Wouldn't parents be happy that their kids have less risk of having a car accident?
Having said that, I think the old 16 and 50 hours scheme was fine... if your too stupid to learn in that time period, either have a huge crash and suffer the consequences or wait until you're more mature
I reckon all of society's rules should cater to intelligent people, rather than to the worst examples of humans
The problem isn't that kids aren't getting enough experience... it's that parents either don't want or can't afford to take them driving for 50 hours, let alone 120... so they just fake it, because they also can't afford the time to keep driving their kids everwhere.
I didn't get my L's until I was 17 because I didn't feel ready... but I know drivers who are some of the best on the road who got their P's at 16 and did only 50 hours.
I still think the biggest problem is fully licenced drivers, including parents teaching their kids... they speed, drive dangerously, don't do simple things like check blindspots, slow down for speed cameras and then speed up again etc etc... so because everyone else does it, people do it inherently. Until speeding is so culturally unacceptable that NOONE does it, P-platers are gunna get killed on our roads. And lets face it, the majority of P-plater deaths are from speeding or thinking they're better drivers than they actually are.
I'm still waiting for them to bring in an anti-speeding campaign of something truly shocking. I reckon holding a child over a cliff edge and describing what will happen to their body when they hit the ground, and then describe how two cars travelling at 70kms an hour head on would do about the same amount of damage... and whether or not you want that to happen to your kids. Things like that... highly disturbing...
That or make every driver do a driving test once every 5 years... and make them do more advanced driving skill courses if they want to own powerful cars to prove they can handle them.
