Road Rules / Driver Licencing

[#Metro]

Some changes suggested:

• Hazard Perception Tests - include rail level crossings, low bridges, cyclists
• Rule Book - Include light rail, might need a 'driving with public transport' section

Your Keys To Driving in Queensland
https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/your-keys-to-driving-in-queensland

Other suggestions welcome!

[achiruel]

https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/5c6d042b-2aa3-4755-bf88-0cd2015889c4/resource/f3671aa9-6c8e-49ee-ae69-5c37a25c3aee/download/yktdsep2015sharingroadwithtramsinsert.pdf

[Gazza]

Toughen up the testing too....Should be say 50 questions, maximum one or two wrong, or else you fail and have to resit.

[verbatim9]

Toughen up the testing too....Should be say 50 questions, maximum one or two wrong, or else you fail and have to resit.

Yeah more questions relating to trams and Giving way to busses. Drivers just don't seem to get it!

[hU0N]

Toughen up the testing too....Should be say 50 questions, maximum one or two wrong, or else you fail and have to resit.

Yeah more questions relating to trams and Giving way to busses. Drivers just don't seem to get it!

I agree that all these suggestions are worthwhile.

Problem is, drivers learn rules from a book, and maneuvers from an instructor, but they learn how to drive from all the other drivers around them on the roads. So by all means, rewrite the book and tweak the testing, it might even make a small difference around the margins. But if you want to change the way new drivers drive, the best you can do is work on changing the way everyone else drives.

Unfortunately anything that would meaningfully change the behaviour of adult drivers would be unpopular, so instead, we rely on much less effective measures like rejigging the road rules manual and toughening up testing, because at least those things only hit drivers who are too young to vote.

[hU0N]

I'm not opposed to making it harder to get a license, but it should be similarly easier to lose your license for behaving like a dipsh!t behind the wheel, and much, much, much harder to get it back after losing it.

At the very least, you should have to retake the written test after your disqualification/suspension period is finished, if not the practical test as well.

[James]

I don't think there is much wrong with the current situation - sure, possibly incorporate trains/trams into a modified test, but aside from that there is no need for radical reform. Most people who break the rules are doing so intentionally and for behavioural reasons ("I'll just make it", "I can't be late for work" etc.).

I'm not opposed to making it harder to get a license, but it should be similarly easier to lose your license for behaving like a dipsh!t behind the wheel, and much, much, much harder to get it back after losing it.

At the very least, you should have to retake the written test after your disqualification/suspension period is finished, if not the practical test as well.

What will that achieve? People who lose their license due to speed or red light camera offences (the main ones) can simply drive like a granny during their driving test, and then return to their old habits once the test is finished. Likewise, if you lost your license due to mobile offences, you simply don't use your mobile during the driving test. This will simply chew up resources on an already constrained driver testing system, where people sometimes need to book months in advance.
Most people know the road rules, it is that there is a disregard for them because they either think they can get away with it or they think doing the action is not dangerous. The road rule test tends to mainly cover giving way and signs anyway.

My general criticism right now is that there is too much of a focus on minor offences and not enough of a focus on actual dangerous driving behaviour. In particular, the focus on low-level speeding offences is insane given the environments where 'every k over is a killer' are not applicable on most roads the cameras are deployed on. 105 in a 100 zone on the motorway is far less dangerous than 45 in a 40 school zone, yet there are more speed traps set up on the M1 than at local schools?! My case rests.

There needs to be less of a focus on low-level speeding in low-risk environments and more of a focus on mobile phone use, drink/drug driving and reckless driving (slow right-lane drivers, weaving etc.). Sadly it is easier for QPS to park a van and go for a donut instead of patrolling the roads for poor driving, because you actually need to go to court and make a case when someone drives like an idiot.

[hU0N]

I absolutely agree about patrolling for and enforcing the full range of driving offences, such as slow driving, weaving etc.

As regards losing your license, I'm probably sounding off there, because while it's currently quite hard to lose your license and not a huge inconvenience if you do, there's no reason to think that harsher penalties in this regard will make drivers any less likely to commit an offense. Harsh penalties don't reduce the rate of any other offense, why should they with driving offences?

I think you are correct that the habitually poor driver behaviour comes from people making excuses like, "I'll make it," or "I can't be late for work," or "I always drive this way and never get caught." I agree that these attitudes are what is truly dangerous on the roads, and that new drivers learn them in part from human nature and in part from other drivers. And as such driver education and enforcement are probably of really limited usefulness in changing these attitudes.

I don't know how you change these sometimes dangerous attitudes of many drivers. But in the absence of a better option, making the whole license, points, suspension thing a massive PITA for people who routinely drive this way sure feels like it'd be perversely satisfying.

[verbatim9]

Raise the Driving age to 21 in Urban areas. Country areas 18 where public transport doesn't exist. Will encourage PT uptake.

[aldonius]

^^^ A great way to lose a generation of voters.

[verbatim9]

^^^ A great way to lose a generation of voters.

It's time to move away from a car centric society, Any backlash would be overcome by better PT services and once a person has reached 21.

[petey3801]

A different way of doing things, taken from the Dutch:

In the Netherlands, learners can only be taught by a qualified driving school. Cars must have dual controls (ie: one set of pedals for the instructor). That way, it's only people who actually know the road rules etc. that teach the learner drivers. Also, it is the instructor that decides when the learner is ready to take the test, not the learner, not the '100hr log book', but the trained person who is teaching them.
When someone loses their licence in the Netherlands, it's not as simple as it is here to get it back. There is no 'You've served your suspension, here's your licence back', no, they have to start right from the beginning (ie: re-start as a learner again).

Doing something like this might, in the very least, make people think about how much of a pain in the a it would be if they lost their licence and then drive accordingly.

Their penalty system is also different to ours: Once the driver reaches a certain point (can't remember offhand if that's a certain age or x years of driving), they no longer have demerit points on their licence. If they get caught speeding (which is usually patrolled a lot more logically than here, as James said, such as looking after more high risk areas, not going after people for doing 125km/h in a 120km/h zone, unless of course they're doing something else, such as weaving/tailgating etc), depending on how high range it is, it is simply a fine. Once it's (I believe) 50km/h or above, it's an automatic loss of licence, plus a rather large fine.

[hU0N]

^^^ A great way to lose a generation of voters.

Plus, it brings learner drivers into the electorate, which would not be considered a desirable thing by either party. As long as learner drivers can't vote, they are a convenient road safety whipping boy.

Are you a politician copping bad press for a rising road toll? Need to look like you are doing something without annoying any of the many contrary stakeholders?  No worries, go after learners, add twenty more hours to learner log books. Reduce the number of NCEs allowed on the practical test. Of course the sixteen year olds will complain, but what are they going to do about it? Vote you out?

[dancingmongoose]

Raise the Driving age to 21 in Urban areas. Country areas 18 where public transport doesn't exist. Will encourage PT uptake.

And dramatically increase the number of professional dole bludgers. You do realise that would cause only a very small portion of school leavers to have a license upon completing school, you know that thing that's supposed to prepare them for the workforce? Explain how a kid who's just finished school and lives out in the sticks somewhere is going to get to their 3am shift at the dairy farm 20kms away, walk?

If you want to increase public transport usage, you make it better than the alternatives, with measures such as reduces fares and increasing coverage and frequency, which is what this group exists for and has been campaigning for for years. Not by making it less bad than the alternatives.

There's more chance of Caitlyn Jenner's genitals growing back then there is of this statement making any logical sense.

[James]

Raise the Driving age to 21 in Urban areas. Country areas 18 where public transport doesn't exist. Will encourage PT uptake.

Lol, you will then have a rort of people "moving out" to country areas (i.e. legally claiming to reside in Gatton but actually residing in Grange), then moving back in to the urban areas upon obtaining a license. Plus, PT is absolutely appalling in Brisbane. This is not Vancouver or London. If you were a politician and wanted to lose your job, just say this.

Having a driver's license in many parts of Brisbane is essential. You can live without one in the inner city, depending on your occupation, location of main shopping centres and other trip attractors (friends & family), but once you get out into mum, dad + 2.3 kids suburbia, living without a car is difficult at best, and torturous at worst.

There's more chance of Caitlyn Jenner's genitals growing back then there is of this statement making any logical sense.

[verbatim9]

You would have to prove residency in country areas of at least 6 months . There would be a window of opportunity to improve public transport before the law is phased in like three years.

[Gazza]

I think raising the driving age to 21 is needlessly draconian. Just riding a bus isn't a worthy enough act to go social engineering in this manner.

[James]

You would have to prove residency in country areas of at least 6 months . There would be a window of opportunity to improve public transport before the law is phased in like three years.

Again, you can just legally say you "live" in the country while living elsewhere, just do this 6 months beforehand. People would game the system, particularly if employment is at stake. Also, can you imagine the required funding for PT? You would need public transport going everywhere. The best example would be University students - on this demographic alone, you'd need to provide high quality PT covering all of Brisbane (including outer/low demand areas) while the demand just isn't there.

Also - what does increasing the driving age achieve? A group of people who upon turning 21, have a whole set of bus horror stories and will be turned off by using PT for a long time. If you want to increase PT usage, you need to drive the land use reform and viable service reform for where it is possible, not turn 22 year olds into the 17 year olds of the 21st century and rely on their mums for lifts to the shops.

Increasing the driving age to increase PT use is crazy. At least if you did it for "road safety" you might get a bit of traction, but PT use? I have rellies who haven't been on a bus in 5-10 years.

[ozbob]

I think raising the driving age to 21 is needlessly draconian. Just riding a bus isn't a worthy enough act to go social engineering in this manner.

Agree.  There is a case for lowering the age to 16. I support that.

[newbris]

A different way of doing things, taken from the Dutch:

In the Netherlands, learners can only be taught by a qualified driving school. Cars must have dual controls (ie: one set of pedals for the instructor). That way, it's only people who actually know the road rules etc. that teach the learner drivers. Also, it is the instructor that decides when the learner is ready to take the test, not the learner, not the '100hr log book', but the trained person who is teaching them.
When someone loses their licence in the Netherlands, it's not as simple as it is here to get it back. There is no 'You've served your suspension, here's your licence back', no, they have to start right from the beginning (ie: re-start as a learner again).

Doing something like this might, in the very least, make people think about how much of a pain in the a it would be if they lost their licence and then drive accordingly.

Their penalty system is also different to ours: Once the driver reaches a certain point (can't remember offhand if that's a certain age or x years of driving), they no longer have demerit points on their licence. If they get caught speeding (which is usually patrolled a lot more logically than here, as James said, such as looking after more high risk areas, not going after people for doing 125km/h in a 120km/h zone, unless of course they're doing something else, such as weaving/tailgating etc), depending on how high range it is, it is simply a fine. Once it's (I believe) 50km/h or above, it's an automatic loss of licence, plus a rather large fine.

I think something like this would be a massive improvement. I would love a system like this in Australia.

[hU0N]

I like it to. Especially the mandatory reeducation. I have doubts that it would do much to make bad drivers better, but at least it would mean that bad drivers spent more time off the road / driving under supervision. That would be a net positive I reckon. It might even mean that new drivers don't pick up bad habits quite so easily.

[Old Northern Road]

I must admit I had held my licence for over a decade before I became aware of the law that you had to give way to buses. I guarantee that most people who live outside BCC would be completely unaware of this law. It may have been mentioned in the written test or my driving instructor may have mentioned it but if you don't practice it in real life you will forget it.

The reality is that owning a car is a necessity for most people over 18. If you were to make the driving test harder then you would also need to make it cheaper because most young people can't afford to take the test over and over again.

A shocking number of unemployed people don't have a licence.

[verbatim9]

The Driving age in The Netherlands is 18 many don't obtain their license until 21 due to the cost and the time involved with lessons. So it's almost like a 21yo driving age. But you can ride under 50cc motorised bikes and electric bikes to get to point to point quite quickly without licences.

[petey3801]

People aged 16 can also get a restricted licence for driving tractors etc for work purposes.

[James]

The Driving age in The Netherlands is 18 many don't obtain their license until 21 due to the cost and the time involved with lessons. So it's almost like a 21yo driving age. But you can ride under 50cc motorised bikes and electric bikes to get to point to point quite quickly without licences.

And the Netherlands as a nation has a high density, is tiny and has cool weather ideal for riding bikes. Queensland is sparsely populated, has quite low density and has hot weather which makes sitting next to bike riders who haven't showered an assault on the nose. For perspective, South East Qld is a bit over half the size of the Netherlands. The Netherlands has a population of 17 million, SEQld 3.4 million.

This is your average housing density in the Netherlands:


And your average housing density in Australia:


A better place to look in terms of transit policy is towards the US and Canada. A lot of Europe's housing density is the result of housing popping up before the era of the car and lack of space. Australia has neither of those problems.

[hU0N]

The Driving age in The Netherlands is 18 many don't obtain their license until 21 due to the cost and the time involved with lessons. So it's almost like a 21yo driving age. But you can ride under 50cc motorised bikes and electric bikes to get to point to point quite quickly without licences.

And the Netherlands as a nation has a high density, is tiny and has cool weather ideal for riding bikes. Queensland is sparsely populated, has quite low density and has hot weather which makes sitting next to bike riders who haven't showered an assault on the nose. For perspective, South East Qld is a bit over half the size of the Netherlands. The Netherlands has a population of 17 million, SEQld 3.4 million.

This is your average housing density in the Netherlands:


And your average housing density in Australia:


A better place to look in terms of transit policy is towards the US and Canada. A lot of Europe's housing density is the result of housing popping up before the era of the car and lack of space. Australia has neither of those problems.

Precisely.  In the Netherlands High Residential Density => Sufficient demand to support dense PT => older average age of learner drivers.  But just because a bunch of logical inferences work in one direction doesn't mean they will work in the other.

[petey3801]

Just to be clear, I wasn't at all suggesting to raise the legal driving age, simply stating a different way to go about licencing.