Road Rule discussion

[Warks]

That said, I plan on teaching my children to drive but have a few professional lessons thrown in to boost the logbook hours.

I'd also put them on a defensive driving course once they qualify. I did these courses several times through my work and even though I'd been driving for 20 years then I still learned a lot which I still use.

 

[anat0l]

I'd say it goes beyond that, consider Germany, to obtain a drivers licence there, you need to complete the following:

• An 8hr First Aid course
• An Eye-exam
• Road-rules general knowledge test
• Written Theory exam
• Minimum number of practical driving lessons including Autobahn, Urban, Rural and Nighttime

I was under the impression that a basic mechanics course was also required, but not sure on this..

Yet in Australia we essentially ask multiple choice questions and need to perform a three-point turn.

Well in Australia - or QLD rather - you now have to keep a logbook as a learner and this needs to fill a minimum number of hours before you can sit the practical test for your provisional licence.

The problem is that the logbook records are very easily forged.

The main one missing is the first aid course. I can't imagine that being popular here. The first aid requirement for some professions is actually being removed.

Frankly if they taught people to drive rather than pass the test we would all be better off. The best driver training I ever had was when I got my HR licence and had to be able to demonstrate I could drive the vehicle safely in heavy traffic.

But this is the problem. People are simply trying to pass the test. They know that once the test is passed and they have a licence, unless they are willfully reckless they will never lose it. No one will ever test them again. So there.

If retesting was required, say, every 3 years, that might be a different story. But then people would not like that at all. I can't think of a jurisdiction which has such a requirement.

Also, testing approves your ability to drive on the assumptions that either (a) everyone is as good a driver as when they passed the test (or as good as you, depending on how well you passed), and/or (b) the road is empty. Neither are completely reasonable assumptions.

I think they have a very rigorous system, which then allows the speeds they drive on the Autobahns.

The rigorous system, IMO, is more bred from a long standing proud tradition of motoring and to avoid a lot of conflicts thereof.

The speeds you can drive on the Autobahn, I would say, has little to do with the system you describe. Long stretches of Autobahn which are practical enough to drive at top speed is simply a matter of liberal practicality; in practice, there are many parts of the Autobahn which have posted speed limits, and only few areas which have unrestricted limits. The entire Autobahn system is not speed limit free. Many vehicles in Germany are deliberately manufactured and sold with speed limitations.

You could probably tear down the highway at 200 km/h in Australia too - as long as hardly anyone is around; the road is fairly flat, long and in good condition; and you don't get caught.

Driving offences, as I might be lead to believe, attract stricter penalties in Germany than they do in Australia.

Don't get me started on the AU system where someone taught bad habits by their parents can pass them on to their children.

My dad reckons shoulder checks (i.e. looking briefly over your shoulder when changing lanes to check the blind spot, or that is the idea) are an idiotic idea - mirrors should do the lot and it unnecessarily distracts the driver who should always be focussed on the road ahead.

He also taught me, however, that it is better to be wrong and alive than to be correct and dead. I guess that applies for road rage incidents, too. He grew up driving in Manila, however, which has a much more survivalist and cutthroat approach to driving.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That said, I plan on teaching my children to drive but have a few professional lessons thrown in to boost the logbook hours.

I'd also put them on a defensive driving course once they qualify. I did these courses several times through my work and even though I'd been driving for 20 years then I still learned a lot which I still use.

The issue of the benefits of defensive driving courses is a complex one. No doubt they have their value in some cases, but there is research to suggest that instead of making the roads safer, they can actually make them more dangerous for inexperienced and young drivers. This is because younger participants may apply the skills they learn to take more risks (in the belief they can handle those risks), rather than avoid a dangerous situation.


Defensive driving lessons 'don't make roads safer'

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My dad reckons shoulder checks (i.e. looking briefly over your shoulder when changing lanes to check the blind spot, or that is the idea) are an idiotic idea - mirrors should do the lot and it unnecessarily distracts the driver who should always be focussed on the road ahead.

Agree - but current standard mirrors don't do that. Until a type of mirror covering blind-spots becomes mandatory, checking over your shoulder is the way to go.

 

[JessicaTam]

Agree - but current standard mirrors don't do that. Until a type of mirror covering blind-spots becomes mandatory, checking over your shoulder is the way to go.

Absolutely. Mirrors simply don't show everything that you need to see to be able to drive safely, hence the need for 'head checks'. If one of my students does not do a head check, they will not be endorsed by me and will have to come back and try again later. They are that important.

Anat0l, please don't take offence at this, but if your father teaches you not to do head checks and you then pass that learning on it is propagating poor driving, which was my point.

I agree that not all of Germany's roads are speed limit free, but by having such a good training regime, they at least are able to have them in the first place.

 

[Shelf]

That's nothing compared to the total ignorance about roundabouts ....

This stretch of road has led to thousands of vehicle collisions.

RAA | Membership / SAMotor: The new Britannia

 

[JessicaTam]

This stretch of road has led to thousands of vehicle collisions.

RAA | Membership / SAMotor: The new Britannia

I have driven the latest iteration a couple of times, and seems to be pretty good. Has the accident rate dropped?

 

[Wannabee]

My favorite is turning right from the left hand lane. (on a roundabout)

Some roundabouts are designed that way. We have a new one with this feature on the highway and it is bound to cause an accident

 

[anat0l]

Absolutely. Mirrors simply don't show everything that you need to see to be able to drive safely, hence the need for 'head checks'. If one of my students does not do a head check, they will not be endorsed by me and will have to come back and try again later. They are that important.

Anat0l, please don't take offence at this, but if your father teaches you not to do head checks and you then pass that learning on it is propagating poor driving, which was my point.

No offence taken, and that was the idea of quoting it. I don't know if it is a "bad habit", but what you say is happening and that's an example. A more commonplace example is simply when being driven by your folks after (or before) obtaining your licence, or when the folks are the back seat driver.

I actually do head checks.

I agree that not all of Germany's roads are speed limit free, but by having such a good training regime, they at least are able to have them in the first place.

I don't think the training regime has anything to do with the speed limit free roads. The Autobahn was intended, from its slender beginnings, to be an unrestricted road. In the days when they were first introduced as such, they didn't have exactly really powerful cars, let alone ones that could speed down the highways at 250 - 300 km/h. That said, we're mostly arguing semantics now - no point.



One thing I don't quite get is "speeding". That is:

• If there is "clear road" and no hint of a speed camera, people will speed, e.g. go 70-80 km/h in a 50-60 km/h zone. Even if you are in the left lane, you might get honked for doing the speed limit when you could "go faster".
• Going slightly over the speed limit temporarily is often required when changing lanes in close-in traffic situations. This is not so true if the lane change isn't necessarily required (e.g. on long stretches of highway), but when you must change lanes to orientate yourself properly, this is necessary. And you never know if people will be obliging or an a***hole in letting you have space to get in. The traditions of waving (wave in the right of way, or wave to say thanks) is disappearing, especially when more vehicles are investing in tinted windows (can't see a damn thing).
• One can almost not avoid speeding when going down a steep hill, especially in a low speed limit zone. Otherwise, your brakes get a damn workout in the process.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

...

• Going slightly over the speed limit temporarily is often required when changing lanes in close-in traffic situations. This is not so true if the lane change isn't necessarily required (e.g. on long stretches of highway), but when you must change lanes to orientate yourself properly, this is necessary. And you never know if people will be obliging or an a***hole in letting you have space to get in. The traditions of waving (wave in the right of way, or wave to say thanks) is disappearing, especially when more vehicles are investing in tinted windows (can't see a damn thing).
• One can almost not avoid speeding when going down a steep hill, especially in a low speed limit zone. Otherwise, your brakes get a damn workout in the process.

I disagree on both those elements... there is vary rarely an excuse for breaking the law with respect to speed limits. If you need to exceed the limit to change lanes, you shouldn't change lanes. You should wait until such time as you can do so comfortably within the set limits. Rather than speed up, as many people do to change lanes, why not slow down?

Using brakes is appropriate if you are going to exceed the speed limit going down a hill.

In Victoria I find most cars actually go under the speed limit these days... even on 'clear roads'. But if there is pressure to exceed the limit, it should be ignored.

 

[anat0l]

I disagree on both those elements... there is vary rarely an excuse for breaking the law with respect to speed limits. If you need to exceed the limit to change lanes, you shouldn't change lanes. You should wait until such time as you can do so comfortably within the set limits. Rather than speed up, as many people do to change lanes, why not slow down?

I think it is often said to never slow down when changing lanes, unless it is unavoidable.

Trying slowing down to change lanes when there are cars behind you. Again, unless absolutely unavoidable, you're likely to get honked at, and possibly rear ended. It's even worse if none of the vehicles in the lane you want to change to won't let you in. I guess in that situation it is better to give up changing lanes and work around it (e.g. if not changing lanes causes you to miss a turn or exit, then just work towards the next opportunity then backtrack).

In Victoria I find most cars actually go under the speed limit these days... even on 'clear roads'. But if there is pressure to exceed the limit, it should be ignored.

Ah, try driving in Brisbane. Especially when you consider how much more hilly Brisbane is compared to much of Melbourne.

You rarely see anyone go under the speed limit in Brisbane, even if it isn't "clear traffic". Doing 65 - 80 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, even when going up a hill, is not unusual. I don't do it, but you get plenty of others who overtake me if I do the speed limit. The only time everyone gets timid is if a speed camera is in operation.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think it is often said to never slow down when changing lanes, unless it is unavoidable.

Trying slowing down to change lanes when there are cars behind you. Again, unless absolutely unavoidable, you're likely to get honked at, and possibly rear ended. It's even worse if none of the vehicles in the lane you want to change to won't let you in. I guess in that situation it is better to give up changing lanes and work around it (e.g. if not changing lanes causes you to miss a turn or exit, then just work towards the next opportunity then backtrack).



Ah, try driving in Brisbane. Especially when you consider how much more hilly Brisbane is compared to much of Melbourne.

You rarely see anyone go under the speed limit in Brisbane, even if it isn't "clear traffic". Doing 65 - 80 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, even when going up a hill, is not unusual. I don't do it, but you get plenty of others who overtake me if I do the speed limit. The only time everyone gets timid is if a speed camera is in operation.

I guess this is where Victoria is quite different. We have large numbers of both fixed and mobile speed cameras... the effect of the mobile ones is that speed on all roads tends to be slower - you never really know where they're going to be hidden (it's not uncommon for people to do 55 in a 60 zone!). No one honks here if you aren't doing exactly the limit (or even 'just a little over'). We even have speed cameras in our 40 zones now... and large parts of the city and most shopping strips are all included in 40 zones... not just schools. So everyone tends to go a bit slower (and strangely enough... doing 60 seems quite fast now!). Fines are issued here at just 2km/hr (or is it 3?) over the limit.

In Melbourne it's almost accepted you might/will slow down to change lanes... and if cars are behind you they kinda just wait. But 9 times out of 10 if you're indicating, you'll only have to wait one or two cars before someone lets you in.

 

[Warks]

Just about every car I drove when hiring them with a GPS showed the speedos all read at least 3 kph over the actual speed so people who are trying to sit on or under the speed limit are actually well under it. It's simple to check on those overhead speed checkers between Sydney and Wollongong or Melbourne and Geelong (if they're still there) - I always got the same result - about 3 kph. My brother had a Nissan which he found was constantly overtaken on highways. He checked the speedo and found it was showing 8 kph over its actual speed.

This is all to say there is some margin for error. A speedo will NEVER show the car going slower than it actually is going apparently unless faulty.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This is all to say there is some margin for error. A speedo will NEVER show the car going slower than it actually is going apparently unless faulty.

I believe this is correct.

There was a discussion a year or so ago on this topic, all current speedos in Australia are required to overestimate speed in the event of any variance between actual and shown speed.

 

[TomVexille]

A speedo will NEVER show the car going slower than it actually is going apparently unless faulty.

Mine does. :shock:


But I do believe it's faulty

 

[TomVexille]

I think it would take a VERY BRAVE politician to suggest drivers licensing should be stricter.

That's because people think that driving is their right, not a privilege.

 

[SeatBackForward]

That's because people think that driving is their right, not a privilege.

Yet other vehicles used for industrial purposes are much better regulated, even though they are less likely to inflict as much damage... Bizarre...