Recent changes to the learner driver requirements require a learner to obtain 100 hours driving experience before they can sit for their licence test. Furthermore, a very stringent logbook is to be kept as proof of such hours. One reprieve is that 10 hours of the hundred can be supervised by a qualified instructor that in turn equates to thirty hours credits but this still leaves 70 hours of driving time.

Now this may seem all good on the outside because we really do have to do something to prevent the carnage on our roads, but what about the consequences as we move forward.

Many young people today don’t have open and free access to either a car, or a competent person to monitor them during their training, so what hope is there for them in obtaining a licence.

Now many of our young ones are also our future tradies, so who is going to employ an 18 year old if they can’t get to a job site. Will this encourage illegal drivers simply because they wish to get to and from work.

Once again I think the regulators have failed to think it through before going about what may seem a harmless imposition which leads me to ask, Is there an underlying motive?

Any thoughts or suggestions

They should go further and make ALL learners do an advanced defensive driving course for 10 days.

You betcha, butcha.

If you can't see an intended jobs-for-the-boys-and-girls racket in process of construction here you are blind.

The next step, if it has not already been taken in secret behind the public's back, will be to very carefully structure the pathway by which a person may become qualified to practice as a driving instructor. You can bet that the bulk of such licences to instruct will go to the little-tin-Godwin types who will soon have to commence being shed from the official public payroll as tightened economic circumstances demand that only those who actually perform services that are useful, or are extra good at licking boots, be retained.

This scheme is doubtless being brought to us by the same protected species mindset as closed-off parts of the existing public road network in order to force traffic down so-called 'public-private partnership' toll roads.

The "ten hours under a 'qualified instructor' is worth 30 under other (presumably parental) instruction" formula should tell you all you need to know.

The formalisation of the requirement that a lot of carefully logged time must be spent by any 'non-qualified' instructor is meant to drive learners into the 'qualified' instruction regime, a regime for which the learner must pay but under which they will spend perhaps only one third of the time otherwise required behind the wheel.

It is time behind the wheel, under guidance, that is the most valuable part of the learning-to-drive experience. Whilst it may well be that some qualified instruction regimes will produce better drivers for any given amount of time spent under instruction, this seeming willingness to imply that 'qualified instruction' needs only one third the time shows the whole scheme up for what it really is.

Most of the real problems with newly-licensed drivers derive from attitude problems with respect to compliance with road rules and courtesy to other road users. If the wrong attitudes are already in place, thirty-odd hours with a 'qualified instructor' wont displace them.

Axe this plan.

Can I just say, as a young voice of the forum...

I have friends that are going for their P's and they just write out a fake log book. To them, its easier to fake the log book then actually do it.

I dont think I could name one of my friends who have their P's and had 80+ hours on the road before going for their license.

I reckon on average they've had 20-30 hours.

I compltely agree with what's been stated in this forum, I do think they need to make it compulsary to do a 10 hour driving course, but you could not expect us to pay for it... it would have to come from tax payers dollars. Im sorry, I can't even afford a car or a driving lesson. For someone who studies full time, thats impossible.

Ten, or even 100 hours, driving carefully, with a professional instructor will never get a young learner ready for the public road.
They only learn to drive safely, when they have many hours of ordinary road driving, in a relaxed maner. That is when they start to get it right.

My kids had hundreds of hours driving tractors, & farm utes, long before they could get a learners permit. My son had spent many hours in a paddock basher, thrashing around a track, in the bottom paddock, & could do that better than most driving instructors.

They then had a few lessons with an professional instructor, & were pronounced ready to get their licence, but they most definately weren't. They had no anticipation, & were never going to develop it with an instructor. They were trying too hard with them, not driving as they would when alone.

I had each of them act as my driver, when ever possible, for a number of months. This was not as instruction, just going somewhere. We would chat, as they would with friends. Occasionally I would make remarks, like, I wonder if rhat bloke in that driveway will look, before he comes out? Or, do you think that kid on the bike knows we are comming?

After a while it was obvious they had picked up, on looking much further ahead, & thinking about possible hazards. Once this became an unconscious habit, they were ready for the road.

With most kids, it's the danger, that they don't even perceive, that gets them

They should go further and make ALL learners do an advanced defensive driving course for 10 days.

Yes, very good suggestion but this should reduce the time they need to log. Furthermore, who pays for the course? We have to be careful not to discriminate between the haves and have nots again!

The formalisation of the requirement that a lot of carefully logged time must be spent by any 'non-qualified' instructor is meant to drive learners into the 'qualified' instruction regime, a regime for which the learner must pay but under which they will spend perhaps only one third of the time otherwise required behind the wheel.

Well no exactly, the 10 hours is the maximum one can do for triple credits. This still leaves 70 hours and 10 of these must be at night.

Can I just say, as a young voice of the forum...

All log books get read by a computer and it picks out anomalies so many of these fudges fail.

The whole point is that it is just to hard for young drivers to gain a licence. I have three young people work for me and none of them have a licence. I have told them all that this is an inconvenience to me and may well jeopardise their jobs at some stage as it limits their viability to me as their employer.

Thankfully they live close to one of my shops, however, it makes it hard for me to send them to the other shop if needed

Three days at a Tafe to do advanced defensive driving. Make it so they have to do it in order to get their 'opens'. How long do they have from their first application to receiving their opens?. Years, I believe. Save ten bucks a week to do it (or whatever).

Everything costs, we all deal with it.

rehctub,
What state are you in? We're in NSW and the requirement here is 120 hours of supervised driving, a minimum of 20 hours being night driving. I've heard of this extra credit for driving school lessons but I don't think this applies in NSW.

My 16 year old is learning at the moment and has completed between 85-90 hours and still has about 5 months to go before he is eligible to sit his Ps. I think the new system is great because I can see what a better driver he is at this stage than the stage my older children were at when they got their Ps under the old 50 hour system. He's driving busy peak-hour highway traffic, negotiating the Harbour Bridge and freeway and country driving...stuff my older kids did not necessarily do before getting Ps (although they did advanced / defensive training free through our insurer after they got their licences)

So I think the motive is as simple as wanting safer drivers on the roads and reducing the carnage in the under 25 age group. However, I do realise that many families may not be in the situation we are to be able to provide so much supervised driving... what with work, petrol and running costs, etc.

I suppose its all very well to say "axe this plan", but what do you put in its place?

One suggestion could be to restore the acceptability of a non-specified period of instruction, the requirement being to simply pass the driving test as was previously the case, but to introduce an additional classification of P plate (let's say a yellow P) for those who have chosen this path to becoming a licensed driver.

The 'yellow P' licences could have 'specified routes only' conditions attached to them. The idea being that a proportion of potential traffic hazards, both for the inexperienced driver and the rest of the driving public, are reduced or eliminated if route rehearsal is required. A reduced number of logged hours under instruction could be accepted provided the applicant for a 'yellow P' license passed the practical driving test, preferably on the rehearsed route, if that is practicable.

The problem of young new applicants without quite so ready access to a vehicle and the present extensive instructional supervision time getting to and from work could be overcome without endangering other road users as much as might be done by giving them a license to drive just anywhere.

Removal of any differential value placed upon time under a 'qualified instructor', as opposed to a 'non-qualified' instructor, would eliminate any suggestion of the scheme's real purpose being anything other than aimed at better road safety in general.

Of course any P plate license is only as good as the policing that can be applied. I should imagine that with the ability of police to check registration details 'on the fly' that it should be possible to get an indication as to whether a 'yellow P' licensed driver might be expected to be associated with a particular vehicle. Indeed, it could well be part of the requirement for such license that only nominated vehicles could be driven.

Under such circumstances, failure to display the plates correctly, or any other breach of the conditions of the license, would be much more liable to detection. As it should be.

Could it be that its all part of a quiet plan to stop the number of cars on our roads from increasing. One day its going to be grid lock one traffic light to the next if the number of cars is not reduced.

That's alright with me Gibo. I would like to see less P platers on the road. Young people these days earn higher wages, can afford cars that we couldn't afford and can afford the petrol we couldn't afford.
When I was 17, driving meant getting permission to use the family car, and saving your pocket money to pay for the petrol. Otherwise driving was done on trips with my parents to give them a break from driving. I would have driven less than 1000 km in my first year as a P Plater. These days the roads are full of P Platers.

Steel Mann.
In my day I was just asked a few questions by a friendly police sergeant then went for a drive with him, did a three point u turn, and got my licence. It was all chummy chit-chat. Speed wasnt a real problem then for most of us. We never knew drugs... not like in 2008.

Id like to see a concrete wall dividing cars from pushies, motorcyles and scooters on all main roads in the city. You can see why the world is dying just by looking at the vast sea of cars and trucks on our roads and how the governments manage the situation.
They dont manage because they wont touch the ordinary mans right to drive a car....so bit by bit the world dies from the pollution. Its the car thats going to kill the world.

I agree with your comments Gibo, as long as the bikes are seperated from pedestrians.

Speeding in my day Gibo meant your car could reach the speed limit on the open road. When I was a P Plater my 25 year old bomb overheated if you drove at 60 mph (100 kmh today) for more than about 5 minutes.

I'm not a parent, and although I would like to see the driving age raised, I think that it would be cruel for a parent to forbid their child to obtain a driver's licence when thay are legally allowed to do so.

Things are indeed very different these days with the motors some kids put in their cars.

Honestly Im terrified of driving, hence why I don't have my license.

5 very close friends of mine have died in car accidents
1 cousin

4 seperate accidents.

im 20. And most young adults I know have had the same experiences.

Not surprisingly, 3 of these accidents were at night, in qiuet suburban back streets, near round a bouts.

Notice how fatal accidents always happen to P platers who have a car full of friends with them? They want to show-off their driving abilities. I think the new Green/Red plate policies are great!

Except for the fact that I'll have to be on my red plates while my friends are already on their greens haha!

I live in QLD and also have a 16 year old on a learners permit. My wife and I share the supervision duties but what about the one who don't have access to a car or caring parents. Don't they deserve the right to better them selves?

I think the idea of a restricted licence would be a good starting point. Much like a 'work licence', but we still have the situation whereby fewer of them will get a licence which means they wont be able to get to work which means we stil have the skill shortage to think about.

When I got my licence back in the 70's my father impossed hiw own restrictions. I was only allowed to go to and from work for the first 6 months and no night driving during that time.

I think there is an answer here. We need to focuss on the fact that a car is a means of transport, not an entertainment tool to impress ones freinds.

A slightly different type of restriction on "learner drivers" of another type.

OBSTRUCTION:

Yesterday, Mon the 27th 2008, < .. >, I headed off to the garden and the registry of the WA supreme court.

I have done much reading,
(Acts, rules, orders, admin matters, judgments)
and have an affidavit almost completed, replete with lots of appropriate, admissable attachments.

Some of that which I have read has come from the WASC web site"

" .. The Central Office can:
Give U information about practice and procedure in the general division ..
Give u information on what forms u may need to file ..
Check yr forms once u have filled them out ..
Make sure u have attached all that is required ..
Give u information on how to apply for a fee waiver ..
etc .. "

Contained therein was also info on what the central office cannot do. This also is good.

HOWEVER, upon arriving at the office, I was politely told to sod off and pay for a lawyer, without so much as a by yr leave and that was my lot.

Clearly, the purported public face and the reality of the manner of practice are out of sync. It would appear that when it comes to the practical manifestation of the concept of "equality before the law" that "we" have very different views.

Tis not in my view conducive to good governance and the advancement of the consciousness of the nation. I would b surprised to know that many "learned" people have not already written about the practical, systemic and overtly artificial restrictions placed on access to the courts. Seriously, we are not dealing with Rocket Science when it comes to these so called common law systems or a problem of the public being lacking in "grey mattter." That is not the problem at all in my view.

The public face and good intent to provide access to self representing litigants is not reflected by registry practice in my experience.