Skip navigation

carsguide.com.au

Keep our kids alive!

  • By Neil Dowling
  • The Sunday Times
image Australia has lousy driver training for our youth.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Everytime I land back in Australia after slumming it around Europe or the US or Japan, there's either the remains of a car crash on the edge of the road from the airport or there's some retarded youth in a white Commodore - and isn't that a clue? - either running a red light or coming sideways around a corner.

The state governments have done all they can to milk as much money as possible from these people and have made noises about going even further.

But in their inactivity to make the roads a more professional route, has the greed of state governments opened up potential for blame.

For example, the state government takes money from my daughter when she gets her car licence on the pretence that it believes her to be properly trained to use a motor vehicle.

In fact, the government confirms she is proficient because it takes money from her in return for a piece of paper.

So is the government liable for any damage incurred by my daughter as the result of not properly being able to drive a car?

After all, if you bought a product that was found to be defective and it caused you harm, you are liable to sue the company that provided the product.

If someone performs a service and clearly stuffs it up, you are able to sue to soothe the pain.

Every week there's a giant legal case over a doctor and a patient and generally the latter walks away with a generous, compensating wad of money.

Should every driver involved in an accident sue the relevant state government for insufficient training?

The point is that Australia has lousy driver training for our youth.

That's because driver training is dangerous. It makes everyone drive twice as fast because, the WA State Government Police minister of six years ago indicated, they believe themselves to be bulletproof. Hence, more deaths.

It is also costly and the government isn't here to spend its - er, your - money. This is despite the fact that it is the motorist who will cough up the money for the course, not the government.

Worse, voters may object to a comprehensive driver training scheme and vote in another party.

Germany, Poland, England and even Sweden tend to be a lot harsher on prospective car drivers than the lacks-a-daisy approach of Australia. Most have training to replace a spare tyre.

Most Australians don't even know the etiquette of staying out of the outside freeway lane unless overtaking.

In Perth, this outside lane is more populated than the other two lanes and no-one's overtaking. I caught my daughter in this lane once and after some intelligent conversation - “did not”, “did so”, did not” ... - discovered she hadn't be taught to attempt to leave the outside lane free for other road users.

She also doesn't know a three-point turn, a parallel park or a bonnet release.

State governments don't spend money on training people like my daughter.

They spend money on things like speed cameras and place them in high-density spots around cities, while country roads report higher road deaths.

They are quick to take money from motorists - driver's licence, registration, vehicle purchase stamp duty, duty on insurance, sales tax, GST, fuel excise, luxury car tax and so on - but deny any responsibilities.

There are virtually no penalties - of any worth - to retrain people who have had an accident.

There is no method whereby it looks at an accident, sees the turkey behind the wheel is a klutz or doesn't wear spectacles despite being certifiably blind, and then remedies the situation by sending the said klutz off to retraining school.

Just think what would happen. Firstly, the section of government that looks after road issues would be twice the size.

Second, having the threat of going back to driving school for a week or two may pull some drivers' heads in. Certainly it does a lot more than the WA “hoon laws” that take the retard's car off him - or her - for 24 hours. Gee, that'll hurt!

Third, it should greatly improve the ability of drivers to control their cars.

And that should keep a few more of our children alive.

Comments on this story

Displaying 3 of 16 comments

  • I`m snarled there`s a lot of articles on casino gambling. There are various methods, tactics, strategies, algorithms of counting, calculations and so on.
    But these objects are without equal mass of ads and i don`t homelessness to analyze them `convince on i don`t circumstance any ransack cheer for knowledge. It`s fruitless. delight i fantasy compel be wrong.
    Is there anyone here who is interested in such topic?
    I`d be cognizant someone`s explaining to me is there any systems or strategies, what are they (what approaches or concepts lay in underpinning) and in which casinos could they be applied to?
    Thanx a lot.

    baron of U.S.A. Posted on 13 January 2009 3:25am
  • The majority of accidents and deaths on the roads involve people over 25. It’s simple maths, there are far more of them. Why isn’t there a licence renewal program where every 2 or 3 years everybody has to sit an exam? Would this system save lives? Guaranteed! Would any politician in Australia advocate such a program? Not a chance! Putting lives before votes is a no brainer!

    Ray of Bayside Posted on 10 August 2008 9:19pm
  • It’s amazing some who wrote on this discussion forum just don’t get it that speed does kill. The usual rubbish they talk about “revenue raising”. Well guys, if you don’t want to contribute to the government’s revenue raising then it’s pretty simple, don’t speed! Spare a thought for those police officers, emergency crew and families of those who are killed on the road. Have you ever seen a bad accident? I bet most of you haven’t. I have personal experience losing a very close friend in a car accident. That trauma has always been with me ever since.

    John of Highbury Posted on 09 August 2008 6:40pm
  • If speed does not kill, please explain why no one died when vehicles could only travel at 20 km/h. The fact is that all ages die in car incidents, there is no such thing as an accident as it is nearly always the drivers fault. Speed increase the chance of death when some thing goes wrong, so yes speed in it’s self does not kill but it sure as hell does the faster you go. I do not expect any of you to understand when none of you have any education in this field. In fact the current figures suggest the higher rate a fatal incidents are occurring in the 45-55 age range, go figure. The driver controls the speed of a vehicle and if get a ticket who is at fault, I am sure the government enjoys your donation. Do not speed, no revenue, very simple. People will not drive safely while the only thing they care about is them selves. A point which is not lost on a few here.

    R u kidding Again Posted on 08 August 2008 9:12pm
  • It’s the old everyone is to blame but me scene again.
    I got a special licence at 15. Allowed to drive between 6am and 6 pm within 25 miles (it was a long time ago) of the issuing office. At 17 I drove E class trucks and averaged 150,000 miles a year for about 5 years.  I also drove some very expensive powerful cars from Sydney to Brisbane as part of my job. Nearly 50 years later I still drive some very quick cars and some very quick bikes.  I participate in club level motorsport, have raced at most circuits including Bathurst on the east coast of Oz. I have been a driving instructor for cars, trucks (all sizes) and motorbikes, I have taught advanced driving and anti-terrorist techniques. I say all this because I wanted to establish some creditability.
    Speeding is when you are going too fast for the current conditions.  That means your car, its brakes, tyres, condition and road surface and weather conditions and time of day or night.  It doesn’t matter if the posted speed limit is 100kph,  It can be dangerous at 60 if conditions are not OK
    The turbo rule is a start, but power-to-weight is a far better guide.  Braking performance is another area that needs a standard.  Every car I have raced needed bigger and better brakes, better suspension, and better tyres.
    Advanced or defensive driving training while they help some drivers are not the answer for all.  I would like to see young people competing in motor sport today, but the costs are prohibitive,  To race today you are drowning in regulations and paperwork. This is where you get your experience. There is not one simple answer to such a complex set of circumstances.  Just remember that a lot of our expert race drivers have been killed in cars. Even the great Peter Brock!

    Peter of Brisbane Posted on 08 August 2008 6:38pm
  • are you kidding again, there’s no need to feel sorry for me, especially when you can’t spell properly.
    Try and understand that we’re here to talk about how to try and get people to drive more safely, not get people angrier at stupid law enforcement officers.
    If you’re going to quote figures, at least realise that these are non-Germans driving on German roads who are mostly dying. That should make even someone like yourself wake up and realise that speed does not kill. It’s people who think “ooooh unlimited speed, cool!” Of course they have speed limits there, but the whole point is that you can go fast and go safely in certain areas and environments.

    still not kidding Posted on 08 August 2008 4:08pm
  • As a 13 year old car fanatic, I find the new car restriction laws pointless and wasteful. The Government is simply too lazy to find a good solution to keep people safer on roads. One of the biggest problems is a lack of general knowledge and intelligence. A test could be held for the L-Plate drivers; for instance an I.Q test. Obviously the higher you get results in you being able to drive more powerful cars at an earlier age. Sometimes people these days make stupid mistakes which usually end up costing an innocent person’s life. This must be dealt with immediately.

    The generalization about Commodore’s is in my opinion, fairly correct. When the ‘hoons’ usually pick a car, they look for sedan/coupe in rear wheel drive; usually something a 6 cylinder older Commodore or equivalent Ford. Notice both these cars are Australian built. Read the new car restriction laws more closely, you’ll find a few cars which do not apply to the usual slogan of the Government; “Speed Kills”. A few new cars which are being built; the Holden Commodore SV6, and Ford Falcon XR6 have a high power rating and they are rear wheel drive. There are also a few others that fit in this ‘loophole’, for example the Lotus Exige. After studying these laws, I find that the car restriction law is simply there to help Aussie manufacturers, since they are the only not applicable to these certain cars. An old HSV Commodore with a V8 produced less power than a newer base model “Omega” Commodore. Also, safety ratings should come into play. All 5-Star models should be made legal as long as it dosen’t produce “x” figure.

    I’ve been waiting to get hold of my driving licence since I found out about it at an early age. Our family will probably get a new car soon, since I know my cars well I have chosen a Subaru Liberty (4GEN) as first choice. It has a 5 Star Safety rating, tested by numerous countries. It is 4WD standard, which I think is the ‘safest’ drive type for a new driver. The top model’s produce about the same powers as a legal VE Commodore, yet this is turbocharged. So this family friendly, safe and quiet sedan is illegal to drive for a new driver. Only a few lower models of the Liberty can be legal for a new driver. Another example I have is the VW Golf GTI MkV. It too has a 5-star safety rating, equipped with a 2.0l Turbocharged engine producing about 200hp or thereabouts. This car has won countless awards for it’s overall status. Yet this hatchback is made illegal. The Government should rethink it’s laws and make them simply E.g. Nothing over 200kW.

    I understand the new laws, I agree with the result the new laws are supposed to have. The problem is, the Government is simply attempting to make revenue out of an issue which the public is interested in.

    Leon of Melbourne Posted on 07 August 2008 6:16pm
  • Indeed, the Government really couldn’t care less how many young people die on our roads. Afterall, if it costs even a cent to improve our roads and the people who drive on them it’s a no-no - why not just slap a few knee-jerk ineffective limitations on what cars probationary drivers can drive, based upon the obviously naive presumption that speed kills. Idiots. Compulsory practical driver education involving skid-pans and quick-decision making courses involving advanced car control would slash the road toll by atleast 50%, but with their track record it’s quite obvious the people in power aren’t too intelligent when it comes to automobile control and safety. It’s sad too, that as a 16 year old I have to point out the already-obvious for the government in light of my entrance into the world of public driving. Private advanced car driving courses are going to be my only solution to learn the true physics behind driving a car, not through getting a measly 70% or so on ridiculously simple Learner Driver’s tests whilst being limited to old, decrepit junkers with no concept of a 5-star safety rating.

    And to the Police Officer above: No, speed is not the all-encapsulating reason for road fatalities. In fact, I would put my money on saying that speed cameras, the one thing the Government has actually spent some money on (but wait, there is a catch; they simply generate revenue) cause more deaths than speeding - a lot of time seems to be spent these days focusing madly on our speedometre needles and not on the road itself. Pity that. Speed does NOT kill. It is caused by a lack of driver awareness, a lack of understanding our abilities in controlling our cars at higher-than-currently average speeds. Too bad then that there is no common, compulsory governmental driver training program to facilitate this.

    Luke of Melbourne Posted on 07 August 2008 5:39pm
  • i agree mostly. driver training in australia is very very slack. i am 21 and have been driving since i was 17. in my driving test i did a hill start, a reverse park and a 3 point turn. there was no training on how to change a tyre, nothing on how to control a car should i lose control in an emergency… nothing but useless information on how to use the handbrake to do a hill start. not long after getting my licence i did a defensive driver course, which was very helpful. i think everyone should do that before they get their licence. it’d be a lot more helpful towards reducing the road toll then putting tonnes of restrictions on new drivers. as it doesnt matter what kind of car someone is driving, they can easily speed or behave stupid if they want.

    but as for speed limits on australian roads, they are there for a reason, as they are a speed set for us to safely travel along any given road. while i dont believe you should be fined for doing 2kmh over a limit because you should be watching the environment around you more then the speedo, i think it should be everyone’s responsibility to try stick to the speed limit as much as possible. as i drive to and from work i see countless people (trucks included) doing 100kmh+ through an 80kmh road work zone on the Gateway motorway in brisbane, and its not very safe as the lanes are narrow and they tend to drive into the next lane on the bends. speed limits are there for a reason and australian’s need to be smart enough to adhere to them.

    Phillip Felton of Brisbane Posted on 07 August 2008 12:15pm
  • Well Mr we’re not kidding, you got me, you know so much, funny how there are experts who have no idea, I am so sorry for you. Other point, police do not care for one moment about revenue as we get paid in any event. If you get caught speeding who fault is that. Speed does kill, no excuses, no passing the buck, it just does. Except it and obey the limits set. German speeds are only on certain parts of their highway and when there is a crash on their high speed zone up to 200 hundred vehicles have been involved. Around 6000 people die annually on German Roads and the most deaths are at speeds over 120km/h.

    R u kidding Again Posted on 06 August 2008 11:32pm
  • I tend to agree with 4 of the last 5 comments on this thread, leaving the comment by the   “R u kidding” police officer, unfortunately, out of the loop.  Whilst someone who has an accident when the vehicle is travelling at speed is probably more likely to have serious or fatal injuries, this does not prove that speed kills.  Most commonly, the cause of a car accident is driver error, not speed.  I have knowledge of people being killed in cars involved in low speed accidents also.  Many factors come in to determining whether a person will receive fatal injuries in an accident or not, such as the strength of the vehicle, from what angle it was hit, whether seat-belts were or weren’t worn, and being influenced by alcohol, drugs (legal and illegal), and tiredness, etc.  These determining factors are more responsible for serious injuries than speed alone.  I, too, have personally witnessed drivers slow down before a speed camera then speed up again.  They are usually also positioned on roads that are entirely safe to drive on (if you are not a klutz as Neil Dowling put it, which makes it painfully obvious to me that they are mere revenue-raisers.  To put it simply, if you have been trained correctly to drive (and you are not a complete moron!) then you have a very good chance of driving your whole life without gaining so much as a scratch on your car (speed or no speed).  Then of course, there are always “accidents”, pure and simple!

    Jules of Hatton Vale Posted on 06 August 2008 9:48pm
  • The only thing that stops people from being idiots is respecting the car they are driving, what it can and can’t do. In Germany, it takes a long time and a lot of work to get your license because it’s a dangerous thing! They drive like clockwork over there at speeds none of us have ever thought of going. Yet they drive carefully in built up areas.

    Mr Police “are you kidding” Officer you are so naive suggesting “imagine hat [sic] would happen if speed was not enforced” - great, so I got booked going 2km over the speed limit in a school zone BECAUSE I was looking around my environment and didn’t have my eyes glued to the speedo. That sure saved a kid’s life. This ‘speed enfarcement’ is the reason people disrespect the law - speed doesn’t kill, stupid and irresponsible driving does. Yet speed enfarcement simply makes people want to speed where there are no cameras.

    I imagine if speed was not enforced in the revenue-raising way it is done today, a lot more people would slow down and respect the law.

    What do you think when you see people brake hard for a speed camera and then speed up after it? Nothing like a good dose of speed enforcement to make our roads safer!

    we're not kidding Posted on 05 August 2008 10:17pm
  • As a Police officer none you have any idea. Lachlan of NSW driving fast does kill people. Roads are not race tracks and in the event of something going wrong or the unexpected the likely hood of death is much higher. I do agree that driver attitude is the greatest issue but this can not be easily controlled. The laws keep most things in balance, imagine hat would happen if speed was not enforced. Driver training is a waste of time if the driver is not receptive to the training.

    R u kidding Posted on 02 August 2008 10:37pm
  • Firstly, restraining a drivers ability to drive a “fast” car does not save any lives at all in any way. It just means they’ll spend a slightly longer time reaching a high speed, or they’ll just keep the foot down more often. The car is not the issue, neither is “speed” or alcohol. What about the thing that causes the car to go fast? What about the thing that causes alcohol to be an issue? The driver. Now, being relatively sane, one would assume to fix the driver, not fix what the driver drives in, as that doesn’t cause the accident. In fact, if left alone, a car will do absolutely nothing. Wow. It seems that the government diagnoses a problem, whether it exists or not, then applies the wrong remedy and blames the wrong people or things if it goes wrong. if it’s not speed, it’s alcohol, if that fails, they’ll bring out the drug bus. Erm, how about driver training. If saving lives is really their agenda, wouldn’t they have done it already? I mean, if I (and most others) can think of that, wouldn’t have the government? Me smells some greediness going on, actually, me knows. . .

    Lachlan Nicholls of NSW Posted on 31 July 2008 8:19pm
  • i agree that the new P plate laws put in place are rediculous.
    not because im 18 and want to drive my drunken friends around at all hours of the morning but for several reasons.
    one being why does a 25 year old not have the same restrictions?
    driving restrictions should be put in place in regards to how much experience u have had on the road, not your age.
    i completely agree with the person that commented above, u can do just as much damage in a v6 vehicle, even a smaller vehicle. Any car travelling at a high speed being driven dangerously could kill yourself and others.
    Also making it so u have to hold your learners for a year is another pointless rule.
    now we have people learning to drive at 16. and also i know for a fact that people just start learning to drive in the last 6 months of there learners expiring and forging the hours that they’ve spent on the road, it doesnt solve anything, just one big money making scheme.

    Jessica Posted on 31 July 2008 6:18pm
  • AGREED!!! Our governments laws are utterly pathetic. To put my own two cents in, the laws in Queensland are the following for drivers up till 25 (as far as I know, I may be inaccurate)
    1. No car over 200kW
    2. No turbocharged or supercharged car unless its turbodiesel
    3. No V8 or above
    4. No rotary over approx. 1.24 litres
    5. No modifications unless approved by government
    Exclusions include small japanese cars and similar.

    Alright then.
    I cant drive my 1994 Saab 9000 Griffin 2.3 turbo, but I can drive the 1994 Saab 9000 Griffin 3.0 V6 despite exactly the same power outputs. Slow. Only difference, the turbo has better fuel economy.
    I can drive a Volkswagen Golf R32, I can drive a Porsche Boxter, I can drive a Lotus Elise and I can drive a BMW X5 3.0 TTDi
    But i cant drive my five star Mercedes C-Class 1.8K
    OR my Volkswagen Golf GT TSi (in New Zealand its even offered as a purely economy car)

    And besides, with the 200kW limit, doesnt that make the other laws irrelevant? So much for “simplifying” it as they told me in a virtually copy and pasted email.

    And by the way. I can drive my dads Mazda Tribute like a hoon and have it fall over on a roundabout quite easily. I dont need power to attempt a drift in an SUV because im a retard.
    But if I had driver training I might realise this is not such a good idea.
    Bad point…. but anyway, we need driver training!!!
    I’d be willing to pay more for my driver training

    Tomas Rivera of Brisbane Posted on 31 July 2008 3:15pm
Read all 16 comments

Add your comment on this story

Indicates required

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional.

Cars for sale

Sponsored Links