Left is right, right is wrong part II

[flappist]

After watching tonight's Top Gear featuring the LHD Focus and Porsche I thought about another idea to explore.

The Poms allow both LHD and RHD cars on their roads as indeed do we albeit those over 25 years old and special vehicles such as street sweepers, garbage trucks and some military and emergency vehicles.

What if we did the same. Cars could be Left or Right hand drive but we still drive on the same side of the road as we do now.

If the Poms can do it we should be able to, it is not like we are Americans or anything.

Maybe an endorsement or you have to do another driving test in a LHD vehicle before you can drive a LHD.

Again it would open up the choice of vehicles available...1 Shelby please...

So......

Is this a good or bad idea?

Are we better or worse drivers than the Poms (well everyone except AFF members of course, who are all exceptionally brilliant drivers, I know I read it on AFF)

P.S. I just made this up, it is not actually going to happen (or if it is, I do not have inside knowledge).

[Kenaz]

I don't see why not...

[Mr Hardware]

I've driven a mate of mine's LHD '59 Cadillac - it's his weekend car and it's fully QLD registered. Is this different to what you're asking?
Ps write drive a ~1960 Cadillac on your things to do before you die, it's a hell of an experience.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

I've driven a mate of mine's LHD '59 Cadillac - it's his weekend car and it's fully QLD registered. Is this different to what you're asking?

No exactly the same except you could have a 2009 Cadillac as well.

[Silver Ghia]

I see quite a number of LHD cars on the road already. Mustangs, GM(H) cars, ordinary cars etc. So it really shouldnt be a problem. Would be tricky when trying to overtake on a two way road though.

[Polyal]

I know its a hypothetical but surely its only a geographical thing, being close to Europe etc. You not going to say, sorry frenchy, turn back and take your fromage with you. Visa Versa some from Pomland going on a road trip through Europe.

In theory I guess LHD and RHD should have no problems, Ive experienced driving a CTS LHD in Oz and it probably took me about 10 mins to adjust, im sure after a day or two you wouldn't even think twice about it.

But you have to keep in mind the lowest common denominator, they always screw everything up.

[geckoGT]

Anything that lets me order a mustang in australia for a reasonable price has my vote.

[V3RSAC3]

I . I thought it was tuesday today :( :( DAMIIT havent seen on ep this season :'(

[Deech]

Originally Posted by flappist

Maybe an endorsement or you have to do another driving test in a LHD vehicle before you can drive a LHD.

I agree with the scenario, right up until the question of licensing. If a new licence were to be issued with a separate endorsement for LHD, it would likely be issued under a proviso such as that everyone who had held a full licence for 5 years or more would get one automatically as a Grandfather clause. I think if noone automatically got one, that would a) create a massive surge of paperwork for first-time applications, and b) people would raise hell about their licence being downgraded.

Remember when heavy vehicle licensing changed (1998?), so that the laws and vehicle types were consistent for State to State?
Everyone who had some kind of upgraded licence was to be assigned an unrestricted (non-synchro competent) HR licence by default, unless they pointed out that this constituted a downgrade.
I don't disagree with the change, because I can't suggest a better solution, but I think it's a strange scenario where you can be deemed competent in a Roadranger-equipped 5 axle concrete agitator, because you drove an auto milk truck sometime in the 80's.

I'm not saying it's a safety issue or anything, given that the overwhelming majority of people with now-upgraded licenses never did anything with them anyway, but laws are designed to separate the approved from the disapproved. If you create one, and make everything it applies to legal, doesn't that negate itself?

So I voted the second option, even though I believe that's an unlikely scenario.

Just my opinion.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Deech

I agree with the scenario, right up until the question of licensing. If a new licence were to be issued with a separate endorsement for LHD, it would likely be issued under a proviso such as that everyone who had held a full licence for 5 years or more would get one automatically as a Grandfather clause. I think if noone automatically got one, that would a) create a massive surge of paperwork for first-time applications, and b) people would raise hell about their licence being downgraded.

Just my opinion.

Downgraded?? There would be no difference if you don't want to drive LHD.

Anyone who has auto needs to do a test for manual.

I have driven LHD in 4 different countries (5 counting Australia) for over 16 years but would still have no problem in doing a LHD test (I wish there was a 4WD test too but that is another subject).

Too many expect everything for nothing, purely for safety and insurance reasons if there is a new type there should be a test.

As far as the surge, why would you even bother if you were not going to buy a LHD car......

[Deech]

Originally Posted by flappist

Downgraded?? There would be no difference if you don't want to drive LHD.

Choosing words carefully and trying to avoid making it political, but I think it's fair to say that people are more likely to support new legislation when the changes most directly affect people other than them.

And also you can get a manual licence, without having driven one. Get auto provisionals and wait a year (in the ACT).

Edit: Actually, I think you're seeing my point anyway.

Originally Posted by flappist

Too many expect everything for nothing, purely for safety and insurance reasons if there is a new type there should be a test.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by flappist

I have driven LHD in 4 different countries (5 counting Australia) for over 16 years but would still have no problem in doing a LHD test (I wish there was a 4WD test too but that is another subject..

I could understand test for LHD, but not for 4wd. The only thing you need to know different in a 4wd is how to engage 4wd. And if you can't figure that out you shouldn't even be allowed on a lawn mower!

[htrdmstng]

I wouldn't oppose a LHD or 4WD endorsement.

[chevypower]

But then if I wanted my dad to import an F350 to tow their horses. He would need a 4x4 endorsement (if he chooses a 4x4 model), a LHD endorsement, a V8 endorsement (because surely somebody would think that would be necessary), a turbo endorsement, an endorsement for towing.... all these endorsements people want to inflict on others, rather than just focussing on living a good, normal life.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by chevypower

But then if I wanted my dad to import an F350 to tow their horses. He would need a 4x4 endorsement (if he chooses a 4x4 model), a LHD endorsement, a V8 endorsement (because surely somebody would think that would be necessary), a turbo endorsement, an endorsement for towing.... all these endorsements people want to inflict on others, rather than just focussing on living a good, normal life.

To drive a 4WD you need to understand that is is a LOT bigger than an average car, it has more inertia, a much higher CofG and much more restricted visibility. How many of them are driven into crowded school areas by young women who have previously driven only bubble cars?

A trailer endorsement would not be a bad idea either really.

On your current license, can you drive a motorcycle, body truck, bus, tractor or semi-trailer? Have you actually driven a LHD vehicle both on the left and right side of the road?

These are all the same aren't they? Why would you need a separate test for each?

On the other hand why bother with a license at all. Every new driver can drive anything perfectly anywhere at anything on pure instinct, just ask them....

[chevypower]

i'm not against not making people require an endorsement for driving LHD cars in Australia. I could come over here and drive a Chevy Silverado 4x4 on the opposite side of the road, with a V8, and tow a trailer and drive on snow. Worked out ok for me.... It is not difficult to drive a 4x4. No more so than a car. If anyone finds it so, they are just intimidated, but the skill set is the same. Actually I have more visibility, not less! I can ride a motorcycle up to 250cc or something without getting a motorcycle license, i don't need a boat license. I can drive my brother in law's 11 passenger van... I think i can drive up to a 15 passenger full size van on a car license.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Actually I have more visibility, not less!

So how far out in front or behind your Silverado does a 7 year old child have to be before you see them?
The same as a bubble car?

If there were a group of small children standing right in front, beside or behind your vehicle as you might get at a school are you sure you will see them before driving off?
Here in Australia it is common practice to drive up to the front of primary (elementary) schools to pick up or drop off your children and it is always chaos.

Near misses are not uncommon...

But this is getting off topic, back to lots of shiny new cheap Shelbys

[outback_ute]

As a side note to your hypothetical would these cheap new Shelbys have to comply with ADR's still? (apart from the obvious RHD issue)

[irlewy86]

Would any of the low cost importers (not the grey's, the new great wall of crud cars) bother selling RHD anymore if it wasn't required. I reckon after 5 years 75% of the new market would be LHD then we would be doing the Samoan Swap anyway.

[chevypower]

I haven't even had a close call. I guess taking extra care is just something you do... you shouldn't have to be told by paying extra money to the bureaucrats for another printed card. As for actually distance that you asked? I don't know, I would need to test it out with a 7 year old with me sitting in the drivers seat. I do know that some regular sedans have worse blind spots than the pickup. My father's Volvo C70 convertible is the worst car I have ever driven for visibility. But, you just take extra care.
For the same arguments about needing a license to drive a 4wd, you can make the same arguments about needing licenses for driving V8s, V6s, turbos, rotaries. But I don't agree with any of it. People should be allowed to drive what they want.
You want to swim? You need a license, because too many people drown each year. The government needs to know you are competent first. You want to skateboard or ride a bike, get a license.... it's very dangerous!
Look, we enjoy many freedoms too many people want to take them away little by little. If that happens, the world gets worse, not better. We spend so much money on protecting our liberties and some fight for it with their lives. It's a joke to think that we should give it away for a little safety. There is a quote by Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I agree about getting this back on topic now :-) My vote is, allow LHD cars on the road in Australia - just like England.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by chevypower

There is a quote by Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Wasn't he a terrorist leader 240 years ago when a group of people were unhappy that a foreign government was imposing its laws and values using military force? Didn't that group of people arm their civilians to create a milita to attack and harrass the foreign army and its supporters which ended up in a huge war costing countless lives of innocent people?

Oh hang on, my mistake, terrorists are the OTHER guys, I meant freedom fighter....

Liberty and Freedom are not American inventions and very in few other "free" countries in the world is there a "Patriot Act" that overrides all other laws and rights with no recourse.
Is not the "Patriot Act" giving up liberty for a temporary safety?

Think about it.......

[burnz]

i put "NO" if this trend becomes mainstream the accident rate would climb.

sitting in the passenger seat trying to overtake a truck, and not see the traffic comming the other way.

and before someone says dont overtake, poeple will allway do what they shouldn't.
like buy the L/H car in the first place.

[htrdmstng]

Originally Posted by chevypower

It is not difficult to drive a 4x4. No more so than a car. If anyone finds it so, they are just intimidated, but the skill set is the same.

The skill set may be the same on the streets but I see too many people make dumb mistakes in the snow and off-road. Maybe instead of endorsements forcing people to take training classes offer voluntary classes. Who knows the insurance companies may offer a discount for taking them.

[mik]

another vote for no, there`s enough drivers out there that can barely work out what mirrors and indicators are for that are on the road without giving them another complication.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by flappist

Wasn't he a terrorist leader 240 years ago when a group of people were unhappy that a foreign government was imposing its laws and values using military force? Didn't that group of people arm their civilians to create a milita to attack and harrass the foreign army and its supporters which ended up in a huge war costing countless lives of innocent people?

Oh hang on, my mistake, terrorists are the OTHER guys, I meant freedom fighter....

Liberty and Freedom are not American inventions and very in few other "free" countries in the world is there a "Patriot Act" that overrides all other laws and rights with no recourse.
Is not the "Patriot Act" giving up liberty for a temporary safety?

Think about it.......

I have thought about. Australia is fortunate it has never had to defend it's freedom by fighting on it's home turf. Maybe you think it's something that was invented. Maybe you think George III and HenryVIII were just great guys that would blend in with Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. I am still yet to work out your point.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I have thought about. Australia is fortunate it has never had to defend it's freedom by fighting on it's home turf. Maybe you think it's something that was invented. Maybe you think George III and HenryVIII were just great guys that would blend in with Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. I am still yet to work out your point.

Really? I suspect the families of the thousands of people killed in Northern Australia by the Japanese during WW2 may disagree with you on that point.

You quoted from a famous historical figure who was a founder of your country to lecture us that giving away liberty for safety was a bad thing yet you actually are doing the exact opposite.

That is the point.

As far as George III & Henry VIII. Well I never met them and all I know about them is from history which is always written by the winning side.
I do know, however, that if it was not for George III et al. you would probably be speaking French or Spanish right now.

[chevypower]

What the...?? How Am i giving away liberty for safety? You have no point! i could say anything now and you will disagree with me. Heck you will even disagree with that! Even if disagreeing with both points makes no sense. I'm here to talk about cars. How about if you want to police the world to live by your needs and wants, restricting others from doing theirs because you find it dangerous and unnecessary - that you consider first, what it would be like to have your needs and wants restricted because other people find what you like to be too dangerous and unnecessary. And I would have no problem speaking in French or Spanish . Stop turning this in to a you-against-us debate. You will achieve nothing except making me think you have some issues to work out. And don't think I am some brainless American patriotic moron who doesn't know what I am talking about. I was actually born England. Grew up in Australia, live in America.... So I can talk about this stuff with balance and perspective. Just like I can talk about driving big 4wds with knowledge and experience. So if you have a point, stick to it and explain it. Stop going off on tangents, because it is going nowhere.

[flappist]

Hmm lets see:

1) You quote Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." as your reason as to why people should not be type tested for vehicles and you live in the country he help found where liberty has been taken for temporary safety, Patriot Act. A bit contradictory.

2) You state that Australians have never had to defend our country on our soil, again no idea.

3) You have the right to your opinion about 4WDs (which is not what this thread was originally about) but as I live in a place where people who have never driven 4WDs before go and rent them and are being killed and injured so often that there are now special laws and restrictions being put in place to try and lower the toll. Google "Fraser Island accidents". I live next to the flight path of the rescue helicopters coming back from the island to the hospital and look after several of the 4WD hire companies so I get to see a bit more than you would so my views might be a bit different to yours.

4) You believe that just because you took a test in a tiny car you automatically have the skills to drive a much larger one with totally different operational characteristics. Would you get into a heavy jet being piloted by a guy who did his flying test in an ultralight?
Or do you think that maybe no license is necessary at all, why test anyone just let them go, most will survive....

[Bundy]

I voted for the shelby.......

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I haven't even had a close call. I guess taking extra care is just something you do... you shouldn't have to be told by paying extra money to the bureaucrats for another printed card. As for actually distance that you asked? I don't know, I would need to test it out with a 7 year old with me sitting in the drivers seat. I do know that some regular sedans have worse blind spots than the pickup. My father's Volvo C70 convertible is the worst car I have ever driven for visibility. But, you just take extra care.
For the same arguments about needing a license to drive a 4wd, you can make the same arguments about needing licenses for driving V8s, V6s, turbos, rotaries. But I don't agree with any of it. People should be allowed to drive what they want.
You want to swim? You need a license, because too many people drown each year. The government needs to know you are competent first. You want to skateboard or ride a bike, get a license.... it's very dangerous!
Look, we enjoy many freedoms too many people want to take them away little by little. If that happens, the world gets worse, not better. We spend so much money on protecting our liberties and some fight for it with their lives. It's a joke to think that we should give it away for a little safety. There is a quote by Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I agree about getting this back on topic now :-) My vote is, allow LHD cars on the road in Australia - just like England.

Well said.

The meaning of this post is simple; people should smarten up. A licensed passenger vehicle driver, who has zero road know-how or common sense, is as safe as the hypothetically unlicensed but very capable 4wd user? I think not.

The problem lies in the relative ease in obtaining a Class C license. You know what they say about "prevention".