Posted by: lpullman
Posted: 28th Apr 2010
Hmm, I see more than a few of the usual suspects have missed the OPs point.
I see one condescending laws-are-there-for-reason, two of the usual unsubstantiated assertions and one blame the current media bandwagon scapegoat.
OK some facts, so pin 'em back:
Insurance premiums have nothing to do with anything but the claim rates and values. Thus we get strange edge affects like: most young drivers cannot afford more than third party and maybe theft and have such huge excess that they will avoid making a claim like the plague. But those rich enough to afford full coverage are also more likely make a claim, so premiums are high because, while the total number of claims is low, their value is high. Lesson - if you don't have a full no claim bonus, don't own a nice car.
Road deaths are trending down in the medium term. The population is rising. Laws are static in the medium term. Therefore, there is little or no correlation between road laws and changes in the accident rate.
The "hoon driving problem" is a non-issue. It's been around as long as cars. Charging road users through the nose will NOT change this.
Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion around here, one does not get to be a "good" driver just by serving time. Most people manage to go through several decades of driving learning nothing except bad habits. Give me someone who's just passed their test, has little experience but cares about their driving any day. If someone is going to learn how to react in a panic situation, they'll do it when they are young and inexperienced. Not when they have been driving for years and think they are safe. Having said that, if I see P-plates on a comodore, I expect trouble.
How many of the "experienced" crowd here are confident they can deal with a front-end lose (had one the other night thanks to some half-with dumping oil on a roundabout), panic braking or avoiding an obstacle at speed? Anyone putting their hand up in this thread I'll call an over confident idiot. Reply