Legal Minded, Not So Legal Minded, Opinionated, Maligned, Cheesed Off Or Plain Scared

[aussiblue]

AussieBlue, why are you so negative? You seem to have an negative point for every suggestion here. You also seem to think that our little group here can't contribute to improving driving standards

I'm not negative. I am simply making the point that many of the suggestion cannot be supported by objective scientific research in terms of contributing to road safety and we risk coming up with many old ideas that might be popular and seem "self evident truths" but actually won't improve road safety and in many cases may have the reverse effect.

The opening post asked for ideas that could be statistically supported but many such as annual road tests, driver ed and testing of drivers over 65 have no research or statistical basis for improving road safety. We need new ideas, or improvements on existing know positive road safety initiatives; ideas that can be shown to actually make a positive difference or at least are so new that no research has yet examined them.

I think we can make a difference but the concerning issue is we, like many other well intentioned but misinformed groups have done before, risk pushing some initiative that isn't founded on fact or scientific research. We may just invent more "hoon" laws -vote winning popular but of doubtful real benefit.

Perhaps instead of leaving posters like me to research the benefits of the ideas, as intimated in the opening post, those suggesting things should use Google Scholar or similar to see what research into the benefits or otherwise of the idea has already been done and if it is really likely to improve safety. If you have an idea do the research and ensure it is likely to have a benefit and hasn't already been discredited. Believe me there is little new in road safety ideas, most proposals we can come up with have been scientifically researched many times over in many countries and the results of this research is readily available.

Meantime, I will continue to play the skeptic in terms of suggestions that have no basis in fact or scientific research. I do hope that we can come up some new or improved ideas for making the world a better place and please keep trying. Just don't expect me to be silent when someone suggests something that objective scientific research has already (and often many times) shown not to work. If we go forward with a list or petition I want it to have some credibility.

[SEZ213]

I think there is possibly one thing that could be pushed for - that would actually indicate that the government and the powers that be are interested in decreasing the road toll.

It does go against my initial post, but also reflects on another post made regarding excise and where it's spent.

Fuel is what makes our cars move, without we're at a standstill.

Any revenue from fuel excise, or any other transport or road related revenue should be kept completely separate to consolidated revenue.

This should (in theory) ensure that road surfaces get the attention they deserve when they deserve it, that black spots are adjusted accordingly to be a lot more safer, blind junctions are not left to claim another innocent life and that the government is 'dedicated' to reducing the road toll - by spending every cent that we as tax payers have contributed back into the roads and education for young users, not the softly softly approach we currently have.

As per usual, open to criticism where you see fit, but as previously advised, my idealism sometimes isn't fully thought out and requires a small amount of questioning... :P

[aussiblue]

Agree with you again sezzy; safer roads are a proven contributor to improved road safety.

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I'm not negative. I am simply making the point that many of the suggestion cannot be supported by objective scientific research in terms of contributing to road safety and we risk coming up with many old ideas that might be popular and seem "self evident truths" but actually won't improve road safety and in many cases may have the reverse effect.

The opening post asked for ideas that could be statistically supported but many such as annual road tests, driver ed and testing of drivers over 65 have no research or statistical basis for improving road safety. We need new ideas, or improvements on exiting know positive road safety initiatives; ideas that can be shown to actually make a positive difference or at least are so new that know research has examined them. I think we can make a difference but the concerning issue is we, like many other well intentioned but misinformed groups have done before, risk pushing some initiative that isn't founded on fact or scientific research. We may just invent more "hoon" laws -vote winning popular but of doubtful real benefit.

Perhaps instead of leaving posters like me to research the benefits of the ideas, instead as intimated in the opening post, those suggesting things should use Google Scholar or similar to see what research into the benefits or otherwise of the idea has already been done and if it is really likely to improve safety. If you have an idea do the research and ensure it is likely to have a benefit and hasn't already been discredited. Believe me there is little new in road safety ideas, most proposals we can come up with have been scientifically researched many times over in many countries and the results of this research is readily available.

Meantime, I will continue to play the skeptic in terms of suggestions that have no basis in fact or scientific research. I do hope that we can come up some new or improved ideas for making the world a better place and please keep trying. Just don't expect me to be silent when someone suggests something that objective scientific research has already (and often many times) shown not to work.

I see your point. However, the evidence or data that we for Australia is flawed. If an accident occurs where a vehicle travelling at 40 km/h merges into 100km/h traffic, the cause is listed as speed. if a car travelling travelling at 60 on a wet in 60 zone, slides of the road, the cause is usually speed. (too fast for conditions). Our Government has made a point on collecting data that reinforces its revenue raisning ways. Anything that can be twisted to our governments benefit, usually is.

I am a tradesman and I spend a bit of time on the road. My suggestions were made based on things that I have seen on a daily basis. People who just have no idea about how to negotiate traffic conditions, not knowing how to merge, not knowing the rules when a merging lane becomes an added lane with an unbroken line. Basic things. Distance to park from corners. the list goes on and on.

You seem to have taken a bit of offense to me suggesting that over 65's be tested more frequently. Firstly, we as people generally don't like losing things. But as we get older, unfortunately certain things diminish. Motor function, responses, alertness, vision, hearing, reflexes, etc,etc, all diminish with age. All are very important in operating a motor car on todays roads and in todays traffic conditions. Some people won't acknowledge these changes as it may cause them to lose their independence.

Secondly, I have seem so many older people on the roads, who like to drive at well below the speed limit. Every time I have seen an older person driving like this, I have noticed they all have one thing in common: They all stare straight ahead. They are completley oblivous to everything around them. They have a belief that driving at 80, on a 100km/h freeway makes them the most safest drivers on the road. It would, if they stayed in the far left lane, and actually took observations of what was around them.

As for driver ed. I admit, in a controlled enviroment, I AM A HOON. I love it. I love going sideways in 1st as fast as I can while hitting the revlimiter as much as possible. The V8 sounds awesome. At last years skidpan day I did, ( I try and do one every year, I was talking to one of the instructors. The information he gave me regarding safe seating position, Airbags deploying, how to hold a steering with an airbag correctly, and alot of general info was all things I had never heard before.

I have been driving for 20 years, cars didn't have airbags when I was learning.
How I was taught to hold and turn a steering has changed. If I did the current technique when I was learning I would have failed my driving test.

Now you would remeber better than I do, when did roundabouts come in. They have always been around since I began driving. The correct indicating procedure from what I understand has changed a couple of times since then. But what if you learnt to drive before roundabouts? Wouldn't doing a drivers ed course every 5 years, give the authorities an opportunity to inform us all individually of new technologies and rule changes. You don't need to a study, you just need to be observant of all road users while driving to see where the problems are.

[Auturbo6]

We can all make the world a better place over a couple of beers, however the reality is that as long as humans are in control of motor vehicles their will always be an issue.
I know myself, some days i drive like a granny then others!!!!!! Unfortunatly more laws won't fix the issue. Why don't we just inplement so many laws that the general public are too scared to leave their place of residence, obviously that would fix everything. That's my grain of salt.......

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by Auturbo6

We can all make the world a better place over a couple of beers, however the reality is that as long as humans are in control of motor vehicles their will always be an issue.
I know myself, some days i drive like a granny then others!!!!!! Unfortunatly more laws won't fix the issue. Why don't we just inplement so many laws that the general public are too scared to leave their place of residence, obviously that would fix everything. That's my grain of salt.......

So true. This morning in Brisbane, on the Gateway motorway. (3 lanes uphill, dead straight) 5 idiots managed to run into each other, closing the bridge. Not sure what time it happened, the road was shot before 6:30.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

So true. This morning in Brisbane, on the Gateway motorway. (3 lanes uphill, dead straight) 5 idiots managed to run into each other, closing the bridge. Not sure what time it happened, the road was shot before 6:30.

I thought that was six? The ICB was blocked through the little tunnel and out the other side by the time I went through at 6:15, as they'd diverted all the traffic back over the Story Bridge (another renowned multiple car pile up site) and into the Valley along Kingsford Smith Drive.

It seems that quite frequently in Brisbane, it is not just two cars involved, but always five or six - or sometimes more, as happened in March - seven vehicles, including 3 trucks, and the southbound traffic slowed because people wanted to have a sticky beak...

These are regular occurrences though - there was an accident at the port last year, which almost caused me myself a trip to the hospital. (I'd cleverly thought of polishing off a 1.25L water before driving home from work, only a 15 minute drive from Pinkenba) - I left work at 4...got home at 7.15. It was 5.45 before I even hit the base of the bridge...

[aussiblue]

However, the evidence or data that we for Australia is flawed.

I doubt it is significantly or materially flawed as most of it reflects the same trends, relationships and outcomes from data and research from the rest of the world.

when did roundabouts come in

Although much less common they existed when I first hit the road in 1970.

Wouldn't doing a drivers ed course every 5 years give the authorities an opportunity to inform us all individually of new technologies and rule changes.

Yes; but it would be much more cost effective to run a targeted media advertising campaign. More would learn about the new rule and all would learn at the same time not be 5 years out of date waiting for their 5 year refresher and it would cost us much less.

BTW I subscribe to a free State Law Publishing email service that tells me off all new WA State legislation published and proclaimed and I take a special interest in any changes to the Road traffic Code. I suspect most Australian states offer a similar service.

You seem to have taken a bit of offense to me suggesting that over 65's be tested more frequently

Not really my protest at picking on the oldies was tongue in cheek. The real issue is that research don't support this as improving road safety and it will increase cost unnecessarily and you and I will meet that unnecessary cost in increased licence fees.

[SEZ213]

I did, however, just find something very interesting -

http://www.roadsense.com.au/facts.html

This may be of some help to the cause...

Quote:

FACT 3 - No data from ABOVE the speed limit.

The justification for speed cameras is based on a lie.

The major road safety focus by State Governments is a massive clampdown on traveling above set speed limits - almost to the visible exclusion of all other safety measures. They use a number of university studies as well as their own reports to justify speed camera legislation yet not a single study that we can find reports the number of road crashes that are caused through travel above or below the speed limit.

Maybe I should get onto these guys...and post it wherever possible.

Even had a thought that the likes of Skaife might be a cause he could jump on board with (I know HRT, but it doesn't really matter - the man has the goods).

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I thought that was six? The ICB was blocked through the little tunnel and out the other side by the time I went through at 6:15, as they'd diverted all the traffic back over the Story Bridge (another renowned multiple car pile up site) and into the Valley along Kingsford Smith Drive.

It seems that quite frequently in Brisbane, it is not just two cars involved, but always five or six - or sometimes more, as happened in March - seven vehicles, including 3 trucks, and the southbound traffic slowed because people wanted to have a sticky beak...

These are regular occurrences though - there was an accident at the port last year, which almost caused me myself a trip to the hospital. (I'd cleverly thought of polishing off a 1.25L water before driving home from work, only a 15 minute drive from Pinkenba) - I left work at 4...got home at 7.15. It was 5.45 before I even hit the base of the bridge...

OK, Aussie Blue, explain the above. These locations are all multy laned, pretty much straight, divided roads. They 60 or 80 km/h zones. Yet the above is very true. I live in Brisbane and can vouch for the regularity of these accidents.

If driver training is so good, and people don't need any further traing, why is there a compulsion for 5-6 motorists to all congregate and say hi? How does this happen on a straight road? What evidence do you need to see that people don't know how to drive?

Have you ever done a driver training course?

[Jim Goose]

Accidents like that are usually because people are tailgating in peak hour traffic.
During peak hour everyone bunches up because they are all getting impatient and also because they believe they are driving slow it wont be dangerous.

As soon as speed increases it takes a few seconds for everyone to react so the gaps increase, but soon everyone hits the skids as they come to stop and again, everyone takes a few seconds to react to the car in front.

Earlier this year I watched the car in front of me plough into a trayback 4WD ute at 60kmh. It was peak hour traffic and we were nearing the traffic lights when everyone was slowing down.

With utter astonishment I watched at the gap between the car and the 4WD dissappeared. The driver braked just one second before impact. The 4WD was then shunted into the car infront which was stopped.

How is it I was aware the traffic was stopping, yet the guy in front of me was in laa laa land? How do you miss the brake lights which were at eye level because the 4WD had a lift kit? I could see the 4WDs brake lights come on as i was looking through the windows of the car infront.

Anyhoo back to the post at hand...

[aussiblue]

OK, Aussie Blue, explain the above...

You both missed, mixed and misinterpreted my points. I am not saying that driver behaviour doesn't need to be changed, that some drivers don't lack competence or that the initial training is successful; just that some research shows that advanced driver training generally doesn't achieve the change in behaviour that you want and can in fact, in the case of the high risk youth group, further exacerbate their unjustified overconfidence in their own driving ability.

We do need to change driver behaviour and improve driver competence but advanced driver training isn't he panacea it seems and may if fact make things worse. We need to find another way and no I don't have the answers anymore than the thousands of experts who have been trying for years to find the solution.

Yes I have done advanced driver training. When I joined the State public service in the 70's you had to do one before you were allowed to drive a Government vehicle. And yes it involved the skid pan exercises etc. It was fun but I don't think it made me a better driver and besides I had spent a lot of time already doing those fun things in the gravel pits of my home town in the bush.

[tranquilized]

For those of you begging for compulsory third party insurance, whats the point!?!

Insurance companies should be regarded with utter contempt. The power they have in influencing what people drive is completely unacceptable. Charging 18 year old drivers several thousands in premiums to drive a modern small car is an example.

Now just imagine if everyone had to buy insurance by law. What effect that will do for the products demand/price elasticity? In simple terms, prices would go through the roof; insurance companies would be even more powerfull and self-serving, pushing people out of safe cars, or out of driving altogether. The road toll could go UP, not down. The idea is so bad it makes me angry just thinking about it.

But, having said all that;

Originally Posted by 66FAIRLANE

3rd party insurance linked to licence. I have 3 cars. I can only drive 1 at a time.

This is an absolutely brilliant idea, and the only possible way compulsory insurance could ever work.

This way, 3rd party can be charged according to your driving history, rather than the car you drive. It only covers the other parties property, so ones driving history is a far more relevant variable to measure their potential risk than the car they drive. For new drivers with no history, a base rate could be charged from which point it could rise or fall depending on future driving record - as in traffic offenses as well as claims. Obviously there are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but as a concept I think its great.

Probably not strictly thread relevant though...

[04redxr8]

I am sorry, but I am not seeing what effect 3rd party insurance will have on improving driving conditions. If you have comprehensive insurance, are in accident, and the other driver has no insurance, you can claim on your insurance.

It's then up to your insurance company to collect the money from the other driver.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

I am sorry, but I am not seeing what effect 3rd party insurance will have on improving driving conditions. If you have comprehensive insurance, are in accident, and the other driver has no insurance, you can claim on your insurance.

It's then up to your insurance company to collect the money from the other driver.

Exactly! I cant work out why some people have such strong opinions on this. Maybe they work at insurance companies....

[388cube_edxr8]

Can we please put in something to change the requirements for the road work signs.

As it is now, the Start and End roadwork signs and the corresponding speed limit changes are in no way relative to the actual start and end of the roadwork. It's driving me nuts.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

I am sorry, but I am not seeing what effect 3rd party insurance will have on improving driving conditions. If you have comprehensive insurance, are in accident, and the other driver has no insurance, you can claim on your insurance.

It's then up to your insurance company to collect the money from the other driver.

but what happen if i cant afford full comp??
if i have 3rd party property who i hit is covered, but if someone hit me and no insurance i loose.

i do the right thing by protecting others shurly it should be law that they protect me..

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

I see your point. However, the evidence or data that we for Australia is flawed. If an accident occurs where a vehicle travelling at 40 km/h merges into 100km/h traffic, the cause is listed as speed. if a car travelling travelling at 60 on a wet in 60 zone, slides of the road, the cause is usually speed. (too fast for conditions). Our Government has made a point on collecting data that reinforces its revenue raisning ways. Anything that can be twisted to our governments benefit, usually is.

I am a tradesman and I spend a bit of time on the road. My suggestions were made based on things that I have seen on a daily basis. People who just have no idea about how to negotiate traffic conditions, not knowing how to merge, not knowing the rules when a merging lane becomes an added lane with an unbroken line. Basic things. Distance to park from corners. the list goes on and on.

You seem to have taken a bit of offense to me suggesting that over 65's be tested more frequently. Firstly, we as people generally don't like losing things. But as we get older, unfortunately certain things diminish. Motor function, responses, alertness, vision, hearing, reflexes, etc,etc, all diminish with age. All are very important in operating a motor car on todays roads and in todays traffic conditions. Some people won't acknowledge these changes as it may cause them to lose their independence.

Secondly, I have seem so many older people on the roads, who like to drive at well below the speed limit. Every time I have seen an older person driving like this, I have noticed they all have one thing in common: They all stare straight ahead. They are completley oblivous to everything around them. They have a belief that driving at 80, on a 100km/h freeway makes them the most safest drivers on the road. It would, if they stayed in the far left lane, and actually took observations of what was around them.

As for driver ed. I admit, in a controlled enviroment, I AM A HOON. I love it. I love going sideways in 1st as fast as I can while hitting the revlimiter as much as possible. The V8 sounds awesome. At last years skidpan day I did, ( I try and do one every year, I was talking to one of the instructors. The information he gave me regarding safe seating position, Airbags deploying, how to hold a steering with an airbag correctly, and alot of general info was all things I had never heard before.

I have been driving for 20 years, cars didn't have airbags when I was learning.
How I was taught to hold and turn a steering has changed. If I did the current technique when I was learning I would have failed my driving test.

Now you would remeber better than I do, when did roundabouts come in. They have always been around since I began driving. The correct indicating procedure from what I understand has changed a couple of times since then. But what if you learnt to drive before roundabouts? Wouldn't doing a drivers ed course every 5 years, give the authorities an opportunity to inform us all individually of new technologies and rule changes. You don't need to a study, you just need to be observant of all road users while driving to see where the problems are.

Awesome post, exept it lost all credibility when you said you are a hoon. So much for road safety...

Originally Posted by tranquilized

For those of you begging for compulsory third party insurance, whats the point!?!

Insurance companies should be regarded with utter contempt. The power they have in influencing what people drive is completely unacceptable. Charging 18 year old drivers several thousands in premiums to drive a modern small car is an example.

Now just imagine if everyone had to buy insurance by law. What effect that will do for the products demand/price elasticity? In simple terms, prices would go through the roof; insurance companies would be even more powerfull and self-serving, pushing people out of safe cars, or out of driving altogether. The road toll could go UP, not down. The idea is so bad it makes me angry just thinking about it.

But, having said all that;

This is an absolutely brilliant idea, and the only possible way compulsory insurance could ever work.

This way, 3rd party can be charged according to your driving history, rather than the car you drive. It only covers the other parties property, so ones driving history is a far more relevant variable to measure their potential risk than the car they drive. For new drivers with no history, a base rate could be charged from which point it could rise or fall depending on future driving record - as in traffic offenses as well as claims. Obviously there are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but as a concept I think its great.

Probably not strictly thread relevant though...

Premiums will decrease, I will tell you why.
From an iinsurance perspective, it's based on a proffit, naturally. I mean which business doesn't?
Simply it is out going cost verses incoming cost, so if the quantity of the insurer increases then the premiums decrease. All insurance has gone up dramatically for pretty much everybody due to last years Bush fires and this years floods (here in Vic) cost insures millions so this naturally needs to be recouped.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by burnz

but what happen if i cant afford full comp??
if i have 3rd party property who i hit is covered, but if someone hit me and no insurance i loose.

i do the right thing by protecting others shurly it should be law that they protect me..

Exactly. And it isn't all that expensive if you shop around and drive a car that attracts a low premium.

I have a Festiva and a Starlet, 1 years 3rd party property is something like $260 a year...

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Can we please put in something to change the requirements for the road work signs.

As it is now, the Start and End roadwork signs and the corresponding speed limit changes are in no way relative to the actual start and end of the roadwork. It's driving me nuts.

You can add this to the argunent:

NO RIGHT TURN
Between 3-6pm
and 9-10 pm
buses excepted.

You can see the no right turn from 200m away, yet need to be pretty much at the intersection before you can read the 'terms and conditions' of the sign. Do people who design these things have any clue?

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Awesome post, exept it lost all credibility when you said you are a hoon. So much for road safety...

Except he mentioned that he acts like one in controlled environments, not the road.

He even gave an example, on the skid pan. As long as he keeps it off the road, I don't see how it affects what he said.

[platinumXR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC2SBX2nnUw

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

How is it I was aware the traffic was stopping, yet the guy in front of me was in laa laa land? How do you miss the brake lights which were at eye level because the 4WD had a lift kit.

You partially answered your own question when you wrote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

During peak hour everyone bunches up because they are all getting impatient and also because they believe they are driving slow it wont be dangerous.

I suspect a combination of:

Impatience, selfishness, inexperience, ignorance, arrogance, poor vehicle maintenance, blatant anger, inatention (read: texting), lack of judgement and probably more importantly fatigue which leads to impatience, lack of judgement.....

Do I have answers? Well, whenever I make an observation I get flamed /ignored (not that I REALLY CARE as long as the point gets noticed), and when others say the same thing...they become nearer the top than I do, so no; I do not have the answer, nor can I contribute any further other than to reinforce what others have 'said' with regard to changes in attitude, experience, training, licensing and even vehicle registrations etc.

You are on the right track, don't stop now.

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by burnz

but what happen if i cant afford full comp??
if i have 3rd party property who i hit is covered, but if someone hit me and no insurance i loose.

i do the right thing by protecting others shurly it should be law that they protect me..

Sorry Burnz, never thought about that. Have you asked your insurer whether they would cover your car in that scenario. I heard many years ago, that some insurers would cover your car if the at fault driver had no insurance.

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

I see your point. However, the evidence or data that we for Australia is flawed. If an accident occurs where a vehicle travelling at 40 km/h merges into 100km/h traffic, the cause is listed as speed. if a car travelling travelling at 60 on a wet in 60 zone, slides of the road, the cause is usually speed. (too fast for conditions). Our Government has made a point on collecting data that reinforces its revenue raisning ways. Anything that can be twisted to our governments benefit, usually is.

I am a tradesman and I spend a bit of time on the road. My suggestions were made based on things that I have seen on a daily basis. People who just have no idea about how to negotiate traffic conditions, not knowing how to merge, not knowing the rules when a merging lane becomes an added lane with an unbroken line. Basic things. Distance to park from corners. the list goes on and on.

You seem to have taken a bit of offense to me suggesting that over 65's be tested more frequently. Firstly, we as people generally don't like losing things. But as we get older, unfortunately certain things diminish. Motor function, responses, alertness, vision, hearing, reflexes, etc,etc, all diminish with age. All are very important in operating a motor car on todays roads and in todays traffic conditions. Some people won't acknowledge these changes as it may cause them to lose their independence.

Secondly, I have seem so many older people on the roads, who like to drive at well below the speed limit. Every time I have seen an older person driving like this, I have noticed they all have one thing in common: They all stare straight ahead. They are completley oblivous to everything around them. They have a belief that driving at 80, on a 100km/h freeway makes them the most safest drivers on the road. It would, if they stayed in the far left lane, and actually took observations of what was around them.

As for driver ed. I admit, in a controlled enviroment, I AM A HOON. I love it. I love going sideways in 1st as fast as I can while hitting the revlimiter as much as possible. The V8 sounds awesome. At last years skidpan day I did, ( I try and do one every year, I was talking to one of the instructors. The information he gave me regarding safe seating position, Airbags deploying, how to hold a steering with an airbag correctly, and alot of general info was all things I had never heard before.

I have been driving for 20 years, cars didn't have airbags when I was learning.
How I was taught to hold and turn a steering has changed. If I did the current technique when I was learning I would have failed my driving test.

Now you would remeber better than I do, when did roundabouts come in. They have always been around since I began driving. The correct indicating procedure from what I understand has changed a couple of times since then. But what if you learnt to drive before roundabouts? Wouldn't doing a drivers ed course every 5 years, give the authorities an opportunity to inform us all individually of new technologies and rule changes. You don't need to a study, you just need to be observant of all road users while driving to see where the problems are.

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Awesome post, exept it lost all credibility when you said you are a hoon. So much for road safety...

I did say controlled enviroment as in a drivers ed style of event. The Hoon thing was tongue in cheek, but I would be lying if I said I didnt enjoy it too much.

I"M a big fan of these days. I find I come away learning something new from the instructors every time. It may just be some good advice that makes you think more, or it be something more than that. Either with an open mind, you will learn so much more.

The first time I went, the thing that struck me the most was how easy it was to lose it. Didnt take much effort at all. I think that was a valuable lesson.

[Mad Maxine]

I haven't read through the previous 144 posts, but I would like to add something if it hasn't already been said.... RE the Anti-hooning laws, I think it's bloody unfair if say, I lent my coupe to my partner, and he has a bit of a fang in it, and my car is seized. I didn't to the crime, why should I lose my car. I honestly think it would drive me mental.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by Mad Maxine

I haven't read through the previous 144 posts, but I would like to add something if it hasn't already been said.... RE the Anti-hooning laws, I think it's bloody unfair if say, I lent my coupe to my partner, and he has a bit of a fang in it, and my car is seized. I didn't to the crime, why should I lose my car. I honestly think it would drive me mental.

No it's not fair but in this example, it would be unfair of your partner to have done something to have your car seized. I guess it would be designed to make your partner think again about "hooning" would you not agree?

A broad generalization, yes I admit; but do you see what the laws are [attempting unsuccessfuly] to do? Putting the onus on the driver and making THEM responsible, not the laws.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

Sorry Burnz, never thought about that. Have you asked your insurer whether they would cover your car in that scenario. I heard many years ago, that some insurers would cover your car if the at fault driver had no insurance.

can anybody else answer this question, as i'd like to know.

red; i have full comp just throwing the hypotheticals.

[DRU842]

I would welcome the original objectives of this thread & the summary provided later; with one addition, enforcement also happy to contribute my time in anyway.
Mandatory licensing, Insurance, RWC & retesting are great but if, as is currently the case in NSW no-one is checking the RWC certifiers, then the system becomes open to abuse.
Enforcement of existing rules, outside of speeding is sadly lacking.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

If you can take some photos that would be awesome...add to the appendix of the 'novel'.

Here we go, I took some photos from my phone, I've isolated the potholes but they are all in 30 meters of the road. They might not look too bad but look how they have been "patched" drive over that and your car shudders all over the place, well my Fiesta does.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1060/imag0021b.jpg
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6726/imag0022z.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7343/imag0023sf.jpg
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5263/imag0024ph.jpg
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/3900/imag0025dd.jpg
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/4357/imag0026c.jpg
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/672/imag0027jy.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3419/imag0028n.jpg
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7966/imag0029e.jpg
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/8686/imag0030zk.jpg
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7813/imag0031tz.jpg
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8851/imag0032y.jpg
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/2702/imag0033o.jpg
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/1752/imag0034xr.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7679/imag0035r.jpg

About 10km up the road, mum hit a BIG pothole at night, this is what it did:

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7152/imag0036r.jpg

I'm going to write a letter into my local news paper, and a letter to my MP