Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

From The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/...1987737906.html

Brumby denies motorists unfairly targeted

May 7 2003

Victorian Treasurer John Brumby today denied motorists were being unfairly targeted in yesterday's state budget, which saw the increase of hundreds of government fees and fines.

He said drivers' licences would only increase by 40 cents a year, and car registration fees were still low in real terms.

"Even after these increases, motor registration and drivers' fees will still be the lowest in Australia," Mr Brumby told radio station 3AW.

He said indexation of speeding fines would also be deferred until July next year, as they had increased recently and there were more speed cameras on the road.

Mr Brumby said the decision to index fees and fines to inflation for the first time was about "smoothing" the increase over time.

"They are not going up in real terms, they are being maintained in real terms," he said.

Mr Brumby said the change would only raise an extra $8 million in the first year.

Fees for drivers' licences, boat registrations, name changes, and birth, death and marriage certificates will all rise under the change.

- AAP

Indexing fines every ****ing year??!!! It will "ONLY raise an extra $8 million in the first year"??!!!! Now I'm angry...

Well i know who I WON'T be voting for next election for this and the SOLE reason. Even though I don't have much faith any other party will do differently...I urge you all to consider the same come election time as vote the revenue raisers OUT and back to hell.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/15441-more-revenue-plans/
Share on other sites

ONLY 8 MILLION????

i'd like to see some of that 8 million spent on the sh*t quality of roads... or more public transport... rather than their fat super accounts.

and what aobut the second year... it'll probably be another 5-6 million.

Originally posted by R31Nismoid

i'd like to see some of that 8 million spent on the sh*t quality of roads... or more public transport...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I bet Brax has never hit a gaping pothole in 35 series tyres before. Ouchy.

Would really like to see Government cars abolished after all this. They want the road users to pay - that's fine - as long as that includes themselves.

More from The Age...

"Budget estimates papers forecast that police will issue 2.25 million fines next financial year, up from 1.72 million this year. CityLink is forecast to issue a further 500,000 fines next financial year."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/...1987702801.html

"Total revenue from fines is expected to jump $101 million next financial year, with the bulk of the money due to traffic offences."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/...1987702906.html

They were telling me 5km/hr makes a big difference in so many ways. I recon this is one of them.

Obviously Mr John Brumby is a dumb stupid (unt and obviously doesn't drive a car

why da **** does this shit have to get more expensive

its expensive as it is already.

if the public transport system was actually any good as an alternative then it would be within reason

but fark...some people in parliament need a good beating

The thing is its no longer about safety anymore, its all about the money - so anything that says otherwise is just pure horseshit.

I've still spoken to people who because of the publicity actually believe 5km/hr less IN PRACTICE (e.g. on the road, not in a testing environment) will make a difference... so the marketing angle works on some idiots. They don't realise so can fatigue, so can being older, so can driving an older car, so can the weather, so can lack of concentration - there are just so many factors. Roll toll will just stay the same as it ever has with these sorts of solutions :)

If they were actually serious about reducing the amount of deaths they would be more proactive with actual solutions rather than this rubbish. Its not about saving life, just making money.

*sigh*

:) at the two children... hay... *starts to get ideas*

Nah Gord... i agree with you there mate.

Those wipe of '5' add are all based on the standard (and most recent models) ford/holden family desgin.

I can bet my bottom dinky dollar my car pulls up quicker than one of those.

---Not that i'm saying to speed because of that.---

But if you have and older car with R/S brakes... doing even 50 in a 60 zone isn't gonna save your ass. The cops should be out there canarying the rust bucket's. Not a sky (or any performance car) becasue they have a loud exhaust.

A loud exhaust isn't gonna make the car unsafe!

Originally posted by predator666

The thing is its no longer about safety anymore, its all about the money - so anything that says otherwise is just pure horseshit.  

I've still spoken to people who because of the publicity actually believe 5km/hr less IN PRACTICE (e.g. on the road, not in a testing environment) will make a difference... so the marketing angle works on some idiots. They don't realise so can fatigue, so can being older, so can driving an older car, so can the weather, so can lack of concentration - there are just so many factors. Roll toll will just stay the same as it ever has with these sorts of solutions :D  

If they were actually serious about reducing the amount of deaths they would be more proactive with actual solutions rather than this rubbish. Its not about saving life, just making money.

*sigh*

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

I'm sick of all this crap we are fed by these rec0ckulous add campaignes, and government "initiatives" to reduce the road toll...... BULLSH1T!!!!

IMHO, I think that if they really wanted the road toll figures reduced, a new program would be introduced for obtaining a drivers license. This could EASILY be subsidised by the government with ALL THAT MONEY they make off speeding fines these days.

The course would be more detailed, and expanded over a period of a few days, just like a motorbike drivers license test. Simply testing a drivers ability to turn, indicate and reverse park is not a valid enough reason to give somebody a drivers license!!!!

They tried to avoid having to intruduce such a scheme with the campaigne they had going for learners to get more experience with their parents (which is good), but come crunch time, the current system cannot REALLY determine if the person is safe enough to be driving on the roads!!!!!

What about those overcautious people that cause accidents b/c they will just stop in the middle of the road when a situation arrises in their path, they cant deal with?

What about those morons, that cant judge their cars width, and loose the plot in a narrow side street b/c they think their cars cant fit with another coming in the oncoming direction?

I can think of hundreds of situations where a lot of drivers could possibly cause an accident b/c they have no friggin clue about driving, or b/c they are too overcautious!!!!!

Do they teach you to brake heavily in the wet? Brake whilst turning? What to do if your sh1tty VN comonwhore with $10 175 bob-jane cheapo tires starts to slide after it has rained for the first time in 4 weeks??????

I THINK NOT!!!!!!

This makes me so friggin angry, b/c we all know that road rules are changing in order to raise revenue, rather than to ensure road safety!!!!

Government workers who write these REC0CKULOUS rules and regulations claiming they are put in place to ensure road safety should be burnt at the steak!

This whole thing stinks to me! This is just as bad as the legal system in the US where people can sue each other for the most REC0CKULOUS reasons! It is corrupt, unjust, and unless we dont make a stand, they will surely think of many other ways to steal our money, whilts road safety factor remains unchanged!

pricks!

Originally posted by Zdenko

i think da cops need to grow a set of balls and stop geting there thrils out of pulling a p plater or any one with a nice car ....

at one stage i had to sell my vs s pac cause i was head hunted by a certain office..

THATS RITE FISHERRR I DRIVE A SKYLINE NOW BITCH!!!!!

hahah

LOL ZDEN!!!

Iam going to tell fisher were you are now, !! =)

YOul be hunted again!@!

Hey il call you tonight on jew time.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Got the gearbox in and the front drive shafts.
    • Hi There I went through a rabbit hole of reading about Xenon headlights and the ADR regulations for having them installed. As people have been defected by running factory xenon I was researching in ways to make them compliant. Everyone always say needs to be self leveling and have washer installed, which I don't necessarily agree with. For this argument I'm using R34 as reference as I'm more aware on the construction of the headlight compared to the R33 Xenon, which may still be the exact same case.   For the self leveling clause taken from ADR 13 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles As you can see the bold text "these manually adjustable devices from driver seats" are fine to use. As Series 1 Xenon model headlights do have a 4 level adjuster on the right near the ignition (however not series 2) then these model are consider compliant in that argument.   For the Self Cleaning aspect of this argument clause taken from ADR 13 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles Now i can understand the argument that Xenon will need a washer as they are over 2000 lumens, but I clicked on the 12 at the end of that sentence and it takes me to the end notes which states R34 for headlight lenses are plastic, not sure if PL is mark as I don't currently have my skyline to confirm that marking is there. But could you not technically get a lenses with the PL marking on it and then get away with the argument that you need a washer. I went through a quick read of the adr and might have missed something else that may cause them to be non-complaint.    But wouldn't these technically be complaint headlights   Would love to hear other people input on this and shed some light   Edit In regard to the the washer portion I might be mistaken ADR 45 (which I believe is Regulation NO.45) states 12 cd (candela) I dont understand that portion in regarding to calculating the candela if anyone can shed some light. Otherwise I guess throw in a washer for the headlight and you definitely comply.
    • Took it to all Japan day, flogged the hell out of it and took it all, am a very very happy man  don’t know how that ended up in Greg’s thread before
    • Hey Nismo, any chance in the world you still have these seats?
    • I'd say closer to OG GTX3582R, just smaller trim - so 59mm inducer/82mm exducer as opposed to 62/82 for the first gen GTX3582R. Yeah EFRs were boss, the EFR8474 is still an absolute beast and it perplexes me that people still go to things like Turbosmart/Garrett etc when the results people are getting with those are pretty unremarkable compared to what you could get with a turbo available well before those options came out.  DriftSquid (I think) "upgraded" from an EFR9174 to a Turbosmart turbo and promised a comparison video - and kinda shuffled awkwardly and did a bit of diversion from the fact that they didn't get any improvement going to the currently massively hyped brand of turbo from a turbo that was a bit of a frankenstein that had been well superceded in it's own range before the Turbosmart unit he put on there even came out. I suspect the EFR would outperform most Xonas for what a lot of less-insane RB owners would go for, in the 400-600kw range but the Xonas are looking hard to beat up to maybe in the mid 700kw range at this stage- basically where EFRs don't really reach, and before the Precision turbos take over.  What the Xonas do well in the "EFR range" is be easier to package etc, and work very well if a divided housing doesn't suit your application.  
×
×
  • Create New...