I'm told that when emergency services attend a
road crash involving young people they routinely
check the boot for occupants. Some of the
restrictions may be counter productive.
Yes, a few years ago was talking to a young bloke
who was helping out at Aerotec and two hours
later he was dead in a car with a few mates. Left
a party to get in under curfew, driver took off
flat out, lost control immediately. Two in boot.
Now young drivers is one thing but what has been
the effect of more supervision/hours required on
say people 30+ years old who learn to drive for
the first time? We are likely to see more of
these if what I read about youth and cars on the net is correct.
Then you may be able to break out the
youth/hormones effect from the supervision effect.
Mike
At 02:15 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote:
There is, most certainly good evidence for the
effectiveness of supervision as a driving risk
mitigation approach, and quite a lot of it
(speaking as a road safety researcher). That's
one part of what's been behind the evolution of
the modern Australian graduated driver licensing
system - more time supervised, restrictions to
reduce amount of time in statistically high-risk
situations (e.g. driving after midnight, driving
with a bunch of mates in the car, etc etc.)
As someone with a background in road safety (and
novice driver safety in particular), and also as
a recently-solo glider pilot, I personally have
no problem with the system of frequent checks
and lots of instructor support for less
experienced pilots such as myself. Is it useful
for more-experienced pilots? I don't know, but
if we compare the accident rate for gliders with
the GA accident rate, how do we compare? I
suspect our check-flights-and-instructors system
does help reduce some kinds of accidents,
particularly for newer pilots and those who
haven't flown for a while. Does it help for the others? No clue.
Teal
On 11 Feb 2017, at 2:05 pm, Paul Bart
<<mailto:pb2...@gmail.com>pb2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 February 2017 at 13:08, Stuart Wolf
<<mailto:stuac...@gmail.com>stuac...@gmail.com> wrote:
But what the evidence shows is more supervised
hours, not less are an effective risk
mitigation strategy, as is ongoing validation.
Especially around the experience danger zone.
There is a reason the state licensing went with 80, 100 and 120 hours
âSo there is an actual evidence to show this,
properly corrected for variables that may have
also produced this results. Better cars, roads
come to mind, I am sure there are others.
Are there less accidents for drivers certified under the new system? .
Cheers
Paulâ
Cheers
Paul
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
<mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
