This was posted 1 year 1 month 8 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired
  • targeted

[VIC] $5000 Subsidy for Younger Drivers in Regional Victoria to Replace Their Older Cars with Newer Ones @ VicRoads

1474
[VIC] $5000 Subsidy for Younger Drivers in Regional Victoria to Replace Their Older Cars with Newer Ones @ VicRoads
Go to Deal
JAY13 on 16/10/2023 - 19:31 vicroads.vic.gov.au (1550 clicks)
Last edited 17/10/2023 - 06:38 by 1 other user

Eligibility criteria

  • be between 18 and 25 years old
  • reside in regional Victoria
  • hold a Victorian driver licence
  • be the registered owner of a vehicle that is 16 years old or older and with a low safety rating

unsafe2safe
We're trialling ways to get old, unsafe cars off our roads and help young drivers into newer, safer vehicles.

About unsafe2safe
The safety of your car makes a difference in the event of a crash and may even help avoid one altogether. But many young drivers cannot afford to buy a newer, safer car right now. Sadly, those young drivers are over-represented in serious road crashes.

That's why we're rolling out a targeted trial to give an incentive to young drivers in regional Victoria to scrap their old, unsafe vehicles and replace them with newer, safer cars.

The trial started in 2021 with participants from Bendigo, Ballarat and surrounds. In 2022, we expanded it to other areas of regional Victoria.

How it works

  1. After applying, please complete the free Vehicle Safety Online Course on the VicRoads website.
  2. We’ll select drivers to participate in the unsafe2safe program. We’re prioritising applicants who complete the Vehicle Safety Basics Online Course and feedback form. The course informs drivers about vehicle safety and how to choose a safe car.
  3. Selected participants will receive an invitation letter from VicRoads via e-mail containing the instructions to purchase a newer, safer vehicle under the program and to scrap their old, unsafe car.
  4. Take your older, unsafe car and invitation letter to a participating dealer.
  5. Choose a newer, safer car from the dealership.
  6. Pay the difference between the price the dealer is asking for and the $5,000 subsidy.
  7. The dealer arranges to have the old vehicle taken away to be scrapped.
  8. The unsafe vehicle is scrapped at an auto parts recycler. Scrapping removes the car from the fleet, so the crash risk is not transferred to another person.
  9. The dealer claims the $5,000 back from Vicroads.

Also, there is cash back offer is going on at the moment from MG Motors. It can be stacked with subsidy. The deal link is here. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/803971

Automotive Car Subsidy

Related Stores

VicRoads
VicRoads

closed Comments

            • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 13:40

              @CommuterPolluter: So what if they do? Do tenants think their costs are fixed and wont rise against inflation? Or is tbe rest of society meant to eat the bill of services for them?

            • hazzad on 20/10/2023 - 16:25

              @CommuterPolluter: Of course they will. Why should they absorb it. In the same way AirBnB's will pass on the short stay tax. Its the free world and they can do what they want in the end. If the goverment wants to tax the supplier, then the supplier will pass on the cost to the user. Pretty simple.

      • Mozzmanau on 16/10/2023 - 23:04

        When? Are you for real? Why do you think the price of everything is going up? NOTHING is free, it's tax payer funded.

        • freefall101 on 17/10/2023 - 08:54
          +1

          Global inflation isn’t being caused by taxes in Victoria.

    • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:29
      +8

      Its a net saving. The cost of crashes is insane. The emergency response. The investigations. Prosecutions. Lost tax and other productivity or revenue of victims or even temporarily injured.

      • AngusD on 17/10/2023 - 09:15
        +1

        Yep - if this saves even just a few people from serious injuries then the savings would probably be enough to pay for the whole damn program

        • CommuterPolluter on 17/10/2023 - 10:12
          -1

          And if it causes a few people to have serious injuries?

          • Alzori on 17/10/2023 - 14:30
            +1

            @CommuterPolluter: The cost of a fatality to the economy is approx. $3.2M. The cost of a serious injury (this usually means something resulting in hospitalisation) in a crash is around $260k. If someone has a serious injury instead of dying that's still almost a $3M boost economically. This only needs to happen for two people as a result of the pilot for it to have paid for itself.

            I've seen slightly higher numbers used before in analysis but this was just the first google result reference: https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/socia…

            • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 15:29

              @Alzori: Bold of you to assume they can read.

            • CommuterPolluter on 17/10/2023 - 15:30

              @Alzori: Back of envelope this is a boomdoogle. Love to see the actual calculations they used to justify it.

              For every 80,000 vehicles in Victoria we have about 4 fatalities. Let’s call that a cost of $12.8 million per year in societal costs (actually $20 million if we use SVL which is a more appropriate metric). The average age is 11 years. So we can assume the fleet turns over roughly every 11 years. At $5,000 of real money per car it costs us $400,000,000 real money to instantly replace every single car in the fleet with a new, safer car. ANCAP recently gave a figure of new cars being 4x safer. That says to me that we can go from 4 fatalities to 1 fatality immediately, 11 years ahead of schedule. We are saving $9.6 million a year (in societal costs) over 11 years. So we pay $400 million cash money to save $105 million in societal costs. Now just scale it down from 80,000 vehciles to 1,000 vehicles. We spend $5 million in real money to save $1.3 million in societal value (or around 2.6 million using SVL). Obviously real lives a discrete so we can’t save 1/3 of a life. I guess if we ‘get lucky’ then it saves >2 lives and we make a small profit. The most likely outcome being that nobody is saved and it’s a waste of money.

              Not absurdly disproportionate but there are better places to spend money.

              • Alzori on 17/10/2023 - 15:45

                @CommuterPolluter: Not sure what SVL is? Also:

                For every 80,000 vehicles in Victoria we have about 4 fatalities.

                You can't use this statistic then scale it down to the highly targeted trial group of 16+ year old clunkers owned by young adults in the country, who by definition don't have 11 year old cars and are not average drivers.

                • CommuterPolluter on 17/10/2023 - 17:19

                  @Alzori: SVL is statistical value of life. A figure published by federal Govt as representative of what it believes society is willing to pay to avoid a fatality.

                  That’s a good point but once we start factoring stuff like that we really should be doing it in a report so we can really check each number and relationship.

                  We could say the fatality rate for 18-25 yo is closer to 16/80,000 (based on some dirty states) than 4 but the increase in safety is also closer to a reduction of risk to 63% than to 25%. We then go from 2.6 million SVL to 4.2 million SVL. It’s closer but the problem its still a marginal ROI.

                  We also assume that nobody was in the market for a new car prior to the introduction of this program. Cash for clunkers estimates say about half of consumers were already in the market, but this is more targeted so who knows.

                  I think there are better things for Victoria to spend money on.

                  • Alzori on 17/10/2023 - 18:14
                    +1

                    @CommuterPolluter: Thanks for the explanation! Didn't know about that SVL thing. Given it is a trial it will be interesting if it finds any useful information. Potentially the numbers work out better (but potentially even worse).

                    Where do you get the 63% risk reduction number from?

                    • CommuterPolluter on 17/10/2023 - 18:28
                      +1

                      @Alzori: Yeah, given it’s only $5,000,000 it’s not exactly a big investment to find out if it work. It is conceivable that it’s not a waste of money if you actually calculate it properly. Idk why I’ve been so negative.

                      63% is from multiplying 2.5% by 15, which is admittedly fraught.
                      2.5% is from here.
                      https://casr.adelaide.edu.au/casrpubfile/819/CASR062.pdf

                      • Alzori on 17/10/2023 - 19:11
                        +1

                        @CommuterPolluter: Really interesting report, thanks!

                        One potentially interesting insight is looking at figure 2.16. If I'm reading it correctly, it seems like drivers over the age of 25 have a stronger correlation between vehicle age and crashworthiness?

                        This would suggest it may actually be better to offer this to older drivers (or just any drivers) rather than only young people? It's all slim margins though, so yeah hard to say anything definitive. Maybe more factors at play.

                        • CommuterPolluter on 17/10/2023 - 20:34
                          +1

                          @Alzori: Nah I don’t think so cos crashworthiness is only the fraction of crashes which are serious crashes. Younger drivers are still way more likely to crash in the first place. Plus they are younger so their life is ‘worth more’, which could offset such a slim margin if they crashed at the same rate. I think they’ve targeted the right demo from what I saw.

                          But it’s an interesting observation that older drivers are better able to take advantage of the safety features of modern vehicles. I guess it’s because those features are more effective at low and moderate speed accidents, which is more typical of drivers over 25 yo. But idk just speculating.

  • Binchicken22 on 16/10/2023 - 20:28

    Victoria must be doing so well as a state of they have money to throw at things like this.

    • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:32
      +3

      Its a net saving. The cost of crashes is insane. The emergency response. The investigations. Prosecutions. Lost tax and other productivity or revenue of victims or even temporarily injured.

  • Maglia Nera on 16/10/2023 - 20:28
    +1

    lol Victoria - the broke woke state

    • Ok computer on 16/10/2023 - 20:51
      +30

      Expensive burden on the health system to patch up needless vehicle sustained injuries. The social cost of motor vehicle accidents is huge. A 2022 study from ANU indicates 241k$ per injury for a hospitalised case. Is this a woke thing? Or sensible economic management?

      • buthidae on 16/10/2023 - 21:14
        +16

        Fixing social problems is a woke lefty agenda, don’t you know?

        • Sleeqb7 on 17/10/2023 - 09:45
          +3

          "Let broke regional kids die to own the left." - Someone, probably

      • Mozzmanau on 16/10/2023 - 23:07
        -3

        I reckon your study is a load of crap. Do you remember when Dan was going to put an apple store in fed square? They did a study that said the store would bring in another $1 million a year in revenue from increased traffic. Guess who did the study? Apple 🤣🤣🤣

        • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 09:20

          Who gives a shit? Have you seen whats there now? Soul-less corporate event spaces, some bars, another bar that's made of ICE, some food carts, a big screen TV, a bunch of backpacker travel carts, and like one interesting restaurant.

          Many culture. Such Wow.

          The proposal was for Apples largest flagship store in the southern hemisphere and would have made fed square something with a destination people might have visited daily between events.

          Meanwhile your main complaint is that a commercial viability study wasn't…publicly funded? Wow. Huge own.

          The same government which assessed and rejected the application is the one you're blaming for Apple….proposing it? It wasn't "Dans" idea. In fact "Dans" government put it to bed after public feedback…which is kind of how you want government to operate, isn't it? Listening to the people?

      • magic8ballgag on 17/10/2023 - 09:23

        Well, your comment doens't look or sound as cool, but at least it's factual!

      • tmcn85 on 16/10/2023 - 22:31
        +1

        Woke state is broke.

      • entropysbane on 16/10/2023 - 22:36

        Well, to be fair, the righties aren’t the only ones copying American tricks.
        this is a copy of a ten year old US scheme called “cash for clunkers”.
        It was widely regarded as a failure. But am sure the Victorian designers were smarter and worked out the kinks so are totally confident it will be successful.

      • Mozzmanau on 16/10/2023 - 23:09

        All while almost 8 thousand business have closed in Victoria. Roads to nowhere with no one to use them all while people CAN'T get a fking ambulance while suffering from a heart attack. They are being told to get a cab. FACT. Stick your roads where the sun doesn't shine.

        • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:34

          Roads got hundreds of millions in emergency repair funding post floods. Over ten hospitals are being built and upgraded. The emergency services dispatch agency is being ripped apart and absorbed by justice along with 300 million to upgrade and hire new people. Ambulance is also getting huge funding, along with nursing, and the urgent care clinics to help emergency are already operational.

          Any other questions? Apart from….did you know who to thank?

      • Save 50 Cent on 16/10/2023 - 23:10

        What does your wife have to do with the conversation?

  • pyramid on 16/10/2023 - 20:30
    +2

    Wow….wtf…state sponsorship for buying a car …

    • Aureus on 16/10/2023 - 20:33
      +7

      Just wait until you find out how much states pay for road safety…

      • jv on 16/10/2023 - 21:26
        +3

        The problem isn't old cars with youth though, it's the drivers…

        • Aureus on 16/10/2023 - 21:27
          +3

          It's both.

          • jv on 16/10/2023 - 21:28
            +4

            @Aureus: It is mainly poor driving by a big margin…

            • nigel deborah on 16/10/2023 - 21:43
              +2

              @jv: By that logic then, the road toll has massively decreased in the last 15 -30 years because people drive better? No, lol, it's almost all to do with vehicle and road design

              • jv on 16/10/2023 - 21:45

                @nigel deborah:

                By that logic then, the road toll has massively decreased in the last 15 -30 years because people drive better?

                I'm talking about youth driving…

                • mathew42 on 16/10/2023 - 22:55

                  @jv: A new approach to cut death toll of young people in road accidents from which I quote:

                  Young male drivers are our hardest hit, with male drivers aged 17 to 24 making up just 12.7% of all licence holders in Queensland but accounting for 20.3% of driver fatalities.

                  I think that driver-less cars to be the next big step in reducing the road toll. My expectation is that insurance premiums for driver controlled cars will increase steeply to the point where it simply won't be affordable to drive a car.

                  • jv on 16/10/2023 - 23:52

                    @mathew42:

                    I think that driver-less cars to be the next big step in reducing the road toll.

                    Might as well catch a taxi….

                    • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:36

                      @jv: Yes. Thats the point. Unless you were just oretending to care about safety, the safe future is using uber to order a self driving car on demand. Not own one. Not drive one.

              • entropysbane on 16/10/2023 - 22:51
                +1

                @nigel deborah: Some not so fun facts:
                Peak road toll deaths per 100,000 vehicles was 1926 with 231 deaths.
                The last year recorded that way was 2014 with 4.5 deaths.

                Totals of course
                Peak 1970 with 3798 deaths, compared with 1,123 in 2021.
                Wikipedia, but still: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i…

              • Mozzmanau on 16/10/2023 - 23:10

                @nigel deborah: What CRAP!!! 🤣🤣🤣

      • entropysbane on 17/10/2023 - 07:32

        Public good vs private good.

  • Drakesy on 16/10/2023 - 20:34
    +4

    Now this is just being wasteful.
    I had respect for labor but this policy is just idiotic.
    Cars are depreciating everyday
    These guys would still buy a secondhand landcruiser deathtrap with a fcuk off engine, because theyre rural.

    None of them are buying an affordable mg

    • Ademos on 16/10/2023 - 22:13
      +1

      MG's aren't even remotely as safe as landcruiser.

      • entropysbane on 16/10/2023 - 22:56

        True,
        I was going it say a landcruiser at the price of a new MG would have its best days behind it compared with the MG, but that isn’t true either. The landcruiser will still be plugging along long after the MG has gone to the big trash compactor in the back lot.

      • Drakesy on 17/10/2023 - 00:34

        See here

        Only one of the four models – the single-cab ute – has a five-star ANCAP safety rating from 2016. The other three variants (the four-door dual-cab ute, the wagon, and the Troop Carrier) only have two airbags and no safety ratings.

        A lot of minesites can no longer order Landcruisers as their insurance companies refuse to cover them.

        But agree that more metal is better and the MG's just miss out on 5 star as well.

        • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:12
          +1

          I know which id rather hit a kangaroo in.

    • nigel deborah on 17/10/2023 - 07:57

      A lot of shit takes against this program but this is a good point. Perhaps there should be a restriction on the type of vehicle. Hilux might have more airbags but given shitty handling, height, and weight, probably not making the roads overall safer than a 2006 Barina

  • Blackadda on 16/10/2023 - 20:44
    +8

    unbelievable how broke our state is yet giving away cash like friggin santa clause.

    • easternculture on 16/10/2023 - 20:50
      +1

      They need to keep inflation high, otherwise how can they justify a 50k dinner after a rate hike.

        • Mozzmanau on 16/10/2023 - 23:23

          Nope but close to $300 billion in debt is. And 800 deaths

          • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:15
            +2

            @Mozzmanau: Again, Labor has things to show for that money. Like infrastructure, and money into peoples pockets, not just repeatedly murdoch and serco.

            The repeated waves here were caused by nsw and the feds.

            Every single time the liberals gain power they cause more debt. Need a reminder of the last time they left federal office?

  • nosytt on 16/10/2023 - 20:52
    +1

    It would be a lot cheaper and safer to have more public transport in regional areas, not everyone needs to drive and it's better for the environment too

    • easternculture on 16/10/2023 - 20:53
      +2

      Something the greens would say

    • Save 50 Cent on 16/10/2023 - 23:15

      Says the guy who lives in a 13 sqm studio apartment in CBD.

    • entropysbane on 16/10/2023 - 23:27
      +1

      Ahem. “Regional Victoria”.

  • Indomietable on 16/10/2023 - 20:53
    -3

    How about progressively increase registration cost for older cars, over sized cars, gas guzzlers and luxury cars for all ages and use the money to fund better public transport?

    • 2ndeffort on 16/10/2023 - 21:07
      +3

      So the people least able to buy a safer car can fund a new public transport system?

      • Indomietable on 17/10/2023 - 11:06
        -2

        I want older / unsafe cars pay more for their rego.
        ie :
        < 10 yrs old cars & 4 star ANCAP ratings = $700/year ,
        < 10 yrs old cars & 3 star ANCAP ratings = $1000/year ,

        10-15 yrs & 4 ANCAP ratings = $1400/year
        10-15 yrs & 3 ANCAP ratings = $1800/year

        This will discourage people from buying unsafe cars.
        This will reduce demand/cost of unsafe cars to the point where no one wants them anymore.

        Currently trialed policy only subsidizes safer car, which doesn't do anything to unsafe car.
        I want the policy to subsidise the safest transport method which is public transport :

        https://www.modeshift.com/is-public-transportation-safer-tha… :

        • using commuter or intercity rail is over 20 times safer than driving
        • riding the metro or light rail is about 30 times safer
        • and getting on the bus is around 60 times safer when compared to personal transportation

        The article is based on the following research paper: https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JPT17.4_…

    • CheapBrah on 16/10/2023 - 21:54
      -1

      Really users should pay the full cost of both forms of transport, PT and roads, instead of them both being subsidised heavily from general revenue (or more correctly, debt). Subsidising transport creates massive problems: urban sprawl, building the wrong infrastructure or not building it at all, destroying the economy with inefficient taxes to subsidise it, etc.

      • mathew42 on 16/10/2023 - 22:40
        +2

        I would argue that public transport should be free.

        • Money spent collecting and policing fares could be saved.
        • Encourages casual users as they don't need to buy tickets and learn how to tap on and off.
        • Reduces road congestion reducing the need to upgrade roads.
        • Better for the environment.
        • entropysbane on 16/10/2023 - 22:59
          +1

          I hate subsidies as a general rule, they end up lining the rent seekers’ pockets more than the punters targeted.

          However, I would agree to free public transport. There are no rent seekers ( at a stretch the bus builders), and few bUsinesses disadvantaged (maybe some private sector transport operators like Uber). In addition to the things above you mentioned, public transport runs at a huge loss anyway, so might as well make it free for a marginal difference in debt.

        • CheapBrah on 17/10/2023 - 01:13

          You're not going to take anyone off the road by making PT free, it's practically free already given how heavily it's subsidised and much cheaper than driving.

          PT is already overcrowded anyway so it makes no sense to make it cheaper, and it costs a fortune and a long time to build anymore train lines. We can't afford to build any new train lines currently let alone if it was free. You're also subsidising endless urban sprawl by not making people pay the true cost of living 50km from the CBD and having to pay a realistic PT far.

          And again this isn't a roads vs PT thing for me, I also think roads should reflect their true cost as well rather than being subsidised for similar reasons.

          • Snipyro on 17/10/2023 - 08:33

            @CheapBrah: I somewhat disagree that PT is much cheaper than driving. That's only true if you are able to totally forego owning a car in any capacity. The vast majority of families will own a car, but the current cost of taking a family somewhere via public transport makes driving significantly cheaper if I already own a car. I can't count the number of times I wanted to go to the city by train but ended up driving due to the cost of a return train trip for 2 adults and children.

            I'd heavily support free PT during off peak or at least much fairer family fares to take more cars off the road. God knows we need less congestion in Sydney.

  • chris666 on 16/10/2023 - 20:54

    How is this a deal with all the hoops you have to jump through

  • Kaidra on 16/10/2023 - 20:58
    +3

    To all the nay-sayers out there. This is NOTHING like cash-for-clunkers.
    This is a $5,000 voucher for clunkers.
    Totally different concept with none of the pitfalls.
    WINNING!!

  • CheapThriller2021 on 16/10/2023 - 20:58

    Don't worry, these money will be taken back by imposing other taxes… as the people are enjoying Corona related incentives now..

  • spiderbite88 on 16/10/2023 - 20:59
    +6

    134 deaths on regional roads in 2022.
    106 deaths on metropolitan roads in 2022.
    24% of the Victorian population lives regionally, but regional roads account for over 50% of road deaths. Over 66% were driving 100km+.
    However I cannot find information on whether these regional road deaths were people who lived regionally and owned 16+ year old cars.
    With only the information above, it could also be city drivers with their old cars driving on unfamilar regional roads.

    • Drakesy on 16/10/2023 - 21:48

      I wonder how many were alcohol related as well…

      Even the safest car in the world won't save stupidity

    • jv on 16/10/2023 - 21:54

      With only the information above

      More likely trying to buy votes from regional voters who got screwed with the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games.

      • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:17

        The party of the guy who gained a seat like a month ago, post busfires, covid lockdowns, and major floods taking out half the roads, needs to….

        Checking my notes here….

        Buy. Votes. Regionally. After hes gone.

        Is….is this your brain on sky news?

  • OhNoUShiz on 16/10/2023 - 21:00
    +1

    Who is paying for it…..

    • 2ndeffort on 16/10/2023 - 21:00
      +3

      we all are

    • jv on 16/10/2023 - 21:27
      +3

      Who is paying for it…..

      Another loan to add to state debt….

      • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:19
        +1

        Its of net cost reduction.

        Do you have any idea what a road acccident costs the state. Not only in initial response but investigation, potential prosecution, works rectification, lost tax/earnings/productivity, etc?

        • Binchicken22 on 17/10/2023 - 06:28

          New(er) cars still crash FYI. An extra 5k is hardly going to get them into a new self driving Tesla if they currently drive a $500 magna anyway.

  • serpserpserp on 16/10/2023 - 21:02

    lol how many sons and daughters are going to get a cheap Tesla for Dad to drive around.

    • justtoreply on 16/10/2023 - 21:08

      I'd like to presume dad is sensible enough to not risk his kids life by taking the bonus for himself. Not worth it.

      • NoApostrophePlurals on 16/10/2023 - 21:57

        How are they risking their kids lives by taking up this offer exactly?

        Or how are they risking their kids lives by buying a piece of crap car for less than $1,000 under their kids name, then getting a $5,000 discount on a Tesla at a dealership as what serpserserp is implying?

        At which point does the risk come in?

        • justtoreply on 16/10/2023 - 23:07

          You've misread somehow I think. "dad" gets the discount, kid keeps a crap car.

          The literal point of this is to get kids into safer cars. Kids should get the discount and dad can go buy his own car with his own money

          • NoApostrophePlurals on 17/10/2023 - 00:16
            +1

            @justtoreply: I'm sorry, but I think you're the one who misread. How exactly do you think the kid keeps the crap car? How do you think you get a discount? You trade a crap car in, they remove it from the roads and get kids into safer ones. You have to forfeit it. How are you thinking you can just get a $5,000 discount and keep your crap car???

            The "literal point" isn't just to get kids into safer cars, it's to also remove unsafe cars from the road. How did you ignore 50% of the point??

    • Ademos on 16/10/2023 - 22:14

      If you can afford a tesla you don't really give a (profanity) about $5k.

      • wackedupwacko on 16/10/2023 - 23:52

        you don't need but, but you bet generally you are smart enough or have an accountant who is able to cook up ways of doing it.

        Only thing is Tesla don't have dealerships.

        • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:19
          +1

          So….succesful people use law breaking / fraud commiting accountant's?

  • Wizard on 16/10/2023 - 21:05
    +1

    This is dumb. No dealer will do this.

    (The dealer claims the $5,000 back from VicRoads)

    • Drakesy on 16/10/2023 - 21:45
      +2

      Jack has entered the chat.
      "Oh but you have to pay the administration fee which coincidentally is $5k"

  • mathew42 on 16/10/2023 - 21:07
    +1

    There is a list of safe cars by value.

    Sadly ANCAP stars system is broken, because a car being advertised with 5 star rating tested under older standards might only be 3 stars (or worse) if tested with today's standard.

    For example, in 2011, when Prado and Pajero earned five stars, whiplash was not tested, three-point seatbelts were not mandatory, nor was electronic stability control, emergency brake assist was not mandatory, pedestrian protection was not included in the scoring. The crash tests themselves and the dummies were different.

    • justtoreply on 16/10/2023 - 21:09
      +2

      Nothing wrong with that. It means standards have improved

      • mathew42 on 16/10/2023 - 21:45

        Improving safety is fantastic. The catch is that ratings of older cars need to be adjusted to reflect current standards. It is almost certain that all cars tested prior to 2020 changes would likely score 4 or less stars. For a more detailed explanation, I suggest reading ANCAP botches Hyundai Palisade four-star safety rating.

        The problem is that ANCAP trashed the Palisade when it was clearly safer than competitors tested under the old standards, yet ANCAP still wrote this rubbish:

        “This is an extremely competitive market and segment so we’d encourage Hyundai to do what they can to bring the Palisade to equal footing with its competitors.”

        To see the difference in testing methodology, check the test reports for Mazda CX-9 in 2016 and Toyota Kluger in 2016

        • MetalPhreak on 16/10/2023 - 23:15

          My Mustang coupe got 4 stars due to poor baby seat occupancy in the rear seat… of a 2+2 coupe. The backseat is for gym bags and things never to be found again not human beings. RAC WA won’t insure it because they have a 5 star ancap requirement on newer cars. They will however insure a convertible version because it never got an official ancap rating. Removing the roof clearly improves safety right?

          The safety stuff generally pushes things in the right direction but there sure are cases where it falls apart.

          • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:22

            @MetalPhreak: An insurance companies internal policy has zero relevance to the standards.

            No, nobody said the convertible version is safer.

            Whats life like inventing things to be angry about?

        • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:39

          Its not a pity party, its a relative metric. If the standards lift and old cars cant meet them, they cant meet them.

    • coxymla on 16/10/2023 - 21:48

      ANCAP is a dumb system anyway.
      You get stars from having things like seatbelt chimes.

  • justtoreply on 16/10/2023 - 21:10
    -1

    This thread needs locking. Too many short sighted people who can't evaluate the emotional or economic impact of death

    • Drakesy on 16/10/2023 - 21:46
      +3

      Rural people are going to replace their big unsafe fcuk off 4wd with another great big unsafe fcuk off 4wd.

      And it'd be interesting to see how many of the rural crashes are alcohol related…

      • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:22

        Literally not possible under the terms of the rebate.

        • Binchicken22 on 17/10/2023 - 06:29

          Which terms exclude this situation?

  • GordonD on 16/10/2023 - 21:12
    +2

    Had a car that kept going and going until long past when newer safer cars were available. It wasn't worth a lot, so rather than trade it in, I bought a new car outright and paid the dealer to have the old one scrapped by a wrecker. The wrecker re-registered it in their name and sold it. When I saw it driving around the street one day I complained to the police, pointing out that technically I still owned it, so it was a stolen vehicle, they said they had better things to do with their time unless I was claiming it was unsafe. When I complained to the dealer I was told it was none of my f—-ing business what happened to the car once I handed it over to them. When I complained to the distributor about the dealer they told me it was none of their f—-ing business how their dealers run their business, they just sell them cars.

    Given that is the ethics of the car business, and even more the wrecking business, which is in the business of getting as much value as it can out of whatever comes into its hands, someone tell me these cars will actually be taken off the road.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join