Are your driving skills outdated? Experts believe so and here's why

Navigating the roads safely is a responsibility we all share.

As road rules and regulations change over time, it's crucial to know that driving skills might need a bit of polishing to keep up.

A recent proposal suggested that Australian drivers within a certain age bracket should consider going through driving lessons again.


The University of New South Wales in Sydney released a study that brought to light a contentious idea: mandatory driving lessons for those over 50.

The rationale behind this suggestion was to enhance road safety across Australia.

According to the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics, drivers over 65 represent a significant 21 per cent of road deaths.

In contrast, drivers between ages 17 to 25 account for 19 per cent of road deaths.


compressed-driving.jpeg
Australian road rules and regulations have gone through significant changes over the years, highlighting the need for refresher courses. Image Credit: Pexels/Michał Robak


UNSW Scientia Professor Kaarin Anstey pointed out that common driving mistakes were not necessarily a product of ageing.

'A lot of these are just bad habits that drivers have brought with them from their younger years,' Professor Anstey said.

'We see a lot of people not checking blind spots, not taking right-hand turns properly, cutting corners, or not maintaining their lane position.'


Professor Anstey suggested that drivers aged 50 years and above should incorporate extra driving lessons into their 'normal life'.

This proactive approach could help drivers reflect on their driving skills and identify areas for improvement.

'It could be something like, when you turn 50, you are invited to have an extra driving lesson just to check in on your driving,' Professor Anstey added.

Anstey has been at the forefront of studies at Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) and has focused on improving older driver safety.

The NeuRA's Better Drive Study involved monitoring three groups of drivers over 65 for 12 months.

Each group received varying levels of support and feedback to improve their driving skills.

While the full results are pending, Anstey cited a pilot study that showed significant improvements in driving safety among participants who received interventions.


In New South Wales, certain traffic offences could lead to an immediate loss of licence.

However, Anstey argued that the 'all or nothing approach' is not the most effective solution.

Tailored interventions that provide constructive feedback and targeted lessons could be a more beneficial alternative to revoking driving privileges.

So, what does this mean for you?

It's an invitation to stay ahead of the curve and consider taking a refresher driving course.

Not only could it help drivers avoid the pitfalls of outdated driving habits, but it could also give drivers the confidence to navigate the roads with ease and safety in mind.
Key Takeaways

  • A recent study suggested that Australian drivers aged 50 and over should take mandatory driving refresher lessons to improve road safety.
  • The University of NSW study indicated these measures could help address common driving errors, which were habits formed in the early years.
  • UNSW Scientia Professor Kaarin Anstey proposed periodic driving refreshers as part of 'normal life' starting at age 50.
  • Preliminary results from the Better Drive Study suggested that interventions such as refresher courses could significantly improve older drivers' safety and reduce driving errors.
Have you taken a refresher driving course before? Are mandatory driving lessons for seniors beneficial or an unnecessary measure? We would love to hear your thoughts, so share them with us in the comments section below!
 
Sponsored
RUBBISH..(65 to 85 ) = 21% ( 45 to 65, ). 21% + ? (25 to 45,). 21% + ? (18 to25 ) 19%.....leaves 60% for45-65 and25 -45...30%each?? but this only tells of the deaths , was about a record of driving faults , so if (1) 20 yo driver at fault drunk kills a innocent couple (2) means the 65 yo are more risky than the (1), statistics can be manipulated sometimes to ones advantage ,it depends on the statistic s maker and motives...eg; ins co can use to increase premiums
 
RUBBISH..(65 to 85 ) = 21% ( 45 to 65, ). 21% + ? (25 to 45,). 21% + ? (18 to25 ) 19%.....leaves 60% for45-65 and25 -45...30%each?? but this only tells of the deaths , was about a record of driving faults , so if (1) 20 yo driver at fault drunk kills a innocent couple (2) means the 65 yo are more risky than the (1), statistics can be manipulated sometimes to ones advantage ,it depends on the statistic s maker and motives...eg; ins co can use to increase premiums
I was about to say the same as you did, only you got there first. Well said.
 
A good idea for everyone.

(I’m sure Driving schools will be happy!)

What about the opposite end of the driving population - some younger drivers - the ones who are always running late, in a big hurry. These ones have a complete disregard for keeping to the posted speed limits - especially 50 kph residential areas - end up tailgating, overtaking even where there are double lines.
I was about to say the same as you did, only you got there first. Well said.
 
What a load of rubbish. So, according to this article, drivers between 25 & 65 are responsible for 60% of road deaths. So why are only those over 50 targeted for this stupid idea? Just another money-making idea for RTA & driving schools. BTW - where are the driving schools for those of use who live in regional areas? They don't exist so more people make more money buying more cars to set up another unnecessary govt ordered business.
 
What a load of garbage. Where’s the statistics for drivers caught driving whilst high on drugs or alcohol. That’s not legal yet they still do it. What about the ones doing well in excess of the speed limit? I’m pretty sure you’ll find all of the above are not over 50!
Nor are the ones who insist on tailgating or passing on double white lines because their V8’s can go much faster. This has probably put together by the same idiots who claim ‘country drivers are worse than city drivers because more country residents die on the country roads than city residents.’ I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fact that most of the drivers on the country roads are the country residents. Does it??😂😂😂
 
There are statistics and statistics. Depending on what you are looking for, they can be skewed to emphasise your point or not. It seems to me that the age brackets and related percentage points don't mean anything, as they are almost identical (21/19), so why focus on the over 65 group?
Often studies involving road statistics do not drill down far enough. What was the main cause/causes of the fatality? Who was more at fault (often each driver is to blame to some degree for an "accident". Was there significant issues with the vehicle/s involved, the road, visibility (including obstruction from another vehicle). Was there something effecting the driver/s, such as passenger distraction, illness, tiredness, being upset over something? There are a whole host of things that may contribute to a fatality, other than the lack of driving skill or developed bad habits.
It would be interesting to know how many of each age group are consistently driving on public roads, compared to the % of each group involved as a driver CAUSING a fatality, as the information could shed a different light on the issue. For example, if there are 100,000 in the 17-25 age bracket regularly driving, resulting in 19%, not being the fatality, but causing it, compared to 500,000 in the over 65 group, with 21% causing the fatality. This is because showing a percentage is a good, hit you in the face way of emphasising a point, the real problem is that 19,000 of the younger age group caused a fatality, whereas in the older group a whopping 105,000 caused a death. However, if the theoretical numbers were reversed and 500,000 were the yo8unger age bracket and 100,000 the older group, then the statistics would be 95,000 and 21,000 respectively. These statistics would indicate the younger group requires greater attention to address the causes of the fatalities.
Something more meaningful would be to ensure the younger, soon to be, or just become, drivers should be exposed to the consequences of driving too fast, too close and lack of concentration on the road, including signs. Maintaining a safe distance, speed, reaction times, braking and distance likely to be travelled before stopping and Graphic footage of the consequences would emphasise these factors.
 
What a load of garbage. Where’s the statistics for drivers caught driving whilst high on drugs or alcohol. That’s not legal yet they still do it. What about the ones doing well in excess of the speed limit? I’m pretty sure you’ll find all of the above are not over 50!
Nor are the ones who insist on tailgating or passing on double white lines because their V8’s can go much faster. This has probably put together by the same idiots who claim ‘country drivers are worse than city drivers because more country residents die on the country roads than city residents.’ I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fact that most of the drivers on the country roads are the country residents. Does it??😂😂😂
Are you assuming that people who are over 50 years of age do not drink or drug drive, or speed?

City drivers die on country roads for a myriad of reasons. Fatigue, not driving to conditions, unfamiliarity with the roads and more. Oh dear!
 
  • Like
Reactions: lynstacker and Jest
What a load of rubbish. So, according to this article, drivers between 25 & 65 are responsible for 60% of road deaths. So why are only those over 50 targeted for this stupid idea? Just another money-making idea for RTA & driving schools. BTW - where are the driving schools for those of use who live in regional areas? They don't exist so more people make more money buying more cars to set up another unnecessary govt ordered business.
If you were hit by someone with a dodgy past record, what would be your reply?
 
Garbage, you are only looking at one side of the argument. How many aren't even licenced, how many were pedestrians or bicycle riders, how many weren't the driver, which drivers were at fault. I'd also be more inclined to view statics on fines meated out to drivers, that would be more relevant in this argument!!!
 
Garbage, you are only looking at one side of the argument. How many aren't even licenced, how many were pedestrians or bicycle riders, how many weren't the driver, which drivers were at fault. I'd also be more inclined to view statics on fines meated out to drivers, that would be more relevant in this argument!!!
How many can't read English, how many were texting, how many were engaged in a sexual activity, how many sneezed, how many were perving at a schoolgirl (or schoolboy), how many dropped their cigarette, how many had an epileptic seizure, how many choked on their coffee?

Please tell me!
 

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else

Latest Articles

  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×