A response on National Road Safety from four wheel drive enthusiasts

It is obvious when reading the report that the main thrust of the recommendation was to "discourage unnecessary use of four-wheel drive vehicles". There appeared to be no other reason put forward to support the recommendation.

The thrust of the submissions relied upon in arriving at this recommendation was to "discourage the use and curb the perceived proliferation of four wheel drives". 

This flies in the face of our freedom of choice, which many have fought to protect. What will be next, the freedom to choose what colour of vehicle we want? Are we going to ban or discourage or curb the proliferation of the colour pink in vehicles?

Think that this is too far-fetched? Think again! It was only a few years ago that no one would have ever though such a recommendation would be made for drivers of a particular type of vehicle, such as four-wheel drive vehicles.

Within the report tabled in parliament and the recommendations contained therein, there appears to be little in the way of education or training. It appears that the report is simply a revenue-collection effort with the desired effect to not only introduce a new tax on some members of the driving public but to reduce the number of "four wheel drive" vehicles. 

However there is no discussion or recommendation on what is a "four wheel drive". Does it include the All Wheel Drives or crossover-type vehicles? Therefore one must believe that the recommendation is for all forms of "four wheel drive" vehicles. Nor are there any discussions or recommendations as to the weight of the vehicle. 

The GVM or Gross Vehicle Mass is the most critical aspect of a vehicle and is far more important than the fact that one vehicle has a front diff and the other does not. However, these recommendations have nothing to say about that, only that a vehicle with an extra diff must have a special endorsement. The GVM of a vehicle is the total weight of a vehicle fully loaded and with a full towing capacity. To ignore this crucial factor but make a recommendation about a vehicle that may have an extra diff attached is pure folly.

The most popular "four wheel drive" vehicle on the Australian market to day is the Honda CR-V. This is a vehicle that the average member of the public would walk past every day and have no idea that it is, in fact, a "four wheel drive". It is a compact and well designed vehicle simular to any other vehicle on the road. In some cases would be a better-handling vehicle then many two-wheel drive vehicles currently available.

There a host of vehicles which are available in both two-wheel drive and "four wheel drive" variations. To suggest that the same vehicle in two-wheel specification can be driven by any licensed driver but that the "four wheel drive" version will attract a special license endorsement is simply ludicrous, ridiculous and fanciful, and enforces the belief that this is simply a revenue-collection recommendation.

The submission and recommendations fail to take into account that the car driver in Queensland  (and I suspect else where in Australia) is legally able to hire up to a four-ton truck and drive that vehicle on an ordinary car licence with no training or education. But the recommendation picks on the humble four wheel driver. 

Reading the report, it is clear that the committee have been duped by self-interested lobby groups and have failed to fully investigate their submissions or to canvas other organisations with a different view. The committee did not and has not at any stage made contact with Four Wheel Drive Australia/Australian National Four Wheel Drive Council for comment. "Four Wheel Drive Australia" is the leading authority in this area, and yet the committee has failed to contact this organisation prior to making its recommendations.

It is important to emphasise that FWDA/ANFWDC is not against eduction and driver training, in fact we are the leading authority in this area in Australia, and have developed a fully nationally accredited Four Wheel Drive training course. We have done this without the assistance of the Federal Government or any assistance from any government, Local /State or Federal.  It appears to me that if the government is of the belief that their existed a real problem within the market place then they should have made contact and opened dialog with the Leading authority on Four Wheel Drive Vehicles in Australia and not just  made a recommendation based upon false and mis-leading submissions.

FWDA/ANFWDC has also released a "Safety Card" again without government support or assistance. This safety card is along the lines and concept of the Safety card available to all passengers flying in commercial aircraft. This safety card is provided by FWDA/ANFWDC free of charge to a number of four wheel drive hire companies and tourist information centres and has been provided in an effort educate all drivers of the dangers of the outback, and outback driving. This Safety card does not discriminate against 2 wheel drive vehicles and the message is the same for both in the outback of Australia.

It is mind-blowing to think that this committee has failed to fully investigate all aspects of the matter prior to making the recommendation. If the reason for this recommendation and decision is based upon the perception that a four wheel drive vehicle does not handle as well as a two wheel drive vehicle, then it is based upon false and unsubstantiated facts.

It is the submission of Four Wheel Drive Australia and Australian National Four Wheel Drive Council that Australian governments do not impose a new Tax/Fee structures upon the public of Australia, and withdraws this recommendation.