Thread: The standard of P-plate drivers getting worse?

I don't think it is just P platers or even a large majority. There are far more fully licensed drivers that are idiots. Remember P Platers are still effectively learning to drive in general conditions. Of course there are idiots on P Plates. There are so many clowns on the roads in WA. The lane hoppers that have to do 120kmph, the people that don't know how to merge, the no indicator brigade and then those on bikes that have a death wish (nearly took a Harley out a week or so ago). The list go's on and on and the majority of these are not P platers or even young drivers.

Originally Posted by CraigE

I don't think it is just P platers or even a large majority. There are far more fully licensed drivers that are idiots. Remember P Platers are still effectively learning to drive in general conditions. Of course there are idiots on P Plates. There are so many clowns on the roads in WA. The lane hoppers that have to do 120kmph, the people that don't know how to merge, the no indicator brigade and then those on bikes that have a death wish (nearly took a Harley out a week or so ago). The list go's on and on and the majority of these are not P platers or even young drivers.

I suppose that part of my point is that P platers have a badge on the car that the eye is drawn to, so you see it and register it and it becomes much more memorable than the run-of-the-mill lunacy that infects the roads.

But on the flip side of that, the P platers will have only recently passed their test, so the road rules should be more fresh in their minds, and therefore more inexcusable that those whose test was 20, 30 or 50 years ago.

I never cease to be amazed by drivers of all ages and genders who can only drive in fifty foot increments. I'm glad I don't have to pay for their tyres, brakes and fuel. I can drive accross the city, rarely touching the brakes or accelerating heavily.

I wonder how much of the attitude that some new drivers have now is because there is now so much emphasis in marketing and in car reviews of how safe modern cars are and how well they go, handle and stop.

Some of us spent a lot of our early years driving cars that we knew had limitations. We knew, for example, that unless we changed back to second going down the Dorrigo Mountain, that our FJ Holden would run out of brakes long before we reached the bottom. Some people seem to believe that modern cars have no limitations. They think that ABS will stop them no matter how short the distance and the ESC will get them around the corner no matter how fast they enter. They also seem to think that the secondary safety features will always save them. Some of them seem to forget that the laws of physics still apply, no matter how many electronic aids the car has or how much hype there was in its marketing.

In spite of the importance of improving driving, I don't believe driver training should be part of the school curriculum. There isn't room for anything more in the school curriculum because of the extra things society has expected to add in the last half century or so. It is a bit unreasonable for society and the media to attack schools because of falling standards in the 3Rs and then in the next breath ask them to also teach students about politics, sex, anger management, budgeting, decision making, ethics and advanced driving techniques.

There is another reason I don't think schools should try to teach driver training, even if they could find room in their already crowded curriculum. I am convinced that more accidents, injuries and deaths are the result of the driver's attitude, not his or her ability. Driver education might be appropriate in schools. Driver training isn't.

Originally Posted by sheerluck

I suppose that part of my point is that P platers have a badge on the car that the eye is drawn to, so you see it and register it and it becomes much more memorable than the run-of-the-mill lunacy that infects the roads.

But on the flip side of that, the P platers will have only recently passed their test, so the road rules should be more fresh in their minds, and therefore more inexcusable that those whose test was 20, 30 or 50 years ago.

I'm pretty much thinking the same thing. I was lucky as my father had no issues in letting me drive lots when I had my "L"'s. certainly still no where near the 120 or so hours they have to gain now, but lots more than my mates around me had.
Our attitude to life and respect for other people around us was very different to what it is now.
As guys, we wanted to "learn to drive" the car, and not just essentially be a passenger behind the wheel. So we went out, found quiet roads and made mistakes. But none of us ever had passengers and were all mindful of what where and how we were doing it. We knew being on public roads stuffing around was wrong, but we were very conscious of limitations and consequences.
Back in those days, we felt bad if we were sprung doing something wrong, as when the old man found out, his clip under the ear hurt,, usually the pride more than anything.
These days, if someone's caught, it's just one big joke and a "whatever" attitude. My daughters first car had damage just behind the front wheel, when quized about it, it took months for her to tell me how, but turns out some "mate" pulled the handbrake on as she was taking a round about. Some mate. We've probably all had experiences like that, although when it was done to me, he had a mighty long walk, and it was his car

I'd personally like to see special driver training from the word go, with lots of exposure to the real effects of bad behavour, including the blood and guts that comes with it. Sorry, but I think they need "real world" insight.
They show lots of adds on TV, but who really watches those,, certainly not a teenager that's got their phone stuck to their head/fingers.

Originally Posted by vnx205

I wonder how much of the attitude that some new drivers have now is because there is now so much emphasis in marketing and in car reviews of how safe modern cars are and how well they go, handle and stop.

Some of us spent a lot of our early years driving cars that we knew had limitations. We knew, for example, that unless we changed back to second going down the Dorrigo Mountain, that our FJ Holden would run out of brakes long before we reached the bottom. Some people seem to believe that modern cars have no limitations. They think that ABS will stop them no matter how short the distance and the ESC will get them around the corner no matter how fast they enter. They also seem to think that the secondary safety features will always save them. Some of them seem to forget that the laws of physics still apply, no matter how many electronic aids the car has or how much hype there was in its marketing.

In spite of the importance of improving driving, I don't believe driver training should be part of the school curriculum. There isn't room for anything more in the school curriculum because of the extra things society has expected to add in the last half century or so. It is a bit unreasonable for society and the media to attack schools because of falling standards in the 3Rs and then in the next breath ask them to also teach students about politics, sex, anger management, budgeting, decision making, ethics and advanced driving techniques.

There is another reason I don't think schools should try to teach driver training, even if they could find room in their already crowded curriculum. I am convinced that more accidents, injuries and deaths are the result of the driver's attitude, not his or her ability. Driver education might be appropriate in schools. Driver training isn't.

Spot on, the attitude spills onto many other areas of life too. Attitudal training should come from the home.

Many young people, especially males, have attitude. They had in my day, too. Part of growing up is testing limits and annoying oldies. Most, like me, grow up and improve their skills as well as their attitude. Some don't. Even the ancient Romans wrote about the Youth Of Today in disapproving tones.

I look forward to the future of cars being autonomous. Only highly trained drivers will be allowed to control a "vintage" non-automated vehicles like those of 2012 and before.

Ages ago I sold a rear engine coach and a couple of trucks over a period to a largish well regarded driving school, then still family owned and operated.

The CEO told me that a valuable part of their business was corporate driver training.

Large fleets, like one I briefly managed with 70 sales reps cars, would have their company drivers go to a course in advanced driving. Usually the fleet owner was motivated by discounted insurance for qualified drivers. He said the first things they did were put the drivers to written tests of road rules and road common sense, then have them drive an instructor around to assess their skills or lack thereof.

He reckoned many of them were quite terrifying drivers with many bad habits which needed to be trained out of them before they could do the advanced driving course. Most were resentful at being sent on the course, thinking they were perfect drivers who needed no teaching in what they thought they did so well.

The school had a skid pad set up on the hard stand of a vacant warehouse and uppity students were put on that to break down their resistance and to make fools of themselves. A session on the pad usually convinced all but the thickest that they knew virtually nothing about car control.

This school got the job of teaching Brisbane City Council tram drivers to obtain bus licences after the trams were taken off the road. Many trammies did not own a car nor did they have a car licence let alone a heavy bus licence. He reckoned a big problem with the old trammies was to get them to turn up sober for lessons. Some even presented drunk to go for a licence test. Common practice with the motormen on old open platform trams was to have a bottle of plonk in the coat pocket particularly so on a winter's night shift.