Thread: Inexperienced drivers and the law.

In the UK quite a few years back now they had special driver training for the police force because the amount of accidents that the police were involved in. It was very very successful.

After about 5 to 10 years they decided this was too expensive so canned it and the amount of police involved in vehicle accidents went up again.

Training does make a difference, it helps you to at least have a chance of knowing how to react in a bad situation.

Originally Posted by UncleHo

G'day Folks

........ Qld should come into line with the other States and mandatary display "L" and "P" plates (Speed Limited) and Annual Roadworthy checks, because up here, you need a "Safety Certificate" (RWC) on Registering/Reregistering, then nothing until the End of Vehicle Life while registered in your name some of these vehicles are astounding, you would have trouble getting a Magnet to stick to them ANYWHERE .......

The evidence does not support annual roadworthiness checks - Victoria does not have them, and there is no noticeable effect from this on their statistics compared to NSW, which does have them. In fact, NSW probably fares worse, although I suspect this is mainly due to the worse roads, which in turn is mainly due to the higher number of kilometres per head.

The reason for this is that very few accidents are contributed to by vehicle condition, and the ones that are, are mostly caused by things that would not be stopped by annual inspections, typically tyre wear or pressure.

John

hmm interesting topic - as a youngster I can remember doing all kinds of stupid things in cars. From 'borrowing' Dad's car and driving at 100 mph down a dark country road I'd never driven before with 5 friends, to getting a ride home in the boot after a night out on the town and not enough cash left for a taxi Basically there was nothing we couldn't do in those days as we were totally bulletproof, nothing could hurt us.

all stupid - but I survived and my missus and I regularly think of how lucky we were... and regularly worry about our son doing the same in another 15 years or so! I'm hoping I can get him an old landy - slow, steady and in it's own way 'cool'

You can only protect kids so far - I probably drove for 2-300 hours on the road during my learners permit time, my dad was great at giving me experience in all kinds of conditions, night and day, rain, hail or shine I drove most of the time on the weekends for the family. Still didn't stop me being stupid, but I did learn a great deal about vehicle control.

Originally Posted by Utemad

I can just imagine a survey conductor walking up to a bunch of 16-21 year old males and asking how many sexual partners they have had
I bet they are very truthful.

Its a bit like the average of a bloke loses his virginity is 14 and a girls is 17 .
So taking that on board there are lot of 14 year old boys sh**ging 17 Year old girls

Originally Posted by Grizzly_Adams

Training does make a difference, it helps you to at least have a chance of knowing how to react in a bad situation.

I got my first landy, the '66 IIA was I was 14, which I basically learnt how to drive on.

I'm now 17 with a Disco and 6 months away from getting my licence. A few months back I completed the LROCV 4 wheel driver training course which was excellent - really good stuff. I'll be booking into more courses, on and off road because they are great. I totally agree, training is one of the best things... especially the LROCV course because the participants and instructors were excellent

I'll speak for myself first, and then for a few of my friends who have not known the wonderful experience of driving a landrover.

When I was on my L's last year, I racked up about 65 hours, more than the 50 required, but less than my target of 80-100. In that time, I learnt not only how to handle a vehicle, but I was taught more along the lines of how to drive a truck - which is what the County was like.

My first point is to do with instruction - I was lucky that my instructor (mother) had done her light rigid licence a couple of years ago, and had needed to relearn a lot of the road rules to pass the knowledge test. Being retested (essentially) meant that I was taught by someone who was much more aware of the road rules and driving techniques than otherwise would be.
Unfortunately, most of my friends' parents would have got their licences 15+ years ago, and not been retested since. Their only form of continuing education is through advertisements / campaigns.
Essentially, most young drivers don't get the best instruction when learning. A study (somewhere I remember reading) showed that driving habits are passed on from master to apprentice [as that's essentially how the system works]. Why the masters aren't subject to continuing development is beyond me; many changes to the law happen in the five years between trips to the registry.

Driving on P plates is tolerable if it's around the city/suburbs, but it is out on the higher speed limits that it begins to get annoying. My personal approach in the case of a semi's bullbar in the rearview and getting closer is generally to not drive as fast. Yep. It comes from one time (L's) when I was on the New England Hwy and was forced off the road at 80ks because a semi was so close that he couldn't have seen neither the brake lights nor the indicator.

My friends' attitudes tend to be rather different. They don't exhibit behaviour like hoons (well, not never), but they do generally understand that their is a consequence to their use, even if it is just paying for the petrol when they drive.

Oh bother, I've spent the best part of an hour doing this, and my only recommendation is that all drivers ought to be educated in a landrover.

An interesting article I found - I'll take the trouble to type it all out - details where I found it at the end! (emphasis mine)

"Although complete statistical information is not available, the indications are that the young driver and the old driver are the poorest drivers on the road. Persons under twenty years of age have twenty fatal accidents for every 10,000 licensed drivers, while those between thirty and forty have nine fatalities for every 10,000 licensed drivers. persons between forty and forty-nine have only eight per 10,000.

There is no reason why young drivers should not excel in driving skill; they are quicker, stronger and more agile. They are interested in driving, and apparently want to know all there is to know about cars. The principal reason for their bad record is that they lack judgement, - they fail to appreciate hazards. Because they display a show-off, reckless attitude, they place themselves in dangerous situations that a more experienced motorist would avoid."

No, this is not from 2006, although it could be - it is from "Man and the Motor Car", A.W. Whitney ed., National Conservation Bureau, New York, 1939

Now, the problem (attitude) was identified seventy years ago (although printed in 1939, it was apparently written largely in 1936), and attempts to solve the problem have been pretty unsuccessful since then - so are we kidding ourselves if we think there is an easy solution by changing a few laws?
The proposal in this book, by the way, was for a restricted licence at 16 and a full licence at 18, the restrictions being very much on where and when the young person could drive. This was against a background in the USA at the time of four states not requiring a licence to drive, and the minimum age varying from no age limit to eighteen.

John

Originally Posted by p38arover

P-platers in NSW are banned from driving V8 Land Rovers - even Stage 1s!

Ron

What LRs ARE allowed then