From: Zebee Johnstone on
In on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:09:45 +1100
Kevin Gleeson <kevingleeson(a)> wrote:
> But my point here is they are teachin beancounter skills, not driving
> skills. I asked her a few things when I was brave enough to let her
> drive (which she did fairly we thankfully) but it was obvious they
> were teaching road law rather than survival skills.

Teaching to the test.

If you don't have a lot of time - and lessons are expensive - then the
instructor has to teach you the physical skills (parking, hill start,
gear changes more or less smooth) and you have to mug up on the
questions in the test.

My driving instructor tried to give me the life lessons too, and did a
reasonable job in that I remember much of what he told me many years

But... most people just want to pass the exam. ASk any teacher.

(Also, I think everyone learns to drive a car before they are 10 years
old. Like they learn most things in life. If the people who drive
them everywhere drive badly then that's what driving is. Think about
that next time you are lazy in traffic with kids in the car.)

From: Knobdoodle on
"theo" <theodoreb(a)> wrote:
In WA as I believe in QLD, you must have an accompanying 'instructor'
when on L plates. The law says that that person may be riding another
motor cycle or be a pillion on the learners bike. I don't think I've
ever seen the second option exercised.
I think the instructor/pillion bit just got canned in Qld recently.
I've instructed a few people that way (and been instructed that way too). It
has it's moments; if the learner is smallish you can get them started by
having your fingers on the outside of the bars to cover the throttle and
levers for the starts & stops.

From: Nev.. on
Diogenes wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:46:48 -0800 (PST), theo
> <theodoreb(a)> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 10:40 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:23:58 -0800 (PST), theo
>>> <theodo...(a)> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 24, 9:37 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote:
>>>>> [sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers
>>>>> and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the
>>>>> one we would get if no licensing were required. I take that to be a
>>>>> given. Given this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for
>>>>> riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those
>>>>> roads).
>>>> In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964.
>>>> There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden
>>>> increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year.
>>> I see your cognitve skills are still a bit dodgy, Theo. By licensing
>>> the bike instead of the rider, the WA morons were unable to make road
>>> rules knowledge and riding skills testable items.
>>> Ergo, no impact on the death toll could have occurrred with the
>>> introduction of such licensing. It follows therefore that no impact
>>> on the death toll would have been observable following the suspension
>>> of such licensing.
>> So suspending licensing of motorised vehicles would have no effect on
>> the road toll, as long as the users remain licenced?
> Motor vehicles are not licensed. There is a requirement that they be
> registered. To be registered, requires that they are roadworthy. If
> such a requirement did not exist, then arguably this would impact the
> road toll.

In the UK they licence televisions. In the USA cars wear licence
plates. You say potato...

'08 DL1000K8
From: Nev.. on
Kevin Gleeson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:07:43 +0000 (UTC), Zebee Johnstone
> <zebeej(a)> wrote:
>> I'd say the majority of drivers who die are licenced.
> Agreed, not arguing that, but I think we are both making the same
> point. Just because they are licenced does not stop them dying. 99.9%
> of drivers are licenced I would imagine. Removing the licence from
> them is not going to keep them alive.

Actually, I think you're not quite right there. There is an
over-representation of unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicle in
the road toll. It's not because having a licence makes you a better
driver or having a registered vehicle makes it safer. It's because the
type of drivers [beware of gross generalisations following] who are
likely to drive without a licence are more likely to be involved in
accidents.... those who have lost their licence for DUI, excessive
speeding, dangerous driving and are more likely to repeat those offences
whether they have a licence or not, and if you don't have a licence you
have nothing to lose. Likewise, the above grossly generalised
stereotyped driver who has lost their licence is more likely to drive an
unregistered vehicle than your average 'police fearing' driver who just
woulnd't drive a vehicle that wasn't registered, or would catch the bus
if they lost their licence. Just watch Cops or any of those police
highway patrol shows for further examples.

'08 DL1000K8
From: Nev.. on
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> But... most people just want to pass the exam. ASk any teacher.

It's not just the students who want to pass the tests. The instructors
want them to pass too, so that they can boast about their training
record to prospective students. There are driving schools in Melbourne
who guarantee that you will pass at the first attempt. Mind you, with
the new minimum 120hrs practice before you take your licence test,
anyone who fails at the first attempt obviously has no aptitude for the
task and should be banned from driving for life. When I was learing my
instructor thought I was ready after about 6.5 hrs total driving
experience. I'd have turned 30 before I could afford to pay for 120 hrs

'08 DL1000K8
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Prev: Yamaha design flaw
Next: Got some spare coin?