Is 120 hours for learner Drivers really necessary?

[wheels260]

When you think about it, it isn't that hard to achieve down in Victoria you can sit your test for your learners permit at 16 and go for you probationary license at 18 thats a 2 year difference and 24 months which pans out to be 5 hours a month. How hard is that to do? Personally i was always hassling my parents to let me drive because i loved getting behind the wheel and getting more and more experience, plus i got to drive the xr8 haha!

[devilcv8]

where's the option for no, 150 hours is a better minimum....

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

You can get a pilots license in far less time than that. But then again, you aren't sharing the sky with a bunch of shcool children chaufers.

AND you are instructed in a dual control vehicle by someone who has many more hours as well as been trained to teach you to fly........

But by the time you can fly at night, in crap weather, controlled airspace in high powered complex aircraft with passengers on board you have many hundreds of hours....

[FlipXW]

Originally Posted by wheels260

Personally i was always hassling my parents to let me drive because i loved getting behind the wheel and getting more and more experience, plus i got to drive the xr8 haha!

haha me too. Good fun ay :evil3:

[jdg]

AND you are instructed in a dual control vehicle by someone who has many more hours as well as been trained to teach you to fly........

Funnily enough statistically aviation is safer than driving

IMO i think this is a great move. The more the better. Theres a big difference between a P plater with (say 50 hours - the old bare minimum in NSW) to a P plater with 120 + hours. Also, Im sure others would agree, maybee we should mandate 5 hours of professional instruction as well. 4 hours with an instructor and a defensive driving course.

The bottom line is theres no quick fix, overnight solution to this problem.

[mik]

its not just learning rules and how to handle a car imo, its also learning about the unpredictable nature of other drivers and what and how to react in different situations, how many times have you seen a motorist do something weird in front of you,along side of you behind you and through experience you read the situation and avoided trouble, for example you noticed the bloke in front of you was glancing at house or shop numbers while driving, an experienced person would see this and allow some extra space because you have a good idea at any second he may brake hard to pull into that parking spot, the older and more experienced are much better at reading other motorists behavior, it is this sort of road experience you only get through many hours of driving.

[NudgE^SIKBRO]

I clicked the wrong box. I believe the more the merrier. My mum Logged EVERY HOUR i drove on L's and it ended up being around the 300-350 area... First weekend i got my licance... I HAD A PRANG... and i dont just mean a love tap... i wrote of a late model pulsar in my Kingswood...

[falzoony]

I had to do 50hrs before I could get my P's and I think the more experience the better. However, for the first month when your driving a car by yourself it's damn scary.

[Unco]

Originally Posted by TonkoXR8

Who the hell is voting no?

LOL, i want to know too! there's like 16 "No" votes, but only about 2 people that have voiced their opinion. :

[falzoony]

I voted no because I remember being a learner(as it wasn't that long ago) and it seemed to take forever to do 50 hours. But now after reading this thread I would definently change my vote. So take 1 off the no vote and add it to the yes

[Falcon_Phill]

Its funny because all you older people didn't have to do 120 hours, but it seems ok for you all to comment on it. Its really not needed, I struggled filling up 50 hours when I knew everything before 10 hours, all I had to get used to were some road rules.

[Silver Ghia]

IMO some people learn a lot quicker than others. Some never really learn even after years of driving. 120 hours could be too much for some, but not enough for others.

Depends also on the licensed driver whos teaching the learner how to drive, whether they are pointing out things to look out for when driving and actually teaching them, or just going for the ride or teaching them their own bad habits. Other constraints like no other passengers in the car whilst learning etc. should be introduced to ensure no distraction for the learner, which can lead to tragedy.

The real answer is that I think the licence tester should be made to be really hard on the learner, and not pass them if they appear even the slightest inexperienced or irresponsible. The licence test should be over a some considerable distance or duration also, to give the tester a good assessment of the learners capabilities and character.

[Green X]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

Its funny because all you older people didn't have to do 120 hours, but it seems ok for you all to comment on it. Its really not needed, I struggled filling up 50 hours when I knew everything before 10 hours, all I had to get used to were some road rules.

That's Right mate, would all these people who voted yes hand in there licenses and for go 120hrs+ Supervised driving and resit there test's, of coarse not there is nothing wrong with there driving.

How many people think they would parse there driving test if they sat it tomorrow, if you think you would i reckon your in fro a rude shock. I know i wouldn't, despite 5 years close to 200,000kms with no crashes or speeding fines .

[sleekism]

120 hours is a bloody lot to forge!

I've said it before make everyone get there motorbike liscence first and you will become as paranoid as most motorbike riders and wont crash I got my motos before my cars and have never had an accident not even close.

There are plenty of drivers with a 120 million hours experience doesn't make them any better!

How about replacing airbags with spikes that deploy when you crash???? lol

[uranium_death]

I think that 120 hours is absolutely necessary.

Admittedly, I only got 100 hours in the end, but was 23 when I got my Ps and a little more mature than an 18 year old.
I was raring to get my Ls at 16, but the old man said I had to wait until I was 18 (meet the Australian Nazi). I turned 18 and lost interest.

I noticed that in the journey between 80 and 100 hours, there were still vast improvements being made in my driving. Although I got my Ps late and with on 100 hours, you still learn continually on the road.

So 80 is not enough.

In the eyes of parents, the hours you give up to teach your children to drive should be seen as an investment. I know there are exceptions with running businesses. However, there are probably some out there who just can't be bothered.

But yeah, 120 min.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

Its funny because all you older people didn't have to do 120 hours, but it seems ok for you all to comment on it. Its really not needed, I struggled filling up 50 hours when I knew everything before 10 hours, all I had to get used to were some road rules.

I would expect you to know everything before 2 hours.

The idea behind gaining 120 hours experience is to gain a greater appreciation of all conditions, dealing with incompetent drivers, making proper decisions etc.

As I said, I still noticed vast improvements in my driving between 80 and 100 hours. At 80 hours, I would still get from A to B with no problem, but I felt that at 100 hours, I made better decisions, handled the car better in response to conditions and had greater awareness of cars around me.

Learning the roads rules is the easy part. Dealing other other drivers and reading their movements is the hard part, like the idiot Camry who pulled out of McDonald's right in front of me on Wednesday night.

[Unco]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

Its funny because all you older people didn't have to do 120 hours, but it seems ok for you all to comment on it. Its really not needed, I struggled filling up 50 hours when I knew everything before 10 hours, all I had to get used to were some road rules.

the thing is, these new rules that now make it a requisite to complete 120 hours or whatever, these rules are not just the work of someone in government going "hey, let's introduce a time requirement for learner drivers". these things are done based on research.

the fact that they were not introduced earlier is most probably because there were not enough studies or evidence that more hours on L's = safer solo driver after driving test.

the recent rules are scientifically based on evidence that it WORKS.

take a look at the following document: https://racv.com.au/wps/wcm/resource...0monograph.pdf

the relevant authorities are introducing these rules because they NOW have enough statistical information to warrant such measures. even though such measures were not in place when i had my L's, i still think i have the right to say that it is a good thing that they have now been introduced. besides, i'm sure i did well over 120 hours of supervised driving before i got my P's.

[nommic]

The more experience the better. Also have to make sure you drive in varied conditions too - first time I drove at night in the rain on my Ls I was nervous as hell.

Imagine a newly-licenced kid who only did 20 hours of practice on their Ls, and never drove in that situation. Recipe for disaster.

[Falcon_Phill]

Originally Posted by Green X

How many people think they would parse there driving test if they sat it tomorrow, if you think you would i reckon your in fro a rude shock.

Really? I passed my test just 3 months ago so I'll take you up on any of them if you want. You should try a spelling test though.

I don't see how some people can go minimum 16+ years driving around with your parents etc and not pick anything up. 120 is ridiculous though. Id do something like 50 hours, then some safety driving courses, but if you cant pick up whats going on after 50 then theres something wrong.

And everyone knows 120 hours is just a knee jerk reaction to make it look like the government is doing something.

[Van D]

Definitely a good move. There are way to many inexperienced (and I don't mean just skills, time as well) P platers on the road. And having to do the logbook and get it checked off (which I think is what's in place now?) is definitely a good idea.
In school you'd hear all these people bragging about how they only did 10-25 hours of practice and they STILL got their P's.. Gee they must have being so cool to do that (like a license test is hard.. pft).
One of my friends prob put in about 30 hours on her L's and was saying how the instructor thought she was already good (maybe looking) enough and ready for her license. So she did it, passed and one week later had her first accident. 2 months after she was in another (both caused by inexperience IMO) and she even knocked a couple other cars in the car park whilst driving out of school!

[CaRtZ]

i came onto my P's in january and i believe 120hrs is definatly necessary, if anything it could be increased... i accomplished just over 180hrs without trying on my L's. It's not hard to build up hrs. and for solo driving u need all the practice u can get... Not REDICULOUS laws and ristrictions....

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Unco

LOL, i want to know too! there's like 16 "No" votes, but only about 2 people that have voiced their opinion. :

Can the poll retrospectively be made public so we can see who voted no???!!

[SDKC]

Originally Posted by Green X

I tell you the one thing that has thought me more than anything else, That's High speed driving on ball Bearing Gravel

When do you have to drive at high speed on ball bearing gravel?

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

.....all I had to get used to were some road rules.

: all 300 of them right?

By the way, I hit no - it was an accident, I meant to hit yes. What a Pi$$ poor excuse, but the truth.

[Falcon_Phill]

Originally Posted by SDKC

: all 300 of them right?

Whatever is listed on the RTA website, I learnt which helped me pass the test. So if theres 300, then yes I learnt all 300. Not sure what that has to do with the 120 hours rule though.

[robbo_yobbo]

I voted no!

I got off of Ls 6 years ago, so its not a biased opinion. Sure the more experiance the better, but then theres the other side.

Some L platers are perfectly competant drivers and could easily outdrive an "experianced" unrestricted liscence holder.

I didnt read the whole thread, and have no idea what the law requires of new learners, but I think that a simple practical test to determine weather or not the driver is competant enough to progress from thir L's is sufficient. Some people wont have access to a car untill they buy one, and wont buy one untill they are able to drive it, so building up hours for these people may not be as easy as it is for some.

Why punish the good because of some bad in the pack???

[Falcon_Phill]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

I voted no!

I got off of Ls 6 years ago, so its not a biased opinion. Sure the more experiance the better, but then theres the other side.

Some L platers are perfectly competant drivers and could easily outdrive an "experianced" unrestricted liscence holder.

I didnt read the whole thread, and have no idea what the law requires of new learners, but I think that a simple practical test to determine weather or not the driver is competant enough to progress from thir L's is sufficient. Some people wont have access to a car untill they buy one, and wont buy one untill they are able to drive it, so building up hours for these people may not be as easy as it is for some.

Why punish the good because of some bad in the pack???

Exactly! If your competent who gives a **** how many hours you've done. Why try and apply one rule to every single person.

[Tribal]

I personally think that anyone looking to get their licence these days should be made to ride a pushy and motorbike as part of going for their P's as well. Too many idiots on the road who have no idea about other road users.

In the past 18 years I have never had an accident in the car, but been knocked off my pushy and motorbike plenty of times...

Ooops - starting to rant...

[sexr6tasy]

When did common sense take over? lmao never, we punish the majority for the minority all the time speed cameras, hoon laws, power/weigh ratios why stop now? 120 hours hell give em 1200 hours nobody cares but the people its forced onto and they hardly have a voice or any voting power. Why not bring in a law so you always have to have somebody whose over the age of 30 with you, everybody knows older people don't drive like idiots! And thats the logical conclusion.

[fastlane]

It is a must. I have done 100 hours from the 7 months of my L's and I must say that I have had many 'levels' of improvments whereby you learn more and more. The more hours, the better you are.

[LeadFoot81]

120 Hours AT LEAST, I did an insane amount of driving on my L's and it was the best thing I ever did.