Thread: off-road license (?)

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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 ;-)

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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?

Originally Posted by 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

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by rmp

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:


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.

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.

Originally Posted by solmanic

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

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.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

That is a nice looking L Series.