Is 120 hours for learner Drivers really necessary?

[MITCHAY]

120hrs? I did a heap more than that willingly! :

[marcosambrose]

Originally Posted by greg444

120 hours is VERY difficult to do, especially when you have parents working full time. Theres not enough time in the day to fit in extra driving hours, especially if everything is local to you. Personally, i just received my P's a few months ago and i managed to clock up 105 hours, but i was pushing to get them....

I think you'll find Greg, and by the sounds of it your only 17 - is that being a young driver the best thing you can have with you when driving is experience.

Now I'm only 19, and i stress the 'only' because i know for a fact my driving skills are far behind a lot of people on this forum. I respect the roads and expect other drivers to take due caution when driving on public roads too.

The last thing i want being a 19 year old, on green P's, is a numbskull 17 year old in his dads XR6 company car racing other numbskulls on public roads who have had less time behind the wheel then a priest has had in the sack - giving P platers a bad name and thus causing the government to bring in silly laws such as no more than 1 passenger after 11pm, Its just not cricket.

Statistics show that P platers are on percentage, the most likely group to be involved in a fatal crash. Those type of statistics horrify me because i know that it is a complete waste of life and potential talent, some of these kids wouldn't be half way through their HSC or VCE.

We need to teach young drivers that they will spend many many hours on the road during their life, and an extra 70 now will only do them a world of good in the future, the first time i drove during torrential downpour i was amazed at the poor driving standards shown by fellow motorists - the simple 'i'll drive just as fast as i do in the dry' mindset is just boggling.

Furthermore, i believe we are severely sold short in terms of driver training and education. In northern European countries you need to take part in 2 week courses before you can successfully acquire your license - 120 too much? i really don't think so.

I'm not pro-enforcement for harsher rules, I'm against silly laws that cause inconviences but you have to understand that this 120 hour law is only a good thing because it will give the younger drivers more time to realise that the road is not a place to show off and kill each other, its a privilege and you will only get to be a better driver as the years go by.

Sorry if this offends anyone but i must stress the point that if we don't teach the young drivers the consequences of stupid actions now, then they will not learn until the unthinkable happens.

My two cents.

[RG]

Some of the responses given here really scare me. Some of you really need to get your egos in check before you get into a car. Just because you can pass a test DOES NOT mena that you can drive, it means you can pass a test. Seriously get a clue.

[Falcon_Phill]

Originally Posted by RedXR347

Some of the responses given here really scare me. Some of you really need to get your egos in check before you get into a car. Just because you can pass a test DOES NOT mena that you can drive, it means you can pass a test. Seriously get a clue.

Then whats the point of having the test??

[russellw]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

Exactly! If your competent who gives a **** how many hours you've done. Why try and apply one rule to every single person.

Frankly I am scared that I have to share the road with attitudes like this.
Let's see - presumably we define competent as being capable of operating a motor vehicle in a safe manner yet but that is only the entry level requirement for safe driving. Beyond that basic competence there is no substitute for experience no matter how invincible you may feel at 17/18/19.

I got my licence when there were no requirements other than the ability to convince the local copper that you knew the basics of operating a motor vehicle and we all thought we could drive the wheels off anything. That I attended far too many funerals before I reached the age of 25 was clear testimony to the fact that we didn't and that all too often the gaining of experience came at a high price.

In the years since then I have continued to learn, been lucky to have survived some of my own stupidity and even luckier to survive that of others. I've resat tests in 3 other countries (the last 2 years ago) and while they have been no more onerous than ours they at least force you to reconsider the basics.

I understand that for some 120 hours is a struggle to achieve within the minimum time frame but no one actually said that you can't extend that time frame. As a measure to try and reduce the road toll amongst our youth it is at least better than doing nothing but add to the list of penalties for getting it wrong.

But then what would I know compared to the young?

Russ

[camshaft]

I voted yes, because I believe the more time you have sitting next to a parent/ instructor the more you will learn about road safety and road rules, as well as more exprience with day to day traffic.

Passing the test doesn't mean you can drive, it just means you showed the instructor how safely you could drive obeying the laws for 15min...I think its longer now. The next problem I find after getting your P's is that people want to push their car more to impress other young people, but they haven't learnt anything about car control with their parents/ instructor......this is most, especially city drivers.

I think drivers who get their P's should have to get an advanced driving licence and learn about the affects and impacts car crashes have, a video or something based on a real life accident would help.
I think I would feel more of a competent and safer driver, and not try to do as many dumb things. I remember a few years ago learner about drink driving, I think visuals, such as videos really helped to get the point accross, and a brain damaged victim from an accident even came to talk to us.

But car control and understanding road rules only make up 1/2 a good driver, being able to judge, predict and learn what the other driver is going to do is what I believe will save more lives, but this will only come with exprience and the will to learn, and the more the parents tell their kids this the more they will listen. Every driver on the road is a potential enemey, and it only takes 10/10 tenths of a second of lasped concetration and its all over.

Thats my 5c

[K_Man]

You can get a licence out of a cereal box nowadays. Passing the test which (in my area) consists of driving around a bunch of 50 zones and doing a 3 point turn, does not in any way mean you are a good driver. I was on my L's as soon as a turned 16, and i would of easily tripled the amount of hours that were recommended (which was 120).

For those of you that are whinging and moaning that it's excessive and that you're a good driver, I think you sound too cocky for your own good. It's those kind of kids that wrap themselves around poles, because they think they're fantastic drivers straight out of the box. I had that mentality when I first got my L's, but the more you practice, the more you realise you dont know much.

Stop complaining and suck it up. Is it really that hard to try and get better at something you enjoy doing?

[Eb Barbie]

I had around 120 hours on my Ls. I passed my Ps first shot but I still think more hours practice wouldn't have done me any harm. The more practice you get in all driving conditions will only do you better then worse. It might seem like a drag when your on your Ls but one day you will look back and see it was for your own good and everyone elses on the road...

[Grasshoppr]

So all you (presumably) young inexperienced people that voted 'No' , need to think about this.

Get your L's at 16 (example based on the state of Vic)
120 Hours in 2 years (52 weeks in a year X 2)
104 weeks to complete 120 hours

So to be totally sure you met the 120 hours it works out to be less than 2 hours per week. Or if "everything is 15mins away where I live" that is only 4 trips a week. :

The more experience you have the better equipped you will be to make it past the age of 24 (statistically the most dangerous period to be driving on the road)

And before you make some assumptions, I pestered my parents to drive as much as possible. Got my licence at 16, drove approx 2-4 hours every week until I got my P's at 18 and have been driving - in total - 13 odd years. I have also completed 3 defensive driving/High Performance days plus 20 odd hours on a skid pan plus 30 odd hours driving on a race track.

You can not put a measure on experience and the more you have the better you will be to keep yourself out of trouble. When you have been driving for 5+ years you will understand this. If you understand this (truly) earlier than this, congratulations you must have voted 'Yes'

For once, the Government has implemented a fantastic scheme and as someone else stated, parents should see this as an investment to help save their child/rens life's.


OH and I would love to retake the test, knowing that I would pass even though its been 10+ years since I took the test. Its just basic common sense to pass.

[fou_bleu]

If yr 8 students (myself) have to do a pain staking mandatory 200hrs of a foreign language, i can't see how 120hrs will help people drive better, maybe it should be 200...

[Tote]

I travel to work every day on a "highway" that is single lane with only a few passing opportunities. The number of near misses caused by impatient drivers trying to overtake learners is ridiculous. If they are going to insist on 120 hours of learner time at least have a graduated learner system where after a period learners are able to do 90 - 100 KM/H and not create a kilometre long moving roadblock.
Or better still scrap the whole stupid idea and replace it with an intensive course similar to the learner licencing system for motorcycles.
120 hours is near enough t0 10,000 kilometres for anyone who does not live in the city, that's a big distance to be a mobile traffic jam.
It seems that the graphic accidents that are shown to us regarding young drivers are more often as a result of speeds far in excess of those permitted on p plates so how is subjecting a learner to more travel at 70 Km/ h going to change this?
Hopefully by the time my girls are ready to drive we will have a better system for them to learn, although it's more likely that people will still be on their p's at 30.

Regards,
Tote
Regards,
Tote

[Falcon_Phill]

Originally Posted by russellw

Frankly I am scared that I have to share the road with attitudes like this.

I could go out now and point out lots of drivers who dont even follow new road rules, sit 20km under the speed limit and can't drive for ****. They should be the ones doing 120 hours regardless of what license they already have.

Originally Posted by russellw

Beyond that basic competence there is no substitute for experience no matter how invincible you may feel at 17/18/19.

And theres only one way to get experience, DRIVE! If your competent and know the road rules and how to drive the car, theres no reason why you need your parent or some nanna charging $50 an hour next to you while you would do fine by yourself.

[Unco]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

And theres only one way to get experience, DRIVE! If your competent and know the road rules and how to drive the car, theres no reason why you need your parent or some nanna charging $50 an hour next to you while you would do fine by yourself.

the studies (which i posted i link to on page 2) show that you are wrong. they show that there is now proof that around 120 hours of supervised driving for learner drivers reduces their chances of being involved in a crash. you are basically arguing and dismissing statistical information from all over the world.

it may or may not apply to you, after all, not everyone learns at the same pace. but statistical data is used every day on almost everything you use. in this case, the authorities are using it to reduce the number of 'new' drivers getting killed in accidents. is that such a bad thing?

we like to complain about a lot of decisions that our government makes. i think they got this one right though.

[Tote]

Originally Posted by K_Man

You can get a licence out of a cereal box nowadays.

And the difference between now and 30 years ago is......
I got my L plates after completing an eyesight test and my Ps at 16 after a drive around the block .
After looking at the Vicroads site I am shocked that it isnt possible to get a license before you turn 18, how do people in rural areas cope?

Regards,
Tote

[svo347]

Originally Posted by 3

120 hours is a must. Currently it's only 25 in W.A. (which is a joke). When I first got my Ps I was fairly inexperienced - more hours would have been beneficial.

Well maybe you should have taken the onus on yourself and taken more hours before you got your P's. you said it yourself you were fairly inexperienced

[Rodp]

Seems like it's all the younger drivers who are against 120 hours of driving on L's. Funnily, I probably would have voted no when I was 17 on my L's, but there's more to driving than just a steering wheel and a few pedals. I probably had about 10 hours of tuition before I passed my test and was let loose on the roads alone. It was nowhere near enough. You need to learn to respect a car and how quickly things can go pear shaped.

Driving now for around 20 years (holy crap) experience has taught me to look for potential incidents and read what drivers are doing around me at all times. Something that took years to develop and without tuition. If I was teaching a learner driver for 120 hours, I'm sure I would be able to impart some of that knowledge so they weren't having to learn how to avoid incidents the hard way (by getting into them). My last gf who didn't have a licence at the time would be amazed when I would tell her, this guy is about to chop me off, and I'd back off the accelerator.. and a moment later, wham. Had I not backed off, it may have been nasty.

When I was young, I knew it all, I didn't need 120 hours. Looking back, I would have benefitted a lot more if I did get those extra hours with a competent instructor.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by svo347

Well maybe you should have taken the onus on yourself and taken more hours before you got your P's. you said it yourself you were fairly inexperienced

Absolutely, as should I have. But when you're 17-18, you're always right and you wouldn't have been able to tell me I needed more time with an instructor... and it would appear nothing has changed with current 17-18yr olds.

[svo347]

Ohhh and i chose NO.. Mainly for the fact that its not the actual teachings of driving but the mentallity of "some" young drivers. Maybe we need to educate our young drivers at the serious outcomes of speeding/reckless driving and the damage it takes on families..

[falzoony]

I also believe that maturity has a lot to do with someones driving. It would probably be better if they pushed up the age that you can get your L's to maybe 18 and then had maybe 100 hours of driving. See I can say this now because I already have my P2's, before I had my L's I hated the idea of increasing the age. I think that mature attitudes towards driving are as important as experience.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by svo347

Ohhh and i chose NO.. Mainly for the fact that its not the actual teachings of driving but the mentallity of "some" young drivers. Maybe we need to educate our young drivers at the serious outcomes of speeding/reckless driving and the damage it takes on families..

Personally i think its both, and both are very important but are mutually exclusive of each other.
120 hrs goes some way to allowing the supervisor to impart the learner with some form of good driving habits that hopefully become instinctual to some degree, the attitude bit is difficult, how do you impart a good driving attitude into a brain that either can't or won't accept it..
Especially when our education system encourages kids to challenge authority and teaches them more about their rights as people as opposed to their responsibilities...

[Tote]

It surprises me that so many people are advocating that we raise the age at which people can get their licence. Is there no such thing as 17 year old apprentices anymore who are expected to be able to drive for work?
Regards,
Tote

[Nikked]

120 Too much, but what does it matter, for some people 70% of that will be fluffed hours...

More driver training, skid pans, brakeing control, conering this should be taught. Every town should have compulsery training days, thats how you learn. Going for hourlong drives on quite stretchs of road means nothing.

[RG]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

Then whats the point of having the test??

There is no point as they are rubbish tests that don't let the tester see if you actually know how to drive. A multi part test that actually put you in different scenarios (on and off road) and education on risks associated with driving would be way more beneficial IMO. Just for the record I did way more than 120hrs before getting my licence and even had several lessons with an ex VICPOL (mates old man) driver instructor and some of the stuff that you can learn from people that know a thing or two about driving is astonishing. I was even lucky enough to be able to take a car out on to a makeshift skid pan to learn car control, something that has been extremely useful too me.

It is sad to say but from some of the responses I have seen here from our "invincible" younger members I suspect that we may have a few future statistics here.

[Falcon_Phill]

Originally Posted by RedXR347

There is no point as they are rubbish tests that don't let the tester see if you actually know how to drive. A multi part test that actually put you in different scenarios (on and off road) and education on risks associated with driving would be way more beneficial IMO. Just for the record I did way more than 120hrs before getting my licence and even had several lessons with an ex VICPOL (mates old man) driver instructor and some of the stuff that you can learn from people that know a thing or two about driving is astonishing. I was even lucky enough to be able to take a car out on to a makeshift skid pan to learn car control, something that has been extremely useful too me.

It is sad to say but from some of the responses I have seen here from our "invincible" younger members I suspect that we may have a few future statistics here.

Show me one post here where anyone has said they were invincible or claimed they were never going to have a crash. Nobody bloody claims that and im sick of older people who feel the need to say it every 3rd post.

And I agree you should have lessons with other people and professionals, for instances where you might need to swerve correctly or whatever. But upping the hours to get your P's to 120 isnt going to do that. Compulsory courses is. Which is what I first mentioned in this topic.

[stupa]

Its a not from me, 120 hours is pointless if, like me it all went out the window when you jump in the car on your own, one hand lives on the gerstick, an elbow out the window and a coupla fingers at most on the wheel. other than that it should be mandatorally spread arcoss different driving conditions. like a long distance element, freeway driving, night work. otherwise the 120 hours is about as much use as a rubber axe

[Eb Barbie]

Originally Posted by Nikk O'lass

120 Too much, but what does it matter, for some people 70% of that will be fluffed hours...

More driver training, skid pans, brakeing control, conering this should be taught. Every town should have compulsery training days, thats how you learn. Going for hourlong drives on quite stretchs of road means nothing.

I totally agree. Im 18, got my Ps earlier this year and did around 120 hours and still think that the extra practice on the things listed above would be good. I had a close call a few weeks ago in the wet and the back end slipped out. I over corrected, snaking down the road and ended up wedged between 2 trees and a letter box. Missed everything including street lamp, house and electricity pole by 5m! Was very lucky. People always react different in last minute situations and a bit of knowledge on control practice should be compulsory!

[Green X]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

Really? I passed my test just 3 months ago so I'll take you up on any of them if you want. You should try a spelling test though.

Well that's a little different if you only just past it, thou i think you will be surprised.

Give it a year and you will be shocked at how badly you would do.

[FlipXW]

Ok, i havnt voted yet but will be pushing no for a number of reasons. Im 17 today and now eligible to go for my p's, i currently have 40 odd hours and will rack up 50 in the next couple of weeks then book for my test. Reasons;
1. Some kids have to pay for there lessons as there parents wont take them, is it fair on them. And trust me i know of atleast two people that had to pay for there whole 50 hours.
2. I love driving and try to do it as much as possible, i go nearly every chance i have and i will only scrape in the 50 hours. Both of my parents work 6 days a week and dont get much chance to take me.
3. I may not be the best driver out there but after 40 hours i feel that i am by far compitent enough, so does my dad and so does my instructor, and obviously if i pass my test so does the testing officer.
4. Most P'plate crashes are due to speed and tools that think their hardcore. No matter how many hours you have its not going to help your driving at 150km/h+.

So possibly make the test longer or make all L'platers pass a manditory defensive driving course. These would be a better solution IMO.

Oh and i did nearly all of my driving in my parents XR8. I have read in other threads that people think it stupid for L'platers to be able to drive these, i dont see the problem when sitting beside you is a responsible adult that woud put their boot clean up ur clacker if you intentionally did anything dangerous. I'm also cut about not being able to drive my XY when i get my p's but thats a different topic lol

[Green X]

Originally Posted by SDKC

When do you have to drive at high speed on ball bearing gravel?

Well what would be called "High speed" on gravel is different to high speed on a sealed road isn't it, like 90km/h in a 50zone would be called high speed, now think of you average suburban street and then pretend it is loose gravel with big trees right on the edge of the road, what would you consider a high speed 90km/h or 150km/h, i would say 90 is a high speed.

Put it this way, I have pulled a car out of the scrub on a gravel road after they lost it around a bend at 70km/h, I came around that same bend at 85-90km/h with one hand on the wheel and didn't bat a eyelid doing it.

Driving on gravel teaches you allot about control and handling of a motor car.

Ever had a blow out at speed on a Gravel road, I have and that will get your hart moving, nothing i have had to deal with on a sealed road has come close to that.

[Falcon_Phill]

Originally Posted by Green X

Well that's a little different if you only just past it, thou i think you will be surprised.

Give it a year and you will be shocked at how badly you would do.

Well I was actually talking about my green P's test, which would mean I got through all my L's and reds without an accident, giving it 3 years. Im not surprised, and there goes your theory.