Young Drivers

Safety Tips for Young Drivers.

• Get supervised driving experience in all types of weather conditions and road surfaces (clear weather, dawn/dusk, rain, high winds, dust, gravel, hill climbs, descents, etc.).
• Get someone who is an experienced driver to supervise you lots while driving town/city rush hour traffic, around roundabouts, out on the motorway, changing lanes, urban and rural driving. etc. Don’t just practise in an urban area, make sure you get experience driving on all types of roads with a confident driver alongside to guide you as and when you may need it.
• Be courteous when driving and think of other road users.
• Look as far ahead as possible, and not just at the taillights of the car in front of you, which is how nose-to-tail accidents happen.
• Put your phone away when you’re driving, or at least where you can’t see or reach for it. Driver distraction is a leading cause of crashes.
• Don’t let passengers push you beyond your comfort zone. It’s your responsibility as the driver to stay alert, ensure how safe is safe for you, the safety of yourself, the safety of passengers, and the safety of others while driving.
• When choosing a car, look for solid cars with technology like ABS, airbags, and pre-tensioning seatbelts.
• Get a car with great visibility about the car.
• Parents, family members, and those with driving experience should supervise you (the young driver/learner) as much as possible.

As a parent or guardian, let your young learners drive, even if it’s just for short distances each time. It is so important to help them get experience behind the wheel while being supervised as much as is possible and practical.

In 2008, OECD data revealed that the United Kingdom (UK) had the lowest fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres travelled when compared with other countries who were OECD members.  In this survey, the graphed data showed Australia as being 9th out of the 13 countries involved in the survey.  Where the UK had 4.9 fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres travelled, Australia had 6.9.  Denmark held the highest with 8.22.

Recently, Top Tests, UK, revealed data on various driving statistics.  Top Test’s 2018 data showed that drivers aged 16–19 were still 38% more likely to be killed or seriously injured than drivers aged 40–49, and drivers aged 20–29 were 65% more likely to be killed or seriously injured than drivers aged 40–49.  When 1000 drivers were quizzed in 2018, Top Tests found that 42% of the drivers aged 18–34 admitted to experiencing road rage at least once a week, and 14% of younger drivers experienced road rage every day that they drove.  (Source: https://toptests.co.uk/driving-statistics/)

Across the ditch in NZ, AMI insurance claims data reveal that drivers under the age of 25-years old are most at risk of having an accident.  In the United State, motor vehicle crashes are the second leading cause of death for U.S. teens.  Here in Australia, the government has kept a close eye on road statistics as well, and rightly so.  According to 2021 reports, there were a total of 1133 road fatalities for the 2021 year, where speeding remained the top cause of accidents; this was followed by driver distraction, and then driver fatigue.  Those aged 17 – 25 year old were the second-highest age bracket impacted by road deaths.  The 40 – 64 age group had the most road accident deaths, however it was young men who were more likely to be involved in a crash.

By March this year (2022), New South Wales had recorded the most fatal road accidents for the year (25), an increase from 2021 with (19). Queensland followed (20), Victoria (18), Western Australia (15), South Australia (7), Tasmania (6), Northern Territory (3), and the Australian Capital Territory (0)

Whether it’s travelling too fast for the conditions, using smartphones, vaping or smoking, eating, applying makeup, checking the texts – all while driving – these are the leading causes for road fatalities on Australian roads.  Driving while fatigued and, of course, drink driving or driving under the influence of some drug also causes road fatalities.

It’s sad that anyone should die, however it is the young drivers that are the top culprits for using their mobile phones while they are driving, which leads to serious and tragic accidents.  In Australia, 18 – 24 and 25 – 39 age groups reported the highest application of using mobile phones while driving.  18 – 24 year old drivers are twice as likely to receive a speeding fine.

Hamish Piercy, Fleet Risk Manager for AMI, and former New Zealand Police Officer with the serious crash unit, has over 33 years of crash investigation experience.  Hamish was unsurprised that, in New Zealand, AMI received such a high number of claims for drivers under the age of 25.  He commented: “There are a lot of great young drivers out there, and some excellent driver education programmes, but these statistics show that we can’t be complacent when it comes to driver safety. It’s an unavoidable fact that to gain experience, you have to drive. So, as a society we need to look at how we can enable that in safe ways.”

If possible, try to enrol your young family member that’s embarking on getting a driver’s license to run through a local driver training course.  Good driving courses will focus on key areas like core driving skills, reading the road ahead, distraction, inattention, and speed.  Courses that can impart crucial driving skills will enable your youngster to gain confidence, gain good driving skills and driving habits, and get plenty of positive encouragement.  These are all essential for getting out on the road to drive as safely as possible.

Safe driving everyone!

Can Road Accidents be Eliminated?

In recent years, car developments have largely upped the game when it comes to safety aids. From AEB being a standard inclusion nowadays, to other items like rear-cross traffic alerts, lane assist, and the like now being regular sights.

Manufacturers have focused on safety in an effort to appeal to more buyers, but also address the issue of fatalities on our roads. And for the large part, historically, auto makers have played a notable role in reducing the road toll. Further innovations and developments are now being spoken of to maintain this momentum, and possibly, eliminate accidents on our roads all together. But is this really possible?

Future ideas

There are no shortage of measures being designed as a direct response to car accidents. To name a few:

• Forward collision systems that detect an impending crash;
• Adaptive headlights which provide visibility around corners;
• Magnetic roads that ‘guide’ vehicles;
• Communicative vehicles that ‘speak’ with one another;
• And the most prominent innovation, fully autonomous vehicles

While each of these innovative measures could help reduce road casualties even further, there’s still a very obvious facet missing from the discussion here. That is, we seem to be doing everything to modify technology, but we’re not actually addressing driver behaviour. In fact, we’re looking to bypass the driver to achieve desired results. Is this really sustainable? Some of the early indications from autonomous vehicles are that they are far from perfect.

Equity and equality on the road?

Although making technological changes is all well and good, they introduce a disparity between road users. Those who are driving the latest cars equipped with such technology, and those who are holding onto older vehicles.

Even though many innovations eventually become mainstream across all levels of new vehicles, the time for this roll out is often such that new technology features come along. That is, by the time one feature becomes standard across all vehicles, the next ‘must have’ technology is being fitted into top of the line vehicles. Then the cycle continues.

We’re also not at a level where we can begin to depend on technology at all costs. That is, drivers should not be taught to become ‘dummies’ in their cars, oblivious to their surroundings. The fact is, things can, and sometimes do go wrong when technology is involved, and this is unlikely to be any different when installed in a car where external factors can cause a hazard.

This is where an emphasis needs to return to the person behind the wheel, who ultimately, can still cause an accident on our roads by way of being distracted, poor driving habits, a mistake, or through reckless actions. Today’s licencing requirements are indeed far too lenient. Sure, the burden has increased for new drivers who are on their P plates, but the focus is still misdirected.

Improving new driver skills

It is important that new drivers are tested on their ability to drive cautiously and defensively on our roads. This is not a matter for dispute. However, reactive mechanisms have largely been overlooked. That is, if one finds themselves losing control of a vehicle, or in danger of causing an accident, drivers need to be equipped with the necessary motoring skills to avoid, or at least mitigate, the impact of a crash.

Therefore, as we proceed down the rabbit hole where we increasingly rely on technology doing all the driving for us, we need to be considerate about the impact this will have on driver behaviour. Technological developments will save countless lives, but until we also address the skills and mindset of the person behind the wheel, we’re still some time away from getting anywhere near zero road fatalities.

Who and What is ANCAP?

All new vehicles sold in Australia and surrounding areas must undergo testing to assess how safe that car is. Graded with a star rating, the more stars a car has, the safer that car is. ANCAP, also known as the Australasian New Car Assessment Program, provides a substantial overview of what makes a car tick the boxes safety wise.

A few years ago, ANCAP changed the parameters in what they use to assess the safety of a car. There are four key areas: Adult Occupant Protection, Child Occupant Protection, Vulnerable Road User Protection, and Safety Assist.

Adult Occupant Protection

ANCAP looks at the kind of protection, the kind of safety, offered to the most likely passengers in the front and second row seats of a car.

They look at offset impacts, side impacts, whiplash injuries for front and second row, Autonomous Emergency Braking in a city setting, and rate the categories appropriately.

Full width and frontal offset are the highest for adults, with a score of 8 being applied along with 8 for Side Impact and Pole (oblique).

That last one is not uncommon, as it’s been found that drivers looking at an object in a crash situation have a higher tendency to impact that object.

To achieve a five star rating for Adult Occupant Protection, the car must achieve a total of 80% of the possible maximum score of 38.

Child Occupant Protection

80% is also the minimum requirement for the Child Occupant Protection, which has a maximum score of 49. There are just four margins here, Dynamic (Front) at 16 points, Dynamic (Side) with 8, 12 points for Child Restraint Installation, and 13 for On Board Features.

On the star rating, Adult Occupant and Child Occupant both have 80% to reach five stars. 70% is four stars, 60% for three stars, 50% for two stars, and 40% for just one star. Vulnerable Road User Protection and Safety Assist have 60% and 70% respectively.

Vulnerable Road User Protection

Vulnerable Road User Protection takes a look at Head Impact (24 points), with 6 points apiece for Upper Leg Impact, Lower Leg Impact, pedestrian related AEB (Autonomous Emergency Braking) and cyclist related AEB. The specifications here are about looking at frontal designs of vehicles; will it mitigate injury to a pedestrian and/or cyclist, and will it overall mitigate or avoid impact with pedestrians and/or cyclists?

Safety Assist

The final sector, Safety Assist, measures the amount of safety features available, and the effectiveness of those systems. The current maximum score is 13, with 2020 moving that to 16.

Speed Assistance Systems are rated to 3 points, Seat Belt reminders also rate as 3, and Lane Support Systems as 4. AEB in an inter-urban environment is current 3, with that increasing to 4 in 2020. A new category, Junction Assist, with two points, comes in next year.

Are You Being Misgendered By A Crash Test Dummy?

It may have come to your notice that not all car drivers are men. For most of us, this isn’t much of a staggering revelation, especially if you are a woman. Or if you were ever driven places by your mother. Or taught your daughter to drive. Or asked your wife or girlfriend to share the driving with you on a long-haul trip interstate. Or if… well, you get the picture. However, it seems as if car manufacturers, especially those responsible for the passive safety features, haven’t quite cottoned onto this yet, as a whole.  You’d think that Bertha Benz had never taken her husband’s prototype horseless carriage out for a long drive to demonstrate to the world that this new invention was easy to use.

The road safety analysts who collect facts on these sorts of things found, when they separated out the data for men and the data for women, found out that women are 73% more likely to be injured in a vehicle crash than men and 17% more likely to die in one. This isn’t because they’re crashing at a higher rate, either. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the US, men still crash more and are more likely to do silly things like not wear seatbelts, drive too fast and drive drunk. However, if they do get into identical crashes, a man is more likely to survive it than a woman.

One has to ask why, given that most car manufacturers pride themselves on how good their safety features are. After all, they do all those crash tests with dummies, don’t they? Surely these should make cars safer for both men and women?

Well, yes. Lots of passive safety features such as airbags have become standard on just about every new vehicle thanks to these tests. But there’s a wee problem with these tests, as pointed out by investigator and social commentator Caroline Criado-Perez in her book Invisible Women. Ms Criado-Perez dug around a bit and found out a few things about the standard crash test dummies used in most tests by most manufacturers. In these tests, they tend to use three main ones for the frontal crash tests: one 95^th percentile male (in other words, a dummy representing a really big dude who’s bigger than 95% of other guys), a 50^th percentile male (an average guy) and a 5^th percentile female dummy (a teeny lady who’s shorter than 95% of the population). In other words, tests are carried out on twice as many male dummies as they are on female dummies. That’s a wee bit of a problem to begin with.

However, it gets worse. According to Ms Criado-Perez, during those frontal crash tests, the female dummy isn’t even tested in the driver’s seat – she goes into the front passenger seat. This makes you wonder what century these designers are living in. Surely, given that they’re putting all these electronic assistance gadgets, they know that this is the 21^st century and that women drive cars, don’t they? The good news here is that in Australia, the ANCAP tests do put that 5^th percentile female dummy in the driver’s seat during the frontal tests – good for them.

However, there’s one wee problem with that female dummy. OK, she’s smaller than the male ones and she’s got boobs, but when it comes to actual anatomy, that dummy doesn’t actually represent real female biology. What the designers did was to simply take the male dummy, scale it down and put boobs on it. The trouble is that nature doesn’t work like that. There are differences between male and female skeletons – that’s forensics 101 (yes, literally; it’s part of the basic undergraduate anatomy course). Take necks for example.  If a man and a woman have the same sized head, the woman will have thinner neck vertebrae and a thinner neck.  Now look down a bit to the other end of the spine, and look at the pelvis. The male pelvis is narrower and has a heap of different angles, which means that a guy’s legs are also straighter – and that’s just the start. The differences between male and female pelvises are as different as the soft bits found in and on the pelvis (yes, the bits you’re thinking of). And the list goes on: men have longer ribcages and denser long bones as well.

In short, using a smaller version of a male dummy doesn’t actually represent a female body. Women are being misgendered by crash test dummies, in effect.

Would you be surprised to learn that in one recent study on sex differences between injuries from car crashes, women were more likely to have injuries to their pelvises and spines – the places where female bodies are most different from male bodies? Those whiplash-protecting headrests do something, but they’re better at protecting male necks than female necks – because they’ve been tested on what are essentially male dummies.

However, this isn’t an excuse for men to hog the driver’s seat.  Volvo is one car manufacturer who has cottoned onto the fact that women have been driving since Bertha Benz took a road trip through the Schwartzwald, and they’re starting to work out how they can make cars safer for 100% of drivers.  What’s more, a more anthropomorphically correct female dummy has been invented, known as the THOR-5F.  The THOR-5F isn’t just a scaled-down male dummy but has been built to actually represent that dainty 5^th percentile female, pelvis, neck and all. This dummy even has a whole heap of sensors in the abdomen and the dummy looks like she’s in the second trimester of pregnancy.  A crash test mummy, if you like. Here’s hoping that ANCAP and the other safety testing authorities will insist that this dummy or other dummies based on real women must be used in crash tests.

In the meantime, keep on driving safely and always wear your seatbelt (even if arranging it around your boobs is awkward).