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.

[VIC] More Stringent Motorcycle Licence Testing?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by mjt57, Aug 2, 2009.

  1.  Top
  2. Interesting that for once the note at the end specifically said

    I can see their point about the testing. How many times do we hear on this forum of a recently passed L plater requesting assistance and guidance on what are some very very basic manoeuvres. Then we have the obligatory 'well it had to happen' post about their first accident (which 9 times out of 10 seems to be rider error and missing basic skills).

    What would be interesting though is a counter to this idea that 120hrs of (parental) supervised practice isn't necessarily the panacea of driver training either. If you repeat the first hour 120 times, you are not learning much and if the untrained supervisor is also not all that good, you've spent 120hrs reinforcing bad behaviour.

    Have you heard what the nutbags have done in the UK? There was a new EU directive passed a year ago and as usual the safety hats in the UK have fully implemented it (the UK is the only EU country that implements the regulations!). Training grounds have to be a certain size and have certain facilities, meaning that the only people who can afford to run them are now just a handful of companies. With training being compulsory you now have riders having to travel great distances just to attend a course to learn how to ride. A covert way of trying to eliminate bikes me thinks.
     
     Top
  3. After reading the above link, I'd have to agree with cejay.
    It smells of dodgy motives and quite clearly aimed at showing their 'care' (cough, splutter b*llsh*t..ahem, cough splutter) toward riders in general where not once have they made mention that drivers may possibly be an important factor as to why the motorcycle accident rates are on the rise...oh no, but let me see...Of COURSE a rider wants to get hit whilst out on the roads..."Didn't you know already ? I factored that into my riding"...dumb arses, all of them ! With a cunning, sinister twist..the most annoying part.
     
     Top
  4. It's a small but good step I reckon.

    There was some pretty average numptys when I took both L's and P's.

    One bloke in particular wobbled around all day, failed the test by dropping the bike. He took the test again right away (after paying again) and scraped through. More training would have helped his skills.

    Now all they need to do is follow up with similar changes in car licensing, subsidize advanced rider/driver training, fix up the roads and crack down on dangerous drivers rather than people speeding by 3kms. :-w
     
     Top
  5. they need to add a better basic skills lesson component. I.e. Hill starts! How many times do we get asked about hill starts Low speed manouvering, not just a slow ride in a short box. any number of the drills about using peripheral vision, and being aware of your surroundings, how many times have people just walked into you on a foot path coming out of shops, actually we should probably build a list and hit Tony over the head with it.

    A lot of the skills required are not only riding skills but basic life skills, and would be benefitial to everyone.
     
     Top
  6. Just a brief post before I go out.

    It's about situational awareness training and making sure people have some real on-road skills.

    I think it's pretty unanimous among most riders that current training really doesn't cover enough.

    The article was somewht truncated from what I expected it would be - but I understand that there may be more articles to come. The author had a copy of the draft PTW transport and safety strategy that he wanted some comments on.
     
     Top
  7. I thought the most telling part was the bit at the bottom where they quite clearly attributed blame for the fatality yesterday to the car driver. That is a major win, regardless of the rest. For the media and the government to recognise that sometimes it is the car drivers fault would go a long way.
     
     Top
  8. I had the exact same thought cejay.
     
     Top
  9. A few years back QLD's license was a little worrying.
    If you held a car license for 3 years and passed your q-ride - like the MOST test - you went straight to your opens.

    So after say 4 lessons and a test you could legally get a litre bike.

    Now it has learners then P's then unrestricted.

    And now to the topic at hand. Testing it's self doesn't need to be more stringent because the nature of a test is to see if you can do what is deemed needed at a paticular time. What I beleive needs to be implace is more along the lines of what car drivers have, where you need a certain number of hours (I think some must be with a licensed instructor) before you can take the test.
     
     Top
  10. Dunno if that's a win or not.

    The media should not be attributing blame in any reported crash. That would be up to the coroner in the case of a fatality.

    It should have said something like, " a man died after a collision between a car and a motorcycle occured".
     
     Top
  11. I agree in part, but riders and drivers all need better training. Be it car bus or truck.

    I think everyone gets their license far too easy.
     
     Top
  12. I just did my Ps today (yay) and have to say I agree. I think the test should involve more than the couple of turns and stops that are currently required, and the amount you can stuff up and still pass is way too lenient, unless you drop the bike, or go the wrong way on all your turns, I don't see really see how anyone could fail.
     
     Top
  13. Congrats on your achievement.

    Now, for those of us who haven't been through the system for a long time, could you tell us what the process is (for Victoria) to get your learners through to the licence stage?

    When I got my Ls, all I did was to rock up to the Motor Registration Branch, do a 30 question mutli-choice quiz, eye and color test, and out the door. 3 months later I rocked up to the local TOG office with the required money and forms. I'd forgotten something and the copper wanted me to go home to get it. So I rode home, got it, returned half an hour later. Licence was filled out. Paid for it and left.

    Some of the mates actually had the copper walk outside and watch 'em ride off...

    This is the mid-late 70s.
     
     Top
  14. From the article:
    In my view this should be the number one priority.
     
     Top
  15. To get the Ls you have to go to do the permit course, which involves a basic 20 question (iirc) roadcraft theory test, 8+ questions wrong = pay your money and try it again the following day. Then theres the practical test which is split up into 3 parts:

    cornering - go around a marked curve without crossing the line
    braking - stop with your front wheel in a marked box
    e-braking - stop within a few meters after the instructor signals you
    slow ride - get from A - B (about 10 metres) in no less than 10 seconds.

    the practical test takes about 5 minutes to complete, and you can pay to try it again straight away if you fail.

    then wait 3 months and do the license test, which is just practical and consists of a left and right curve, a left and right counter steer, and 2 e-brakes. The longer you take to brake or less extreme turn = rack up more points. The test is designed for wet weather though, so there is tonnes of room to brake and the corners are easy, even more so when it's dry.

    A couple of people had never ridden a bike besides their L's test and easily passed, if that gives you any idea on how hard it is.

    *edit* Syntor I completely agree with that. I took driving lessons prior to getting my car P's, which was fairly recently, about 2 years ago now. The instructor never mentioned anything about bikes, and they were never really mentioned in the Learner theory test. It wasn't until I started riding myself that I really started to look for them. Although I do think those "look again for motorcycles" adds are a good initiative.
     
     Top
  16. By 'course' do you mean that the course consists only of the test itself?
    If so, that's disturbing. Nearly two decades ago my Ls course consisted of two full days of intensive instruction, theory and practical. If the instructors weren't satisfied that you were competent you didn't even get to do the test. It was run by Vicroads themselves, employing some very experienced and effective training personnel.
    From the sounds of it, we have not been well served by privatising the process (?)

    On the matter of the media report itself, good result for the rider representatives, I think. You made your point very well. Vicroads and the government have been shown up for their lack of action on the strategy, and have got some explaining to do if they want to retain any credibility. Well done TE, JK and co.
     
     Top
  17. The current system doesn't prepare you for the road and there certainly is room for improvement.

    A half of a day riding in 1st and 2nd gear doesn't prepare you for 100Km/Hr highways and busy intersections. I think some get past the initial period by luck until their skill improves.

    My GF just got her L's yesterday and both the instructor and herself say that she isn't confident in using the controls to ride a bike on the street, but she still got her L's

    If someone is struggling they then put them on an automatic scooter, they get their license and then they're on their own trying to learn to use gears etc whilst in traffic
     
     Top
  18. well is that an ethical, legal, or moral problem?
     
     Top
  19. I'm all for more testing and instruction. The current process is too little to ensure rider competency and I do believe that on road training would be beneficial. I also believe that the pre L and pre licence training should be a requirement of sitting the tests.

    Of course it goes without saying that the L and P testing for cars is in even greater need of an overhaul. Currently there is no requirement for professional training. Most people do their driver training under the instruction of their parents and friends who have no qualifications in driver education. I feel strongly that their should be pre L and pre licence training incorporated into licensing for cars, as well as an on road component with a qualified instructor.

    I've said it before but it's worth saying again, IQ testing would also go a fcuking long way towards lowering the road toll, specifically with respect to situational awareness, spatial awareness, logic and reasoning. :)
     
     Top
  20. In Victoria...

    Titus, the Ls course consists of a few hours of practical training as well as classroom discussions about road craft and law etc. I think it is possible to opt to do the test only, not the course. I guess this is for those already confident on a bike from off road experience.

    The licence test was slightly more vigorous - I spent about 10 hours I think over two days at the training centre, with most of those spent riding.

    It's not perfect, but it's better than the article implied. There is no doubt that more training could only be of benefit in terms of rider skills, but there is the question of accessibility. It is already quite an expensive process, and any significant improvement would probably mean a significant increase in cost.

    At the end of the day it is the responsibility of each new rider to assess their own skills - if after gaining their learner's permit they don't feel confident, then they can always take measures to improve their skills before taking to country roads and city traffic all on their lonesome.
     
     Top