In what circumstance, if any, is if okay to forge part of your 120 driving hrs?

[Yertle the Turtle]

The law is the law.
What if you applied this philosophy to WA drivers? "Ah, can't be fucked with doing a whole 25 hours, might as well cut it back to 20, I'll be fine".
It's still irresponsible and wrong, and tbh I think someone should take all the learning experience they can, no matter how comfortable they feel in the driver's seat.
Cars are giant metal death machines. I don't want an up-himself teenager crashing into me and killing me just because he couldn't be stuffed with a couple of hours in a log book.
It's that simple.

100% agree. The laws are there for a reason, and you should uphold them.

[sudodds]

I find this interesting, because in England the system is actually quite different (has been tricky for my parents to get around the new system, with me trying, slowly, to get my P's), i.e. you don't need to drive a certain amount of hours before you pass the test. Instead once you get your learners, you have lessons then practice until you feel ready, after which you need to book and pass both a theory exam, and a driving test. I believe the average learner spends about 60-70 hours behind the wheel, about half of which are with an instructor before they pass their test. I looked it up, and it appears that the UK actually has less road fatalities per 100 000 ppl than Australia as well. I think that definitely has something to do with more professional driving instruction. I had driving lessons here, but tbh they were pretty lackluster - didn't even learn how to parallel park! And they were sooooo expensive, in comparison to those that my friends were having in the UK I feel like making driving lessons easier to access would really make a difference here.

Not that I think forging hours is a good idea, or that I disagree with the premise that more hours is better, just thought it was an interesting comparison (mainly because its been the topic of conversation in my house for a while aha)

[turinturambar]

I find this interesting, because in England the system is actually quite different (has been tricky for my parents to get around the new system, with me trying, slowly, to get my P's), i.e. you don't need to drive a certain amount of hours before you pass the test. Instead once you get your learners, you have lessons then practice until you feel ready, after which you need to book and pass both a theory exam, and a driving test. I believe the average learner spends about 60-70 hours behind the wheel, about half of which are with an instructor before they pass their test. I looked it up, and it appears that the UK actually has less road fatalities per 100 000 ppl than Australia as well. I think that definitely has something to do with more professional driving instruction. I had driving lessons here, but tbh they were pretty lackluster - didn't even learn how to parallel park! And they were sooooo expensive, in comparison to those that my friends were having in the UK I feel like making driving lessons easier to access would really make a difference here.

Speaking anecdotally only, it is said that because Australia is such a big country Australians are more likely to accept and do long distance drives than the British (taking the first Google result for both suggests 15,500 km / year against 12,700 km / year).  If so, which is the better measure - fatalities per person, or say fatalities per passenger mile (which airlines use)?

Thoughts?

[sudodds]

Speaking anecdotally only, it is said that because Australia is such a big country Australians are more likely to accept and do long distance drives than the British (taking the first Google result for both suggests 15,500 km / year against 12,700 km / year).  If so, which is the better measure - fatalities per person, or say fatalities per passenger mile (which airlines use)?

Thoughts?

Can definitely agree with the first statement. When we still lived in England, the 45 minute drive to Brighton seemed like the longest drive ever - now that is my morning commute to uni!

I'm not sure with the second statement - I don't disagree with it, I just don't know aha. I feel like the density of drivers in the cities in the UK would still be a factor which could sway those results (ie. more drivers on the roads at a given time), though I don't really know enough about this stuff to have a definitive opinion

[PhoenixxFire]

In theory I’m entirely for doing 120 hours but I’m in a position where it’s not easy to do. I’ve got 3 older siblings who are also on their Ls and my dads not around. My mum hardly ever has the time or energy to let us go driving and I can’t afford to get lessons for the whole time. My council has a L2P program but I don’t even know if I qualify because I do have access to a car and driver.

[turinturambar]

Society hasn't figured out whether it views permission to drive as a privilege, a right, or a necessity.  It may well never figure it out, but just veer between the different alternatives.  Current rules on learners are very much that it's a privilege with associated heavy responsibilities and a duty of care on the state.  I tend to agree with this, and as already raised the statistics show reduced crashes with experience.

However, it is a fact that not being able to drive can restrict employment opportunities and many other life choices, and the number "120" is a standard that is reasonable but entirely arbitrary.  Experience is on a scale, one set of 120 hours will contain different experiences from another, and hopefully it is clear that you don't suddenly become a 37% better solo driver the instant your documented hours click over from 119 to 120.  In my book, viewing 120 hours as "100+ properly documented hours" is well within the spirit and intent of the law (though obviously not the letter).

Finally, you are also able to apply for an exemption from the 120 hour requirement in cases of hardship - though I doubt they grant this very often.