Nearly eight-in-10 want city 4WD ban

[Basil135]

From News.com.au


Nearly eight-in-10 want city 4WD ban | National Breaking News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25983810-29277,00.html)



Ignoring all of the emotional hype for a moment, the biggest concern is the small number of people surveyed. Especially when you consider how many vehicles are on our roads.

[spudboy]

Gawd :mad:

I'd like to ban city Sunday drivers from coming out into the country and getting in my way. They have no idea how to drive out in the country and should be BANNED, I say.

How much chance have I got - bugger all.

[Tote]

Yep, ban all those Porsche Cayennes, Honda CRV's, Ford Territories, RAV4s, Klugers, Volvo XC90s, all Subarus and hot Lancers. Then see how many people agree.
Badly written article publicising a survey conducted by an insurance company with an agenda and conducted on an unspecified sample group.

*******

Regards,
Tote

[bblaze]

they just asked the wrong people, my survey of 1000 people resulted in 100% wanting 4 wheel drives. ok,I havnt done the survey but I can garentee them results
cheers
blaze

[one_iota]

I thought that the message from the AAMI was clear and positive...a plea for tolerance based on the facts:



"It is of concern that road users hold such strong views about their fellow motorists and this may spill over into driving behaviour," he said.
"We therefore urge drivers of all vehicle types to come to a better understanding of their common rights and obligations.
"Clearly all drivers share the objective to make road travel safer, so we encourage them to share the road in an understanding and responsible manner."
Ironically AAMI's research also revealed that four-wheel-drive owners made fewer insurance claims than their passenger car colleagues.
The company's figures revealed a claim rate of 16.3 for every 100 four-wheel-drive owners and a rate of 17.82 among passenger car owners.

[solmanic]

Typical ****ing media beat-up. You need to simply read the first paragraph under the headline - "Most PASSENGER CAR drivers..."

I wouldn't be too concerned since any move to enact laws actually banning 4WD's would need to be supported by a majority of road users - driving all types of vehicles including trucks & buses.

Someone here may know the latest percentage of Australians who own at least one 4WD - could it be as high as 50%?

In any case, (and I expect to get flamed off the forum for this) I actually support higher rego & taxes on heavier/larger vehicles. It just make sense. Like trucks, larger, heavier vehicles do more wear and tear on roads. In any case, as we move towards inevitable congestion charging in our CBDs it may become a moot point as less people will drive in the city full-stop.

[one_iota]

In any case, (and I expect to get flamed off the forum for this) I actually support higher rego & taxes on heavier/larger vehicles. It just make sense. Like trucks, larger, heavier vehicles do more wear and tear on roads.

The RTA in NSW already bases its registration fees on weight of vehicle:



Registration fees for vehicles up to 4.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) are based on the tare (unladen) weight of the vehicle. The more it weighs, the higher the cost. In addition, vehicles used for business purposes pay higher registration costs than those for private use.

[solmanic]

The RTA in NSW already bases its registration fees on weight of vehicle:

Yeah - Queensland however uses the fantastically logical system of "number of cylinders" for passenger cars?!? :wacko:

[loanrangie]

Gawd :mad:

I'd like to ban city Sunday drivers from coming out into the country and getting in my way. They have no idea how to drive out in the country and should be BANNED, I say.

How much chance have I got - bugger all.

Exactly, and ban all those crappy little fourfour matchbox cars or whatever they are. How many softroaders do you see that have to be recovered from beaches and forests all over the country- i'll stop coming into the CBD if they keep out of our area's.

[spudboy]

In any case, (and I expect to get flamed off the forum for this) I actually support higher rego & taxes on heavier/larger vehicles. It just make sense. Like trucks, larger, heavier vehicles do more wear and tear on roads. In any case, as we move towards inevitable congestion charging in our CBDs it may become a moot point as less people will drive in the city full-stop.

It should ALL be in the price of fuel. No rego, no CTP, maybe just a one off charge for your number plates ($25??).

If you drive more - you pay more. Simple. More KMs means more risk, more road damage, etc, so means you should pay more. Have exemptions for static motors (generators) or farmers who don't go on the road.

[rocket_rod]

The boss and I are planning to go around Oz, so I would recommend a reduction in the the price of diesel (couldn't care less about petrol) for the next 18 or so months :p .

[frantic]

NSW uses the weight which is half way to fair BUT! I believe it should be weight x number off k's per year, then we would have a fair user pays system!
In all seriousness how can any person short off John laws drive and park a large 4wd with a 2 in lift and 33in+ tyres in the city of Sydney as nearly all parking garages have a 2-2.1 height limit and the longest you will get on the street is 1-2 hrs!
If the person who drives the disco/prado/pajero to work during the week and does the weekend run around with 3-4 children is forced to stop driving a 4wd what will they switch to that can carry 3- 4 kids + a pile off gear? Why a tarago, voyager, trajet(Y),carnivale ,vw Kombi etc and will any off these improve visability for the car behind or be safer in a prang or in the wet / handling, for the occupants? IMHO I dont think so! (The insurer's stats actually support this as 4wd's make fewer claims.)

[Sleepy]

From News.com.au


Nearly eight-in-10 want city 4WD ban | National Breaking News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25983810-29277,00.html)



Ignoring all of the emotional hype for a moment, the biggest concern is the small number of people surveyed. Especially when you consider how many vehicles are on our roads.

Funny, when they did the survey last December http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/69831-vote-today-melb-herald-sun-banning-4wd-city-roads.html

65% did not want them banned.

S'pose it depends who you ask......:angel:

(And how many times they clear their cookies :twisted::p)

[buddha D2]

How can AAMI honestly expect a survey of approx 2500 individuals (probably carefully selected) from a population of just over 21000000 be representative of peoples opinion........

IMHO, it doesn't really matter what vehicle they drive. Until they teach motorists to actually "drive", and not just pass a licence test, we will always have danger/carnage on the roads.........:soapbox:.........I have spent 20 yrs picking up peices and/or investigating accidents and I don't personally know of any that can be blamed on the choice of a driver's vehicle.

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Gags

[JDNSW]

NSW uses the weight which is half way to fair BUT! I believe it should be weight x number off k's per year, then we would have a fair user pays system!
......

I disagree - I am with spudboy - to a close approximation "weight x number of k's per year" is covered by a fuel tax (driving style has some effect, as does vehicle design, but these are both minor factors compared to the weight and number of kilometres). By far the most equitable way of taxing vehicles is by putting all possible charges (including insurance I suggest) into a fuel tax. One reason for supporting this is that not only would it encourage everyone to use economical vehicles, but it would make it economically possible for more people to have multiple vehicles for different purposes, so that you don't have to use your weekend people carrier to drive to work.

But I don't expect it to happen - for two reasons; fuel taxes are Commonwealth taxes, and most other vehicle taxes are state; and fuel price is too politically sensitive.

John

[seano87]

NSW uses the weight which is half way to fair BUT! I believe it should be weight x number off k's per year, then we would have a fair user pays system!


So because I don't live in an inner-city environment, I deserve to pay more for rego simply because for me to do something simple like drive to the shops it happens to be up to a 50km round trip??

Basing it on km driven in any way is the complete opposite to fair IMO.

Seano

[George130]

I support ban them poxy little cars from out of the city.
Same as I always say. I will keep my 4wd out of your city if you keep your non 4wd out of my countryside.

[Hymie]

If you drive more - you pay more. Simple. More KMs means more risk, more road damage, etc, so means you should pay more. Have exemptions for static motors (generators) or farmers who don't go on the road.

So as a worker who travels 50000 Kilometers just getting to work and back I'm suddenly waaayyy out of pocket on that formula.

If Rego and Insurance becomes distance based I'm screwed!

[kowari]

Putting it all on the price of fuel works, except it favours all those that can offset the rise in price against tax, farmers, builders, etc, etc.

fuel is now an esentiel of life, whether we like it or not, and some shouldnt be allowed to off set the cost and not others. (IMHO)

[JDNSW]

Putting it all on the price of fuel works, except it favours all those that can offset the rise in price against tax, farmers, builders, etc, etc.

fuel is now an esentiel of life, whether we like it or not, and some shouldnt be allowed to off set the cost and not others. (IMHO)

Makes no difference whether you put it into fuel or registration - if it a business expense it can be offset against tax - always assumes the business is in the black, not a given these days! Same applies to any other expense - if it is incurred as a cost of earning taxable income, then it is a tax deductable business expense, and if not, it isn't. (I won't go into whether the cost of travel to work should be a deductible expense - in my view it probably should be, although it isn't in general at present, but that is irrelevant to your point).

Whether people who have to travel long distances should be subsidised by others is a separate question, but my view is that with the substantial subsidies handed out for public transport in the cities, that are not available to non-citydwellers, maybe there should be something. But at the moment there certainly isn't - in fact, the further you have to travel, as a general rule, the more expensive your fuel is! (I went shopping today - 120km round trip)

John

[dobbo]

If I cannot drive in "the city" which city? Dubbo has a CBD too.


Also how much of a discount do I get on my registration considering I cannot drive in the CBD yet I work there?

[JDNSW]

If I cannot drive in "the city" which city? Dubbo has a CBD too.


Also how much of a discount do I get on my registration considering I cannot drive in the CBD yet I work there?

Don't ask silly questions. Of course you don't get a discount, and you don't get any definition of what is "the city" either.

If they keep the city drivers out of the country as well, as someone suggested, maybe it will be a plus.

But I don't think anything is going to happen, anyway.

John

[hoadie72]

and feel intimidated when driving close to an off-road vehicle.
I can relate to this - is it just me or are the majority of 4wd Hilux drivers incredibly aggressive?

[CraigE]

It is called selective surveying.
Happens all the time to get an answer a particular group wants.
I have no issue as long as they also ban :
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Scooter and Moped Riders
High performance motorcycles
Enduro motorcycles
Old motorcycles
Harleys
Buses
Trucks
Taxis
Vans
Trams
Mobility Scooters
Skateboards
Ripsticks
Sports Cars
People Movers
Old smoky wrecks
Soccer Mums
Seniors
P Platers
L Platers
Young Drivers
Middle Age Drivers
V8s
Imported cars
Dull average cars
Toyota Divers
Nissan Drivers
Mitsubishi Drivers
Jeep Drivers
West Coast & Port Power Supporters (you would think they would be good drivers having 2 heads and all)
and especially Prius Drivers
There that should solve it, anyone I have forgotten.

[CraigE]

It should ALL be in the price of fuel. No rego, no CTP, maybe just a one off charge for your number plates ($25??).

If you drive more - you pay more. Simple. More KMs means more risk, more road damage, etc, so means you should pay more. Have exemptions for static motors (generators) or farmers who don't go on the road.

Good in theory, but what about us remote country people that have to drive hundreds of kms for basic services those who live in or near a city take for granted? For example if I need a LR service centre it is a 500km min one way trip. Need to see a specialist 1400km round trip.

[Bigbjorn]

It should ALL be in the price of fuel. No rego, no CTP, maybe just a one off charge for your number plates ($25??).

If you drive more - you pay more. Simple. More KMs means more risk, more road damage, etc, so means you should pay more. Have exemptions for static motors (generators) or farmers who don't go on the road.

I agree. I have often spoken in favour of a fuel tax to replace all registration and CTP charges. This is fair to all. Those who use the roads most should pay the most.

In addition, older Queenslanders will remember when driver's licences were no charge and issued for up to ten years. A fuel tax could replace the current charges for licences.

[willem]

So because I don't live in an inner-city environment, I deserve to pay more for rego simply because for me to do something simple like drive to the shops it happens to be up to a 50km round trip??

Basing it on km driven in any way is the complete opposite to fair IMO.

Seano

This is a fair comment. Taxing the distance a vehicle drives disadvantages those who live in country areas and in outer suburbs. Given that the outer suburbs are usually the areas where the battlers live, this ends up being a regressive tax that taxes the less well off end of society. That is not fair.

This will also lead to a greater level of urbanisation when we, in our huge and empty country, should be aiming for decentralisation.


Willem

[strangy]

Latest studies show, and recent Surveys in country and remote areas suggested, most people who paticipated in anti 4wd surveys were of more benefit to the environment by becoming carbon neutral.

Stupid statements and incompetent "surveys / studies" apparently give any opinion absolute credibility these days.

The media have absolutely no ability to seek and report on actual news or stories so they create a story around some Anal Retentive, Socially Inept, multi Phobia relative of theirs, for whom an every day errand of getting the paper is frought with peril and renders them physically and mentally drained.

They then tell the public that this is all that is going on in the world.

The most positive thing about any of these reports is that Australians must be doing exceptionally well in all aspects of life, because the things that make us concerned are not War, Famine, Freedom of Speech, but feeling uncomfortable around a vehicle.

Rant over.

Have great day all.:D:D:D:D

[Lotz-A-Landies]

From News.com.au

Nearly eight-in-10 want city 4WD ban | National Breaking News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25983810-29277,00.html)

Ignoring all of the emotional hype for a moment, the biggest concern is the small number of people surveyed. Especially when you consider how many vehicles are on our roads.
Funny, when they did the survey last December http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/69831-vote-today-melb-herald-sun-banning-4wd-city-roads.html

65% did not want them banned.

S'pose it depends who you ask......:angel:

(And how many times they clear their cookies :twisted::p)You only have to look at whom did the poll - News limited this is the same company that owns Fox News that reports polls that 98% or Americans are afraid of President Obama, 93% believe that President Obama is not an American citizen.

At least Fairfax still has some credibility - I don't trust Rupert Murdock and News Ltd for any of my information - it is all biased to the ultra conservative right.

Diana

[solmanic]

...I don't trust Rupert Murdock and News Ltd for any of my information - it is all biased to the ultra conservative right.

How does that fit in with the "ban 4WDs in the city" argument? I think it has more to do with the "make any old **** up to stir up interest in a non-existent story and sell advertising space" idea.

[Bigbjorn]

This is a fair comment. Taxing the distance a vehicle drives disadvantages those who live in country areas and in outer suburbs. Given that the outer suburbs are usually the areas where the battlers live, this ends up being a regressive tax that taxes the less well off end of society. That is not fair.

This will also lead to a greater level of urbanisation when we, in our huge and empty country, should be aiming for decentralisation.


Willem

Last I heard, Australia was still a free country and you choose where you want to live and accept the advantages, disadvantages, costs, etc. when you make the decision.

You are assuming that those who live in the outer suburbs are forced to travel to the inner suburbs. This is again a personal choice. If you wish to work in the CBD and don't like the travel, why not live near and save yourself money and stress. My inner suburb is surrounded and divided by three major roads. Morning and night these roads are bumper to bumper with CBD workers travelling to and from work. Yet the suburbs they are travelling to and from are well served by fast ferries, and air-conditioned trains and buses. Why do they drive?

Outer suburbs nowadays frequently have better services than the inner areas. Large shopping centres, transport hubs, government services are all out in the 'burbs now. I don't like travelling to outer suburbs for parts and services because this is where industry has moved to. But I accept this because I like living where I do.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

How does that fit in with the "ban 4WDs in the city" argument? I think it has more to do with the "make any old **** up to stir up interest in a non-existent story and sell advertising space" idea.So you're suggesting that News Ltd and Fox News is all fair and balanced reportage? I hardly think so.

Although on the "sell anything I can take out of context and hype up" we agree.

However I still ask "would you take any information you received from a News Ltd source, as factual and un-biased"?

Diana

[rocket scientist]

Gawd :mad:

I'd like to ban city Sunday drivers from coming out into the country and getting in my way. They have no idea how to drive out in the country and should be BANNED, I say.

How much chance have I got - bugger all.

I'm with you .
City drivers in the country are the main cause of accidents in our area.
They have no idea.
Then we have foreign drivers on top of that who have absolutely no respect for our road rules.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I think the ideal would be to ban ALL vehicles from CBD's

Provide outer city parking, upgrade public transport into the city from outer suburbs, encourage pushbikes (rental or free to use council provided) and walking, and get the people using their legs again :DSo would that include plumbers, electricians, furniture vans, courier vans, taxi's and buses?

I can just see a plumber riding a pushie, towing a new hot water service and carrying his tool kit from the outer suburbs. Although I think you weren't including all those items, but it still leaves the 4WD's the tradies may be using in the city.

[one_iota]

I think the ideal would be to ban ALL vehicles from CBD's

Provide outer city parking, upgrade public transport into the city from outer suburbs, encourage pushbikes (rental or free to use council provided) and walking, and get the people using their legs again :D

And then there will be a debate about the rights of parents to use those monster all-terrain strollers on the footpaths intimidating and obstructing the ordinary pedestrian. :)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I'm with you .
City drivers in the country are the main cause of accidents in our area.
They have no idea.
Then we have foreign drivers on top of that who have absolutely no respect for our road rules.I think the word you are looking for is oblivious! More to the point they are more concentrated in the city, last night I was returning from Windsor to my home coming up to the Richmond Rd right turn onto the M7 I observed a people-mover drive up to the intersection without hesitating and against the red arrow, turned across the oncoming traffic and up the on-ramp then onto the M7 no blinkers at any time and into the RH (fast) lane and sat at 80 KPH with car after car having to pass on the LHS.

This person was most definitely oblivious to everything that was happening outside their windows.

Diana

[dobbo]

What parent is going to lug a monster all-terrain stroller on a train into the city? :D:D:D

Perhaps a parent with twins or two kids close together.

The only way I can see it happening without the government being discrimitory against 4wd owners is to ban all vehicles over a certain weight, then the question will be how will they service the city without trucks? Perhaps they can bring back the horse and cart to collect garbage.

[spudboy]

So because I don't live in an inner-city environment, I deserve to pay more for rego simply because for me to do something simple like drive to the shops it happens to be up to a 50km round trip??

Basing it on km driven in any way is the complete opposite to fair IMO.

Seano

I don't see how you can say it is not fair. Someone had to build the 50Km of road that you use. Every time you use it, you wear it out a little bit. It needs maintenance (grading, road markers, signs, whatever) to keep it safe.

It may be that you get a small engined car to drive to the shops, which will be significantly cheaper to run than a Landie, and save the 4x4 for when you need it. It would cause a lot of people to pay more attention to the MPG their car gets, and this would reduce Australia's import burden over time.

If there is no Rego and CTP, then it becomes much more feasable to have a cheap run around in addition to your main car, although from a resources point of view (and capital tied up in vehicles) this does seem rather wasteful.

[solmanic]

So you're suggesting that News Ltd and Fox News is all fair and balanced reportage?

No.

I was just suggesting that your comment seemed at odds with News Ltd's right-wing agenda since, according to the media, aren't all 4WD owners supposed to be right-wing, redneck, racist yobbos or rich, stuck-up, snobs with an inferiority complex? ie. the kind of people who read and listen to News Ltd & Fox?

[waynep]

I'd be happy to sit a special licence to have a 4WD - they do it for boats etc. so why not 4WDs ?

Define a 4WD sensibly - maybe as something that has lo range and over a certain weight.

It seems to me a waste of the world's resources putting all the transfer cases, extra diffs etc in vehicles that will never use them.

[rocket scientist]

Every time I travel with the family into Melbourne along the transit lane of the Eastern Freeway (carpark) I look in amazement at the cars around me. I would say about 95% of them had one person in the car, most of them commuters.
If they all took the trouble to car pool they could halve the number of cars going into the cities.
I know thats not always possible but I am sure the amount of cars could be reduced by at least 30%, and that would be a start.
My solution would incentive by increasing the transit lanes to 2 lanes, leaving the choice of either spending half your life in traffic, or car pool.

Then again why should I care. The only traffic jam I get is when the neighbour is herding his cows down the road! :tease:

[JDNSW]

I'd be happy to sit a special licence to have a 4WD - they do it for boats etc. so why not 4WDs ?
.......

Speak for yourself - I have been driving four wheel drives for almost fifty years, and modern four wheel drives are a lot easier to drive than the car I got my licence on - at least they have synchromesh, and most have power steering and power assisted brakes.

If you are proposing a special licence for a four wheel drive, I suggest that a special licence would be required for any sort of commercial vehicle, remembering that a car licence currently allows you to drive vehicles larger, clumsier and more difficult to drive than many four wheel drives.


And how about the many rural kids who have never driven anything else?


No, I do not support a special licence for four wheel drives.

John

[Bigbjorn]

Speak for yourself - I have been driving four wheel drives for almost fifty years, and modern four wheel drives are a lot easier to drive than the car I got my licence on - at least they have synchromesh, and most have power steering and power assisted brakes.

If you are proposing a special licence for a four wheel drive, I suggest that a special licence would be required for any sort of commercial vehicle, remembering that a car licence currently allows you to drive vehicles larger, clumsier and more difficult to drive than many four wheel drives.


And how about the many rural kids who have never driven anything else?


No, I do not support a special licence for four wheel drives.

John

I am with JD on this. Most drivers over fifty learned on cars with unassisted steering, poor drum brakes, vastly inferior tyres, manual transmissions with non-synchro first and sometimes second as well. Some learned on sliding gear crash boxes from the 1920's. They learned to anticipate stopping, conserved brakes down steep descents, coped with loose steering, gave hand signals, nursed cars with poor cooling systems in our summer weather and on long hauls. Younger drivers could possibly be called aimers never having driven anything without power steering, always had auto transmissions, powerful four wheel disc brakes, and usually drive with windows closed, air con on and the music playing loudly oblivious to anything going on around them.

A graduated system of commercial vehicle licences is long overdue. No light truck licence until say two years on an open car licence without suspension or cancellation, then another two years of logged experience before stepping up to a medium truck, then a heavy rigid, then semi-trailer, and say another period of logged experience before being able to try for multi-combination. College training in occupational safety, loading techniques and load security, basic maintenance, trouble shooting, and repair to be mandatory. This would elevate truck driving to the status of a skilled trade.

[waynep]

Speak for yourself -John

I would never presume to speak for anyone else ....;)

But I knew the comment would get a few bites.

Still not convinced it's a bad idea though. Might discourage townies who don't really need one to think twice ? May help lessen these constant cries for 4WDs to be banned ?

Part of the test might be knowledge of and aptitude with the 4WD system, and basic 4WD techiques. How many complain on here about inexperienced people having 4WDs without knowing the basic elements and skills ? for that reason, I don't agree it's the same as commercial vehicles, that basically do drive the same as a car.

I had to go for my boat operators license a while back - easy peasy - don't see this as being a lot different.

[solmanic]

People probably already know my thoughts on this matter, but just in case here's the link... (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/84574-new-fraser-island-backpacker-4wd-rules.html#post1039320)

[vnx205]

Gawd :mad:

I'd like to ban city Sunday drivers from coming out into the country and getting in my way. They have no idea how to drive out in the country and should be BANNED, I say.

How much chance have I got - bugger all.


I'm with you .
City drivers in the country are the main cause of accidents in our area.
They have no idea.
Then we have foreign drivers on top of that who have absolutely no respect for our road rules.

It wasn't true in 2002 that the majority of accidents on country roads involve city drivers and it's not true now.

This extract from this source is just one article I have seen refuting this commonly held belief.
Media Release: TOO MANY LIVES WASTED ON COUNTRY ROADS (http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/798c8b072d117a01ca256c8c0019bb01/44237fb9247fb121ca256cb5007afde1%21OpenDocument)


An analysis of the 2002 road toll has revealed that country Victorians continue to be over represented in road fatalities, Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said today.

Mr Batchelor said that the country road toll had risen for the fifth consecutive year.

“An analysis of the 2002 country road toll should dispel once and for all the myth that it is city drivers who die on country roads,” Mr Batchelor said.

“Official statistics reveal that it is country drivers who are killed on country roads, and they are dying in unacceptable numbers."

[spudboy]

I had no thoughts on accidents when I posted that.

It just annoys the crap out of me when we get people driving 50Km/h in an 80 or even 100Km/h zone, where the roads are very windy (no overtaking points) and they won't pull over and let a huge tailback of traffic pass them. If they are happy at 50 - fine, but they should think about the frustration of the people stuck behind them.

Happens every fine weekend or holiday.

End of rant.....

[vnx205]

Sorry Spudboy.

I did a bit too much reading between the lines. :)

[JDNSW]

I would never presume to speak for anyone else ....;)

But I knew the comment would get a few bites.

Still not convinced it's a bad idea though. Might discourage townies who don't really need one to think twice ? May help lessen these constant cries for 4WDs to be banned ?

Part of the test might be knowledge of and aptitude with the 4WD system, and basic 4WD techiques. How many complain on here about inexperienced people having 4WDs without knowing the basic elements and skills ? for that reason, I don't agree it's the same as commercial vehicles, that basically do drive the same as a car.

I had to go for my boat operators license a while back - easy peasy - don't see this as being a lot different.

Why not go the whole hog and require a type endorsement on your licence as with aircraft? (Although I should point out that for most light aircraft this requirement was dropped years ago!)

I think the whole concept of special licencing like this is another example of the "qualificationitis" that we seem to have acquired over about the last twenty years - and the value of which is indicated on tonight's news, with the proprietor of a training establishment admitting that his house and four wheel drive came from cash payments for the answers to the exam questions - his establishment "trained" over 50% of those issued with a variety of qualifications (for NSW) in areas such as security guards and dangerous goods handling! Another example is the works of fiction produced as experience logs by learner drivers these days.

It would simply turn into another lot of red tape that does nothing except support more bureaucrats and parasites, just for the slight benefit of making a few people feel better.

You will not (I don't think) have seen me complaining about inexperienced people having four wheel drives - amused at perhaps, but they will learn.

As far as quieting the people wanting to ban four wheel drives - I don't think it would make any difference, except perhaps to encourage them to intensify their efforts.

Might perhaps discourage a few who don't need them from getting four wheel drives - but I don't necessarily think that is good; after all, where are the well looked after second hand ones going to come from if that source goes?

John

[JDNSW]

I am with JD on this. ..........

A graduated system of commercial vehicle licences is long overdue. No light truck licence until say two years on an open car licence without suspension or cancellation, then another two years of logged experience before stepping up to a medium truck, then a heavy rigid, then semi-trailer, and say another period of logged experience before being able to try for multi-combination. College training in occupational safety, loading techniques and load security, basic maintenance, trouble shooting, and repair to be mandatory. This would elevate truck driving to the status of a skilled trade.

The (post-war) car I got my licence on had mechanical brakes, beam axles; it had synchromesh, sort of, on the top three gears, but two of the three vehicles I learned on had two wheel brakes, none had synchromesh on any gears (although one had planetary gears), and the newest was nearly thirty years old!

I see where you are coming from on commercial licences, but I don't see it happening, at least not like that - there are too many occupations where truck driving, at least of light trucks, is a necessary part of the job. To some extent there is a graduated system once you get to medium rigid licences, but there is already a shortage of drivers, and making it harder to get a licence would not help. Probably help the railways though!

John

[Bigbjorn]

I had no thoughts on accidents when I posted that.

It just annoys the crap out of me when we get people driving 50Km/h in an 80 or even 100Km/h zone, where the roads are very windy (no overtaking points) and they won't pull over and let a huge tailback of traffic pass them. If they are happy at 50 - fine, but they should think about the frustration of the people stuck behind them.

Happens every fine weekend or holiday.

End of rant.....

Happens every day on the Pacific Highway particularly the stretches from Ballina to Grafton and Woolgoolga to Urunga. Main offenders are geriatrics towing caravans or driving motor homes.

[101 Ron]

You guys missed the point and main problem with the survey.
They asked PASSENGER CAR drivers about 4 wds in cities.
Why didnt they ask 4wd drivers about 4 wds in the cities or truck drivers.
The survey was done by a insurance company who would love to levy extra charges on 4 wds.
Another point is I live in the city of the shoalhaven.
Many years ago due to govt handouts the shoalhaven shire was turned into a city to get more funding.
The city I live in is a large country area.
The whole thing is unworkable crapp.

[Sleepy]

I'm with you .
City drivers in the country are the main cause of accidents in our area.
They have no idea.
Then we have foreign drivers on top of that who have absolutely no respect for our road rules.

Ahh you have to love those sweeping generalisations.
I've seen plenty of cockies with "no idea" too.;)
But I s'pose you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that:p


Hey while we're at it, can we ban doof-doof cars too?:mad:

[isuzurover]

Yeah - Queensland however uses the fantastically logical system of "number of cylinders" for passenger cars?!? :wacko:

I didn't have any complaints when I live there - I was paying a huge amount less for my 3.9L Isuzu diesel than people with a 3.5L v8 were :D

WA has rego based on tare weight - which makes more sense.

[rocket scientist]

Ahh you have to love those sweeping generalisations.
I've seen plenty of cockies with "no idea" too.;)
But I s'pose you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that:p


Hey while we're at it, can we ban doof-doof cars too?:mad:

I don't see it as a sweeping generalisation.
You don't have to live with idiot Melbourne drivers breaking every rule in the book just so they can get to the snow before it melts. And it happens every day, especially on weekends.
In nearly all cases it is an innocent local that is killed or seriously injured because of the actions of these people, and we are getting pretty sick of it.

I agree on the doof-doof cars. :mad:

[robzilla]

ahh there's lots of things i'd like banned from our roads, but the one common denominator across all of them is still the driver.

I can't speak for other cities, but in Melbourne, i'd say the most dangerous drivers are taxi drivers and young people in their li'l pink hatchbacks.

This is almost as useless as the P-Plate "no turbo, no V8" laws. There's no point changing cars when the drivers are still dickheads!

[solmanic]

It wasn't true in 2002 that the majority of accidents on country roads involve city drivers and it's not true now.
“Official statistics reveal that it is country drivers who are killed on country roads, and they are dying in unacceptable numbers.

This makes sense since accidents on country roads are more likely to be at high speed and therefore more likely to result in a fatality. The statistics may be different if number of "crashes" was researched. I would expect the smaller proportional number of fatalities in cities is just a result of more low-speed crashes resulting in only damage or injury.


It just annoys the crap out of me when we get people driving 50Km/h in an 80 or even 100Km/h zone, where the roads are very windy (no overtaking points) and they won't pull over and let a huge tailback of traffic pass them. If they are happy at 50 - fine, but they should think about the frustration of the people stuck behind them.

I for one have been frustrated by just as many country drivers driving slowly on country roads. The usual scenario involves farmer Joe pulling out of one of his driveways into a 100km/h stream of traffic and dawdling along in his beat up 'Cruiser or Hilux at 70km/h before pulling into another driveway or stopping in the next town. I think some contry folk deliberately drive slowly on highways near their places as some sort of passive-aggressive protest against interstate traffic. Alternatively some country townsfolk seem to get some perverse satisfaction from driving through their town at 50km/h on the main highway when the speed limit is 70km/h. Maybe they think they are doing it as a public safety service?!?

[solmanic]

I didn't have any complaints when I live there - I was paying a huge amount less for my 3.9L Isuzu diesel than people with a 3.5L v8 were

Yet another reason why I upgraded to the new 4cyl Defender. Td5's are charged the same rego in Qld as a 6cyl !!!

[solmanic]

Happens every day on the Pacific Highway particularly the stretches from Ballina to Grafton and Woolgoolga to Urunga. Main offenders are geriatrics towing caravans or driving motor homes.

But the real problem here is not the grey-nomads who are probably going as fast as their Kia Sorrento will let them towing a Jayco Expanda, it's the travesty of a highway that is the Pacific Highway which after all these years is still only two-way in most parts - especially around the NSW north coast.

Coffs Harbour bypass my arse! I'll believe it when I see it.

[Bigbjorn]

The stats reveal that it is rural locals who are the most killed in country areas. Visitors/tourists/through commercial traffic are not a major part of the figures. Probably due primarily to the drinking habits of locals who go to town to get a skinful, then drive home. Lax dui enforcement in country areas should take a lot of the blame. Local coppers tend not to want to upset locals as they and their families have to live in the community. One country sergeant once told me he only pinched locals for dui who were a menace to others by consistently getting full as a goog and driving. Others who "just had a few too many" were left alone. He said he may one day have to call on a cockie for assistance and did not want to be told that "you are the big tough copper, do it yourself".

Briefly, in Queensland, RID teams were sent without notice to country towns where the dui arrests were well below average and the local wallopers were made to man the roadside whilst one of the imports minded the station and phones so the pubs and clubs did not get a heads up from the station. Costs caused the cessation of this programme.

[Bigbjorn]

But the real problem here is not the grey-nomads who are probably going as fast as their Kia Sorrento will let them towing a Jayco Expanda, it's the travesty of a highway that is the Pacific Highway which after all these years is still only two-way in most parts - especially around the NSW north coast.

Coffs Harbour bypass my arse! I'll believe it when I see it.

The point is that the old fats will not look in their mirrors and pull over to let the long queues behind get past and get going. If I can pull a loaded trailer at 100-110 k's with a 23 year old Land Rover, then modern cars can too.

[Bigbjorn]

[QUOTE=solmanic;1055442]

I for one have been frustrated by just as many country drivers driving slowly on country roads. The usual scenario involves farmer Joe pulling out of one of his driveways into a 100km/h stream of traffic and dawdling along in his beat up 'Cruiser or Hilux at 70km/h before pulling into another driveway or stopping in the next town. QUOTE]

A long held dislike of mine. The cockie usually pulls out of his gate or lane in FRONT of a fast moving group of highway traffic, couldn't possibly wait one minute for the road to clear, takes half a mile to accelerate to 60-70 k's and dawdles along checking out the neighbours crops, stock, fences on his way to town.

[solmanic]

A long held dislike of mine. The cockie usually pulls out of his gate or lane in FRONT of a fast moving group of highway traffic, couldn't possibly wait one minute for the road to clear, takes half a mile to accelerate to 60-70 k's and dawdles along checking out the neighbours crops, stock, fences on his way to town.

And looking in the rearview mirror to check the dog hasn't fallen off the back and see how many suckers he's blocked I'm sure.

[Sleepy]

Look, let's face it.

There are:

Good drivers and bad drivers.
Impatient drivers and incompetent drivers.
Considerate drivers and selfish.
Locals and unfamiliar drivers.
Safe drivers and overconfident drivers.


To pigeon hole them to country and city is just silly.


Oh the farmers and the cowman should be friends......

YouTube - Tony Awards：Oklahoma ! " Farmer and the Cowman "