Government News

1. none of these cars are Australian - we do not have an Australian Auto Industry - they never gave us Aussies a chance. 2. the cars all resemble each other - spot the difference - if you can. 3. over production due to incorrect global & national population figures & population growth figures - they are making cars for people who were never born & never will be born. 4. for decades they have had the know how to build eco-friendly cars & they have not - instead we built petrol guzzlers - shame on them. 5. CONCEPT CARS - people need cheap - eco-friendly - sports cars - THE LOOK ONLY - IMAGE - THE PLEASURE & FUN OF OWNING A GREAT LOOKING CAR. e.g. Lotus Europa i6 Concept car 2010 e.g. Magna Styer Mila on the road in body only - certainly not in horsepower. They would sell like hot cakes. How many of these beautiful looking cars never made it - & why not ?Who were they saving the designs for . ? THEIR LOSS - THE AUTO MAKERS WILL ALL GO BROKE SOON - WAIT & SEE. To subsidize a company means it is not viable therefore it is safe to conclude that the company is being mis-managed & should not be in business - period.

Thats just crazy, a hand sticking out !!! What about the wheel spinning Toyota creating a track ? Wheel spins are allowed according to the vehicle laws ? Thats just a load of bull. I thought it had been changed because of the cat issue and the discrepancy between people being upset and happy. I didn't even notice a hand out the window - as in all things these days, overkill!

I am sceptical that this tax will not target fuels as all politicians lie and live in their own fantasy land where the ideas they come up with only effect the rest of the population!!

Hi Rory, the last 3 rows of your table should probably not say "Contracts commenced from..." because this gives the impression that contracts entered into before that date will stay at the previous rate - this is not correct from my understanding, ie. existing (low) rate contracts will be subject to an increase in FBT rate each year till they reach 20%. Regards, Peter. Thanks for the comment Peter. According to the Chartered Accountants Review of the FBT change, lease holders liability will indeed depend upon the date lease holders commence their lease (correctly outlined in the table above). We do however understand that there is some confusion over the change and, with this in mind we look forward to more finite details which have been sought by the AFLA (Australian Fleet Lessors Association) who are currently liaising with the Treasury Department. These details primarily revolve around the definition of the term “contracts entered into”. We will update any details as we receive them. For others reading this; please rest assured that if you do have a novated lease which you entered into prior to the FBT changes you will not be impacted by these altered rates and thresholds. This clarifies the situation somewhat. No impact on existing contracts, and for those that have signed an order but not yet received delivery, they will also fall under the old FBT regime. http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/Industry-Topics/Tax/Current-issues/Tax-news/Regulatory-and-government-updates/24-05-11-Fringe-benefits-tax-reform-of-the-car-fringe-benefits-rules Rory, do you know if it will be possible for existing lease holders to elect to move to the new strucuture if you're already doing low km's to avoid the paperwork burden? Taking into account the above article its fairly evident there will be a massive impetus on many more drivers to switch to the logbook method if maximisation of claims is to be achieved. If it is obvious that you can better the 20% flat rate more drivers will keep a logbook for a continuous 12 week period, after all its valid for five years on the same vehicle if its is indicative of the normal use of the cae. It is even easier now to keep logbooks - you can buy a fully tax deductible Australian made iphone app for less than the headache of keeping a written logbook (and then having to perform all the manual calculations to get your percentage business use). One such app is VehicleLog available on the Apple App Store. Rory, I am changing the company who manage my lease, but not the finance company. should I continue on the old rate? @Kurross we will need to look into your details for this one. I have mailed you my details. As I see it a sales person who has to take out a loan so their company can conduct business now is going to be penalised for visiting a lot of customers and would be better off staying in the office? e.g Someone doing 35,000km a year mainly for work will be slugged 20% instead of 11% - so effectively the EMPLOYEE is fined for buying an asset, taking the risk of that asset depreciating, reducing that employees ability to borrow funds for their personal benefit, and now is lured into travelling LESS at the expense of good customer service??? And the people who drive their cars less (typically the executive are rewarded because they get an FBT cut? This just another means by which the Gillard Government wants to punish the worker and tax payer. The only person with any environmental ideas in this coalition were Bob Brown who pressured the changes and then packed un and is resigning.

Don't offer any lift to friends, you certainerly save fuel! Dont be a lead foot Push mowers help keep you fit, and save petrol. Low maintenance gardens with reduced ares of fast growing grass and plants also save mower and other appliance fuel. Motor scooters use less fuel than cars, but make sure you have good hospital insurance, because a great number of car drivers appear to have their licence by false pretenses. Maintain a steady speed when cruising, let the fuel burning idiots rush by without trying to compete (obviously they haven't heard that hell isn't full yet), slow down for lights and traffic at a sensible rate, and don't try to be Fangio when the lights go green - it all saves fuel.

I bought a Toyota last year, it had nothing to do with marketing, It just happened to be the best car in its class by a long shot in 2003 the wife bought a 2001 Toyota Avalon. This is a re-badged American Camry. I was cynical about the woeful turning circle and likened it to a truck and always told people that you had to go around the block to turn the vehicle around. An exaggeration. The poor turning circle was a big issue for us and in 2005 we bought a Holden Commodore which had a tight turning circle (even tighter on the new models). Over the years I slowly fell in love with the Avalon and even though I am a Holden man the Avalon was the car of choice if we went anywhere together. My Holden is six years old and still has not done 40,000Km. That is because I preferred to drive the slower, smoother, more comfortable Avalon. Now she owns a Prado 4WD and that is my vehicle of choice - the Holden still gets relegated to the car port if we both go somewhere together. The 2.5 tonne Prado is easier to drive than the Holden albeit it noisier (diesel). Other manufacturers have recalls but the press has given Toyota a hammering with excessive negative publicity. I consider it to be unfair. Besides, it is not Toyota but the parts manufacturer. Usually a vehicle manufacturer will source parts from at least two different manufacturers in case of employee strikes, supply problems, etcetera. That is why only certain vehicles get recalled and not all of the same model. Having aid all of this, the point I am making is that i still consider Toyota to be one of the most reliable vehicles on the market and no amount of recalls will sway me away. I have been through recalls with Holden (two just for my side air bags which could accidentally activate and kung-fu you as you alighted) and recalls with Ford. What worries me is when a vehicle manufacturer is not brave enough to announce a recall because of reputation/cost. Toyota have an issue with their Service Centres and poor customer service and they should be looking at this. You can buy a $130,000 Land Cruiser Sahara and get treated no differently than someone who bought a used Yaris.

I think it depends on which research you want to believe. There has been plenty of stuff in the press in the UK that they do reduce deaths and that they don't reduce deaths. Honestly, I don't mind them as I'm not a speed freak....but I'm guessing that the people that regularly venture over the speed limit will take a more negative view! Oh, and don't forget the political aspects. Not only money saving, but they are a means to entice voting groups!!!! Thanks for your thoughts Morgan! As you said, there is a lot of research out there saying different things, so it can be hard to know what statistics to believe. When you look at it, if you do get fined for speeding (legitimately, as I know there have also been reports of faulty cameras catching anyone), at the end of the day you are breaking the law so really only have yourself to blame. Couldn't agree more, Laura! It's not even like doing an extra 10mph over the speed limit will make that much of a difference to a standard journey anyway! Even looking at the difference between a journey at 70mph and 80 mph for half an hour (assuming you can maintain those speeds!!!!) its only going to make a few minutes difference to your arrival times....I really can't see the point! Here in the states we have in Maryland speed cameras for schools and construction sites. It seems to slow people down in those areas for a total of 100 or so feet and then off to the races again. I don't see how that is really helping a construction zone that can last a half a mile or so when only a hundred feet or so is actually helped?? Seems more of an income generator in those areas. Schools are a little different they actually probably help. Laura, more of the former, less of the latter in my opinion. Having driven for many years in Sydney's near endless streams of metal, glass and plastic, it's clear that these 'life saving' devices are an emotional trigger linked to the back pocket. Fixed cameras in particular have only momentary effect on driving habits, as generally people know where they are and slow accordingly, returning to their previous 'illegal' speed or the speed of the surrounding traffic. This practice is common in other states, moreover, Victoria who adopt fixed cameras also. Having travelled extensively within each state, it is also clear that speed cameras have little apparent effect on average speeds of rural roads, for the same reasons as above. In saying that, if you speed and get caught, it's you own fault. With that in mind it must be said, that cameras probably have a better effect in South Australia and Western Australia on slowing traffic, where they utilise randomly placed, hidden devices in metropolitan/ residental areas. Albeit, the media will publicise they approximate locality, the exact whereabouts is not known. Referring to the switching off of the UK cameras; one would have to be cynical and suggest that the return on investment is clearly undermined by the revenue stream. Why else, media hype aside, would you turn them off! In relation to the life saving aspects of speed cameras, I would very much doubt that the relevant govt depts could be that accurate with their analysis. The data available via the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) is not detailed enough to pinpoint exact areas where cameras are located or their effect. Chris makes an interesting point regarding placement around schools zones. This is possibly one strong case for a safety related placement, albeit there are many other ways of slowing traffic in these proximities. Getting back to your post. Clearly a money making venture, now horribly out of control in lieu of better roads and less passive traffic control. The use of speed averaging/ monitoring systems has been utilised in NSW (Australia) for many years, predominantly for keeping tabs on the trucking industry. In general I think this works but that opinion is based on media and some that I know within that sector. We have some toll-ways which have the 'average speed' monitoring capacity but don't appear to be utilised, as there's not the legislation to support and these roads are privately owned and operated. The vehicle technology improvements are, from my point of view, far outstripping the long established non-passive traffic control methods that have been in place in NSW (at least) since the early 1980s. Since the inception of round-abouts, speed-humps, chicanes, the speed excesses in suburbia have dwindled steadily with only the truly 'lunatic' factor having any adversely damaging results by attempting world record pace in this type of area, albeit there are no generally no cameras in those suburban back streets. Back to the technology and partially respond to "why isn't this being pushed harder?". To have a beneficial effect, where the technology plays a 'controlling' role, there not only needs to be vehicles that have the ability within, you need to have the appropriate infrastructure to assist with point to point logging and GPS target points amongst others, that accurately inform the vehicle of speed zone changes etc... Having the vehicle effectively drive itself, other than steering, is a way off yet. There have been many advances in Europe and some research in Japan over many years utilising tie-ups between infrastructure and the vehicle but at this point the testing seems to be limited to, just that, testing. Although, there may have been some success in Sweden(?) with using this for public transport i.e. buses and the Expo in Japan saw 'self' driven(?) shuttles to move people around. I'd have to check on that. As a former law enforcement officer, I might have a different (if not surprising) opinion regarding this. In general I am not for cameras on the roadway.I am not a fan of having every movement recorded. In addition, artificially slowing traffic below what the public might normally drive increases the danger. Don’t take my word for it – look it up. For schools, I am not against this at all. In fact – with the proper signage noting the cameras may be there – I am more than for it. We had an incident a few years ago where one sibling pushed the other out of the way of a speeding car in a school zone. If the car was traveling even 5 MPH slower, there is a good chance the driver might have been able to stop or both children could have avoided the vehicle. Ultimately I think we all agree there doesn't need to be this heavy dependancy on technology to keep us human beings in line. Stricter penalties for those that are pulled over, cause accidents and deaths are what is needed. No judges giving you a free pass, which is what I think provides the green light to do again without any real penalty. suspensions on a "three and out" would really deter someone from repeat offenses, not paying fines they CAN probably afford, but you take away their license for a length of time and that hurts them and any family they support. Will not do that again! Enforce the speed limits but be reasonable with the speed limit too! I think speed enforcement is definitely a revenue generator for municipalities. And it is accepted by the general public as a sort of "blue law" since those that offend are viewed in a negative light. Why other forms of bad driver behavior are not as aggressively enforced is more evidence this is strictly about money. Where I live a state law was passed a few years ago to limit the percentage of revenue a municipality could receive from speeding tickets to eliminate stereotypical "speed traps." The largest municipality in the state saw this as an opportunity (or at least it was an odd coincidence) to substantially raise the fines for speeding. Less than 10 mph over the limit became a $175 fine, but 10 to 20 over increased the fine by only $10. There seems to be no correlation with the potential danger of the offense to the amount of the fine since running a stop sign is the same fine as 10 over. To make payment easier, the city set up a website where you could pay by credit card. I would think this scenario has become quite profitable, although I have no hard data. This is a little off topic, but plans to use cameras to enforce mandatory insurance requirements were adopted this past year at the state level, but were abandoned due to technology issues with the necessary supporting database. What I personally find most disturbing is these cameras are to be operated by a private, for profit company with the state sharing in the revenue generated. I would guess that a little fact checking will find many of these speed cameras are also owned and operated by private companies. Looking at this from the perspective of a UK person living in Australia, I would tend to suggest that the principal objective of the speed cameras in Victoria is to raise revenue. In my view, there seems to be an overly biased focus on driver behavioural change rather than improving driver ability and vehicle safety. It does seem rather odd to me that 3km above the speed limit on a straight, quite stretch of road warrants a significant fine, however there is little focus on removing defective vehicles from the roads through compulsory annual vehicle testing. If revenue raised from road traffic offences was directed to Federal treasury, then refunded to the State governments based on their road-safety performance, I think that there would be more effective incentive to reduce road fatality rates. I would also view things with a little more credibility if the authorities in Australia did take learnings from other countries where speeds and traffic densities are higher, yet fatality rates are lower. I'm thinking about things like compulsory TPI based on market rates rather than a fixed rate as part of the rego (gets young people out of high-powered cars), compulsory annual vehicle testing (gets unsafe cars off the road), removal of the '1-point' 3-25km fine so that people are more focused on the road rather than the speedo, a compulsory 'keep-left' on all roads, contributory negligence where accidents could have been reasonable avoided, etc, etc - it's all pretty commonplace in Europe and would seem rather easy to implement in Australia if the authorities were serious. with regards to technology... Society as a whole (at least in the 'developed' world - i don't like this phrase but it is fit for purpose) is dependant on technology regardless of situation! Look at the recent address given by Liam Fox regarding the security (or lack of) surrounding EMP's and infrastructure. No, I don't like being dependant on technology, but yes, I will admint that I am and that it would be a damn sight harder to exist without it. Now look at the technology in cars. ABS, EBD, ESP, Seatbelts, Airbags, Bluetooth Phone kits (yes, I would class this as a safety feature), Air Conditioning (keeps you more comfortable = less distractions) Power Steering (less effort required = less tired) Crumple Zones, Cruise Control, Speed Limiters, Radar Assisted Cruise Control.......the list goes on. They are all there for a reason. Governments and manufacturers alike would not make some of these features standard equipment if it didn't help safety. Safety sells, and in the MAJORITY of cases, things like ABS, EBD, ESP etc will assist in the event of a likely or actual accident. Following this thought to a logical conclusion, what the above says is that Human's can't be trusted. We get ticked off with the driver infront doing 25mph in a 50mph zone, so as we get frustrated, we 'floor it' to overtake them, sometimes in places where we know it isn't 100% safe to do so. We get tired behind the wheel, but push on without taking a break because we want to get to our destination and thats more important. Another 'bad' driver makes a mistake and cuts you up, you get angry or upset. As Jeremy Clarkson once said in Top Gear re: the Mercedes McLaren SLR, the worst thing about the car is the squidgy organic thing behind the wheel. No amount of education will rid drivers of being human. The technology won't get frustrated, tired, annoyed, angry, upset, emotional etc etc. Yes, they may be open to virus or other attacks, but I would suggest that the chances of this and the threat to life that this represents is negligable to the number of deaths and accidents that would occur if these bits of safety technology were stripped from cars. Ok this might upset some people but here goes.... -the biggest cause of accidents is human error or more precisely misjudgement of the road situation. I regularley drive stretches of country road at between 160km/h and 210 km/h and have been doing so for many years and have not even come close to having an accident. Why? because i assess the traffic density (very important) the road alignment and road conditions ie dry, wet overcast day etc AND i possess very good knowledge of the roads that i'm travelling. Suffice to say i do not travel any where near this speed on roads i do not know well-and never in built up areas or inside city limits. Now when travelling these roads and i see vehicles approaching in the other direction i slow down way in advance back down to around 120 km/h-not beause they may be the police but in the event that someone behind THEM wants to over take that vehicle in front -with me coming the other way. I also slow down for crests and any side roads entering onto that road which i'm travelling. In my years travelling these roads (which i know very well) i have not even come close to having an accident or even a near miss. I also make sure the my vehicle is up to the task, ie it has excellent suspension, massive brakes and wide tyres in good conditon. Remember -speed itself is not a cause of accidents perse, but once something does go wrong the speed you are carrying has a critical influence on the outcome (survivability) of an 'accident'.

Every accident is speed related because you can't crash standing still. Speed has been the scapegoat for far too long. The biggest killers on our road are fear (for the meek) over confidence (for the extroverts) and poor awareness (a product of the education regime aimed at road rules rather than vehicle control). Queensland Government have got it right. Although seemingly going against precedent, what would you prefer? A p plater concentrating on the road or the speedo? BOTH!, I hear you cry. Well stop being greedy. You can't have both. Inexperienced drivers are already nervous on the roads, and I would much prefer them to be looking out for pedestrians, other road users and traffic lights (which are about as far from the speedo as you can get), rather than fixated on the speedo which only prevents financial punishment, rather than manslaughter. Eventually, they will be able to determine the ability that all of us experienced road users supposedly have: to maintain a rudimentary digital velocity in a series are variable analogue circumstances. Now that they are looking at taking the leeway for speeding fines down to 4km/h over the limit, I think you are right and that a lot of people will be watching their speedo because it will be the fines that they are more worried about, and not the accident side of it. This is most likely to apply to all types of drivers, and not just the learners and p-platers. It will then be ok to do 10km over the speed limit... and then it will be 15km over the speed limit. They have put road rules in place, they have dropped the speed limit in built up areas and around schools so does that mean in a school zone you can do 45kph? in a built up zone you can now do 55kph? Keep the limits as they are! Thanks for the comment Sue. You make a very good point about the school zones- the speed limit there has been changed for a reason and usually there are heavy penatlies for speeding in those areas. Will these new laws apply to school zones? If so, it could be very dangerous and isn't sending the right message.

That list is rather simplistic. What is so good about a Volvo 900 series from 1984 that makes it worthy? And yes, the Peugot is equally ridiculous, but I find many of the european recommendations rather foolish. What this list completely ignores is (primarily) ongoing maintenance cost. Anything eurpoean (especially from the 80s and 90s) usually have a lot of tech for the money which also means intermittement failures and expensive repairs. If a first car owner spends all their (limited) money chasing gremlins, then usually more important expenditures suffer. Tyres and brakes for example. The main purpose of maintenance is to ensure that an asset performs its primary function first. The primary function of a car is to control movement from one place to another. If you have good tyres, good brakes and good control, 999 times out of 1000, you are going to make it. And, that 1 time out of 1000 when you need good occupant protection, I think you will find that 4 stars in 1984 is equivalent to about 1 star now. The Alto (and a raft of other entry level vehicles) should have made it to the list, or, keep the list to vehicles under $10,000. Excluding new cars is ridiculous. I'm sure most parents would prefer that their child in a new car than an old one..... unless it's a Chery. I agree, plenty of new cars that are very cheap to run. I know having owned plenty of new and old european cars, they are considerably more expensive in maintenance than local and asian products to maintain. Sounds like a very mixed message from the transport accident commission. I think they need to get their facts straight... or maybe they are all trying to sell old volvos and peugeots... Another interesting point to note is that in 1984 the Volvo 700 Series didn’t even have an airbag! Only in 1987 was a driver side airbag introduced to the Volvo 700 Series. So this first car list is promoting a car with zero airbags instead of one with 6! The only reason I can find that it is on the First Car List is because it ticks the criteria of being under $15,000.

This is really good information I have visited this blog to read something fresh and I really admire you efforts in doing so.

I think its really fine to reduce the number of car accidents, government have been really bothered by the rising drink driving cases so this is a warning for people who usually drink while driving. Drink driving lawyer