Wednesday, Jun 23, 2004 at 22:20
I think there are two different issues here. There is nothing wrong with encouraging drivers to undergo defensive driving technique courses, many already do, whether it be to master four-wheel driving or to wrestle a two-wheel drive around the local shopping centre.
The problem is that someone has advocated that there needs to be a special licence simply because of a perceived increase in the risk of damage and/or injury in the event of an accident with a four-wheel drive.
The true cause of injury and fatalities on our roads is speed, fatigue and alcohol (in that order). The vehicle (almost) becomes irrelevant when viewing these statistics providing all drivers adhere to the road rules and make allowances for the prevailing road conditions at the time. My argument is that you target the driver, not the specific vehicle type.
Clearly, an argument can be made that to drive a large truck or articulated vehicle requires more specific
driver training and licensing, but that is not at issue here.
Most four wheel drives are in the weight range of 2.5/3.5 tonnes, therefore if we need to impose special driving requirements for this type of vehicle than it is reasonable to argue that any vehicle in excess of this weight will need the same requirement. Presently, in NSW at least, your license will allow you to drive a vehicle of up to 4.5 tonnes GVM. Therefore, all small trucks, which oddly enough are designed around this requirement, should also be off limits under “normal licensing”. This will most likely capture your suburban variety delivery van also.
Given that speed, fatigue, and alcohol are generic issues and non-vehicle specific, what are the true benefits to be gained if the licensing argument is solely based on the notation that four-wheel drives inflict more damage, or heighten the chance of injury or fatality if involved in an accident?
Mr Scrubby, who has opened this latest round of debate on the subject, comes from the lower north shore area of
Sydney. Mosman I think. When speed cameras were introduced outside a school in this area it recorded the highest number of hits when it was first turned on. I’d be interested to see a
breakdown of the vehicle type involved. However, regardless of what we suspect to be the “main culprit” – four-wheel drive versus two-wheel drive
sedan, speed was the potential killer, not the vehicle type.
If there is a need to increase driver awareness, either through education programs or licensing requirements, let’s make sure it is targeted correctly and has a basis for achieving a desired result – not simply because it is fanciful and a popular theme, particularly for those who would prefer that four-wheel drives were banned from our roads.
In terms of
driver training, I am an advocate for advanced training, but at the option of those who want it. For many companies this is a occupational health and safety issue, and training is provided if driving vehicles is a normal part of a daily routine. But for the rest of us, leave it for us to decide.
The actuaries in the motor vehicle business, the insurance companies, must have done their own analysis on reduced premiums for reduced claims. If they thought there was a true cost benefit to them in offering discounts to those who undertake not only one course, but also recurrent training, as a way to reducing claim payouts they would have done so by now
This is something that the
driver training industry should be lobbying for - and no doubt many have tried.
My suspicion is that it will never happen, because the lowest common dominator will remain the driver without advanced training, and that will be the majority of drivers on our roads.
Target the cause – the driver, the vehicle was only an innocent spectator!
Landie
AnswerID:
64755
Follow Up By: Jimbo (WA) - Wednesday, Jun 23, 2004 at 23:50
Wednesday, Jun 23, 2004 at 23:50
Landie,
Very
well said, mate!
However, it displays a very common-sense attitude; which means your
views wont get very far with the politicians and other morons who make themselves heard very regularly on this matter.
FollowupID:
325779