P-plate restrictions discussed

[Alfadog]

Passengers: Good idea. Some young drivers (esp. males) are more likely to be distracted or forced into risky driving by peer pressure with car load of mates.

I would like to see anyone disagree with this point. It's very valid - I'd like to see statistics as to the average number of passengers in car crashes where the driver is a P-plater.

Another reason why Z's are awesome ONE PASSENGER ONLY!! (most of the time :cheeky:)

[Murph]

Mostly! One of the other engineers that lived on campus also had a 260Z 2 seater. I rememeber quite a few mornings where he'd drive round to engineering, one passenger in the front, hatch open and three in the back, legs dangling out.

*Mind you, it was all of a 200m drive.

[26ounce]

Definitely against this move. They have already changed the P plater regulations to make them significantly harsher, to add this on top seems an erosion their rights as adult voting Australians.

Like s130, the approach of our government agencies to road safety is really starting to wizz me off.

[1 Bravo 6]

O.K., here's one that'll put the cat among the pidgeons.

I firmly believe that the minimum age for a person to obtain a driver's license shoud be RAISED to at LEAST eighteen. The Government apparently believes that an eighteen year old is mature enough to inteligently choose which political party to vote for so why should it be any different to qualify to hold a driver's license ?. To take that thought a little further, a soldier can't be sent overseas to fight for our country until he is nineteen so why not raise BOTH the licensing and voting age to nineteen ?????

High school car parks contain cars driven by students who, IMO, are FAR to young to be responsible and mature enough to be in control of such a potentialy deadly weapon. The younger the driver the more susceptable they are to peer pressure and more likely to "show off" their limited driving skills.

It's O.K. to say that our youth have to first make mistakes before they can learn from those mistakes BUT mistakes made when driving in an irresponsible manner all too often turn out to be deadly mistakes. All too often it's some innocent person/s in another car that pays the piper.

Unfortunately, not all young drivers exhibit the maturity and plain common sense to attend a defensive driving course as s130 and Alfadog did. Such courses should be mandatory upon obtaining a driver's license, regardless of age.

O.K. you lot, I'm wearing my flack jacket and steel helmet so, GO YOUR HARDEST !!!!!!

Rick.

:ogre: :ogre: :ogre:

[Murph]

You know what, I agree with you Rick, that 17 year olds (some exceptions of course) aren't mature enough to make the right decisions, not with the current level of driver training anyway. I think with some real driver training, and some REAL testing, ie more than just checking to see if you can park and use your inicators, then 17 year olds could potentially be released onto the road and be reasonably safe.

You also have to consider the problems that such a limit would cause. For example limited employment oportunities for under 19 year olds.

[1 Bravo 6]

Hey, hey, hey there Justin,

This is a little reminiscent of a conversation we had some months ago isn't it ??

In my first post on this this thread I stated that there is a difference between being taught to drive and TRAINED to drive.

When I was TRAINED to drive in the Army, the course ran for six weeks FULL TIME. That was just the BASIC drivers course, qualifying to drive a 4WD Land Rover and a 4WD 2 1/2 Ton Truck. Any subsequent license code required a further course of instruction. (My Army license was chocker with license codes, couldn't fit another one in).

Training behind the wheel entailed hours and hours experiencing all possible driving conditions in heavy and light traffic, on the open highway and cross country.

Now, I'm not suggesting that all potential drivers should be required to attend a six weeks course of instruction BUT, they certainly need to be TRAINED, not merely taught.

As you said. a driver's license is a privelige, not a right. It is also a responsibility and an obligation.

Rick.

:ogre: :ogre: :ogre:

[Murph]

Yes, tis quite reminiscent.....except I agree with you completely!

Six weeks full time may be a little excessive, but it does need a significant amount. Maybe they could incorporate it into schooling.....say as something you can do instead of sport. I got my boat licenece through school that way, so why not driver training as well?

Just an idea, how about students start out learning with their parents (or O licenced driver) as they do now, and then when they feel comfortable with the basics of driving a car around, then they start the advanced driving course. When they can pass such a course, and the usual sort of test, then they can get their licence. Sound fair?

I'm sure there'd be plenty of whinging as it would make obtaining a licence much more difficult, and probably more costly, but hey, it should be a privelidge, not a responsibility.

While we're at it, all drivers that currently licenced should have to do the advanced course and pass it, or have their licence revoked. Of course you'd have to give everyone a year or so in which to do this (maybe more).

I could bet if they took some drastic measures like this, then the death toll on our roads would drop significantly.

Thoughts?

[Gav240z]

I agree an advanced driving course should be mandatory. I know of many people who obtained a licence first time and I would not say they are good drivers.

I am yet to attend an advanced driving course myself but feel I should. I know when i get out on the track I'm gonna want some advice and training. However 1 step at a time until I can afford it.

[Murph]

I'm in the same boat as Gav, haven't done an advanced driving course, but would really like to, just can't afford it. One thing I've realised with my zed in its current form, my ability as a driver is no where near what the car is capable of. Hence I'm also quite keen to start participating in the track days here, but that will have to wait till the car is ready for such outings.

[Alfadog]

If you can afford a Z, you can afford a Defensive Driving course! They're a couple of hundred bucks.. come on. If you feel you don't want to part with that much - simple! Just tell your parents what you'd like for your birthday. I bet they'll LOVE to buy you it.

[MickieB]

I firmly believe that the minimum age for a person to obtain a driver's license shoud be RAISED to at LEAST eighteen. The Government apparently believes that an eighteen year old is mature enough to inteligently choose which political party to vote for so why should it be any different to qualify to hold a driver's license ?. To take that thought a little further, a soldier can't be sent overseas to fight for our country until he is nineteen so why not raise BOTH the licensing and voting age to nineteen ?????

Not 100% accurate. The government lets 18 year olds go to war. And my sister served in the solomons and afghan not too long ago when she was only 17, has the medals to prove it. So yeah, like everything else, just cause the government says it...

I agree with what everyone says about driver training. Made me think of Q-ride you can do for your bike liscence, where it's competncy based testing. Might be an idea.

Also sorta off on another tangent. In the car section in saturday's townsville bulletin there was this thing from a german roads dude, who was saying that fatalities on our motorways and highways could be reduced by easing up on the speed limit, raising it to say 140km/h, and being less strict on it. Because he says we come from a society now where we're too busy worrying about our speed and watching that, that we forget to worry about driving the car well. On the eurpean autobahns, they go whatever speed they feel comfortable, but they do it well because they focus everything on driving, not on watching to dash gauges every 2 seconds. Just a though.

[Gee]

That was only 1 of the points the "German dude" made. I believe he also called for better road conditions, more safety features on cars, better training and less shitboxes driving around. Australia must have one of the oldest / worst car populations in the world. Some of the rubbish I've seen driving around should be pulled over and forbidden from the road unless SIGNIFICANT work is done. This isn't a revenue raiser though, they'd prefer to chase speeders as it raises $$.

I believe that P-Platers should be heavily restricted as to the choice of car. Power to weight is my main concern here, I've seen too many P platers driving Skylines, Supras, WRX's and V8 Aussie crap. Only last year a P Plate idiot near my folks place killed himself and his 4 passengers by driving a Lexus Coupe at 180kmh in a suburban street. By all accounts the road was clear (it was 4 in the morning) and the road conditions were good. It was purely driver error that resulted in 5 unnecessary fatalities.

my 2c