4 ms·
I think some context might help; Australia, or NSW already has pretty lengthy requirements for getting a drivers license, plus fairly strict road rules. You ha
by _s 7y ago
I think some context might help; Australia, or NSW already has pretty lengthy requirements for getting a drivers license, plus fairly strict road rules.
You have to "log" over a hundred hours of driving as a learner, and then you progress onto your "P" or probationary license; which is also in two stages, which restricts what you can do.
After you make it through both the probationary phases, you then have a normal (unrestricted) license.
NSW also issue's demerit points for offences; and for a little while now has had "double" points for offences, plus a no-alcohol tolerance (blow anything and you will likely loose your license).
The highest speed limit is also 110km/h on 3-4 lane free/high/motorways; but generally dual-lane is around 60-80km/h, and in built up area's it's 40-60km/h.
This strictness is after decades of road deaths for drivers and pedestrians: https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalityt...
It can be argued that advances in civil engineering and vehicles for driver/pedestrian safety have had a far greater impact than road rules, but causation/correlation etc. The introduction of mandatory seatbelts, airbags, ABS, better roads / infrastructure would also line up nicely with the chart but alas, that's not their narrative.
More recently - "distracted" driving incidents have been making the rounds, and I'm not surprised that the state gov wants to jump on this. I was honestly wondering why I've seen more police on foot at traffic lights waving down drivers and fining them for using their devices over the past week or two, and am not surprised to see this pop on the news either.
In Australia, NSW specifically is considered more of a "nanny" state - with the lockout laws and so forth.
Personal opinion:
It's fairly easy to get a license here - it just takes a few years (or you just make up your logbook as most youths do), and the testing standards are fairly low compared to Western / Northern Europe.
Parents are generally teaching their younger ones to drive, so teaching standards are incredibly varied and tend to be low.
Then there's also the allowance of almost all international drivers licenses being valid for 3-months, which is rarely enforceable; so you have a few drivers also unfamiliar with the road rules.
The money and effort would be far better invested in a more intensive exam, and regular checks of skills / standards, plus providing alternative means of transport.
This current push is just a gov-led posturing of "doing" something for the next election cycle.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sjy 7y agoYou acknowledge that there are many factors which may have contributed to improved road safety, “but causation / correlation etc.” It’s hard to find good evidence when there are so many confounding factors. So what is the basis of your opinion that “money would be far better invested in a more intensive exam” and this policy is “just posturing for the next election cycle”? The road toll is an important political issue in Australia. All politicians face pressure to reduce it, and it has gone down a lot, in per-person and per-car terms. It is still the second-most common cause of death for young people, after suicide. Since we can’t be sure if this new policy will work, aren’t you just “posturing” to avoid the political consequences of “not doing” something that might save lives?
- shermozle 7y agoUnfortunately the vast majority of drivers on the road didn't go through the regime you describe to get a license. My mother got her license in the 1960s in a town with dirt roads. Quick loop of the main street, reverse park, hill start and the local copper gave her a license. She's never been forced to learn the rules for traffic lights, roundabouts, freeways, drink driving or any of the other modern amenities and rules.