PASSENGER RESTRICTIONS
VICTORIAN GOVERMNENT SAYS NO TO PASSENGER RESTRICTIONS
SO WHO IS SAVING THE PASSENGERS?
IN the recent discussion paper* the Victorian Government released to combat young driver deaths certain issues were not even up for discussion. One of these was passenger restrictions, despite road safety research advising the government that many lives could be saved.
Drivers AND passengers lives can be saved by accepting the findings.
Young drivers will still be dying in single car crashes whilst on there own. This indicates a fault with the training procedure that is required before the licence is gained; this issue is also being ignored.
This was the heading for the ‘discussion’ on passenger restrictions
PASSENGER RESTRICTIONS NOT PROPOSED
It went onto say--- “The government does not intend to impose passenger restrictions on young drivers. Passenger restrictions generally allow no peer passengers, or only one passenger, to ride with an unsupervised novice driver for the 6- 12 months of their licence, unless they are dependants, a spouse, or other family members. New Zealand and 25 US states have passenger restrictions on newly licenced drivers. The overall crash benefit of limiting passengers on new drivers needs to be weighed against the impact on social mobility and access for young people. Restrictions on passengers would mean that first year drivers would not be able to take on the role of designated driver for multiple passengers. Affected peer groups would need to plan and find alternative transport if a P2 driver was not available. This may be more difficult for those who live in areas where alternative transport options are limited. Education programs could be undertaken encouraging new drivers in P1 to drive with no more than one passenger. (From page 12 of same booklet)…….. multiple passengers significantly increase the risk of an inexperienced driver crashing. Multiple passengers, in particular a group of alcohol affected peer passengers, pose a dangerous distraction for an inexperienced driver-even when the young driver is sober. Distractions increase mental workload which impairs the ability of drivers to detect changes in the environment, increasing the chance of a collision. Multiple passengers can also directly and indirectly encourage more risk raking behaviour. The more passengers in a crash with another vehicle or fixed object, the greater the chance of someone being killed or injured”
WITH ALL THIS KNOWLEDGE WHY ARE PASSENGERS NOT RESTRCTED?
OR DOES THIS PROBLEM NEED TO BE LOOKED AT FROM ANOTHER ANGLE?
WHO IS PROTECTING PASSENGERS FROM THESE INEXPERIENCED DRIVERS?
WACD asks how can anybody, after reading just the above information, say that restricting passengers would not save lives.
Or doesn’t it matter if it is a young passenger’s life?
The discussion paper says that the ‘overall crash benefits' of limiting passengers of new drivers needs to be weighed against the impact on the social mobility of young people.
What is a CRASH BENEFIT?
Is a young passenger’s life the ‘crash benefit’?
Are they sacrificing passengers just so that new drivers can rush through the 1st twelve months of their licence?
If a restriction in high risk times was part of the proposed ‘graduated licence’ system, many lives would be saved.
Drivers would ‘graduate’ onto carrying passengers and would understand the extra responsibility of a P2 licence.
If drivers fail to obey the road laws in the first twelve months then they should not graduate onto a P2 licence.
With all the statistics that the government has it is highly irresponsible not to protect young passengers from being killed in this way.
Passengers are often under eighteen years old and have never been behind the wheel of a car themselves. The law needs to protect them.
Social mobility should not be used as a reason not to implement a proven life saving road safety measure.
It is the governments job to make available public transport at the times and places it is needed. If this means more taxis, buses and trains so that young people have that social mobility then it must be provided.
Maybe it is time for every licenced venue to provide a courtesy bus.
Or is the government actually conceding human life, weighing it up against the cost of public transport and not social mobility at all? We hope not, but we will look very closely at this unresolved matter.
How many more passengers will lose their life before the government puts there safety first?
Currently if a probationary driver loses his licence in the first twelve months of his licence they are restricted to carrying only one passenger when their licence is re- instated.
THIS IS TOO LATE FOR DEAD PASSENGERS
Like all our road laws they are reactive instead of proactive
There is so much evidence in favour of passenger restrictions, but always viewed from the angle of saving drivers.
ACT Crash Data:
'There are three road safety initiatives that concern passengers. First, New Zealand and 15 US states have a passenger restriction as part of Graduating Licensing.
All jurisdictions with passenger restrictions permit young newly licensed drivers to carry passengers if the young driver is being supervised by a fully licensed driver who is over the age of 20 or 21. An evaluation of the New Zealand passenger restriction revealed fewer crashes involving passengers among young drivers with a restricted licence compared with young drivers licensed before the introduction of graduated licensing.
The Californian passenger restriction has been evaluated also. Preliminary results showed a reduction in the proportion of deaths and injuries among teenage passengers. Passenger restrictions have been criticised on the grounds that rates of compliance might be low, and that compliance will force young passengers to drive themselves thus increasing their exposure to a crash.
It has been argued, however, that even if all teenage passengers were to comply by driving themselves a large proportion of lives would still be saved each year.
The second initiative, the Norwegian 'Speak Out' campaign, was designed to encourage teenage passengers to speak out to their teenage drivers about excessive speeding and other unsafe driving practices. An evaluation showed a reduction in the proportion of fatalities and serious injuries among passengers aged 16 to 19 years but not among drivers aged 16 to 19 years.
It is possible that the effect of the campaign was to discourage passengers from driving with drivers who did not act on their advice to drive more safely.
A third initiative, the Transport Accident Commission of Victoria's 'If you don't trust the driver, don't get in' campaign was targeted primarily at young passengers and was an advertisement televised in Victoria for a period in the late 1990s. It was designed to make young passengers realise that they have a choice and that they do not have to travel with drivers whose responsibility or judgment they question.
FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW
The problem with the Victorian campaign “If you don’t trust the driver, don’t get in” was that they missed the most fundamental part of friendship for young people 'TRUST' All people trust their friends; they are not getting into a car with anybody they don’t trust.
The driver betrays that trust. It isn’t just young people either, Wives get into cars everyday with husbands they trust. Children have no concept, every adult is trusted.
Ever heard of any drink driver say DON’T get in the car with me, I am too drunk to drive? They will tell you they are fine to drive. You believe what they tell you no matter how old you are. Trust is the basis of all relationships.
The advertisements should be showing the driver betraying that trust. The responsibility should be on the driver. The driver is on the road doing the wrong thing regardless of wether he/she is carrying passengers or not. Passengers and other road users become victims of this sort of driver. It is the Driver WACD wants the message sent to.
Driver responsibility is what needs to be taught.
*discussion paper on young driver safety 2005
