Driver Testing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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".)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonno_G

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonno_G

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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