not financially well off and therefore you are not going to be able to buy a new car, even with a $2,000 rebate.”

David Purchase also says that internal research shows that around 30 percent of the cars in Victoria are deemed unsafe, which he says is a figure too high. He proposes that motorists and governments should be focusing on keeping those old cars that are still on the road, safe, by means of educating drivers about servicing and maintenance.

“In our opinion, a better initiative would be to launch a public awareness campaign to encourage motorists to get their vehicle serviced, which would improve safety and reduce emissions,” Purchase said.

As with usual government schemes that seem to be focusing on ‘safety’, the foundations of the proposals are just about quick-fixes and pleasing the people; getting votes.

[gocruzin]

Guys your getting off the topic. If you want to see how pointless c4c is just look at the U.S version.

[tezxr8man]

I'm more concerned about fixing and restoring and modifying what happens when the xd or eb falcon you own needs a door or mirror or something else that simply isn't made any more? does that mean if you want to do up a nice car you can't because they crushed all the cars like them around and you can't find parts???

[imugli]

I honestly don't see the point...

In the US and Europe, it was used as a tool to prop up carmakers that were losing money hand over fist because no one was buying. It was an economic stimulatory measure.

While our government isn't referring to this measure as a stimulus measure, it is exactly what it is. Only we don't need it and we can't afford it...

[SpoolMan]

America done the same thing last year..
Cash for Clunkers $4500 CARS Rebate Program
http://buyingacar.suite101.com/artic...e_cars_program

[patxbcoupe]

Well, I'm glad that this his pretty much stayed on track this time. i still stand by my comments regarding the amount of emmissions released and heavy metals etc used especially in the manufacture of hybrid battery packs.
The point here was never to debate the crashworthiness of new cars versus old cars, or to criticise or pick holes in one anothers opinions,
The main concern I and heaps of my freinds have, is the erosion of more of our FREEDOM to make CHOICES based on our own financial, practical or personal reasons.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by patxbcoupe

Well, I'm glad that this his pretty much stayed on track this time. i still stand by my comments regarding the amount of emmissions released and heavy metals etc used especially in the manufacture of hybrid battery packs.
The point here was never to debate the crashworthiness of new cars versus old cars, or to criticise or pick holes in one anothers opinions,
The main concern I and heaps of my freinds have, is the erosion of more of our FREEDOM to make CHOICES based on our own financial, practical or personal reasons.

couldn't agree more, I just can't stand the misinformation that is spreading through society that forms the reasoning behind governing like this.

[04redxr8]

I thought the same as the OP when I first heard of this policy. Thinking more about it though, it doesn't go any where near far enough to get rid of all old cars. The limit they have put on it would remove a degree of cars, but I think classics would be quite safe.

The main thing to remember, is that at the moment, the policy is voluntary not compulsory. That is the difference. I do however believe that at some point in the future our misguided puppet Government may try ban old cars. We can blame the misguided Greenies for that though.

Originally Posted by flappist

Freedom of choice.....interesting concept.

A few years ago I chose to:

Hunt with a semi auto rifle.
Camp and make a fire on a public beach.
Drink beer on a beach or in a park.
Ride unrigestered motorcycles in forestry and on crown land.
Fish anywhere I felt like it.
Build a shed on my property without filling out 1000 forms waithing 6 months for permission.
Work on my car in the street.
Advertise my car for sale on my footpath.
Drive at 200km/h on public roads (legally).
Drive with a BAC of 0.079 (legally)
Drive with a BAC of 0.149 (legally)
etc. etc.

Can't do any of this now. Do gooders have saved me from it.....

Now if anyone thinks any of the above are wrong and it is a good thing that they are all illegal now just remember there are lots of people out there who think that performance vehicles and old cars are a danger on the road and should be banned.
If you think that banning the above is right how can they not also be right........

Great post Flappist. A couple of years ago, I used to smoke any where I wanted. I have since quit, but there is a small number of beauracrats trying to ban people from smoking in their own cars!

I am more concerned about are politicians removing more an more of our personal freedoms. If we don't stop them from doing so, then old cars will be gone. Each year we seem to head closer and closer to becoming a communist state. Each year it seems our pollies do nothing but create more and more pages of legislation to control us.

[vztrt]

One thing to remember is that these new small cars are actually quite heavy.

Anyway, the proposed C4C program is about reducing emissions and not about safety. Hence why it'll only apply to cars with a certain green star rating.

[Barry_v]

instead of writing pages of rubbish and getting flappist started on legalizing automatic weapons for bilby hunting... perhaps people could use a little common sense and realize that 'safe' is a relative term that has more to do with a vehicle's specific characteristics than with its year of manufacture.

and if you're going to argue against Dr. Feelgood's assertion about a '77 ZH being relatively safe, perhaps just take the time to sit in one. look at the padded dash, padded steering wheel, collapsible steering column, lap sash recoil seat belts, 2.5 meters of crumple zone front and back and really think.. what makes this car so fundamentally different to one produced 20 years later in 1997? What is so agricultural about its construction that I am prepared to advocate its removal from the roads?

as for the topic, its just window dressing before the election and will have no measurable impact on anything. Its primary function is to give them a nice 'green' policy to talk about. Its a joke that the government is 'giving' you a couple of grand when they're charging more than that in sales tax for the new vehicle.

[AussieAV]

[flappist]

Originally Posted by xy500

geez we can't stay on topic, too many people here seem to think old cars are the devil, along with benjamin franklin... and boobies.

Are there more or less than "turbo haters" ?

[WMD351]

This topic was, I thought, covered quite succinctly in the "cash for clunkers downunder" thread.
Barry v is quite right in saying this is just election year crap and nothing will really come of it. As long as the government is "seen" to be doing something...
As pointed out by 302xc a couple of weeks ago, the price of scrap hitting $500 a ton a couple of years ago is what really threatens old cars and the industries and hobbies that go with them. Ultimately financial forces will dictate what happens to the oldies.
If anybody thinks all newer cars are safer, try driving one of the new Great Wall or Chery pieces of junk that failed Aussie crash standards when they first came here.
Regarding mass, a fully loaded luxo corolla weighs 1315kg.
My ZJ, which according to Vicroads has a 6cyl, weighs 1550kg, so as long as I don't hit a corolla with 5 Maori's in it I should be fine.
I'm sure Gillard's got a good policy, after all, she backed Latham and then Rudd to be our leader, so her judgment seems pretty sound.

[XD 351 Ute]

I can't believe there's people out there that hate boobies.....

On topic, having spent time chopping up various aged cars within my training in the fire service, it is quite clear that you are at greater risk in an older car.

But with driving my ute, I am prepared to accept that risk, IF I am involved in a crash.
Seeing as I wish to protect it from harm along with myself, I will continually keep my eyes peeled for others that may not.

I realise too that you can't foresee every situation that occurs, and just hope that it may never happen.

Ed