ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: Hielly on January 15, 2009, 01:58:17 pm
-
hey,
Anyone have any opinion on this issue?
-
do you mean learners?
-
yep learners when they start to learn how to drive.
-
The road toll is the highest in Victoria, but we have the highest driving age. I'm not sure if it will really help anything.
Also, it would be a huge inconvenience to not be able to drive on a full license by the time you are an adult.
-
mmm no.
-
The passenger restrictions are an arse already so no thanks.
Having passengers ducking down in the back seats is annoying (for them at least haha)
-
The passenger restrictions are an arse already so no thanks.
Having passengers ducking down in the back seats is annoying (for them at least haha)
And a kick in the pants if/when you get caught and cop the demerit points and fine.
-
I live dangerously....
nah i've only really had more than one passenger on one or two occasions.
and that was because they were both intoxicated and it was safer for me 2 drive them home.
-
I live dangerously....
nah i've only really had more than one passenger on one or two occasions.
and that was because they were both intoxicated and it was safer for me 2 drive them home.
Apparently in extreme cases such as those, the police waver the passenger restrictions, since it would have been more dangerous for you not to drive them. You could argue that if you didn't drive them, they would have to drive intoxicated or leave them to find their own way home under the influence.
-
I live dangerously....
nah i've only really had more than one passenger on one or two occasions.
and that was because they were both intoxicated and it was safer for me 2 drive them home.
Apparently in extreme cases such as those, the police waver the passenger restrictions, since it would have been more dangerous for you not to drive them. You could argue that if you didn't drive them, they would have to drive intoxicated or leave them to find their own way home under the influence.
I think the point of that new law was to avoid situations such as that one. In any case, I don't think that is the case where they would choose to waver that law, since an argument could be made that you could have hired a taxi, called their parents etc... instead. There's a set criteria on when the laws are wavered, the one that I can remember is being work-related or having a full licensed driver on board.
-
Nah actually iamdan08 is 100% right. I've heard of heaps of people getting wavers when their excuses seem reasonable and they seem to be doing the right thing. One of my mates told me it happened to him twice.
The cops seem to be pretty understanding if you have a good enough reason.
-
Definately not. Nuff said.
-
I believe that notion to be insane. At current the new driving laws are ridiculous. They are just the end product of the governments quick fix attitudes. The only reason I have to log 120 hours and do an extra year on P's is because the government is too stupid to realize that its not the experience and amount of hours driving that get people killed, but rather their stupidity and "it wont happen to me" attitude. I feel that the current system is completely worthless, because after logging 120 hours, I personally am most likely still going to rip the occasional drift, even though I fully aware of the risks.
A better solution than increasing the amount of time you have to have a square plate on your car, would be make a compulsory day, in which new drivers get to meet victims of stupidity in cars in person, and have to listen to how it affected them or maybe see the end result of a crash caused by stupidity. Another solution could be run people through a extremely graphical video of car crash scenes, similar to some of America's driving offense programs.
-
grrrrrr, i hate the logbook. I've had my license for over a year and have only clocked about 8 hours haha. If I was born 1 or 2 months earlier then I wouldnt have to fill in that stupid thing.
-
I was stupid, I was like, the log book wont be that bad, *waits two months to get license* GG. MISTAKE
-
my older sibling has done about 30 hours, its been 5 months
-
grrrrrr, i hate the logbook. I've had my license for over a year and have only clocked about 8 hours haha. If I was born 1 or 2 months earlier then I wouldnt have to fill in that stupid thing.
LOL and i thought i was behind, i've done about 65 hrs and I got about 6 months until I'm eligable to get my license
-
What's the big deal about the log book? Besides that the fact that it's an inconvenience and a pain in the arse, can't you make up the log entries because there's no way to police it?
-
It's a legal document, and the person signing it bears responsibility for ensuring it's truth.
It's a weak deterrent against falsified documents, but it's there.
I personally think that the log book is a great idea. It's worked in aviation for god knows how long. Perhaps the sign-off process needs to be optimised somewhat, though.
-
It's a legal document, and the person signing it bears responsibility for ensuring it's truth.
It's a weak deterrent against falsified documents, but it's there.
I personally think that the log book is a great idea. It's worked in aviation for god knows how long. Perhaps the sign-off process needs to be optimised somewhat, though.
they say apparently harsh penalties apply such as imprisonment or hefty fines for falsifying the log entries, i find this somewhat had to believe
-
It's a legal document, and the person signing it bears responsibility for ensuring it's truth.
It's a weak deterrent against falsified documents, but it's there.
I personally think that the log book is a great idea. It's worked in aviation for god knows how long. Perhaps the sign-off process needs to be optimised somewhat, though.
But... there's really no way of policing it. Which is what I'm saying. Telling people something is a legal document yet we have no way of knowing whether you are telling the truth or not (not that they actually say that) sounds absurd.
-
I think Excal is saying the log-book has the benefit of making *some* people abide by the rules and thus enter the road as safer drivers, even if it's possible to disobey.
Like the viewpoint that the UN helps prevent conflict by its existence, though obviously not all conflict.
-
I've had my Ls since, oh, November 2005. And I've clocked up exactly zero hours in my logbook :)
-
Being a learner at 18 would be shit. The government can't seriously expect a legal adult to rely on their parents or whatever, especially if they have a job or other commitments.
CRAZY WAY TO GET AROUND THE PASSENGER RESTRICTION: If you have a relative that is recently deceased and you have their ashes in an urn, you can drive with their ashes and as many passengers as you like if their licence hasn't expired. The law is that if u have a fully licenced, non-intoxicated relative in the car with you you can have as many passengers as you want. It does not state that they have to be alive.
-
120 hours isn't as hard as what you think over two years. I did 122 hours quite easily (I kept a log, even though I didn't have to). You only have to average a bit over an hour a week (not so difficult if you're driving to the shops, to school, to other peoples houses, and to holiday destinations).
I like the idea of driving with ashes. But what if my dead relative wasn't cremated? The corpse might stink up the car.
-
^ Isn't being alive part of being "fully licenced"
I'd love to be there when that excuse is attempted
you could have any old jar of ashes and claim they were your great-aunt or something :P
-
For driving lessons it cost 40+ an hour :S:S
-
CRAZY WAY TO GET AROUND THE PASSENGER RESTRICTION: If you have a relative that is recently deceased and you have their ashes in an urn, you can drive with their ashes and as many passengers as you like if their licence hasn't expired. The law is that if u have a fully licenced, non-intoxicated relative in the car with you you can have as many passengers as you want. It does not state that they have to be alive.
lol... im not too sure how well that would hold up in court. The courts would just interpret the act as assuming that you have to be alive to be in the car.
(sorry if I missed the sarcasm or whatnot lol)
-
^ Isn't being alive part of being "fully licenced"
Nope, a licence can still be valid even after a person dies. Hence that person is still 'fully licenced'
ANOTHER HANDY LOOPHOLE: if you get a fine + demerit points, overpay the fine by $1 or so. Vicroads or whoever handles those things will send you back a cheque refunding the amount you overpayed. They can't give you the demerit points until you've cashed the cheque as demerit points aren't processed till a fine is 'fully paid'.
-
^ Isn't being alive part of being "fully licenced"
Nope, a licence can still be valid even after a person dies. Hence that person is still 'fully licenced'
ANOTHER HANDY LOOPHOLE: if you get a fine + demerit points, overpay the fine by $1 or so. Vicroads or whoever handles those things will send you back a cheque refunding the amount you overpayed. They can't give you the demerit points until you've cashed the cheque as demerit points aren't processed till a fine is 'fully paid'.
but then you have to prove the remains are of a human aged over 18 and is the owner of the license. Plus who would hold his license?
-
a forensic scientist would have to test whether they were "human ashes". Not sure how hard that would be
-
It's all very fine and dandy interpreting acts in a literal sense but judges aren't retarded.
I haven't done legal since 2007 but I remember there were differnt ways that a judge can interpret laws. Like using different approaches. Like literal, golden???? Lol i think i made golden up.
But yes my point is that such a case would in almost all certainty fail in court, imo.
-
Purpose approach
If the judge feels that using the literal approach to interpreting the words in the act will not achieve the intention of the parliament when the act was originally passed, the judge will interpret the words in the act using the purposive approach. this involves looking at its purpose and what the act was intended to achieve when it was originally passed.
- Justice and Outcomes, 8th Ed. pg 170
I think this approach best describes what I am trying to describe above.
-
How it works in aviation is that all your hours must be with an instructor until you go solo. There is plenty of audit trails when it comes to this.
Perhaps enforcing a minimum (lower) amount of hours with an instructor (e.g., at least 10-20 hours). Or, we could simply make the test a lot tougher (including making it much longer with more content). The standard that we test at is far lower than other countries (e.g., Germany).
-
How it works in aviation is that all your hours must be with an instructor until you go solo. There is plenty of audit trails when it comes to this.
Perhaps enforcing a minimum (lower) amount of hours with an instructor (e.g., at least 10-20 hours). Or, we could simply make the test a lot tougher (including making it much longer with more content). The standard that we test at is far lower than other countries (e.g., Germany).
but germany have the auto-bahn
-
How it works in aviation is that all your hours must be with an instructor until you go solo. There is plenty of audit trails when it comes to this.
Perhaps enforcing a minimum (lower) amount of hours with an instructor (e.g., at least 10-20 hours). Or, we could simply make the test a lot tougher (including making it much longer with more content). The standard that we test at is far lower than other countries (e.g., Germany).
telling me, I failed twice in England before passing with relative ease here
-
That is a completely stupid suggestion. If you look at the Vicroads data, you will see that Learners have a similar incidence of being involved in a collision as a fully licensed driver. The number spikes during your first year of Ps.
The point is trying to reduce road casualties once licensed. The preparation for this occurs at the L plate level, and shouldn't occur during your Ps. Hence my suggestion of making the driving test a lot more difficult (higher barrier to entry). I don't agree that we should increase the age; hell, I think we should reduce the age so that people can get an earlier start (I would think 15, but they still can't sit their Ps until 18) because, as gonzo pointed out, L platers tend to be safer than not only P platers, but also early fully licensed drivers.
-
well, on some roads the speed limit is irrationally low, when compared with other roads' limits and their relative level of safely when driving at that limit. You see any number of people speeding on such roads.
-
The test introduced in July is quite difficult to pass compared to its previous incarnation. If I recall correctly, only about 25% of those who sit it actually pass, so it is weeding out those people who are inexperienced or stupid. I guess all that can be done is let enough time pass so that irresponsible p platers can join the glut of irresponsible licensed drivers on the road.
I am incensed by the number of impatient licensed drivers who overtake me on the road (some by going into the other lane) because I am a p plater, or because these people deem the speed I travel at (the speed limit) to be too slow.
It's about 50% pass rate. I posted the link somewhere on VN once.
-
So are you suggesting we drive however fast or slow we want? 'irrationally slow' is quite a subjective term - ask a hoon!
No, simply in comparison with other roads. 60kmh on dual carriageways -that is very often going to be exceeded; not making any judgements, but I'd have more sympathy for those speed ahead of me in certain situations. Not that I'm whiter than white myself :P
-
I don't think speeding is all that bad, depending on the circumstances. I always speed around where I live. Its a rural area but for some stupid reason the speed limit is 60. However I would never speed in a populated area.
-
I like speeding thru school zones, usually going around 65-70km an hour. I feel like im playing frogger
-
I don't think speeding is all that bad, depending on the circumstances. I always speed around where I live. Its a rural area but for some stupid reason the speed limit is 60. However I would never speed in a populated area.
REBEL! :P
To actually contribute something to the topic though, another suggestion I was talking to excal about earlier this year (July me thinks) was requiring suspended drivers (those who have lost their licence) to re-sit the driving exam.
-
except make the exams much more anal and really hard to pass.
-
The test introduced in July is quite difficult to pass compared to its previous incarnation. If I recall correctly, only about 25% of those who sit it actually pass, so it is weeding out those people who are inexperienced or stupid. I guess all that can be done is let enough time pass so that irresponsible p platers can join the glut of irresponsible licensed drivers on the road.
I am incensed by the number of impatient licensed drivers who overtake me on the road (some by going into the other lane) because I am a p plater, or because these people deem the speed I travel at (the speed limit) to be too slow.
It's about 50% pass rate. I posted the link somewhere on VN once.
The age said it was 25% if i remember correctly but can't find the link so i may be wrong...
I still think it needs to be made, not directly harder, but longer and with more topics such as night driving and defensive driving. You can only test so much in the amount of time that you get...
-
I think a night driving test component is infeasible and the cost of undergoing several components is rather prohibitive for most people.
Defensive driving lessons are not recommended for new P platers because it can make them overconfident and take greater risks on the road. From what I understand, you should wait 1-2 years before enrolling in a defensive driving course.
what's defensive driving?
-
I think a night driving test component is infeasible and the cost of undergoing several components is rather prohibitive for most people.
Defensive driving lessons are not recommended for new P platers because it can make them overconfident and take greater risks on the road. From what I understand, you should wait 1-2 years before enrolling in a defensive driving course.
what's defensive driving?
not sure, it might involve the Emergnecy Stop which you have to do in England. S'fun :D
-
I like speeding thru school zones, usually going around 65-70km an hour. I feel like im playing frogger
Hit enough of them and your carbon footprint (for your entire lifespan) will be neutralized. Do it for Al Gore!
This literary made me laugh out loud!
Ahh Al Gore, imagine if he were president.
-
I think a night driving test component is infeasible and the cost of undergoing several components is rather prohibitive for most people.
To be frank, it's a matter of weighing wallets over lives.
Defensive driving lessons are not recommended for new P platers because it can make them overconfident and take greater risks on the road. From what I understand, you should wait 1-2 years before enrolling in a defensive driving course.
Perhaps not the whole defensive driving curriculum, but certainly parts of it would be useful for the new driver. You do make a good point about the overconfidence factor, though.
-
"an overly thorough test won't necessarily lead to any great reduction in road fatalities."
I agree. 18 -25 year old males are statistically the most dangerous drivers due to their attitude, not because they're incompetent such that they would fail a test.
-
I think the main argument for that is that your brain isn't fully developed until the age of 22 or 23 or something
That being said, you'd need a much better public transport system if you weren't gonna let 18yos drive.