Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by disco2hse
That's an incredibly misleading statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by disco2hse
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.
The police do sit on the eastern beach on Fraser Island.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by QLDMIKE
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.
!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Fender
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.
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmp
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmp