Government pulls pin on hot-rod chaperones for school formals

[Flamenco_not_Flamingo]

I am just wondering what the forum thoughts are on this situation, the Queensland transport department coming down on car enthusiasts taking people in their classic / collectable cars to formals and weddings.

I may be incorrect but I thought I read somewhere that the South Australian government was doing the same thing, I am sure some one will let me know.

The Transport Department used photos of cars being used at these various functions and sent letters and there is also, apparently a Facebook page where people can get in touch regarding hiring vehicles for said functions.

Here is the link to the article in my local newspaper, http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/...a-fac/2180986/ , and as you can see there are 127 comments regarding this article.

[chrisp]

They dont want to stop people giving there mates kids a lift somewhere, they what to stop people using it illegally for profit, and risking the massive ramifications if things go wrong.
These people are seen as using a private vehicle for a commercial purpose.
If money, or services, or goods change hands, it is a commercial transaction.
These people are advertising a service for a price, which is against the law.
a, some people do the right thing (register a business, meet all the vehicle requirements, obtain insurance etc) and have to compete with these people, and
b, they dont realise the ramifications if something happens.

[Flamenco_not_Flamingo]

They dont want to stop people giving there mates kids a lift somewhere, they what to stop people using it illegally for profit, and risking the massive ramifications if things go wrong.
These people are seen as using a private vehicle for a commercial purpose.
If money, or services, or goods change hands, it is a commercial transaction.
These people are advertising a service for a price, which is against the law.
a, some people do the right thing (register a business, meet all the vehicle requirements, obtain insurance etc) and have to compete with these people, and
b, they dont realise the ramifications if something happens.

So, I am guessing your thoughts are with the government on this? I am not judging just interested.

[wbute]

Seems logical to me. I get in a taxi I expect it to be insured as such. Your teenage child gets into a classic car advertised for hire on Facebook I would expect the same.

[chrisp]

No not really on the governements side.
I just think both sides need to be conveyed.
And as with anything, people need to understand what happens when things go wrong.
For example, if you have an accident while using your car for commercial purposes, you are not insured.
You could be personally liable for
a, the passenegers, and
b, any damage you do, and
c, obviously your vehicle.
That could mean losing your house.
I know I'm looking at it negatively, but people have to understand the negatives.

[Valencia]

People,s safety is number 1 concern today especially your kids

[Flamenco_not_Flamingo]

People,s safety is number 1 concern today especially your kids

I totally agree that using a private vehicle for a commercial pursuit/profit is wrong. People go a long way in business to make sure they comply. Why is it OK for their hard work and profits to be eroded... not to mention that all the old classics have few if any safety features that will actually save you in the event of an accident

.

I agree 100 % (in theory) with the above members opinions. What I mean by 'in theory' is that safety , insurance and a level playing field with commercial operators should be enforced but I also see another tradition being eroded by government red tape. (Are we over governed?)
Another point - with the members opinions in mind you must then also agree that work on a car such as brakes, steering, suspension, etc. should be carried out by licenced qualified mechanics and not weekend warriors and their mates. True??

I read in one of the comments in my local paper that "we do it to cover registration and insurance costs" to which I replied that if you need to hire your car out to cover those costs maybe you can't actually afford said car.

Now all that being said, just inquiring, what's the difference legally of people having their vehicles used in say TV, ads or movies?

[Vombil]

I totally agree that using a private vehicle for a commercial pursuit/profit is wrong. People go a long way in business to make sure they comply. Why is it OK for their hard work and profits to be eroded... not to mention that all the old classics have few if any safety features that will actually save you in the event of an accident.

[davegmh]

I agree 100 % (in theory) with the above members opinions. What I mean by 'in theory' is that safety , insurance and a level playing field with commercial operators should be enforced but I also see another tradition being eroded by government red tape. (Are we over governed?)
Another point - with the members opinions in mind you must then also agree that work on a car such as brakes, steering, suspension, etc. should be carried out by licenced qualified mechanics and not weekend warriors and their mates. True??

[Vombil]

I agree 100 % (in theory) with the above members opinions. What I mean by 'in theory' is that safety , insurance and a level playing field with commercial operators should be enforced but I also see another tradition being eroded by government red tape. (Are we over governed?)
Another point - with the members opinions in mind you must then also agree that work on a car such as brakes, steering, suspension, etc. should be carried out by licenced qualified mechanics and not weekend warriors and their mates. True??

i see your point. this is a minefield