New rules in Aussie for new license holders...

[BlakJak]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/qu ... 92237.html

* Drivers being able to obtain their learner's permit at 16 years;
* Minimum 12-month learner period;
* Minimum 100-hour recorded logbook driving for learners;
* A two-phased P1 and P2 provisional licence system (a red plate for P1 for one year and green plate for P2 for two years);
* High powered vehicle restrictions for provisional licence holders;
* Peer passenger restrictions for P1 drivers (can only carry one passenger aged under 21) from 11pm to 5am;
* Banning all mobile phone use (including hands-free) for learners and P1 drivers and loudspeaker function use by supervisors and passengers; and
* Requiring motorbike learners to hold a car provisional licence for 12 months prior to applying for their motorbike learner licence.

Innnnnteresting...

[Mr Revhead]

that looks like queensland only...

but yeah they have tougher laws over there... like we should here

the government will never admit it but they are wasting their time with all the antispeeding campaigns. basic driver education is what they need to focus on

[slonlo]

not "wasting their time" there filling their wallet

[Mr Revhead]

oh yes, sorry.
thanks for the correction, how silly of me

[Grrrrrrr!]

* Requiring motorbike learners to hold a car provisional licence for 12 months prior to applying for their motorbike learner licence.

shouldn't that be the other way round.. need to have a bike licence for 12 months before getting a car licence.. then all you tin-box drivers might learn to start looking for things smaller than a car

[deaf_rattle]

* Requiring motorbike learners to hold a car provisional licence for 12 months prior to applying for their motorbike learner licence.

shouldn't that be the other way round.. need to have a bike licence for 12 months before getting a car licence.. then all you tin-box drivers might learn to start looking for things smaller than a car

Pecking order... we car drivers look out for things bigger than us like trucks and vans etc.

If motorcyclists want to go in and out of lanes like a $2 hooker, then they need to be wary of cars.

And before you have a go at me, i quite often move left for motorbikes to get past and often get waved at for doing so.

[Grrrrrrr!]

Pecking order... we car drivers look out for things bigger than us like trucks and vans etc.

If motorcyclists want to go in and out of lanes like a $2 hooker, then they need to be wary of cars.

And before you have a go at me, i quite often move left for motorbikes to get past and often get waved at for doing so.

I was more meaning the car drivers that pull out from side streets/driveways in front of motorcyclists. (broad daylight, motorcyclist traveling at legal speeds)

And yeah, those nutters on bikes that weave thru motorway traffic at 130+ are another story.

[Cahuna]

Good call on removing the distractions from them (cellphones, mates etc). Maybe they will spend more time concentrating on the road rather than sending text messages

OT: my father and stepmother moved to Brisbane a few years back, when they moved my stepmother had to go back onto a learners licence because her Victoria one had expired. Was funny when I visited that I could drive on my NZ licence with fewer restrictions than her

[deaf_rattle]

Pecking order... we car drivers look out for things bigger than us like trucks and vans etc.

If motorcyclists want to go in and out of lanes like a $2 hooker, then they need to be wary of cars.

And before you have a go at me, i quite often move left for motorbikes to get past and often get waved at for doing so.

I was more meaning the car drivers that pull out from side streets/driveways in front of motorcyclists. (broad daylight, motorcyclist traveling at legal speeds)

And yeah, those nutters on bikes that weave thru motorway traffic at 130+ are another story.

ah yep, fair nuff. motorbikes arent that hard to see in that situation, so theres no excuse for the motorist.

[Luke28]

Sat my lisence in aus about 5 years ago.. i had to have my learners for 12 months, fill out the log book, and had the p1 and p2 plates. the other rules are new. But i thought cell phones were already completley banned for any one driving a vehicle.
The log book is a stupid thing.. it can be to easily filled with fake entrys you have to fill out what time you started your drive, what time you finished, how many kms you drove that journy, road type eg. sealed, gravel, motorway ect, Traffic eg. heavey light ect, Weather eg. rain, fog, fine ect.. suprised they didnt want to know if you'd been for a crap before your drive

[Ard Righ]

Sat my lisence in aus about 5 years ago.. i had to have my learners for 12 months, fill out the log book, and had the p1 and p2 plates. the other rules are new. But i thought cell phones were already completley banned for any one driving a vehicle.
The log book is a stupid thing.. it can be to easily filled with fake entrys you have to fill out what time you started your drive, what time you finished, how many kms you drove that journy, road type eg. sealed, gravel, motorway ect, Traffic eg. heavey light ect, Weather eg. rain, fog, fine ect.. suprised they didnt want to know if you'd been for a crap before your drive

Strangely enough, in NZ if you're over 25, you can get away with a full license in 9 months though that does include doing a Defensive Driving Course on your restricted license. 12 months for a full license if you don't do the defensive driving course.

I think the restriction on high-power cars might help a lot of the boyracers, cut out a lot of the turbo models, and there go half the accidents from street races.

Driver education should be mandatory. I think Defensive Driving Course should be mandatory for ALL restricted licenses. I plan on doing it, even though it's currently optional.

[Defective]

I think the restriction on high-power cars might help a lot of the boyracers, cut out a lot of the turbo models, and there go half the accidents from street races.

there may be plenty of accidents, but country wide 'boyracer' type cars make up a tiny proportion of the road toll...

its just an easy target for the politicians...

Driver education should be mandatory. .

damn right.

[slighty_sykotic]

I think the restriction on high-power cars might help a lot of the boyracers, cut out a lot of the turbo models, and there go half the accidents from street races.

there may be plenty of accidents, but country wide 'boyracer' type cars make up a tiny proportion of the road toll...

its just an easy target for the politicians...

Driver education should be mandatory. .

damn right.

And the fact that most 1600cc can easily hit 180km/h plus and accelerate fast enough to kill anyone will mean that banned turbo cars will prove pointless.

The idiots will ethier still drive them, or move to slower cars and still cause damage.

Then what about turbo diesils? Most are slow, so if you allow them, then you allow people to drive high performance euro turbo diesals, which can be fast as $&#$% aswell.

And the percentage of road toll is defintaly correct, it is an easy target.

--Sykotic

[Defective]

And the fact that most 1600cc can easily hit 180km/h plus and accelerate fast enough to kill anyone will mean that banned turbo cars will prove pointless.

The idiots will ethier still drive them, or move to slower cars and still cause damage.

yeah, but dont get me wrong... i think its ludicrous that a 16 yr old can go and buy a evo 7 or sti... no way in hell is a kid ready to own a car like that... sure there may be the odd exception but by and large theyre simply not mature enough.

yes, a 1600 can still accelerate plenty fast enough but still nowhere near as quick as an evo or similar... when a young driver loses control of an evo there gonna be going a LOT faster than if they had lost a integra or levin for example... the limits are simply that much higher in a evo or sti or whatever...

[slighty_sykotic]

And the fact that most 1600cc can easily hit 180km/h plus and accelerate fast enough to kill anyone will mean that banned turbo cars will prove pointless.

The idiots will ethier still drive them, or move to slower cars and still cause damage.

yeah, but dont get me wrong... i think its ludicrous that a 16 yr old can go and buy a evo 7 or sti... no way in hell is a kid ready to own a car like that... sure there may be the odd exception but by and large theyre simply not mature enough.

yes, a 1600 can still accelerate plenty fast enough but still nowhere near as quick as an evo or similar... when a young driver loses control of an evo there gonna be going a LOT faster than if they had lost a integra or levin for example... the limits are simply that much higher in a evo or sti or whatever...

Thats true, i agree with you, if anything, a kw/ton limit would be better. But its so hard to enforce.

Agree money would be better spent in driver training.

[Defective]

[, if anything, a kw/ton limit would be better. But its so hard to enforce.

Agree money would be better spent in driver training.

power to weight is the perfect way of doing it... they would then be able to compile a list of 'banned' cars from that...

and ban ANY performance modifications until they are on their full.

but our politicians are just greedy and only interested in what will keep them in parliament...

[Calvin]

If motorcyclists want to go in and out of lanes like a $2 hooker, then they need to be wary of cars.

Awesome analogy.. brilliant