plan to ban all old cars from Paris

[EVLKNEVL]

Ford Australia would not get any more market share though. Only modest increases in volume, offset by proportionate price cuts. Many people will not suddenly start buying new cars, they will just buy 'less old' cars. Ford Australia doesn't appear to be in a great position to be given a follow or die ultimatum.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by flappist

No you have not explained anything. All you have said is that carsales has very few old cars on it.

Carsales does, however, have LOTS of 3 or 4 year old Falcadores in the $20-30k range. Someone must be buying them.

So which would you buy?

A 3 year old XR6 Turbo for $29k or a brand new XR6 Turbo for $29k?

Or a 3 year old XR6 Turbo for $19k?

No, the prices would not drop instantly, it would take a few years much to the relief of those who have recently bought new cars but maybe 10 years from now it would be a whole new market. The car makers and dealers would be forced to follow or die in the same way the HN, JB, Goodguys, Bing Lee etc. did not go the way of WOW, Betta, Retravision Clive Peeters, Chandlers et. al.

Who would have thought 10 years ago that 60" plasmas and blurays would be common in "battlers" houses?



You don't have a TV at your house?

We are already there........

In the big picture it is just an idea (a hypothetical one ).

Other places have already done it and if Australia decides to do it or not do it there is NOTHING any of us can do about it.

So what do the battlers do for 10 years while they're waiting for the prices to drop? I'm sure you'll have a solution in the warm and fuzzy world you live in.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by XBROO

So what do the battlers do for 10 years while they're waiting for the prices to drop? I'm sure you'll have a solution in the warm and fuzzy world you live in.

Maybe it would be phased in over 10 years. It would start with 27 years and increment every year by one year so it was 26 then 25 and so on until it reached 17.

Whenever a problem arises, some try to solve it while other just complain and use it as an excuse for failing.

Why do you seem to want to keep battlers in old uneconomical less safe high maintenance motor vehicles rather than help them get into newer safer vehicles that cost less to run in fuel and maintenance?

[mik]

Sorry Flappy , i have no confidence in the powers that be to do the right thing, they have disappointed in the past on regular occasion, but it is a nice idea all the same.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by flappist

Maybe it would be phased in over 10 years. It would start with 27 years and increment every year by one year so it was 26 then 25 and so on until it reached 17.

Whenever a problem arises, some try to solve it while other just complain and use it as an excuse for failing.

Yeah mate great in theory, but I don't think are government would put that much thought in to something like that. Instead they'd be looking to fine poeple for getting it wrong. But if anything like this dose happen, I hope a bloke like yourself is heading it. As it you seem to have alot of answers and they are logical ones too. But I suppose with the statement you made first of, you were prepared to cop flank.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by flappist

Maybe it would be phased in over 10 years. It would start with 27 years and increment every year by one year so it was 26 then 25 and so on until it reached 17.

Whenever a problem arises, some try to solve it while other just complain and use it as an excuse for failing.

Why do you seem to want to keep battlers in old uneconomical less safe high maintenance motor vehicles rather than help them get into newer safer vehicles that cost less to run in fuel and maintenance?

Just to answer your edited bit, ok newer cars might chew less fuel but not always. But most people that own older cars can to there own maintenance and services. So it's cheaper, some new cars you can't even change the battery with out a technician.

[GasoLane]

Has anybody actually read the article?

The ban will only apply to Paris (for those still at school this is a city, not a whole country!)

The article goes on to say that the mayor wants to --"progressively and in a concerted manner" ban all trucks from driving in or around the capital.-- this could get interesting when shops start running out of stock.

As well as cutting the speed on the ring road from 80 to 70 and increasing the amount of 30kmh zones!

And we complain about 50 in some built up areas.

[Jim Goose]

On the flip side we then become a throw away society for cars... (bad enough now).
It "may" be good for the car manufacturers in the short term, but in the long terms we would be burning our resources quickly. Not to mention the glut of 2nd hand cars which will sit idle and then go straight to the crushers because they are worthless and cant be sold.

Have a look at the UK.... 2nd hand car are dirt cheap.... why?
One look at eBay... 173000 used cars for sale in the UK...
On eBay Australia.... 17500

It would also force manufacturers to build cars which would need to be more recycleable because there would be a environmental backlash.

Australia's problem (one of many) is that we dont have a big enough population, we have cheap imports with little or no tarrifs arriving. Protectionism here has become a dirty word...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by XBROO

Just to answer your edited bit, ok newer cars might chew less fuel but not always. But most people that own older cars can to there own maintenance and services. So it's cheaper, some new cars you can't even change the battery with out a technician.

While that has some truth in it for the same model series of vehicles in recent history they have become more economical with each itteration.
Also the idea of doing your own servicing really only applies to enthusiasts as the vast majority of battlers do no manintenance at all until things actually break and even if they did want to do maintenance have no idea where the 710 cap is.
I have a relly who just will not spend one cent more than he has to on cars and has driven for weeks with brake pads worn to the metal and exposed steel on his tyres just to get a few more days out of them.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by flappist

While that has some truth in it for the same model series of vehicles in recent history they have become more economical with each itteration.
Also the idea of doing your own servicing really only applies to enthusiasts as the vast majority of battlers do no manintenance at all until things actually break and even if they did want to do maintenance have no idea where the 710 cap is.
I have a relly who just will not spend one cent more than he has to on cars and has driven for weeks with brake pads worn to the metal and exposed steel on his tyres just to get a few more days out of them.

I to know a few like that and even worst. But newer models don't always use less fuel. As a bloke I new had a VT commie and it got written off, he bought a VS after that and can't believe how much less fuel it users. I know I'm talking about two older model cars, but it's just an example.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

On the flip side we then become a throw away society for cars... (bad enough now).
It "may" be good for the car manufacturers in the short term, but in the long terms we would be burning our resources quickly. Not to mention the glut of 2nd hand cars which will sit idle and then go straight to the crushers because they are worthless and cant be sold.

Have a look at the UK.... 2nd hand car are dirt cheap.... why?
One look at eBay... 173000 used cars for sale in the UK...
On eBay Australia.... 17500

It would also force manufacturers to build cars which would need to be more recycleable because there would be a environmental backlash.

Australia's problem (one of many) is that we dont have a big enough population, we have cheap imports with little or no tarrifs arriving. Protectionism here has become a dirty word...

That is interesting.

So you are saying in another place that is reasonably similar to Australia there are much better cars available to low income earners cheaper than here?

What is this aversion to recycling older cars.
They are just cars. But then I suppose to some throwing out anything is anathema.

I am starting to see why there is a push to make the Bower Bird a national symbol for Australia......

[XBROO]

You know what they say flappist. One persons rubbish is another persons treasure.

[Smoke Pursuit]

They need to bring in mandatory inspections in QLD at least... I know other states do it so why not here...

Once a car is 7 years old it should have to be inspected yearly... By the DOT not some shonky backyard inspection agent.

Would fix some of the problem here as there are plenty of cars too far gone still registered.. Won't make any difference to the happy people that don't bother registering at all.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

They need to bring in mandatory inspections in QLD at least... I know other states do it so why not here...

Once a car is 7 years old it should have to be inspected yearly... By the DOT not some shonky backyard inspection agent.

Would fix some of the problem here as there are plenty of cars too far gone still registered.. Won't make any difference to the happy people that don't bother registering at all.

Good idea but why put a year period on it should be every car as I know cars that are six months old and would be unroadworthy. Other problem if DOT did it expect all fees and service to go up for rego. And it would make difference to unregistered vehicles on the road, there would be more of them.

[vanman_75]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Has anybody actually read the article?

The ban will only apply to Paris (for those still at school this is a city, not a whole country!)

The article goes on to say that the mayor wants to --"progressively and in a concerted manner" ban all trucks from driving in or around the capital.-- this could get interesting when shops start running out of stock.

As well as cutting the speed on the ring road from 80 to 70 and increasing the amount of 30kmh zones!

And we complain about 50 in some built up areas.

Yer the whole thing has gone off topic , as per normal I guess for those that know Paris its a very tight little city in most of central Paris , 30 would be to fast in most areas 50 is humming when there are no footpaths and one way streets....seen many situations where people had to back out of streets or simply couldnt pass due to trucks and buses.
I can see why there could be positives, but there are so many other things that need fixing in Paris before this .
As far as Australia goes , the government needs to fix our issues since they caused it ..and as said before most cars are stuffed by 17 years old ...this will have zero effect on New car sales.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by XBROO

Good idea but why put a year period on it should be every car as I know cars that are six months old and would be unroadworthy. Other problem if DOT did it expect all fees and service to go up for rego. And it would make difference to unregistered vehicles on the road, there would be more of them.

6 months old and unroadworthy? I seriously doubt that except possibly after a major accident or whatever and even then only until it was repaired under insurance.

As far as the "more unregistered", well if this highlights the unroadworthy vehicles and makes them easier to detect and remove them from the road then how is this a bad thing......

Originally Posted by vanman_75

Yer the whole thing has gone off topic , as per normal I guess for those that know Paris its a very tight little city in most of central Paris , 30 would be to fast in most areas 50 is humming when there are no footpaths and one way streets....seen many situations where people had to back out of streets or simply couldnt pass due to trucks and buses.
I can see why there could be positives, but there are so many other things that need fixing in Paris before this .
As far as Australia goes , the government needs to fix our issues since they caused it ..and as said before most cars are stuffed by 17 years old ...this will have zero effect on New car sales.

How is discussing what is happening overseas and its possible application to Australia off topic?

If, as you say, most cars are stuffed by 17 years then doing this will have no effect other than to remove stuffed cars from the road. Again, how is this a bad thing?

[vanman_75]

Already laws for unroadworthy vehicles , and the article is about emissions not cars that are run down.
Forcing a minority off the road ( with no real stats )is in my view fairly pointless .
Someone in paris who drives a vespa 20ck a week or 2 litres of fuel nowhere near compares to the buses, that run 10 hours a day bumper to bumper...same goes with old cars , noone uses them as high milers...again not adding a lot to the emissions .I don't disagree with most of your angle and rarely do ...I appreciate your ability to debate rationally.but this will do littlefor there cause , though I do agree with the truck thing ..like flies in paris ...

But having half my family living in london , the car industry is not booming with these laws ...better policing for the junkers and more effort on emmisions in time will see all the old cars gone anyway.

[4DBOSS]

ive been to paris..there are alot more older cars than newer, dunno how theyll do this

[Franco Cozzo]

Club rego in Victoria is actually quite good, you can drive the car 90 times, just need to fill out a log book.

My mate took me home in his restored 1964 Compact Fairlane, mild 302W, everything in miles and MPH, P plates up, he filled in the book and off we went, we went past two cops and they didn't even bat an eyelid even though we only had a rough idea of the speed we were going, and the V8 rumbling along under the bonnet that we weren't supposed to be driving because its a "high performance vehicle" by VicRoads standards

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by flappist

What is this aversion to recycling older cars.
They are just cars.

That's just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on a car enthusiast forum ...

Not only are they much more than "just cars", there's absolutely no point whatsoever in destroying an older, but perfectly functioning and perfectly reliable car, just because it's old(er).

And who the hell are you (or anyone, for that matter), to define what's collectable and what's not? What can only be driven on weekends and what can be used as a daily driver? Why can't I use a 20 year old car as my daily driver, provided that it's in a roadworthy condition?

I happen to be quite fond of the early E-series Falcons and early N-series Fairlane/LTDs. And no, I don't mean the performance ones, as performance cars and V8s have never really been my thing. I'm much more likely to own a Fairmont/Fairmont Ghia/Fairlane Ghia/LTD than anything with an XR or GT badge. If I happened to own an early E-series example of the above, why should I not be allowed to keep my car whereas the neighbour with an EB GT can keep theirs?

There's already far too much restriction on what people (P-platers for example) can and cannot drive. I will not support any measure that makes this country even more of a nanny state than it already is.

[2011G6E]

There's another thread on here where I mentioned the idea that pops up now and then ever decade or so where the big car makers will claim...for environmental or safety reasons...that we should ban cars older than five or teh years from the road.

Sad to see people thinking it might be a really peachy idea to follow this sort of thing...

To the concept that they're "just cars", no they're not.
We used to own a 1957 Morris Minor...it had been in continuous use since '57, and we used it regularly as a second car. At the moment we own a 1982 Celica which we use as a second car.
If we, and previous owners, had followed that logic and just scrapped them every few years and bought a new car (as they do in Japan and other countries), then potentially dozens of new cars would have had to be produced at greater environmental cost rather than keeping a well maintained old car on the road for half a century. Doesn't get much greener than that...

[TC200six]

Another idea from Europe that I hope is never considered here. The idea is being forced to continue to pay rego for a car that has been de-registered until it has been officially destroyed. It's completely unfair to someone who wants to store a car long term and having to pay rego for a car that isn't allowed on the road is just pathetic.

[2011G6E]

In some regions in certain states in the USA they have clunker laws that state that if an unregistered old car is in your yard and visible from a public road passing your house, it will be taken away and scrapped. It could be covered by a tarp or in a shed, as long as it wasn't visible.
There was also something about it having wheels and being "mobile".

One guy on a forum I used to frequent was in a huge legal battle as a city council had turned up and taken his Oldsmobile 442 which was up on blocks awaiting a new engine.

[XBROO]

[QUOTE=flappist;4520279]6 months old and unroadworthy? I seriously doubt that except possibly after a major accident or whatever and even then only until it was repaired under insurance.

As far as the "more unregistered", well if this highlights the unroadworthy vehicles and makes them easier to detect and remove them from the road then how is this a bad thing......


It's not hard to wear out a set of tyres. But what you're not getting is that if there is more unregistered cars out there, then there's more with out insurance.

[BENT_8]

Honestly, this thread contains some of the most rediculous ideas i have ever read.
I can tell you for a fact that wiping out old cars will not bring new car prices down, nor will it make second hand cars cheaper.

When GMH was running 3 shifts flat out and couldnt keep up,Commodores were still 30 odd K.

Over the last decade many used car dealers in Adelaide have been sending older stock up north to our indigenous brothers as they will pay top dollar for crap, all it did was maintain or push up the base price of what was left over.
As a result we still see VS Commodores in good nick advertised in used car lots for 4-5k, when they should command no more than 3k.

[xbxd351]

Why do some people feel threatened by older cars? Theres been a few threads on this forum where certain users have arced up about old cars. I don't get what the agenda is. They are here to stay so deal with it. I love the fact I have an XA XB and XD out in the yard that are all still able to do the daily grind as good as any new car out there only difference they are a lot more fun to drive! Maybe thats why people with boring new cars have sour grapes lol. I've actually noticed a lot more pre 1980 cars around Melbourne lately (HQs and Valiants making a big comeback) so there not going away in a hurry. No theres no way it will ever happen in Australia unless we run out of oil.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by NX74205

That's just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on a car enthusiast forum ...

Not only are they much more than "just cars", there's absolutely no point whatsoever in destroying an older, but perfectly functioning and perfectly reliable car, just because it's old(er).

And who the hell are you (or anyone, for that matter), to define what's collectable and what's not? What can only be driven on weekends and what can be used as a daily driver? Why can't I use a 20 year old car as my daily driver, provided that it's in a roadworthy condition?

I happen to be quite fond of the early E-series Falcons and early N-series Fairlane/LTDs. And no, I don't mean the performance ones, as performance cars and V8s have never really been my thing. I'm much more likely to own a Fairmont/Fairmont Ghia/Fairlane Ghia/LTD than anything with an XR or GT badge. If I happened to own an early E-series example of the above, why should I not be allowed to keep my car whereas the neighbour with an EB GT can keep theirs?

There's already far too much restriction on what people (P-platers for example) can and cannot drive. I will not support any measure that makes this country even more of a nanny state than it already is.

Maybe it would be better if you actually read what I wrote rather than just go off like a pork chop in the sun.

I said ANY car that was more than 17 years old could be kept not a select group. NOTHING has to be destroyed.
The idea was for you to be able to have as many cars of the type you like at a much lower cost to you with cheap rego and insurance.

Unfortunately there is always too much ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME and not enough US or WE or YOU or THEM........

As a side note it is VERY amusing reading the posts of those who get upset at "just a car" and then 5 minutes later lambast jap crap or crumpledores or chinese junk which are all also "just cars".

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by xbxd351

Why do some people feel threatened by older cars? Theres been a few threads on this forum where certain users have arced up about old cars. I don't get what the agenda is. They are here to stay so deal with it. I love the fact I have an XA XB and XD out in the yard that are all still able to do the daily grind as good as any new car out there only difference they are a lot more fun to drive! Maybe thats why people with boring new cars have sour grapes lol. I've actually noticed a lot more pre 1980 cars around Melbourne lately (HQs and Valiants making a big comeback) so there not going away in a hurry. No theres no way it will ever happen in Australia unless we run out of oil.

Good question...
We have our G6E, but we also have the 1982 Celica as a second car. It cost me a premium price because of what it was when I bought it a bit over four and a half years ago (one owner, 80,000km on the clock, cloth interior, factory air con, literally like new) for $5000. I could have gone out and bought a reasonably new small car like a Kia or Hyundai but would have paid a lot more for the privilege of driving a "near-new car"...but would it have been as much fun?
We wanted to buy a ute, and gave ourselves a budget of $5000...which wouldn't have bought us anything near new at all, so we ended up with a 1982 WB ute with a worked 253 and kitted auto.

People buy older cars for a reason...on my wages, I could have just walked in and bought a reasonably new 2WD Hilux or maybe one of those Great Walls or something...same with the Celica. However, I purposely wanted an old car in both cases. If we want new, it's in the garage with a G6E badge on the back.

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by flappist

I said ANY car that was more than 17 years old could be kept not a select group. NOTHING has to be destroyed.
The idea was for you to be able to have as many cars of the type you like at a much lower cost to you with cheap rego and insurance.

On the proviso that I can't use them as daily drivers, right? I'd rather pay more rego and use them as my daily drive.

Originally Posted by flappist

Unfortunately there is always too much ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME and not enough US or WE or YOU or THEM........

How does what others choose to drive have any effect on anyone else? Where does the "us" or "we" come in when it comes to deciding which car to drive?

[flappist]

So any car?

Dropping the kids off at school in a semi-trailer loaded with toxic waste?
Using a Model T as a daily driver?
Left hand drive Chinese domestic trucks?

The Parisian has his reasons for doing this and I was exploring a possible way to reduce the price of new cars by increasing the number manufactured and removing some more dangerous vehicles off the roads and take them out of the hands of those who are driving them because they are cheap and no other reason.

I am disappointed at the not unexpected attitude of some who cannot even contemplate that there could be a bit of good in doing this.

It reminds me so much of the scrubys of the world who have a similar reaction to any proposal to increase speed limits.