2 December 2008

australian road users (and our fraudulent government)

2 December 2008 | riotdave

g’day rioters!

perhaps some of you heard of this horrific story in The Age from a little while back that re-emerged today as it appeared in court this morning:

now, don’t get me wrong, i have nothing but sympathy for all parties involved in this tragedy; this is not my beef. instead this story and the media response has sparked my frustration again with our shameful government(s) and their pathetic road policies. below lies a somewhat drawn-out story but i felt compelled to register and post it. you know where the little red “X” is if you get bored 🙂

i wish you to consider how we equip our new drivers with car-handling skills. some of you may be aware of “road ready” (http://www.roadready.act.gov.au) a now nation-wide program that is supposed to help make L-platers safe drivers. now while this is certainly a step in the right direction, it is seen as more of a pain in the backside by l-plate-seekers and literally, the ONLY thing i could remember from when i took the course myself a few years back was the unbelievably cute blondie that shared my boredom/pain. so thats all well and good then – we ask a bunch of easily forgotten questions to people that don’t really care to know, and then we send them on their merry way into the public streets for 9 months! cool! next challenge is the L to P-plate process.

the procedures to getting your P’s are slightly different from state to state, but in canberra at least, there are two avenues. you can take the ‘big/final’ driving test or you can do whats known as ‘logbook’. the first is self explanatory really, whereby you focus as much chi as possible to impress some stiff with a clipboard (over the course of about 10-15 mins) enough for him/her to decide that you are ‘safe’. the other is where you pay through the nose for a “qualified driving instructor” to take you through a logbook of competencies over a series of 6+ hands-on, in-car lessons.

now before i continue, i’d like to explain a little about myself. i am in the “most hazardous/irresponsible” bracket as i am an under 25 y/o male with a history of numerous very fast/modified cars. i chose to take the logbook method to my P-plates as i managed to find what could’ve been THE ULTIMATE driving instructor – a touring car driver/racer who finances his racecar with driving tuition. what made this (anon) man different was that after one and a half logbook lessons and many chats about cars and racing and what have you, he could see that the lessons he was giving me were just not really effective. instead, he took whole mornings out of his schedule and booked the both of us in at the skidpan just out of qbn at fairburn park.

we had two such meetings out there – the first one was spent swapping between passenger/driver as he taught me how to emergency brake, in the wet and in the dry. by the end of the first session, i felt comfortable in slowing a sliding/out of control car in an effective manner. the second session was spent helping me understand the REAL concepts behind speed, car stability, smoothness, weight distribution, grip and most importantly, tricks to remaining calm. i now had an understanding of -why- people get into trouble in the first place. one more regular logbook lesson to confirm that i could reverse parallel, and he checked me off.

three weeks after getting my p-plates i had myself booked in, at my own expense, with a AAMI-approved defensive drivers course. i have completed another two advanced driver training days and attended a few race days since, to develop and hone my own skills and competencies further.

now, while i am admittedly a massive car enthusiast and i take pride in the quality, maturity and courtesy! of my driving at all times, most people would not have the opportunity nor the care/time/will to repeat my course of action. thats fine, each to their own but i am absolutely flabbergasted at how our outdated and inappropriate laws remain. i heard that something like 65% of people who sit the driving test fail because they cannot reverse parallel. WHAT!!!! why aren’t we failing people for not knowing the difference between a brake and accelerator pedal!!??!! (referencing the aforementioned article with all due respect). why isn’t every new driver expected to partake in a defensive driving course? i would’ve predicted the moderate cost to the government/taxpayer/fresh L/P-plater would be massively outweighed by the much-needed emergency abilities we would be equipping our new road users. we expect new drivers to dig into the peanuts for the needless ‘road ready’ course yet surely it isn’t so hard to see which one would offer a more substantial return on investment.

so it seems the washup from todays media coverage is that the government is looking to introduce stricter penalties and restrictions for learner and full-licence-bearing guardian/passenger. this is quite simply a hoax – another revenue-raising stunt, just like the additional p-plate laws/restrictions. in fact this shonky revenue-raising behavior can be found in every aspect of our current road laws, from parking inspectors to speed cams to dodgy cops, but they are other riots for other days

when will the government stop dicking around with band-aid solutions, and take even but a brief glance at the cause? how many people (kamikaze’s!) do we have to let loose with zero skills before someone stands up and says, “hang on, just cos you can reverse parallel, don’t mean you can drive!!!”

phew!

much love

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

GB7:00 pm 06 Dec 08

Hi riotdave, good to have you back. And congrats on reading and digesting this extensive group essay in one go!

The alarming – but well-proven – thing is that regardless of the emotional atmosphere of advanced driver-training, the end result among young men is an increase in confidence that is not matched by any increase in skill; and attitudes are barely affected. This is not belief, its measured results.

Part of the reason we have so much evidence that it doesn’t work is that, because this information is so counter-intuitive, governments and well-meaning charities and schools just keep trying it. And it keeps not working.

So, they are not naysayers who say this. They are people who believed in the idea, have repeatedly tested the idea, and the evidence they got is overwhelming: it does increase confidence, it does not increase skill enough to compensate.

More accidents result.

G-Fresh6:16 pm 06 Dec 08

cbf reading 11,000 words

riotdave3:23 pm 06 Dec 08

wow i’m thrilled! just a couple of days after my OP and i return to find so many interesting and constructive comments! what a community i didn’t expect this response! 😀

i did not venture far into the immensely complex topic but a root of the problem has been identified – the mental stance of the person behind the wheel. i’m sure we are all intuitively aware of how our state of mind is one of, if not the most important aspects, yet this is one we are often not in control of when we are driving. we all have moments of absent mindedness, drowsiness, confusion, carelessness, lazyness etc – this is part and parcel of being alive and kicking and a function of being a roaduser. in re-reading my original post, i must retract the statement whereby i referred to the Deng case and the driver not knowing the difference between the accell/brake. obviously i referenced that figuratively – the poor driver in that accident clearly knew the difference – it was a brain panic/bandwidth issue indeed as clueless70 has pointed out.

it is clear that there is a strong focus towards education from our government – the television campaigns are excellent, for example, as i think the message gets lodged into peoples ‘banks and serves as a gentle reminder as to what can go wrong, but this is not sufficient. the focus is not nearly broad enough and while it is imperative that we educate the mind first and foremost, the fact still remains that we are ill-equipping new drivers with -actual- skills.

i have to disagree with the naysayers out there that say it is folly to send the reckless male youth to advanced driving schools as it just reinforces their ‘invincibility’. lets face it, if a young dumb bloke with a head full of testosterone wants to speed, he WILL speed, irrespective of whether he has attended an advanced driving class or not. between ‘idiot A’, who has completed some extra driving tuition, and ‘idiot B’ who is just ‘winging it’, it should be pretty clear which idiot is likely to survive given a nasty out-of-control situation, even if it was caused through stupidity/recklessness. it is this mentality that driving courses ‘teach young people to be hoons’ that frustrates me so much! the mood and layout of these days couldn’t be further from an ‘egging on’ – they are very serious about what they teach and make you REALLY aware of the fact that you are in a 1-2tonne metal box that can and will hurt/mame/kill if mistreated. that is the whole purpose of these courses- to raise awareness of the road and what cars can do and not to help jnr be the next schuey or senna. thats the fundamental difference between RACE training and defensive driving.

it would be interesting to survey new road users to see if they would be prepared to partake in some advanced driving tuition if it were compulsory. my bet is that the vast consensus would be a resounding ‘bring it on!’. hoon or not, young drivers DO actually want to be safe, but our system is not accomodating here.

cheers!

GB2:37 pm 03 Dec 08

harvyk1 said :

The problem is that “this problem” has so many variables, that to look at just one, like gov’t do with the P-Plate scapegoats is that they don’t look for the underlying causes.

Well, governments may do and say weird things, but people on the ground doing the research and making the recommendations are certainly not looking at just one variable. Over the last 15 years, there has been an enormous amount of research on causes of car accidents and deaths. Its not a matter of saying “its P-platers fault” — rather, figuring out what, if anything, we can do about it.

I don’t think its young men’s ‘fault’ that they are over-endowed with testosterone and a culture of recklessness; nevertheless this is a major cause of death for us. So, trying to find a way to reduce that means looking at those young men and seeing what we can change. The overwhelming evidence is that skills training has little or negative effects; better or newer vehicles has a marginal effect on accidents but a significant effect on deaths; and that most training schemes do not significantly affect attitudes.

For older drivers, I reckon Sgt Bungers is pretty much on the money: just read through the threads here about “other people’s driving” and its easy to see that it is our attitudes, individually and collectively, that need to change. Better cars, better roads, better licensing, and better testing will help; but are not the real problem.

And sadly, the death-causing attitudes are much more prevalent among young people.

GB2:25 pm 03 Dec 08

harvyk1 said :

…Therefore if the part of the population most likely to drive an older car is the under 25’s, and as the population whom drives olders car more likely to have an accident, this reports proves exactly what I have said.

Well, sort of. The part of the population likely to drive seriously older cars (like in this report) is actually 55+. This report (from 2000) was talking about 22-year-old cars — a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road. There is not a linear relationship with more recent cars — it seems to be mostly about the big changes in vehicle design standards around then.

The statistics about younger people (16-25) having more accidents per km driven still holds true around the world when corrected for age of vehicle, vehicle condition, and many other factors. And its even more extreme when you look at the youngest group, 16-19.

Also, it holds true in countries where the national car fleet is varied in age (like Australia); as well those where it is very new (eg Japan).

Simplest evidence: younger drivers of brand new cars have a significantly higher rate of accidents per km driven than older drivers of brand new cars.

harvyk11:40 pm 03 Dec 08

That is true cranky. I don’t know to many people with brand new cars who don’t have them registered.

The problem is that “this problem” has so many variables, that to look at just one, like gov’t do with the P-Plate scapegoats is that they don’t look for the underlying causes. This means that we end up with band-aid solution on top of band-aid solution.

Am I sticking up for the P-Plate drivers – Well yes and no, the reasons why they are over-represented in accident statistics may not be 100% their fault. But the law makers find it easier to say it is their fault, than actually fix the problem.

Of course there will always be the one or two whom should have tattooed across the forehead “Banned from driving for life”. But you see that in just about any age group. It’s not something unique to any one demographic.

cranky10:04 am 03 Dec 08

It has been noted recently in the Police roundups that the unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured of the world make up a disproportionately large number of accident participants.

It is not too far a stretch to apply poverty and antisocial behaviour as contributing factors in the the lack of compliance with road user requirements. Factors perhaps applying to a higher proportion of younger drivers.

These same factors mitigate against these individuals owning modern vehicles.

Ergo, older vehicles are very probably over represented in road accident statistics.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy9:07 am 03 Dec 08

A couple of things to consider:
1) Will the statistics change as P platers start getting cars equipped with ABS, better handling, etc, given that many cars 10 years old now have some some variant of these features.
2) Speed limits still seem to be seen as a guide by most Australians (except around speed cameras). Yesterday I was driving along Hindmarsh drive over the hill with a group of cars, all of whom were sitting on about 90km/h, including a marked police car. Everyone was leaving plenty of room, and cruising along sensibly. Perhaps we need more focus on stupidity?

ant9:03 am 03 Dec 08

The reason younger people have more crashes is not because they drive older cars, but because of their attitudes to driving, and other road users. Lack of experience and skill also plays a big part in this.

It doesn’t help that, when they have their first lesson with their parent, they are told “every other driver on the road is an idiot”. Great start to learning how to share the road with courtesy. No wonder so few people know how to do this.

harvyk17:56 am 03 Dec 08

Thanks GB, yes, what the report has said is exactly the point I am making, drivers of older cars are at higher odds of been involved in a car accident. This holds true no matter what the age of the person. However a young driver is more likely to drive an older car. (I don’t know to many 18 year olds who have between 20 – 40K sitting around to buy a new car with). Therefore if the part of the population most likely to drive an older car is the under 25’s, and as the population whom drives olders car more likely to have an accident, this reports proves exactly what I have said.

clueless7010:02 pm 02 Dec 08

Dave, it seems you reference the article with respect but not much accuracy. I don’t see any mention in the article that the Deng case will lead to changes in NSW driving laws, though it might affect the driving rights of people ‘who have avoided charges under the Mental Health Act.’ The competence of driving instructors is also mentioned as something the inquest will consider.

I also take issue with your comment about people ‘not knowing’ the difference between an accelerator and a brake pedal. Knowing, or not knowing how to operate a car is not the whole issue in a car accident. Rational thinking has a limited bandwidth, and stress from being tired, fearful or whatever, blocks large portions of this out. I think what happened to Deng was that she suffered cognitive overload while in control of a moving car. That is, stress made her momentarily stupid. I work with young Sudanese people who have come to Australia as refugees, and the experiences they bring to driving, schooling and holding down jobs are usually traumatic. Trauma affects the nervous system and influences judgments, expectations and self-confidence. Interesting it would be to know what other mental processes were running in Deng’s mind at the moment of the accident.

A recently published thinker, Nicholas Taleb, put the rationality bandwidth problem well, I think: he says in his slightly cranky but insightful book _The Black Swan_ that ‘we don’t have the psychic energy to be sceptical 100 percent of the time.’ You could describe the vigilant, alert and doubting mental state of the skilled defensive driver as a form of scepticism, particularly regarding the attentiveness and likely skills of drivers around him or her. Well done to anyone who can hold that state of mind for 100 percent of their time on the road. A medal if you can do it as a war refugee, or as a young adult with limited experience managing emotions or anything else besides the mechanical controls of a vehicle. I think we ought to worry not about imperfect driver training, but that we share the roads, on any given day, with some intensely unhappy and/or immature people.

Two driving incidents from the days before I was exiled from Canberra might illustrate this heavily psychological element in the causes of crashes. Both occurred when I was a senior high school student. I stood one morning waiting for the school bus, having recently lost my bike to a thief. I loved that bike and knew a lot about its functioning, but one day I left it unlocked while rushing to get to Erindale library before it closed, in a state of fear that I would not finish an assignment without access to a certain book. As I waited, a small, loud, shiny purple Ford Escort roared to a stop beside me. Its driver was G, a stand-offish footballer from my grade who I knew only slightly. To my amazement he offered me a lift to school. I got into the purple Ford Escort. A lift to school by Learjet might have been slightly quicker. G accelerated his little car with incredible viciousness, took each corner on two wheels and injured my spleen on braking at red lights. Personal honour – apart from sheer amazement – required that I said nothing while we were under way and got out, dabbing my sweaty upper lip with a shirt cuff, giving no more than a murmured acknowledgement of this personal service. At least all he could do then was scream off in a haze of tire smoke. I now see that journey as a cryptic form of come-on, or perhaps actual lovemaking by G, who was rumoured to be a jazz ballet performer as well as a footballer. What mattered to him at that time and in his stage of development as a sceptic was how impressed I would be by the power of his Ford Escort and by extension of G himself, not our own or the travelling public’s safety.

The second incident is simply that T, another classmate at that time, used to talk in half-proud, half-abject tones of how he would, very late at night, race his utility vehicle at large eucalypts that stood whitely in the glare of the headlights at the termini of long straightways on the Southern Tablelands, deliberately toying with the possibility of his disappearing in a car-sized holocaust of crushed sheet metal and exploding fuel. T was a troubled person who had lost a family member to murderous violence when he was a young child, and it was clear then, as now, that there was a link between the suicide-courting behaviour and the early experience. Difficult, reflecting on all this, to decide which is the more alarming: the prospect these stories gave of the impending violent death of a friend, or the cognitive distortions at work in the mind of someone who could discount entirely the danger his four-wheeled self-dramatisation represented to anyone on the road around him.

In my own driving experience I have had at least one minor accident where I am quite sure a depressed and exhausted mental state seriously eroded my reaction time and powers of attention. Suicidal ideation and the urge to seduce my passengers are not part of my driving style – but who knows their part in the roadcraft of other folk out there? If I was to design a driving skills training course, a lot of it would be concerned with cutting down the psychological risk factors: fatigue, overconfidence, inductive errors, powerful emotional states, and less-than-complete scepticism about the abilities and motivations of other drivers.

GB5:13 pm 02 Dec 08

mdme workalot said :

..Maybe the reason accident stats are higher when looking at those who have done driver training courses is because typically, the type of people who do those courses are risk-takers on the roads? …

Certainly a possibility, and one that has been tested many times. Eg:

“A large scale study of both the theoretical and practical driver training for novice drivers in
Norway found no significant difference between the violation/accident records of those who
were trained and a matched control group who did not complete the training (Glad, 1988).
The study also found a significant increase in skid-related accident involvement among
young males who had completed the training course relative to the control group. It was
speculated that the training increased the confidence of trainees beyond their actual level of
driving competence – a common finding of such research (Christie, 1996; Gregersen, 1996).”

And there are exceptions:

“… a night-driving training component did lead to significantly reduced post-licence
crash levels at night for novice drivers (Glad, 1988; Lynam, 1995). “

Really, the evidence does seem to be overwhelming when you churn through all the things that have been tried, measured, and found wanting.

Back on the original poster’s point about poor testing: there is considerable evidence that performance on initial theory tests is predictive of low crash rates. So, the training that goes on before these may be important; or it may that poor performance on the tests reflects an attitudinal issue that then shows up as crashes later.

Many people in the field are now looking at other ways to reduce accidents, and especially fatalities — beyond the “training and testing” idea. Things like later age of licensing, graduated licensing, extended supervised experience, and control of exposure to risk (eg lower speed limits, curfews, vehicle occupancy levels).

While these are an annoying curtailment of civil liberties for young drivers, they at least can be shown to work.

Sgt.Bungers4:38 pm 02 Dec 08

An excellent topic, though unfortunatley a complicated one. So many things are wrong with our road systems, it’s almost impossible to know where to start. Our driver training system is so out of date it is beyond absurd. Many other laws and regulations are so lax and out of date it is beyond absurd. The average Australians attitude towards driving is terrifying, and our road designs are out of date.

On average, over 4 of us die on Australian roads every day. 55 of us are seriously injured on our roads every day. Driving or doing anything near a road is by far the riskist task any of us will undertake on any given day. Yet, we take additional risks that would be considered nothing but utter stupidity if similar risks were taken in an environment outside the car and away from the road.

Many of you would know that Europeans have to pay upwards of 1500 euros, or AU$3000 to get their drivers licence. This includes classroom and track training, but would still appear to be an absurd amount of money. Considering however that they do not have to pay renewal fees every 5-10 years as we do in Australia, that high figure works out roughly what we’d pay in our lifetime for our licence. Our costs are simply tax though, and do not include advanced driver training.

Being “a good driver” is an important part of Australian culture. We all talk about driving every now and then in groups of friends, or at the office. Imagine if some moron piped up and started telling everyone about the mistake they made this morning and they nearly collected a pedestrian in a crossing, or nearly sideswiped another car, or cut off a motorcyclist. Those are all brave things to admit right there, yet most of us would ridicule them, if not out loud, then quietly to ourselves, or behind their back, “Wow, they shouldn’t be on the road”. Of course, whilst conveniently forgetting that we’ve all probably done the same thing at one point or another, and brainwashed ourselves into thinking “it was the pedestrians fault, they should’ve made sure I was stopping before entering the crossing,” or “it was the other drivers fault, they were in my blind spot” or “it was the motorcyclists fault, they’re so hard to see tehy shouldn’t be on the road”, rather than being brave and admitted it was almost entirely your fault.

The VAST majority of people will tell you they’re good drivers, and their driving style is the best. Clearly, many of us have got it wrong or Austrlaians wouldn’t have any accidents or close calls.

Attitudes have to change. Consider, getting stuck behind a truck or horse float averaging 70km/h on the Kings highway down the coast. You’re stuck behind them for 20 minutes. The average person by this stage would most likely be tailgating, and looking for a place to pass, seriously considering places where there looks like there’s enough room to get around this “idiot”. Everyone in the queue behind is probably doing the same thing. Tempers are boiling, frustration is hitting an all time high, all passengers in the car are nervous. The driver in each car is nervous as he/she feels as though they’re under peer pressure to display mad driving skillz and get around the rolling road block.

After 20 minutes being stuck behind someone averaging 70km/h in a 100km/h zone, a mere 6 minutes has been added onto your trip. After an hour, an extra 18 minutes. After two hours at 70km/h, you’ve already made it to Batemans Bay. Why would anybody in their right mind consider endangering their lives, their familys livies, the lives of the people in front, and the lives of anyone coming the other way, so as to save a relatively miniscule few minutes on a 1.5 – 2 hour trip?

Consider, you’re in your 4th story office wanting to leave for the weekend, you’ve got a big coast trip planned. You’re waiting for a file to be put on your desk for you to sign, you cant leave for the coast until you sign it. It arrives 10 minutes after you want to leave. As you sign it, you notice some removalists on the footpath shifting a large matress. Split second decision… do you take the stairs to get out of the office, or, to save 2 minutes, do you jump out the 4th story window hoping to time it just right so you land perfectly on the matress?

In both situations, if the slightest thing goes wrong, you’re most likely going to end up dead. Yet, who amoung us can honestly say they haven’t taken that utterly stupid and unacceptable risk on the road so as to save a minute or two? Looking back on my driving history, I know I can’t. Considering the pressure we’ve put ourselves under to get past that slow driver, it’s little wonder most people would be prepared to take a slight risk instead of waiting until there’s absolutely no perceivable risk.

One of the biggest problems with all of our driving is that we receive little to no negative feedback on the road. Hence, why we have cocky attitudes. The negative feedback we do receive, typically in the form of a horn, flashing beams, fingers, etc, will typically wash off each of us as the other person being an idiot, or simply “whoops”. We rarely receive negative feedback from passengers. Those passengers who do tell off the driver are considered “unreasonable” or even “rude”, again the negative feedback typically washes off the driver. Put a video camera in every car with an independent analyst giving constant professional, positive and negative feedback, I wonder how much the way we drive would change.

I’ll stop there given my opinion on what’s wrong with our road system could fill a book. But yes, I do agree that novice drivers should be taught how to get out of sticky situations, however I also feel that every time they get into a sticky situation, it’s a combination of:
*obviously their fault for clearly driving in an inappropriate manner in the first place.
*also the fault of the driver education system for not successfully getting across to that novice driver that inappropriate driving is not worth it.
*the fault of whoever brought up the novice driver, as after 17-18 years of being in cars driven by that person, the novice driver probably picked up one or two bad habits from them.
*the fault of the Australian public for treating all novice drivers as reckless idiots. Treat someone like an idiot and that’s how they’ll behave.
*the fault of the government for building a road that appeared safe to drive in a manner that was in fact inappropriate. (Think residential roads with wide, straight, flat lanes, encouraging high speed.)
*The fault of the government for the bottom line in road safety being a dollar figure instead of lives saved.

My 2 cents worth. Flame suit on. Bring it on 🙂

GB12:15 pm 02 Dec 08

I agree that we need to increase the level of education and testing for young drivers; but all the evidence I have read is that advanced skidpan training does not decrease accident rates, and often increases it.

This seems counter-intuitive, but for example:

“Naïve application of apparently straightforward logic would suggest that more skill will allow greater safety. After all, being able to avoid a crash in a ‘tight situation’ (a potential crash situation) may depend on emergency braking or fast, accurate steering around an obstacle, however, the data clearly disconfirms this view by indicating that driver training generally produces no safety benefit, or results in a significant disbenefit, as the following indicates. Evidence shows that in the USA the highest skilled drivers (registered race and rally car drivers) have a much higher crash rate than the average driver (Naatanen and Summala, 1976). Careful analysis of apparently successful skills training programs in reducing the road toll indicates that these programs often work when used as a prerequisite for a licence. Their effectiveness lies in deterring people from getting a licence not in increasing skill and safety (Job, R.F.S. (1999), The Road User: The Psychology of Road safety, Safe and Mobile: Introductory Studies in Traffic Safety, Emu Press, Armidale, p.22). “

You may feel that you are safer because you have that training; and it may be true for you as an individual, but it is statistically unlikely.

There’s a good review of the literature here — there may be more recent ones.

mrnamjama said :

– people thinking that their nice ‘safe’ driving and zero knowledge about how to handle an emergency situation makes them into a ‘good driver’ are completely deluded.

It doesn’t make them a ‘good driver’ in the ‘will go fast and win races’ sense; but on average, it does mean they will have less accidents. This is the kind of ‘good driver’ I want on the road with me. And better still, ones who are focussed and concentrating on safety, not texting or chatting on the phone.

Driver training and testing based on evidence would:

* discourage drivers who are too young and inexperienced;
* include basic vehicle control issues
* emphasise defensive driving skills and attitudes
* develop attitudes of concentration, observation, moderate speed, adjusting to conditions, and not relying on everyone else’s behaviour.
* include rehearsal of basic emergency actions – ie slow down!
* not induce a false belief that “I’ll be ok if there’s trouble, because I’m a great driver/have done skidpan stuff”

As the original poster says, there is nowhere near enough vigilance about the basics before getting a license.

But then the next phase should be vigilance on new drivers, including speed restrictions on young drivers. And driving bans and education programs for drivers who have certain kinds of accidents where they are at fault.

darkmilk10:23 am 02 Dec 08

Congratulations riotdave on completing step 1 of learning to drive, well done, you have done the right thing and have set a good example and put your money where your mouth is so to speak. As implied, I believe you still have 2 more steps though, each more important and difficult than car control (important as it does give you a head start).

Yes, I couldn’t agree more, driver training should definately be more like what you have done. (I also have done advanced/defensive driving courses and they make a huge difference.)

So, on to those further steps:
2) learn how other drivers behave, learn to predict possible things which can go wrong, and how road conditions can change. i.e., experience. Defensive driving gets you started on this step but there’s much more to it.

Controlling the car well does make a difference to this aspect of driving because if controlling the car is natural, and you have practiced extreme situations it leaves your mind free to concentrate on the dangers and avoiding them. Someone who has trouble just moving the car and keeping it in the lane (in my experience stronly correlated with people who can’t park) will be so busy concentrating on that aspect of driving they will not notice the L-plater on the side road about to accidentally drop the clutch, the loose load on the truck ahead, or the car 100m to the left speeding toward the red light. We all know drivers like this, and unfortunately many elderly people who used to be good drivers get to this point too.

3) Concentrate. By far the hardest step. This means always, *absolutely always*, not even most of the time but slipping up occasionally. Look after yourself (taking naps if you’re tired etc), no mobile phone, no fiddling with the radio/computer, no arguments with spouses, stop to check the kids in the back seat and a list of a billion other things that our brains will unfortunately naturally tend to see as more important than the scenery whizzing past if we let them. Again someone who can control the car naturally has a head start here, but only a small one.

Holden Caulfield9:37 am 02 Dec 08

Good on you for putting yourself through all these courses, however, you don’t have to have the skills of Neil Bates, et al to be a good driver on the road.

This post sounds as if you are just blowing your own trumpet about how great you think your driving skills are.

Maybe, maybe not. But many of the OP’s points remain valid.

I’ve done a few track days and skid pan days myself. While some of the days I have been to have been about improving times on the track, a few of the days I’ve been to (mainly skid pan days) have been as much about driver education as they have been about having a good time.

People keep going on about experience. And that’s fair enough, there’s generally no substitute for experience. Surely, then, taking oneself to a controlled area, off the public road and with trained supervision to experience what happens to your car when you lose control is to be applauded, if not thoroughly recommended.

To the people that scorn track days and advanced driver training I ask that you take the time to look further into such activities. Yes, you can probably find a few organisers that are happy to let a few roos loose in the top paddock, but the events I have been to (Eastern Creek, Wakefield Park and Sutton) have been run by reputable companies with a very strong message that hoons and clowning around will not be tolerated. Sure, they want you to have fun, but if you arse about you’ll be sent home without hesitation.

I have no doubt the experience I have gained from such events has made me better equppied to deal with nasty situations on public roads should I ever be faced with them. Note, it has not necessarliy made me a “better driver” as you can’t really use that term without someone else shooting you down. But my experiences have given me a better understanding of what can go wrong, why it went wrong and how to try save it (if you can) after it has gone wrong.

The OP may be clown who thinks he’s the next Lewis Hamilton, I don’t know, but I do know he should be given a pat on the back for having a go at testing himself in tricky situations in a controlled and supervised situation.

People also need to get over the fact that a racing driver can also be a driving instructor for public roads. Believe it or not these guys are human beings just like you and care capable of telling the difference between public roads and closed race circuits.

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Commercial Real Estate Agents

Raine & Horne Commercial

Your business and property is important to us.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Community Clubs

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Insurance Brokers

allinsure

Allinsure has been a trusted insurance advisory to thousands of Australian business owners for almost 20 years.

Find out more

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Professional Services

RSM

We share skills, insight and resources, as well as a client-centric approach that's based on a deep understanding of your business.

Find out more

Developments

Ginninderry

A sustainable community of international significance in the Capital Region.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more