is it too easy to get a truck or bus license?

[Bruce Tuncks]

There have been a fair few accidents lately involving truck or buses.

It has occurred to me that the problem is that it is way too easy to get a license to drive such a big and dangerous thing, and that we are giving licenses to stupid people.

I know that there are lots of good truck drivers, quite a few on this site, who would know more about this.

My daughter-in law drives the  local hospital bus and she is very smart and very careful. I can't imagine her doing the sort of things we read about. Now I know that it is political suicide to insist on an IQ test, but surely they can achieve something worthwhile by making it harder to get a heavy-vehicle license.

[onetrack]

Yes, Yes and Yes. The problem today is they putting idiots in charge of even bigger rigs all the time. I hope they throw the book at that bus driver, but of course, his lawyer will pick up on the fact the guard rail was too close to the roundabout, so that gives the driver a major "out" as regards being pinned directly for the deaths. Now the council or DMR will be on the receiving end of the compensation payout.

 

This is what the standards have degraded to, today - and this is an MC class driver, he's supposed to have substantial single semi-trailer experience before being put in charge of a road train.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I drive a bus and truck and sure feel the responsibility when at the wheel. Luckily, my journeys are short and local. I’d be dangerous doing long-range trips and have the greatest respect for those who do.
What is needed to be a safe and effective driver? intelligence? More likely a suitable mental attitude.

 

I bet a simple AI device could quickly detect inappropriate behaviour by a driver, but would we accept a machine judging us?

[red750]

I can't believe he was bailed after a number of passenger claim they complained a number of times about the unsafe driving, and his response was "If you think that's fast, watch this." only sconds before the accident.

[old man emu]

OK. As a qualified police traffic accident investigator AND the holder of a Public Passenger Vehicle Driver's Authority, I reckon I'm in a good position to comment.

 

1. Ease of obtaining a heavy vehicle driver's licence.

It is not easy. The theory and practical syllabus is quite heavy. No longer can you rock up to a testing site, drive around the local suburb and come back to pick up your upgraded licence. You have to study these documents simply to be able to book a driving test.

https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/driver-and-rider-licences/heavy-vehicle-licences/tests-for-heavy-vehicle-licences/heavy-vehicle-knowledge-test

 

2. Obtaining a Public Passenger Vehicle Driver's Authority.

This involves further theory, as well as obtaining a medical report (Ha! Ha! This year I used my CASA Basic Class 2 medical report)

https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/apply-for-a-bus-driver-authority

If you want to have children as passengers, you also need a Working With Children check. I recently was accepted for employment as a driver. The company required me to complete something like 14 theory units, all related to the rules for operating a bus and dealing with passengers, all before they would assign me a job. That was after I had completed a test of the way I handled a full-sized tourist coach in an urban setting. 

 

3. Comments on the Greta roll-over.

a. Transporting passengers to and from any event where alcohol is available heightens the pressure on a driver. Even if the driver enforces the "No Beverages on board" rule, most people going to these events start charging up with grog well before the bus arrives to pick them up. The driver has to cope with pissed idiots from the get go. The driver has a duty of care to ensure the safety of these idiots, but the grog raises the threat of violent reaction. Trying to get these idiots to remain seated is  difficult. I recently had to stop my bus in the middle of nowhere because the passengers were yelling at me to go faster. However, I was trying to negotiate unlit roadworks in darkness, and I had noted the condition of the road in daylight on the outward trip. I had to stop to tell the idiots that if they kept it up, I would turf them off the bus. (Obviously and idle threat, but well within my authority. So I can fully understand how the involved driver could have been caught up in the behaviour of his passengers and responded incorrectly to the goading to go fast.

 

b. The driver was local to the area. He would have been aware of the design of the road. In any case, he should have been concentrating on the task of driving, not interacting with the passengers whilst the vehicle was in motion.

 

c. It is reported that the passengers were moving about in the bus. It is a legal requirement for passengers to wear seatbelts in a bus where they are fitted. The responsibility for that rest on the individual. The driver simply has to inform passengers before moving off that seatbelts must be worn.

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

his lawyer will pick up on the fact the guard rail was too close to the roundabout, so that gives the driver a major "out" as regards being pinned directly for the deaths.

That is not correct. The elements of the offence do not take into account what happened after the bus went out of control. The offence only relates to the actions of the driver that resulted in the loss of control. After that, all that needs to be proved is that there was an impact between the vehicle and any other object. In this case, the first impact was most likely with the road surface.

In every accident investigation, three things must be examined: 

1. The Driver
2. The Vehicle
3. The Road (which also includes weather, lighting, sight distance, traffic density)

The vehicle will be examined to see if any part of the mechanism failed - brakes, steering components, suspension, throttle controls, gear engagement, tyres and centre of gravity location (load distribution). The road will be examined to see if a suitable level of friction between the road surface and the vehicle's tyres could be achieved, was the camber of the road surface a factor, was the radius of the roundabout suitable for the signposted speed limit on the road.

 

The fate of the driver is something that the Court has to decide. Here is a man who is exactly like you and me. He made a mistake in applying his skill to a task, and ten lives have been lost and many more are shattered. I really feel sorrow for the man. We must, however, remember that, although his actions have caused devastation, his mental punishment will be more than any years of incarceration could inflict on him. You have to have sympathy for the Judge who will eventually have to hand down a sentence.

[old man emu]

38 minutes ago, red750 said:

I can't believe he was bailed

The granting of bail is determined by many factors. In the first instance, we must remember that under our legal system, the man is held to be innocent of the alleged offences until either he enters a plea of "Guilty", or his guilt has been determined by an examination of the evidence. Secondly, one must consider the protection of the community from further offences. He is not likely to go an a road rampage. He is not likely to flee the jurisdiction. No doubt he is a long time local resident, and not likely to abandon his family. He has been granted bail with conditions which will protect the community and lessen the chances of his fleeing. I have often requested that a prisoner of mine be granted bail as I saw no reason not to.  

 

If I was to be callous about it, here is a man whom one suspects is in a terrible mental state. Better to get him out of the custody of the Crown in case he self-harms and those responsible for his well-being at the time find themselves caught up in a "Death in Custody" investigation.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thx, OME.

But I still have to wonder if the standard is high enough. You have made a good case about the current standard being higher than I thought it was, thanx.   But you yourself are clearly smart enough to have coped with even tougher.

I reckon it should be about as hard as getting to fly an airliner interstate.

[onetrack]

Well, it's obvious the standards are slipping, now we've had a dickhead truck driver take out an Adelaide-Darwin freight train at Katherine. Talk about switched off.

 

And in nearly every case, these people are found to have safety-deficient trucks, deficient licences, and generally a long record of traffic offences.

 

This bloke had better have a good insurance policy, because wiping out trains rapidly gets very costly.

 

The cost of the Lismore truck-train disaster ended up over $5M. In that case, a donkey in a Kenworth and dog trailer ran into the 2nd of 3 locos on an East West freight train - in the fog. He was doing 90kmh in 30M visibility.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-14/nt-train-derailment-florian-road-cossack-katherine/102478560

 

And another donkey today, runs into the heritage Cockle Train on the Fleurieu Peninsula.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-14/cockle-train-and-truck-collide-at-middleton/102477728

[spacesailor]

'' an IQ test, ''

Devised by a university for  university educated people .

spacesailor

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I still have to wonder if the standard is high enough.

It is only the unusual that gets into the news. Consider how many heavy vehicles are in daily use on our roads and then consider how many are involved in serious collisions. Consider how many light vehicles are on the roads and the number of serious collisions each day. I hold that the standard for heavy vehicle drivers is satisfactory. As I said, there are three factors to be investigated when dealing with a collision. If you focus on the driver, you must look at a multitude of things that could have contributed to a collision. One that the Transport Union wants to try to eliminate is the effect of unreasonable schedules for drivers. It doesn't take much to throw the estimated time to complete a run out the window. Let me give you an example.

 

Last year during the constant rain, a section of the road between Mudgee and Lithgow collapsed down the hill side. Reconstruction has been going on for month as it is a very complex job. There is one lane available to pass through the construction site, and each-way flow is controlled with traffic lights and an escort vehicle. Sometimes you can arrive at the traffic lights as they turn green and you are barely delayed at all. At other times you can miss the green and have to wait ten minutes for your turn to go through. If you were a driver running to a schedule based on average speed and distance to cover in order to arrive at a warehouse at your allotted time, how are you going to make up the time lost waiting for your turn to go through the roadworks? I've previously mentioned the  cost to efficient logistics of grey nomads dawdling along on our narrow  rural highways. And it's not only grey nomads who cause delays. Last weekend I was crossing the Blue Mountains, heading home. A dickhead (what's the feminine of 'dickhead'?) was travelling in the right hand lane at 60 in the 80 zones and had a queue of nearly a kilometre following behind. Even a semi that was in the queue was able to travel faster up the hills.

 

IQ test? They only provide an indication of a person's reasoning and problem-solving abilities. not practical skills such as those required to operate a motor vehicle. Once again I refer to my journey last weekend. Time and again I saw drivers who had no idea of vehicle control and driving skills. I was frustrated when following drivers who had to apply the brakes at every curve in the road when travelling at speeds well below any that approached the speed at which tyre/road friction would be insufficient to allow the vehicle to negotiate the curve. I'm not talking about hairpin curves. I'm talking about curves that did not require advisory speed signs in order to safely travel around.

[nomadpete]

I would add

"Driving to the road condition"

To the skill and safety  requirements for drivers.

 

Very recently I came up the Newell 'notso highway'.

 

This carriageway is perhaps our most major interstate highway, joining 3 states.

 

Many months after the flood damage, it is still a dangerous shambles.

The many roadworks that are under way, are joined by some very rough sections of patched potholes and subsidence.

 

 It is mostly signposted at 110kph.

 

Most of it is not safe at anywhere near that speed.

 

Most drivers (including truckers) view the signposted speed as a suggested minimum.

 

I believe it is actually intended to be VNE.

 

Tell that to the B double driver who overtook me (I am one of those dawdling grey nomads, doing a mere 105kph on the GPS).

[Bruce Tuncks]

I take your point, OME. I reckon that simulators are good enough now to use as driving tests. Personally, I think the IQ test is a good one too but it is so politically incorrect that I hereby give up on the idea.

SO, I reckon we need another way of getting incompetents off the road.

Apparently that bus driver had just done a school trip where the teachers from his bus lodged a complaint about his driving. Obviously, this led to nothing and the result is plain to see.

Just like Ben Roberts-Smith, while he may well have been guilty, those behind him in the bureaucracy are more guilty because they have no excuses of PTSD etc.

[octave]

IQ is a measure of a particular type of intelligence.  You could have a high IQ but also be a risk taker. You could also have a high IQ and be an impatient person. Many narcissists have a high IQ but also may tend to believe they have greater rights on the road than others. You could be a truck driver with a high IQ but be easily pressured into breaking rules by their employer.

 

[facthunter]

Intelligence Quotient has little to do with what type of personality you have,  Some get fired up by risk taking. Some like being the life of the Party. (Extrovert vs introvert)  Nev

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Apparently that bus driver had just done a school trip where the teachers from his bus lodged a complaint about his driving.

One should be careful in repeating something like that as it is an statement unproven by proper legal process. Just look at the mess the Brittany Higgins interview caused. While it is unlikely that the bus driver alluded to would have the desire or resources to pursue a defamation action, that does not eliminate the fact that he may have been defamed. People don't realise how frequently people are defamed within their own communities. 

 

What you must remember is that the alleged (and I emphasise "alleged") driving behaviour to be examined by a jury can only be that driving that occured within the 60 seconds as the coach approached the roundabout. It was within those 60 seconds that the links in the chain of events were forged. It is only in very rare instances that a jury learns of a Defendant's prior criminal/traffic history. 

 

A situation might be where a person is found in a public place with a lot of cash and a few deal bags. The inference is that the person is a drug dealer. Police are likely to lay an allegations of "Supply" and "Possession". The Possession is called a "back-up" charge, and would be considered an element of the "Supply" allegation. In a hearing, the Crown might seek to introduce the person's criminal history if that history reveals prior convictions for "Supply". It's a matter of "done it before and no is doing it again".

 

In the present case there is very strong evidence that the vehicle was driven dangerously. Any evidence given in Court of the words and actions of the driver shortly before the collision can only go to show a state of mind, known as mens reas.  An offence categorised as an absolute liability offence (dangerous driving) requires only that the physical act (actus reus) occurs. There is no requirement to prove an intention on behalf of the accused to commit the offence. That is, they do not have to have a guilty mind (mens reas). There is no defence to an absolute liability offence. The state of mind of the accused and the circumstances surrounding the offence are irrelevant and a person will be convicted no matter the context.

 

[spenaroo]

Surprised a dash cam isn't a legal requirement?
and on a bus a camera facing the passengers. I believe its on public transport

I would be surprised if there wasn't a GPS tracker fitted - I thought that was basically industry standard

[old man emu]

All buses are required to have a device fitted that makes a record of the time the vehicle is in operation and the speeds at which it was moving. That device can be as simple as a tachograph which makes its records on a moving card.

  

 

 

With the development of GPS devices, newer buses have devices that record data digitally. These new devices record all sorts of other information which can be used by management to monitor many factors affecting the operation of the bus. As well as the requirement for the bus to have a recording device, the driver must carry and use a logbook if travelling more than 100 kms from the bus's depot. Drivers are subject to the same fatigue management requirements as all other heavy vehicle drivers.

[Marty_d]

I've noticed the Metro buses down here have quite a loud alarm if the driver goes over 100.

[Old Koreelah]

The technology to monitor drivers is already quite advanced and widely-adopted. I recently drove our new VRA quick-response vehicle home from Dubbo after a big midday meal and received two “driver fatigue” alerts in the first half hour. Not sure how it detected my reduced level of alertness (eyelid movement or lane-keeping) but it was spot on.

After a brief stop to walk around (as suggested by the Ford Ranger) I drove on, much refreshed, so the plurry thing didn’t harass me for the rest of the trip!

[Bruce Tuncks]

I like the idea of a record of the bus speed,I didn't know about them.  What actually happens to a bad driver? And the device which determined if you were alert enough is good too, but again, what if you were to ignore it?

Once, I read that 90% of road fatalities were caused by the stupidest 10% of drivers, and this is true in my personal experience.

AND, why not an improved "fitness to drive" test? Sure, you couldn't catch all the dangerous ones, but it would help I'm sure.

[nomadpete]

9 hours ago, Marty_d said:

I've noticed the Metro buses down here have quite a loud alarm if the driver goes over 100.

How often have you heard that?

My neighbour was driving long haul coaches for Skinny Dog bus company. One day I had a chat - it was unusual to see him home often enough to chat. "Oh they made me stop driving! Apparently I ran over one of those big green signs beside the road. I don't remember it but a passenger called triple 0 and now I'm grounded for 3 months. I don't have a problem with my diabetes - I always keep a pocket full of lollies and pop one whenever I feel a bit off."

 

I asked what he would do next. He said well my boss keeps calling to find when I can come back.

 

If that is an example of the industry standards as they are actually applied in real life, then the standards are not worth much. And Don't try to tell me it is the only example in the whole country - I won't believe you.

[old man emu]

The Media has made a big kerfuffle about the defects detected during an inspection of the buses of the company whose bus was involved in that incident. What were the defects? Torn seat covers; engine oil leaks and the really big one - cracked windscreen. In my opinion, the most serious was reported as a failed seatbelt, but not how many. Seven defects were detected in the inspection of 20 buses. Hardly an indication of a failure of maintenance.

 

How many of you have hard working vehicles that don't develop oil leaks around things like tappet covers? How many of you have seats with torn covers. My driver's seat has a tear. Was the crack in the windscreen across the driver's line of sight? How many of you have stone chips in your windscreen?

 

I beginning to think that the Media's recent victory in that defamation case has got it thinking that it is immune from the consequences of perverting the course of Justice. 

[Marty_d]

4 hours ago, nomadpete said:

How often have you heard that?

 

Probably about 40% of trips.  I park and ride from Kingston so it's the bit up the Southern Outlet that they tend to go slightly over.

[old man emu]

I see nothing wrong with travelling at the signposted speed limit when all the factors relating the the "Road" component of road use satisfy "driving to the conditions" criteria. It is a well-known fact that motorists within a platoon of traffic will travel at a speed which by seemingly telepathically-arrived-at consensus is considered suitable at the time. Therefore we see  countless examples of platoons travelling up to 10 kph faster than the signposted limit (depending on the magnitude of the limit) without being involved in collisions.

 

We have to remember that our roads have been constructed to facilitate efficient movement of people and goods. Modern roads are designed from a civil engineering standpoint to be capable of supporting speeds greatly in excess of what legislators set. Those legislators cruel the efforts of the civil engineers by setting speed limits ridiculously low for the capability of the roads. Also the choice of speed limits makes little sense.

 

If you travel across the Blue Mountains from Penrith to Blackheath, you will be met with speed limits ranging from 50 kph to 90 kph (omitting the several 40 kph school zones, which we can agree are OK, if they reflected the times that school children were about). Driving along this road, one is constantly looking for signs indicating those changes in speed zones. The signs are often hard to locate as they blend into the surrounding advertising signage along the road - a case of not being able to see the trees for the forest. It is a bit easier to comply with the speed limits going uphill from Penrith to Blackheath, but going downhill the opposite way is a constant battle to locate speed zones and remain at or below them. The whole length of road os a gold mine for the "Flash for Cash" lot.

 

The stupidest thing is the choice of speed limits. Leaving aside the 40 and 50 zones which have good reason to be, what do 70 and 90 achieve? Being a pilot, I have checked my GPS-determined speed against engine RPM, and use cruise control to hold speed. In my car, 1500 RPM = 60; 2000 RPM = 80; 2500 RPM = 100, and 2750 RPM = 110. Unfortunately, my tacho does not have markings at 1750, nor 2250 to deal with the stupid, short length 70 and 90 zones, and since these limits are not common, I've never cross-referenced the two instruments.

[Old Koreelah]

24 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Modern roads are designed from a civil engineering standpoint to be capable of supporting speeds greatly in excess of what legislators set.

Some of them, but too many don’t. 
While driving our 9t trucks to emergencies I often exceed the posted limit, but too many of our rough roads are simply not safe enough to do so.

24 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Driving along this road, one is constantly looking for signs indicating those changes in speed zones. The signs are often hard to locate as they blend into the surrounding advertising signage along the road - a case of not being able to see the trees for the forest.

Very true and this has led to my receiving a few unwelcome letters from the authorities. While watching for kids on the roadside, I’ve missed the plurry speed sign.