I think the conclusion is you need to be competent in your toyota corolla with an 18 speed roadranger crash box before you are allowed an auto.

I had to drive a non-synchro to pass my HC (heavy combination) licence in SA 10 years ago. Then I never drove one again.

Dont know where your from Poverty Rider, but I ride every day in Sydney traffic and the amount of people not concentrating on the road because they can is amazing.
I suppose its good in a way, as they give you fair warning to keep away. Maybe thats why they are put on the road? To make you a better rider or driver.

I would suggest that driver training be made mandatory and that training encompass an awareness of situations faced by other road users such as motorcyclists and heavy vehicle drivers. There should be heavy emphasis on distraction factors and the responsibility you take on by signing up for a licence. Another essential component of training should be awareness of consequences of inattention including the impact that fatalities and serious injuries have on the families of the victims, the perpetrators and the wider community.

Won't happen though. If licence tests are made tougher, human nature will see people driving without bothering to obtain a licence.

I did not suggest people should receive a heavy vehicle licence before they can go for a car licence. I do not know where that misconception came from. What I did suggest is all drivers should get their light licence before their heavy. As in, bike licence before car. The reason I mentioned the requirement to be car licenced before being heavy licenced was to indicate that the licencing authority already applies the light licence before heavy licence principle.

I believe there should not be a sub-class of licence for automatic transmission vehicles. I would advocate for all drivers to be practical tested in a manual gearbox equipped vehicle. In the case of heavy vehicles, that requirement should remain as it stands, with the practical test being conducted in a non-synchromesh gearbox equipped vehicle. The applicant may never operate a crash box again, but has demonstrated a basic ability to do so. So it is with a car. If a person can successfully operate a manual gearbox, that person will be capable of operating an automatic gearbox.

My reasoning for all persons to be two wheel licenced before becoming four wheel licenced is this:

1. It would make many more car drivers motorcycle aware because many many more of them would have experienced the danger of riding among larger vehicles with worse visibility.

2. Experiencing the vulnerability of driving a motorcycle may increase many of those drivers spatial awareness of everything around them, in addition to becoming more motorcycle aware.

3. Not everyone wants to drive a motorcycle perhaps because they simply have never done so. The mere fact that they would be required to get a motorcycle licence would encourage more people onto two wheels, resulting in fewer cars on the road. Many of those people would, I am sure, find that they actually enjoy riding and would keep doing so.

4. I believe it would create a better skilled set of car and larger vehicle drivers, due to the practical experience they would gain from getting around on two wheels.

 

What does this have to do with lane filtering through stationary or slow moving traffic? The situation as it stands is that a motorcycle driver who is lane filtering has a reasonable chance of being blocked by someone driving a car. The logic for the blocking manouver rests in the psychology of the blocking driver, who probably has never ridden a motorcycle and applies the human tendency for 'If I can't move forward then I will be a self centred arsehole and prevent the motorcyclist moving forward'. If more car drivers had experienced the joy of riding, they may not be so quick to be arseholes towards motorcyclists in general.

Lurker, I agree with many of your points. Spoken like a true biker; but that’s where your arguments begin to fall down. Not everyone is a biker. You are seeing the world through your eyes and losing sight that the population is made up from individuals, each having their own pair of eyes.

To explain myself I’ll respond to your points one by one.

What I did suggest is all drivers should get their light licence before their heavy

I couldn’t agree more. Every learning process starts with the basics and moves forward from there. 

As in, bike licence before car

I disagree. Not everyone is a biker. Remember, to have things the way you want, the rules would be universal and apply to everyone. How many of us have said ‘that guy is an accident waiting to happen’ or that bloke just shouldn’t be on a bike’. I know I have.  

Let’s look at a simple scenario: a young 17 year old girl, 150cm 45kg, who’s is going to TAFE so she can get a good office job and your plan is to force her to get a bike license. Do you think this is fair to a person who would struggle to handle most bikes or has no interest in motorcycles to the point of detestation.

On the flip side, I also disagree with the current licensing status of having to hold a car license for a year before being able to get a bike license. There are many potential riders out there who are being disadvantaged by this rule.

In overall though, with safety in mind, might it be prudent to learn road craft in the protection of a car, 4 wheels, air bags, and an instructor or mentor beside to assist.

I believe there should not be a sub-class of licence for automatic transmission vehicles

Why? Again I agree having a manual license is better but it is not necessary in this day and age. I haven’t owned a manual car in 20 years. How many manual taxis or buses have you been in? If it’s not required, it’s not needed.

In the case of heavy vehicles, that requirement should remain as it stands, with the practical test being conducted in a non-synchromesh gearbox equipped vehicle.

I don’t where you’re from Lurker, but when I did my HC test back in 1995 there was no mention of non-synchromesh or crash box (do they still make them?); all I had to do was manage the vehicle I was in.

Driving tests, and general driving, can be divided into 2 main focal points. The first one being vehicle control i.e. can I manage the vehicle I am driving. It doesn’t matter whether it’s an auto, manual, large, small, 2 wheels, 4 wheels, 18 wheels or whatever.

The second point is safety. This means can I control my vehicle in the prescribed environment without impinging on the well-being of myself, other users, or property.

My reasoning for all persons to be two wheel licenced before becoming four wheel licenced is this:

I can’t argue with any of your reasoning points, they are all good points to be made.

Having said that, I only have one more comment on you last paragraph regarding the self centred arsehole. My 30+ years driving experience has shown me that these fuckwits are just that, fuckwits. There is no amount of training, education, or punishment that is going to change their attitudes; hence, they will remain fuckwits on the road...and the roads are full of them.

Fair enough, your point about the person who seems to have two left hands and no apparent co-ordination is reasonable. I shall accept that.

I shall also accept that perhaps rather than making motorcycle licencing compulsory, perhaps we (as society I mean) should be encouraging two wheeled mobility rather than actively dicouraging it, which has been occurring in Queensland recently. Two wheeled vehicles are a positive thing for society. They typically use less fuel than four wheels, they occupy less space on the roads because two bikes can use the space of one car, and they require far less parking space than a car. I believe two wheeled transport should be encouraged rather than discouraged.

Unless the practical testing requirement has changed here in Queensland, the practical driving test for HR must be performed in a non synchro equipped heavy vehicle. At least that was the requirement when I did it. I have had a look on the Qld. Gov. website (which is one of the most user unfriendly sites I have encountered) and cannot find any mention of the type of vehicle requirement for performing any of the different classes of practical driving tests, other than the vehicle must be of the relevant class. So, I don't know. Being an old fart as I am, perhaps the Queensland Transport Department has moved with the times and crash box competency may no longer be required. ... Well I kept looking and eventually found a page with licence test vehicle requirements. It looks like the requirement for crash box competency may have finally been revoked. There is some sense in government after all.

Lurker when I did my truck licence in SA either late 90's or early2000's I had to show that I knew how to double clutch  as if I was driving a non synchronic equipped heavy vehicle even though I was driving a synchronic truck but I don't know if it is still a requirement.  I strongly agree with your comments regarding that the Government should be encouraging two wheeled mobility rather than actively discouraging it for the reasons that you have mentioned.

I also agree with poverty riders comments regarding the self centred arsehole. "My 30+ years driving experience has shown me that these fuckwits are just that, fuckwits. There is no amount of training, education, or punishment that is going to change their attitudes; hence, they will remain fuckwits on the road...and the roads are full of them."  I've been on the road for about the same number of years as you have and there is a saying going around that "South Australian drivers are the worst" and I unfortunately would have to agree even though I haven't driven in every state or territory of Australia.  And the main reason I think it's not that we are necessarily that bad we just have a lot of self entered aggressive arseholes in this state,  I see them every day on the road (luckely not all of us are like that).

I'm all for this new lane filtering law, but does the 30km/hr limit seem a tad excessive to anybody else?

"I believe there should not be a sub-class of licence for automatic transmission vehicles"

"Why? Again I agree having a manual license is better but it is not necessary in this day and age. I haven’t owned a manual car in 20 years. How many manual taxis or buses have you been in? If it’s not required, it’s not needed."

OK tell me if this sits good with you guys,

In South Aust you can learn to drive an Auto, be tested in an Auto and when you pass..... go out and legally drive a manual.

And with bike you pass a practical test and ride around with L plates on and don't need a rider following.

This State has no chance. Every day I see incompetent drivers on the roads and Jappers on L's tearing up bus lanes.

Thats just a bit off topic, But driver education has to improve (start) sometime.

 

+1. Agree with most of that Nomada, but I don't care too much if someone that got their licence in an auto legally drives a manual. If they aren't any good at it they won't be able to get out of the carpark without stalling.

I was talking to the guys at GC motorcycles (sell tyres and scooters) last week when I got a tyre fitted to the Harley and they reckon the government is in the process of closing the loophole that allows car drivers to ride a scooter up to 50cc without a motorbike licence. I presume it is a federal law. The "latte scooter" crowd with shorts, t-shirts, flip flops and push bike helmets tend to piss off the car drivers and make them drive offensively around all motorcyclists.

Yeah, you are probably right. I was piggy-in-the-middle changing gears in the ute at 10years old. I learnt to drive a manual at 12 years old, can't remember how much effort was needed to watch what you were doing.

I learnt how to drive a manual without using the clutch (at all) when I was 15. As long as you could find an incline to park/stop on, then you didn't need a clutch.

I learn't sitting on my old mans lap changing a column shift.

How times have changed.

So those people in their suits and tight skirts,zipping thru peak hour traffic, dont even have a bike license?
For Fuk Sake, whats happening here. Thats just bloody mad.

i was lane splitting last weekend when it was raining like fuck. i was trying to get home in a hurry and i would have been doing about 10 kph, maybe less when a pedestrian ran out in front of me. if i had been going 15kph i reckon i would have hit her.

Not Legal, UNTIL July 2014. and traffic must be stopped,

the traffic was stopped fx but i was slowly riding between the lanes in heavy rain,concentrating on missing the side mirrors and this girl just ran out in front of me. (maybe 6 or 8 feet away) she obviously didnt see me and got across the road oblivious to what had happened. i have been guilty of lane splitting my whole life and i welcome the fact it is going to be legalised. but i can see some issues if everybody on a bike, especially inexperienced riders, consider it is their right to do it. i am visualizing heaps of scooters getting wedged in between cars and the cars driving off and squashing their toes into their thongs. ouch !

I just hope they Widely Advertise it, Maybe on bill boards etc.

So, Beagle B.. if you had (10k) bumped the pedestrian, as lane splitting is still illegal and so is crossing not at the lights, who is in the wrong?

I am not having a cheap shot, just wondering.

would say you would be in the wrong the pedestrian has the right of way in wa which is dangerous at lights in the perth cbd
most of the time they just walk out in front of you even when you have green to turn right

What worries me about this new law is how quickly it might be overturned when you see complete morons filtering at 40 kph, as I witnessed last weekend on Pacific Highway up by the M1 entrance. Group of three right in between stopped cars.