Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National [AUS] Do you support a mandatory restricted provisional license period?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by robsalvv, Feb 8, 2011.

  1. Just following on from the Victorian Motorcycle GLS (Graduated License Scheme) discussion paper, the recent NSW VRU paper and the Draft national road strategy which on pg 43 suggests that there should be a uniform national GLS for learner motorcyclists, I'm wondering what riders think about the likely shape of the national GLS.

    The national GLS is likely to have a minimum L's period of between 6 to 12 months (12m looks like the favoured length), have a prerequisite of at least a probationary license of another type and include supervised hours and other restrictions like a night time curfew. Believe me I have views about those proposals, but for this thread, I'm interested in the period of time after the L's, the provisional / probationary period.

    This is what the P's period might look like:

    - It's likely that the provisional / probationary rules will not grant any credit for holding a full license for another category of vehicle.

    - It's likely that the P's period will be staged (P1 / P2) and apply for a minimum total mandatory period.

    - It's likely that the minimum P's period will be 24months, possibly 36months.

    - It's likely that a rider will be limited to a LAMS bike for the entire P's period.

    - It's likely that a rider will be restricted from carrying a pillion for the entire P's period.

    - It's likely that the P's period will include reduced points and zero BAC.

    - For a rider who is licensed for another vehicle type/types, it's not clear to me whether the P's restrictions will be quarantined only to the motorcycle license.

    So if the likely changes come to pass, a new rider will be limited to a LAMS bike for 4 years (1y L's + 3y P's), have fewer license demerit points (that may or may not apply only to the motorbike license), and have a passenger and zero BAC restriction for the entire time.

    This will apply for any new rider, irrespective of their experience on the road.

    There is no proposal that I've seen to accelerate this period via a demonstrated competency basis.

    The above could be national within 10 years, and here in Victoria as soon as 2013/14.

    So, what do you guys think?
  2. I learnt to drive in NZ where there is a night time curfew on restricted licences and I admit I think it worked a treat over there to keep the hoons off the roads at night (when most of the accidents happen because they're being stupid). I don't think it's the same here though - I haven't seen many (any?) restricted licence holders hooning around at night whilst on a motorcycle. For a car driver I think it may be a good idea though.

    I also don't like the idea of a curfew on motorcycles due to the fact that when I was very new to my learners here, I found night time the best time to practise around the back streets. There's way less traffic and less people to get pissed off at you when you stall on take off 5 times in a row:-s The fact is, I was safer at night but I bet their strategy hasn't conidered that!

    As for the rest of it, I woudn't mind being on my L's and P's longer if it was about less demirit points, no alcohol, no pillion or staying on a LAMs bike longer. BUT I'd want them to remove (alter) the speed limits currently in place for restrcted riders.

    It's just not all that safe to not be able to legally keep up with traffic. Going 80 on a 110 highway is just not something I want to do. Doing it at 90 isn't much better. By bringing this into place, they'd either be expecting us to keep off main roads for 4 years or place ourselves into that danger. It's too long a period to ask someone to wait.
  3. Thats essentially the NSW rules right there rob, minus the first point being if you are over 25 and have a full car licence you skip the 2 years of P2. We are also speed restricted too on top of all that. I never bothered with that restriction though, someone will run my ass over on a freeway. I just do the traffics speed.

    At the moment the licence points are the same licence, but if i were to be pulled over for speeding in the car, that doesnt affect me having a provisional bike licence.
    I havent seen yet what happens if me as a P plater on my bike gets pulled over and mandatorily loses my licence for 3 months, if that includes the car (as it would still have 9 points left), or only the bike.

    Realistically the rules here are ok i think... but i dont like the idea of limiting riders to smaller bikes etc for such a long period.
    Back to your other topic of requiring a car licence for years before being allowed to get a bike licence, the system in NSW presently encourages it, but doesnt require it. 8 years of car driving is a bit much though... 1 would be a better encouragement :p.
  4. I think people with x number of years experience on the roads as a driver and at x age shouldn't have to go through the full process.

    In other words I don't think the current NSW model is too bad.

    I'd rather see a model that involves more training provided to ALL road users. With the proviso that the training is affordable and accesable to everyone, not just those in major cities or major regional centres for that matter.
  5. I think some changes to the current system is warranted but no means to that extent...

    Trouble with all those proposals is the same issue we currently have...
    It's not the amount of time but the k's people clock up during that time....

    (rider who hadn't touched a bike between her L's and License test when I got my license comes to mind)
    Any new system should come with some way of logging k's while on L's, restrictions, etc or else it'll be pointless.

    I'm just about over my restrictions and I've done over 29,000K on the bike in the last 14 months.
    Together with my 30 years of driving, seems ridiculous that somone in my position would have to keep lams restrictions for some 3 years...
  6. Time on Ps and no pillion seems entirely sensible to me. I don't have enough experience to comment on LAMS, though it's always seemed sensible on paper.

    The night curfew would hit my best practice times very hard and i'm not even somewhere particularly busy, after hours car parks in particular. This would make learning much trickier and i don't think i'd be alone. Is this something for the under 25s or for everyone?

    As a pensioner, adding the 120 hours of lessons to get the car followed by another however many hours of lessons with the bike would definately make learning near impossible to budget around, unless it is subsidised like the L course is for NSW.

    0 BAC instead of something like .02 to cover people being sensible but with traces also makes me want to shank someone, any chance the new recommendation will skip that while keeping the reduced points? ;p
  7. Curfew i dont think will be an issue if they follow more of NSW's current rules. They would have to develop a curfew just for motorcyclists.

    As it stands here, P1 holders under 25yo cannot drive with more than one passenger under the age of 21 between 11pm and 5am.
  8. I think it will achieve the road authorities stated goal of reducing the number of motorcyclists on the road, whilst causing maximum inconvenience

    I'm strongly opposed to moving further away from competency based assessments. We are one of the few countries in the world where the 'experts' are advocating against rider/driver training, and in favor of behavioral modifications aimed at improving compliance with the road rules.

    If you can learn to fly a jet fighter aircraft at supersonic speeds in a few months, is it really necessary to spend 4 years learning to ride a bike?
  9. Load of garbage in my opinion. More/better initial training is what is needed. I really don't see how keeping someone on a LAMS restricted bike longer is going to make a better rider, at least initially - which is when it matters most - when you first get out on the open road.

    Better training from the word go to get your L's, more advanced training before progressing to P's and a final test before allowing you onto an open license. The final test could even be done on more powerful bikes to ensure you are capable of handling one.

    My $0.02.
  10. Cheers for your views folks.

    Suriag, no offense, but I suspect the older one is, the more sensible the proposals seem. It's been my observation that the older one gets the generally more conservative one gets. I've seen it in myself and my older peers.

    I have to say I have an issue with the pillion restriction for the entire period. There's no evidence that a rider with a years genuine experience represents a danger to pillions. Victoria must be a gold mine of data given that it has operated a 12month pillion restriction for many years. Where is the data that shows the risk?

    In Victoria, with an average of some 40ish fatalities a year, I think the average pillion fatality rate is like 2 - 3 pa and from what I gather, experienced riders are almost entirely involved (except for skylarking riders - often unlicensed and unhelmeted).

    I'm not convinced there's evidence to show some of the other proposals are valid either. These are just ideas that seem to prima facie have some sense.

    Four years stuck on a LAMS bike also means being stuck on a bike with possibly inferior brakes, suspension and potentially limited tyre choices. I have a strong suspicion that risk taking is going to sky rocket with such long periods on a LAMS bike. The other thing that's coming to mind is that if mandatory ABS comes in, then cheaper bikes wont have the highend ABS that's actually been shown to work smoothly and more importantly, with some lean angle.

    Joes onto something. Even though the proposals are a tightening up of at least Victoria's motorcycle GLS (of which there is NO EVIDENCE showing that it contributes to motorcycle fatalities), it still does not provide "demonstrated competency" beyond a required license skills test. There's nothing to stop someone simply parking a bike until the time clocks over. The key pitfall is still the key pitfall.

    After all the research I've been doing lately, I'm becoming convinced that competency based testing is the way to go.

    Mr Messy / Mick, are you guys aware of any evidence that shows that crash / fatality rates of novice motorcyclists are diving down after the implementation of such strategies?
  11. Not quite sure what you were getting at with the age thing? No offence though, i think that's the first time in years someone's called me young or said i'm not conservative about something. Now i won't have to feel old and beige for being in thirties ;)

    I've certainly no problem with restrictions being harsher for the 25 and younger, just having to pay $20000 (120 hrs + 120 hrs sans friends willing to donate the time) and being unable to actually use the scooter for transport when needed. Those are pretty bloody high bars.

    Also all for competency based assessments, since it's far and away the most sensible way to learn just about anything. Especially if subsidised like the NSW courses.
  12. I assumed that meant you were older. Of course - duh! - it could mean a restricted income also. My apologies.

    I assumed that as an old geezer you were right behind novice riders not taking passengers, as it was blindingly obviously that it was for their own good... lol

    My apologies.

    Now I have to understand your post from the point of view of you being a 30something...
  13. With a disability that affects communication skills. Sorry <_<
  14. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Well said and totally agree.
  15. What i was trying to get at is i've no problem with them being quite restrictive for quite a long time, so long as it doesn't price people out or make the vehicles useless day to day.
  16. Victoria’s current licensing system has proven itself to be good and there is no evidence to support any changes. Opinion is not enough.

    The huge increase in motorcyclists over the years further endorses the competency, safety and confidence in the current system.

    If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
  17. Since you ask...

    im in NSW, and as mentioned, what you have outlined Rob is essentially what it is here. While i think min 3.5 years on a restricted bike seems a bit long, i dont think this aspect needs to be changed. I think its important that people have plenty of time to build up the skills and competency required to safely manage a powerful bike, while still be able to have some fun. Cant have fun in a hospital bed

    As is the general concensus, there should be no speed restrictions on learners or provisional riders. This is the one thing they (NSW) needs to change.

    Yes i support a madatory provisional license period. I would say at least 2.5 years for both L's and P's. I think if you are an experienced driver (so fully licensed) you should be able to shave a year off that, but not the whole provisional license)

    The competency tests in NSW should be used.

    I agree with the current pillion restrictions, no on L's and reds, yes on greens. Also agree with zero BAC.

    No comment on points for each license (no opinion)
  18. Sorry, I don't know of any specific evidence. You'd have to look at the crash/fatality rates prior to the current model (MOST etc) and the crash/fatality rates post introduction of the MOST Training.

    However, from the many OH&S meetings/training I've done over the years, and lets face it that's really what we are tallking about, one of the first steps in reducing 'risk' is education and training. First step is to not do the activity, but I don't like to say that out loud.
  19. since when has any government anywhere adopted this approach on anything. The whole point about being in government is to be seen to be doing something about everything - even if the net result is wasted time and money, and an inferior result. My pet peeve is with education (wife's a teacher) where the next change is implemented before the previous one is evaluated...
  20. Thanks for your thoughts Tim. What do you think about the likelihood that the extended length of time will only encourage people to start pushing their limits because they've outgrown their bike?

    Nice little emotional sting in the tail at the end there. The length of time one has a license may not be the best measure. Like Joe, many of us do lots of kilometres in our first year and some that are in a position to, do several skills courses. A rider can be well and truly ready to step up well before 3.5 years goes sailing by... I certainly was. Would you support a competency basis to approve stepping up? Say, after 12months, succesful completion of the HART step up course endorses you to remove restrictions?

    Totally agree. Differential speed is a bigger risk than almost anything else... it baffles me that this is mandated in some jurisdictions!

    Well I guess that answers the competency / endorsement question above then. I'm genuinely curious as to why you support the period. What evidence are you using to support your view?

    I agree. A period of restrictions is certainly sensible while one comes to grip with a completely different vehicle - it's just a matter of degree.

    Is this the MOST? In your view why is it so good?

    Mind if I ask what your background is? Did you come to your motorcycle license early, mid, late in life?