20 April 2016

Motorists Motoring Policies

| johnboy
Join the conversation
46
traffic

The Motorists have unleashed ten separate motoring and transport policies.

Let’s get through them then.

    1. Roads and alternative transport

    The Motorist Party recognises the automobile: car, truck, four wheel drive, bus or motorcycle, as the primary mode of transport as it is the most convenient method for ACT residents.

    2. Public transport

    The Motorist Party recognises the need for an effective Transport System to service the Canberra community.
    Given that even though over 90% of citizens presently use cars as their transport, we believe that an effective Public Transport System must exist.

    3. Speed limits, enforcement and penalties

    Currently, fixed speed cameras are responsible for raising large amounts of revenue but they only tend to slow motorists down for 50 metres before it is apparent they speed up again, effectively having little or no positive effect on road safety.

    4. Parking

    The Motorist Party is well aware of things, which are of greatest concern to Canberra motorists and parking is high on their list. The community feels that existing parking spaces are disappearing and that nothing is being created as a replacement, let alone increasing spaces.

    5. Fuel prices and competition

    The Motorist Party have concerns regarding the domination of the fuel market in the ACT by Woolworths and Coles operated service stations. Our current situation sees Woolworths and Coles holding around a 70% slice of our local fuel market.Taking into account the lack of competition in our fuel market we would continue to eliminate Woolworths and Coles from bidding on all fuel retail sites sold in the ACT in the future.

    6. Driver licences

    Licence holders who lose their licence through disqualification or non-payment of fines will have to undertake a full licence test to regain their licence. The Motorist Party want to enforce the point that if you drive badly enough to lose your licence a revisit of the rules is necessary. This would also help to lower the level of unpaid fines, which is an on-going problem.

    7. Motor sport

    It is the goal of the Motorist Party to build a motor sport and driver training centre. It will contain a state of the art driver training facility, which will include driving simulators, skid pan and a road skills driver training area free from other motorists. All drivers being issued L plates would be required to do a short training session and minor car control test before being issued with a learner permit.

    8. Recreational motorcycles and 4WD

    The Motorist Party will strongly advocate for the introduction of a restricted registration system for recreational motorcycles, similar to that, which is available in Victoria.

    The Motorist Party will work with Government, industry and community groups to promote and enhance the enjoyment and objectives of four wheel drive enthusiasts.

    9. Cyclists

    The Motorist Party acknowledges the environmental, social and health benefits of commuter and recreational cycling.

    The Motorist Party will support cost effective and sustainable cycling initiatives, which can demonstrate proven benefits to the majority of the ACT community.

    10. Compulsory third party insurance

    The Motorist Party aim to establish the best possible situation for ACT drivers.

    And on top of that:

    — Even though over 90% of Canberrans drive a car, 4WD, truck or bus, people will not stop using the comfort and convenience of their car and change to buses until there is an effective route system and the buses run on time.

    — The Motorist Party propose using the latest Information Technology so that the Community, through their mobile phones, can download the bus route systems and frequency and also show when the next bus will arrive in their location.

    — The Motorist Party propose that Government buses be free to ride during restricted hours, 5 days a week for a trial period of 6 months.

    — The Motorist Party will support the thorough examination of a Mass Transit System, provided that the Community supports it and the Government can afford it.

    — Whilst ever cars are Canberrans favoured mode of transport, adequate parking is essential, especially near places of work, shopping centres and housing developments.

    — We do not support small housing blocks and skinny streets where parking is a problem along with the difficulties this causes with traffic flow.

    — Parking in the Parliamentary Triangle (PT) for Public Servants, Visitors and Tourists must be improved. We will support the building of a multi-level parking complex, outside the PT, supported by a mini-bus service ferrying passengers in and out of the PT.

Join the conversation

46
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Get us a SIVS

OpenYourMind9:50 pm 13 Sep 12

p1 said :

OpenYourMind said :

As for your comment that a driverless car takes up just as much space on the road, the reason this is incorrect has been demonstrated by Volvo driverless tech where cars link together in a close convoy.

I hope the person programming that software does a good job when planning for a f%#&off big jumping under the wheels of the first in the convoy. But I guess vehicle to vehicle comms mean that all the cars stomp the brakes at the same time rather then the old dude at the back not knowing until he sees the brake lights on the car in front.

Your car is already running a bunch of code. If your car is relatively new it’s probably making decisions on which corner to apply brakes (stability control), when to deploy an airbag, when to apply the brakes in an emergency (brake assist), throttle positions, traction control etc.

OpenYourMind said :

As for your comment that a driverless car takes up just as much space on the road, the reason this is incorrect has been demonstrated by Volvo driverless tech where cars link together in a close convoy.

I hope the person programming that software does a good job when planning for a f%#&off big jumping under the wheels of the first in the convoy. But I guess vehicle to vehicle comms mean that all the cars stomp the brakes at the same time rather then the old dude at the back not knowing until he sees the brake lights on the car in front.

OpenYourMind2:27 pm 13 Sep 12

thy_dungeonman said :

OpenYourMind said :

Apologies for talking about self driving cars again, but it’s amusing that self driving, coupled with vehicle to vehicle communications will negate the majority of those policies in one way or another.

Recently IEEE chimed in with a prediction of self driving cars making up 75% of all cars by 2040.
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=fd1dd24a-7eea-4a00-8a97-dd7c3aab7a1c

Why does everyone keep banging on about self driving cars as some magic solution? Just because a car drives itself doesn’t mean it takes up any less space on the road. Besides a prediction is still a long way off from actual cars on the road, none of which are yet present, and it will still take a while for them to become commonly used and available. Even 2040 is still a long way especially for local governments to plan.

I remember having the same kinds of discussions almost two decades ago when I was banging on about the internet and what it could mean for all of us.

While 2040 sounds a long way off, in planning terms for very large scale projects, it’s not. The 2040 prediction is for 75% saturation, however once driverless cars are available, the speed of change will increase dramatically because the benefits to society are so great. Here’s some of the potential change points:
– Almost no accidents. That alone will be compelling for Governments.
– No requirement for big car parks
– Less traffic control measures. Cars talk to each other (USA is looking to make V2V communications mandatory).
– Less traffic – the main reason for traffic jams is people are crap at driving
– Freedom for disabled and the elderly who can no longer drive
– Removing the public transport costs
– Reducing the costs of transporting goods
– Reducing fuel/electricity usage as cars can be made lighter and in unconventional ways
– Car ownership – many people simply won’t need to own a car any more. They can summon a car (probably by smartphone) for the job at hand – station wagon, ute, single occupant vehicle or whatever.
– Garaging and driveways. Many houses may no longer need a garage and driveway.

If you can’t see how driverless cars aren’t going to change so many facets of how we live, you need a little more imagination.

As for your comment that a driverless car takes up just as much space on the road, the reason this is incorrect has been demonstrated by Volvo driverless tech where cars link together in a close convoy.

johnboy said :

anything helping getting to and from the pub cheaply, easily, and in comfort might well catch on with the australian public.

All the Australian public needs is a tolerant husband. This is a method that meets all those criteria.

Either that or wobbling slowly home on the bike-paths, where the Australian public is only going to hurt itself.

But I suppose the unpartnered, the married-to-one-who-is-also-drinking, or far-flung, might find this difficult. I just find the idea of not being in control of the vehicle (or the driver) quite frightening. Then again, I trust to technology that’s in control all the time: lifts for example. So I suppose I could get used to it.

…though perhaps more telling than the statement itself is the fact that they have a policy on ‘cyclists,’ not ‘cycling’.

OpenYourMind said :

Apologies for talking about self driving cars again, but it’s amusing that self driving, coupled with vehicle to vehicle communications will negate the majority of those policies in one way or another.

Recently IEEE chimed in with a prediction of self driving cars making up 75% of all cars by 2040.
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=fd1dd24a-7eea-4a00-8a97-dd7c3aab7a1c

Only acceptable if they can be set to “Hoon” mode after 11 at night. Don’t think I could sleep without the dulcet tones of circlework being performed nearby.

Of course, the driverless cars would have to be fuelled by alcohol…

thy_dungeonman said :

KB1971 said :

I am actually surprised to see that cyclists are mentioned, I was expecting to be treated as the antichrist.

I like some of the stuff but it is all really small picture stuff in the sense of a community. Not likely to capture many votes.

I wonder who their preferences go to?

“The Motorist Party will support cost effective and sustainable cycling initiatives, which can demonstrate proven benefits to the majority of the ACT community”

Red between the lines here:
The motorist party won’t support cycling because it costs a lot and and we hate having to keep spending money on cycle paths that need repairing a lot less often than roads. We will spend money on cycle lanes maybe because they are on the road and we will only spend money on the road. We have enough cycle paths anyway they are not even full of bikes yet, Canberra is too sparse and not flat enough, quality infrastructure is pointless, get in a car.

No need to read between the lines, just read the full policy statement – their actual policy on cyclists is (paraphrasing): “roads are for cars, cyclists get off the road onto the shared paths that we won’t fund.”

johnboy said :

Don’t be so sure.

Governments will see HUGE savings from driverless vehicles once the meatbags stop smashing into each other and needing emergency care and long term disability support.

Also remember that the people working in government like a drink with dinner too and hate arguing over who’s turn it is to drive.

That and the car industry will be mad keen to obsolete the existing fleets.

Here’s hoping JB, I’ll drink to that 😀

johnboy said :

Governments will see HUGE savings from driverless vehicles once the meatbags stop smashing into each other and needing emergency care and long term disability support.

Cars built to be entirely driver-less wouldn’t need any of those inconvenient steering wheels, gear changers or peddles either, enabling a much safer cabin space and better air bag placements for when a meatbag operated vehicle hits you.

johnboy said :

anything helping getting to and from the pub cheaply, easily, and in comfort might well catch on with the australian public.

I think the real plus will be being able to sit in the car with a beer in your lap ON THE WAY to the pub… But I imagine the government will probably still want people operating driverless vehicles to be sober, at least initially.

Don’t be so sure.

Governments will see HUGE savings from driverless vehicles once the meatbags stop smashing into each other and needing emergency care and long term disability support.

Also remember that the people working in government like a drink with dinner too and hate arguing over who’s turn it is to drive.

That and the car industry will be mad keen to obsolete the existing fleets.

Truthiness said :

Driverless cars are not fiction, Google has been running them on actual roads for hundreds of thousands of kilometers. We could roll a fleet out in under a decade.

The reason driverless cars are such a good public transport system is that they essentially function as super cheap taxis. Instead of every person needing their own car, which spends 90% of its time in parking, you just book a car when you need it.

It means you don’t have busses running empty routes wasting petrol and driver time, you don’t have to sit with strangers and you can go direct from A to B. It also uses existing infrastructure unlike light rail.

A fleet of driverless taxis would be a great fit for Canberra, all the comfort, speed and convenience of taxis, for a fraction of the price.

I’m pretty sure people will still want their own driverless car. Communism never really took off here.

anything helping getting to and from the pub cheaply, easily, and in comfort might well catch on with the australian public.

Truthiness said :

A fleet of driverless taxis would be a great fit for Canberra, all the comfort, speed and convenience of taxis, for a fraction of the price.

Yup, taxis really are the ideal place for driver-less vehicles to enter the market place. If no one is using the vehicle, then you aren’t wasting money paying a driver doing nothing.

I wonder what the unions think of the idea?

Driverless cars are not fiction, Google has been running them on actual roads for hundreds of thousands of kilometers. We could roll a fleet out in under a decade.

The reason driverless cars are such a good public transport system is that they essentially function as super cheap taxis. Instead of every person needing their own car, which spends 90% of its time in parking, you just book a car when you need it.

It means you don’t have busses running empty routes wasting petrol and driver time, you don’t have to sit with strangers and you can go direct from A to B. It also uses existing infrastructure unlike light rail.

A fleet of driverless taxis would be a great fit for Canberra, all the comfort, speed and convenience of taxis, for a fraction of the price.

thy_dungeonman10:44 am 13 Sep 12

OpenYourMind said :

Apologies for talking about self driving cars again, but it’s amusing that self driving, coupled with vehicle to vehicle communications will negate the majority of those policies in one way or another.

Recently IEEE chimed in with a prediction of self driving cars making up 75% of all cars by 2040.
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=fd1dd24a-7eea-4a00-8a97-dd7c3aab7a1c

Why does everyone keep banging on about self driving cars as some magic solution? Just because a car drives itself doesn’t mean it takes up any less space on the road. Besides a prediction is still a long way off from actual cars on the road, none of which are yet present, and it will still take a while for them to become commonly used and available. Even 2040 is still a long way especially for local governments to plan.

thy_dungeonman10:42 am 13 Sep 12

KB1971 said :

I am actually surprised to see that cyclists are mentioned, I was expecting to be treated as the antichrist.

I like some of the stuff but it is all really small picture stuff in the sense of a community. Not likely to capture many votes.

I wonder who their preferences go to?

“The Motorist Party will support cost effective and sustainable cycling initiatives, which can demonstrate proven benefits to the majority of the ACT community”

Red between the lines here:
The motorist party won’t support cycling because it costs a lot and and we hate having to keep spending money on cycle paths that need repairing a lot less often than roads. We will spend money on cycle lanes maybe because they are on the road and we will only spend money on the road. We have enough cycle paths anyway they are not even full of bikes yet, Canberra is too sparse and not flat enough, quality infrastructure is pointless, get in a car.

OpenYourMind9:44 pm 12 Sep 12

Apologies for talking about self driving cars again, but it’s amusing that self driving, coupled with vehicle to vehicle communications will negate the majority of those policies in one way or another.

Recently IEEE chimed in with a prediction of self driving cars making up 75% of all cars by 2040.
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=fd1dd24a-7eea-4a00-8a97-dd7c3aab7a1c

I was hoping that there’d be a policy on deporting all cyclists to NSW, or some other sort of ‘final’ solution.

EvanJames said :

11. NO POOFS

They forgot that one.

What is their policy on trannies ( or diffs for that matter)…?

Truthiness said :

No mention of their policy on “yellow necks”, do they hate rubber necks and bottle necks too? Or are they just unwilling to stick their red necks out?

I suspect they support long necks.

11. NO POOFS

They forgot that one.

No mention of their policy on “yellow necks”, do they hate rubber necks and bottle necks too? Or are they just unwilling to stick their red necks out?

I’m disappointed at the lack of policy to build “The school for kids who can’t drive good and want to do other stuff good too.”

Jokes aside, if they want to be taken seriously they should at least get someone with more than a 5th grade education to write their policies/press releases.

pink little birdie said :

Motocycle L drivers don’t have an experienced driver with them on the road with them. Aren’t the motocycle courses a full day on top of the Road ready course? Do Motocyclists have the “P off” course as well?

I’m not saying it is necessary, just that it could work the same way. I drove in car parks, new suburbs and the like before my parents would let me out on the road too.

I haven’t seen stats, but I’m pretty sure new learners (in, say, their first five hours behind the wheel) are not over represented in accidents. I don’t know why they would propose this policy.

pink little birdie2:17 pm 12 Sep 12

p1 said :

caf said :

This is putting the cart before the horse. You can’t legally operate a vehicle on a road or road-related area until you have your learners permit – so how would non-drivers ever get a chance to develop the skills to pass the “car control test” in the first place?

Presumably at the course. It works for motorcycle “L” platers.

Motocycle L drivers don’t have an experienced driver with them on the road with them. Aren’t the motocycle courses a full day on top of the Road ready course? Do Motocyclists have the “P off” course as well?

johnboy said :

Well in theory a strong lead candidate could be picking up second preference votes from non-motorist voting punters.

The way the second or third on the ticket from the major parties pick up enough preferences to get over the line? (serious question, I don’t understand the system that well – probably because I only think about it each election, and have forgotten by the next).

caf said :

This is putting the cart before the horse. You can’t legally operate a vehicle on a road or road-related area until you have your learners permit – so how would non-drivers ever get a chance to develop the skills to pass the “car control test” in the first place?

Presumably at the course. It works for motorcycle “L” platers.

pink little birdie2:06 pm 12 Sep 12

“All drivers being issued L plates would be required to do a short training session and minor car control test before being issued with a learner permit.”

if a person hasn’t driven before at all how are they meant to pass a vehicle control course before getting their L’s? Maybe a component of the logbook/test.

I don’t know about everyone else but my first driving lessons/practice were in empty carparks learning how to steer and change gears.

johnboy said :

Preferences in the ACT are allocated by the voter, not the party.

At the last election the Motorists voters showed astonishing discipline in not giving preferences to any party. It was a straight down the line vote which with Robson Rotation took a pretty large voting block and wrote it off entirely.

Robson Rotation doesn’t play any part in writing off the vote – as the candidates are elimated those votes will eventually all coalesce with the last candidate in the group anyway, so if they’d had enough total votes to elect an MLA, they would have. Robson Rotation with down-the-line voting just means it would have effectively been a random Motorist candidate that got elected, if any of them did.

Well in theory a strong lead candidate could be picking up second preference votes from non-motorist voting punters.

All drivers being issued L plates would be required to do a short training session and minor car control test before being issued with a learner permit.

This is putting the cart before the horse. You can’t legally operate a vehicle on a road or road-related area until you have your learners permit – so how would non-drivers ever get a chance to develop the skills to pass the “car control test” in the first place?

The Motorist Party propose using the latest Information Technology so that the Community, through their mobile phones, can download the bus route systems and frequency and also show when the next bus will arrive in their location.

You can tick this one off the list boys, ACTION timetables are already in Google Transit.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Duffbowl said :

To be fair, the policies as published look no worse than some of the fluff published by other parties and flagged as policy.

disagree. the other parties policies are actual policies, not crap like
‘The Motorist Party recognises the automobile: car, truck, four wheel drive, bus or motorcycle, as the primary mode of transport as it is the most convenient method for ACT residents.’

http://act.greens.org.au/policies/act/transport

Have you read the ACT Greens transport policies?

They might be slightly better written but not by much.

I am actually surprised to see that cyclists are mentioned, I was expecting to be treated as the antichrist.

I like some of the stuff but it is all really small picture stuff in the sense of a community. Not likely to capture many votes.

I wonder who their preferences go to?

Preferences in the ACT are allocated by the voter, not the party.

At the last election the Motorists voters showed astonishing discipline in not giving preferences to any party. It was a straight down the line vote which with Robson Rotation took a pretty large voting block and wrote it off entirely.

colourful sydney racing identity1:31 pm 12 Sep 12

Duffbowl said :

To be fair, the policies as published look no worse than some of the fluff published by other parties and flagged as policy.

disagree. the other parties policies are actual policies, not crap like
‘The Motorist Party recognises the automobile: car, truck, four wheel drive, bus or motorcycle, as the primary mode of transport as it is the most convenient method for ACT residents.’

p996911turbo1:29 pm 12 Sep 12

No policies on literacy, I see.

To be fair, the policies as published look no worse than some of the fluff published by other parties and flagged as policy.

This party has “Trojan horse” written all over it. I can see a lot of not-particularly-well-informed Canberrans on election day not wanting to vote for one of the major parties and thinking that voting for somebody who will stick up for the motorists (brutally downtrodden minority that they are) seems like a good idea. If you don’t want One Nation 2.0 getting a toehold in the Legislative Assembly, it might be worth telling your friends.

7. In other words, they want a drag strip. No need to adorn the truth.

colourful sydney racing identity11:04 am 12 Sep 12

Rollersk8r said :

I’m not against some of the things I think they stand for but they certainly aren’t making it easy to know. I thought a policy is a course of action, what they’d do if elected?? How is recognising a car as convenient a policy??

All tip, no iceburg.

colourful sydney racing identity11:03 am 12 Sep 12

‘The Motorist Party is well aware of things’

Glad they have cleared that up…

I’m not against some of the things I think they stand for but they certainly aren’t making it easy to know. I thought a policy is a course of action, what they’d do if elected?? How is recognising a car as convenient a policy??

I am in support of recreational rego for motorbikes (depending on details of course). Apart from that most of this seems pretty acceptable, I just can’t see them getting anything to actually happen on the big things unless they form government in their own right. And if that happens, I don’t think it is there motor related policies we will regret.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.