Driver Testing

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

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.

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

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

...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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

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

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;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonno_G

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie2

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

...........
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