If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed, registering will remove the in post advertisements. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
This means you should apply for your renewal now to avoid any disruptions to your membership whilst the renewal process is taking place! NOTE: If you have an auto renewing subscription this will happen automatically.
Explain why Australia doesn't allow the use of isofix mounts for baby/child seats than?
We may follow some of the EU rules but we still have plenty of specific ones that delay new car launches into this country.
We also don't allow isofix mounts on the front passenger seat, nor do we allow the front airbag on the passenger side to be disabled. We have no requirements for cars to carry a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, vest or safety hammer although to be honest it's probably a good thing as the average driver wouldn't know what to do with them.
Seatbelts also have specific requirements and the list goes on and on which is part of the reason for the delays with new models, NZ get them much sooner because they don't have all those requirements and accept that the EU ones are sufficient.
So there are plenty of hurdles to bring cars into this country, take a look at the number of manufacturers who don't bring in cars because it's not worth the expense for low volume or low profit cars.
Yeah - I don't think many Australian's realise this. It's something which frustrates me to no end. Why on earth do Australian's think that they know better than Europe and America on issues like crash test safety and things like that. I understand Australia having their own testing facilities when we are importing cars from places like China or Malaysia, where seatbelts were only made mandatory to use in the past year or so, and therefore most of their cars don't even have airbags etc, but for Europe and USA made cars, I don't understand why Australia keeps on mandating specifics for our country. We really are such a small market compared to them.
It's not only cars which have this issue, it occurs in many markets in Australia. Electronics, foods, drugs, etc
The more choice the better but two doors is still somewhat impractical so I'd rather a sportier & more unique shape, but yeah everyones requirements are different.
I don't have children, just myself and my girlfriend. So the two doors isn't the issue. It's rear seat space for the times that our adult friends come out with us. The Golf can comfortably seat three 6ft adults (although slim if they all want their shoulders against the seat back). As well as boot space for equipment that I haul around from time to time.
The Scirocco's boot is much smaller, and the rear seat only has 2 seats and the roof is WAY low in the back.
and therefore most of their cars don't even have airbags etc, but for Europe and USA made cars, I don't understand why Australia keeps on mandating specifics for our country. We really are such a small market compared to them.
You do realise that both markets you specified have specific design specs that have to be passed before WE can sell a car in that market? Rear foglights for the Euro market and side marker lights and SRS requirements for North America.
The situation is slowly becoming easier as market standards are "harmonized". But really it all comes down to the individual market areas deciding what THEY think is best.
For YEARS Australia was a leader in design rules and safety standards. Why would governments here reduce the standards just so Joe Bloggs has access to some obscure make of car?
Australia is becoming closely harmonise with the EU. And the EU and USA/Canada are harmonising their regs.
You will see in ADR documents that a car can pass a specific ADR directly or by complying with another markets associated design rule.
Little off topic, but one of the biggest laughs I had was listening/watching to Police Ten Seven (you have to say that with a Kiwi accent, though I cant type it that way...) and being dumbfounded by a new car brand that was a Su-BARoh
Which when you spell it looks fairly obvious, but with the emphases all wrong, I had to wait until I saw the car and realised he was talking about a Subaru... I then laughed my arse off as I had been thinking of some sort of novel Kiwi brand car... (and was looking forward to seeing it)...
You do realise that both markets you specified have specific design specs that have to be passed before WE can sell a car in that market? Rear foglights for the Euro market and side marker lights and SRS requirements for North America.
Australia is tiny on the manufacturing front, we export very few cars and import the vast majority. The Australian manufacturers are lagging way behind the world on quality, costs, technology, design .. actually in fact everything.
There is no reason why we couldn't take European cars and drop them on the road here, if we kept the same requirements they would be even safer as they would have fire extinguishers, warning triangles, first aid kits, reflective vests and safety hammers installed.
[quote]The situation is slowly becoming easier as market standards are "harmonized". But really it all comes down to the individual market areas deciding what THEY think is best.[quote]
You mean like Australia is doing by keeping it's ADR's so they can keep adding in extra complexity and requirements to drive cars prices up?
For YEARS Australia was a leader in design rules and safety standards. Why would governments here reduce the standards just so Joe Bloggs has access to some obscure make of car?
Clearly we weren't........... as per my point above why don't Australian Standards require any safety equipment to be fitted to cars?
Examples...... You will see the members constantly referring to Australia as a leader in car safety
Submission to
the Victorian Parliamentary Road Safety Committee Inquiry into Australian Design Rules (February 2009)
The College congratulates the Victorian Parliament for initiating this inquiry and welcomed the results of the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry which concluded in part - Australia is lagging behind Japan Europe and the USA in the fitment of safety
- ADRs do not cover leading technology and in some cases prevent the adoption of technology. Technology moves too fast for the ADRs.
.........
ANCAP Initiatives..... This is how Australia leads the world, they want to modify exhaust pipes to stop people killing themselves using a hose inserted in the pipe. The brainless fools assume that people will than change their mind about suicide and not just use another method.
1. If all vehicles on our roads were upgraded overnight to be equivalent to the safest vehicles manufactured, it is estimated around 30 to 40% of lives would be saved. ..........
2.
Design of the car tail pipe outlet could also be addressed. The current design easily allows a hose (garden, pool, vacuum cleaner or grey water) to be attached and lead Motor Vehicle Exhaust Gas (MVEG) into the cabin. This is a common means of suicide. It only takes a minute or so to build up a lethal concentration of MVEG in the cabin. MVEG suicides are about one fifth of all motor vehicle-associated deaths (600 per year in Australia) and also about one fifth of all suicides. There are also a large number of brain-damaged survivors.
ADR changes for a device to be fitted to all cars' exhaust pipes to disallow the attachment (insertion in or over) to the tail pipe of a common hose could greatly reduce the potential for MVEG suicides but not affect engine performance. Such a measure could have prevented about 90 percent of suicides by those means, nearly as many as seat belts prevent. (Paper by
Dr Ric Bouvier attached).
3.
Thirdly, it may be timely to introduce an ADR requiring the inclusion of an alcohol limiters on all vehicles made in Australia. ......................
Mr MAVROYENI — I think in our vehicle safety submission we stated that if we relied on a vehicle produced to the minimum Australian design standards and you crash-tested that vehicle, it would end up being something like a 1.5 star rating, in that range. It just shows you that we cannot afford to just rely on the Australian design rules to set the standards of our vehicles.
And increased costs to all Victorians is coming up with mandatory stability control and curtain airbags, cars without them despite meeting ADR's will be unable to be registered.
The CHAIR — In relation to Victoria’s policy that by 2012 you can register only new vehicles that have
ESC and side curtain airbags — —
Mr MAVROYENI — By January 2011 you will need to have electronic stability control.
The CHAIR — Yes, both of them by 2012.
Mr MAVROYENI — And by January 2012, head protection technology.
The CHAIR — Does having that policy in place cocoon Victoria more so than other states and territories, in
terms of what sorts of vehicles are registered here?
Mr MAVROYENI — It can do, yes. Victoria would be leading Australia in terms of the introduction of
those particular technology requirements for registration purposes. This is where Victoria has seen the light, I
think, on the importance of these technologies, and therefore it has gone out and shown leadership to have this requirement. Our preference, of course, would have been that Australia and the rest of the world would have adopted the same requirements. The importance of these technologies has been widely acknowledged by leading world experts in vehicle safety and road safety, so it is very disappointing from our point of view that it
is taking so long to introduce these regulations across the world. This is a point that we would like to make to the committee. I think this is where Australia could play more actively on the world scene in terms of
influencing the development of safety technologies, the pick-up of these technologies into regulations across the world and into Australia, of course. But we cannot do it on our own. The next slide here shows that whilst we have our own set of Australian design rules, we are such a small player
in terms of vehicle consumption and vehicle manufacturing relative to the rest of the world that we cannot just
do this on our own.
And some info on New Zealand and why they can get cars in there quickly and the problem in Australia with our ADR's is only going to get worse as we'll be keeping them and adding our own requirements like mandatory stability control which will drive the price of cars up.
Interestingly, New Zealand basically relies on the standards that have been adopted by other nations. So if they meet the standards of another nation, they are okay to be imported into New Zealand, generally speaking. We do not think that is the right approach for Australia. We think it is better that we be out there having our own set of standards, so that if we are not comfortable with the way the world directions are going, we have that option to introduce an initiative into Australia. An example is electronic stability control; we are now looking to push
for the introduction of that technology ahead of other parts of the world. We think that is a really good position to be in.
And once again we have people who really do think that Victoria and Australia are watched by other countries who will follow what we do.
Mr TREZISE — You noted before that Australia is a small player, really, on the world stage. And therefore Victoria would be an even smaller player. But given the point that John made before in relation to the compulsion for ESC and side curtain airbags, at an international level would that have been noted? Would other countries in Europe and so on note that Victoria has actually taken that initiative?
Mr MAVROYENI — I believe so. There is a lot of interaction with world leading road organisations, and they are very much picking up on Australia and Victoria’s leadership in this area. We are uncertain whether it is enough to spur them on to introduce regulations sooner into various other jurisdictions. But we are hoping that that will be the sort of influence Victoria can have.
Mr LANGDON — So where Victoria inspires Australia to do what we need to do, there would be a bigger call for the rest of the world to try to take note?
Mr MAVROYENI — Yes. I guess as world road safety leaders you are always looking for the benchmark, as well as ensuring that there is evidence that the initiative is beneficial, and in this case there has been enough work done to demonstrate that electronic stability control is a very effective initiative.
Australia is becoming closely harmonise with the EU. And the EU and USA/Canada are harmonising their regs.
The following press release came out in July 2008 with a push to get the ball rolling on making stability control mandatory by the end of 2008. Like every Rudd government initiative it was announced with great fanfare and promotion and quickly forgotten as Kevin 747 was jet setting around the world.
Here we are in 2010 and the Victorian Government is making it mandatory to have stability control sold on cars in Victoria by 2011 and curtain airbags by 2012 despite the cars without meeting the ADRs so we could potentially see two specs of each car in Australia.
This is Australia with their world leading car safety committees at their best
Australia Signs Up to New Global Car Safety Regulation
MEDIA RELEASE
The Hon Anthony Albanese
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Local Government
Leader of the House
Member for Grayndler
July 22 2008
Technology with the potential to save the lives of hundreds of motorists and other road users each year could soon be fitted as standard to all new Australian cars, 4WDs and utes.
The Rudd Labor Government has joined an international push for consistent, world-wide technical standards for Electronic Stability Control (ESC) – a computer-based system which helps drivers keep control of their vehicles, particularly in adverse driving conditions such as wet weather.
Along with other members of the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Standards, Australia has voted to adopt a new Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on ESC systems.
International research has found this technology has the potential to be the greatest innovation since the seatbelt in saving lives and making our roads significantly safer.
Research undertaken for the British Government found vehicles equipped with ESC are 25 per cent less likely to be involved in a fatal accident than those without it.
According to the US Department of Transportation, this technology, when fully deployed, could save up to 9,600 lives annually. From 2011, ESC will be required on all new passenger vehicles sold in the United States.
ESC continuously monitors a vehicle’s speed, steering wheel angle, direction of travel and cornering acceleration. If this data shows the vehicle is at risk of skidding or overturning, the system automatically applies individual brakes to correct any deviation from the direction the driver wants to go.
WHAT DOES THE ESC VOTE MEAN FOR THE LOCAL CAR INDUSTRY?
The new Global Technical Regulation opens the way for a detailed examination of the case for mandating ESC in Australia through the development of an Australian Design Rule (ADR).
Within weeks, a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) assessing the potential ramifications for industry and the wider community of an ESC mandate will be released for public consultation.
The RIS will look at a range of issues including whether the goal of safer vehicles can be achieved via non-regulatory means.
If the case for an ADR is established, we expect to get the necessary legislation in place by the end of 2008.
Already many Australians appreciate the safety benefits of ESC, with almost half of the new cars and 4WDs sold in December fitted with the technology. What’s more, a growing number of manufacturers are voluntarily responding to the needs of the marketplace and including ESC as a standard feature in their latest models.
WHAT IS THE WORLD FORUM FOR HARMONISATION OF VEHICLE REGULATIONS?
The World Forum is a United Nations (UN) body charged with administering the 1958 Agreement on the Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions for Vehicles and the 1998 “Global Agreement” on Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts.
Fifty countries, as well as car manufacturers, consumers and road users, participate in its deliberations.
Over the last half century, the 1958 Agreement has put in place 127 Regulations which are regularly updated in accordance with the latest technological progress and scientific breakthroughs.
The World Forum is currently working on GTRs for hydrogen and fuel-cell vehicles, as well as measures to improve the testing and reporting of engine efficiency and reduce harmful exhaust emissions.
Maybe a way around the technology divide would be to introduce pricing on the compulsory third party insurance? already (in VIC) we have difference based on your risk area (risk of being injured) but maybe they should charge more for a 1983 Commodore (although mine did stand up to high speed head on with a bus... which was the sleepy bus' fault) with less safety features, than for a newer model car that is designed with airbags and pedestrian protection? Same as it didn't cost me as much for the VW to insure for crash damage as it did to insure the commodore at a fraction of the insured price!
I do agree that however that Australia has been quite revolutionary in the beginning, we were, (and still are) one of the most strict seat belt wearing nations, and family members who have travelled a lot find it fascinating that many countries still think your are a bit of a "Flanders" if you wear them! We also had had the most strict drink driving rules for quite some time, although many nations are now catching up on this one. It may be this legacy that is now hindering the advancement of the ADRs as removing them makes those in charge of looking after them feel "unneeded".
Realisticly if you think about it, Australia could do MUCH more for the road toll than policing (using private or police forces) and using ADRs to "safen" (I realise that's not a word :-P) our cars. How about removing overhead power poles from curbs? Removing trees from road sides (on high speed country roads)? Enforcing rules like no passing on the left? No travelling in the right unless over taking (and for Pete's sake, pass and then get in, don't take 30minutes to do it, others want to get there too!) Teaching people to drive to the conditions, not to the speed limit (its ok to do 75 in a 70 zone on a sunny dry day, its not really ok to do 65 in a 70 zone on a wet foggy night). Oh and my personal peeeve teaching people that if you have five cars length between you and the car in front, you WILL get to the next traffic lights at the same time as if you are five inches from my bumper... If you leave some room, you might even not hit my car!!
Its an eye opener seeing other countries drivers, some places seem to really not care about "zipping up" two lanes, one car per side until everyone is in. They don't mind giving some room from car to car, they don't mind staying left (or right given the country) until they NEED to pass, and they don't mind getting on the move to pass and falling back into the inside lane after they have done it. ALL of this happens because they KNOW if they stay in that lane the police (if caught) will fine them, the police will not fine them for passing a little over the limit, the camera cars are BRIGHT COLOURS and normally parked in places where accidents happen (not like the ones on our freeways!) and you can leave the freeways when you need because you know people wont pass you on the inside lane, so you indicate and move over!
Rant over!
DCN
Last edited by DarkCloudNebulae; 12-01-2010, 03:01 PM.
Reason: MORE Spelling errors...
Maybe a way around the technology divide would be to introduce pricing on the compulsory third party insurance? already (in VIC) we have difference based on your risk area (risk of being injured) but maybe they should charge more for a 1983 Commodore (although mine did stand up to high speed head on with a bus... which was the sleepy bus' fault) with less safety features, than for a newer model car that is designed with airbags and pedestrian protection? Same as it didn't cost me as much for the VW to insure for crash damage as it did to insure the commodore at a fraction of the insured price!
Or we get rid of all the stupid ADR's and accept the European stands which will drop the price of cars, we drop stamp duties and import duties on cars which further drops the price and we might see people moving over to newer cars.
Forcing mandatory stability control and curtain airbags like Victoria is going to do will only push prices up. It will add $2-3000 to many cars which is on top of record increases in taxes everywhere and for what reason? To save maybe 10 lives a year in Victoria? Let's assume 150,000 cars get registered in Victoria next year and $2500 per car which equals $375 million dollars of which Victoria will pick up 10% of that plus all the stand duties on the car.
I do agree that however that Australia has been quite revolutionary in the beginning, we were, (and still are) one of the most strict seat belt wearing nations, and family members who have travelled a lot find it fascinating that many countries still think your are a bit of a "Flanders" if you wear them! We also had had the most strict drink driving rules for quite some time, although many nations are now catching up on this one. It may be this legacy that is now hindering the advancement of the ADRs as removing them makes those in charge of looking after them feel "unneeded".
~30% of road deaths are people not wearing seatbelts which is higher than many countries so the message seems to be getting lost, they want to mandate seatbelt warnings for all seats in the ADR's but I don't think this will help much.
Realisticly if you think about it, Australia could do MUCH more for the road toll than policing (using private or police forces) and using ADRs to "safen" (I realise that's not a word :-P) our cars. How about removing overhead power poles from curbs? Removing trees from road sides (on high speed country roads)? Enforcing rules like no passing on the left? No travelling in the right unless over taking (and for Pete's sake, pass and then get in, don't take 30minutes to do it, others want to get there too!) Teaching people to drive to the conditions, not to the speed limit (its ok to do 75 in a 70 zone on a sunny dry day, its not really ok to do 65 in a 70 zone on a wet foggy night. Oh and my personal peeeve teaching people that if you have five cars length between you and the car in front, you WILL get to the next traffic lights at the same time as if you are five inches from my bumper... If you leave some room, you might even not hit my car!!
Its an eye opener seeing other countries drivers, some places seem to really not car about "zipping up" two lanes, one car per side until everyone is in. They don't mind giving some room from car to car, they don't mind staying left (or right given the country) until they NEED to pass, and they don't mind getting on the move to pass and falling back into the inside lane after they have done it. ALL of this happens because they KNOW if they stay in that lane the police (if caught) will fine them, the police will not fine them for passing a little over the limit, the camera cars are BRIGHT COLOURS and normally parked in places where accidents happen (not like the ones on our freeways!) and you can leave the freeways when you need because you know people wont pass you on the inside lane, so you indicate and move over!
Completely agree.
Far too much emphasis on exceeding the speed limit by 2kph.
I find what occurred in Montana very interesting, well worth the read.
Motorists were to comply with the "basic rule" speed limit when they drove, in a manner that did not unreasonably endanger other highway users. To ensure this, drivers were to be constantly alert to changing traffic conditions and adjust their speed as conditions varied. These conditions were numerous and could change rapidly. Thus drivers were to be alert for:
* the amount and type of traffic sharing the highway with them. The traffic could have been heavy or light and may have included trucks, cars, motorhomes, farm equipment, and motorcycles.
* changing weather conditions that could have affected driver visibility and road conditions. These conditions could have included fog or snow and road surface conditions such as water or ice.
* the type of vehicle they were driving, particularly the condition of their brakes and the weight of their vehicle, which affects braking ability.
* the character of the highway they were driving. Drivers were to adjust their speed for hills or for winding and narrow roads.
* the presence of intersections, railway grade crossings or pedestrians.
Driving in a careful and prudent manner, complying with the basic rule, required drivers to be constantly alert and mindful of their personal responsibility not only for their own safety but also for that of other highway users. "
The National Motorists Association is a membership organization devoted to representing and protecting the rights and interests of North American motorists. Member services include assistance with traffic tickets, information on traffic laws, plus guidance and aid for local and state legislative projects..
Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.
1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.
In 1996, the State of Montana reverted to the state speed limit policies that existed prior to 1974 and the National Maximum Speed Limit. The National Maximum Speed Limit was repealed in December of 1995. Montana returned to the use of Reasonable and Prudent speed limits on its federal and state highways.
Reasonable and Prudent speed limits are not based on numerical maximums, but rather they require motorists to drive at speeds considered safe for prevailing conditions.
Despite concerted efforts by the Montana State Patrol, Attorney General and Governor to replace the "reasonable and prudent" law with numerical speed limits, the state legislature refused to do so. The Montana State Patrol chose to enforce a de-facto threshold of an 80-90 mph limit for Reasonable and Prudent enforcement.
During a challenge of such a ticket, in 1998, the Montana Supreme Court declared the Reasonable and Prudent Speed Limit unconstitutional, on the basis of vagueness. For the following five months Montana had no form of daytime speed limit on its rural highways.
The following discussion is an analysis and comparison of Montana's experience with the Reasonable and Prudent speed limit, no speed limit in any form, and fixed numerical speed limits on two classifications of highway: 4 lane Interstate and rural federal-aid primary two lane highways.
In 1999, after 4 years of no numerical or posted daytime speed limit on these classifications of highways, outside of urban areas, Montana recorded its lowest fatality rate.
Research scientists and engineers have long known that there are sometimes unexpected results from changes in public policies. Ironically, the paradox of no posted speed limits and low fatalities is no surprise to the traffic safety engineering community.
For years, motorists' advocates have used engineering-based facts against artificially low speed limits. They have claimed that by raising speed limits to reasonable levels, accident and fatality rates will actually be reduced. This seemingly wild assertion has been documented by the traffic engineering profession for 50 plus years. This fact-based position has again been proven to be true by the repeal of the National Speed Limit. The nation has recorded the lowest highway fatality rate since such records have been kept.
So, who can't be trusted -- the motorists who aren't abusing that freedom, or the safety organizations that said everyone would be zooming around at 100 mph?
Self-preservation. What a novel concept.
Do the safety groups, whose self-anointed position is to protect us from ourselves, know that when Montana had a speed limit, it was treated with all the seriousness of a parking ticket? From 1974 to December 8th, 1995, Montana law said anyone who went over the 55/65 daytime speed limit was guilty of not conserving a natural resource (not speeding) and would be fined all of $5. Furthermore, the legislature made it so that no $5 ticket could be kept on your license for the purpose of suspending it. As if that wasn't enough, they also said that insurance companies could not raise your rates if you got one (or 100) of the $5 tickets. In effect, Montana never did have a speed limit even when they did.
When the safety groups say that the fatalities are higher in rural states (which they are), they place little or no importance on the lack of passing drivers (to get/give help), not to mention ambulances that have to drive 15 minutes or more to get to the scene. They can't change that, so they blame speed.
~30% of road deaths are people not wearing seatbelts which is higher than many countries so the message seems to be getting lost, they want to mandate seatbelt warnings for all seats in the ADR's but I don't think this will help much.
Certianly I don't have any statistics at hand, but I have the opinion that the UK, US and Italy are MUCH worse for "not wearing seatbelts". I haven't seen that many Ozies do it, expect when I was truck Jockeying, and none of the drivers I worked with wore them. (they also made fun of me for wearing one) but seeing as my Step father and Mum are Ambos, and I have attended and helped at accidents, (normally high speed country ones) I like the idea of having some means of staying in the car! I have no doubt that my first and only crash resulted in proving for me that they work, and that the passenger seat is truly the most dangerous (interesting statistic) as they found the transmission in my passenger seat after it travelled through the firewall (I didn't have a passenger fortunately!).
Mum has always warned me, the driver often lives in a crash, but a front passenger is more commonly seriously injured or killed on impact.
It is possible that deaths are either reported as other things, or full strength SRS airbags are doing a better job in other countries? I don't know. I certainly don't like the idea of dying lodged halfway through a windscreen...
Please see what import duties are applied to cars imported into other markets. We are at 5%... 0% for countries we have a free trade agreement with (Thailand, usa) Not sure there is a big cost saving there.
Stamp duty is levied at a state level not a national level. I am sure that other countries/states around the world levy similar silly duties on the purchase of a car (Singapore?). It it also a relatively small percentage.
I would be surprised in large manufacturers couldn't easily incorporate (at the design stage) the seperate market differences with regards design rules. As you well know the VW Golf comes with isofix and the top tether hook. So it meets that ADR by default. Most other standards are covered by EU or ADR compliance harmonisation
Your example of the shape of the exhaust pipe is baffling. Do Oz delivered cars have difference exhaust pipes to UK delivered vehicles?
Mandatory ESC = all major markets are going that way and quickly. Much cheaper for a manufacturer to sell a car that has ESC as standard rather than have a model mix.
Is it a major cost? Well Mitsubishi just added side/curtain airbags to the lancer for NO extra cost. It already had esp.
The Suzuki Alto has 6 airbags as standard and is one of the cheapest car on the market. ESP is addition cost.
Mr MAVROYENI — I think in our vehicle safety submission we stated that if we relied on a vehicle produced to the minimum Australian design standards and you crash-tested that vehicle, it would end up being something like a 1.5 star rating, in that range. It just shows you that we cannot afford to just rely on the Australian design rules to set the standards of our vehicles.
Now this is the interesting point. NCAP. Euro NCAP etc in NO WAY reflect a car's compliance to either US, EU or AU crash standards. Something people dont understand.
Remember the Daewoo sourced Barina? scored a 2 in eNCAP. In fact it did poorly both here AND in europe. Yet it passed standard crash tests in Europe, here and the USA.
A few tweaks with the facelift model and it scored a solid 4.
Please see what import duties are applied to cars imported into other markets. We are at 5%... 0% for countries we have a free trade agreement with (Thailand, usa) Not sure there is a big cost saving there.
Stamp duty is levied at a state level not a national level. I am sure that other countries/states around the world levy similar silly duties on the purchase of a car (Singapore?). It it also a relatively small percentage.
I would be surprised in large manufacturers couldn't easily incorporate (at the design stage) the seperate market differences with regards design rules. As you well know the VW Golf comes with isofix and the top tether hook. So it meets that ADR by default. Most other standards are covered by EU or ADR compliance harmonisation
Your example of the shape of the exhaust pipe is baffling. Do Oz delivered cars have difference exhaust pipes to UK delivered vehicles?
Mandatory ESC = all major markets are going that way and quickly. Much cheaper for a manufacturer to sell a car that has ESC as standard rather than have a model mix.
Is it a major cost? Well Mitsubishi just added side/curtain airbags to the lancer for NO extra cost. It already had esp.
The Suzuki Alto has 6 airbags as standard and is one of the cheapest car on the market. ESP is addition cost.
I agree car manufactures are adding more and more, and if that drives cost up a little then so be it.
State taxes are a bit of a joke now, they were meant to be removed with the GST, but as it was liberal Federal government and Labour state governments it didn't happen... NOW its Labour Federal and State Governments, but I think they have forgotten that they made that promise... I think they just like the extra taxes that they make...
I still think that making safer cars have bonuses, or price reductions some how (governmental) will make them more attractive, as does the system in UK where CO2 outputs are taxed... Maybe if your car comes with a 5 star rating (or lets make the cutoff at 4.5 for the Polo seeing as we drive them? then you get a reduction in your third party insurance...
I know that in Vic ( I recently found out) has a discount for people that haven't (been caught) commited any traffic infringements...
The problem is Government likes their easy moneys. I for one would like some of it back into the roads in SW victoria, they are SHOCKING! but allas how ould the primeminister travel to exotic locations to chat with other world leaders about things?!?
Please see what import duties are applied to cars imported into other markets. We are at 5%... 0% for countries we have a free trade agreement with (Thailand, usa) Not sure there is a big cost saving there.
Stamp duty is levied at a state level not a national level. I am sure that other countries/states around the world levy similar silly duties on the purchase of a car (Singapore?). It it also a relatively small percentage.
I'm aware of that and 5% duty and another 5% for stamp duty starts to add up.
I would be surprised in large manufacturers couldn't easily incorporate (at the design stage) the seperate market differences with regards design rules. As you well know the VW Golf comes with isofix and the top tether hook. So it meets that ADR by default. Most other standards are covered by EU or ADR compliance harmonisation
It's still another cost and a delay for new models, I don't know the figure but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a few million dollars in additional costs for the Australia market per model.
Your example of the shape of the exhaust pipe is baffling. Do Oz delivered cars have difference exhaust pipes to UK delivered vehicles?
Australia wants to modify the ADR's so that vehicles coming in have exhaust pipes with a structure around the outlet to prevent people from committing suicide. Can you imagine the costs to implement this? And how fugly it would look? This is just another example of how pointless our ADR's are.
Mandatory ESC = all major markets are going that way and quickly. Much cheaper for a manufacturer to sell a car that has ESC as standard rather than have a model mix.
So why force it in Victoria? Absolutely pointless and just another "tax" in Australia. ESP will make stuff all difference to the road toll, they would have been better off putting up another 100 safety cameras!
Is it a major cost? Well Mitsubishi just added side/curtain airbags to the lancer for NO extra cost. It already had esp.
The Suzuki Alto has 6 airbags as standard and is one of the cheapest car on the market. ESP is addition cost.
And there are still plenty of cars without curtain airbags, what about all the 4WD's? Most of them don't even have ESP so I wouldn't be surprised if Victoria misses out of some models from now on. What's the point in having ADR's if you have states running around dictating that you have to have extra airbags or ESP?
There's far too many chefs in this country, you have Kevin 747 dictating that ESP would be mandatory by the end of 2008 and the world would sit back and take notice and follow our lead (we are world leaders after all in something). Next we have states decided to force side airbags and esp to save the children. And we have ADR's deciding to fit structures around exhaust pipe outlets to prevent suicide.
Quote:
Mandatory ESC = all major markets are going that way and quickly. Much cheaper for a manufacturer to sell a car that has ESC as standard rather than have a model mix.
So why force it in Victoria? Absolutely pointless and just another "tax" in Australia. ESP will make stuff all difference to the road toll, they would have been better off putting up another 100 safety cameras!
__________________________________________________ ______________
Wait wait!!! I didn't say this quote he was from NSW... put the cameras up there!!!! hehehe, but seriously I don't think cameras help the road toll, unless they are going to put them on BLACK SPOT locations... to slow people down, where others have crashed... not on free ways where 12 deaths have occurred in 8 years, such as the M1 at time of installation)!
Wait wait!!! I didn't say this quote he was from NSW... put the cameras up there!!!! hehehe, but seriously I don't think cameras help the road toll, unless they are going to put them on BLACK SPOT locations... to slow people down, where others have crashed... not on free ways where 12 deaths have occurred in 8 years, such as the M1 at time of installation)!
I wasn't being serious, speed cameras do nothing to stem the road toll unless you're one of the thick people on the road safety boards (or whatever they're called in each of the states).
then you get a reduction in your third party insurance... 
Tweet
Comment