The totally off-topic thread

[NM]

Agree with you 100% Jessica, I have always thought that "mum & dad" driving instructors should be banned and that all instruction should be by a qualified professional so as not to pass on any bad habbits.

I would hate to have to pay for 100 hours worth of lessons. At around $50 per half hour, of which 10 hours can credit at 3:1, that would cost around $4000 for the lessons! Ouch. A combination of professional lessons and supervisor driving seems to make a lot of sense to me.

 

[rogerkambah]

My only speeding fines in the last 30 years came when I had a car with a faulty speedo-it read several ks under the true speed-which is why I always get any cars speedo checked.
My last accident was in 1974 when I left the car parked in the street and a milkman decided to back it up a hill using his truck.

Now out on the 100kph roads the cruise control is set ~98kph.rarely do I get to execute an overtaking manoeuvre.
And the main thing I was taught all those years ago-always know what is happening around you.

In the 70s in SA I had a Falcon wagon that I managed to get places quicker than I expected even though I drove at the indicated speed limit of (then) 110kph. It was only after 3 or 4 trips that I thought about this and used the tachymetre on my watch to indicate the speed I was travelling. I was unintentionally exceeding the speed limit by around 12kph. I must have been luckier than you since I didn't get picked up for speeding.

Now I check the car speedo against GPS and set my cruise control by the GPS speed.

 

[docjames]

That graph also doesn't show the staggering improvements in the vehicles themselves.

- ABS
- ESC
- crash safety ratings (incl pedestian impact)
- improved braking, ride, handling, tyre performance etc

Also certain "high risk" roads have been improved (although there's plenty of room to improve). eg. the Melbourne-Geelong road was 2 lanes, 110kph, had significant hills and blind crests. Now it's three lanes, better visibility, shoulders etc. So even if the limit had stayed at 110kph there'd have been an accident and fatality decrease. Except the limit was cut to 100kph so no doubt "it's the speed reduction" that made the difference......


IME - if we focused more on keeping those with BAC > 0.05 and those drug-affected (by whatever measure and/or substance) off the roads, and educated safe driver behaviour (no tailgating, keep left) and enforced all of these things, driving would be far better for all than the focus on not being 2kph over the speed limit (with consequent speedo watching instead of traffic watching) and "if i'm under the speed limit i'm ok".

I also think it's time for a total re-think of the car/bicycle interface with separated space on the roads - in the inner suburbs this would include designated "bike" roads and designated "no bike" roads (particularly during peak hours). This would also entail an improvement in sequencing of lights etc.


The minority that attend hospitals are people doing 65kph in a 60kph zone. They are those who are BAC >0.05, drug affected, driving whilst too tired, or generally shouldn't have been driving in the first place.

The other factor that has proven difficult to address (and I note the comments earlier in the thread re: mobile phone) - a number of times i've seen those stopped at lights texting etc - only to miss 10-15 seconds at the green and subsequent following cars not get through. Whilst they haven't "hurt" anyone, IMO it contributes to congestion, frustration and anger on the roads.

As I say, all this is IMO. I could go on for hours on this topic (i'd held my nerve from posting but finally gave in!).

I might add - I'm all for speed and red light camera on intersections (the last place you should be speeding is through an intersection). But on a straight and flat bit of highway, in the dry, with little traffic - sure, 150kph+ isnt appropriate. But 105kph? When the manufacturer margin for error is 10%......

(I could also get started on "why arent speed limits 130kph on major freeways"......)

 

[mrs.dr.ron]

My understanding is that is illegal for vehicle manufacturers to sell a vehicle where the speedo UNDERregisters. (I can check that with my brother who is a police officer who spent many years in traffic/highway patrol). How recently did you get pinged?

We had an American ford Taurus. The speedo conversion from mph to kph was not accurate. During the time we had it I got several speeding fines - eventually the local Ford dealer checked the speedo - and it was out by 10kph !! Hence I thought I was doing the s peed limit but was over by 10. :evil:

 

[medhead]

I'm under the speed limit so all is good is a great example. What if there is a monsoonal downpour, the A/C doesn't work so the windscreen is foggy, it's the middle of the night and you can see about 10 meters. I doubt a 50kph speed is safe.

Anyway, found this: www.monash.edu.au/mini/research/reports/muarc276.html

Nice abstract that advocates more widespread 60kph limits, on all undivided urban roads. Then raises the introduction of a 30kph speed limit.

As I said the logical conclusion of this movement is 0 speed limit.

 

[medhead]

I would hate to have to pay for 100 hours worth of lessons. At around $50 per half hour, of which 10 hours can credit at 3:1, that would cost around $4000 for the lessons! Ouch. A combination of professional lessons and supervisor driving seems to make a lot of sense to me.

I'm all for it.

 

[mono88]

Exactly the same way as pedestrians can be separated from cars with a driver. But they aren't. Instead speed limits are reduced. You talking about prevention, lower speed limits are about damage reduction.

Separation is both prevention and damage reduction.
A lower speed limit can also help prevent an accident due to more reaction times, and quicker stopping. Prevention and damage reduction are not always mutually exclusive.

 

[Pushka]

Horrible crash on our Freeway this morning with the sad death of a four year old. Mother driving for five hours ran into the back of a semi trailer travelling appropriately slower in the slow lane. Police have already said he was not at fault. And made a comment that they were investigating whether the child was sitting in their child safety seat. I think if I was mum I'd want to not survive. But non life threatening injuries.

 

[Buzzard]

I would hate to have to pay for 100 hours worth of lessons. At around $50 per half hour, of which 10 hours can credit at 3:1, that would cost around $4000 for the lessons! Ouch. A combination of professional lessons and supervisor driving seems to make a lot of sense to me.

I very much doubt that if you were being correctly instructed by a pro that you would need anywhere near 100 hours of tuition.
With correct tuition and testing you might be able to get away with 20 hours for example, cost say $1,000. I think that $1,000 for a correctly educated driver is cheap compared to the damage a poorly educated driver can cause. Even $2,000 I think is cheap. If a young person has an accident in my vehicle, the excess alone is $1,500.

Yes, as a parent I know it is/seems expensive but what if it is one of your family that is seriously injured? Or worse.....

 

[Pushka]

Yes, as a parent I know it is/seems expensive but what if it is one of your family that is seriously injured? Or worse.....

Unfortunately you cannot combat the stupidity of other drivers.

 

[Flashback]

I very much doubt that if you were being correctly instructed by a pro that you would need anywhere near 100 hours of tuition.
With correct tuition and testing you might be able to get away with 20 hours for example, cost say $1,000. I think that $1,000 for a correctly educated driver is cheap compared to the damage a poorly educated driver can cause. Even $2,000 I think is cheap. If a young person has an accident in my vehicle, the excess alone is $1,500.

Yes, as a parent I know it is/seems expensive but what if it is one of your family that is seriously injured? Or worse.....

The problem is most states have a mandated amount of hours upon which you mist drive. NM is I believe referring to how much it would cost if for those mandated hours you HAD to only do them via an instructor.

 

[Pushka]

The problem is most states have a mandated amount of hours upon which you mist drive. NM is I believe referring to how much it would cost if for those mandated hours you HAD to only do them via an instructor.

It is 100 hours in SA. And must include night and country driving.

 

[medhead]

Separation is both prevention and damage reduction.
A lower speed limit can also help prevent an accident due to more reaction times, and quicker stopping. Prevention and damage reduction are not always mutually exclusive.

Regardless a driverless car still suffers the same logical that gives us mindless, across the board, speed limit reductions.

 

[medhead]

The problem is most states have a mandated amount of hours upon which you mist drive. NM is I believe referring to how much it would cost if for those mandated hours you HAD to only do them via an instructor.

It doesn't really matter. Making a licence expensive makes it valuable and something to be respected.

 

[anat0l]

It is 100 hours in SA. And must include night and country driving.

ISTR it is 1000 hours in QLD. Hours with a registered driving instructor are trebled for the purposes of contributing towards logged hours (viz. if your driving log consisted of only instructor's time, you would only have to do 333 hours).

I'm not entirely sure if there's a requirement that the logged hours cover an adequate cross-section of driving conditions.

In any case, there are no real checks and the logs aren't enforced for truthfulness, so naturally several of the logs are cooked.

Happy to be pulled up about any of this.

It doesn't really matter. Making a licence expensive makes it valuable and something to be respected.

That would only cover the first licence (after passing the driving test), and a provisional one at that.

Once you're at the open licence level, most people will feel they are "in the clear", unless you correspondingly increase licencing fees for renewals (perhaps linked to the number of demerits obtained since last licence), and/or enforce that renewal of licences means you have to take the test again.

Otherwise, beyond two years of obtaining a licence, it is much less "respected". Whilst we know that new and young drivers (unfortunately) have a monopoly on incidents......

 

[Flashback]

It doesn't really matter. Making a licence expensive makes it valuable and something to be respected.

I've noticed that over here. People generally seem to get their license later in life compared to the typical Aussie. Most companies I've worked with seem almost surprised when I say yes I do have a licence.

 

[anat0l]

I've noticed that over here. People generally seem to get their license later in life compared to the typical Aussie. Most companies I've worked with seem almost surprised when I say yes I do have a licence.

Living in London, the business case for having a licence is probably much more difficult to pitch compared to living in Australia. Equally so for many countries in Europe.

Did you get a UK licence? I assume that given you had an Australian licence, you didn't need to undertake a practical test, perhaps only a theory test.


Have to say that my father does continually harp on me to take defensive driving. Personally, before that happens I want to upgrade my licence to a full class C licence first (currently CA - limited to automatic transmission vehicles).

 

[medhead]

.
That would only cover the first licence (after passing the driving test), and a provisional one at that.

Once you're at the open licence level, most people will feel they are "in the clear", unless you correspondingly increase licencing fees for renewals (perhaps linked to the number of demerits obtained since last licence), and/or enforce that renewal of licences means you have to take the test again.

Otherwise, beyond two years of obtaining a licence, it is much less "respected". Whilst we know that new and young drivers (unfortunately) have a monopoly on incidents......

I'm talking about expensive to get in the first place, as in the training requirement not the licence renewal fee. Requiring expensive training should also result in well trained drivers.

 

[medhead]

I've noticed that over here. People generally seem to get their license later in life compared to the typical Aussie. Most companies I've worked with seem almost surprised when I say yes I do have a licence.

Indeed and more mature drivers are preferable. A German exchange student made this point that a licence was too expensive for him until after uni.

 

[Flashback]

Living in London, the business case for having a licence is probably much more difficult to pitch compared to living in Australia. Equally so for many countries in Europe.

Did you get a UK licence? I assume that given you had an Australian licence, you didn't need to undertake a practical test, perhaps only a theory test.

Straight swap. You legally have to do it in the first 12 months you're here. If you leave it past that, you have to go through the full process any other person would.... so yes, I have my UK licence which has a nice 10 year validity on it