I love your post Shrub. Another reason to consider avoiding making the licencing process to onerous, is that if you lift the level required to get a licence too high, then you will eventually increase the number of people who can't be bothered going to all the trouble, and then simply drive with no licence.
I would prefer the licencing process to involve more supervised driving time, and ideally I would prefer that was done by someone with some professional driving experience.
I guess the trick is to strike a balance where the process is cheap and easy enough that people are still prepared to go through the process - and get the best level of instruction that fits that criteria, and simple giving up and deciding that driving unlicensed in easier - which would be a far worse out come for everyone on the roads.
I've been speaking with a young driver about the defensive driving course lately. They were interested in doing it solely because it reduced the time to get their full licence by 6 months. But alas after the recent law changes, because of their age, it means that it will no longer reduce that time.
So now they see no point in doing the course at all. I've tried to explain how they teach you about being a safer road user, about how they are currently in the most dangerous period of their driving lifetime, and about some of the things they teach like the three safety zones.
You see, they don't think they are going to have an accident. Their is no licence incentive. So why bother paying extra money for a course that teaches you skills that you don't think you are going to need.
Bookmarks