120-hour rule for learner drivers

[Danoff]

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.

That doesn't really answer my question. I didn't ask you for the "basic idea of what [you] consider to be a requirement". I asked you what the objectives of licensing requirements should be.

If the objective is to impart the "minimum set of skills needed to safely operate a car in commonly encountered situations", then to what degree must people obtain those skills. Perfectly? Or do we hold them to the minimum level of competency with those skills? if we hold them to the minimum level of competency, how do we judge this?

I believe the requirements should be a demonstrated knowledge of the law and general driving practices. That's it. That's what's needed in order to make sure that they can be held responsible for violation of the law or wreckless driving. How they obtain training in order to make sure that they can comply with the law, and how much training they obtain, is up to them.

 

[Famine]

Apropos of not very much...

The majority of UK driving is done on motorways. Learner drivers are not permitted on motorways, yet as soon as they get their full licence they are permitted there with no required knowledge of any part of motorway driving.

 

[Scaff]

That doesn't really answer my question. I didn't ask you for the "basic idea of what [you] consider to be a requirement". I asked you what the objectives of licensing requirements should be.

If the objective is to impart the "minimum set of skills needed to safely operate a car in commonly encountered situations", then to what degree must people obtain those skills. Perfectly? Or do we hold them to the minimum level of competency with those skills? if we hold them to the minimum level of competency, how do we judge this?

I believe the requirements should be a demonstrated knowledge of the law and general driving practices. That's it. That's what's needed in order to make sure that they can be held responsible for violation of the law or wreckless driving. How they obtain training in order to make sure that they can comply with the law, and how much training they obtain, is up to them.

Sorry but are you actually asking me to put forward a detailed and specific level of skill required including an exact definition of the required skill level? Because if so it quite simply not going to happen, principally because I don't have the time to go into such a staggering level of detail because I believe it would make little difference to your opinion on the subject.

You're own definition of the required standard does not even meet this requirement, simply being "I believe the requirements should be a demonstrated knowledge of the law and general driving practices. That's it.", it could therefore be asked, to what criteria would be gauge knowledge had been demonstrated? A basic passing knowledge of the subject or an in-depth knowledge of all factors involved. These are both 'knowledge' but the standard is still not detailed.

I've given what I believe to be a reasonably detailed breakdown of the areas I believe should be covered and tested on and explained that I believe the current UK standard is neither broad enough in scope or strict enough in testing.

I think it is however safe to say (and correct me if I am wrong) that my requirements would be higher than your own. If that is the case, from my corner, I believe we would have to agree to disagree on this particular one. I would however like to ask what you believe the benefits are to your approach and beliefs on this particular subject? What kind of effect do you think it would have on road safety and driver ability as a whole and on the area of accountability for the driver, to what level do you believe it should managed to? Are current levels of accountability to high or to low (or just right) and what degree of punishment should be used (again in comparison to current levels).

Regards

Scaff

 

[Danoff]

You're own definition of the required standard does not even meet this requirement, simply being "I believe the requirements should be a demonstrated knowledge of the law and general driving practices. That's it.", it could therefore be asked, to what criteria would be gauge knowledge had been demonstrated? A basic passing knowledge of the subject or an in-depth knowledge of all factors involved. These are both 'knowledge' but the standard is still not detailed.

The standard of knowledge is knowledge of the law. You have to demostrate that you know the law regarding vehicle use. This includes anything that could be determined to reckless driving, so it can include general safety guidelines as well as hard-and-fast legal violations. Once you've demonstrated knowledge of the law, it's up to you to manage to comply with it.

While I agree that this is not a complete answer on the subject of what I believe should be covered and to what degree, I think it is a very substantive - easily quantified and implemented.

I think it is however safe to say (and correct me if I am wrong) that my requirements would be higher than your own. If that is the case, from my corner, I believe we would have to agree to disagree on this particular one.

I think that's probably right.

I would however like to ask what you believe the benefits are to your approach and beliefs on this particular subject?

- It makes principled sense from a "proper role of government" perspective.
- It avoids arbitrary limits that can easily be changed in the future and lead to "slippery slopes" that end up getting out of hand in the long term.
- It keeps the government imposed cost to a minimum.
- It keeps the government from assuming any responsibility for training. If citizens aren't told that they've been trained, they won't assume that they've been trained. Many will use that opportunity to seek training that may be substantially better than government training.
- It limits growth of government surrounding the training and regulation, thereby minimizing beuarocratic losses.
- It refuses to compromise basic freedom for security, again this is a principled approach.
- It ensures that the drivers can be easily held accountable for thier actions.

What kind of effect do you think it would have on road safety and driver ability as a whole

It would probably result in slightly worse driving overall.

and on the area of accountability for the driver, to what level do you believe it should managed to? Are current levels of accountability to high or to low (or just right) and what degree of punishment should be used (again in comparison to current levels).

Accountability needs to be tailored to the particular damage done and the consistency with which laws/rights are violated. Penalties for misconduct can be increased to help deter illegal/reckless behavior.

 

[niky]

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.

I think this is the whole crux of the problem.

We can argue over whether more or less education is needed, but to note: German driving schools are noted as being very good compared to others, and there aren't many other places in the world that'll allow you to drive legally over 100 mph...