Boosted Falcon

Posted this on Grunt Files FB page. Had this idea for years.

Pay $1000 every year to go through rigorous driver skill testing and psychological profiling. If you pass, have your car analysed to determine its capabilities and set a speed limit for it based on this testing. Have this in a Police and Transport database and pay extra for licence plates with an extra digit specifying the licence held for easy identification by authorities. Be given permission by law to drive faster than posted limits.


Wanna see if our collective brains can work pick this idea to absolute pieces and nut out its validity.

Breakdown of points:

Pay $1000
Cover administrative costs.

Rigorous driver skill testing
Reaction timing
Skidpan
High speed swerve-and-recover on bitumen; half-dirt and dirt including wet surfaces
Braking for non-ABS vehicles
Reading environment and traffic

Psychological profiling
Fail anyone that has any hint of wanting to indulge in reckless behaviour

Vehicle analysis to determine safe top speed
Test on track, or by calculation of combination of brakes; suspension; steering and torsional rigidity.

Details flagged in Police/Transport database and extra digit on licence plate
Easier to identify vehicle and driver, avoiding confusion with a standard licensed driver.

Permission to drive faster than posted speed limits
Only in very light-to-no traffic conditions.
No exceeding limits in sub-60 zones; at the apex of blind hills and turns; and areas where wildlife cross the road.


Just some quick points I thought of. Feel free to copy and edit or add to, like adding skids or drifting...

Bipolar wrote:
Psychological profiling
Fail anyone that has any hint of wanting to indulge in reckless behaviour

That's me out hahahaha.

While it may seem a good idea in theory I highly doubt something like this would ever eventuate. You can imagine ACA or 60 Minutes sensationalising the very thought of it, and if something were to go wrong with one of the "High speed drivers" then you would never hear the end of it.

I do agree with the points about getting your car tested, I fail to see how a datto with drums all round going 60 will stop as quick as my car with 330mm twin pistons on it. The speed capabilities of a car are the only thing ever mentioned by the media, ie a "300km/h race car" as a hoon story vs. "the car that stops in a shorter distance doing 200 than your mums car at 100"

I don't think it would work, just for the fact that you are basically segregating the driving population, based on whether they can afford to pay $1000 for testing. Almost like it would create a driving Elite caste within the community. There is already enough segregation within the country without adding this into the mix.

Also, I would imagine that all States and Territories would have to sign up. Good luck with that!

It would never happen, great idea though.

JUZXR8 wrote:I don't think it would work, just for the fact that you are basically segregating the driving population, based on whether they can afford to pay $1000 for testing.

I don't think this would have a massive impact, mainly because those who can't afford a thousand bucks probably can't afford a vehicle that can safely maintain speeds that would warrant getting the licence in the first place.

And that all the people who can afford it wouldn't pass the psych test. I imagine if this were to be trialled that if everyone passed the this test, it is flawed and would need to be reviewed and made more stringent.

It would create headaches for the cops, etc, despite being in a database.

basically it would be the police driving course.
As they are allowed to drive past the limit and on the phone / CB on the wrong side of the road etc ( under special conditions of course !! )
They can even spin the tyres and not get impounded !
When I asked why they said they did a driving course and are allowed to do this.

It's not the driving course that allows police to do that, it's written in the legislation.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 20vehicles

And here's the one for mobile phones etc...all states are the same.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/c ... /s300.html

Thanks Timmy
it doesn't say you have to be a police office driving the car. can a mechanic fixing the car do it ??

Just messin with ya !!

Hahaha Paul, if you want to see all the exemptions, click on the link & scroll down to part 19. Starts at RR 305 and runs down to 313A.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/c ... eg/arr210/

I wish I could print off 307, every day I drive past a courthouse and I see a police or unmarked car parked out front in the no standing zone. the only time a police car is not there is because there is a civilian car there and it has a ticket on it !

Oh thanks for the info, it is a good read

It wouldnt work.

You may be able to drive like a pro, but its the retard old lady whos not paying attention who will take you out, lol!

Basically what I pickup from that is I'm legally allowed to break the rules when I road test a highway patrol ss Commodore right?

falcon4life wrote:Basically what I pickup from that is I'm legally allowed to break the rules when I road test a highway patrol ss Commodore right?

Nope. If you see "authorised person", it doesn't include mechanics working on police or emergency vehicles.

pHaT`eL wrote:It wouldnt work.

You may be able to drive like a pro, but its the retard old lady whos not paying attention who will take you out, lol!

Exactly right pete.

They should start 'retesting' first and make old drivers safe.

t1MMy wrote:

falcon4life wrote:Basically what I pickup from that is I'm legally allowed to break the rules when I road test a highway patrol ss Commodore right?

Nope. If you see "authorised person", it doesn't include mechanics working on police or emergency vehicles.

19, 305 exemption for drivers of police vehicles

pHaT`eL wrote:It wouldnt work.

You may be able to drive like a pro, but its the retard old lady whos not paying attention who will take you out, lol!

That's where some of the psych testing comes in: Assessing whether or not the individual has the capacity to always make rational decisions regarding where and when to exceed the speed limit.

You'd assume whoever passed will be sticking to the rule I posted above about only exceeding the limit in low-to-no traffic areas.


Can't be too bad an idea. No one's shot it down flames so far

I think it's a stupid idea sorry. There I said it.
I wouldn't be prepared to pay $1000 to save a few hours travel time per year (and use more fuel just because you can speed)

Plus all the jerking about to be assessed etc.
I'll stick to sneaking in a calculated 'safe' 110 or 115 on a quiet country rd occasionally and risk the fines.

Plus I think it'd be dangerous to have even more difference between vehicle speeds.
I live in a country town and the incidents and near misses I've seen caused by a farmer doing 85 and a commuter doing 105 is a bit scary. The 'other road users' are the danger here.

I'm a competent driver because I don't trust other drivers. Part of that has stemmed from riding motorbikes.

Agreed, it wouldn't be worth the hassle each year. Im quite happy sitting 3-5kph over the limit, just cheeses me off the amount of drivers on the road that sit well and truly below the limit with no excuse.

99.9% of thode drivers are not aware of the cars that are backed up behind causing cranky drivers and risky overtaking. I find myself behind these drivers far too often and a license to speed would only make situations like these far worse as said above.

If there isnt already Id rather ser a mininum speed below set limit introduced. Not sure how it would be enforced though. It would make driving for all a more comfortable and safe experience rather then having tossas sitting on 85, normal drivers on 98-105 and licensed people above that.

Fair points. That's what I was waiting for.

I haven't lived in a rural area while I've had my licence so 99.9% of my driving has been metro.

The alternative would be a superhighway like in Europe but I can't see our country being able to afford it. Even if we could I think the idea would be overturned because the average vehicle age in this country is still pretty old for a first world nation.