Driver Testing

[Basil135]

So, as the poll suggests, would you support mandatory driver testing for all drivers?

Let me explain: Recently, there has been a lot of talk on here, and in the media about the abilities of drivers on our roads.

This is especially perniant when you consider the tragic loss suffered by one of our members here recently.

Consider that a large majority of drivers have their licence by the age of 20. The next mandatory test is not until age 75. That is 55 years between tests.

If the support is apparent, what I would propose to the Government, is that a mandatory licence test is carried out every 10 years from the date a driver first gains their licence, until age 75, when the current regime takes effect again.

Think about this: how much more traffic is there on the road since when you started driving? How many road laws have changed since you got your licence?

I know that for one, my driving is not absolutely perfect. This testing regime is not designed to target one group of people, but would apply equally to all holders of a drivers licence.

I understand that driving licence testing & administration is state based, but if one government picks it up, the others are more likely to follow.

So, your thoughts?

[flagg]

I just went for my moto lic in NSW, and had to do the theory test as well. I did the RTA trial test on their website and ..failed! there was a fair bit of stuff that I didn't know, or was simply wrong about. Needless to say I studied up and learned a lot of things.. Then I got 100% :cool:

I think a theory test every 5 years would keep people up to speed with the changes in the rules.

[pop058]

I have a aging relative that has had a quad bypass and currently suffers from very low blood pressure. Not a real good combo, but if he lost his (percieved) independance of still having a drivers licence then I honestly think he would sit in his lounge chair, watch foxtel and give up on life. The renewal system for licences requires him to take an eye test (only), which he can pass easily.

It is a really tough call to risk him staying on the road and potentially hurting others or watching him giveup on life. We (well mainly Nan) does as much for him (them) as possible, but he still owns a registered vehicle and drives down to the RSL a few days aweek and we can not stop that.

A compulsory test would go a long way to removing the risky drivers from our roads. So, if it contributes to the saving of just one life, then it has my vote.

My comments are not intentionally targeting the more mature drivers, although that particullar age group has (sadly) been in the news abit lately, it is just that my own experience is with them.

One other plus to the idea (regular theory testing) is that maybe the ******* that drive around with "driving/fog" lights on will realise that it is infact illegal (in Qld anyway) now and has been since October 2009.

my 0.02c anyway

[drivesafe]

I think some ads on TV and in the rest of the media, set up as questions, could by used to as a means of getting people’s attention to existing road rules and when there are some changes.

[Blknight.aus]

I personally think it should be part of the process to get the points back on your liscense.

you loose a point and you want it back you sit a driving test. And not just a simple road rules test and can you get round the carpark without hitting anything.

2 hours minimum of mixed driving done near dusk so you get to do both day and night driving.

[Sparksdisco]

I think we should test p plate drivers again to get there full licence.

and i dont see it as a bad idea to be tested every five or ten years.

i understand your point of view pop058 but imagine how you would feel if he killed someone and he lived. sometimes it's a tough call. but he might understand if you talk to him about it in a adult way. as after all he is a adult with a fair bit of life experience to ponder

very tricky situation there

[bblaze]

IMHO if every one drove to one basic rule it would cut the road toll by at least 50%, the rule is "due care and attention". If a dickbrain can get their licence by age 20 they will if still alive repass a test at 30 or 40.
cheers
blaze

[V8Ian]

Political suicide, ergo like speed limited cars it will never happen.

[Chucaro]

I just wonder what is is more danger on the road:

a) an old driver who drives @ 50kph from home to the shops or the club

or

b) young drivers who can past the test but have in the car heaps of gadgets and the mobile phone to keep them distracted?

Give me old drivers on the road instead of young drivers with cars loaded up with gadgets any time.

That is based in my experience as a motorcycle rider for many years.;)

[Tombie]

I just wonder what is is more danger on the road:

a) an old driver who drives @ 50kph from home to the shops or the club

or

b) young drivers who can past the test but have in the car heaps of gadgets and the mobile phone to keep them distracted?

Give me old drivers on the road instead of young drivers with cars loaded up with gadgets any time.

That is based in my experience as a motorcycle rider for many years.;)

Interestingly the ones I've observed cause a crash and drive on oblivious to the carnage they just caused are over 60s almost every time.

Nearly been cleaned up multiple times on the bike. Always by someone mid 40's and upwards.

[one_iota]

That will reduce the road toll by 90% and the traffic on the road by 90%, the numbers of taxis on the road by 90% and if it is applied to bicycle riders and pedestrians likewise 90% a reduction in...good move.

I must remember not to use my mobile phone whilst driving during the examination.

[Slunnie]

Hmmm I actually think that younger drivers are a lot more aware of what is going on outside of their car compared to old people that seem to be totally oblivious to anything that isn't directly in front of them - and occasionally not even that!

Regular driving tests are a good idea. I don't have the time, I don't want to spend the money and the RTA don't have the resources - In the good old days they couldn't keep up with licence renewals which were a 2 min process, let alone take everybody out for a driving test.

[ADMIRAL]

I had the unfortunate experience, of having to take the cars keys away from my late father. His doctor had requested that the family take the initiative, but it made the action no easier.

My dad had already plenty of warning that all was not well. He had several close shaves, and we had already discussed with him that he should give up driving.

It was a huge blow to his independance, and I don't believe he ever forgave us, even though within weeks he could barely walk let alone drive a car.

I agree with pop058. It is a difficult situation, and eventually we will all face the very action we are contemplating inflicting on others. I for one would never forgive myself or a relative, if a child ( or anyone for that matter ) was hurt or worse due to inaction.

I agree we need some type of test to assess a driver's capability as age takes it's toll. It should not be confined to an eye test, or a blood pressure test but as others have suggested, it should evaluate a drivers ability to control a vehicle in day to day traffic, including emergency situations.

I would think others have had similar experiences. I have lost count of the aged drivers in my circle, who have made the decision to give up driving, after a serious accident. Are we to wait for that final accident before taking the most responsible step of our driving careers ?

[Hardchina]

I don't see how testing will make any difference, how many people get into strife within a few years of getting their licence with all the testing that goes with it? IMO it should be a medical test if anything for the older folk - but with the way doctors cover their buts, this would also be unworkable. My gran got her licence pulled by her local doc - but she only ever went up to the pub to get smokes and her weekly bottle of sherry. Blind as a bat, but thats fair enough, she only did 30kph tops - country town, the locals gave her room. But as little kids are dumb it was goodby licence - fair enough too.

BTW - I paid $20 for an Indonesian bike licence, no testing - written or prac, just show them the money :).

[pop058]

The task of convincing an aged loved one to hand in thier licence in not an easy one and as Admiral said, it changes the whole family dynamic at a time when they most need our help and affection. If the onus of licence removal was an official one as a result of failing a driving test, then the outcome would be the same and the family relationships could stay intact. In our (Nan & I) situation, it is vertually a daily task to check/manage/juggle transport issues so that we do the driving and as I said earlier, we don't win all the time.

At the other end of the scale, how do we stop or at least slow down the carnage that is killing our children. Testing every 5 years, test from L to P and P to Full licences are all good ideas. We just need someone in authority with the backbone and balls to do something about it. Yes it will need additional resources that will cost money, but what is it alternative costing us now.

another 0.02c makes my 0.04c now

[V8Ian]

Nothing speaks louder than the almighty dollar. Who gets cheaper/easier insurance, under 25s or 65 plus?

[pop058]

Nothing speaks louder than the almighty dollar. Who gets cheaper/easier insurance, under 25s or 65 plus?

I don't think it is one or the other. We need a solution/s for both.

[Disco44]

I don't think it is one or the other. We need a solution/s for both.

We all get old some gracefully some not....I have attended many road accidents and the vast majority were caused by speed or tiredness by drivers of all ages.Why single out oldies most of us have the good sense to know when to pull the pin.
John.

[pop058]

We all get old some gracefully some not....I have attended many road accidents and the vast majority were caused by speed or tiredness by drivers of all ages.Why single out oldies most of us have the good sense to know when to pull the pin.
John.


I wasn't isolating one group or another. I did say we need answers for both age groups. It just happens that in my limited experience, most "oldies" don't have the good sense we would have hoped for.

[marko66]

Hi All

Pop58 incase you havent tried it :) how about disabiling his car sneakily so that you have to take yours or Nans, Its an uphill battle trying to drive someone else's car or stop them driving their own car but it's oh so easy to dive your own especially if numbers are on your side.:)

My Dads 81 and his driving is not as good as it once was:eek: and I'm approaching the predicament of when do we stop him from driving. I may be able to approach the local copper here who is an ok bloke and maybe force a compromise when the time comes. Hopefully the compromise will be that he keeps his licence but doesnt drive except in an emegency with the policeman pulling his licence if he doesnt play the game.

Luckily i am only approaching this and not stuck on the horns of a dilemma,:) If I have to make the tuff decision I will spend a while thinking about it as when I look back on my life and think of some of my past decisions, I take solace from the fact that i took time and council usually and couldn't find a better way at the time.:):D So a decision that looks flawed in hindsight and usually years later, I can honestly tell myself i explored every option at the time and that decision was the best I had at the time

Regards Mark

[Jonno_G]

As a concept, mandatory testing to keep your driver's licence is good. The implementation could be costly, but as was said earlier - what price are we paying now each time someone is injured or killed on the road?

Another possibility is to put the bulk of the cost back onto the driver; If you want to drive, you pay the associated costs for administering the test once every five years. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this already a requirement for all holders of a public vehicle licence?) It shouldn't be any more than $100-150, even if there is an hour of driving in there. Also, it creates jobs for the testing staff, the accreditation group, plus numerous other positions of admin etc.

If this could give even a 10% reduction in serious injuries on the roads, which I expect it would probably exceed, then that would be a massive cost saving for the various lvels of goverment to offset against the overheads of administering such a scheme.

From my experience, this is not a topic of discussion that should be aimed at the older generations, nor specifically at the youngest drivers either. There are plenty of examples of both good and bad drivers across all ages, what we need to do is to get those bad ones off the road until they can be trained and assessed as being capable of safely and competently operating a motor vehicle on a public road or street.

At the moment I would guess that this would eliminate 20-30% of drivers immediately until they had undergone some further study/training. I hate to admit it, but I probably wouldn't even pass such a test if I was to sit it right this minute, as I know that there have been many changes to the road rules since I first got my licence. (Of course that brings me to another bug-bear, why isn't it mandatory for governments to advertise any change to the road rules for a minimum of six weeks before and twelve weeks after the change? But that's a discussion for a different thread...)

Anyway,...my $0.02.

Cheers,...Jon.




P.S. Wouldn't this be nice? ;):twisted:


...maybe the ******* that drive around with "driving/fog" lights on will realise that it is infact illegal...

[THE BOOGER]

Testing every 5 to 10 years sounds good but not just the rules and a short drive that most do now then back to bad habits ask some questions on driver consideration for others fog/spot lights, keeping left when not overtaking etc most of these are covered by road rules but need to be reinforced:mad:

[Landy Smurf]

that was a hard choice and since i have only just started driving i think once every 10 years is not a very hard thing to do even if it was just once every 10 years after 40 or 50

[Tombie]

Well, the lads mate got his P's 2 weeks ago.

Drives a stock, but nicely painted (custom) V6 VN commodore.

Pretty level headed lad (most of the time)

He picks up my son, and a friend and drives them to school each day via Hungry Jacks for a coffee :eek:

Combine rain, inexperience and a oil slicked intersection this morning..
The car lost traction - (witness statements are he was NOT pushing it) around the corner. Lack of experience - he overcorrected, span the vehicle and impacted the nearby tree...:(:(

And top that all off, his brand new custom BMX was stolen last night......

[5teve]

how about just increasing the level of testing similar to that shown in topgear when visiting finland?

they have to learn all about car control. to me thats where P platers lose it. the amount of accidents that happen on bends i can get the defender round at speed, and the amount that happen on straight roads is scary! I'm talking in Perth..

Finland have a requirement for i think 2 hours of skidpan training and plenty of other very advanced requirements before anyone can pass their test. They even have local racing that anyone even children can compete in. Was an interesting watch.

Thanks

Steve

[Landy Smurf]

i think its a bit of a catch 22 when it comes to taking young drivers to a skidpad,yes it shows them what to do if they are in that situation but i think it also shows young drivers what they can do that they shouldnt if you get what i am saying

[Chucaro]

I guess that the Goverment can implement a rule in which a driver younger than 25 and older than 70 will loose the licence if loose points 3 times in a year.

In this way we make it fair for all.

Just taken the DL for old people without implementing solutions regarding public transport or safe tracks for mobility scooters is not the way to go IMO.

It is approblem that have to be addressed by tow planners and other goverment departmens.

[Tombie]

Its false logic when you think about it, even those pensioner types who "only go to the RSL on Thursday and the shops on Saturday".

Pensioner gets SFA (another topic? :twisted: )

They pay (reduced but still):
Registration
Stamp Duty
CTP
3rd Party Property (Minimum) insurance <-- hopefully ;)
Maintenance & Servicing
Fuel
Licence renewal

On a vehicle driven 10km per week.


So.... If they are starting to have impaired judgement... And I've seen way to many who should 'hang up the driving gloves'.

1) Sell the car
2) Dont renew licence
3) No more rego, CTP, Maint, Fuel, 3PP
4) Install Taxi into speed dial on home phone

The money saved will more than cover the $20.00 per week taxi bill.

[Chucaro]

.........

The money saved will more than cover the $20.00 per week taxi bill.

:eek: That is a very cheap taxi bill!
Why not bite the bullet now before 60% of the population is over 60 and do something about public transport and good tracks for mobility scooters and other type of equipment?

I guess that hold the old people that helped to build this great country inside their homes it is cheaper than any other option. :(

[JDNSW]

As a concept, mandatory testing to keep your driver's licence is good. The implementation could be costly, but as was said earlier - what price are we paying now each time someone is injured or killed on the road?

The statistics of accident rates for drivers who have just passed a test compared to drivers that have had the licence for many years does not support the concept. Do you have any hard data that does?

Another possibility is to put the bulk of the cost back onto the driver; If you want to drive, you pay the associated costs for administering the test once every five years. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this already a requirement for all holders of a public vehicle licence?)

The difference is that public vehicle licences are a means of making an income. For most people their driving licence is not, or at most only indirectly. A public vehicle test woould be either paid by the employer or at least tax deductible. (and I'm not sure whether it is a requirement).

It shouldn't be any more than $100-150, even if there is an hour of driving in there. Also, it creates jobs for the testing staff, the accreditation group, plus numerous other positions of admin etc.

While $100-150 sounds like cheap to some people, there are a large number of Australians for whom it represents several day's income. Without a clear benefit to themselves, it is difficult to see this group supporting it. Certainly not unless you can show that having recently passed a driving test improves safety.

If this could give even a 10% reduction in serious injuries on the roads, which I expect it would probably exceed, then that would be a massive cost saving for the various lvels of goverment to offset against the overheads of administering such a scheme.

I seriously doubt it would make a significant difference. The reason I believe this is that in almost all cases where an experienced driver drives badly, it is not because they did not know how to -- it was because they did not want to. They will pass the test and continue driving exactly as they have been doing. (I know there will be exceptions who actually learn something and put it into practice, but they will be just that, exceptions.)

From my experience, this is not a topic of discussion that should be aimed at the older generations, nor specifically at the youngest drivers either. There are plenty of examples of both good and bad drivers across all ages, what we need to do is to get those bad ones off the road until they can be trained and assessed as being capable of safely and competently operating a motor vehicle on a public road or street.

At the moment I would guess that this would eliminate 20-30% of drivers immediately until they had undergone some further study/training. I hate to admit it, but I probably wouldn't even pass such a test if I was to sit it right this minute, as I know that there have been many changes to the road rules since I first got my licence. (Of course that brings me to another bug-bear, why isn't it mandatory for governments to advertise any change to the road rules for a minimum of six weeks before and twelve weeks after the change? But that's a discussion for a different thread...)

Anyway,...my $0.02.

Cheers,...Jon.




P.S. Wouldn't this be nice? ;):twisted:

The assumption made in this post is that the level of road deaths is bad and getting worse. In fact, the level of road deaths is (by any sensible measure - per head of population, per car or per kilometre) the lowest it has been since records started, give or take random noise in the data, and is already lower than many other causes of preventable death which have vastly less attention and money spent on them than is already spent on road safety. And this is not by any means the most effective method that could be used to reduce road deaths. With around 30% of drivers involved in road deaths above 0.05% BAC compared to less than 1% of drivers taken at random, there is a far more obvious target for improvement in road safety - and a total ban on all alcohol sales would also result in major reductions in several other classes of deaths and injuries as well. But I do not expect either to happen! It would upset too many voters.

I compare this proposal to the practice of several states of requiring annual roadworthy checks - "It is obviously a good idea". But those states that have it do not have a significantly different road toll to those that do. It is simply another piece of red tape that provides employment and costs everyone money, for no perceptible benefit. And this would be another bit of red tape that would do the same.

Another requirement that is comparable, is about twenty years or more ago, a regular test was introduced for private pilots. Again, it made no perceptible difference to the accident statistics!

John

[PAT303]

IMHO one of the biggest reasons people crash is the cars themselves.I drive my defender almost every day and I can tell just how fast I'm going by the noise and vibration and I know it has no safety features so I drive to it limit.If I then jump in the L322 the first thing I do is speed,why,because it is quiet,goes well,has no vibrations and has a multi speaker sound system,it makes you loose touch with all the sensations of driving as it feels the same wether I'm doing 40 or 140.I feel that cars are so refined that you can loose all sense of speed and with all the safety features people feel they can drive anyway they like and the gizmo's will save them.In the end if you consider how many K's are driven each year and then compare it to the amount of deaths it really isn't that bad. Pat

[Disco44]

The assumption made in this post is that the level of road deaths is bad and getting worse. In fact, the level of road deaths is (by any sensible measure - per head of population, per car or per kilometre) the lowest it has been since records started, give or take random noise in the data, and is already lower than many other causes of preventable death which have vastly less attention and money spent on them than is already spent on road safety. And this is not by any means the most effective method that could be used to reduce road deaths. With around 30% of drivers involved in road deaths above 0.05% BAC compared to less than 1% of drivers taken at random, there is a far more obvious target for improvement in road safety - and a total ban on all alcohol sales would also result in major reductions in several other classes of deaths and injuries as well. But I do not expect either to happen! It would upset too many voters.

I compare this proposal to the practice of several states of requiring annual roadworthy checks - "It is obviously a good idea". But those states that have it do not have a significantly different road toll to those that do. It is simply another piece of red tape that provides employment and costs everyone money, for no perceptible benefit. And this would be another bit of red tape that would do the same.

Another requirement that is comparable, is about twenty years or more ago, a regular test was introduced for private pilots. Again, it made no perceptible difference to the accident statistics!

John

Good on Ya JD this thread makes a lot more sense then a few others on here.

[roverrescue]

I am in no way trying to discount any one road death but as John indicated sometimes a little perspective is helpful.

-"In 2008, there were 1,464 people killed in road crashes." source ABS.

-"Suicide is a prominent public health concern in Australia. For the past decade, around 2,200 people have taken their life each year, with 2,191 deaths recorded in 2008." source ABS from Facts and Statistics (http://www.mindframe-media.info/site/index.cfm'display=105561).

Maybe more money should be spent on Australias overall mental health rather than endless more dollars pouring into road safety?

Steve

[Jonno_G]

The statistics of accident rates for drivers who have just passed a test compared to drivers that have had the licence for many years does not support the concept. Do you have any hard data that does?

I haven't seen any statistics either way, so I can't comment there. I would be interested to know what constituted the test that you refer to, though. Is it a simple theory test, such as is required to gain a learners permit? Or is it a combined theoretical and practical examination, with the assessor being required to look at things like vehicle control techniques and accident avoidance as well as adherence to road rules?


The difference is that public vehicle licences are a means of making an income. For most people their driving licence is not, or at most only indirectly. A public vehicle test woould be either paid by the employer or at least tax deductible. (and I'm not sure whether it is a requirement).

Yes, that is a fair point. I think, though, that the populace in general has lost the concept that "Driving is a privelige, not a right." We all assume that we have the right to operate a motor vehicle, when the fact remains that there are some people who simply shouldn't. (Yet some of them still do...)


While $100-150 sounds like cheap to some people, there are a large number of Australians for whom it represents several day's income. Without a clear benefit to themselves, it is difficult to see this group supporting it. Certainly not unless you can show that having recently passed a driving test improves safety.

Again, fair point. I would have trouble finding $150 right now, but I would do it to continue driving. That said though, if the testing occured once every five years, then in fact you're looking at $0.58 per week, if it was only every ten years then it's $0.29 per week. That sounds more bearable, but I do still accept that most people (myself included) are not going to set aside 58 cents each week to pay for the test once every five years.

Perhaps, then, a more equitable means of applying the cost, and the testing could be applied? How about if only those who had received some sort of traffic infringement notice, or had an 'at fault' insurance claim in the past five years were required to take the tests? This certainly wouldn't cover all "bad drivers", but it would impact some and would probably be more easily accepted by the public than a blanket application to all drivers.


I seriously doubt it would make a significant difference. The reason I believe this is that in almost all cases where an experienced driver drives badly, it is not because they did not know how to -- it was because they did not want to.

And this is definitely a point that needs to be addressed. A difficult one, I know, but somehow we need to change peoples' attitude towards driving. Maybe making it a bit harder than simply paying the renewal fee and having your photo taken every few years might go some way towards achieving it.


They will pass the test and continue driving exactly as they have been doing. (I know there will be exceptions who actually learn something and put it into practice, but they will be just that, exceptions.)

Sadly, I have to agree that there is a lot of truth to that comment...


...this is not a topic of discussion that should be aimed at the older generations, nor specifically at the youngest drivers either. There are plenty of examples of both good and bad drivers across all ages, what we need to do is to get those bad ones off the road until they can be trained and assessed as being capable of safely and competently operating a motor vehicle on a public road or street.

PRECISELY!


The assumption made in this post is that the level of road deaths is bad and getting worse. In fact, the level of road deaths is (by any sensible measure - per head of population, per car or per kilometre) the lowest it has been since records started, give or take random noise in the data, and is already lower than many other causes of preventable death which have vastly less attention and money spent on them than is already spent on road safety.

Actually, I didn't make that assumption. The only assumption I made was that too many people are killed or injured on our roads every day.

Your other points are all quite good, and testing is by no means the only solution - but it may be one option among many.

Cheers,...Jon.

[ramblingboy42]

No, but I would support compulsory advanced driver training which must be passed both practically and theoretically before a license may be re issued

[THE BOOGER]

govts dont like advanced driver courses as some say they only teach hoons how to hoon even more:p most drivers are good but its the few we need to look at;)

[JDNSW]

I haven't seen any statistics either way, so I can't comment there. I would be interested to know what constituted the test that you refer to, though. Is it a simple theory test, such as is required to gain a learners permit? Or is it a combined theoretical and practical examination, with the assessor being required to look at things like vehicle control techniques and accident avoidance as well as adherence to road rules?

What I referred to is that newly tested drivers i.e. P plate drivers are known to be the most likely to have accidents. My point is that testing does nothing towards driver competence, it merely ascertains whether drivers are competent and have prescribed knowledge under testing conditions. It does nothing to assess driver attitudes, which are also going to be very hard to assess, and particularly for experienced drivers, are far more important than testing their competence.


Yes, that is a fair point. I think, though, that the populace in general has lost the concept that "Driving is a privelige, not a right." We all assume that we have the right to operate a motor vehicle, when the fact remains that there are some people who simply shouldn't. (Yet some of them still do...)

And many of them will, whether you take their licence or not!

...........
Perhaps, then, a more equitable means of applying the cost, and the testing could be applied? How about if only those who had received some sort of traffic infringement notice, or had an 'at fault' insurance claim in the past five years were required to take the tests? This certainly wouldn't cover all "bad drivers", but it would impact some and would probably be more easily accepted by the public than a blanket application to all drivers.

This would certainly be more acceptable, but there is still no reason to suppose that simply having to pass a test will make them any better driver!


And this is definitely a point that needs to be addressed. A difficult one, I know, but somehow we need to change peoples' attitude towards driving. Maybe making it a bit harder than simply paying the renewal fee and having your photo taken every few years might go some way towards achieving it.

I very much doubt it. Having watched drivers for fifty years or more, I have serious doubts whether the introduction of renewal tests would make the slightest difference except to the level of bureaucracy. Having a driving "refresher" rather than a test might be more effective - if I had any confidence that it would be carried out properly - but I don't!

.......

Your other points are all quite good, and testing is by no means the only solution - but it may be one option among many.

Cheers,...Jon.

I saw this morning going into town an example of the sort of near accident that was just plain bad driving but would not be addressed by a test - I found myself in a slow queue, travelling at about 20kph behind a tractor pulling a very long grain auger, with a pilot vehicle behind it with four way flashers. Between it and myself was one car. Oncoming traffic prevented any possibility of overtaking. The tractor pulled over to the centre of the road to turn left into a gateway (he had to pull out because the wheels of the auger were ten metres behind the tractor, with another ten metres of auger beyond that). The car in front of me immediately accelerated and attempted to overtake both the pilot vehicle and the tractor on the left, being forced to brake suddenly to avoid hitting the tractor side on - I think the tractor would have won! A case of just plain impatience and failure to properly assess what was going on - tell me how a test is going to do anything about this?

The problem is not that experienced drivers don't know what they should do - in general, they know perfectly well, and have the skills to do it; but they just do not do it, mainly because of attitude. And no amount of testing will change attitude. Perhaps publicity campaigns might have more chance of success, but this is only likely to happen very slowly.

John

[Bigbjorn]

The money saved will more than cover the $20.00 per week taxi bill.

Long time snce you caught a taxi!

Here they barely turn a wheel for $20. Flag fall, after-hours charge after 6.30pm, & radio hiring fee before the drive starts. To go to my local, the Lord Stanley in Stanley St. from my home in Norman Park, a 25 minute walk, is not quite $25 in a cab. This is why I mostly drink at home nowadays. An afternoon at the pub, say ten schooners and two taxis is $100. I can get three x thirty packs at the bottle shop for that.

[vnx205]

There seems to be an assumption on the part of most people that if drivers complete advanced training courses, that will lead to a reduction in road accidents. It is one of those things that seems so obvious that people don't question it.

However, the research does not support this belief.

The NRMA for example says:
The NRMA does not recommend these courses for anyone under 25 years of age as they build over-confidence, with a resulting increase in crash statistics. (my emphasis)
(From www.mynrma.com.au/cps/rde/xbcr/mynrma/FAQ.pdf)



Other studies say such things as:
No-one has come up with an evaluation that shows there's a benefit to advanced skills training… gains from training may be offset by confidence and reduction of safety margins… (Lord, 2000, pp.21-23).
and
A commonly held belief is that additional in-car training can increase road safety awareness in young drivers. Research in Australia and overseas does not support this contention (Hull, 1991).
and
If increased rates of crashing were due to lack of skill, then training and education would appear to be a natural countermeasure. Although there have been many studies of the influence of driver education on crash rates, none with acceptable methodology has shown that those who receive driver education have lower crash rates than those who do not (Evans, 1991, p.105).

These are only a small sample of results that have all come to the same conclusion. Others can be seen at Is driver training effective? (http://www.ambulancedriving.com/research/r-s-user-trainer.html)

There is no evidence that advanced training courses reduce accidents.

Most of the people who seem to be claiming they do are people selling the courses.

Just because something seems so obviously true that no-one need question it does not mean that it is in fact true.

Read the research.

[JDNSW]

...........
Just because something seems so obviously true that no-one need question it does not mean that it is in fact true.

Read the research.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. My contention would be that the problem (to the extent that there is a problem - and I pointed out that road deaths are already lower than many other preventable causes of death) is not driver ability or skills, but driver attitude.

Given this, the effect of a test would be minimal, but at great expense and waste of resources that could be better spent on other measures. Just to pick one at random - edge marking of more two lane roads would have a significant impact on head on collisions, and you could edge mark an awful lot of kilometres for the cost of regular driver testing.

John

[Tombie]

Long time snce you caught a taxi!

Here they barely turn a wheel for $20. Flag fall, after-hours charge after 6.30pm, & radio hiring fee before the drive starts. To go to my local, the Lord Stanley in Stanley St. from my home in Norman Park, a 25 minute walk, is not quite $25 in a cab. This is why I mostly drink at home nowadays. An afternoon at the pub, say ten schooners and two taxis is $100. I can get three x thirty packs at the bottle shop for that.

Still cheaper than running a vehicle for the usage of the RSL & Shop run once a week.

Cabs here are $5.50 to sit and run to about $13.00 total to the other side of town (the centre, not the local foodland).

We have chauffeur cars that do fixed price $8.00 anywhere in town too.
Town is 22km long.

[Landy Smurf]

i have now changed my mind you 2 guys have made it obvious that we need to spend the money where it is needed most just because we here of every crash there is does not mean that its the worse thing at the moment i still think we need to spend money educating young drivers but to be honest i think we need to change the drinking age to 21 so then when minors are on there L's and P's they cant go to the pub and drive home and maybe even until the age of 25 reduce the alcohol level even if it is to zero,i know i just sort of brought up a new topic but its just what i think

[Jonno_G]

What I referred to is that newly tested drivers i.e. P plate drivers are known to be the most likely to have accidents. My point is that testing does nothing towards driver competence, it merely ascertains whether drivers are competent and have prescribed knowledge under testing conditions. It does nothing to assess driver attitudes, which are also going to be very hard to assess, and particularly for experienced drivers, are far more important than testing their competence.

Fair point, I'll accept that. I agree that it is indeed driver attitudes that are a large part of the problem, and that the artificial environment created during a test is going to diminish any findings of the assessor as the driver being tested is, of course, going to be on their best behaviour in such a situation.

I'll admit that I'm seeing from your and other posts here that there is, as always, far more to this topic than first meets the eye.


And many of them will, whether you take their licence or not!

Sadly true - and there are limited options as far as combatting this issue. Perhaps a look at drastically increasing the penalties for such behaviour is warranted. (How about a minimum of $1000 fine and 90 days impoundment of vehicle on first offence? But that's really a discussion for a different thread.)


This would certainly be more acceptable, but there is still no reason to suppose that simply having to pass a test will make them any better driver!

Again, fair point.


I very much doubt it. Having watched drivers for fifty years or more, I have serious doubts whether the introduction of renewal tests would make the slightest difference except to the level of bureaucracy. Having a driving "refresher" rather than a test might be more effective - if I had any confidence that it would be carried out properly - but I don't!

What do you mean by "refresher"? (As opposed to "test".)



The problem is not that experienced drivers don't know what they should do - in general, they know perfectly well, and have the skills to do it; but they just do not do it, mainly because of attitude. And no amount of testing will change attitude. Perhaps publicity campaigns might have more chance of success, but this is only likely to happen very slowly.

I agree, for the most part, that most drivers do know what they should and shouldn't be doing, and that attitude is the biggest part of the problem. However I will refer back to my earlier comment about making it a requirement for all changes to road rules to be advertised for a defined period both before and after implementation. It's a slight sidetrack, I know, but it does follow your suggestion of publicity campaigns.

As an example, when I got my license the requirements for indicating through a (single lane) roundabout were that you indicate Left if turning Left, Right if turning Right or making a U-turn, and not at all if going straight ahead. Now a few years back our govt. saw fit to implement a change to those rules that meant (as I understand it) that as well as indicating in the direction of intended travel that one must always indicate Left when leaving a roundabout (single lane or otherwise) - what this has resulted in is hundreds of drivers who now indicate Left, then Right, then Left again when going straight ahead through a roundabout - clearly this is an example of plenty of drivers NOT knowing what they should be doing. (Believe me, after nearly running over a few Hyundais and Daewoo's I now trust NOBODY at a roundabout!)

Cheers,...Jon.

P.S. Sorry to any dilligent Hyundai or Daewoo drivers who might read this post.

P.P.S. Lime Green? Really John?!? That was just cruel ;) I nearly burned my eyes out until I realised that it was easier to read if I just selected the text. :p:angel:

[vnx205]

.. ... ... ... ..

Sadly true - and there are limited options as far as combatting this issue. Perhaps a look at drastically increasing the penalties for such behaviour is warranted. (How about a minimum of $1000 fine and 90 days impoundment of vehicle on first offence? But that's really a discussion for a different thread.)
.. ... ... ...

P.P.S. Lime Green? Really John?!? That was just cruel ;) I nearly burned my eyes out until I realised that it was easier to read if I just selected the text. :p:angel:

I am sure I read some research a while back that suggested that the likelihood of being caught was a more significant factor than the size of the penalty in preventing someone from committing an offence.

The size of the penalty is pretty much irrelevant if people think they probably won't get caught.

In any case a significant number of people who seem to get caught driving without a licence appear to be the sort of people who have no respect for others, society generally and the law in particular. Furthermore they seem incapable of thinking ahead and taking responsibility for their actions. I don't think the size of the penalty makes any difference to them.

PS You are right about the Lime Green. i had to resort to the same technique to make it readable.

[JDNSW]

..............

Sadly true - and there are limited options as far as combatting this issue. Perhaps a look at drastically increasing the penalties for such behaviour is warranted. (How about a minimum of $1000 fine and 90 days impoundment of vehicle on first offence? But that's really a discussion for a different thread.)

With vnx205, I doubt the penalty would make much difference - it is a matter of the probability of being caught. I am reminded of the case of a middle aged woman locally who, involved in a minor accident, was found to have never had a licence, but had been driving for thirty years without ever having been caught. And when proposing draconian penalties, remember that probably most unlicenced drivers are in that position simply because they forgot to renew or had not got round to it - or can't afford it in some cases.
..........

What do you mean by "refresher"? (As opposed to "test".)

A requirement to spend an hour or two with a driving instructor to find any bad habits, or a similar program. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, there would be two types of instructor in this business - the ones who take the money for a two minute run round the block, and the ones that tell the driver they need $500 worth of remedial lessons, regardless of the need.

.......... However I will refer back to my earlier comment about making it a requirement for all changes to road rules to be advertised for a defined period both before and after implementation. It's a slight sidetrack, I know, but it does follow your suggestion of publicity campaigns.

It is a sidetrack as you say, and nothing to do with testing. There is a problem how to advertise it - for example, in my case, I rarely watch commercial television, never listen to commercial radio, can't get daily papers, and consign the junk mail straight into the recycling.

......... I now trust NOBODY at a roundabout!)

I never did! Or any other intersection.

Cheers,...Jon.
......
P.P.S. Lime Green? Really John?!? That was just cruel ;) I nearly burned my eyes out until I realised that it was easier to read if I just selected the text. :p:angel:

Sorry about the colour - I thought the red was getting a bit boring - the green was quite readable on my screen!

John

[ramblingboy42]

Its amazing how people talk about experiences they havent had and research things they havent themselves done. Unless you have done a proper advanced driver training course I suggest you dont comment on them. If you havent done one, (and I'm not talking about learning to drive fast on a race track) you just cannot comment on the changes and benefits that you as a driver will go through as result of these courses. They cover psychology of driving, interpereting another drivers minute body language, effects of control inputs in all sorts of different situations, weather, light conditions etc.
Again , I challenge everyone of you to do one of these courses and find out what you dont know that you think you do and how bad a driver you really are. It is obvious from the threads in here that none of you have done such training.

[Chucaro]

Its amazing how people talk about experiences they havent had and research things they havent themselves done. Unless you have done a proper advanced driver training course I suggest you dont comment on them. If you havent done one, (and I'm not talking about learning to drive fast on a race track) you just cannot comment on the changes and benefits that you as a driver will go through as result of these courses. They cover psychology of driving, interpereting another drivers minute body language, effects of control inputs in all sorts of different situations, weather, light conditions etc.
Again , I challenge everyone of you to do one of these courses and find out what you dont know that you think you do and how bad a driver you really are. It is obvious from the threads in here that none of you have done such training.

Good point, alternatively just ride a motorbike for more than 20 yeras and you will learn "psychology of driving, interpereting another drivers minute body language, effects of control inputs in all sorts of different situations, weather, light conditions", how to bounce in the road when some idiot hit you, etc, etc.
If you are a live after 10 years you have passed the test :D

[JDNSW]

Perhaps relevant to "preventable causes of death" - I ran across an article today pointing out that an average 20% reduction in the amount of salt in processed foods would result in about a 16% reduction in heart attacks and strokes. This would be a lot cheaper than regular driving tests, have less opposition, and a more certain result.

John

[vnx205]

Its amazing how people talk about experiences they havent had and research things they havent themselves done. Unless you have done a proper advanced driver training course I suggest you dont comment on them. If you havent done one, (and I'm not talking about learning to drive fast on a race track) you just cannot comment on the changes and benefits that you as a driver will go through as result of these courses. They cover psychology of driving, interpereting another drivers minute body language, effects of control inputs in all sorts of different situations, weather, light conditions etc.
Again , I challenge everyone of you to do one of these courses and find out what you dont know that you think you do and how bad a driver you really are. It is obvious from the threads in here that none of you have done such training.

If I understand your first two sentences correctly you are saying that I should not have an opinion on advanced driving courses if I haven't done one. Does that mean I should not comment on the benefits of adjusting the fuel delivery on a 300 Tdi if I haven't done it to my vehicle? Does the evidence from other people who have done carefully controlled research into the subject count for nothing?

Since you appear to be someone who has done such a course, I am quite willing to accept that the course you did covered all those things.

The problem is that research in a number of countries over a number of years has shown that courses just like the one you did do not reduce the road toll.

If you feel you benefited from your course, that is good, but as a participant in a course, the only thing you are qualified to comment on is what you did and how you feel about it.

Using your same logic that only those involved should comment, then it follows that unless you have been involved in a serious study of the impact such courses, you should not comment on their impact.

You are qualified to comment on what you did in your course. You are not qualified to comment on whether such courses help reduce the road toll. The evidence shows that they do not.

[Chucaro]

Perhaps relevant to "preventable causes of death" - I ran across an article today pointing out that an average 20% reduction in the amount of salt in processed foods would result in about a 16% reduction in heart attacks and strokes. This would be a lot cheaper than regular driving tests, have less opposition, and a more certain result.

John

The problem John is that if they reduce the sodium then it have to be replaced with perservatives which will made Monsanto more rich and will kill more of us.
Keep it very quite, the do-gooders may be are reading or comments :D

[UncleHo]

Yes, it is no fun having to step off your motorcycle(BMW in my case) and slide down the road because of some idiot's driving style,(right turn across oncoming traffic on Parramatta Rd):mad: and people always asked why I wore boots, leather trousers, jacket, gauntlets,and a helmet when they became law. :)



P.S. We had to pull dad's license when he turned 87, eyes opened but they didn't work, couldn't see the traffic lights just took off when everybody else did :eek:

cheers

[Bigbjorn]

Good point, alternatively just ride a motorbike for more than 20 yeras and you will learn "psychology of driving, interpereting another drivers minute body language, effects of control inputs in all sorts of different situations, weather, light conditions", how to bounce in the road when some idiot hit you, etc, etc.
If you are a live after 10 years you have passed the test :D

I have not owned a motor cycle for more than thirty years and have not ridden one more than a short distance to try someone's new toy in that time. Reason? I felt that every time I went out on one someone was trying to kill me.

I have seen too many old friends and acquaintances limping, missing limbs, or in wheelchairs from their motor cycling days. Go to any historic motor cycling event and see the numbers of hoppies and wheelies wandering around.

My daughter bought a scooter agasinst my advice and wish. I told her that motor cycle hits car, car is damaged and drives away, motor cycle is written off and motor cyclist is in hospital. Car hits motor cycle, motor cyclist is dead.

Guess what, a ute backed out of a driveway and she ran t-bone into it. Luckily at slow speed and she only got gravel rash but scooter was stuffed. Ute driver most indignant about scooter rider not keeping a proper look out and damaging his pride and joy. Even more indignant about getting a fine for careless operation from the police and an account from me for scooter repairs under my business name. Daughter was under 25 then and was on $1000 excess so I told her not to make a claim. She now vows never to even ride pillion again. I had to take him to the Small Claims Tribunal for the repairs before he would lodge an insurance claim as he was on a big excess too. His insurer eventually paid, also with bad grace and long delay.

[JDNSW]

The problem John is that if they reduce the sodium then it have to be replaced with perservatives which will made Monsanto more rich and will kill more of us.
Keep it very quite, the do-gooders may be are reading or comments :D


The vast majority of processed foods do not need the amount of salt in them as preservatives. OK, there are some that do but most do not, and can, and often are, sold with reduced salt (and no other preservative) alongside the "standard" product. One good example of this is peanut butter, where sodium content varies from about 0.025% to 1.5% between brands, or, less spectacularly tinned baked beans that vary from 0.25% to 0.38% between brands (just looked at some of the tins in the cupboard).

John

[Sparksdisco]

If I understand your first two sentences correctly you are saying that I should not have an opinion on advanced driving courses if I haven't done one. Does that mean I should not comment on the benefits of adjusting the fuel delivery on a 300 Tdi if I haven't done it to my vehicle? Does the evidence from other people who have done carefully controlled research into the subject count for nothing?

Since you appear to be someone who has done such a course, I am quite willing to accept that the course you did covered all those things.

The problem is that research in a number of countries over a number of years has shown that courses just like the one you did do not reduce the road toll.

If you feel you benefited from your course, that is good, but as a participant in a course, the only thing you are qualified to comment on is what you did and how you feel about it.

Using your same logic that only those involved should comment, then it follows that unless you have been involved in a serious study of the impact such courses, you should not comment on their impact.

You are qualified to comment on what you did in your course. You are not qualified to comment on whether such courses help reduce the road toll. The evidence shows that they do not.

im glad you got somthing out of doing your course but like the driving test, unlees you are in the right frame of mind and want to listen and learn then it wont make a differance. you could just pass the course and not actualy learn or apply anything in the course to real life. but anything is better than nothing.

[THE BOOGER]

I have done an advanced driver course and held a cams lic some of the people on my course couldnt wait to show their mates what they had learned, were they safer for it i dont think so. As others have said riding a bike for 30 years has made me far more aware of what is happening than any course.

[V8Ian]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to teach people to drive before giving them a licence, rather than how to perform routine, simple manoevres to pass a test. As previously stated, 99% of driving skill is attitudal. Over 7,000,000km of experience in vehicles ranging from motor cycles to road trains, tends to develop and hone the 'sixth sense' quite effectively.

[Crackerjack]

Has anyone thought of the other side of the coin, where there are now so many laws about driving that it has turned into a situation where one can never keep up, what happened to common sense?

[V8Ian]

Isn't common sense attitudal?

[Jonno_G]

With vnx205, I doubt the penalty would make much difference - it is a matter of the probability of being caught. I am reminded of the case of a middle aged woman locally who, involved in a minor accident, was found to have never had a licence, but had been driving for thirty years without ever having been caught. And when proposing draconian penalties, remember that probably most unlicenced drivers are in that position simply because they forgot to renew or had not got round to it - or can't afford it in some cases.

Agreed. Sadly, whilst ever people think they can get away with the risk then they'll often try their luck. I think that "draconian" might be a bit too strong a word for what I described, but as a society I believe we are far too lenient on offenders in many areas.

Of course some leniency is warranted, such as in cases where a drivers license has expired recently through oversight, but if the offending driver is driving while disqualified then throw the book at them! I struggle to believe that many who can afford to own and operate a motor vehicle can not afford the $25 for a years license fee. Of course there are exceptions, but genuine exceptions in this case I would think are few and far between. Of course the associated issue of such a person certainly not being able to afford a high fine might be remedied by commuting the fine to a community service order.

Like we've already said, if people think they won't get caught then they'll risk it, but also - if people think that if they do get caught then all they'll get is a slap on the wrist then they're almost guaranteed not to learn anything from it.


A requirement to spend an hour or two with a driving instructor to find any bad habits, or a similar program.

OK, I might not have been clear about it, but that was what I was envisioning from the beginning of the thread. Simple 'theory' testing alone would indeed be quite ineffective.


It is a sidetrack as you say, and nothing to do with testing. There is a problem how to advertise it - for example, in my case, I rarely watch commercial television, never listen to commercial radio, can't get daily papers, and consign the junk mail straight into the recycling.

I'm much the same, so can I take it from the above that you do watch &/or listen to ABC or SBS? (As I do.) Surely it is acceptable to have such issues as public education and safety addressed on the national broadcaster as well as the other channels? After all, the ABC's news bulletins are all produced locally, why not this too. Also, most channels have some sort of 'Community Notice Board' advertisements at little or no cost, this would surely fit the bill of a 'Community Notice'.

A few years ago (maybe eight to ten?) we had a public education campaign here on merging lanes - it actually appeared to be quite effective at the time. Sadly though, the bad habits are starting to creep back in again - maybe that campaign should be recycled. (And maybe the current series that seems to be designed primarily to cut to the heart of anyone who's ever had their children injured in a car accident should be dropped, but again that's a different matter and I don't want to hijack the thread completely...)


Sorry about the colour - I thought the red was getting a bit boring - the green was quite readable on my screen!

No worries, I figured it was something like that. :D

[Jonno_G]

Isn't common sense attitudal?

Yes, and it's also far too uncommon! :(

[RaZz0R]

I'll play my "As an ex full time motorbike rider" card & say they NEED to do it.

But then that would go down the road of truth & I would want to know the percent of new drivers, new cars & bikes to any & ALL road tolls.

if we are up 8 dead people in a year - show us how many new drivers there were... bet there were thousands. So 8 more dead up aint all that bad, in fact its really good when you think about.

[JDNSW]

Has anyone thought of the other side of the coin, where there are now so many laws about driving that it has turned into a situation where one can never keep up, what happened to common sense?

Not just driving - there are far too many laws about everything! Unfortunately a large majority of parliamentarians are trained lawyers, trained to see the law as the solution to every problem. In my view, this is rarely the case, and the result is that almost everyone breaks some law they have never heard of or thought about virtually every day - and since there is no possibility of enforcing 90% of laws effectively, it does tend to bring the the law as a whole into disrepute.

John

[JDNSW]

Probably relevant to this discussion - just heard a news item. Yesterday a car hit five thirteen year old boys in a school zone, demolished a fence and then drove off.

Last night a 21 year old P plate driver was arrested and charged with a number of offences, including failing to stop after an accident and driving with smooth tyres. Now this is a driver who passed a test within the previous few years, and undoubtedly knew that he should have stopped, and probably that his tyres were unserviceable (probably why he failed to stop).

Also worth noting that this was in NSW, which has annual roadworthiness tests - this appears to be one of those rare occasions when a vehicle defect has been a major factor in the accident, although I should point out it was not the "cause". The accident was, as with any accident, the result of a chain of factors, removal of any of these would have prevented it from happenning. These include the tyres, the decision to drive with these, the weather, and probably the actual driving decisions.

John

[Bigbjorn]

There are, so we are told a lot of unlicenced drivers and drivers whose licences have been suspended or cancelled driving around out there. No amount of extra testing or education will make any difference to these. They simply wont be involved and will continue on as they are.

In the early 1970's Queensland had laws that required a driver caught driving whilst suspended or cancelled be sent to gaol. This had to be changed after a few years. There were too many of them and they were filling the gaols.

A fair while ago a friend I have known since high school told me he had to go for a driver's licence test. Turns out he had been cancelled for drink driving 14 years before. At the conclusion of the period of cancellation then, one had to be retested to recover one's licence. He told me the treatment he received at the testing centre was demeaning and embarassing, & the testing officer failed him. He said it was apparent from the start that the guy had no intention of passing him. So, he did not bother returning for another test.

I asked how he managed to drive for 14 years without a licence. His reply was that you drive very, very, carefully. It was the start of the RBT squads that convinced him he should get a licence.

[V8Ian]

And there's the case, a few years back, of the young fellow who did a Q-Ride course, enabling him to skip the manditory 12 month 250 cc limit, being killed in a high speed incident with less than 80 km on his new machine. He died within an hour of gaining his licence.

[Crackerjack]

Not just driving - there are far too many laws about everything! Unfortunately a large majority of parliamentarians are trained lawyers, trained to see the law as the solution to every problem. In my view, this is rarely the case, and the result is that almost everyone breaks some law they have never heard of or thought about virtually every day - and since there is no possibility of enforcing 90% of laws effectively, it does tend to bring the the law as a whole into disrepute.

John

This is exactly what has happened in the UK, the last Labour Government passed over 2000 laws in 10 years, some of them are motoring laws, but most people don't know what these laws are as they are poorly publicized. how is the ordinary motorist meant to keep up? its just giving the opportunity for the authorities to issue more on the spot fines for breaking laws we have never heard of, are not safety related or in any way related to common sense.
Good example, we have marked boxes in the street to park in, they are too small for some cars and people have been fined for having their wheels outside the box when the passenger side wheels are hard against the kerb.

[Jonno_G]

Good example, we have marked boxes in the street to park in, they are too small for some cars and people have been fined for having their wheels outside the box when the passenger side wheels are hard against the kerb.

And you can guarantee that the same enforcement officer (if they had the power) would issue an infringement notice if the driver had sat the passenger side wheels up on the kerb in order to "stay inside the lines". ;)

We all should know that it's illegal to park on a footpath, but we should be able to expect some degree of common sense in the enforcement. I've been booked for parking with wheels on the kerb where the road was not wide enough to safely accomodate three vehicles (one parked, two passing) and yet there was 3-4 metres between the kerb and front fence of the property I was parked in front of.

Going back to earlier comments in this thread - I knew that what I was doing was 'technically' illegal, but I did it anyway. I did it because I thought that I was acting in the interests of publice safety by not blocking the road - obviously the issuing officer did not agree! :mad:

BTW, I paid the fine, rather than contesting it, as I knew that 'technically' I was in the wrong - despite the fact that had common sense been allowed to prevail then either the fine would be waived or, in this instance the more sensible of the two options, that section of the road would be marked as "No Parking". (Forgive my cynicism, but I have a suspicion that there is a not insignificant amount of revenue earned from parking fines on this short stretch of street...)

[Crackerjack]

We all should know that it's illegal to park on a footpath, but we should be able to expect some degree of common sense in the enforcement.

(Forgive my cynicism, but I have a suspicion that there is a not insignificant amount of revenue earned from parking fines on this short stretch of street...)

Common sense in ticket issuing, you must be kidding!

Cynicism forgiven, it is common practice in some areas of London to ticket perfectly legally parked cars to keep up the "quota" and therefore the revenue stream. The authorities do this as they know the majority will pay to avoid the massive inconvenience of contesting and the usual threats from city hall, even though they (city hall) are in the wrong.

Always contest a ticket if you think its wrong, many councils have been forced to publicly state that they are forced to refund up to 30% of their parking tickets because they weren't legally issued.

This is how confusing traffic laws can be, and a lot of it is to do with revenue.

[crl]

Unless it became politically fashionable I'm not sure that it would happen.

I think it is a good idea though, not just every 10 years but after licence suspensions also.

[pop058]

Found this and thought it is was pretty dam good (read bloody awesome ) car control. If only we could develop this level of skill in our new drivers.

YouTube- amazing car control


The "drifting" lads have got nothing on this guy :)

[JDNSW]

Unless it became politically fashionable I'm not sure that it would happen.

I think it is a good idea though, not just every 10 years but after licence suspensions also.

I don't. I think it is a total waste of money - the problem is mostly not lack of skill but not using them - and drivers are on their best behaviour in a test, and after the test they revert to normal.

But like you I don't think it is going to happen.


The problem is not driver skill or knowledge, but driver behaviour, mostly due to poor attitude. And as I pointed out, road deaths are already the lowest on record and way below some other preventable causes of death and injury.

John

[Grumndriva]

Safety in any form of human endeavour, whether it is driving, flying, surgery or running a nuclear power station, is all a matter of adequate training, attitude and supervision. Of these, given that most licenced drivers in Australia have passed a test of their basic driving skills, and given that supervision is virtually non-existant, attitude is probably the issue that offers most in terms of improving safety. In aviation, we talk about airmanship which combines skill and, most importantly, attitude. And we supervise very very closely to detect less than optimal skills or attitudes. So in my view, additional supervision in the form of a driving and theory test every so often would probably be of some benefit, but probably of less benefit than addressing the attitude issue.

In my adopted home town of Canberra, there is virtually no policing of road rules, and I am frequently tail gated or overtaken by other drivers of all ages when travelling at the speed limit. Even school zones or road works (40 kph) with kids or workers very close to the lanes are ignored by a high percentage of drivers who blithely speed through at 60 or even 80, despite the fact that it significantly increases the risk to the school kids or workers. In one memorable blitz a few years ago, one woman, with school age kids, was booked three times on the same day speeding through the same school zone with the excuse that she was in a hurry. There is a significant number of drivers who believe that speed limit plus 20 is fine, which is probably why in some cases we have speed limits which are unnecessarily low.

Many people justify ignoring speed limits by arguing that speed does not kill. They are correct, but in the same way that it is also true that jumping off the Empire State Building won't kill you. It is the sudden stop that kills. Actually it is the rate of stopping on impact that kills, and that varies with the square of the speed, not the speed itself. Speed makes an accident more likely and increases the likelihood of serious injury or death in the event of an accident. Fact. Yet how many of us can honestly say that we never speed?

As others have said, the less chance there is of getting caught, the more likely we are to stretch what we do until we are driving not just unlawfully but dangerously. Who is then to blame: us or the government?

This has been a very good discussion, but it is time that each of us took personal responsibility for our own attitudes and actions and stopped thinking that a new law will fix the problem. The solution lies in our own hands, but there are sadly those who are psychologically unsuited to safe driving. They usually remove themselves from the gene pool. Sadly, they too often take others with them. And an occasional driving test will almost certainly not identify the problem.

Sorry, off the soap box now.

[Mammoth]

Older drivers blame young ones for their lack of experience and judgement, and for being crazy as a cut snake. Younger drivers blame older ones for their slowing reflexes and faculties. Many women think men drive aggressively and many men think women drive timidly.
These are all stereotypes but the one truth is that practice will consolidate driving habits. If you practice driving faults they become second nature, but like the vehicle, the nut behind the wheel needs regular maintenance and testing.
If someone tells you they have driven for 20 years without incident, then that tells you that they haven't had their driving examined for two decades and are probably unaware of the rules that have changed in that time.
It's nothing personal.

[JDNSW]

.........
In my adopted home town of Canberra,.........

Sounds as if you drive in the same Canberra that I do from time to time!

The statistical evidence quite clearly shows that alcohol, not speed, is the most important single factor in road deaths, almost certainly followed by road construction - so why the emphasis on speed?

But of course no accident has a single cause, and speed is very often a contributing factor, although when the dead driver has a blood alcohol measurement of twice the legal limit, you have to ask whether it should be listed as a "speeding" death.

John

[rmp]

Found this and thought it is was pretty dam good (read bloody awesome ) car control. If only we could develop this level of skill in our new drivers.

YouTube- amazing car control (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w77yars57Ow&feature=related)


The "drifting" lads have got nothing on this guy :)

That's the last skill road drivers need to develop. The training needed is not car control, it's observation, car sympathy and attitude. The idea is to never get into the situation where you'll need to know how to correct a slide.

What learning anyway about the "inevitable" time when you do? No point. To correct slides consistently and skillfully you need constant practice and where will Joe Average get that?

Pure car control courses give people a false sense of security. Great fun of course, but not what is needed for safer roads.

Also, as stability control is becoming more prevalent and will be mandated by law there will be less need to know how to recover a car in the first place. The wet rounadbout slide situation will become almost unheard of.