But the problem I have with the whole question, is that we already have road deaths at the lowest levels on record. And the major factors behind most road deaths (and serious injuries, although perhaps not minor accidents) are bad roads, alcohol and stupidity (e.g. not wearing seat belts, not driving slower in the wet etc). Not bad habits, not driving skills - regardless of who did the teaching, these problems should be noted in testing. If the learner can pass the test then they know what they should do and can do it, or the test is inadequate. And even if they had professional teaching, if they have spent fifteen years sitting behind dad as he straddles the lane marker, a few hours learning with someone else (or dad following the book) will make sure they learn not to do it for the test - and return to normal as soon as the test is passed.
I see your proposal as simply a further increase in the bureaucracy that we are already smothering in. A good example of this I encountered last week. I have been poisoning foxes for over ten years. New rules meant that I had to spend a day doing a course to continue. During this course I learnt nothing I did not already know, and 90% of the course was not anything to do with safe handling of the baits or anything of real use, but simply learning to comply with the bureaucracy. This is a prime example of something that has done nothing to help safety, but wasted a day's work for about a dozen people, plus hundreds of kilometres of driving, plus hire of premises, etc etc, for no benefit to anyone. (The useful information imparted could just as easily have been given one on one when baits are handed over, as has been done for decades)
John


Reply With Quote



Bookmarks