The argument for lower speed limits for new drivers seems to be based on the fact that many spectacular accidents involving these drivers clearly involve speed as a contributory factor. What many commentators fail to recognise is that almost all of these accidents involved speeds well above the posted limits. It is not clear, at least to me, why setting a lower limit for a class of drivers that have shown contempt for the existing limit is likely to be productive!
I think we should be training novice drivers to drive at the same speed as everyone else.
The Hume Freeway would qualify, easily. The new Pacific, when finished, also. The freeway from Murray Bridge to Crafers. Not down the hill past the Eagle, obviously. The freeway from Deer Park to Beaufort. Many more. If a two lane piece of rough blacktop with broken edges is OK for 110, then the freeways are easily 130 capable. Perhaps higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
Hear bloody hear!Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppabillytea
We are already doing that, It is just that they have to gain experience for the first year behind the wheel at a reduced speed.Quote:
I think we should be training novice drivers to drive at the same speed as everyone else.
The ONLY way to gain experience is to Practice and practicing at a lower speed makes absolute sense as far as safety goes.
The faster the speed the smaller the margin of error and the reaction times required reduce the faster you travel So it make absolute sense that novice drivers learn to "Instinctively" react in any situation before they can obtain an "Open" licence.
Using that logic, which is probably correct, we should limit novice drivers to urban streets and ban them from freeways. That way they can practice on local roads, but they won't be doing 80 on a freeway where other traffic is doing 100-110.
I'd take it further. Have a graded system, similar to aviation. Start out driving locally only. Go and get more training to drive on major roads. More again before being allowed passengers. More again before being allowed anywhere near a freeway. More again before being allowed to tow anything, with endorsements for bigger things like boats or horse floats. Proper Heavy vehicle training before being allowed to tow a caravan.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
I would also like to see mandatory re-testing, say, every five years. For EVERBODY, not just the elderly, as is often mooted. Hey, I'm a highly experienced driver. Does that make me perfect? I would welcome someone pointing out the bad habits I have no doubt acquired in the last 45 odd years.
I would also suggest that driving should be taught in schools, by professionals ( not some dweeb in a Getz who is no better than those he or she is teaching: driving instructors are a joke ), long before they are allowed anywhere near a car on the road. And I don't mean computer sims. Victoria use them for testing, and what's the use of that?
Sure, all that would cost, but what does the appalling lack of any sort of skill that we teach now cost? Trouble is, there isn't a politician in the land who has the cojones to give it a try. They're far more interested in the fines revenue.
A Graded system is not only used in aviation it is also used for Marine tickets/licences and they both WORK.
Using a graded system for drivers licences makes perfect sense But if any politician put this forward it would most likely cost Him/her their seat so unfortunately this will never happen[bigwhistle]
I agree with requiring professional driver trying but that is usually only available in capital cities so a problem for rural people.
I remember when driver training was a high school course, which seemed a good idea, but would be costly to organize.
Our grand daughter will be doing the Roadcraft course at Gympie in August.
Roadcraft | Driver Education