Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

robracer wrote:Hey John, make em drive a loaded 3 tonne van down the Oxley Highway for a test, if they don,t end up off the cliff they pass

Mate this would not end well....

Imagine...what happens when the spill their coffee on 'the boys' when they need to correct the smart text on the phone or drop the icecream they are eating at the time...and find themselves running wide at one of those beaut corners with a string of bikes coming the other way.

On a brighter note...close the road, set them free and let Darwin select those that succeed.

smithy5 wrote:

philbo wrote:I thoght that only applied to concrete truck drivers

Nah..... Concrete truck drivers are exempt, due to their superior skills

Assessors would just end up under slabs if they failed anyone Is the porn in your truck from the 60's or 70's?

More money to the goverment if thats the case you would want it to be spent on rider training some people can not aford upright courses

Ensuring that drivers and riders have the skills to ride/drive will never be the governments answer. While ever there are plenty of people crashing and dying on our roads they have a reason to continue brainwashing the general public and hwy patrol into beleiving that speed kills. Why on earth would they want to stop raising revenue through speeding fines. Our economy is balanced on that revenue, isn't that more important than actually teaching peoplel to control a vehicle with skill and thereby reducing the road toll???????

okay, well, lets make all car drivers ride a motorbike before they can have their licence so that they get some idea of how we feel on nthe road, then maybe they will be more corteous. Seriously, too much legislation rules and red tape. People will always die on the roads no matter what levels of testing etc, call it evolution and get over it!

I was in an accident yesterday which pissed me off because although I wasnt at afault, I keep asking if there was anyway it could have been avoided and the answer is yes - if the driver of the car didn't decide upon entering a two laned roundabout that she really wanted to turn left, and possibly if the lovely old dear had been wearing her prescription glasses instead of her prescription sunglasses at dusk, and maybe if she at least decided to use her blinker to signnal her illegal move.

I get a bit fed up of people trying to introduce stupid levels of rules and regulations in order to stop the inevitable, all it really does is cause a pain in the arse and a waste of time and money.

Rant over

The other way it could have been avoided, was if you presumed the other driver was about to do what they did and prepared for it. Ride / drive defensively and be prepared for anything. Saved me many times from being an innocent third party.

smithy5 wrote:The other way it could have been avoided, was if you presumed the other driver was about to do what they did and prepared for it. Ride / drive defensively and be prepared for anything. Saved me many times from being an innocent third party.

Not possible in this case, they turned so quick, no indication at all that they were going to and they were actually past the turn, so effectively they were doing a part u turn in a roundabout! don't think anyone could foresee that!

MrFaulty wrote:I get a bit fed up of people trying to introduce stupid levels of rules and regulations in order to stop the inevitable, all it really does is cause a pain in the arse and a waste of time and money.

Rant over

I don't want them to introduce stupid levels of rules. I just want them to weed out the shit riders/drivers by requiring them to have greater skills in riding/driving to get their license in the first place. It should not be the expectation that everyone is entitled to get a license. Not everyone has the spatial awareness and motor skills to do it safely/competently, so they should be discouraged from getting their license rather than given a number of chances to pass an invalid and oversimplified test that is set at such a level, that the incompetent can achieve success. I think you would find that if you had more competent drivers/riders, you could increase speed limits and decrease the amount of rules and regulations that have been put in place to try to prevent the inevitable. The real problem is what Leanne said, the government rely on the revenue created by the entire population owning and driving vehicles and by having rules in place that 90% of the population regularly break and get fined for the privilege.

Nelso wrote:I don't want them to introduce stupid levels of rules. I just want them to weed out the shit riders/drivers by requiring them to have greater skills in riding/driving to get their license in the first place. It should not be the expectation that everyone is entitled to get a license. Not everyone has the spatial awareness and motor skills to do it safely/competently, so they should be discouraged from getting their license ...

agree 100%.

Where's gun where you need one?? oh that's right the criims and lebs have them all

would explosive's do

Nelso wrote:

MrFaulty wrote:I get a bit fed up of people trying to introduce stupid levels of rules and regulations in order to stop the inevitable, all it really does is cause a pain in the arse and a waste of time and money.

Rant over

I don't want them to introduce stupid levels of rules. I just want them to weed out the shit riders/drivers by requiring them to have greater skills in riding/driving to get their license in the first place. It should not be the expectation that everyone is entitled to get a license. Not everyone has the spatial awareness and motor skills to do it safely/competently, so they should be discouraged from getting their license rather than given a number of chances to pass an invalid and oversimplified test that is set at such a level, that the incompetent can achieve success. I think you would find that if you had more competent drivers/riders, you could increase speed limits and decrease the amount of rules and regulations that have been put in place to try to prevent the inevitable. The real problem is what Leanne said, the government rely on the revenue created by the entire population owning and driving vehicles and by having rules in place that 90% of the population regularly break and get fined for the privilege.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, the issue is it could potentially cause greater problems than it fixes. As it stands currently, holding a licence is a right and not a privilege.

If you raise the bar more will not pass, which is ultimately the goal to have a higher average of driver, problem is we don't have the support and infrastructure to have more people requiring public transport to get to work and the associated problems with a less mobile society. Australia is very spread out and own vehicle transport is a part of the fabric of Australia.

However imagine if 3% more than currently do failed and could not meet the standard, that would be 3% less rego, less fuel excise, car sales and support industries and more load on the public system plus lower employment or being under employed, the scenario could be worse than what we currently have and probably has something to do with why they don't raise the standard.

It makes no sense that motorcyclists have to 3 days of instruction in NSW but a car licence requires 0 time of formal training. You have to wonder why especially if you believe the hype that since they introduced it motorcycle deaths as a percentage has significantly decreased.