ABC news: 'Creeping' motorists targeted

[smally289]

Originally Posted by GTP006

How major? More than 5%?

Somewhere between that and 99% ...... I will get back to you with an answer accurate to 3 decimal places if it pleases you.
I should have stated that this is my opinion and I dont feel obliged to back it up with statistics.

[Darkr]

Originally Posted by smally351

I should have stated that this is my opinion and I dont feel obliged to back it up with statistics.

So you are saying you think speeding causes crashes.

They have even said over here speeding is a very minor cause of crashes, police reports have even reported this, but it isn't what they advertise and the try to suppress these reports.

Lowering the speed is probably a good way to try and reduce accidents becasue people are generally stupid.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't really have that much of an effect, I still don't see why they don't target the real problem area. I guess speeding is easier to fine then lack of concentration and awareness?

[BHDOGS]

SA the slow state

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Most of that was covered by my olds when I was on L's. I know the car in front of me will brake before he brakes, I see the car a few further up brake and its obvious, my foot is already easing the brake when the car in front starts to brake. I was taught to read the road as far as possible and keep a reasonable distance.

Is there a difference between defensive driver training and advanced?

I was also taught to look ahead and judge traffic flow also....but that depends on who is teaching you. Given some of the driving behaviour i see on the roads i sure hope those people aren't teaching their kids how to drive......

To my knowledge defensive driver training is how to avoid accidents via planning, paying attention etc. It also deals with correct driving position etc. Very little of the defensive course (if any) is car control...what to do in the event of an accident. In fact apart from driving down a surburban street and being instructed on what to look for there is very little practical element at all.

Defensive training is great, but i believe it is pretty limited because as you say people often just ignore what they are told/learn. They don't truly take in (even with the use of graphic ads/photos) what it means. Advanced driver training is more about car control....wet, dry, oversteer/understeer, braking etc. This is why people say it promotes hooning, because it often involves 'hoon like' behaviour. The point is it is in controlled conditions to illustrate to poeple how difficult it is to control a car and how best to achieve this so as to minimise or avoid an accident.

If you combined defensive and some advanced training then you are onto a winner. This way you avoid an accident as much as possible, but if it happens you can control the car as best possible and not panic (which is a major source of problems....). As 4Vman has mentioned though, it is driver attitude as much as anything and too many people treat driving in a nonchalant fashion...you are controlling a 1-2 tonne potential wrecking ball when you drive but instead of having awareness of this too many poeple lack concentration, skills or awareness on the roads. This kills way more people than going 5km/h over the (often useless) posted limit.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

To my knowledge defensive driver training is how to avoid accidents via planning, paying attention etc. It also deals with correct driving position etc. Very little of the defensive course (if any) is car control...what to do in the event of an accident. In fact apart from driving down a surburban street and being instructed on what to look for there is very little practical element at all.

Defensive training is great, but i believe it is pretty limited because as you say people often just ignore what they are told/learn. They don't truly take in (even with the use of graphic ads/photos) what it means. Advanced driver training is more about car control....wet, dry, oversteer/understeer, braking etc. This is why people say it promotes hooning, because it often involves 'hoon like' behaviour. The point is it is in controlled conditions to illustrate to poeple how difficult it is to control a car and how best to achieve this so as to minimise or avoid an accident.

theoretically, driver's shouldn't get them into situations that need advanced car control skills. if you need to hit the anchors that hard in the wet that it causes the car to lose control then you weren't driving to the conditions. if you lose it on a bend or something, once again its the same.

people shouldn't think about all the 'rights' they have whilst driving. instead they should look at the use of a motor car to travel as a privilege. its not a competition, a race etc every time you hop in....

geez i'm starting to sound like my olds now, but i think thats the point. as you get older you get a little wiser and calm down a lot on the roads and try to educate the next generation not to make the same mistakes. unfortunately young people think anyone older than them doesn't have a clue and they have to learn it all for themselves, sometimes the hardest way.

its just a cycle we all go through.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by smally351

Somewhere between that and 99% ...... I will get back to you with an answer accurate to 3 decimal places if it pleases you.

Chillax, I'm not having a go

Time & time again we hear that speeding & alchohol are the "major" causes of car accidents... and I don't believe it. My honest guess is that both are incredibly minor contributors to the number of prangs that occur.

I preface that comment with the thought that those accidents involving excessive speed and/or alchohol would be significantly worse than those without, but those examples would be the strong exception - not the rule as is suggested the tax grabbing fear mongres who need an excuse to top up the coffers of a fat & lazy government.

[merlin]

This is just stupid - government over-governing again, out of some misinformed notion that people are too stupid to look after themselves. 10% tolerance works very well in NSW, these other backward nanny states should take note.

[jimmy_c]

It would be nice if the roads we drove on were in a state of good repair. Another way for them to take money off us.

Australia is becoming very totalitarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

Next they will be wanting every driver to have a shock braclet like they want ALL FLYING passengers in the US to have.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...peanuts/#again

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by prydey

theoretically, driver's shouldn't get them into situations that need advanced car control skills. if you need to hit the anchors that hard in the wet that it causes the car to lose control then you weren't driving to the conditions. if you lose it on a bend or something, once again its the same.
...

Yes, but theory and practice are two very different things.

People lose control in all sorts of conditions, wet and dry. We're all human, people make mistakes. You might misjudge a corner, hit a particularly bad pothole, need to swerve to avoid the child that just ran out in front of your vehicle, etc. Learning to control the car when things do go wrong can never be a bad thing, IMHO.

I remember the first ever thing that was ever told to me by my uncle when I got behind the wheel: 'No matter how good a driver you think you are; you're only as good as those around you.'

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by prydey

theoretically, driver's shouldn't get them into situations that need advanced car control skills. if you need to hit the anchors that hard in the wet that it causes the car to lose control then you weren't driving to the conditions. if you lose it on a bend or something, once again its the same.

people shouldn't think about all the 'rights' they have whilst driving. instead they should look at the use of a motor car to travel as a privilege. its not a competition, a race etc every time you hop in....

geez i'm starting to sound like my olds now, but i think thats the point. as you get older you get a little wiser and calm down a lot on the roads and try to educate the next generation not to make the same mistakes. unfortunately young people think anyone older than them doesn't have a clue and they have to learn it all for themselves, sometimes the hardest way.

its just a cycle we all go through.

Finally some common sense...

Anyone who thinks excessive speed is not a major factor in most road deaths is kidding themselves, and "excessive speed" can be doing 70 in a 100 zone, or 80 in a 60 zone.... its about driving to the conditions.
Loss of control of a vehicle, (barring mechanical failure) is due to driver error, or to put it simply not driving safely...
The idea is to not get into that situation in the first place, not hope someone can remember how to try to get out of it when its too late.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by smally351

I get your point, but add 5 km/h extra to late braking, DUI, etc and it sure doesnt help, it may be the difference between a minor injury and a major one.
.

I still don't get it. If 5 k/ph was the difference between a minor injury and a major one, then why are we not driving 5 k/ph under the posted speed limit? Surely with this logic there would be no accidents at all after all, the sign posted speed limit appears to be the "holy grail" of safe speed for that part of the road, correct? (I learnt this from the “speed cameras save lives” signs they put out)

Before anyone thinks that I think I can bust speed limits when ever I feel like it, well let me make my self clear "I do not condone speeding past posted limits" period. I received my first speeding fine in 8 years about 2 months ago which was for 61 in a 50. I was actually turning into a 60 K/ph posted road at the time and the copper was waiting down the bottom of the hill. We both had a laugh! Anyway I just paid up and went about my business. It would have been cheaper if I was busted with cannabis and no I do not condone drugs either!

My only concern here is once they have educated the mainstream into believing that the chance of dying has gone up two fold if you creep past the posted speed limit then they will introduce zero tolerance.

We already have created a nation of speedo watches now instead of eyes out side drivers, and it shows. What's next?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

I still don't get it. If 5 k/ph was the difference between a minor injury and a major one, then why are we not driving 5 k/ph under the posted speed limit? Surely with this logic there would be no accidents at all after all, the sign posted speed limit appears to be the "holy grail" of safe speed for that part of the road, correct? (I learnt this from the “speed cameras save lives” signs they put out)

Before anyone thinks that I think I can bust speed limits when ever I feel like it, well let me make my self clear "I do not condone speeding past posted limits" period. I received my first speeding fine in 8 years about 2 months ago which was for 61 in a 50. I was actually turning into a 60 K/ph posted road at the time and the copper was waiting down the bottom of the hill. We both had a laugh! Anyway I just paid up and went about my business. It would have been cheaper if I was busted with cannabis and no I do not condone drugs either!

My only concern here is once they have educated the mainstream into believing that the chance of dying has gone up two fold if you creep past the posted speed limit then they will introduce zero tolerance.

We already have created a nation of speedo watches now instead of eyes out side drivers, and it shows. What's next?

You're looking at things too simplistically....

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Unfortunately the driving instructors also tech you to pass a test, not how to drive the car.

There is a lot of truth in that, but my instructor didn't give a flying fruitbat about the test.
His philosophy was that if he could iron out the kinks in my driving and make you me safe driver who can control the car safely, use the roads efficiently, and read traffic conditions effectively (speed limits, surrounding traffic, road conditions, weather, visibility etc.), then I'd pass the test easily.

But looking back, speed and the sudden stop plays a major role in road fatalities, but I also believe poor driver attitude and ability is to blame.

My instructor used to ask me questions constantly, for example, "if that car at the roundabout is meant to give way to you, and they try to barge through as you approach, what do you do?"
I'd answer correctly, as common sense prevailed, but he told me that people often said, "just keep going through because I have right of way and if they hit me, it's their fault."

We see poor behaviour all the time on roads. Travelling on ~60km/h on Warrigal Road a couple of weeks ago, there were cars up ahead that had stopped, and a P-Plater in an Excel who had already travelled a fair distance didn't notice the cars in front, and at the last minute, slammed on the brakes and rammed into the car in front of it. My theory was that they were not looking at the traffic ahead, although its a known fact that cars are constantly stopping in the right hand lane to turn right into side-streets, therefore it is important to constantly be aware of not only the car in front of you, but the cars further ahead.

Three weeks ago, I was turning off Princes Highway into Westall Road. I was in the left right turning lane, while some asian lady in a Beamer was in the right right turning lane. On the turn, she began to veer across into my lane, then into the far left lane, although it is a known fact that on a turn, you hold your line!

Poor choices and lack of awareness (caused by looking at something else) play a significant role in accidents, such as taking a corner at excessive speed and as has been mentioned, stuffing about with the CD player because you don't want to listen to Michael Bolton.

I would love to see driving instructors tested more harshly, because in my area which is populated by a different demographic to even 10 years ago, there are a lot of driving instructors of that particular demographic who I constantly see failing to take control of their learner when they are doing something dangerous, like taking up two lanes, not giving way, crawling at 20km/h in a 60 zone etc.

But there is still no excuse for exceeding speed limits. Because a crash is 4X more likely to occur, doesn't mean it's still highly likely.
I do not see speed limits purely for saving motorists...pedestrians, especially children are being protected. There are also the tools who I gave the bird to who dawdled with their child in a stroller across Maroondah Highway while travelling at 80km/h. They yelled at me for not slowing down.

Personal responsibility is out the window.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

You're looking at things too simplistically....

Right. He's too simplistic, yet you're blanket statements aren't at all simplistic?

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Loss of control of a vehicle, (barring mechanical failure) is due to driver error, or to put it simply not driving safely...

People aren't taught how to control a car when they learn to drive; they're taught how to move from A to B, and if anything out of the ordinary happens, they're lost.

To the average motorists, if a little kid suddenly runs out in front of their car, they'd naturally swerve to try and avoid hitting them. At that point, they're likely to lose control, and have no idea how to get back into control.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

People aren't taught how to control a car when they learn to drive; they're taught how to move from A to B, and if anything out of the ordinary happens, they're lost.

To the average motorists, if a little kid suddenly runs out in front of their car, they'd naturally swerve to try and avoid hitting them. At that point, they're likely to lose control, and have no idea how to get back into control.

When being taught to drive with a competent driving instructor in the passenger seat, I was asked, "if you see a ball coming out of a driveway, what should you do?" The answer is obvious.

Driving instructors teach a driver about reading the conditions and controlling the car in normal circumstances. They aren't there to teach the driver how to control a swerving car. Forgot the romance of theory, you will never learn how to control a swerving car until you do it. There are probably courses for this sort of thing...
I wouldn't want my father teaching me how to control my car when it is swerving on a public road. He can hardly use the brakes properly.

The 40 school zone is a pain in the backside, but it is there because people do not recognise the signals of "Danger, potential hazard" when children are involved.

The idea of Learning to Drive is to take all aspects into account, and to drive according. While some accidents are unavoidable on the drivers account, other times, recognising a potential hazard and slowing down can make a difference.
Learning to drive is about driving safely so that you avoid being involved in an accident, rather than correcting when you are in a position of being involved in one.
Effective teaching while learning to drive will do that.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

You're looking at things too simplistically....

No, that's my point! I think this is far more complicated than what the Government is trying to portray with this ridiculous advertising campaign. I think that they are guilty of firstly looking at and then finally educating this message to the mass too simplistically them selves. I believe it lets Governments off the hook by not having to spend any real money on road infrastructure on their watch.

You see I have theory- It "costs money" to implement road improvements but it "makes money" by attempting to slow traffic via speed detection etc, so if they spent the money improving the road system, they run the risk of losing future revenue. For them, a double whammy!

If they were to introduce a plan that allowed for example On the freeway for us "Adelaideans" to travel @ 100 k/ph through the tunnels and Crafers as they already do, get rid of the stupid 90 K/ph in the tunnels as they already have the means to slow traffic digitally as required now, and then 110 k/ph to Bridgewater, followed by 120 k/ph to Mt Barker and then finally 130 k/ph to Tailem Bend slowing to 100 k/ph to cross at Swanport (or even build a new bridge instead of that scary single lane one) but also maybe introduce a zero tolerance for that section complete with timed cameras etc as a trade off, then I don't believe you would get too many complaints from the motoring public in general because atleast, while they are taking from one hand, they are giving some thing back in return.

Remember, they have speed restrictions for L and P platers in place already and you could still travel @ 100 k/ph through these routes if you also so desired as well, providing you kept to the left.

Most people who are familiar with these roads would know what I mean. I am also curios to know if anybody in the hills area would also agree/disagree.

The whole idea is to be practical where you can and to design systems and build infrastructure to keep traffic moving, not bog it down with little or no new modern routes while constantly continuing to reduce speed limits as well.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

People aren't taught how to control a car when they learn to drive; they're taught how to move from A to B, and if anything out of the ordinary happens, they're lost.

To the average motorists, if a little kid suddenly runs out in front of their car, they'd naturally swerve to try and avoid hitting them. At that point, they're likely to lose control, and have no idea how to get back into control.

Id say most people's first reaction to a sudden "object" in front of them is hit the skids and then swerve... ABS has made this allot safer, but most of the time its an instinctive reaction.
By first reaction i mean appear in an instant and startle you, some people drive in a daze without looking ahead and seeing issues gradually appear in front of them, most of these surprises can be negotiated allot easier because you can see them occurring ahead of you and plan ahead.
I don't believe a "one off" defensive driver course will make much if any difference to the average drivers ability to cope with the "unforeseen" long term, for a month or 2 it may have some impact, but i bet within 6 months most will have forgotten what they learnt anyway. They may remember what they were taught, but it all goes out the window in an instant when you get startled.
You'd need to practice "defensive" maneuvers on an ongoing basis before they become instinctive and more to the point effective.
Its simply easier to drive within your limits of your ability than push the envelope and hope that driver coarse kicks in if it gets ugly...

Peoples ATTITUDE to driving plays a far greater role in avoiding accidents than their ability to "get out of jail" so to speak...

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Id say most people's first reaction to a sudden "object" in front of them is hit the skids and then swerve... ABS has made this allot safer, but most of the time its an instinctive reaction.
By first reaction i mean appear in an instant and startle you, some people drive in a daze without looking ahead and seeing issues gradually appear in front of them, most of these surprises can be negotiated allot easier because you can see them occurring ahead of you and plan ahead.
I don't believe a "one off" defensive driver course will make much if any difference to the average drivers ability to cope with the "unforeseen" long term, for a month or 2 it may have some impact, but i bet within 6 months most will have forgotten what they learnt anyway. They may remember what they were taught, but it all goes out the window in an instant when you get startled.
You'd need to practice "defensive" maneuvers on an ongoing basis before they become instinctive and more to the point effective.
Its simply easier to drive within your limits of your ability than push the envelope and hope that driver coarse kicks in if it gets ugly...

Peoples ATTITUDE to driving plays a far greater role in avoiding accidents than their ability to "get out of jail" so to speak...

I pretty much agree with all of what you've said, and I think Attitude is probably the single biggest cause of accidents... attitude incorporates almost every risky driving behaviour - not paying attention, drink driving, excessive speeding, tailgating etc.

The problem is, it's easy for the government to reduce limits and tolerances and increase camera usage... these measures pay for themselves, and then some.

It's extremely difficult for them to ingrain better attitude and skills.

Yes, a single course will not magically give the driver the ability to recover the car in all situations, but it will make them more aware of how a car responds under those circumstances, and given them some idea of what to do.

Maybe they need to tighten the requirements for licensing - require all learners to attend two driving courses in addition to passing the 'test'. And then make P platers go on another course before getting their full license.

After all, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Campaigns such as the one the subject of my original post are offensive - because they gloss over the real cause of crashes, and attempt to brainwash the driving public into thinking zero tolerance on speed is the panacea.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

I pretty much agree with all of what you've said, and I think Attitude is probably the single biggest cause of accidents... attitude incorporates almost every risky driving behaviour - not paying attention, drink driving, excessive speeding, tailgating etc.

The problem is, it's easy for the government to reduce limits and tolerances and increase camera usage... these measures pay for themselves, and then some.

It's extremely difficult for them to ingrain better attitude and skills.

Yes, a single course will not magically give the driver the ability to recover the car in all situations, but it will make them more aware of how a car responds under those circumstances, and given them some idea of what to do.

Maybe they need to tighten the requirements for licensing - require all learners to attend two driving courses in addition to passing the 'test'. And then make P platers go on another course before getting their full license.

After all, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Campaigns such as the one the subject of my original post are offensive - because they gloss over the real cause of crashes, and attempt to brainwash the driving public into thinking zero tolerance on speed is the panacea.

Yep i agree but don't forget they're also aimed at the drivers who DO speed and create the risks.. you can't have a rule for some and another rule for others, we all get lumped together by the lowest common denominator.
As always it seems to be the case that these types of threads all seem to end up with the same concussions: The govt is legislating to protect the innocent from the stupid, which inevitably impacts on the innocent.
But until you can develop a test to weed out the dumb risk taking drivers with POOR DRIVER ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR i don't know what else you can do.
Driver training is certainly not the solution, dumb drivers will always take risks, all defensive driver training does is help safe drivers remain safe..

[fmc351]

You can sue a government for doing a job poorly (misfeasance), but you cant sue a government for not doing a job at all (non-feasance). There is a reason for this, and it has merit...

Governments have limited funds in which to provide unlimited services. They dont have the money or people to do everything right now when its needed, they get to them as they can and should prioritise the things they do by urgency, in theory anyway. This means some places will have roads they are woeful, and will continue to be so for some time, while other roads get better. Im not suggesting they are frugal, or that they make the best use of resources, or that they get it right when allocating road funding, they dont. But you might want to factor this in when suggesting they dont do enough with roads. There is not an endless supply of money to build said roads to uber standards.

Youre already complaining about the voluntary tax they collect, imagine how much youll complain when they raise the tax directly on your income (if Fed roads) or double rego (state roads). The money has to come from somewhere. If you think they have buckets of cash now and they dont need anymore, youre being naive, they have large dollar amounts, but equally large demands on that money.

It would be nice to see the revenue from this go into roads, and policing.

[fos408]

wheres the figure for drink driving in those Wally, interesting they arent included.If the cops were really serious about accidents and deaths they would be confiscating drink drivers cars .I find on my history of driving .32 yrs I have had 2 accidents and I wasnt speeding at either.

[Walkinshaw]

Crashes are caused by a differential in speed. If you're in a 60 zone and everyone is doing 68-75 as is usualy the case, it would be far more dangerous to travel at 60kmh like some drone rather that 65-70 and ensuring that you maintain adiquate braking distances etc.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

Crashes are caused by a differential in speed. If you're in a 60 zone and everyone is doing 68-75 as is usualy the case, it would be far more dangerous to travel at 60kmh like some drone rather that 65-70 and ensuring that you maintain adiquate braking distances etc.

This is one reason why they're red hot on enforcing speed limits, they don't want people taking determining what speed they want to travel at into their own hands, they want everyone obeying the posted limits to stop this abnormal speed differential...

[Wally]

Originally Posted by fos408

wheres the figure for drink driving in those Wally, interesting they arent included.If the cops were really serious about accidents and deaths they would be confiscating drink drivers cars .I find on my history of driving .32 yrs I have had 2 accidents and I wasnt speeding at either.

They didn't publish that because of the pathology test lag. But over the Xmas period ~29% crashes are alcohol/drug related with 17.5% drink driver/riders.

The only collision I've had is a drunk trying to drive his car in through the drivers door and that's over 35 years.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

This is one reason why they're red hot on enforcing speed limits, they don't want people taking determining what speed they want to travel at into their own hands, they want everyone obeying the posted limits to stop this abnormal speed differential...

Then they should have had some police presence on the Monash Freeway (Melbourne) outbound tonight (they would have raked in a fortune)... I was sitting on 80 (the current limit due to roadworks) and every single car was passing me. Every single one.

At one point, I caught myself doing over 95 - I guess my subconscious was trying to keep up with the flow of traffic - and even still most cars were passing, and I was on par with the slowest ones.

Clearly, (IMHO) excessively low tolerance on cameras and (again IMHO) over-reliance & over-use of cameras is having a massive effect on drivers' attitudes to speeding.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Clearly, (IMHO) excessively low tolerance on cameras and (again IMHO) over-reliance & over-use of cameras is having a massive effect on drivers' attitudes to speeding.

Id say the exact opposite, if people still speed given the wide publicity about cameras then the message isn't getting through at all, either that or people aren't worried about making voluntary contributions to the govt!!

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Id say the exact opposite, if people still speed given the wide publicity about cameras then the message isn't getting through at all, either that or people aren't worried about making voluntary contributions to the govt!!

I guess I should have added a smilie... I was being sarcastic.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

I guess I should have added a smilie... I was being sarcastic.

[Spanrz]

Originally Posted by Dezza!

It seems to have turned many Victorian drivers into mindless drones who continuously drive 10-20kph below the speed limit to ensure they don't get fined for doing 103 in a 100kph zone. This increases frustration, which causes impatience which subsequently causes crashes.

Hit the nail on the head here.
You and I see the same level, but the Gov doesn't.

You see, this mentality works perfectly, when in a certain scenario.

Car "A" is on the freeway doing 100kph in the left lane.
And an entry/on ramp lane is coming into a merge point to the left lane.
Car "B" is on the onramp slightly in front of Car "A" doing 80kph, but is now running out of lane to merge.
Car "B" is too scared to go over 80kph, so to make a compromise, Car "A" has to slow down, to allow Car "B" to merge.

In all this to and fro, Car "B" has now got scared that Car "A" has slowed down, panicked and now Car "B" slows down even further.
Car "A" has now slowed from 100kph down to 60kph (on a FWY).

Car "A" has now decided to "boot it" as he thinks that this is a very dangerous situation to be in as a fully loaded semi truck is behind him.

All because of Car "B" being to scared to go over 80kph.

This so far means, Car "B" has now put 3 vehicles in a very dangerous situation, all because of "less speed is good and I won't get caught" mentality.

The reason why I wrote this, is because it happened to me 1 week ago.

A lot of people might think the USA is stupid in a lot of ways, but if any of you have driven over there, you would understand what I am going to say.

In the USA, they book you for going too slow. Meaning, that you are as bad as a speeding motorist (that has a greater potential to kill), but due to the lack of speed, you "create" a traffic hazard to other motorists and that creates accidents.

[Trek]

Originally Posted by vztrt

The road test actually still is. The hardest part in passing those test is that crappy 2D simulation test that Vicroads has put a lot of emphasis on. Its not that hard to drive around the back streets of Melbourne suburbs do what the assessor is telling you and pass.
Unfortunately the driving instructors also tech you to pass a test, not how to drive the car.

The Hazard Perception test is a sinch to pass, and should probably be abolished, due to how unrealistic and pointless it is. Given that half the current driving test is based on what they perceive as difficult situations and difficult manouevres, it's actually testing their capabilities (and ability to drive safely) on the road, unlike the last version.

And yes, it's obvious the instructors only teach you how to pass the test. That's all they're there for, unless action is taken to then teach people how to drive beyond test conditions when taught by any instructor. That's not what they're there to assess though, it's now to see if you can drive safely. The RTA didn't quite focus as strongly on that before.