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.

QLD New road rules

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by fubarcbr, Oct 21, 2007.

  1. Sorry if this has been posted before i looked and couldn't find it anywhere.

    a friend of mine is looking at getting a bike license and doesn't have a car license either, and we were looking on the QLD transport site last night and it was saying you cannot get a bike license unless you have a car license and have held your P's for 1 year. now i can understand making it so younger people can't get bikes even thought that is bull as well i can see some logic in it. But what i can't see is how they can make it so you have to have a car license to get a bike license.

    To me that seems like discrimination against anyone who only wants to own a bike. if this isn't the case can someone please let me now but i am pretty sure that they can't do that without some sort of loophole.


  2. Nope, that's the way it is

    They must have had a car licence first, they only changed it recently
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Dunno how old your friend is, but this was pretty well publicised. It's to actively deter people from getting motorcycle licences and make the process of getting one much more expensive.

    Pays to get in ASAP with a licence...
  4. i personally think it makes a bit more sense.
    IMO it means that new bike riders will already have a 'basic' roadcraft and road awareness. so its one less thing they need to try to learn when trying to learn how to ride a bike.
    my 2c
  5. Would have thought that you can get your L permit .. but when it's time to progress to Bike License ... you can't until you have a car license? well in vic anyway.
  6. in NSW, in order to have a Stop/Slow (traffic control) ticket, you must also have a car licence. absolutely ludicrous....
  7. Is there a 50cc licence in Australia, they still have them in the UK for 16yr olds.
    Perhaps they would be better off making you get a bike licence before a car licence would probably make drivers more observant.
    I always thought that they should get rid of the Automatic licence except for the disabled, if you're not co-ordinated enough to drive a stick should you be on the road??
  8. Totally with Balmy on this. :grin:
  9. Alternatively they learn roadcraft on something on which they are unlikely to kill other people. In fact - there's a much better case to be madefor a bike licence to be held BEFORE you can have a car licence. A 50cc moped licence at 16 (as the UK used to do - and may still for all Iknow) makes perfect sense.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Alternatively, it means that they learn basic roadcraft in something with a bit of metal around them, so they can have their beginner "oopses" without damaging themselves???
  11. now THAT is a better idea :!:
  12. They might not damage themselves but they are more likely to do damage to others (both people and property)

    I'm more for people have to ride bikes first or at least the 50cc thing so that everyone on the road is more aware of them before the get into something that can do more damage. Kinda the way you have to drive a car before you can learn in a truck.

    Thats my opinion anyway
  13. Indeed, and that is the problem. They have their oopses and since they aren't really punished by them, they learn nothing from the experience. I'm all in favour of people learning their roadcraft on bikes. Let them learn when they're vulnerable, it will encourage caution and certain respect for other traffic - precisely two things lacking most on our roads.

    Plus as mentioned above, let them be less of a menace to others while they're learning - that also makes perfect sense to me. Why should somebody else pay for their mistakes?
  14. I think you've missed the point here mate - what hornet is pointing to in terms of roadcraft and learners is getting used to traffic lights, getting around corners and roundabouts, reading road signs and doing all the other stuff that doesn't actually involve the mechanics of driving the vehicle. Once you get this stuff down pat, learning to control a new vehicle type has less of your attention spent on stuff other than controlling the vehicle. Your comment only makes sense if everyone learns on a bike. Since they don't, being a menace to others on the road is bollocks and only really starts to happen when people get a license to drive on their own and they start pushing boundaries.

    What, in your mind, suddenly makes a person who wants a bike license more dangerous to other road users behind the wheel of a car than every other snot who only wants a car license?

    What the rule does is help keep riders alive longer by allowing them a learning period in a vehicle that doesn't penalise you for simple things like your sense of balance while you are trying to work out whether it is safe to pull out or not, or which lane of the bridge you need to be in to make that next exit, etc. It doesn't imply that cars kill people which is exactly what you are pointing to. When compared to everyone else on the road, in my experience the number of L plated vehicles who cause problems on the road that a rider shouldn't easily be able to handle approaches zero.
  15. That's not what I'm saying. I think EVERYONE, car or bike rider alike, should be starting out on a bike, then after they've been on the roads for a year or so on two wheels, they would be allowed to go for their car licence, if they want one.

    In other words I'm saying things should be exactly the opposite way to the Queensland system.
  16. and yet leaners with someone else beside them get into trouble and dent the property of and injure/endanger other people more frequently than people on bikes by themselves?

    Nope, sorry - I don't see the connection.

    I have no proof either way, but I would think hordes of leaners on bikes, panicking and running wide on corners would cause much more of an overall hazard than any number of accompanied leaners in cars. Feel free to shoot at this agument, as i'm sure you will. Fact remains however that as much as you'd like to biatch and moan, the reasoning for the decision is what has been stated by hornet and it has more merit to support it than your idea.
  17. I think it is a good concept - when you're learning to ride, you're already concentrating pretty hard on the basic operations of the motorbike. If you have already gotten your car license, you must have some idea on how to drive on the roads and it is one less thing to think about, especially up here where thanks to Q-Ride you could theoretically be learning to ride on that big shiny Hayabusa.
  18. Yeah, I was doing Q-ride around the time the new laws came in. The fellas there were saing that the government had QUT doing some statistical stuff with accidents on bikes and were presented with about 10 or so suggestions. Apparently they powers that be chose to implement 3 of the sillier suggestions
  19. The new learner rules for cars requires 100 hours or so supervised driving experience before they can get a license.

    Imagine the costs if you want a bike license and you have to do 100 hours under supervision, but no-one you know has an open license and you've got no-one to supervise you? Makes Q Ride costs look like nothing when lessons average $70 an hour.

    At least most youngsters can get behind the wheel of Mum's Soccer Taxi and drive to school or shops to get some real road experience.

    Blows if you only want a bike license...
  20. 100 hours on L's, one year on P's, THEN you can get your bike licence.

    I don't see a problem with it. It's all about learning road craft before trying to do that AND learning to ride at the same time.