Row over Victorian P-plate car ban hots up

PRESSURE is mounting on the Victorian Government to amend recently-introduced laws designed to prevent P-plate drivers from getting behind the wheel of high-performance cars, claiming they are ill-conceived and out of touch with reality.

The importers group of the industry’s peak body, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), met with VicRoads officials last week to discuss the rationale behind the laws and a number of anomalies that appear to discriminate against some of the safest cars on the road.

Importers group head Lindsay Smalley described the situation as “almost like Alice in Wonderland”.



“We’re regulating for old technology, but the world’s moved on and newer technology vehicles are being swept up with the older definitions. The whole thing is riddled with contradiction,” said Mr Smalley, who is also the managing director of Honda Australia.

FCAI chief executive Andrew McKellar described the rules as “ludicrous” and said there was no evidence they would deliver any sort of safety outcome.



“To be banning vehicles on the basis that they constitute some sort of safety risk to young drivers when in fact, quite the contrary, we are talking about brands with some of the best safety track records going around, just highlights the ludicrous nature of the regulations,” said Mr McKellar.

FCAI chief executive Andrew McKellar told GoAuto on Monday that he would be taking the industry’s concerns to the decision-makers – the politicians – and will write a letter to the State Minister for Roads, Tim Pallas.



“I will write to the Minister this week seeking an opportunity to talk to him about those regulations and why we think they’re unfair,” said Mr McKellar.



“It’s not an issue that I am seeking to politicise, but there is a strong feeling about it in the industry and we support the concerns of the brands that have been affected by it. The next step is talk to the decision-makers at the political level and I hope that we get a reasonable response.”Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Saab and Peugeot among others are understood to be outraged that their low-boost turbocharged and supercharged cars, designed for better fuel consumption and emissions rather than performance, have been swept up by the new regulations while older, more powerful and patently less safe cars slip through the net.



From top: Mercedes-Benz C-class, Peugeot 308, BMW Z4, Subaru Impreza WRX and Honda S2000 (bottom).



“The principle of trying to keep young and inexperienced drivers out of high-powered cars is great, but you could drive a truck through the implementation of those good ideas,” said Mr Smalley.



“The intention seems fine, the implementation is grossly lacking. It is set with a technology focus on the last century. They’ve applied a very simplistic model which really targets older cars and doesn’t properly address new vehicles coming in with 21st century technology. They need to address that somehow.”DaimlerChrysler Australia spokesman David McCarthy said the legislation was “ill-considered and illogical”, noting that the modestly-powered but ultra-safe 105kW Mercedes C180 family car is on the banned list because it has a supercharger.



“It just doesn’t make any sense. (VicRoads has) given it about as much thought as cutting a toenail. It shows that they don’t understand anything about the cars that are on the road,” said Mr McCarthy.



“They’ve come up with a list that doesn’t make any sense. Our customers are absolutely outraged that their sons and daughters can’t drive their cars.



“It’s a complete nonsense. It’s bad regulation and they haven’t thought it through.



“We have no problem with restricting access to high-performance vehicles for young drivers, but we don’t support bad regulation. This is forcing people out of safe cars into less safe vehicles.”The new regulations prevent people who gained their licence after July 1 from driving any turbocharged, supercharged or V8-engined vehicle, as well as a dozen listed six-cylinder cars or any car fitted with a modified engine.

All turbo-diesels, many of which provide exceptional performance, have been exempted.

The FCAI believes the rules have been designed in response to tabloid publicity over road hoons driving hot Commodores, Impreza WRXs, Skyline GTRs and the like.

However, cars like the C180 and the 120kW Audi A4 1.8T, which have cutting-edge safety equipment, are among those that have been swept up in the legislation while the likes of the VW Golf R32, Audi A3 3.2 quattro and Alfa Romeo 147 GTA – each of which produce 184kW from V6 engines – have slipped through the net.

Peugeot will also have a problem with its forthcoming 308, which will apparently be fitted with a low-boost 1.6-litre turbo instead of a 2.0-litre engine for environmental reasons.

Meanwhile, the Honda S2000 sports car – a car that can be challenging to drive and was banned under the previous 125kW-per-tonne power-to-weight ratio rule – is now allowed because it only has a four-cylinder engine, albeit one that develops 176kW and revs to 9000rpm.

And, although the new banned list includes the 160kW BMW Z4 sports car, which is fitted with stability control, the older Z3 with 170kW but without ESC is not listed.

VicRoads officials told the importers last week that the previous power-to-weight ratio regime was too difficult for the police to assess at the side of the road and they therefore needed a simpler system.

P-platers can apply to VicRoads for a ‘hardship’ exemption if the only car in the family is on the banned list. This requires completing a form and paying a fee.

Young drivers who have been requested by their employer to drive a banned car are also exempt.

Mr McKellar said that there was little outside consultation on the new laws and that the final legislation is clearly unfair.



“The Chamber’s position has always been that there needs to be some sort of substantive basis to a regulation like the one that’s been introduced if it is to have a safety benefit. It should have a measurable and demonstrable safety benefit if a measure like that is going to be pursued.



“Very clearly it does not (apply in this case) and therefore some brands have been unfairly penalised... even though there is no demonstrable safety benefit.



“That is an unfair result and something that, in the interests of good policy, should be addressed and should be reversed.



“Nowhere is there any evidence that the sort of regulations that they’ve put in place... will deliver any sort of safety outcome and there are some (brands) that are patently being discriminated against when they in fact offer superior safety technology.”Mr McKellar said he wants a review of the list of restricted vehicles, including an exemption of vehicles fitted with ESC, and does not believe it is too late for action.



“I’ve got to say that the response from the Victorian Government was not as good as it could have been in the early stages of the process, but that doesn’t mean that the industry isn’t concerned and won’t continue to seek to be engaged with the Government on this issue,” said Mr McKellar.



“It should never be too late for the Government to look at the policies that it’s putting in place. If it can improve them or come up with a better rationale for what it’s trying to do, then I would be very disappointed if they weren’t open to looking at it.



“I think it would be foolhardy for them to entrench themselves into a position which doesn’t deliver a safety benefit. If they can come up with something that is fairer and more equitable, which is based on genuine safety outcomes, then isn’t that what they’re trying to achieve? I think they should be driven by the outcome, not the process.”He believes that the legislation is driven by tabloid coverage of what he describes as a ‘hoon sub-culture’ and that this has resulted in similar knee-jerk reactions in Queensland and New South Wales.



“We need a consistent national approach based on delivering genuine safety results, not in responding to tabloid-driven perceptions.



“About 18 months ago we met with New South Wales RTA officials when they were bedding down similar regulations and they candidly admitted to us that the drive for these regulations arose under the former minister after they had a couple of bad headlines in Thehe Daily Telegraph.



“Now the Victorians have followed suit (but) at no stage have they produced any data or any evidence as to what the safety impact is likely to be.



“A couple of years ago they produced a discussion paper, which the industry responded to, but there was nothing more than a passing reference to vehicle restrictions, so it’s been poorly researched on the Government’s part.



“We wrote to the former minister, Peter Batchelor, on several occasions and asked for an opportunity for the chief executives of vehicle brands to come and meet with him and, to be perfectly honest, we are still waiting for a reply.



“We hope that Tim Pallas is more accessible and a bit more switched on.



“My hope would be that, if there’s a basis for a review of the policy, and we believe there is, then they should be open to that. They shouldn’t be afraid of reviewing the arrangements they’ve got in place. They should be open to a rethink.



“I think it’s been poor process and I think it’s been the wrong decision.”

Read more:

Mercedes-Benz hits out at new P-plate ban

P-plate backlash

P-plate car ban lifts