120-hour rule for learner drivers

[Pebb]

Source: Auto Express

Stricter learner training could cost £2,400 in tuition fees and force young motorists to "take a back seat", says driving school BSM

The Government is currently considering introducing compulsory formal instruction, similar to that used in Sweden. It would mean learners spending at least 120 hours behind the wheel before undergoing their test.

The Driving Standards Agency is already in consultations on a raft of changes to the exam, including stepping up anti-fraud measures to stop people taking the test for someone else. But transport minister Stephen Lady*man now says driver education must also be improved. With the average lesson costing £20 an hour, Robin Cummings, BSM's road safety consultant, predicts the proposed changes could push up the age of learners. "Teenagers are already offsetting the cost of learning to drive until after university," he explained. "This extra expense could encourage them to delay it further."

Young men aged 17-20 are 10 times more likely to die or be seriously injured while driving than those aged 45-59, claims the Department for Transport. Cummings added the plans could help buck the trend, saying: "Older learners are probably more responsible."

 

[niky]

Much as I'd like to say bull**** on older learners being more responsible, that's statistically true.

But it's really a good idea to give people more experience before giving them a license. What would be better is to improve the quality and standards of the lessons given.

 

[Dave A]

I would have to say that if the government does this they are idiots. 120 hours means that your lessons alone will cost over £2000, that's nearly $4000USD just for driving lessons. That's riduclous to expect people to have to pay that much. not everyone needs 120hours to learn how to drive car competently. Lessons wise once you've been taught everything the test covers which the average person will grasp within 20 hours what else are you going to do? You'll effectively be paying £2000 just to drive about in someone elses car. I don't mind the idea of making people have to take more lessins, but the cost has to go down to compensate. BSM are all over this idea like a rash, it's not hard to see why. that means instead of the average person paing them about £400 in lessons it will be £2400, which would be converted into nice pay rises and bonuses for the senior managers. There's no plus to this idea for the regular working citizen that hasn't got thier license yet. All it's doing is taking more money away from people who can't really afford it already. This country is raping it's citizens, we've got stupidly high tax on petrol, we pay a premium on the cars themselves, we pay road tax which I tihnk everywhere does and they're also thinking of charging motorists a by the mile toll as well.

 

[Scaff]

L4S - While I agree with the basic sentiment you have raised in your post I do have a bit of an issue with a few areas of it.

That's riduclous to expect people to have to pay that much. not everyone needs 120hours to learn how to drive car competently.

Having taught quite a number of driver who have already passed the driving test and clocked up more that 120 hours I would have to disagree with this. You are right that not everyone needs 120 hours to drive a car competently, most need significantly more than that.

The basic level of driving standards in the UK, particularly amounts young male drivers, is quite frankly appalling.

Which leads on to your next point.

Lessons wise once you've been taught everything the test covers which the average person will grasp within 20 hours what else are you going to do?

You are quite right that 20 hours may be enough to grasp the basics of the driving test itself. Which then allows you unlimited access to drive solo in any car you can afford, on any road, in a piece of metal capable of significant speed and weighing a significant amount.

The standard of the UK driving test is quite frankly laughable (but certainly not the worst in the world), and that you can be taught to pass it in 20 hours in a major problem. People are taught to pass the test, not taught to drive; and those two are very, very different.

As far as I'm concerned the driving test should be far stricter on the practical side, should include driving on a much wider variety of roads, be longer in duration and should be split up into a number of parts. These parts should include theory, highway code, on-road practical testing and most importantly of all, what to do in an accident or situation in which you loose control of a car.

The vast majority of licence holder in this country have no idea at all of what a car will do above its limits, or what to do to try and resolve the situation. Its no good whatsoever if your first experience of a situation like this is during your first accident, its rather too late at that point. Making this a compulsory part of driver training and testing would have an effect on accident rates and would help reduce insurance premiums.

The solution outlined in the Auto Express article is not an ideal solution, but neither is the status-quo. I've come across people with driving licences who will not drive at night, or on the motorway, or who avoid right turns because they are 'too difficult/scary'. Quite frankly these people should not have a driving licence and any testing system that lets them have one is shockingly flawed.

I've been driving for most of my adult life and cover 20,000 - 30,000 miles a year, I've attended more advanced driver training than I can remember and I still try and learn something from every journey. Quite honestly every driver should be constantly learning and improving and a driving licence just give you 'permission' to do so unaccompanied. Anyone who says they have learnt all they can about driving is simply an arrogant fool (and this is not aimed at anyone here - just a general comment); I've never meet a professional and/or racing driver who would make such a claim, yet I've often heard it from dealership staff who I have had the misfortune to sit in a car with.



Rant over (for now)

Scaff

 

[Dave A]

Having taught quite a number of driver who have already passed the driving test and clocked up more that 120 hours I would have to disagree with this. You are right that not everyone needs 120 hours to drive a car competently, most need significantly more than that.

When it comes down to to it, yes that is true but I was more thinking about driving competently in the test environment. When I took my test and passed, as soon as I had my own car I was driving nothing like I was taught in the test and I was driving on roads and in conditions that were nothing like I'd driven on in the test or my lessons. Simply forcing me to take another 114 hours of lessons would not have changed that, because the lessons and test teach you to drive in a certian way, they put far too much focus onto if you move your head to show that your looking in your rear view mirror than they do into things like the ability to read traffic and to control your car if an unexpected situation arises. They never teach you what to do if a tyer blows out, or if you start aquaplaning most drivers don't even know whats happening.

The basic level of driving standards in the UK, particularly amounts young male drivers, is quite frankly appalling.

I agree, and I think it's on the decline.

You are quite right that 20 hours may be enough to grasp the basics of the driving test itself. Which then allows you unlimited access to drive solo in any car you can afford, on any road, in a piece of metal capable of significant speed and weighing a significant amount.

Which is where I agree with most of the rest of your post, the problem isn't going to be solved by forcing people to pay more to learn how to drive and force them to take 120 lessons. The problem is that you arn't taught how to drive in every condition. When I took my lessons the fastest I went was 40mph, in the test the fastet was 30mph, I spent about 5 ins on mergenc stops, and I think I had 1 lesson when it was raining which is remarkable really considering I live in Manchester. I don't mind the idea of making peple spend more time in a car to learn how to drive, but THE only reason this is being considered is because it will make wallets fatter. If your going to force people to have to take more lessons, don't force people to have to spend so much, £2400 is over far too much for most people. Then you'll have some stupid insurnace costs in your forst year or two, say another £2000 and that's probably only to insure a £1000 car. Drivers in the UK are being harshly dealt with, but the proper solution to really improve driving doesn't line wallets as much.

People are taught to pass the test, not taught to drive; and those two are very, very different.

And there is the problem, it's not how long your behind the wheel, it's what your being taught while your behind the wheel. most of how I drive is what I've gained in my experience of driving, not from my lessons and while I'm not a driving god, I'm not what I would consider a bad driver with regards to driving on public roads. On a track I'd probably kill myself but hey.

As far as I'm concerned the driving test should be far stricter on the practical side, should include driving on a much wider variety of roads, be longer in duration and should be split up into a number of parts. These parts should include theory, highway code, on-road practical testing and most importantly of all, what to do in an accident or situation in which you loose control of a car.

The vast majority of licence holder in this country have no idea at all of what a car will do above its limits, or what to do to try and resolve the situation. Its no good whatsoever if your first experience of a situation like this is during your first accident, its rather too late at that point. Making this a compulsory part of driver training and testing would have an effect on accident rates and would help reduce insurance premiums.

The solution outlined in the Auto Express article is not an ideal solution, but neither is the status-quo. I've come across people with driving licences who will not drive at night, or on the motorway, or who avoid right turns because they are 'too difficult/scary'. Quite frankly these people should not have a driving licence and any testing system that lets them have one is shockingly flawed.

I've been driving for most of my adult life and cover 20,000 - 30,000 miles a year, I've attended more advanced driver training than I can remember and I still try and learn something from every journey. Quite honestly every driver should be constantly learning and improving and a driving licence just give you 'permission' to do so unaccompanied. Anyone who says they have learnt all they can about driving is simply an arrogant fool (and this is not aimed at anyone here - just a general comment); I've never meet a professional and/or racing driver who would make such a claim, yet I've often heard it from dealership staff who I have had the misfortune to sit in a car with.

I agree entirely.

 

[fatman_5050]

As far as I'm concerned the driving test should be far stricter on the practical side, should include driving on a much wider variety of roads, be longer in duration and should be split up into a number of parts. These parts should include theory, highway code, on-road practical testing and most importantly of all, what to do in an accident or situation in which you loose control of a car.
Scaff

I don't think it could be put better. I feel that all drivers should be forced to prove that they can handle real world situations that arise frequently. Accidents, adverse weather/road conditions, and highway and backroad driving should be part of license tests. When I took my test (in Pennsylvania), all that was required was a demonstration of vehicle controls(wipers, signals, defroser, etc.), parallel parking, and an on road portion that went no more than a mile from the testing center on a 40 mph backroad with no stoplight and little traffic. How is that even a legitimate display of my ability to drive?

Driving lessons here, in my experience, are almost exactly like Scaff described, just what you need for the license test. In PA, you need 50 hours driving experience on a learners' permit before taking the test. I don't think any of it needs documented. As for 120 hours, in some cases that might be more than enough, in others it's far from enough practice, but 120 hours at $4000 is an insane cost. You might as well just hand the license center your $4000 and then ask to take the test, may even end up passing it and saving yourself 120 hours of learning the same 10 fundamentals over and over.

 

[ExigeEvan]

If this comes into place before September I am going to jump. No way can I afford to spend £2000 on lesson and there a further few thousand on insurance and a car.

This government is doing anything it can to price people off the road, it's going too far.

 

[Danoff]

Keep the standard to a minimum and hold people accountable for their mistakes. The government shouldn't be licensing phenomenal drivers, just drivers that have the minimum set of skills needed to operate a car. If they operate the car badly, hold them accountable.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

 

[Scaff]

Keep the standard to a minimum and hold people accountable for their mistakes. The government shouldn't be licensing phenomenal drivers, just drivers that have the minimum set of skills needed to operate a car. If they operate the car badly, hold them accountable.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Nice sound-bite, but it lacks definition. You say that people should be trained to have "the minimum set of skills needed to operate a car", yet do not define the standard to which minimum should be judged.

If its simply to operate the vehicle, well that's a very low standard that would entail little more than moving the vehicle 20ft without problem. You would then almost certainly run into problems if you tried to hold them accountable for operating a car in other circumstances. Most 'average' drivers are currently poorly aware of the actual dangers and possible scale of damage in an accident, yet you are proposing lowering the standards by which this is tested and at the same time making them more accountable for it. While I whole-heartedly agree with making drivers accountable for their actions, that has to be backed up with the knowledge of what you are accountable for and the possible results.

With a slight edit I would agree with you:

Drivers should be trained to "the minimum set of skills needed to safely operate a car in commonly encountered situations.

Yes you could argue that even that would need further definition, but from my point of view I have already covered that above.

Regards

Scaff

 

[McLaren]

5 days worth of driving to finally grasp driving? How bad are those kids?

This would never do well in the U.S. primarily because
1), like live said, no one would pay these driver's ed places the money it takes
and 2), actually getting drive time for even an hour is hard in most places because there's so many kids.

It's why my father never allowed me into our local driving classes because you could never get any drive time. It'd be weeks before you get any time, and usually, it wouldn't be enough to grasp anything.

 

[Danoff]

Drivers should be trained to "the minimum set of skills needed to safely operate a car in commonly encountered situations.

...and you think this requires 120 hours of in-car training.

 

[Scaff]

...and you think this requires 120 hours of in-car training.

What I said on the subject of what was required to be competent was...

Having taught quite a number of driver who have already passed the driving test and clocked up more that 120 hours I would have to disagree with this. You are right that not everyone needs 120 hours to drive a car competently, most need significantly more than that.

Does that mean I believe that 120 hours are required to gain the minimum set of skills needed to safely operate a car in commonly encountered situations? I think that depends on the driver in question, however the above was in regard to what I would consider to be the minimum level of driving standards to gain a licence. Personally I would much rather see a far higher basic level required to competently drive a car, which may well need or exceed 120 hours for some drivers.

I'm also a huge advocate of further and regular training after you have gained a licence. Simply put it help massively reduce accident rates and lower the effects of control loss or hazardous situations, as can be seen here for example. I can certainly testify that the very comprehensive training (after gaining my licence) has without a doubt allowed me to avoid accidents.

Personally I just can't agree with a 'give them the minimum and let them loose on the road' approach. Standards are low enough in the UK and parts of Europe without lowering the level of competence required. Quite honestly next year when my daughter is old enough she will be starting here at the under 17 car club, by the time she reaches 17 and takes her test I certainly hope when will have more than 120 hours under her belt on car control alone (and my youngest will join her as well in five years time). Not only is it a very cost effective way of gaining experience (running every year from 12 to 17 would cost around £850 plus the running costs of the car) but it will mean that when they do drive on the public roads they will be far more able to concentrate on reading the road and the situation without as much worry about controlling the car. If everyone was able to do this, not only would we have far better driving standards and lower accident rates, but more people may have an actual interest in driving itself.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Danoff]

Does that mean I believe that 120 hours are required to gain the minimum set of skills needed to safely operate a car in commonly encountered situations? I think that depends on the driver in question, however the above was in regard to what I would consider to be the minimum level of driving standards to gain a licence. Personally I would much rather see a far higher basic level required to competently drive a car, which may well need or exceed 120 hours for some drivers.

For the record, the requirement for me was 8 hours, and I've had a clean driving record (with the exception of one speeding ticket in a designed speed trap) for a decade now, and I'm certainly no genius behind the wheel. My wife isn't either and her requirement was the same, 8 hours, she's never even gotten a ticket in 10 years of driving.

So what do you propose for repeat infractions of driving without meeting the 120 hour requirement? Jail time? Do you have statistics that show that more driving hours required = fewer accidents per driver, thereby helping you justify this increased-regulation-of-drivers-for-safety tradeoff? I see your report indicating that advanced driver training helped, but that isn't what we're talking about here is it?

(generally, I'm against increasing regulations to increase safety)

 

[Scaff]

For the record, the requirement for me was 8 hours, and I've had a clean driving record (with the exception of one speeding ticket in a designed speed trap) for a decade now, and I'm certainly no genius behind the wheel. My wife isn't either and her requirement was the same, 8 hours, she's never even gotten a ticket in 10 years of driving.

While I have no reason at all to doubt what you say, its also easy to find examples of inexperienced drivers causing accidents that better applied skills could may well have avoided.

I have direct experience of working with drivers with far more time than that who were quite simply appalling drivers, worst of all a good number of them thought they were good drivers.

So what do you propose for repeat infractions of driving without meeting the 120 hour requirement? Jail time?

I don't believe I actually said that a strict 120hrs minimum was required at all. I'm very sorry if it came across that way, but I was simply using it to discuss a point, not a requirement. How any period of training is broken up and the subjects it covers is just as important as the time itself. Hence the more detailed breakdown I also covered.

I simply advocate far better training that is currently provided.

Do you have statistics that show that more driving hours required = fewer accidents per driver, thereby helping you justify this increased-regulation-of-drivers-for-safety tradeoff? I see your report indicating that advanced driver training helped, but that isn't what we're talking about here is it?

No simply because spending hundreds of hours in a car with no thought involved is potentially dangerous in itself, nothing is leant from it at all. However a driver who does receive good regular training and puts this into practice at all times will be a better driver. The paper I posted may well be in regard to more advanced training, but it does highlight the benefits of better training. One of the main areas being hazard awareness,a subject that is poorly covered in the standard UK driving test, but is an incredibly useful aid to driver safety.

(generally, I'm against increasing regulations to increase safety)

I kind of guessed, just for the record I personally believe that driving is not a right, but rather a privilege that you have to demonstrate competency for.

However if you are discussing other areas of road traffic regulation I would most likely agree, in that vein you may find the following interesting.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

Regards

Scaff

 

[Danoff]

The paper I posted may well be in regard to more advanced training, but it does highlight the benefits of better training.

I'm not going to disagree that more advanced training can help, I simply don't think it's necessary to require it.

 

[Vasco]

So when you are a learner in the UK you can't have say, a parent with a full license help instruct you in order to clock up those hours? Surely it's not mandatory that every hour you train you need to have an instructor?

Over here anyone with a full license can teach you how to drive, and there are businesses you can call to have instructors come and also teach you (for say an hour or so at a time).

 

[Scaff]

I'm not going to disagree that more advanced training can help, I simply don't think it's necessary to require it.

And its on that point that I believe we will disagree. I believe that if we want to be able to demand less regulation (or more intelligent regulation) in other areas of road safety we have to show we (as the driving public) are capable and competent. Increased and lazy regulation in many areas of road safety (with speed cameras being the best example) are an easy 'fix' for governments, yet do little or nothing to actually make our roads safer. Increasing driver skills (pre and post qualification) does.

So when you are a learner in the UK you can't have say, a parent with a full license help instruct you in order to clock up those hours? Surely it's not mandatory that every hour you train you need to have an instructor?

Over here anyone with a full license can teach you how to drive, and there are businesses you can call to have instructors come and also teach you (for say an hour or so at a time).

In the UK is perfectly legal legal to have a qualified adult sit alongside you (I believe the requirements are that they must be over 21 and held a licence for at least 3 years), and certainly a good number of people will be gain experience in this manner (I know I did).


Regards

Scaff

 

[mrnoname]

it's 50 hours here in australia may be 100 after stupid idiots with P's(next stage with no superviser in the car) speeding & crashing there high perfomance cars

 

[Casio]

We're actually already required to have 120 hours here.

We actually got new rules this month, I don't think they're half bad.

From 1 January 2007, a tougher drink driving law for young drivers comes into force. After paying fines and having their licence cancelled, P-platers, and any driver under 26 caught driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .07 or higher, now will have an alcohol interlock fitted to their vehicle when they return to driving.

Very good idea. Although I assume the Tax payer will pay for the interlock, rather then the driver.

To go for your probationary you need:

A minimum of 120 hours of supervised driving experience (including 10 hours at night) with an official practice diary and declaration to be signed by the learner and supervising driver.

stupid idiots with P's(next stage with no superviser in the car) speeding & crashing there high perfomance cars

Personally I think you're just as likely to crash a low performance car then a high performance car. It's not like Daewoos can't hit trees at the same speed a Porsche can.

 

[Leonidae]

this is the best idea I've ever seen. this should be applied in finnish driving schools as well.

 

[Danoff]

Requiring 10,000 hours would reduce accidents even more. It would go a long way to eliminating vehicle related injuries completely. The only better step I can think of toward eliminating vehicle-related fatality/injury would be to go ahead and outlaw cars completely. No cars, no drivers, statistics fixed.

Edit: Cars kill, outlawing cars would save lives.

 

[Dave A]

I agree with Danoff here, at the end of the day you could use the same principal that more time behind the wheel training makes you a better driver and you could just never stop, tomorrow it's 120 hours, the next day it's 200 and so on. Forcing people to do this is no what needs to be done, the test is what needs looking at. Make the practical tests longer, a lot longer than 45 mins and make them cover more varied situations. Make it so that you must be competent to pass the test, but do not force people to have to pay £2500 to learn how to drive. What if you can't afford that but you've got a great dad who's taken you out in his car hundereds of times, that accounts for nothing in this situation if this law get's the go ahead. Yeah 120 hours practice before taking your test is better than 20 hours, but don't force that on anyone., force them to take a tough practical test. At the end of the day if the lessons and tests are no harder than they already are it won't matter if you take 200 hours of them, you'll still be just getting taught the same things you are in the first 20 hours of thoes lessons and remain unaware of what might happen out of the ordinary and what to do in such situations.

 

[Scaff]

Requiring 10,000 hours would reduce accidents even more. It would go a long way to eliminating vehicle related injuries completely. The only better step I can think of toward eliminating vehicle-related fatality/injury would be to go ahead and outlaw cars completely. No cars, no drivers, statistics fixed.

Edit: Cars kill, outlawing cars would save lives.

Now you are just getting silly .

I would quite agree that a compromise needs to exist and you do seem to have got rather hung up in the exact number of hours as a central point. While I can only speak for myself, you may recall that the main thrust of my original post was in regard to the scope and scale of current driver training rather than specifically the time period involved. Its a point I have now clarified a few times.

You are quite right that the best theoretical method of eliminating RTA deaths would be to ban cars, but the same could be said for almost any activity. It seems that you are implying an aversion to risk for those who advocate a good level of driver training. Again, speaking for myself, this is simply not true, but risk does have to be managed and for the 'average' person driving is one of the most potentially dangerous things they do on a regular basis. I'm certainly not risk averse, but nor am I (or would I want to be) ignorant of the risks involved. That's not however something that could be said for a far chunk of the drivers I have worked with over the years.

I agree with Danoff here, at the end of the day you could use the same principal that more time behind the wheel training makes you a better driver and you could just never stop, tomorrow it's 120 hours, the next day it's 200 and so on. Forcing people to do this is no what needs to be done, the test is what needs looking at. Make the practical tests longer, a lot longer than 45 imns and make them cover more varied situations. Make it so that you must be competent to pass the test, but do not force people to have to pay £2500 to learn how to drive. What if you can't afford that but you've got a great dad who's taken you out in his car hundereds of times, that accounts for nothing in this situation if this law get's the go ahead. Yeah 120 hours practice before taking your test is better than 20 hours, but don't force that on me, at the end of the day if the lessons and tests are no harder than they already are it won't matter if you take 200 hours of them, you'll still be just getting taught the same things you are in the first 20 hours of thoes lessons.

Danoff is not actually advocating an improvement in the test itself either, rather that even the required standard is kept to a minimum...

Keep the standard to a minimum and hold people accountable for their mistakes. The government shouldn't be licensing phenomenal drivers, just drivers that have the minimum set of skills needed to operate a car. If they operate the car badly, hold them accountable.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

...I would quite agree (and said as much) that the test needs to be far harder and more varied. That in itself will require a more balanced and almost certainly longer learning process.

Regards

Scaff


Regards

Scaff

 

[Dave A]

Danoff is not actually advocating an improvement in the test itself either, rather that even the required standard is kept to a minimum...

I know, the comments regarding the test are my thoughts. But I was agreeing with him on the principal that forcing people to drive so many hours of lessons because the extra time makes you a better driver is not really valid. It may be that someone else can't afford 120 hours of lessons close together so they have them very spread out, say it takes that person 3 years to do them all. Do you think that 120 hours drving experience spread out over 3 years will make someone any better than someone who's done 20 hours over 2 months? I don't see anyone having any more frequency in their lessons, if anythnig the frequency will go down. But what about driving in the car with an older friend, a parent or other relative ect. You can get valuable experience from that, I did, but that counts for nothing. As ypou said before, by simply increasing the lenth and toughness of the tests, your effectively increasing the level of tuition needed without actually forcing anyone to do a set limit anyway, the difference is you can still learn a lot of the stuff without an instructor this way. But by just making people drive for longer, your not actually improving the learning process, your just dragging it out.

 

[Scaff]

I know, the comments regarding the test are my thoughts. But I was agreeing with him on the principal that forcing people to drive so many hours of lessons because the extra time makes you a better driver is not really valid. It may be that someone else can't afford 120 hours of lessons close together so they have them very spread out, say it takes that person 3 years to do them all. Do you think that 120 hours drving experience spread out over 3 years will make someone any better than someone who's done 20 hours over 2 months? I don't see anyone having any more frequency in their lessons, if anythnig the frequency will go down. But what about driving in the car with an older friend, a parent or other relative ect. You can get valuable experience from that, I did, but that counts for nothing. This entire idea has nothing to do with improvng the standards of driving, it's about money. Improving the standads of driving properly by making tests harder and longer and introducing more emergency manouvers into the tests won't make them more money.

Which I believe I have said all along?

The standard of the UK driving test is quite frankly laughable (but certainly not the worst in the world), and that you can be taught to pass it in 20 hours in a major problem. People are taught to pass the test, not taught to drive; and those two are very, very different.

What I don't agree with Danoff on is the requirement of gaining a licence should be "the minimum set of skills needed to operate a car", that would certainly (in the UK) reduce the test standards and almost certainly raise accident levels among young/new drivers.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Dave A]

Which I believe I have said all along?

Then we are in agreement .

 

[Scaff]

Danoff was after some more detailed info on teh effects of driver experience on accident rates, etc.

This should be of interest

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/young_driver_report.pdf

Regards

Scaff

 

[Danoff]

What I don't agree with Danoff on is the requirement of gaining a licence should be "the minimum set of skills needed to operate a car", that would certainly (in the UK) reduce the test standards and almost certainly raise accident levels among young/new drivers.

As I pointed out earlier, a reduction in the statistics is not the only objective, if it were, the elimination of cars altogether is the best course of action. But that leaves us with a fundamental question. What should the objective of licensing requirements be?

 

[Dave A]

The requirement should be that you can competently control a car in various and varied situations on public roads in different traffic, weather and light conditions without putting people at risk. The minimum set of skills required to operate a car do not cover that.

 

[Scaff]

As I pointed out earlier, a reduction in the statistics is not the only objective, if it were, the elimination of cars altogether is the best course of action. But that leaves us with a fundamental question. What should the objective of licensing requirements be?

For me I have already adapted your standard to illustrate a basic idea of what I consider a requirement.

Drivers should be trained to "the minimum set of skills needed to safely operate a car in commonly encountered situations."

Now as I also said that does require greater definition, some of which I have already provided. For me the subject is not as simple as just the need to know how to operate a vehicle.

1. Driving skills - this is of course a fundamental requirement of driving and strong basic skills need to be present to pass the test. However going beyond what is covered currently, novice drivers need more training in the areas of higher speed car control and most importantly car control and recovery over the limit. These areas should make up part of the requirement.

2. Road Awareness - driving skills alone are of no use what so ever if the driver has no understanding or ability to apply them in the real world. An understanding of how to read the road and the potential threats and problems all around them are a vital part of driving and these areas need significantly more coverage than they currently get.

3. Driver Attitude - The vast majority of driver would rate themselves as very good or excellent, with younger new drivers one of the highest groups. Yet accident rates do not back this belief up. I have used academic papers in training that show people who have recently acquired a skill often over-estimate their own actual abilities. Not much of a problem if its Photoshop, rather a larger issue if its 2 tonnes of steel and glass hitting 60.

Now these are just the 'headline' parts of what I believe should make up the standard, I would be interested to know what you own are, as from your current posts they would appear to only cover the very basic parts of point 1 above (only operating the vehicle - possibly given that only within its limits), with areas 2 and 3 not covered at all.

In addition, no this is not just about statistics, but for me the reduction of accident rates is hardly an unworthy goal, as long as the means being used are realistically going to do this. Its for that reason I am very pro good driver education and testing, but very, very anti speed cameras, lazy road safety policies and the current UK obsession that speeding is the principal cause of accidents (because it's not).

The point you keep revisiting about banning cars is a rather black and white approach and has little more relevance than saying you can avoid them so let any one on the road and remove all restrictions. I am fully aware that a reduction in accident rates to zero is an impossible task, do remember I quite clearly said that I was not risk averse, simply risk aware. I have to say that as a point you seem to want to raise it adds nothing to your argument, its also the kind of point that safety mad organisations over here in the UK would like to aim for. Certainly not something I would even advocate, nor have I come even remotely close to saying here.

Regards

Scaff