Driver license test - questions about peds & cyclists?

This is probably a question that should be posed over at aus.cars.
Anyway for those of you with licenses, do you recall *anything* either
in handbooks or the computer tests that directly related to pedestrians
or cyclists?

Today the media is full of depressing news about the Mildura deaths,
the police admit they're bewildered over the Vic road toll and there's
more defeatist ****ing and moaning about aggressive road behaviour.

At the Connecting Cycling Conference last Thursday, Dr John Pucher
demonstrated how in the German drivers license - 30 / 40% of the
questions directly pertaining to peds/cyclists interactions. Suburban
zones have a strict 30km limit, the Autobahns are quite another
matter!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn

While I'm waiting for a copy of his presentation to verify my notes
I've been going through the VicRoads website trying to check for
references to peds/cyclists. And all I'm finding is rather cursory
references and a lot of gobbledigook. Am I missing something, as I've
never driven a car, or is there a bleeding obvious lack of education,
enforcement and clear speaking?


--
cfsmtb

Am I missing something, as I've
never driven a car, or is there a bleeding obvious lack of education,
enforcement and clear speaking?


I wouldn't say that... From memory, the only reference I remembered was in
the theory exam where the question was;

If you see a pedestrain crossing the road ahead of you, do you;
a) Horn your horn
b) Speed up
c) Slow down

It was *almost* as hard as getting a gun license.

SAD!

EuanB wrote:
cfsmtb Wrote:

This is probably a question that should be posed over at aus.cars.
Anyway for those of you with licenses, do you recall *anything* either
in handbooks or the computer tests that directly related to pedestrians
or cyclists?


To transfer my UK licence to a Australian one I had to take the theory
test but not the practical.

There was very little which pertained to pedestrians or cyclists. It
was about three years ago so pretty hazy but I'd say less than 5%.



It's even worse now. A mate of mine got his motorbike license in the
Cook Islands which consisted of riding down the street and back again.
Then discovered you can transfer it for a "real one" in Aus when you get
home. And even worse, with no P-plate restrictions. Gawd help us all!

daveB

Is there a pattern developing here? State by state or is it just
Victoria?


--
cfsmtb

gplama wrote:

Anyhow.. I'd assume a very large percent of drivers have never even
stat a test.. I know my parents never did.. Even my cousin only had to
drive the local copper down the street and back to get a 'pass

My mate's mum phoned the "local" cops when she lived in the NT to ask
how to get a licence. "Can you drive?" "Yes" "Fair dinkum?" "Yes" "Ok,
we'll post one out to you."

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:55:01 +1100
DaveB wrote:

It's even worse now. A mate of mine got his motorbike license in the
Cook Islands which consisted of riding down the street and back again.
Then discovered you can transfer it for a "real one" in Aus when you get
home. And even worse, with no P-plate restrictions. Gawd help us all!

I transferred a WA car licence to SA with no retest or paperwork. To
get my motorcycle licence I had to sit a theory test for the L plate
which had nothing I recall about peds or cyclists. Then I did the
on road test which consisted of 3 right turns and an 'emergency stop'
from 30kmh. Then I got a full bike licence...

What questions would people want to see on a licence test?

Zebee

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:38:50 +1100, EuanB wrote:

To transfer my UK licence to a Australian one I had to take the theory
test but not the practical.


Same here when I moved to WA. The woman behind the desk was quite concerned
when I wandered in and said I'd like to sit the test there and then rather
than taking the book and studying (I did take it to read later on though).
So 15 years after passing my original test in the UK and plenty of driving
in between may have given me some common sense in driving, but I'd go for
the "any fool can pass it" option.

There was very little which pertained to pedestrians or cyclists. It
was about three years ago so pretty hazy but I'd say less than 5%.

I had one question relating to cyclists. I can't remember what it was, but
I remember that I chose what I felt was the "least wrong" answer.

As GPL said, advanced driving lessons and periodic retests is the way to
go. Can't see that ever happening as way too many voters think it's their
inalienable right to be mediocre or crap drivers.

Graeme

cfsmtb wrote:
This is probably a question that should be posed over at aus.cars.
Anyway for those of you with licenses, do you recall *anything* either
in handbooks or the computer tests that directly related to pedestrians
or cyclists?

Not that I can remember, but it was way back in '89 that I did mine in
Vic, and I got my motorbike licence in WA in the early '90s and can't
recall much about it either. In both cases, from rusty memory it was
just a collection of "who has right of way" type questions and in the
motorbike case, some stuff about stopping distances in various road
conditions.

Why not go and get yourself a driver's licence and get some real-world
experience about what it's like to actually take responsibility for a
1tonne+ partially guided missile while surrounded by other more or less
responsible (and concious!) people in various conditions? Then you'll
know what the test is like too.

Today the media is full of depressing news about the Mildura deaths,

It's going to be very interesting to see the washup from that. Looking
at the diagram of the crash site, and knowing what drunk teenagers are
like, there's a number of possibilities that could pretty-much
exonerate the driver (if he doesn't get lynched first). Maybe it's his
fault, maybe it isn't ...

the police admit they're bewildered over the Vic road toll and there's
more defeatist ****ing and moaning about aggressive road behaviour.

I doubt that the police are bewildered, it's simple - cars, people,
some high-risk takers; accidents: injuries & fatalities. The road toll
is actually bloody good. Have a look at what it used to be like before
booze busses and seatbelts and better enforcement of speed limits, and
dividing the Hume hwy.

At the Connecting Cycling Conference last Thursday, Dr John Pucher
demonstrated how in the German drivers license - 30 / 40% of the
questions directly pertaining to peds/cyclists interactions. Suburban
zones have a strict 30km limit, the Autobahns are quite another
matter!

Maybe the 30km/h thing is a big factor? I'd doubt if more questions on
a test would change anyone's agressive driving behaviour.

Here's a theory on human natu Everyone's(*) an arsehole when they
think they can get away with it, and in a car, it's relatively easy to
get away with being an arsehole.

* - of course, that's everyone except you and me, and I'm not so sure
about you, or me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn

While I'm waiting for a copy of his presentation to verify my notes
I've been going through the VicRoads website trying to check for
references to peds/cyclists. And all I'm finding is rather cursory
references and a lot of gobbledigook. Am I missing something, as I've
never driven a car, or is there a bleeding obvious lack of education,
enforcement and clear speaking?

Maybe. Depends on what you mean by education. The problem boils down
to human nature, IMO. There's a lot of high-minded talk about
improving tests, more regular tests etc, but I reckon that's mostly not
much use. Any halfwit can give an answer to a question that will
satisfy the examiner but not be what they would really do. Only the
trully stupid tick the 'yes, I am a terrorist" box... Enforcement is
really really hard to do. Even the "easy" things like speed, drugs,
phones and alcohol are very difficult to police and on the whole the
likelyhood of capture is low for anyone choosing to break the rules.
It's hard politically *and* practically. Not impossible, but damn
close to it.

What I think is needed to make roads safer is fourfold : increase the
likelyhood of people doing declared dangerous things getting caught.
That's what stopped most of the drunks, and it's made a small
difference to people speeding and using phones. It doesn't stop the
occasional mistakes though.

Single cars pranging into trees on country roads at night, cars losing
control on corners and the like will continue to kill people for as
long as there's people driving cars. This gets reduced by the gradual
improvements in our roads and car passive safety. Dividing country
roads, adding sealed shoulders etc etc all makes a small difference,
but it's not possible to improve everything all at once, not while we
have a war to pay for anyway.

Reduce the volume of cars on the roads. Rising oil prices will satisfy
this one reasonably soon I reckon

And, as much as I don't like it, seperating cars from bikes and bikes
from pedestrians makes it safer for us (bikes). Takes us out of the
firing line. But, so does sitting inside watching TV while riding a
spin trainer. Not an alternative I fancy much.

The learners test for WA can be found at:
http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/licensing/l...ivers/1465.asp

The questions are identical to the ones given at the licencing centre
except there are quite a few more intersection questions. Not much on
cyclists and pedestrians.

After you've done the theory test you get stage 1 learners permit, then
take the practical test. Once you pass the prac you get stage 2 learners
permit where you have a log book and have to drive for at least 25 hours
supervised, which most people don't actually do. Then you have to do a
virtual test which I think might include pedestrians and a wide range of
situations and I've heard can be quite difficult. Personally I just renew
my stage 1 learners permit every few years. Can't get off my bike!

So they are making it harder to get a licence, but probably not hard
enough.

I got asked how much clearance you have to give a cyclist on my learners
test. It was one of two questions I got wrong :P. The correct answer was
two meters: I said one.


--
SomeGuy