Skip navigation

carsguide.com.au

Car Shortlist What's this?

P-platers in unsafe cars

  • By Mark Hinchliffe
  • The Courier-Mail
  • 15 August 2010
  • image

    Suitable cars for young drivers with a maximum five ANCAP stars include the Toyota Corolla sedan (from 2007).

MORE than one in 10 young drivers is behind the wheel of an old car with poor safety features and powerful engines.

A national insurance company survey has found that 48 per cent of young drivers are in slightly older cars with only a few modern safety features such as ABS and one airbag, despite accounting for 25 per cent of drivers killed on Australia's roads.

The Buzz car insurance company claims only 40 per cent of drivers aged 21 or less have newer cars with modern safety features such as dual airbags and anit-lock brakes, and reasonably low-powered engines.  The Buzz boss Jacki Johnson says parents should help their children choose the right car.

"As a first step, it's important our young drivers are in appropriate cars for their age, driving experience and road conditions" she says.The company suggests parents buy cars for their children with high star ratings in the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP).

Suitable cars for young drivers with a maximum five ANCAP stars include Ford Fiesta three-door hatch (from 2009), Toyota Corolla sedan (from 2007), Holden Astra CDX, SRi and CDTI hatches (from 2008), Toyota Aurion AT-X (from 2009), Mazda 3 five-door hatch (from 2009), Toyota Corolla five-door hatch (from 2007) and Mitsubishi Lancer ES Sedan (from 2007).

Ms Johnson says these cars are also equipped with modern safety features and have moderately-powered engines.  The Buzz has launched a Facebook page to give parents a platform to discuss all facets of teaching and supervising their children's driving skills and behaviour.

Comments on this story

Displaying 3 of 20 comments

  • This is ridiculous! I'm 18, but I definitely can't afford one of these cars!! I drive a '92 Eunos 30x, which has a driver's airbag but no ABS, etc. I had $2000 to buy (and register) my first car, and couldn?t afford anything with airbags or ABS, and sold it spent $4000 on my current car. If I could buy a car that will run well and has a 5-star crash safety rating for under $4000, then of course I would! I think that the issue is more about driver training, seeing as most new drivers have to buy their own cars, and most young people being students, cant afford a $15-30K car with a 5 star safety rating. Other countries (such as Germany) have far tougher driver training and so have better drivers on their roads. In Germany, young drivers are also given assistance from the government if they choose a new, safe car for their first car. Us "young drivers" can't be blamed for being unable to afford new, safe cars, but we can be taught in a way which aids us in avoiding the crash in the first place. So be careful who cops the blame for crashes, etc. Sure some young drivers are irresponsible, and some have old, "unsafe" cars, but that's no reason to blame all P-Platers.

    small-car-dude of Perth Posted on 21 September 2010 2:02pm

  • Cost is the biggest issue. My parents couldn't afford to buy me a car when I was 18. I had to buy my own, which because of price, I purchased an underpowered VK Commodore. I've never been in an accident since I started driving and I've also never owned a car built after 1990, some of which were in poor condition. It's definitely driver behaviour that causes accidents, not the car which they are driving.

    Aaron Young of Dunolly, Vic Posted on 17 September 2010 11:20am

  • What a load of rubbish... Buzz Insurance, who are you? Never heard of you and what a great advertisement for our young. We don't want you to drive Safe, just drive SAFE cars. The car doesn't have the accident... Airbags, Traction Control, Stability Control and all the technology isn't going to help bad drivers at any age. I am never suprised when the media reports a car 'ran' off the road. Teach people to drive properly, give them the skills in an emergency and start monitoring poor driving, not just an excuse to raise revenue for speeding within Australian Design Regulations allowable Speedo error. Eating cereal, reading the paper, texting, mobile use, leaning into the back seat, putting on make-up, constantly watching our speed and NOT concentrating on the road ahead will probably cause a problem long before a driver who is ONLY watching what they are doing. It just doesn't make any money. As for being courteous for other drivers and aware of your mistakes... when does that ever happen? I would have thought Cars Guide would have not even given the space for such a story. Very disappointing...

    Stephen T of Leopold Posted on 19 August 2010 8:31pm

  • I think they should be taught to drive in a manual 1972 Falcon. Poor Visibility, poor brakes and underpowered. For these reasons. They will learn to gap cars properly so they can pull up in time. Learn how to coordinate a car on the road properly and learn how to drive properly in stop start traffic. Why because people that drive auto are to hard on the accelerator, hard on brakes cannot position their vehicle properly on the road and are to far reliant on the modern saftey systems of vehicles to keep them out of trouble.

    A Thomas of Melbourne Posted on 18 August 2010 8:57pm

  • Noone can usually afford new cars unless their family is wealthy enough to buy them. I'm 30 and drive a car without an airbag and antilock brakes, I wouldn't mind antilock brakes but the idea is not to have an accident in the first place. My car is in much better condition than many cars half its age and gets over serviced because I'd prefer to replace or repair things before they even show a hint of getting dangerous. I still see P platers driving turbo charged cars and high output NA cars.

    Ollygt of Brisbane Posted on 18 August 2010 4:03pm

  • Don't put too much faith into crash ratings. In real the world many older cars have outperformed newer cars in real crashes e.g. mid 80's falcons have performed as well as later models with airbags. An airbag is useless if the car breaks in half on impact I remember when power poles broke not the car. As for anti lock brakes a GOOD driver will stop a car in less distance without them. New cars have so many things like passive steering, traction control and anti lock brakes that they remove the ability for drivers to learn to drive properly. When driving skills can be used to avoid an accident many modern cars dont have the ability to respond the way a good car should respond.

    John of Colac Posted on 17 August 2010 8:37pm

  • You know, I'm 23, I just paid about $3000 myself over the last year to go from being a learner to getting my P plates. Lessons were $55 a week and to take the test twice it cost close to $600. I couldn't afford to learn to drive before because of the expense, and now they expect me to play $10k for a new car, bull. Oh and Fred Bloggs of Castlemaine, I've seen the full drivers cause more problems and do more dangerous stunts, tailgate me because I'm doing the speed limit and then cut me off for the same reason, I think you need to get your eyes checked.

    Dani of Perth Posted on 17 August 2010 5:16pm

  • Get real! How many P platers and under-25's can afford any of those cars? The answer is very few! The simple fact is that the biggest safety feature of a car is the driver. Not airbags, not crumple zones, not ABS and most certainly not a lower powered engine. How about educating them that replacing bald tyres, worn shock absorbers and keeping a good attitude towards driving is the way to go instead of wrapping them in cotton wool and hoping for the best? Put quite simply, the safest car is the one that doesn't have an accident in the first place!

    Nate of Coffs Harbour Posted on 17 August 2010 4:59pm

  • My first car was a '95 Lancer. That thing had no safety features at all, no ABS, no airbags or anything. I never crashed, I never hurt myself or anyone else. I then got a full time job a couple years later, took out a loan and got a much newer safer car. I preferred the car without traction control and all that jazz because it made me feel more out of control of the car but it would be a safer car to be in if it was involved in a crash. But like people have said, 98% of learner drivers and P-platers can't afford newer safer cars so unless the company behind this study wants to fund all learner drivers for a new car this article was pointless and moot.

    techy of Perth Posted on 17 August 2010 4:25pm

  • What a crock. Welcome to nanny world. It's not necessarily the age of the car, it is the attitude of the person that drives it. I have seen plenty of "experienced" drivers who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a car. As for these safe "bland boxes" on wheels - yeah right a young driver is going to lust for a Corolla ? yeah sure.

    Chris John of sydney Posted on 17 August 2010 1:40pm

  • Oh no, not 10%!!!! After all that's what one in ten means. Last time I looked most youngsters couldn't afford $15,000 for a new car (you won't get a new corolla for that) and do we really want them bulking up on debt at that age. For the first few years there's nothing wrong with them driving a ten year old car. and what constitutes over-powered anyway. A 2007 corolla has a 100kw engine, which alot more than the 173ci engine in my first car which was '73 Torana. I survived a high speed roll over in that car so it wasn't exact unsafe. Lets see this for what it is, a push for younger people to buy newers cars and get themselves into debt. The mass media seems to intent in forcing older cars off the road. No cash for clunkers - lets recycle and keep the old cars on the road.

    Scott of NSW Posted on 17 August 2010 12:48pm

  • Fred Bloggs needs to look at all drivers and not pinpoint a certain group. A lot of older drivers who have been driving for a long time and think they know everything have accidents aswell and do stupid things. I think teaching all drivers how to handle themselves in difficult situations would be a step in the right direction.

    Josh of Adelaide Posted on 17 August 2010 12:44pm

  • If you've ever attended an accident scene and seen what is left of an older car...ask yourself what your child is worth. They've cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise to the legal driving age. A reasonable car with good safety features may cost $12-$15k, but is your child's life worth that? And do you want the old (possibly poorly maintained or accident-repaired) $2000 special breaking down on your daughter when she's driving home from a part time job/shift work/night lectures at Uni? I'm not rich, but I'm sure I'll find the money to help them buy the best car possible. And then I'll make them do an advanced driver course so that both car AND driver are as good as they can be. That's my choice - yours is up to you. Cheers.

    Lewis Thomas of Brisbane Posted on 17 August 2010 12:17pm

  • Buzz suggests that parents buy a car for their new son/daughter driver! And it has to be a late model. You're in dreamland Buzz, where are we supposed to get the money to buy this kind of car? Doesn't matter what they drive, they'll still have the same percentage of accidents because of the limited intelligence of the average P plater. Don't believe me? See which clowns are lane-changing, tailgating, and speeding and it'll be a P plater

    Fred Bloggs of castlemaine Posted on 17 August 2010 10:31am

  • Clearly an article disguised as an add for The Buzz

    NRMA Posted on 16 August 2010 10:07pm

  • MONEY is the issue. Nothing else.

    George Posted on 16 August 2010 8:41pm

  • Good Greif! That's the same tired old story motoring organisations have been peddaling every year sinse I was a P-Plater (I learned to drive with Fred Flintstone). Young people don't have $30K to $45K for a new 5 star car - neither do I for that matter. I guess Ms Johnson might find around 50% of cars on the road with drivers of all ages would qualify. It's called economics and we can't all afford a new flashy econo-box with a zillion airbags.

    Ian of Perth of Perth WA Posted on 16 August 2010 7:42pm

  • Buzz is joking right... For the majority of P-platers cost is a realistic issue. have they really sat down and compare the price of these cars in the real world. Fiesta, Astra and any euro badged cars are a nightmare to maintain. And the obvious Carolla and Mazda3 have high resale which keep most P-platers out of the price range. Its not they don't know the safety aspect but pricing for anything that is safe is out of the price range. Buzz is unrealistic. BTW Buzz would charge an arm and a leg for most P-platers anyway so how do they think this gonna work?

    phuong of canberra Posted on 16 August 2010 4:06pm

  • haha - Ms Johnson's an idiot. A Toyota Aurion does not have a 'moderately-powered engine'. And I didn't realise it was a 5 star car either.

    alex Posted on 16 August 2010 2:32pm

  • And all of those cars are priced way out of most 18 y.o. price brackets. I agree with parents helping to find the safest cars they can for the price (even though most parents dont have a clue as far as safety features go), but expecting every 18yo to have 10-12 grand to spend on a car isnt realsitic. Instead help then choose the safest car for 2k, 5k, 7k etc.

    DM Posted on 16 August 2010 10:51am
Read all 20 comments

Add your comment on this story

Indicates required

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional.

Cars for sale

Sponsored Links