off-road license (?)

[lux201]

It seems that after the recent accident at Fraser Island some believe there might be a push for a compulsory acquisition of a special license to take your vehicle four wheel driving.. so, does that mean everyone with a steep driveway or those who go to the beach for a family holiday would need to get one? I wonder how they would define its requirements?

..rather than an additional license I believe some off-road training should be introduced as a basic requirement for passing on road licenses, cant hurt to be a little more prepared just in case one finds themselves in situation one day.

..while they’re at it some crash evasion/emergency response training wouldn’t hurt either

details: Fraser Island 4WD overloaded - ninemsn Video (http://video.msn.com/video.aspx'mkt=en-AU&brand=ninemsn&vid=99243933-2bc8-4cca-bb33-6e8fb2280d6a)

[Slunnie]

There has been some huge debate over the value of teaching advanced skills behind the wheel.

Does it improve the way you react or does it teach you skills that you might use to hoon.

Probably both, but I'm not sure that they need to teach 4WD skills for a car licence as to most it will be irrelevant and impractical.



I dont have any notable problem with a 4WD licence, but I think if needed that it should just be a short term sign off after a written pending a basic 4WD vet course with all of the normal outcomes achieved.

[easo]

Then what do people who own 4x4s already do?

[Slunnie]

Then what do people who own 4x4s already do?
Nothing. I cant see it happening. There would be waaaay to much controversy and the government wouldn't lose an election over it.

[101RRS]

Discussion is good but lets not fan this little fire - or it might take hold and we will all have get special licences.:(

Garry

[nealo]

Like it was said at the end of the frst interview...the vehicle was overloaded and occupants weren't wearing seatbelts, already breaking the law in 2 instances, so what was to say that having a "offroad licence" would make a diference anyway?

There have been several incidents, some tragic, in the dunes and beaches around here, and no amount of training/licensing/regulations would have made a difference in most cases. Apart from some genuine accidents, most are just down to plain stupidity.

I know each case is unique, but the ultimate responsibility come to the person behind the wheel.

[Debacle]

Lots of people have car licences and still cant drive well on the bitumen.

[weeds]

Lots of people have car licences and still cant drive well on the bitumen.

yup....i think there is way more carnage on the hiway leaving a lot more people affected

and.....go through the trip reports on this site, its amasing how many members are not wearing seatbelts......:angel:

[disco2hse]

They will never happen. They cannot happen and for one simple reason.

You can license people to drive on roads because roads are governed by statute. They are owned either by state or local government and the statutes that govern access to roads can therefore be policed.

Offroad is entirely different. Ownership is the first major factor and access privileges that ensue. Government agencies (e.g. police) do not have right of access without due cause, for example they have to actually know that someone is in the process of doing something that contravenes their license. They cannot sit and wait like they do on roads.

Put another way. If licensing was to be implemented there would be no effective way to police it without first removing people's right to privileged access to privately owned property. Can you see that happening? I can't.

Alan

[Jedimastermat]

There has been some huge debate over the value of teaching advanced skills behind the wheel.

Does it improve the way you react or does it teach you skills that you might use to hoon.

Probably both, but I'm not sure that they need to teach 4WD skills for a car licence as to most it will be irrelevant and impractical.



I dont have any notable problem with a 4WD licence, but I think if needed that it should just be a short term sign off after a written pending a basic 4WD vet course with all of the normal outcomes achieved.


Agree entirely Slunnie
I am one of those OHS people :angel: Actually im not and vastly different from the classical HR OHS person as im a scientist OHS person. I like to say I operationalise OHS i manage risk not eliminate it. I could eliminate it but wed never get out of bed.

As opposed to some of my supposedly claimed snake oil kin who OHSise operations eg bog everything down with admin and licenses and proport to live in a no risk world.:nazilock: pfffff

At a previous employer I actually got rid of advanced driver training for exactly that fact. Our insurance premiums went up. Some spark said, "your the OHS guy send them on advanced training". I said no its a crap idea. Got overuled. Did it. Premiums went through the roof. Lasted about three months as we had more accidents in the next three months than the last three years. Same idiot said "your the OHS guy get rid of it" :mad:
Funny same idiot oversaw the demise of a mutlination pharmacuetical company that no longer manufactures in Aust, funny that!

instead of risk management they went risk aversion, "oh i can drive on a skid pan I can get out of anything" ooops tree :eek:, ooops another car :eek:, ooops thats a big truck :eek:

As has been said before we are ment to have a license before we get on the road in a 2wd car yet how many people flaunt that one. What use is another 4wd license. Cant legislate stupidity.

mind you i did go a do a couple of 4wd recovery courses etc but i did it cause i wanted to learn not cause some politican masterass :wasntme: told me to!
cheers
mat

[lux201]

They will never happen. They cannot happen and for one simple reason.

You can license people to drive on roads because roads are governed by statute. They are owned either by state or local government and the statutes that govern access to roads can therefore be policed.

Offroad is entirely different. Ownership is the first major factor and access privileges that ensue. Government agencies (e.g. police) do not have right of access without due cause, for example they have to actually know that someone is in the process of doing something that contravenes their license. They cannot sit and wait like they do on roads.

Put another way. If licensing was to be implemented there would be no effective way to police it without first removing people's right to privileged access to privately owned property. Can you see that happening? I can't.

Alan

good point! but what about public areas like Fraser Island? but your right, to make these changes to licenses would be a difficult and complex task and most areas worth four wheel driving are too remote to police.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

They will never happen. They cannot happen and for one simple reason.

You can license people to drive on roads because roads are governed by statute. They are owned either by state or local government and the statutes that govern access to roads can therefore be policed.

Offroad is entirely different. Ownership is the first major factor and access privileges that ensue. Government agencies (e.g. police) do not have right of access without due cause, for example they have to actually know that someone is in the process of doing something that contravenes their license. They cannot sit and wait like they do on roads.

Put another way. If licensing was to be implemented there would be no effective way to police it without first removing people's right to privileged access to privately owned property. Can you see that happening? I can't.

AlanThat's an incredibly misleading statement.

The area between the high water-mark and the low water mark are by definition Crown-Land, meaning there is no private ovnership of the littoral zone.

The government, government agencies and Police can most certainly police Crown Land (i.e. that land not in private hands either by leasehold or freehold title). More importantly Police do not need a warrant to enter Crown Land (other than the "Queens warrant" that makes them Police in the first place). The Australian Road Rules discuss "Roads" and "Road related areas", this includes, parks available to be driven in (e.g. during a car show) or like some recreation areas like Stockton Beach and Fraser Island, footpaths and car-parks. The National Parks Service and State Forrests Departments can issue infringements for driving off the formed tracks, in-fact about the only place that you can drive off road is on private land or in areas where there are no restrictions.

Fraser Island already has speed limits in force, 80KPH on the beach and 35KPH on inland roads. If Queensland Police care to police it they are quite entitled to use their speed detection devices and issue as many infringements as they can find.

[Slunnie]

The police do sit on the eastern beach on Fraser Island.

[QLDMIKE]

Bring in licences for 4x4s, trailers, the whole lot.
Getting a licence for driving should be like getting a licence for flying.
You should have to complete so many hours, competencies and skills before being deemed competent and able to move onto the next licence.

Driving is a privilege and not a right. I should be able to look at the person driving toward me and feel safe and as it stands I do not.

Other than cancer and illnesses, cars would have to kill/injure more people each year than anything else. We try to get rid of cancer, vaccinate against known diseases and viruses, but realistically we have done to stop the carnage on the roads? Nothing revolutionary!

If 1000 people died in one tragic accident we would have a day of mourning, Coronial inquest and build a memorial.

I will stop my rant, however, someone in Government needs to take some leadership on this issue and improve it.

[D-Fender]

Bring in licences for 4x4s, trailers, the whole lot.
Getting a licence for driving should be like getting a licence for flying.
You should have to complete so many hours, competencies and skills before being deemed competent and able to move onto the next licence.

Driving is a privilege and not a right. I should be able to look at the person driving toward me and feel safe and as it stands I do not.

Other than cancer and illnesses, cars would have to kill/injure more people each year than anything else. We try to get rid of cancer, vaccinate against known diseases and viruses, but realistically we have done to stop the carnage on the roads? Nothing revolutionary!

If 1000 people died in one tragic accident we would have a day of mourning, Coronial inquest and build a memorial.

I will stop my rant, however, someone in Government needs to take some leadership on this issue and improve it.

I doubt the roads would be any safer than they are(n't) now if everyone had to have a pile of licenses to drive. And there would be a hell of a lot more people driving illegally.

For flying commercially you need 150 hours in a plane, and for a helicopter 105 hours. (correct me if I'm wrong)
To fly privately you need 40 hours for a plane, and 50 for helicopter license.

And, already now to get your P's you need at least 120 hours of driving. That's more than double the hours you need to fly an aircraft privately.

[rmp]

I doubt the roads would be any safer than they are(n't) now if everyone had to have a pile of licenses to drive. And there would be a hell of a lot more people driving illegally.

For flying commercially you need 150 hours in a plane, and for a helicopter 105 hours. (correct me if I'm wrong)
To fly privately you need 40 hours for a plane, and 50 for helicopter license.

And, already now to get your P's you need at least 120 hours of driving. That's more than double the hours you need to fly an aircraft privately.

!!!!

As an ex pilot and instructor I can assure you that the sort of training pilots get is in a different world to that of the average driver.

In fact, if people were forced to operate cars the way they are forced to operate aeroplanes the road toll would drop to almost nil.

That 40 hours for a PPL is the *minimum* time required, and you have to pass at least 2 maybe 3 seperate tests, and most of the 40 hours is 1 on 1 instruction. What isn't 1 on 1 is when you fly solo and the instructor will be watching circuits and bumps as you do most of it. That 40 hours also excludes the considerable amount study time required to pass the various non-trivial written tests, and also excludes preflights, postflights, planning etc. It's just airtime. The average private pilot has a much better understanding of the theory behind their machine than the average driver.

The 120 hours for drivers is mostly the blind leading the blind and I would suggest that 20 hours of quality instruction would be much more effective.

I'm all for extra driver training and a special 4WD license, provided to obtain it you need to complete a training course to a level of competency. And the same for a trailer license too. If you want to drive on your private property go ahead you don't even need a road license for that.

[Cairns Rob]

As a nationally recognised Cert IV 4wd instructor/assessor I don't see the need for an additional 4wd license. What is needed is to train all drivers properly in the first place. The governments new log book hours scheme is not appropriate and actually penalises people who do have the necessary skill specially if they have young families. Acquiring a drivers license is a privilege based on competence and attitude. A drivers license test should be more comprehensive and include aspects of defensive driving as a matter of course. Emergency braking, accident avoidance, basic vehicle handling dynamics, proof of judgment, concentration, foresight and basic vehicle maintenance should also be demonstrated. To grant a license without a trainee demonstrating competent emergency braking is ludicrous

Regards,
Rob Berrill (mhtml:%7BDBEEF267-BA4A-4AE1-B3F1-49C77755C13E%7Dmid://00000046/%21x-usc:http://www.aussieadtours.blogspot.com/)

[D-Fender]

About the flying I was just mentioning about the hours you need now to get your P's because QLDMIKE said "You should have to complete so many hours". But i do think that the drivers test should be actually be worth being called 'test', and there should be more to getting a license than just going and driving down the road for half an hour with a tester.

But what would having to hold a 4wd license do to 4wd hire places etc? If every tourist and backpacker had to have a 4wd license to hire one of their vehicles.

[scrambler]

SNIP

The 120 hours for drivers is mostly the blind leading the blind and I would suggest that 20 hours of quality instruction would be much more effective.


I was reflecting on the "blind leading the blind" theory a couple of days ago as I noticed yet another young driver driving in the rain with a 3-4 m following distance rather than 3+ seconds.

I think the present log book hours system probably dilutes the effect of good quality instruction. Even if the learner did get 20 hours of high-quality instruction, it would be less than 1/5th of their "experience", the rest driving with people who haven't had to sit a competence-based test of their driving in 30+ years.

[crump]

!!!!

As an ex pilot and instructor I can assure you that the sort of training pilots get is in a different world to that of the average driver.

In fact, if people were forced to operate cars the way they are forced to operate aeroplanes the road toll would drop to almost nil.

That 40 hours for a PPL is the *minimum* time required, and you have to pass at least 2 maybe 3 seperate tests, and most of the 40 hours is 1 on 1 instruction. What isn't 1 on 1 is when you fly solo and the instructor will be watching circuits and bumps as you do most of it. That 40 hours also excludes the considerable amount study time required to pass the various non-trivial written tests, and also excludes preflights, postflights, planning etc. It's just airtime. The average private pilot has a much better understanding of the theory behind their machine than the average driver.

The 120 hours for drivers is mostly the blind leading the blind and I would suggest that 20 hours of quality instruction would be much more effective.

I'm all for extra driver training and a special 4WD license, provided to obtain it you need to complete a training course to a level of competency. And the same for a trailer license too. If you want to drive on your private property go ahead you don't even need a road license for that.

the road toll will never drop to nil unless you remove moving objects travelling on the same path.The last big reduction in the road toll was the implementation of the seat belt. There have been smaller reductions with the advent of ABS, airbags, crumple zones etc..We are unlikely to see something as effective as the seat belt at increasing road accident survival anytime soon, driver training included.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

It will never happen. If you're a mum who has a 4wd for the school run because you like it you are not going to want to do a special licence test. That's not fun, and what if you fail? A big big vote looser, so it's never going to happen.

All governments have consistently chosen to do the revenue based road safety strategies, not the expensive or vote robbing ones that would actually work. This has been the pattern for as long as I can remember.

It's more likely that they will lower the speed limit and put police with lasers all over the beach (a "blitz") and crank up the propaganda to convince you that they are saving you from yourself. That way they make money, you think they are doing something. :)

There isn't any change to the safety or otherwise but you've got no way of ever knowing because they also control the statistics :)

[lardy]

Don't buy into it guys, it's another media hype thing, if the government brought this in there would be heaps of toysans rusting gently in paddocks as no one would have a license to drive.
then the amount of revenue that the government would miss out on would be massive from sales of brand spanking new motors ba humbug

[rangieman]

Yes i agree with the idea why , because i have special licences for a motorbike and several types of trucks a forklift and as a shooter i have a licence for that as well , it will just be another hidden tax as in all the licences i already have:eek:

[PhillH]

They don't need to bring in a special license. They don't need to bring in new laws. They just need to start policing the basic ones they have in place to protect us against ourselves already.

[isuzurover]

I was at an underground mine recently, and I looked through the assessment you need to do before driving an LV (4x4) on site. It was extremely detailed - including checking the battery fluid, checking the axles for leaks, keeping the vehicle in low range 4x4 underground, pointing it into a wall when parking, etc...

Most of the above applies to cars as well. I think the standard of the driving test could be improved (and standardised across Australia). I am not sure if a specific 4x4 licence is needed though.

[solmanic]

We had this debate a few months ago when the last tourist hired Troopie rolled on Fraser Island.

Incidentally, here are the last few threads on the subject with dates...

8th September 2009 (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/87548-7-injured-4wd-rollover-fraser-island-here-we-go-again.html)
26th July 2009 (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/84574-new-fraser-island-backpacker-4wd-rules.html)
18th April 2009 (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/77450-two-killed-fraser.html)
11th August 2008 (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/61314-fraser-island-accident.html)

Firstly, I am in favour of a specialised license classification for off-road vehicles. The problem however, is how to correctly define what specific vehicles should require this type of license endorsement. I have pasted my thoughts below from the last thread (along with some questions that were posed by other members) as I have given the matter considerable thought...

I've said it before and I'll say it again - introduce a license class for vehicles with a low-ratio gearbox. 18 months grace period for those of us who already have high/low ratio vehicles to get our licenses upgraded, then bring it into full force.

No way then can an unlicensed driver (especially one from overseas) be able to hire a 2 tonne Troopie and park it on it's lid on a beach somewhere!



What about a 4x4s without low-range??? (Auto gearboxes do a very good job of compensating for a lack of low-range...)

The only 4x4s I can think of without low range are soft-roaders anyway (I'm sure someone will enlighten me if there are other, serious ones). These are generally designed with more of an on-road bias so pose less of a threat to inexperienced drivers. Also without the swags of available accessories there is less chance of someone trying to take one to Fraser Island, and no regular hire company would let them anyway.


What about your 'lifestyle choice' family who want to own a Discovery but never select low-range??

Tough! The license class needs to be for the intended use of the vehicle. As far as I'm concerned, if you buy a "real" 4x4 you should be properly trained or get something more appropriate. We do it for motorcycles.



I see where you're going but I think it would be somewhat open to abuse... It'll also instantly kill off the 4wd market in Oz!


I personally think it will improve it. Most 4x4s sold here are not dual range and not capable of crossing the Simpson. We are only really talking about 20-odd actual vehicle models (that I can count off the top of my head). Manufacturers of these vehicles would just have to promote safe off-road driving by offering the equivalent of a motorcycle "Q-Ride" (not sure what other states have) to get purchasers' licenses upgraded to include the new class.



Most people would see those regs and say "Why would I want to upgrade my license?", the only people who would take up the option would be the more 'hardcore' 4x4 user. Then, if they don't have the option on their license, they will instantly discount anything with low-range as they won't want to take another test just to drive that type of car.


The point here is that tall, heavy, 4x4 vehicles pose a risk of injury or death to the inexperienced operator off-road which are different to risks faced by regular cars on-road. I would rather be forced to upgrade my license than have the government lock-up more and more bush tracks and interesting, 4x4 accessible wilderness areas because of litigation paralysis.



Finally, that will then lead to the bottom falling out of the Oz market for all 4x4s with a low-range gearbox (wether people would be using it or not). In turn, that would push up the price through the good old rules of supply & demand.


Like I said, this legislation would not affect most soft-roaders and that's where the real volume sales are anyway. The companies like Land Rover & Nissan but more importantly Toyota who produce some volume of dual-range 4x4 sales should be smart enough to make this work to their advantage. After all, Land Rover already have their own driver training scheme and use this as part of their appeal.

Maybe the regulations would need to include a nominated kerb weight and vehicle height or ground clearance (thinking of Suzuki Jimnys here which should also require the license IMO).


So this is how I see it working...

Using QLD as an example, introduce a new license class C4 (general cars are C). This means the motorist is licensed to drive off-road capable 4WD or AWD motor vehicles with a dual-range or low ratio (includes single-range vehicles with ultra-low first or crawler gears)gearbox and a kerb weight inexcess of 1800kg OR ground clearance inexcess of 190mm with a greater than 1 height:width ratio.

ie. heavy or tall purpose built off-road vehicles.

I'm sure some boffins would be able to refine this so the legislation doesn't incorrectly cover the wrong cars but it is just an idea. The rules above would therefore cover the Suzuki Jimny but not Subaru Forester as an example.

[lux201]

I see it this way, if I am to take a vehicle out onto any road where the safety of others and myself is placed in my hands I am happy to have myself and others take a license test to do so.. a 4wd drives different to a regular road vehicle as we know so therefore is it not logical to take a seperate test to qualify you to drive it? ..or simply a combined test to qualify you for both.
the proof is in the pudding, its not like playing golf, yours and others lives depend on your ability to control the vehicle you are driving.

[Bushie]

I would like some one to convince me that having a special license (4WD) would save lives. We have licenses now but ~1600 die each year on the roads. Now the reason may be speeding, stupidity or whatever but 99.99% of them have an appropriate class license for the vehicle they are driving.

Whether the test is 'proper' is a whole new debate.



Martyn

[JDNSW]

Bring in licences for 4x4s, trailers, the whole lot.
Getting a licence for driving should be like getting a licence for flying.
.......

For private pilots, the requirement for licence endorsements for types of single engined aircraft was dropped years ago (still need endorsements for retractable, conventional undercarriage etc).

I don't think the situation is comparable. The problem is rarely skills, but usually attitude, and more bureaucracy won't help.

John

[D-Fender]

I would like some one to convince me that having a special license (4WD) would save lives.

I'd like someone to convince me too :D. With a new '4wd license' there would be some 'training' and then a test to get it just like a normal license, but would it actually do any good? Yeah maybe it might teach some idiots to drive a bit better off-road, but maybe not.

It would also kick all the 4wd hire places in the nuts, very hard.

Tourists will come over for a nice holiday in our beautiful country, only to find they aren't allowed to hire a 4wd to actually see any of the country because they don't hold some 'off-road 4wd license' (read: another way to sponge money out of us all), then they go home and tell their friends they couldn't hire a 4wd and then nobody will come here for a holiday and the Australian tourism industry get's kneed in the groin.

Then there's those people who just don't care about the law, or about other people on the roads, (such as street racer types), driving around in their 4wd without bothering to get the license, tarring all 4wders as the same in the public eye.

I can just see this a another way for The Man to make everyone pay even more, just to live their lives.

All thanks to tourists killing themselves in 4wds. Which, would then be prevented because they wouldn't be able to hire them anymore.

It's probably pretty obvious, but I am against the idea of having to have a license to drive a 4wd.

[JDNSW]

.........
Firstly, I am in favour of a specialised license classification for off-road vehicles. ......

I am not. I suppose part of the reason is that, having driven four wheel drives on and off for over fifty years, I have to be convinced that I need a new licence. And I have no doubt that I would be charged to get such a licence for no benefit whatsoever.

The same logic could be applied to all the other types of vehicle that can be driven on a class C licence. Are you going to require a special licence to drive light trucks for example? Or campervans? How about those who learned to drive on a four wheel drive? How about a special licence to drive an older car with a higher centre of gravity? How about the limits this would place on employment?

As I see it, it would be simply more bureaucracy which would not have a significant impact on road safety - perhaps worth noting that according to MUARC large four wheel drives are under-represented in accidents, injuries and deaths (albeit not necessarily in the hands of teenagers!).

John

[Disco44]

They will never happen. They cannot happen and for one simple reason.

You can license people to drive on roads because roads are governed by statute. They are owned either by state or local government and the statutes that govern access to roads can therefore be policed.

Offroad is entirely different. Ownership is the first major factor and access privileges that ensue. Government agencies (e.g. police) do not have right of access without due cause, for example they have to actually know that someone is in the process of doing something that contravenes their license. They cannot sit and wait like they do on roads.

Put another way. If licensing was to be implemented there would be no effective way to police it without first removing people's right to privileged access to privately owned property. Can you see that happening? I can't.

Alan

In Queensland designated beaches like Fraser ,Double Island , North & South Straddie and Moreton Island are classed as Roads.All road rules apply and there is a police presence with the same powers as on highways.
John.
PS I'm sure other beaches in the state are also designated but these are the ones around my area.Do the same rules apply in other states?.

[rmp]

A 4WD license isn't going to save lives or help, what will help is training whether that goes with a licence or not, which is where I think Cairns Rob is going. What would not help at all, in fact have a detrimental effect, is a license without training as that just gives false confidence.

Re flying light aircraft; yes you don't need to be type-rated for each one as JD points out. However, if the aircraft is markedly different, for example retractable undercarriage...then you need a type rating. I don't see vehicles as being any different; certain types of vehicle are different to others so at some point you need training (think of it as training, with the license being a byproduct) to drive them.

Yes 4WDs may be under-represented in accidents but...that data needs to be analysed against the type of people that drive them and where they drive them. I would suggest that 4WD owners tend to be older and more rural and perhaps that would have an effect on the statistics, who knows, but that needs to be taken in whatever the correct context is.

I agree the road toll will never drop to nil, Crump, but it can go a lot further down, and the point of driver training is not to "increase the survival rate" but to avoid accidents in the first place. For evidence -- look at the business defensive driver companies do with large corporates who seen their accident rate drop after their drivers are trained, which more than repays their investment.

As to whether a license or training would ever be passed, well that's a another discussion and unfortunately the way we're governed has features that sometimes prevent ideal solutions being implemented. First figure out the solution, then work out what will be done, then get depressed over the difference ;-)

[lux201]

I would like some one to convince me that having a special license (4WD) would save lives. We have licenses now but ~1600 die each year on the roads. Now the reason may be speeding, stupidity or whatever but 99.99% of them have an appropriate class license for the vehicle they are driving.

Whether the test is 'proper' is a whole new debate.



Martyn

this is a valid argument and I agree, having just the license i.e. the piece of paper to say you can drive doesn’t make a good driver but I do think that if one were to take a course/test and learn more safety techniques and basic skills for driving a 4wd (as we are specifically referring to 4wd'ing here) and if this saves even just a single person from having a fatal accident then the reason for one having to get that license is justified.

[dmdigital]

Living where I am I routinely see people arrive in a remote area with a 4wd and no clue what so ever. I've managed over the years to recover a number of them from some interesting fixes.

I agree with the need for better driver training in general terms. I think the driver training for getting L's and P's in Australia really doesn't address as much as it should. I also think there is need for a degree of 4wd training if you are buying a 4wd and intend to use it as such. An interesting example of this is the LR Experience days to give people some idea of what their 4WD can do. I think if you are moving to a remote area for the first time though you need a little more tuition.

The sensible novices that move up here haven't a clue to start with but quickly team up with someone with more experience, ask questions and learn. I think there is an analogy to flying though. You don't start flying solo, you shouldn't start driving off-road any differently, the consequences aren't (most likely) going to be as severe but you need that guidance and knowledge.

[JDNSW]

..........

Yes 4WDs may be under-represented in accidents but...that data needs to be analysed against the type of people that drive them and where they drive them. I would suggest that 4WD owners tend to be older and more rural and perhaps that would have an effect on the statistics, who knows, but that needs to be taken in whatever the correct context is.
.........

The MUARC report I quoted from implied that the reason was "the type of person who chooses to drive a 4wd" which is similar to what you are saying, but not quite the same. And my experience (admittedly anecdotal) suggests that in fact most 4wd fatalities would be rural drivers, although not older ones. But the data in the report does point out that the driver is the most important factor, not the type of vehicle - in fact the vehicles with the highest safety ratings (sports cars) tended to the highest accident rates and deaths.

This does not support either a special licence or even special 4wd training - what it does support is attitude training (or testing). The problem is not actual driving skills, but the attitude - I suggest the same drivers who have accidents in four wheel drives are the ones who have accidents in other cars. I am reminded of an article I remember years ago where an aircraft insurance rep was asked how he decided whether an owner-pilot was a good risk, simply answered "Look at his driving record!"

John

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Here's a thought from the other side. What about mandating Dynamic Stability Control on all 4x4 hire vehicles? The industry won't be happy as it would stop them using older vehicles (which they do) but I reckon it would help.

I'm not saying it would be 100% effective but it would help in many of the cases. DSC is a very effective technology and gives a vehicle recovery powers that aren't available to drivers of conventional vehicles.

Has anyone got a disco or something with DSC that can comment on it's effectiveness on sand?

What's more it keeps the cost of fixing the problem off the government which will make the pollies happy. It kind of puts the cost of fixing the problem back onto the end users too.

[solmanic]

I'd like someone to convince me too :D. With a new '4wd license' there would be some 'training' and then a test to get it just like a normal license, but would it actually do any good? Yeah maybe it might teach some idiots to drive a bit better off-road, but maybe not.

It would also kick all the 4wd hire places in the nuts, very hard.

Then why couldn't they just become tour operators instead?

Tourists will come over for a nice holiday in our beautiful country, only to find they aren't allowed to hire a 4wd to actually see any of the country because they don't hold some 'off-road 4wd license' (read: another way to sponge money out of us all), then they go home and tell their friends they couldn't hire a 4wd and then nobody will come here for a holiday and the Australian tourism industry get's kneed in the groin.

Again, there is a way around this - and that is to have more people running guided tours. It might then solve a few of the other issues of having unsupervised backpackers running around in the bush feeding dingos and stepping on our fragile native grasses etc.

Then there's those people who just don't care about the law, or about other people on the roads, (such as street racer types), driving around in their 4wd without bothering to get the license, tarring all 4wders as the same in the public eye.

Not much that can be done about them, but in time it would thin out their numbers.

I can just see this a another way for The Man to make everyone pay even more, just to live their lives.

Cynic!

All thanks to tourists killing themselves in 4wds. Which, would then be prevented because they wouldn't be able to hire them anymore.

Touche?

It's probably pretty obvious, but I am against the idea of having to have a license to drive a 4wd.

I can't see why anyone on this forum would be afraid of having to get their license endorsed to drive a 4WD/ORV. Surely the only legitimate concern here would be any proposed cost in having to do so.


I am not. I suppose part of the reason is that, having driven four wheel drives on and off for over fifty years, I have to be convinced that I need a new licence. And I have no doubt that I would be charged to get such a licence for no benefit whatsoever.

Plenty of cockies on farms can ride bikes well enough too, but they still have to get a motorcycle license to ride out the gate.

The same logic could be applied to all the other types of vehicle that can be driven on a class C licence. Are you going to require a special licence to drive light trucks for example? Or campervans? How about those who learned to drive on a four wheel drive? How about a special licence to drive an older car with a higher centre of gravity? How about the limits this would place on employment?

Maybe you will, but for now we're talking specifically about numnuts putting Troopies on their lids. Part of the problem is simply that people mistakenly think 4WDs are the same as any other passenger car and drive them accordingly! Having a special license class for them will stop this assumption.

As I see it, it would be simply more bureaucracy which would not have a significant impact on road safety - perhaps worth noting that according to MUARC large four wheel drives are under-represented in accidents, injuries and deaths (albeit not necessarily in the hands of teenagers!).

The point here is not just that having a special 4WD/ORV license class will solve the problem completely. But it will definitely limit it. The main aim is to place some form of obstruction between the un-educated and the tool that will possibly kill them.

I repeat - is there anyone here who is afraid of taking another test to endorse themselves to drive their Land Rover? I think not. Are there people here who would resent having to pay for the privilege? I'm sure there are. So maybe license fees could be handled like dog registration or classic car insurance - club membership entitles you to a healthy discount.

[solmanic]

Here's a thought from the other side. What about mandating Dynamic Stability Control on all 4x4 hire vehicles? The industry won't be happy as it would stop them using older vehicles (which they do) but I reckon it would help.

Part of the problem with just mandating driver aids like DSC is that is perpetuates the notion that you can just drive a high, 4WD like any other car.

"Look honey, this new Nissota Troopatrol Cruiser-lux corners like it's on rails...
....have you noticed that the trees here seem to grow much more sideways...?"

[rmp]

Here's a thought from the other side. What about mandating Dynamic Stability Control on all 4x4 hire vehicles? The industry won't be happy as it would stop them using older vehicles (which they do) but I reckon it would help.

I'm not saying it would be 100% effective but it would help in many of the cases. DSC is a very effective technology and gives a vehicle recovery powers that aren't available to drivers of conventional vehicles.

Has anyone got a disco or something with DSC that can comment on it's effectiveness on sand?

What's more it keeps the cost of fixing the problem off the government which will make the pollies happy. It kind of puts the cost of fixing the problem back onto the end users too.

ESC (DSC) kills momentum in sand so it'd be no good and I can't see it being calibrated to work effectively in sand either. Unfortuantely, driving aids aren't the answer, fixing the driver is.

[rmp]

Part of the problem with just mandating driver aids like DSC is that is perpetuates the notion that you can just drive a high, 4WD like any other car.

"Look honey, this new Nissota Troopatrol Cruiser-lux corners like it's on rails...
....have you noticed that the trees here seem to grow much more sideways...?"

That is correct. There is a study somewhere that worked out that humans have a level of risk they are comfortable with and when other factors are reduced they simply take extra risks instead. For example, crossing the street; how many people here always wait for the green sign and cross at crossing? Yet the risk/benefit tradeoff is minimal. Similarly, people in safer cars drive faster. If you don't think that's correct how would you drive if you were certain the car would catch on fire with the slightest bump? Therefore, additional safety features are good, but come with disadvantages built in.

[d2dave]

Being a member of the Land Rover Owners Club Vic, before I am allowed to go on a club trip I must first have done a 4X4 driver course.

SWMBO and myself did this last Saturday. She was very nervous before we got there but she had a ball. I pushed her into it so she would not be so nervous as a passenger when I am 4X4ing and if something happens to me she can drive us out.

After her doing this I think I will find I might be a passenger more than I would like.

Dave.

[dmdigital]

ESC (DSC) kills momentum in sand so it'd be no good and I can't see it being calibrated to work effectively in sand either. Unfortuantely, driving aids aren't the answer, fixing the driver is.
In fact I'd go as far as saying driver aids can cause more problems. ABS is a classic example. It's a well known fact that in some accidents ABS has not aided because the driver isn't prepared for what it will allow them to do.

It all comes down to the driver understanding what the vehicle will do under given conditions.

[dmdigital]

Being a member of the Land Rover Owners Club Vic, before I am allowed to go on a club trip I must first have done a 4X4 driver course.

SWMBO and myself did this last Saturday. She was very nervous before we got there but she had a ball. I pushed her into it so she would not be so nervous as a passenger when I am 4X4ing and if something happens to me she can drive us out.

After her doing this I think I will find I might be a passenger more than I would like.

Dave.
Bet she wasn't half as nervous as when I let you drive the Puma;)

[Nobugs]

Look, most clubs require a course to be completed before any offroading can be done.

Therefore an easy solution would be mandatory club membership before you can drive a 4x4 off-road. This would be easy to police as we would just take club registration info to the rta (or relevant authority) and have a new liscense printed. I AM SURE IF U CAN AFFORD TO BUY A 4X4 YOU CAN AFFORD $50 FOR A NEW LICENSE. as far as tourists go they should be required to drive a test track with the hire company and competently demonstrate the required skills before going bush. The hire company then gives the driver a certificate showing they have done this (this option should only be acceptable when u show an overseas license. I had to prove i could drive a 4x4 in new zealand before i could hire it....why don't i have to here?

[disco2hse]

That's an incredibly misleading statement.

The area between the high water-mark and the low water mark are by definition Crown-Land, meaning there is no private ovnership of the littoral zone.


1. By proportion, how much crown owned land exists between the high and low water mark in Australia compared with privately owned or leased land? I would assume not much. By far the largest proportion will be inaccessible to agencies.

2. The beaches that are mentioned, are they zoned as public access/roads/etc.? If so then they come under the same statutes I mentioned earlier and can be policed.

Alan

[JDNSW]

Look, most clubs require a course to be completed before any offroading can be done.

Therefore an easy solution would be mandatory club membership before you can drive a 4x4 off-road. This would be easy to police as we would just take club registration info to the rta (or relevant authority) and have a new liscense printed. I AM SURE IF U CAN AFFORD TO BUY A 4X4 YOU CAN AFFORD $50 FOR A NEW LICENSE. as far as tourists go they should be required to drive a test track with the hire company and competently demonstrate the required skills before going bush. The hire company then gives the driver a certificate showing they have done this (this option should only be acceptable when u show an overseas license. I had to prove i could drive a 4x4 in new zealand before i could hire it....why don't i have to here?

I live in the bush, and have been driving four wheel drives for offroad fifty years. Why should I be required to pay for a new licence to drive to and from my own property? I hire an employee, who learnt to drive on a four wheel drive and has been driving one since his legs were long enough, why should he be required to buy a new licence before he can get a job. It makes no difference whether the licence fee is paid to a club or the RTA.

The assumption that "I AM SURE IF U CAN AFFORD TO BUY A 4X4 YOU CAN AFFORD $50 FOR A NEW LICENSE." is insulting to those who have been struggling with drought for the last ten years, mostly are driving the same four wheel drive they were ten years ago (longer in my case), and have no choice but to drive one.

Your proposal is totally city-centric and assumes four wheel drives are only used for recreation, which is not the case.

John

[disco2hse]

I had to prove i could drive a 4x4 in new zealand before i could hire it....why don't i have to here?

This would have nothing to do with ability but rather insurance. There is no licensing required for off-road use in NZ for the reasons I stated. There are however calls made from time to time to license boat skippers to try to enforce some regulation on behaviour - and every time it fails to get going because there is no practical (read that as cost effective) way to police it, just as there would be for off-road driving. In the same way, licensing is only useful when there exists an infrastructure to enforce drivers to get licensed and then to make sure they were abiding by the license restrictions.

Where things get different is if insurance companies start saying that unless a person is licensed to drive off-road then they are not covered.

As it is, one of the clubs I am a member of requires that new members prove they have done at least one off-road driving course before they can join and the reason for that is the club's insurers require it.

Alan

[3toes]

Was home for a few weeks in November driving in south east Queensland. Brisbane based going as far north as Bundaberg and west to Warwick.

Based on this small sample of on road driving would say that what is needed is a change in the way people think behind the wheel not more regulation. Australia has for some time now had a far more rigerous driver training regime than the UK yet the standard of driver behaviour I saw on the roads was well behind that in the UK.

It is the attitude of the nut behind the wheel that needs to improve. If correct as stated elsewhere on here and people were driving over loaded and not wearing seat belts well they just proved Darwins theory.

A good example is that accident in France a decade or so ago where they were speeding, drink driving and 3 out of 4 not wearing seat belts. Only survivor was the one in the front seat who was wearing a seat belt. Belt up and survive. If only someone had the guts to use it as a driver awareness compaign rather than tip toeing around being sensitive to those who died and looking for others to blame.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

ESC (DSC) kills momentum in sand so it'd be no good and I can't see it being calibrated to work effectively in sand either. Unfortuantely, driving aids aren't the answer, fixing the driver is.

How many systems have you tested in sand? What makes you say that? DSC is very dependent on the quality of the calibration. Have you driven and experience more than one system? Were they all the same?

Is it not possible that for a hire vehicle that would be exactly what you want?

Mitsubishi disables their DSC in low range which I am happy with. If you need it off to get through indian head, then low range it is and at least you won't be doing much more than 40 k :)

[rmp]

How many systems have you tested in sand?

I haven't kept count. Around 25 I think. And a driver or instructor, seen more in action.



What makes you say that? DSC is very dependent on the quality of the calibration. Have you driven and experience more than one system? Were they all the same?

Yes, as above. No, they're not all exactly the same, but they all have the same unfortunate effect in sand to a greater or lesser degree.



Is it not possible that for a hire vehicle that would be exactly what you want?

Mitsubishi disables their DSC in low range which I am happy with. If you need it off to get through indian head, then low range it is and at least you won't be doing much more than 40 k :)

Most manufacturers disable ESC in low range. Some vehicles disable it in high as soon as a CDL is locked. Some cannot be disabled. Others re-enable at a certain speed. All (I've tested) re-enable after an engine cycle under most conditions.

OK, this is a technical explanation of problem with Electronic Stability Control (to give it the correct generic name, DSC is Land Rover's version, same thing but marketing has give it a different moniker).

An ESC-equipped vehicle has a number of sensors which tell a computer things like:

- how fast the vehicle is travelling
- the rate of yaw
- individual wheel speeds
- angle of the steering wheel
- accelerator input
- some cars have a pitch and roll sensor too (FL2 for example)
- gear

and more.

From this the vehicle can work out if it is responding correctly to the driver input. For example, if the steering wheel angle is large yet the yaw rate is not consistent with the angle and the speed, then the system concludes the car must be understeering. If the yaw rate is great and the steering is shallow it's probably understeer. Simplistic examples but the point is the computer knows precisely what the car is doing. And it knows within nanonseconds, almost (but not quite) before the car actually starts to get out of control.

The computer then takes corrective action which is increasing or reducing brake pressure to individual wheels for a sort of skid-steer action to correct the course. It may, and this is also crucial for sand driving, chop the throttle. Once the computer is happy the car is now back on the intended track it gives up and lets the driver have control again.

Now anyone who's driven on sand will spot a problem with this. When on any sand but the hardest beaches the vehicle will wiggle around as it follows ruts, naturally understeer in soft sand, roll more around corners at a given speed than bitumen, shimmy as it goes up a dune...the list goes on and suffice it to say that vehicle dynamics on sand are quite different to those on a hard surface (bitumen or dirt) which is what ESC is designed for.

The problem is that ESC sees these shimmies, rolls and slips and decides the world is coming to an end. Compounding the problem is the fact that sand driving needs more throttle than normal driving. So, ESC does it's job -- it individually brakes each wheel, and starts to chop the throttle. Try driving up a dune like that. Simply, you can't. The faster you go, the more ESC kicks in. If you go too slow you don't have the momentum.

So ESC is not designed for sand and is a hindrance. This is why all sand driving courses, and indeed Land Rover themselves tell you to switch it off. Every single one of the ESC vehicles I've driven behaves the way I've described with ESC enabled on sand.

Could a ESC system be designed for sand? Possibly, but it would be very difficult and I really cannot see any manufacturer bothering with the extremely high development costs.

There is an argument for enabling ESC at higher sand speeds but that won't be effective either. At low speed you'd need it off for reasons as above. Let's say the threshold is 40kmph. Well, over 40 the vehicle can still be sliding and shimmying, and thus ESC will kick in. So make it 50? Or 60? Anyway, even if the beach was quite hard then I'd be cautious about enabling it because ESC is designed to presume the underlying surface is hard like dirt or bitumen, not soft, and thus it can be working against you even at higher speeds, and a hard beach is a lot softer than any bitumen. If you had a hard surface with a thin layer of sand then ESC would be fine, in fact excellent.

There is a lot more technical and dynamics discussion around this but hopefully that explains my point of view.

Note that ESC is a fantastic technology and as Cap RF says it is magically good in the environment for which it is designed, which is conventional roads and I for one support the move to make it mandatory. Problem is it doesn't work in sand, so my view is fix the problem by fixing the driver.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Thanks for that RMP. I'm well aware of how it works, and have driven several road cars with it and found it sublime on some and just annoying on others.

Anyway, if you've driven 25+ on sand and say that it's bad then that's good enough for me. :)

[rmp]

It's the same way on sand, the level of intervention varies but losing momentum on a road is just annoying, it won't stop you making it up a slope. On some higher-performance sports cars there a multiple positions from fully on to entirely off. Most 4WDs just have on and off, and off is usually down to around 10-30% of 'on' so it'll still kick in, but only really late, too late to correct a skid, maybe enough to reduce the impact and enough to stop people drifting ;-) 4WD off modes all work fine for sand. Some vehicles like gen 1 Klugers cannot disable it at all which is a problem.

ESC is also a problem in muddy ruts for the reason reasons.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

It's the same way on sand, the level of intervention varies but losing momentum on a road is just annoying, it won't stop you making it up a slope. On some higher-performance sports cars there a multiple positions from fully on to entirely off. Most 4WDs just have on and off, and off is usually down to around 10-30% of 'on' so it'll still kick in, but only really late, too late to correct a skid, maybe enough to reduce the impact and enough to stop people drifting ;-) 4WD off modes all work fine for sand. Some vehicles like gen 1 Klugers cannot disable it at all which is a problem.

ESC is also a problem in muddy ruts for the reason reasons.

What is going to happen when it becomes mandatory (Didn't I hear that was happening)? There are going to be a lot of useless 4wds out there :eek:

[rmp]

Yes it will be mandatory from I think 2011, but for some reason Victoria wants to go ahead of the other states. It will apply only to sales new vehicles, not existing ones as ESC cannot be retrofitted (just not economically viable).

It won't be a problem anyway because we can just disable it when we need to and almost all 4WDs can do that. The legislation says it must be fitted, not enabled, although personally I think you'd be mad to have it and not enable it onroad or dirt road.

This comes back to DM's point about drivers needing to understand their vehicles, he was talking about ABS but the point is also valid for ESC.

Off the top of my head from the wagons only the Patrol, Defender and 76 don't have ESC these days.

For the moment utes and the like won't be forced to have ESC, although I can see that happening, probably 2015 (just a guess). It is another nail in the coffin of the Defender as we know it, and for that matter the 7x Series. The Patrol died some time ago, Nissan just didn't realise.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

1. By proportion, how much crown owned land exists between the high and low water mark in Australia compared with privately owned or leased land? I would assume not much. By far the largest proportion will be inaccessible to agencies.

2. The beaches that are mentioned, are they zoned as public access/roads/etc.? If so then they come under the same statutes I mentioned earlier and can be policed.

Alan1. On places like Fraser Island at low tide there is enough area in the littoral zone to have a 4 to 6 lane expressway. At places like Broome and across the top end the littoral zone can be hundreds of metres wide.

Beaches are crown land and mostly under the control of local government. That is why most beaches in NSW have beach driving prohibited. If you can drive to the beach, so can someone who polices it.

2. That is quite a change from blanket statement in your original post.

[disco2hse]

2. That is quite a change from blanket statement in your original post.

No its not.

I said:


You can license people to drive on roads because roads are governed by statute. They are owned either by state or local government and the statutes that govern access to roads can therefore be policed.

Offroad is entirely different. Ownership is the first major factor and access privileges that ensue. Government agencies (e.g. police) do not have right of access without due cause, for example they have to actually know that someone is in the process of doing something that contravenes their license. They cannot sit and wait like they do on roads.

Put another way. If licensing was to be implemented there would be no effective way to police it without first removing people's right to privileged access to privately owned property. Can you see that happening? I can't.

Public rights of way, e.g. beaches where driving is allowed, can be policed because they are covered under statute.

Alan

[JohnF]

Years ago, myself and others took 2 wheel drive VW beetles up Frazer Island. You do not necessarily need 4WD for Frazer, so why penalise those in 4wd's. Also took my VW Beetle up other roads marked 4 wheel drive only. I do think owners of 4WD should not be penalised for afew idiots.

Perhaps hire companies should be made to inform hirers of the dangers of a 4wd before they hire it to them. Once I hired a small 2 ton pantec truck to move a friend into a new flat. I was not familiar with that sort of vechile, so took it easy, and had no problems. Surely I should not have to have special tests and licences before I hire such a vechile.

Some years ago we purchased a Ford XC Falcon station waggon that had stiff springs fitted fortowing a caravan. Its handling was terrible, the rear sliding out on evry corner. No 4WD that I have ever driven has handled as bad as that 2WD. Yet people want to introduce special licences for 4WD. How silly.

[solmanic]

I live in the bush, and have been driving four wheel drives for offroad fifty years. Why should I be required to pay for a new licence to drive to and from my own property? I hire an employee, who learnt to drive on a four wheel drive and has been driving one since his legs were long enough, why should he be required to buy a new licence before he can get a job. It makes no difference whether the licence fee is paid to a club or the RTA.

The assumption that "I AM SURE IF U CAN AFFORD TO BUY A 4X4 YOU CAN AFFORD $50 FOR A NEW LICENSE." is insulting to those who have been struggling with drought for the last ten years, mostly are driving the same four wheel drive they were ten years ago (longer in my case), and have no choice but to drive one.

Your proposal is totally city-centric and assumes four wheel drives are only used for recreation, which is not the case.

The proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with city vs country. Let's remember that the catalyst is foreign tourists tipping over 4WDs. Having said that, I do agree that city drivers in general have less exposure to off-road driving conditions and therefore less ability to learn the skill than a country driver.

To reject such a proposal simply because you feel like being forced to prove your ability at something you know you're already an expert at just makes no sense. What if everybody had that attitude when driving tests were first introduced? Some things like this you just have to suck up and do what's required and get on with your life. I don't see any point in opposing the idea so I plan to get on board and push for it.

I am not totally sold on the idea of club membership being a valid alternative to out and out government regulation through licensing. But I still believe club membership should qualify you for a discount as it shows a greater than average commitment to the skill of off-road driving. In your case, the same discount could be applied as a primary producer.

[JDNSW]

The proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with city vs country. Let's remember that the catalyst is foreign tourists tipping over 4WDs. Having said that, I do agree that city drivers in general have less exposure to off-road driving conditions and therefore less ability to learn the skill than a country driver.

To reject such a proposal simply because you feel like being forced to prove your ability at something you know you're already an expert at just makes no sense. What if everybody had that attitude when driving tests were first introduced? Some things like this you just have to suck up and do what's required and get on with your life. I don't see any point in opposing the idea so I plan to get on board and push for it.

I am not totally sold on the idea of club membership being a valid alternative to out and out government regulation through licensing. But I still believe club membership should qualify you for a discount as it shows a greater than average commitment to the skill of off-road driving. In your case, the same discount could be applied as a primary producer.

The proposal has everything to do with city vs country. You assume that a driver has no expertise in offroad driving - i.e. that the driver has no experience except in a normal car. This is not necessarily the case and is likely to be a reverse situation when you are talking about a driver who has grown up on a property. What next? A special licence to drive an ordinary car?

What you do not appreciate, is that quite apart from the city/country aspect, the normal car licence allows drivers to drive a wide variety of vehicles, including light trucks and vans which are arguably even more different from a car than are typical four wheel drives. Introduction of a four wheel drive licence logically requires similar licences for these vehicles. This requirement would greatly limit the employment opportunities of a lot of people, both city and country.

And there is no evidence to suppose that a separate licence would do anything significant for safety, because the problem is largely one of attitude, not knowledge or skills - it would simply be another bit of bureaucracy added to a society that is already suffocating in red tape.

John

[solmanic]

What you do not appreciate, is that quite apart from the city/country aspect, the normal car licence allows drivers to drive a wide variety of vehicles, including light trucks and vans which are arguably even more different from a car than are typical four wheel drives. Introduction of a four wheel drive licence logically requires similar licences for these vehicles. This requirement would greatly limit the employment opportunities of a lot of people, both city and country.

I still think you're making it into a city vs country thing (why?). To suggest a country driver who has only known 4WDs might need a regular car license is like suggesting someone with a manual license needs to get special endorsement to drive an automatic. Using the manual vs automatic concept I suggest that country drivers - if they only have access to 4WDs - would in fact take the regular car and 4WD driving tests together and get the 4WD/off-road vehicle classification straight away.

As for types of vehicles, the fact is that people continue buying large 4WDs for everyday driving where they would not think of buying a light truck or van. Consequently the problem exists where people don't realise that large 4WDs handle differently to regular cars, but I doubt whether anyone would ever make the same assumption about a light truck. It is the problem of people's failure to respect the limitations of the vehicle that gets them into trouble. This problem is in fact not helped by the manufacturer's continued engineering of large 4WDs to have similar power/weight ratios and suspension setups to regular cars thereby lulling users into a false sense of security when they drive - on or off road.

[solmanic]

If people are wondering why I keep banging on about the idea of an off-road vehicle license classification, one reason is that I am damn proud of the off-road knowledge and skills I have learnt and am aware of the unique abilities and limitations my Land Rover. I think it's high time something was done to stop any half-wit turning up to a dealership and plonking down some cash for a new Hummer then promptly wasting themselves, or worse the family in an oncoming Daewoo, on the first hairpin. A special license classification basically declares that I have this knowledge and skill and am therefore privileged to be allowed to drive the relevant vehicles.

On the topic of how training & testing might be implemented, one idea floated on an earlier thread was that dealers could in fact run training & testing for purchasers of 4WDs much like the Q-ride courses in QLD for motorcycle riders wanting to get straight on a bike over 250cc. The option would exist for customers to have the training thrown in with their purchase as an incentive, or people who already have their license could get a discount on the vehicle.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

If people are wondering why I keep banging on about the idea of an off-road vehicle license classification, one reason is that I am damn proud of the off-road knowledge and skills I have learnt and am aware of the unique abilities and limitations my Land Rover. I think it's high time something was done to stop any half-wit turning up to a dealership and plonking down some cash for a new Hummer then promptly wasting themselves, or worse the family in an oncoming Daewoo, on the first hairpin. A special license classification basically declares that I have this knowledge and skill and am therefore privileged to be allowed to drive the relevant vehicles.

Now both you and John should know that you are both people who's opinions I greatly respect. :)

I think John's point is that the scenario you suggest of someone that doesn't need a 4wd coming into a dealer and buying one with no intention of using it off road because they have a small penis or some other insecurity just doesn't happen (often) in the country. People out there buy them because they need them, and they have probably been driving all manner of machinery (that includes the girls) since they were kids. So, it really is a city only problem, and an extra licence is just an added impediment to life.

In my experience, people in the country use 2wd cars for things that city folk would never dream of.

[isuzurover]

If people are wondering why I keep banging on about the idea of an off-road vehicle license classification, one reason is that I am damn proud of the off-road knowledge and skills I have learnt and am aware of the unique abilities and limitations my Land Rover. I think it's high time something was done to stop any half-wit turning up to a dealership and plonking down some cash for a new Hummer then promptly wasting themselves, or worse the family in an oncoming Daewoo, on the first hairpin. A special license classification basically declares that I have this knowledge and skill and am therefore privileged to be allowed to drive the relevant vehicles.

On the topic of how training & testing might be implemented, one idea floated on an earlier thread was that dealers could in fact run training & testing for purchasers of 4WDs much like the Q-ride courses in QLD for motorcycle riders wanting to get straight on a bike over 250cc. The option would exist for customers to have the training thrown in with their purchase as an incentive, or people who already have their license could get a discount on the vehicle.

I thought the issue at stake here was tourists in hire 4x4s, not people who buy them from a dealer...

Do we make tourists do this test before they hire a 4x4? The situation would be unworkable. A tourist from Germany with a (car) drivers licence has to go through a far more rigorous series of tests than any which exist in Australia, and are much better drivers on average - probably on and off road. If we make 1 EU country exempt from the tests, I am sure we would need to make all...

I agree completely with JDNSW's comment about - if a 4x4 licence is required, what about the other vehicles???

A standard licence lets you drive:
A car
An all wheel drive car
A soft roader
A 4x4
A light rigid truck
A minibus (<=12 seats)
A moped/scooter <50cc
probably a few others I have forgotten...

Which of those do we bring in a special licence for??? How do we decide what a 4x4 is? Does a freelander owner need one? What about a renault scenic owner? Subaru outback? Subaru WRX? What about a special licence for turbocharged cars? Or front wheel drives?

Completely unworkable. Improve the standard of the driving test(s) by all means, so people know how to drive in all conditions, have an understanding of their vehicle and issues like CofG...

[d2dave]

I live in the bush, and have been driving four wheel drives for offroad fifty years. Why should I be required to pay for a new licence to drive to and from my own property? I hire an employee, who learnt to drive on a four wheel drive and has been driving one since his legs were long enough, why should he be required to buy a new licence before he can get a job. It makes no difference whether the licence fee is paid to a club or the RTA.

The assumption that "I AM SURE IF U CAN AFFORD TO BUY A 4X4 YOU CAN AFFORD $50 FOR A NEW LICENSE." is insulting to those who have been struggling with drought for the last ten years, mostly are driving the same four wheel drive they were ten years ago (longer in my case), and have no choice but to drive one.

Your proposal is totally city-centric and assumes four wheel drives are only used for recreation, which is not the case.

John

A bit off topic here but I have the same feelings with my chainsaw.
I have been using a chainsaw on a regular basis for about 30 years.

Now if I joined the SES or if I helped out with the bushfire recovery I would not be allowed to use my chainsaw without doing a course.

As I see it, it is their loss as they are missing out on a volunteer.

You can call me pig headed if you like but what I don't need is some young 22 year old upstart who has just come out of uni with a piece of paper telling him he can teach me. I could probably teach him more.

Off topic I know, so Mods feel free to remove this post if you see fit.

Dave.

[JDNSW]

A bit off topic here but I have the same feelings with my chainsaw.
I have been using a chainsaw on a regular basis for about 30 years.

Now if I joined the SES or if I helped out with the bushfire recovery I would not be allowed to use my chainsaw without doing a course.

As I see it, it is their loss as they are missing out on a volunteer.

You can call me pig headed if you like but what I don't need is some young 22 year old upstart who has just come out of uni with a piece of paper telling him he can teach me. I could probably teach him more.

Off topic I know, so Mods feel free to remove this post if you see fit.

Dave.

In general I would agree with you.

In this area as with driving, I think the major factor for safety is not so much what bit of paper a person has, or even what their skill level is, but how accurate they are at assessing their own ability. For example, I do not consider my skill with a chainsaw is adequate for this sort of work, so i don't try it. But I know a number of people without the bit of paper that are a lot better than some that have it.

John

[123rover50]

Years ago, myself and others took 2 wheel drive VW beetles up Frazer Island. You do not necessarily need 4WD for Frazer, so why penalise those in 4wd's. Also took my VW Beetle up other roads marked 4 wheel drive only. I do think owners of 4WD should not be penalised for afew idiots.

Perhaps hire companies should be made to inform hirers of the dangers of a 4wd before they hire it to them. Once I hired a small 2 ton pantec truck to move a friend into a new flat. I was not familiar with that sort of vechile, so took it easy, and had no problems. Surely I should not have to have special tests and licences before I hire such a vechile.

Some years ago we purchased a Ford XC Falcon station waggon that had stiff springs fitted fortowing a caravan. Its handling was terrible, the rear sliding out on evry corner. No 4WD that I have ever driven has handled as bad as that 2WD. Yet people want to introduce special licences for 4WD. How silly.

Right on, makes no difference how many wheels drive, its more a size or weight factor. There is too much Govt intervention now. If you drive something that is not familiar, then you take it easy. If you are driving in unfamiliar territory, you take it easy. You cant legislate to controll everything. There will always be idiots.

[rmp]

Mr W illustrates a classic case.

He has a competence based on 30 years experience. Therefore, he needs no test to prove his ability with a saw. Let's say that is the case.

What about Mr X who has 25 years?

Mr Z with 20 ? Or 15? Or 10 Or 5? Or 2?

Where does it stop?

Or, can anyone with a chainsaw rock up and claim ability and then set to?

There has to be a limit somewhere. Rather than years of experience the ability to carry out a task is measured by a test -- if you can pass the test after ten minutes, great, if you can't after 30 years, tough. Much fairer way to do it.

Those that do have an ability generally don't have an issue proving the point by quickly passing whatever test they are asked.

Just because you know you can do something doesn't mean to say everyone else should agree and take that on trust. It's not personal.

Now there are those and I don't doubt there are plenty of this forum, who have an ability AND do not wish to take any test/get any license. I wish they could see it is not a doubt of their ability or a personal slight it is merely an equitable standard for everyone.

Having 'the bit of paper' doesn't make you an expert. All it means is that you have met a certain standard. Of course some non-holders would be more expert. That's irrelevant.

You may be sensible, intelligent and skilled but how are other people meant to know that? Because you tell them?

Also, maybe it's just me, but every time I do a training course I learn a little more, even if I'm teaching it. So those with eons of experience shouldn't think they have nothing left to learn. Or maybe that's just me and there are people who do know it all.

Re 4WD licenses. Again the objective is better training, whether or not related to a license, special or otherwise. I think special licenses could work, but it's the training that's the key.

Please note I don't doubt Mr W's chainsaw skills, but if I was in charge of the SES group I wouldn't let someone in based on their word, it'd have to be a test.

[solmanic]

I thought the issue at stake here was tourists in hire 4x4s, not people who buy them from a dealer...

Do we make tourists do this test before they hire a 4x4? The situation would be unworkable. A tourist from Germany with a (car) drivers licence has to go through a far more rigorous series of tests than any which exist in Australia, and are much better drivers on average - probably on and off road. If we make 1 EU country exempt from the tests, I am sure we would need to make all...

I agree that Germany has a better (more thorough) licensing regime, but it doesn't in any way teach them 4x4/off-road skills. Snow driving - yes, autobahn driving - yes, but off-road technique and on-road handling of tall, 4x4 vehicles - no.

I agree completely with JDNSW's comment about - if a 4x4 licence is required, what about the other vehicles???

A standard licence lets you drive:
A car
An all wheel drive car
A soft roader
A 4x4
A light rigid truck
A minibus (<=12 seats)
A moped/scooter <50cc
probably a few others I have forgotten...

Which of those do we bring in a special licence for??? How do we decide what a 4x4 is? Does a freelander owner need one? What about a renault scenic owner? Subaru outback? Subaru WRX? What about a special licence for turbocharged cars? Or front wheel drives?

Completely unworkable. Improve the standard of the driving test(s) by all means, so people know how to drive in all conditions, have an understanding of their vehicle and issues like CofG...

You need to read my post a few pages back. I went to great lengths to explain a possible way that they could classify which vehicles might require the extra license endorsement based on height-width ratio, low range transfer box etc.

[solmanic]

A bit off topic here but I have the same feelings with my chainsaw.
I have been using a chainsaw on a regular basis for about 30 years.

Now if I joined the SES or if I helped out with the bushfire recovery I would not be allowed to use my chainsaw without doing a course.

As I see it, it is their loss as they are missing out on a volunteer.

You can call me pig headed if you like but what I don't need is some young 22 year old upstart who has just come out of uni with a piece of paper telling him he can teach me. I could probably teach him more...

IMHO it is a bold and foolish thing to ever think you know too much to let someone else can teach you - no matter what their age is. Sure, we may resent having to be tested and licensed to drive our Landys since we are all so experienced and it's our birthright and so on, but I'll do it anyway.

I've been around a lot of skiing instructors and that sport is a classic example of where old dogs have had to learn new tricks based on updated knowledge and technique. Times change and so does technology and collective knowledge of a subject, so a young graduate can be better informed than someone who has been working in a field for 20 years if they haven't done some sort of continuing professional development.

So to bring this back on topic... hey, some people might just learn something if they are forced to do an off-road vehicle driving test.

[isuzurover]

You need to read my post a few pages back. I went to great lengths to explain a possible way that they could classify which vehicles might require the extra license endorsement based on height-width ratio, low range transfer box etc.

You ignored most of my points...

I waded back to page 3. There wasn't much point... Your solution had something to do with "boffins" whoever they may be...

You have ignored the fact that most MY(1) and L series subarus have dual range t-cases and a high ground clearance (they come with 2" of factory suspension adjustment)

What about a light rigid 4x4 truck???

What about vehicles with a high c of g and/or ground clearance (higher than a dual range 4x4) that aren't 4x4?

What about vehicles which just scrape in under the rules, but with a lift kit or larger tyres fitted???

EDIT:

Re what Whippy said...

In WA they recently introduced a (stringent) boat skippers licence. Anyone who already owned a boat could get the licence without doing a test... All interstate licenced skippers can change their licence over - despite the fact that they are usually less stringent...

[rmp]

I thought the issue at stake here was tourists in hire 4x4s, not people who buy them from a dealer...


That's what started it, but it's gone a bit wider ;-)



Do we make tourists do this test before they hire a 4x4? The situation would be unworkable.


As unworkable as bodies strewn across a beach.

With the correct training you can get up to a competency level very quickly. Yes, many tourists would not choose to do it, but look at the alternative. Deaths. And how many tourists are choosing not to go 'dangerous Australia' because they hear about these things? How many parents are banning their children from touring Fraser while backpacking?

I'd rather fewer tourists and they all live than more and some dead.



A tourist from Germany with a (car) drivers licence has to go through a far more rigorous series of tests than any which exist in Australia, and are much better drivers on average - probably on and off road. If we make 1 EU country exempt from the tests, I am sure we would need to make all...


Onroad driving training is not the same as offroad and particuarly sand. In fact, if you are an expert in one type of driving with no experience in another that expertise can work against you, as well as for you. For example, having taught race drivers offroading the concept of lower tyre pressures to them is very, very wrong and their steering wheel grip is great for the track but no good offroad. In other words it doesn't matter how good you are on the road, that doesn't qualify you to drive on a soft beach.




I agree completely with JDNSW's comment about - if a 4x4 licence is required, what about the other vehicles???


There would be ways of categorising vehicles. An "Offroad and 4WD" license could cover anything with low range and basic offroad techniques. A subset of that could be beach/sand license where you just go through the differences between a roadcar and a 4WD, and the only offroad terrain would be sand. It's not impossible.

[Disco44]

You ignored most of my points...

I waded back to page 3. There wasn't much point... Your solution had something to do with "boffins" whoever they may be...

You have ignored the fact that most MY(1) and L series subarus have dual range t-cases and a high ground clearance (they come with 2" of factory suspension adjustment)

What about a light rigid 4x4 truck???

What about vehicles with a high c of g and/or ground clearance (higher than a dual range 4x4) that aren't 4x4?

What about vehicles which just scrape in under the rules, but with a lift kit or larger tyres fitted???

EDIT:

Re what Whippy said...

In WA they recently introduced a (stringent) boat skippers licence. Anyone who already owned a boat could get the licence without doing a test... All interstate licenced skippers can change their licence over - despite the fact that they are usually less stringent...

Where did you get info from? Qld has had licenses for over4HP for years and it ain't easy to get.The recreational fish masters license (Qld) does not cover jet ski's that is another verbal & practical test in itself.Up until about 18 months ago WA was open slather,no license required. WA "wait awhile"
John

[solmanic]

You ignored most of my points...

There were only really two points - one about the different levels of competency of foreign tourists based on their home country's driver training and the point about whether we should introduce license classes for other abnormal types of "cars".

I waded back to page 3. There wasn't much point... Your solution had something to do with "boffins" whoever they may be...

There was more to it than that so here it is again for you...

Using QLD as an example, introduce a new license class C4 (general cars are C). This means the motorist is licensed to drive off-road capable 4WD or AWD motor vehicles with a dual-range or low ratio (includes single-range vehicles with ultra-low first or crawler gears)gearbox and a kerb weight inexcess of 1800kg OR ground clearance in excess of 190mm with a greater than 1 height:width ratio.

ie. heavy or tall purpose built off-road vehicles.

I'm sure some boffins would be able to refine this so the legislation doesn't incorrectly cover the wrong cars but it is just an idea. The rules above would therefore cover the Suzuki Jimny but not Subaru Forester as an example.

I'm not saying this is the ultimate solution to the problem of how to correctly classify what 4x4s would need an off-road license, but just trying to demonstrate that it can be done with a bit of careful thought so the right vehicles are covered and wrong vehicles don't get caught up. If I was a manufacturer of 4x4s, I would want people to know my vehicle was classified C4 so they know it is a serious off-roader. Surely there is a positive marketing angle to this.

You have ignored the fact that most MY(1) and L series subarus have dual range t-cases and a high ground clearance (they come with 2" of factory suspension adjustment)

Do they have greater than 190mm ground clearance? Then they would be classified C4. My whole theory about how vehicles might be classified is based on width:height ratio, the major contributing cause to non-car like handling. Under my suggested system if the vehicle is too high or heavy with low-range then it would be classified as a fully capable off-road vehicle and you would be required to have the appropriate license.

What about a light rigid 4x4 truck???

See above...

What about vehicles with a high c of g and/or ground clearance (higher than a dual range 4x4) that aren't 4x4?

If they're are not 4x4 but have high ground clearance then they are probably not designed to go off-road and a user would not be expected to have any particular off-road knowledge.

What about vehicles which just scrape in under the rules, but with a lift kit or larger tyres fitted???

If you lift a soft-roader to the point that it exceeds 190mm ground clearance, then if it had a dual-range gearbox it would have to be re-classified. Just like adding more than 12 seats to a minibus.

EDIT:

Re what Whippy said...

In WA they recently introduced a (stringent) boat skippers licence. Anyone who already owned a boat could get the licence without doing a test... All interstate licenced skippers can change their licence over - despite the fact that they are usually less stringent...

You realise we have had a carbon copy of this debate in July don't you?

[td express]

As a nationally recognised Cert IV 4wd instructor/assessor I don't see the need for an additional 4wd license. What is needed is to train all drivers properly in the first place. The governments new log book hours scheme is not appropriate and actually penalises people who do have the necessary skill specially if they have young families. Acquiring a drivers license is a privilege based on competence and attitude. A drivers license test should be more comprehensive and include aspects of defensive driving as a matter of course. Emergency braking, accident avoidance, basic vehicle handling dynamics, proof of judgment, concentration, foresight and basic vehicle maintenance should also be demonstrated. To grant a license without a trainee demonstrating competent emergency braking is ludicrous

Regards,
Rob Berrill (mhtml:%7BDBEEF267-BA4A-4AE1-B3F1-49C77755C13E%7Dmid://00000046/%21x-usc:http://www.aussieadtours.blogspot.com/)

Exactly....teach people how to drive a vehicle properly, dont just teach them how to pass their drivers test........2 totally different things !!!

[Barefoot Dave]

Dead backpackers will do more damage to 'our' image than inconvenienced backpackers!
Recognition of prior learning (RPL) and 'Challenge testing' are great tools to speeding the process of licencing/ acceditation. It is SOP in so many areas of life as to be rediculous not to utilise the process in this situation.
It has helped me shorten a 14-16 month Cert 4 Guide/ leader/ 4wd instructor course to 4 months. Hmmmm, maybe we should legislate for accreditated drivers only! Be great for me:angel:

Anyway, Dieter/ Inga/ Francois rock up to hire their vehicle.
"We are awsome offroading ex-commandos and can drive anything anywhere!"
No worries, fill out your hire forms then come out to our test track for 10 minutes"
Competent or not yet competent (endorsed or not) Simple pimple.
Most of us will pick a 'not yet competent' driver in 5 minutes or less, eh?
An extra 10 minutes out of the visitors day will not kill the industry!
As stated, humans are programmed to take risks, it's how we got to where we are. We just need to mitigate the risk to others from our actions.
My 2 cents worth (rounds down to nuffin', ; ))
Dave.

[isuzurover]

As unworkable as bodies strewn across a beach.

With the correct training you can get up to a competency level very quickly. Yes, many tourists would not choose to do it, but look at the alternative. Deaths. And how many tourists are choosing not to go 'dangerous Australia' because they hear about these things? How many parents are banning their children from touring Fraser while backpacking?

I'd rather fewer tourists and they all live than more and some dead.



Onroad driving training is not the same as offroad and particuarly sand. In fact, if you are an expert in one type of driving with no experience in another that expertise can work against you, as well as for you. For example, having taught race drivers offroading the concept of lower tyre pressures to them is very, very wrong and their steering wheel grip is great for the track but no good offroad. In other words it doesn't matter how good you are on the road, that doesn't qualify you to drive on a soft beach.




There would be ways of categorising vehicles. An "Offroad and 4WD" license could cover anything with low range and basic offroad techniques. A subset of that could be beach/sand license where you just go through the differences between a roadcar and a 4WD, and the only offroad terrain would be sand. It's not impossible.

The first comment is just sensationalist nonsense.

Fraser island sees something like 400000 tourists in 200000 vehicles per year. How many accidents/injuries/deaths are we talking about here?

You seem to be talking about a voluntary qualification - which others are not.

Driving in sand is not so different to driving on snow - just that snow is wetter and slipperier.

I still find it ludicrous that the rules people are proposing would mean that you need a 4x4 licence for one of these:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/692.jpg

yet you wouldn't for one of these:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

And you would need a 4x4 licence for the 4x4 version of this:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/693.jpg
But NOT for the 4x2 version!!! Despite the fact that they have the same GVM and CofG.

By all means increase the general licence standard. By all means make it mandatory for 4x4 hire companies to provide basic training on beach driving. But going any further than that would be silly IMHO.


You realise we have had a carbon copy of this debate in July don't you?
Quite possibly - however I (usually) try not to spend much time in pointless discussions in general chit chat.

Your arguments basically seem to boil down to CofG vs track width issues in vehicles. And the ability of drivers to account for such offroad. I would argue that much the same applies on-road, and that consideration of CofG and stability issues should be included in standard driver training/licencing (C class).

Although the system you propose above may technically be possible, it would impose huge additions in cost and bureaucracy to implement and police. Very few people out there would want to increase the capacity of their minivan beyond 12 seats. However heaps of people want to fit slightly larger tyres or new springs - which may then push them over the limit into the "high/heavy" 4x4 class.

I think this thread could go on for ever and not reach a consensus, so that will be my last post on the matter.

[JohnF]

A bit off topic here but I have the same feelings with my chainsaw.
I have been using a chainsaw on a regular basis for about 30 years.

Now if I joined the SES or if I helped out with the bushfire recovery I would not be allowed to use my chainsaw without doing a course.

As I see it, it is their loss as they are missing out on a volunteer.

You can call me pig headed if you like but what I don't need is some young 22 year old upstart who has just come out of uni with a piece of paper telling him he can teach me. I could probably teach him more.

Off topic I know, so Mods feel free to remove this post if you see fit.

Dave.

Do not know about the SES, but the NSW Rural Fire Service will, in theory at least, recognise prior learning and experience. Of course on something that could be potentially lethal Texas chainsaw massacre I do not know how prior learning would work in practice.

[BigJon]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/692.jpg



That is a nice looking L Series.

[rmp]

The first comment is just sensationalist nonsense.

Fraser island sees something like 400000 tourists in 200000 vehicles per year. How many accidents/injuries/deaths are we talking about here?


I don't know, but it seems pretty regular and for every death there will be many other injuries and accidents. I'm not sure if you're saying there will always be a level of accidents and don't bother reducing it further.



You seem to be talking about a voluntary qualification - which others are not.


I'm talking about training which I see as the solution to the Fraser problem. As for licenses -- yes I support those being mandatory provided they are accompained by suitable training.



Driving in sand is not so different to driving on snow - just that snow is wetter and slipperier.


It's very different. There are some common elements but skill in one does not translate to skill in the other. Someone in the media made that same comment.




I still find it ludicrous that the rules people are proposing would mean that you need a 4x4 licence for one of these:


yet you wouldn't for one of these:


And you would need a 4x4 licence for the 4x4 version of this:

But NOT for the 4x2 version!!! Despite the fact that they have the same GVM and CofG.


The way I see it for Fraser is that you have a beach driving license which shows you know how to drive on sand. What vehicle you take there is up to you.

[vnx205]

Some of you are spending some time trying to devise a logical form of legislation to deal with this problem. You are devoting considerable energy to trying to avoid unfairness and anomalies.

I am not convinced that you can assume that "logical" and "legislation" go hand in hand. There also seem to be plenty of examples of anomalies, particularly in new legislation.

Remember the SL 100 Honda from the 1970s? It produced 11.5HP at 11,000 rpm. When the same bike was released in 1972 as the SL125, it was the same bike with an extra 25cc. It produced 12HP at 9,700 rpm. The 125 had the same head and the same size valves, but had heavier flywheels. It produced no less than 94% of maximum torque all the way from 2,000 to 9,700 rpm. A lot of diesels would struggle to have a torque curve as flat as that.

Clearly with those specifications, the SL125 was an easier bike to ride than the SL100. It was no more powerful and the flat torque curve and heavy flywheels made it just about the most docile predictable bike on the market.

In spite of that, the SL125 cost significantly more to register than the 100, because its engine was big enough to put it into the next category. That was a classic example of registration classes based on engine capacity producing an anomaly.

Legislators frequently seem to produce laws that suggest that they don't think things through, particularly when it is a populist, knee jerk reaction to some incident.

During the fuss that followed the Port Arthur incident, legislation was rushed through, one part of which was designed to get rid of easily concealable handguns. They decreed that handguns with a barrel shorter than about 120mm would be illegal. When they realised that some specialist target pistols like the Walther GSP and Pardini with the magazine in front of the trigger had barrels shorter than that even though the overall length of the pistol was the same, they had to create a whole new category of "Target Handgun"

There was a much simpler solution than creating a new category of handgun.

So while it may be an interesting intellectual exercise to try to think of a workable set of regulations, I'm not convinced that legislation rushed through to make it appear that the politicians are "doing something" about a perceived problem will be strong on logic and fairness.

[solmanic]

Driving in sand is not so different to driving on snow - just that snow is wetter and slipperier.

But don't forget, when you stop in sand - you stop... in snow that doesn't always happen. And I've never hit a patch of ice on the beach :p.

I still find it ludicrous that the rules people are proposing would mean that you need a 4x4 licence for one of these:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/692.jpg

Looking at the kit and location - that seems reasonable.

yet you wouldn't for one of these:
http://licia83.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/rav4_muriwai.jpg

I think if you're silly enough to take a Rav4 to the beach, you're not likely to get far enough to cause any real trouble. But in answer to your question, no. No low range = no special classification. I would simply argue that a Rav4 is not designed to go off-road seriously.

And you would need a 4x4 licence for the 4x4 version of this:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/693.jpg
But NOT for the 4x2 version!!! Despite the fact that they have the same GVM and CofG.

Except it comes down to the intended purpose of the vehicle. The 2WD version is not designed to go off-road, the 4WD one is.

Your arguments basically seem to boil down to CofG vs track width issues in vehicles. And the ability of drivers to account for such offroad. I would argue that much the same applies on-road, and that consideration of CofG and stability issues should be included in standard driver training/licencing (C class).

... and the vehicle's intended purpose. If it's not intended to be driven off-road, then the lack of a C4 classification makes this more obvious to the buyer.

Although the system you propose above may technically be possible, it would impose huge additions in cost and bureaucracy to implement and police. Very few people out there would want to increase the capacity of their minivan beyond 12 seats. However heaps of people want to fit slightly larger tyres or new springs - which may then push them over the limit into the "high/heavy" 4x4 class.

The only vehicles I can think of that people would want to lift would already be classified as off-road vehicles. When I dreamt up the figures I'm proposing it was based on a quick scan of existing vehicle heights and 190mm seemed to be about what most serious 4WDs exceeded. If you have a soft-roader with no low-range and you lift it (most posers seems to lower them though), it still wouldn't change the classification.

I think this thread could go on for ever and not reach a consensus, so that will be my last post on the matter.

I on the other hand will keep returning serve until my keyboard breaks. :D.