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