[VIC] $5000 Subsidy for Younger Drivers in Regional Victoria to Replace Their Older Cars with Newer Ones @ VicRoads

1474

[VIC] $5000 Subsidy for Younger Drivers in Regional Victoria to Replace Their Older Cars with Newer Ones @ VicRoads

Go to Deal

JAY13 on 16/10/2023 - 19:31 vicroads.vic.gov.au (1539 clicks)
Last edited 17/10/2023 - 06:38 by 1 other user

Eligibility criteria

be between 18 and 25 years old
reside in regional Victoria
hold a Victorian driver licence
be the registered owner of a vehicle that is 16 years old or older and with a low safety rating

unsafe2safe
We're trialling ways to get old, unsafe cars off our roads and help young drivers into newer, safer vehicles.

About unsafe2safe
The safety of your car makes a difference in the event of a crash and may even help avoid one altogether. But many young drivers cannot afford to buy a newer, safer car right now. Sadly, those young drivers are over-represented in serious road crashes.

That's why we're rolling out a targeted trial to give an incentive to young drivers in regional Victoria to scrap their old, unsafe vehicles and replace them with newer, safer cars.

The trial started in 2021 with participants from Bendigo, Ballarat and surrounds. In 2022, we expanded it to other areas of regional Victoria.

How it works

After applying, please complete the free Vehicle Safety Online Course on the VicRoads website.
We’ll select drivers to participate in the unsafe2safe program. We’re prioritising applicants who complete the Vehicle Safety Basics Online Course and feedback form. The course informs drivers about vehicle safety and how to choose a safe car.
Selected participants will receive an invitation letter from VicRoads via e-mail containing the instructions to purchase a newer, safer vehicle under the program and to scrap their old, unsafe car.
Take your older, unsafe car and invitation letter to a participating dealer.
Choose a newer, safer car from the dealership.
Pay the difference between the price the dealer is asking for and the $5,000 subsidy.
The dealer arranges to have the old vehicle taken away to be scrapped.
The unsafe vehicle is scrapped at an auto parts recycler. Scrapping removes the car from the fleet, so the crash risk is not transferred to another person.
The dealer claims the $5,000 back from Vicroads.

Also, there is cash back offer is going on at the moment from MG Motors. It can be stacked with subsidy. The deal link is here. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/803971

Automotive Car Subsidy

30 Nov 2023

Related Stores

VicRoads

closed Comments

- Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:23
  
  -1
  
  You didnt pay to have it scrapped, you sold a car. What happened after that is indeed none of your business.
  - GordonD on 17/10/2023 - 08:33
    
    DON"T TELL ME WHAT I DID OR DIDN'T DO.
    
    I paid them to have it scrapped. It was right there on the receipt they gave me for the fee.
    
    And I never transferred ownership. The wreckers even had the audacity to send me a fax saying I'd "forgotten" to, and I replied that I had no intention of doing so. They were able to get it fraudulently re-registered in their name anyway.
    - Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 08:45
      
      You surrendered the vehicle, via a 3rd party no less, and were compensated for it's value.
      
      At that stage it's none of your business what is done with it.
      
      You don't have to agree, even if we all agree that it's disappointing.
      - GordonD on 17/10/2023 - 08:50
        
        +1
        
        @Ademos:
        
        were compensated for it's value
        
        I wasn't.
        
        Can't you read, for dog's sake.
        
        I paid cash for the new car, and PAID the dealer to have the old car I drove in in scrapped.
        
        Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 08:52
        
        -1
        
        @GordonD: Yes, you paid for the car to be disposed of.
        
        What happens once you surrender it is none of your business.
        
        Again, you don't have to agree, but you're pissing up the wall of established civil case law here.
        
        Once they take possession and you have surrendered your interest, it simply isn't yours any more. They're allowed to change their mind with regards to the treatment of the asset, much like you don't actually get a say in what happens to your cardboard once you chuck it in the recycling bin, though you pay rates.
        
        What have we learned about getting a contract of services with clearly outlined terms?
        
        Here's a hot tip, just because you disagree doesn't actually mean anything, and you clearly haven't actually investigated the matter before wasting the police's time thinking a criminal offence has been committed, when it doesn't even meet the bar for a civil claim.
        
        Take a xanax, a long drink, calm down, move on. It'll be good for you. You got owned, lol.
        
        GordonD on 17/10/2023 - 08:56
        
        +1
        
        @Ademos: You're as thick as a brick.
        
        I paid for a service. I didn't transfer ownership. I didn't get the service I paid fort. That's fraud.
        
        Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 08:58
        
        @GordonD: Sure sure. It's fraud. Except nobody agrees, nobody cares, can't prove it, and you're too lazy to pursue it via VCAT etc. Okay, well rant on. That'll fix it. As long as you don't get proven wrong, you can claim you were right till your dying breath. Lol.
        
        I'm desperately curious to know if you're actually in the boomer demographic.
Gdsamp on 16/10/2023 - 21:14

-1

good for the environment ,
- GordonD on 16/10/2023 - 21:18
  
  +3
  
  No, a large part of the environmental cost of a car is building it. Once it built, you want to keep it on the road as long as reasonable possible, within reason, rather than building another new car.
  - Gdsamp on 16/10/2023 - 21:19
    
    +1
    
    Yes was being sarcastic
    - GordonD on 16/10/2023 - 21:19
      
      +3
      
      Fair enough. But you have to tell people, or they don't know, to quote Dr Strangelove.
BBF on 16/10/2023 - 21:20

Dammit you suck Dan. I know he has finally slunk off to his cave.

30+ year old car, not regional and way over 25 years old. one out of three, missed it by too much.

I've been waiting ages for a cash for clunkers deal. Gonna keep waiting.
- mathew42 on 16/10/2023 - 21:46
  
  We need a car manufacturing industry for that :-(.
- muwu on 16/10/2023 - 22:30
  
  Tell me about your 30+ year old car, how long you had it, how you keep it going?
  
  Coming up on 24yo Falcon here
  - BBF on 19/10/2023 - 16:46
    
    Nissan NXR 1992. Had since 1993. Done only 160,000 km.
    Serviced it myself the last 15 years. Drives well. Fixed wiring problems with rear wiper and upper brake light. Got some rust in lower door and hatch, probably due to poor repair for the only accident it had 17 years ago. Now the alternator is showing signs of going (total pain to replace) and the tyres have about 3,000km left on them. Time to say goodbye. A sweetener would help.
    - muwu on 19/10/2023 - 22:24
      
      How do you decide when to say goodbye?
      
      Economically - I've thought I'd move on when repair costs eclipse a significant portion of its resell price. But then I don't know why that necessarily makes sense. Any new purchase is going to cost more (purchase price, duties, depreciation, arguably likely higher in maintenance and fuel and insurance but depending on choice) than a repair of the old. I spent more than a quarter of the resale price on a whole new ignition last year - gone another 18 months and paid it back in multiples 🤷🏼‍♂️
J5 on 16/10/2023 - 21:31

-1

A half decent older car is worth 2-5 grand as it is

Trade it at the dealer and pay a few grand over buying a used car private anyway

Great govt incentive to push young people into car financing they prob cant afford
PopCounty on 16/10/2023 - 21:33

I wonder where's all my taxes going on.
Headless on 16/10/2023 - 21:40

If they replace all the holden commodores and ford falcons, how would i determine they are hoons?
MasonDelta on 16/10/2023 - 22:15

Awesome deal! Thank you!
Just traded my old Corolla hatchback for a 4-ton Dodge Ram 3500. Thanks Vic Gov for keeping me safe!
BeefBiryani on 16/10/2023 - 22:17

who gave the government right to burn my tax money on some freeloaders?
- 2ndeffort on 16/10/2023 - 22:31
  
  whoever voted for the current government gave them that right.
- Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:25
  
  Its a net saving. The cost of crashes is insane. The emergency response. The investigations. Prosecutions. Lost tax and other productivity or revenue of victims or even temporarily injured.
  - Binchicken22 on 17/10/2023 - 06:30
    
    New(er) cars still crash FYI.
    - Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 08:46
      
      Except they dont, not as often. All the features like multi channel abs, stability control, autonomously braking, even cruise control reduce the likelihood of the crash occuring.
      
      Then all the advances in design and systems reduce the chances of injury. Black boxes speed up investigations. The list goes on.
      
      This isnt an argument, so theres no point trying to reason your way to a place where the original comment isnt stupid.
Loki556 on 16/10/2023 - 22:33

Wow, another Victorian vote buying initiative at the expense of the taxpayer, who would have guessed.

Good thing the state budget is so healthy!
- Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:26
  
  Its a net saving. The cost of crashes is insane. The emergency response. The investigations. Prosecutions. Lost tax and other productivity or revenue of victims or even temporarily injured.
  - Binchicken22 on 17/10/2023 - 06:31
    
    New(er) cars still crash.
    - MrThing on 17/10/2023 - 07:31
      
      2 car accident on a regional road, just send in the cleanup crew and move along
    - Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 08:46
      
      +1
      
      Except they dont, not as often. All the features like multi channel abs, stability control, autonomously braking, even cruise control reduce the likelihood of the crash occuring.
      
      Then all the advances in design and systems reduce the chances of injury. Black boxes speed up investigations. The list goes on.
      
      This isnt an argument, so theres no point trying to reason your way to a place where the original comment isnt stupid.
Benoffie on 16/10/2023 - 22:42

Yeah cos this aint gonna get rorted 🤣🤣🤦‍♀️
- MrThing on 17/10/2023 - 07:30
  
  +1
  
  Of course not, free gov money is always spent wisely and with value for money for tax payers
  
  /s
Reef on 16/10/2023 - 23:08

https://engage.vic.gov.au/project/unsafe2safe/timeline/33772

Pretty sure that Phase 3 of this is over, so no new applicant will even be accepted.
MetalPhreak on 16/10/2023 - 23:09

10 - Vehicle must be a 4wd with adequate ground clearance to handle regional Victorian potholes.
Nedkellyinthebush on 16/10/2023 - 23:11

Victoria the broke woke state lol
- Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:26
  
  Its a net saving. The cost of crashes is insane. The emergency response. The investigations. Prosecutions. Lost tax and other productivity or revenue of victims or even temporarily injured.
  - Binchicken22 on 17/10/2023 - 06:31
    
    New(er) cars still crash.
    - Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 08:47
      
      +1
      
      Except they dont, not as often. All the features like multi channel abs, stability control, autonomously braking, even cruise control reduce the likelihood of the crash occuring.
      
      Then all the advances in design and systems reduce the chances of injury. Black boxes speed up investigations. The list goes on.
      
      This isnt an argument, so theres no point trying to reason your way to a place where the original comment isnt stupid.
      - Nedkellyinthebush on 17/10/2023 - 13:32
        
        -1
        
        @Ademos: Still the broke woke state
movieman on 16/10/2023 - 23:11

+1

Prepare to see all the cheaper cars suddenly increase in price…

What? $2k for that car, nah, it's got to be worth at least $7k now.
- frugalferret on 16/10/2023 - 23:29
  
  Please explain your logic.
  - movieman on 17/10/2023 - 05:35
    
    +1
    
    If I have an old 'bomb' of a car, the person buying now has added value to buy it (if they qualify), and use it in this government incentive.
    
    So as old cars are getting sold, there's less of them, so whoever really wants it will be paying more.
    
    Supply and demand.
    - frugalferret on 17/10/2023 - 09:19
      
      18-25yo drivers with a car valued at less than $5k currently that live in regional Victoria probably account for less than 5% of the Victorian vehicle market. That's not going to significantly change the supply and demand of the market
      
      Also, a $2k car only gets you a net gain of less than $3k. A $4k car would only save you a few hundred once you factor in stamp duty and transfer fees.
lost in transit on 16/10/2023 - 23:14

+1

I wonder if I can "IDENTIFY" as a 20 year old 🤷‍♂️
orangecarpet-22 on 16/10/2023 - 23:19

-1

unsafe2safe - branding by boomers.
Bertzzzzz on 16/10/2023 - 23:25

Intl students also qualify?
shoelover on 16/10/2023 - 23:53

+2

I thought that socialist state has gone bankrupt?
- Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:26
  
  -1
  
  Its a net saving. The cost of crashes is insane. The emergency response. The investigations. Prosecutions. Lost tax and other productivity or revenue of victims or even temporarily injured.
  - Binchicken22 on 17/10/2023 - 06:31
    
    +2
    
    New(er) cars still crash.
    - Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:38
      
      -3
      
      Well stop the (profanity) press sherlock.
      
      Except they dont, not as often. All the features like multi channel abs, stability control, autonomously braking, even cruise control reduce the likelihood of the crash occuring.
      
      Then all the advances in design and systems reduce the chances of injury. Black boxes speed up investigations. The list goes on.
      
      This isnt an argument, so theres no point trying to reason your way to a place where the original comment isnt stupid.
      - muwu on 17/10/2023 - 10:39
        
        +1
        
        @Ademos: I read an interesting article a couple of years ago on road safety and correlations with vehicle age (safety features and design), which led me down a deep dive one night into studies and analyses on the question of "is an old car statistically less safe than a new car?"
        
        The jist was that the vast majority (> ~95%) of causal precipitating factors in MVAs and their sequelae were behavioural (i.e. driver), and a very small proportion is attributed to the car.
        
        As in, what determines root causes of almost all accidents, and then the severity of their repercussions to person and property, was the human. These factors are many and varied, but can include things like relative impairment (fatigue and sleep deprivation, alcohol and illicit drugs), risk taking and speeding, provocation and road rage.
        
        How much a safety feature assists is relatively marginal. But there is a delta when applied statistically across a large population, so they do matter.
        
        The article's argument was that the human and car were not exclusive - the psychology of the human is affected by the car, in particular the feeling of safety, or conversely the underappreciation of risk, that comes with how more modern cars are designed.
        
        It's the idea that if you put a human in a car which provides a greater confidence of safety - e.g. is more often highly elevated above the road (SUV, light commercial vehicles), is larger in size and weight, is computerised, has autonomous and either assisted and self-correcting functions - the psychological result is a human who has an assessment of risk that is reduced in both probability and outcome. Worse, there is likely to be a positive feedback loop that makes that human more likely to act in ways that can include speed, risky behaviour and provocation (e.g. frequent lane changing and "beating" traffic, reduced following distances).
        
        The opposite is true - the human in an older car "feels the road" (appreciates vulnerability of self to speed, bitumen, and traffic) and also appreciates their control and responsibility for minimising the risks.
        
        Older models are statistically less likely to be involved in MVAs compared to newer models. Similar to outcomes, because those MVAs that involve older models tend to be of a lesser severity (e.g. lower speeds, more corrective behaviour taken prior to collision).
        
        It's a trite adage that "humans cause accidents, not cars." But it's great wisdom to carry with you when you step into a multi-tonne machine and propel your plastic vessel carrying your soft monkey body inside onto congested shared public roads - don't be an ass.
        
        It also doesn't matter (except where is really does, your mortality) - another bunch of studies I've researched is how much driver behaviour affects commute time. The broad answer is around 1-2 minutes per hour. So that's things like speeding, frequent lane changes, aggressive driving and "beating" other drivers - it might get you another 60 seconds or so in your life (if you drive a long commute). Considering how easily we can waste a minute in our lives (how many of these d*ckhead drivers are at home watching TV for 3-4 hours every night?), what do you value more?
        
        Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 11:00
        
        @muwu: Oh yeah, the "jist". The "vibe". Don't link to the study or anything. Or any one study. No no, give us your vague, undefined vibe.
        
        "the severity of their repercussions to person and property, was the human".
        
        Nope. There's a major point that these systems still work even when the drivers behaviour is poor, or cause an incident, and that's something that every study will tell you, so I'm not sure you absorbed much beyond the conclusion you were seeking from your evening of light googling.
        
        "How much a safety feature assists is relatively marginal."
        
        Is complete horse shit.
        
        The article's
        
        Yes. This imaginary article / opinion piece / vibe. Sure.
        
        Older models are statistically less likely to be involved in MVAs compared to newer models.
        
        This is also bullshit. Overall, well yes, there's less of them on the road now. By severity per "1000" or "hours driven", no. Just no.
        
        another bunch of studies I've researched
        
        Trust me bro.
        
        The broad answer is around 1-2 minutes per hour.
        
        Is again horseshit. The biggest cause of congestion when expanding multi lanes highways, for example, is drivers constantly switching lanes trying to game the system, and it's not single digit percentage point differences. That and psychology of design, like everyone slowing to 40kph on the downhill stretch of the Burnley.
        
        I….I really don't think you read much at all. Frankly.
        
        muwu on 17/10/2023 - 16:54
        
        +1
        
        @Ademos: Hey, that was an aggressive reply. It's okay, safety features reduce accidents and improve outcomes. So does driving behaviour. If the question (argument) is about which one has the greater statistical impact, then leave that for each person to study themselves, but we can agree that everyone can improve both and that's certainly true for driving. Stay safe out there ✌️
        
        Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 16:58
        
        @muwu: You don't get to backpedal from trying to disseminate a completely fabricated deflection of fact with an "appeal to positivity". Honestly that's the most toxic, disingenuous, gaslighting way to try and "win an argument" on the internet. I'd rather you were just a raging knob, because at least that has some honesty to it.
        
        muwu on 17/10/2023 - 17:02
        
        +1
        
        @Ademos:
        
        to try and "win an argument" on the internet.
        
        I think our commenting has different intentions
THICKnSLOW on 17/10/2023 - 05:09

So what are the chances that some mint condition early 90's modern classic cars gonna get scrapped for this $5K discount on a newer tech car with blind spot monitoring, seat belt beeping, rear cross traffic alert, lane departure warning, autonomous braking, radar cruise control, and all the other Driver Distraction Enabler Technology systems that will facilitate mobile phone usage and driving under the influence more stealthily for young drivers aged 18-25…
- frugalferret on 17/10/2023 - 09:22
  
  Not significant, because mint early 90's modern classics aren't going to be valued at less than $5k.
ThatNintendoKid on 17/10/2023 - 06:00

What counts as regional Victoria? I’m in that age group in pakenham haven’t gotten a car before is there anything for me?

also if anyone knows on cheaper ways via Centrelink etc to get cheaper/free driving lessons that’d be great as they’re quite expensive when unemployed on Centrelink. (I have a pensioners concession card if that helps)
MrThing on 17/10/2023 - 07:28

+2

Isnt victoria broke? Evidently not

Good day to be a used car salesperson
- jaimex2 on 17/10/2023 - 08:39
  
  It's like watching a teenager with maxed out credit cards sign up for after pay.
  
  Kind of like what this deal is going to encourage.
- Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 08:49
  
  +1
  
  No, it isn't. Are you one of those people that doesn't understand how debt works, but is happy to try and put the boot into Labor while ignoring that every successive liberal state/fed gov have been exponentially worse economic managers, leaving successive terms with ever greater debt records?
  
  Regardless, Its a net saving. The cost of crashes is insane. The emergency response. The investigations. Prosecutions. Lost tax and other productivity or revenue of victims or even temporarily injured.
  - MrThing on 17/10/2023 - 10:29
    
    New(er) cars still crash.
  - jaimex2 on 17/10/2023 - 18:58
    
    Wtf are you on about lol
    
    Almost 1/4 of Victoria's revenue goes to debt interest currently.
    - Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 23:41
      
      Yeah? How did italy go with the whole pandemic thing?
      
      We spent money to build things. A lot of things. Through three natural disasters. Bushfire, pandemic, flood. Shit happens. We're dealing with it, all that while a liberal federal government was completely (profanity) absent despite their pm secretly taking over portfolios to do….nothing.
      - jaimex2 on 18/10/2023 - 09:00
        
        @Ademos: No, the money all got pissed down the toilet during two years of mismanaged covid. You have nothing to show for it.
        
        Don't act like any of it was proportionate or reasonable.
        
        Italy wasn't caused by repeated incompetence and they didn't cripple themselves long-term.
        
        Enjoy the trains, because that's all you're getting for a long long time. Enjoy the revenue raising, higher fees and cut backs.
        
        Broke ass state can't even host a sporting event anymore.
        
        Also who the hell privatises their road authority and port? Jesus.
        
        Ademos on 18/10/2023 - 09:05
        
        @jaimex2: So you're straight up lying. Net debt is about $116 billion. ~$30 billion was covid related, and went to things like paying kids to eat when they lost their casual hospo jobs.
        
        That said, I don't think you're lying so much as just completely ignorant, to almost wilfully incompetent levels, because this is all easily searched.
        
        Where's the rest of the debt? Well there's also several tunnels being built, literally hundreds of millions on other roads and post flooding repairs. 000/ Esta being rehauled and upgradedwith 300 million. Tons of courts built for every jurisdicition. Ses, cfa, ambulance facilities overhauled and constructed. 10 regional hospitals and urgent care clinics overhauled or already built. The list goes on and is extensive. Yes, even if you dont have a clue. Not even the faintest clue.
        
        Thats BEFORE trains and level crossings.
        
        Theres ignorant, theres dim tim launching cars into his neighbours house, then theres you.
        
        Again. Our waves were not caused by Victorians. The deaths were not in Victorian run aged care facilities, either, were they sport.
        
        The road authority has not been privatised either, only the licencing side has been temporarily leased, so that private investment pays to upgrade and consolidate the system.
        
        jaimex2 on 18/10/2023 - 10:38
        
        @Ademos: It's cute you think expenditure was the total cost.
        
        You think you can stop a state for two years and revenue continues to come in or something?
        
        You really need to broaden your horizons and mind. It's comical how illogical the argument that Victoria was singled out is. I didn't think people could use the victim card on a state government but here we are.
        
        The federal government runs the aged care facilities identically in every state. What's the differentiator I wonder.
        
        The Victorian government was so incompetent they couldn't contain covid even with NSW taking all their international flights for them.
        
        I laugh at anyone who tries to defend five government caused outbreaks. You locked down and got back down to 0 four times!
        
        You think Victoria is the only state doing big builds? Brisbane's is much larger and they've kept their books in balance. The train network going under the river there is an engineering feat.
        
        We don't really have to have this argument. It'll become apparent as the debt gets out of control because it can't be serviced how screwed the state is.
        It's projected to double by the Victorian government's own projections within the next 4 years.
        
        It's all good the builds got done, but you can't afford a thing going forward and the only way out of that is higher taxes on Victorians.
        
        Shame the EV tax got labeled as illegal by the courts huh. What a joke.
        
        Question - do you really think privatised operation of VicRoads will lead to better services or profiteering?
        
        I really want to see how naive you are.
        
        Ademos on 18/10/2023 - 11:05
        
        @jaimex2: The guy that 30 seconds ago was saying "Victoria has nothing but covid debt" now knows all about Victoria's infrastructure investment and how it compares to QLD's in detail? Jog on.
        
        Yes, revenue did continue to come in. No, the whole state didn't stop. Regional barely noticed.
        
        You lied, or were wrong, about covid being majority of the debt. You lied, or were wrong, about having nothing to show for the debt that we do have. You lied, or are wrong, about how the feds ran aged care.
        
        NSW was letting in cruise ships, failing to lock down and contain, letting people cross borders, letting hillsong church members OFF quarantined cruise ships when they did lock them down (one of which caused an outbreak).
        
        You're lying, or are wrong, about QLD. QLD is net revenue positive but it's still over $100 billion in debt. Because "debt" isn't the scary word you keep pretending it is, and you do not have a clue how it's leveraged. QLD has coal exports, meanwhile the liberal's taxed LNG at 1/20th the rate of Qatar but refuse to share that revenue with states, like VIC, without the same resources. So when you refer to "books being in balance" do you even know what you're trying to say?
        
        the only way out of that is higher taxes on Victorians
        
        The entire world is dealing with Covid fallout, it isn't unique, it's not unexpected. You're not the smartest person in the room for realising it.
        
        The differentiator is that VIC was a Labor state gov at the time, NSW wasn't. That all came back to bite them in the arse though, didn't it chief.
    - Nom on 17/10/2023 - 23:55
      
      Almost 1/4 of Victoria's revenue goes to debt interest currently.
      
      So ?
      
      Are you saying you'd rather sit in traffic on the way to work, waiting for the boom gates at your local rail crossing - than have had the rail crossing removed ?
      
      The "anti debt" posts are strange - it's like you didn't even notice all the new infrastructure that the debt is paying for 🤷🏼‍♂️
      - jaimex2 on 18/10/2023 - 08:43
        
        @Nom: It limits what the state can do in the future and forces future governments to make cut backs.
        
        Big build isn't done and will almost certainly blow out. That's not bad in itself as you're getting something back.
        
        Covid is where the bulk of the debt went and we have nothing to show for it.
        
        Complete mismanagement and it could all have been avoided by not being the most hard ass state about covid. People ignore rules that are unreasonable.
Rob-4x4 on 17/10/2023 - 07:45

I am a lot older than 25 yet my car is just over 20 years old .. .why can't I get a nice tax payer subsidy to upgrade it as well ?
- Alzori on 17/10/2023 - 18:30
  
  Because statistically you're a safer driver than younger drivers, and it would provide less benefit to the state.
Mudlode on 17/10/2023 - 08:12

"The dealer arranges to have the old vehicle taken away to be scrapped." this is a real shame
OfTheOverflow on 17/10/2023 - 08:29

Bit of a shame some of that money can't be prioritised to strengthening infrastructure and reducing unnecessary car trips in the first place. Car ownership is a significant financial burden, particularly living rurally, because it's usually the only way for young people to get from A-B. I know that first hand.

And of course it's statistically very unsafe. Just wish we had a more forward thinking society willing to tackle the underlying problems.
- Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 08:48
  
  +2
  
  There's plenty of money being spent on infrastructure. Literally hundreds of millions. You're allowed to address multiple issues at once.
  
  Are you one of those people that think all of Australia can be connected by public transport, in rural areas?
  - OfTheOverflow on 17/10/2023 - 10:11
    
    Rural areas will always need personal forms of transport, of course. Too disparate. But see my quote of 'reducing unnecessary car trips'. Connecting more rural areas via public transport is an admirable goal, and subsidising the purchase of brand NEW highly polluting petrol cars (that other developed nations won't accept and so Australia gets saddled with) isn't ideal.
    
    Not saying there's an easy and quick solution. But it's positive in the safety sense for young Victorians.
    - Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 23:55
      
      brand NEW highly polluting petrol cars
      
      Brand new cars aren't highly polluting. Some of the modern small turbo's are comparable in economy to hybrids, and fully electric simply isn't there yet. But I bet you'd have a whinge about a government program to roll out more charging stations.
      
      Connecting more rural areas via public transport is an admirable goal
      
      And completely, inexcusably, naïve. It's a continent, not just a country.
      
      reducing unnecessary car trips
      
      "Unnecessary" is an opinion, and you can look down your nose at people in rural areas all you like, but this sentiment very clearly express that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and have never lived regionally in your life.
      - OfTheOverflow on 18/10/2023 - 12:02
        
        @Ademos: It's pretty widely documented that, due to Australia's lax fuel efficiency standards compared to Europe, NZ and even the US to an extent — car manufacturers do funnel their inefficient, highly polluting products (particularly utes) here. Especially as everyone seemingly wants an SUV. There is not sufficient supply of affordable and efficient petrol cars.
        
        Suggesting that a large country can't, or shouldn't, have wide ranging connection via rail is managing to put blinders on how our world became interconnected in the first place.
        
        I'm not looking down my nose at people in rural areas, and it's disingenuous to assume I am. I grew up in a village that was serviced by just two buses a day and was 30 minutes from the nearest regional centre. I know that trips in particular rural areas may always require personal transport, but it doesn't meant there aren't ways to reduce car dependency.
        
        Good job ignoring literally the first sentence of the comment you replied to, though.
        
        Ademos on 18/10/2023 - 12:56
        
        @OfTheOverflow: There's plenty of hybrid and small turbo's on the market. We buy utes. That's why we get utes. It's not a conspiracy. We aren't dense euro countries. The distance from Perth to Syd is comparable to london to baghdad.
        
        Suggesting that a large country can't, or shouldn't, have wide ranging connection via rail is managing to put blinders on how our world became interconnected in the first place.
        
        Suggesting that a broad, functionally empty country should be connected by rail because incredibly densely populous countries did it in the last 100 years to connect exploding population centres via exploding agricultural/resource belts is forest for the tree's.
        
        You're probably one of those people that points at Amsterdam and says "Look, this means it's totally possible for people in Bendigo to commute by bicycle" .
        
        I grew up in a village that was serviced by just two buses a day and was 30 minutes from the nearest regional centre
        
        Then you weren't properly regional, and have no idea how far out "regional aus" goes.
prhino on 17/10/2023 - 08:38

+1

Insert comment: I don't qualify for this so it must be a waste of money
jaimex2 on 17/10/2023 - 08:41

Cool, trade in your death trap Barina for a death trap MG.
afah0447 on 17/10/2023 - 08:58

Price of second cars just went up in Vic.
- RolandWaites on 17/10/2023 - 09:37
  
  +1
  
  It's such a limited scheme I don't think that's realistically going to happen.
- magic8ballgag on 17/10/2023 - 10:14
  
  Original comment.
- lunartemis on 17/10/2023 - 13:23
  
  I think they are already higher compared to other states..
mousie on 17/10/2023 - 12:23

OK, no to commonwealth games, hey everykid! get a car
JIMB0 on 17/10/2023 - 12:56

+2

This is basically a handout to car dealers who jump through the hoops to participate. They'll game the system so that they receive at least half of the benefit, the same as happened with the air-conditioner rebate that ended last year.
lunartemis on 17/10/2023 - 13:22

+1

A young driver who drives like an idiot will crash whether he (or she) is driving a 1998 Ford Falcon or 2018 Honda jazz… i guess the damage may be lower if driving a newer car..
mirz on 17/10/2023 - 14:37

+1

Another kamakazi plan to destroy tax payers money.
nick90 on 17/10/2023 - 17:19

+2

So many things wrong with this. Victoria doesn't have exactly that much money to throw away atm, newer cars aren't necessary safer and lots of good reliable cars are going to be heading to the scrap (a huge waste).
luedriver on 17/10/2023 - 17:27

just because a car is over 16 years doesn't mean that's its less safe than a new cheap economy car, $5000 isn't doing anyone any favours when buying a new car on a budget when the absolute cheapest car cost over $15K
Wort on 18/10/2023 - 20:29

www.nswnationals.org.au/safer-cars-for-country-kids/ what's shocking is that dan is out there throwing cars across the murray and pork barreling the wrong electorate! socialist victoria at it again

This was posted 6 months 26 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

[VIC] $5000 Subsidy for Younger Drivers in Regional Victoria to Replace Their Older Cars with Newer Ones @ VicRoads

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals