Is 120 hours for learner Drivers really necessary?

[Unco]

passing the test is a moot point. the reason why this new 120 hour rule has been introduced is to reduce the number of accidents involving new drivers.

[Green X]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

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.

mate you lost me?

WTF are green and red P's, and how did it take you 3 years to get a licence

I got my L's at 16 and did my P's test as soon as I turned 17, got my HR Truck license when I was 19 5 months, as I needed it for my Job at the time.
Both my driving tests went for around 10-15 minuets and I was parsed off.

[Falcon_Phill]

Originally Posted by Green X

mate you lost me?

WTF are green and red P's, and how did it take you 3 years to get a licence

I got my L's at 16 and did my P's test as soon as I turned 17, got my HR Truck license when I was 19 5 months, as I needed it for my Job at the time.
Both my driving tests went for around 10-15 minuets and I was parsed off.

It took me 3 years because I caught the train to work everyday and didn't need to get my license. Then when I bought a nice car I decided to go through with it. Red P's are red, and green P's are green each with their own restrictions.

[robbo_yobbo]

It seems that the majority of people like the "you cant have enough experiance" point of view.... which is fair enough, and I totaly agree.

Where my opinion differs is that when it comes down to it, the difference of what you learn in 120hrs compared to 50hrs with someone next to you, is comparitiveley minimal when placed allong side the following years worth of driving on your own.

I believe that the Learner in the drivers seat is probably going to spend more time trying to please the "experianced" passenger then actualy driving how they would without the "instructor" in the car. as soon as that instructors gone, the ballpark changes, and this is where the real learning begins, and its not untill this stage that you gain any "real" experiance.

In reality, unless your in a dual break, dual steering wheel car, Theres not allot asside from yelling "STOP STOP STOP" at the top of thier lungs that a passenger can do to help the driver avoid an accident (which would probably freak out any driver new or experianced on its own). I think the reality is that an instructor (especialy a parent) is probably more likeley to make the new driver more nervous and in turn less safe on the road (especialy if your in mum or dads brand new car that thier already feeling nervous themselves about you driving).
I think that people learn more when they are relaxed, and not under pressure.

Give the kids the same opportunities we all had when we got our liscences. The more the upcoming generations are wrapped iin cotton wool and babie'd, the less they will learn for themselfes.

Im a big believer that you never realy learn untill you have pushed the boundries too far and made the mistake for yourself. Untill you've crossed that line, you never realy know where it is, and someone elses advice/rule/opinion will always need to be tested before being TRUELEY believed.
Does that mean accident will happen? yes. More of them?? maybe/maybee not, I dont know and neither does anyone. It could be that theres more minor accidents and less fatalities, it could be the other way around too, it could be more of both, or less of both.
In reality, nobody knows, but I dont think anyone should be deprived of the opportunities we all had.
I think theres better avenues to travel to increase safetey, and I think that the small changes to the law like this are going to continue to happen (not just on the road), untill one day, everyone wakes up and realises thier living in a prison known as LAW.
If that day comes in my lifetime and there a global revelution, Ill be the first to say "I told you so!"

[Unco]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

I think that the small changes to the law like this are going to continue to happen (not just on the road), untill one day, everyone wakes up and realises thier living in a prison known as LAW.

thank you. in my view, that is the only valid argument so far for voting 'no' and i was just waiting for someone to come up with it.

i have faith in the research that shows that more hours of supervised driving will result in 35% fewer crashes for new drivers. statistics don't lie. but you're right, robbo, one way to look at it is as a deprivation of prior liberties.

what concerns me is that everybody else seems to be voting 'no' because they do not want to acknowledge the statistics.

we have proof that our old ways seem to result in 'x' number of accidents in new drivers. it has been found that this can be reduced considerably by extra hours of supervised driving before letting them loose, but most of the younger fellows voicing their opinions here don't see this. it's not surprising really.

[AUTickford]

No way is 120 hours enough,the state of the p platers over here is bloody atrocious[cant speak for the rest of australia though, i could imagine it would be the same]P platers should be confined to automatic 1.2 litre corollas ke30 models with lead weights to slow them down even more. :

[VeloXR6]

120 should be a minimum ..... a vehicle is a deadly weapon that you must learn to wield properly.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

I voted no!
Some L platers are perfectly competant drivers and could easily outdrive an "experianced" unrestricted liscence holder.

Edited to save space.

Why punish the good because of some bad in the pack???

Phill's reply.

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.

That’s pretty much how the world works.

You only have to look at TV shows like Last Chance Learners to realise that some people in the community could have 10,000 hours practice and still couldn’t pass a driving test. In this country, rules are made to apply to the lowest common denominator. I don’t like it either, but that’s life.

I travel around a million kilometres every five years and still have to comply with all of the same road rules as everyone else. I still have the same amount of demerit points as well. If I were to receive a speeding fine once every five years, it would be like the average person getting one in their lifetime. I’m not saying that I’m any better that anyone else here, but I still learn new things every day.

As for the young drivers that make fatal mistakes, it wouldn’t matter if they had 20 or 200 hours practice, the end result is still the same. They would still be better prepared to deal with tricky situations with 200 though.

No prizes for guessing which way I voted.

Cheers

[RG]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

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.

Old people HA! I'm 25 mate so I don't think I'm classed as old yet.

Compulsory courses yes and at least 120 hours because nothing beats real life exerience with someone next to you that knows what is going on. While we are on the topic I also believe that no one under the age of 25 should be able to supervise a learner. 21 year olds supervising learners is a joke IMO.

[au2sw]

the more experiance a learner can get before moving on to his/her "P" plates the better. Qld has just introduced 100 hrs and 1 passenger on first yr P's. i think its a bloody marvelous idea due to the number of young deaths on the roads from new drivers showing off in front of their mates with a car full of passengers. i also believe that schools should introduce drivers ed as a compulsory subject and you must pass that before being able to obtain your learners. the more education on driving a new driver can get, the better.

[Eb Barbie]

Originally Posted by au2sw

the more experiance a learner can get before moving on to his/her "P" plates the better. Qld has just introduced 100 hrs and 1 passenger on first yr P's. i think its a bloody marvelous idea due to the number of young deaths on the roads from new drivers showing off in front of their mates with a car full of passengers. i also believe that schools should introduce drivers ed as a compulsory subject and you must pass that before being able to obtain your learners. the more education on driving a new driver can get, the better.

Yeah it is a good idea, but on the other hand there will be double the amount of P plate drivers and cars on the road, due to passenger restrictions more of them will have to drive. Some schools do have drivers ed here but its more on the road aspect and cops come in to speak to students. No one actually drives a car.

[perthxr6t]

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 the.

I just think the Victorian Government should reduce the new laws to come in july 2008 from 120 to something more achievable like 80.

I wonder if you think living to 100 years is too much? There are alot of responsable P platers out there but there is also a bunch of idiots who think they know how to handle a 6T or V8 after a months driving as i have no doubt alot of us older drivers have seen this over the years.

It takes years of driving and knowledge and driving courses to know how to re-act to different driving conditions and also how to read the everyday traffic. You young'uns need to learn what is happening in front of you and to your left and right and also behind you at all times and work out what the other drivers around you are doing it's called concentrating something alot of young drivers fail to do at this early stage in there driving.

But best of luck with your driving in the future just use your brain and you will be right.

[andrewts]

Well, I'll be getting my Ls next month, and to be honest, I think 120 hours is neccessary. I believe that it is far better that learners have more time and experience under their belt before they are let out to drive on their own. This would reduce the chance of a crash, and boost confidence on the roads.

One thing that my mother has said is that it will be hard to find the time to drive so often, as after work she is often tired, but she says that we can go on long weekend trips, so that should help the hours along a bit.

Wish me luck people!

[irlewy86]

The introduction of lengthy log book periods has been proven to reduce accidents.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Another "Ler" by the looks.

ROFL... ya beat me to it.

[woodsy109]

Well i'm 26 so it doesn't really affect me, however I don't really think that a log book is the best way to go about improving a drivers ability. They could have just as easily introduced a compulsory step by step learner training during the 12mths of your learners permit. Have a introduction course 3 to 6mths into it, then another after 6 to 12mths then have a final advanced course as part of the drivers test.

I'm also a twin so I can see there being problems with parents that have 2 (or more) kids that are on their learners trying to get through the hours. My brother and I took turns driving and my mother didn't drive anywhere in the 6 mths we had our learners so i'm sure I would have made the hours but for some it would be a struggle.

[jdg]

Maybe there should also be a greater focus on the instruction of learners, not just the learner themselves?

[SuperMono]

I voted 'yes' but I think we are going down the 'tick the box' to pass the test route a bit. 120 hours of bad driving instruction/practice is potentially just 120 hours of imprinted bad habits.

I recently started instructing my 14yo daughter on the basics (off road).
I don't claim this is world's best practice, but this is the plan.
1st step: Steer, brake, and feel, using a car with auto, AWD and full list of driver aids. Start understanding mirrors and spatial awareness by driving backwards around the paddock without hitting trees or cows.
Soon to be 2nd step: Valiant auto ute on grass/dirt to remove most of the driver aids.
3rd step: Mazda manual ute on grass/dirt to remove all of them.
4th step: Farm tractor (full manual, power nothing), as per normal farm practice - no brakes.
5th step: The old man's bulldozer.
6th step: What all the other stuff like indicators are for.
etc.

Hopefully she will have experienced under a degree of control all of the car control skills before needing to learn road rules and where a U turn is legal.
Started her on a trail bike last week as well to add balance and a healthy dose of self preservation.

[Venomous1]

I personally think its way too little considering how many P plates drivers i have encountered speeding not stopping at stop signs wreckless etc. Basically hooning thinking its a huge joke make it that it's 250Hrs and only from 18! you can get a L. Teens today think everything is a joke.

[RG]

Originally Posted by SuperMono

I voted 'yes' but I think we are going down the 'tick the box' to pass the test route a bit. 120 hours of bad driving instruction/practice is potentially just 120 hours of imprinted bad habits.

I recently started instructing my 14yo daughter on the basics (off road).
I don't claim this is world's best practice, but this is the plan.
1st step: Steer, brake, and feel, using a car with auto, AWD and full list of driver aids. Start understanding mirrors and spatial awareness by driving backwards around the paddock without hitting trees or cows.
Soon to be 2nd step: Valiant auto ute on grass/dirt to remove most of the driver aids.
3rd step: Mazda manual ute on grass/dirt to remove all of them.
4th step: Farm tractor (full manual, power nothing), as per normal farm practice - no brakes.
5th step: The old man's bulldozer.
6th step: What all the other stuff like indicators are for.
etc.

Hopefully she will have experienced under a degree of control all of the car control skills before needing to learn road rules and where a U turn is legal.
Started her on a trail bike last week as well to add balance and a healthy dose of self preservation.

^^^That's a good idea, very responsible parenting and it will be comforting to you when the day comes that she gets her licence and heads out on the roads by herself.

[PHoeNiX]

120 hours.....hmmmmm.....i dunno about it being mandatory for getting your p's. Dont get me wrong....i would've had well over 120 hours by only a year and a half ago - when i got my P's - but it is a big ask for some families. when the parents dont pick up or drop off kids at school....there goes 20 - 30 mins per day practice, plus when that kid works and whatnot, 120 hours may not be doable.

i was finding that my dad was only fine tuning my driving, very finely....by about 15-20 hours. this is because i enjoyed driving. i think that it should be judged case by case and that there should be a real life hazard perception test and a 'what if' test that people must do. possible defensive driving course too, not ofensive or u get all ur typical people who know EVERYTHING about a car, but offensive driving.

i think this would be even more effective for preventing crashes.

My 2 c.
Brenton

[koperety]

hmmm here in WA iv just completed my 25 hours, got my licence on my 17th birthday (2days ago)
first thing i did as soon as i got my licence was go pick up my missus and head down to my 16 yo mates funeral (that had been killed on the roads)
took the indistructable out of me, i now drive slower than my dad and when cruseing around with no other cars around a rarely go over 2000 RPM
having a nice stereo help take the want to hoon out of the driveing.
(also my stuffed O2 sensor gusseling up my petrol)
personally i think there should be a mandatory session where the learner should be taken out for a hoon on a big gravel pit, one of the most important in my opinion things my dad tough me was how to controle a car in a slide ECT, if he hadent have done that i whould probably have been dead when my car decided to aqua plane last night on me at 90kl/h.
the hooning idea also gets it out fo your system in a nice safe environment(and also slows you down when you have to pull your car apart to replace and PAY for(money being a big issue to learners/p platers) the joys of your car and a box kerb haveing a nice intimate encounter)
cheers all
steve

[boss-290]

Originally Posted by MYGT05

I believe more is better in the case of the learner driver, but think about it from the parents view.

My Sister got her L's in December, she has done about 10 hrs driving in that time, why? Not because she doesn't want to drive, but because my Single Father simply hasn't got the time with us 3 kids and also running a business with 50+ employees while also being on the board of another company he owns a share in, while also being being president on the local chamber of commerce and also involved in many other community things which he doesn't get paid for.

Now imagine if she had to do the 120 hours my other sister will have to do in a few years time, he simply wont have the time to do it, 8 of the hours she has driven have been with a driving instructor he has had to pay for because he doesn't have time. At $50 for 30 mins it starts to add up.

What also doesn't help is it only takes about 15 mins pretty much anywhere around where I live

Is it fair on my Dad to find 120 hours he doesn't have to teach my sister to drive?

Ok, so what would your father rather?

Forking out coin to ensure that your sister will be safe on the road and having a good 120+ under her belt?

Or having to hear the news of the police scraping her remains off the road?

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by boss-290

Ok, so what would your father rather?

Forking out coin to ensure that your sister will be safe on the road and having a good 120+ under her belt?

Or having to hear the news of the police scraping her remains off the road?

That question is a totaly unfair comparison.
Obviously any father/mother would hand over the cash if they new it would directly prevent the premature death of his/her kid.

But you cannot tell me that if a father/mother hands over more cash to an instructor, that they are guranteed to have thier kid live through thier teens, nor can you tell me that if they decide not to fork out, that they may aswell kiss thier kids goodby - Hell, we all lived through it, it couldnt have been that bad!

I will even go so far as to guarantee that of all road deaths, there are more 'over 120hrs' deaths than there are 'under 120hrs' deaths

MYGT05 made a perfectly valid point, your response was just a baseless smear tactic.

It might even be possible fathers/mothers in this situation have to work longer shifts to pay the extra expense, are more tired on the road, and kill someone elses kid as a direct result of handing over the extra instead.

I mean, seriously,your already on the side of the majority, keep it real at least.

[boss-290]

You're just running away from the point now. The instructor will be doing all the teaching. Not the parents.

Perhaps it would be viable for the student driver to do some paid part-time work (if they aren't already) in order to finance extra lessons.

P-platers are having all these fatal accidents due to lack of experience and this "I am invincible" attitude.

On Thursday (Last week) our Year 12 group had some volunteers from (I can't remember the name of)

The Senior Ambulance Officer was explaining that a young girl who hadn't even had her P's for 3 weeks. She was supposed to give way at the round about and didn't look, and was hit by a truck. The description given by the Paramedic 20 years or so was very gut wrenching and I won't go into it.

Wouldn't that suggest to you that the P plater has not been driving long enough before getting the P plates? I mean, to not give way. A simple road rule not being followed resulted in this young girl being killed.

[Unco]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

I will even go so far as to guarantee that of all road deaths, there are more 'over 120hrs' deaths than there are 'under 120hrs' deaths

the report that i quoted a link to on page 2 says you're wrong. remember we're talking about 'new drivers'.

[Tiapan]

ohhhh dont even get me started on ''driving lessons'' all my gf was taught was how to sit behing a wheel and steer, brake, acelerate!! what about understeer and oversteer?? (dont worry i taught her in the v8) what about emergency braking? how to deal with d*ckheads who merge at 10km?

what about roundabouts, changing a tire? dealing with an emergency? first aid? what to do if the acelerator sticks down/brakes fail???

stupid government. . .

[TUF_302]

Dont think 120 hours is really necessary, down here in tas all you have to do is 50hours!

[boss-290]

Originally Posted by SVO_XR6

Dont think 120 hours is really necessary, down here in tas all you have to do is 50hours!

And look at you

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by boss-290

You're just running away from the point now. The instructor will be doing all the teaching. Not the parents.

please re-read - I dont see where this comment fits in??? my point was there are also detrimental side effects of parents forking out more to pay instructors, and that your response to MYGT05's comments were totaly unfair, and unfounded.

Originally Posted by boss-290

Perhaps it would be viable for the student driver to do some paid part-time work (if they aren't already) in order to finance extra lessons.

This is an excellent idea, but not always a viable possibility - many students are already overcommited themselves these days (not just the parents), the ones with part time jobs (statisticaly) do allot worse at school than the ones without, and the people this law will affect are mainly High school students between year 10-12.

Originally Posted by boss-290

P-platers are having all these fatal accidents due to lack of experience and this "I am invincible" attitude.

Thats your opinion, but is a very simplistic point of view, and not totaly factual.
Sure statisticaly P platers have more injuries/fatalities than other demographic groups, but there are allot of reasons other than what you are putting it down to, such as.......
-P platers on average travel with more people in the car than non p platers (due to a number of reasons, ie only 1 of a group has a liscence, or enough to buy a car, or to save petrol$, bigger social circles etc.) so for every 5 "Experianced" crashes with just a lonesome driver, you might only need one 'P plater' crash with 4 passengers to ballance out the stats.
-also, there are many more than just inexperianced people on P plates, theres also the many people that heave heaps of experiance on the road, but keep loosing thier liscence and being put back on thier P's. This sub group are made up of both bad drivers who are more prone to crashes as it is anyway, and also good drivers who just spend 12 X more time on the road than the average driver (so 12 points to them is like 1 to you in reality), and because these people spend more time on the road, there is more opportunity to catch fines (and get put back on Ps) and more opportunity to get caught up in a crash.

Originally Posted by boss-290

On Thursday (Last week) our Year 12 group had some volunteers from (I can't remember the name of)

The Senior Ambulance Officer was explaining that a young girl who hadn't even had her P's for 3 weeks. She was supposed to give way at the round about and didn't look, and was hit by a truck. The description given by the Paramedic 20 years or so was very gut wrenching and I won't go into it.

Wouldn't that suggest to you that the P plater has not been driving long enough before getting the P plates? I mean, to not give way. A simple road rule not being followed resulted in this young girl being killed.

That doesnt suggest anything to me at all at all. you need all the info to make informed decisions, and a snap shot of info my suggest alot of things, all of which may/or may not be true at all.
Plenty of people dont look (Ps or no Ps), the same accident could have potentialy happened to anyone. jeez - it could have happened to a 40 year old driving instructor on a push bike for that matter..

Keep in mind that the job of those voulunteers was to 'scare' the group they were talking to into being careful on the road, ofcourse they were going to tell 'gut wrenching' stories, and just because the girl was on her Ps and had a bad accident, doent mean all girls on thier ps are all going to have bad accidents.

Just out of curiosity and completeley irrelevant to this post - are you a teacher (....our year 12 group...)???