CHAPTER 6
MOTORCYCLE RIDER EDUCATION AND TRAINING
CHAPTER 6
|
All young people should receive an education which enables them to participate fully in society. Full participation in the community includes the capacity to behave appropriately in the modern road environment.
Education is distinguished from training:
Of the two terms, education is the broader. Unlike training which is usually short-term, task-oriented and highly specific, education is concerned with preparation of individuals, over time, to live within a particular social system. In many aspects, training could be considered to be a highly specific component of the longer-term educational process. [1]
Schools are one of many sources of education which influence the behaviour of road users. Other factors which determine a person's subsequent knowledge, attitudes and behaviour include the role models provided by parents and other authority figures and peer influences:
Attitude development, of course, should be approached as early as possible because...by the time young people reach driving or motorcycling age their attitudes are pretty well formed. [2]
It is a lot easier to try to form values that you would like someone in the community to have than to try and change them. [3]
Formal education of children in Victoria begins before they are six years old. By then, most children have developed a basic understanding of road use and personal relationships. This has been largely influenced by the models provided for them by their parents, pre-schools and other care givers. The education provided in schools is therefore a fundamental, but not the only, component of traffic safety education.
By the time a person takes the decision to become a motorcycle rider, all these prior educational experiences are in place. Driver and rider training programs which are directed towards people aged 16 and 17 years who are ready to begin driving cars or riding motorcycles must build on, rather than act in isolation from the attitudes and skills which they have already learned as children.
This Chapter reviews and updates the recommendations and outcomes of previous Social Development Committee inquiries relating to traffic safety education in pre-schools and schools and discusses the issue of specific motorcycle training for Victoria.
In Victoria, the purpose of school education has been described as:
...ensure that all young people receive an education which enables them to participate fully in society....(the curriculum should include the information which is) most relevant to the lives and needs of particular students and groups of students. [4]
For the purposes of this Inquiry, this statement can be interpreted to mean that children should learn the skills and attitudes which enable them to handle the traffic system safely in both the short and long term. The Ministry of Education (now the Directorate of School Education) stated in its submission to the Social Development Committee Inquiry into Child Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety that:
The Ministry of Education recognises the importance of this aspect of education and seeks to fulfil its responsibilities through implementation of traffic safety education programs. [5]
The Social Development Committee considered the issue of traffic safety education in three previous inquiries:
The Road Safety Committee has taken the evidence and findings of these three previous inquiries into account in its pursuit of issues relevant to ensuring that motorcycle riders are adequately prepared for their role as part of the traffic system in Victoria. This section discusses the current status of traffic safety education in Victoria in the context of the recommendations from these other relevant inquiries.
In 1983, the Social Development Committee commissioned RACV Consulting Services to assess existing and proposed road accident countermeasures. [6] The Committee recommended, as medium priority countermeasures, greater emphasis on pre-school pedestrian education [7] and accelerated introduction of the Bike-Ed bicycle safety program in schools. [8]
The Government response to these recommendations accepted the general thrust of pre-school traffic safety education and committed itself to providing additional resources in this area, stating:
This program of pedestrian education will complement existing activities of the Road Traffic Authority aimed at promoting the restraint of pre-school children when travelling in motor vehicles. [9]
Since 1983, VicRoads and the Federal Office of Road Safety, in conjunction with the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, have implemented a number of projects directed at young children. [10] These have been extensively supported in child care centres by specialist VicRoads consultants. A VicRoads survey of pre-schools in 1990 indicated only 24% had used these consultants. The materials developed by VicRoads were used in 55% of pre-schools. [11]
The Road Safety Committee endorses these initiatives. It is of the view that appropriate pre-school education is fundamental to establishing the attitudes which children need to be able to accept later specific education and training in traffic safety issues such as motorcycle riding.
In response to the 1983 Social Development Committee report, the Government also committed itself to providing resources and encouraging implementation of the Bike-Ed program. [12] This has not been fully achieved. Use of Bike Ed programs in primary schools was 38% in 1990. It did not change between 1988 and 1990. [13] Use of other primary school traffic safety education materials was 33% in 1990. [14]
The Road Safety Committee is of the view that the use of these traffic safety education materials in primary schools is too low. The reasons for this low figure seem to lie more with Directorate of School Education policy than VicRoads. These issues are discussed in more detail in the next section.
In 1986, the Social Development Committee tabled its First Report upon the Inquiry into Child Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. This report included an extensive analysis of the roles of the (then) Ministry of Education and the (then) Road Traffic Authority in providing traffic safety education in schools. It recommended measures which confer a competitive advantage on the teaching of traffic safety, including expansion of in-service training for teachers, employment of traffic safety consultants in (then) Ministry of Education regions, establishing a Ministerial Advisory Committee on traffic safety education, and matching funds for community organisations or agencies operating off-road facilities. [15]
The Government responded to these recommendations by saying that:
In 1985, the Joint Ministerial Taskforce of Traffic Safety Education recommended that the (then) Ministry of Education retain primary responsibility for providing traffic safety education in schools. [17] The Ministry seconded about 20 teachers to VicRoads to meet the Social Development Committee recommendations for consultants. At first these teachers were paid from Ministry of Education funds. They are now on the VicRoads payroll funded by the Transport Accident Commission. The Road Safety Education program costs $3.4m per year. [18] The Road Safety Committee is of the view that this funding must continue.
The Directorate of School Education offers three courses under the aegis of traffic safety education.
1. Traffic Safety Education is a general curriculum offered from Preparatory Grade to Year 12.
The Directorate resisted considerable pressure to incorporate traffic safety education as a discrete course of study within the Victorian Certificate of Education. Instead, traffic safety education remains within the Personal Development Curriculum:
All school students are to receive Traffic Safety Education as part of their Personal Development education in order to empower them with the knowledge, understanding and skills necessary to:
- function safely and independently as an individual road and traffic user,
- demonstrate responsible and cooperative attitudes and behaviour in road and traffic use,
- critically explore and examine society's needs for safety and use of transport,
- enhance their opportunities for personal and social development through safe travel in the community.
[19]
This course is integrated into other teaching subjects. It is not compulsory. Inclusion of traffic safety education in the curriculum and its evaluation are at the discretion of each school council. [20] The decision to facilitate and resource traffic safety education is set at a regional level. [21]
Resources to support the traffic safety education curriculum are developed and distributed by VicRoads. The Transport Accident Commission has funded development of 'Getting Around: Issues of Mobility and Safety in Personal Transport' to extend the materials available to traffic safety education teachers in secondary schools. [22]
Witnesses from the then Department of School Education indicated that it was impossible, under the current arrangements, to determine the quantity and quality of traffic safety education delivered in schools. [23]
There was disagreement between the then Department of School Education, VicRoads and the Victorian Association of Traffic Safety Education Teachers in their estimates about this issue. The Department says that, on their records, about 80% of schools are offering traffic safety education to their students.VicRoads reports surveys of schools which indicate traffic safety education is included in the curricula of 78% of primary schools [24] and 88% of post-primary schools. [25] The Victorian Association of Traffic Safety Education Teachers believes that no more than 50% of post-primary schools offer traffic safety education in their curriculum. [26] An independent estimation of use of traffic safety education materials in post-primary schools has shown that the use of traffic safety education materials in post-primary schools ranges from 4%, for science materials, to 47%, for drink driving materials. [27] Use is higher in schools which include pre-driver education in their curriculum.
The Road Safety Committee is of the view that, given the resources used to develop traffic safety education materials and the importance of traffic safety education in ensuring the goals of the Directorate of School Education are met, accurate statistics about the availability, uptake and effect of traffic safety education in schools are essential.
2. Pre-driver Education is taught in years 10, 11 and 12.
This program may only be taught by teachers qualified in pre-driver education. [28] The required course is taught at Deakin University Rusden Campus according to a curriculum prescribed in consultation with the Directorate of School Education and VicRoads. [29]
Pre-driver Education has been evaluated in terms of its influence on student knowledge and attitudes. [30] The effect on the attitudes of males was weaker than its effect on females. [31] Its effect on knowledge was greater for males than females. [32] Skills were improved in Years 10 and 11 males and Year 11 females. There was no relationship between changes in attitude, knowledge and skills. [33]
3. Motorcycle Rider Education is taught in Years 8 to 12. [34]
The practical component of this program can only be taught by teachers qualified in motorcycle safety education. [35] In 1985, the course was withdrawn from the in-service training options offered to teachers. [36] [37] The Victorian Association of Traffic Safety Education Teachers said, in their submission to the Inquiry, that this has occurred because:
- Training programs have not been offered by the Department of School Education [now Directorate of School Education];
Increased difficulty by schools in obtaining time release for staff wishing to participate in such programs; Regional General Manager approval is required prior to implementation of a motorcycle program as well as school council approval; and Each school must demonstrate to the Regional Manager "the degree of `demonstrated need' for motorcycle safety education". [38]
The Committee is of the view that adequate school-based traffic safety education is fundamental to establishing the attitudes required to ensure safe road use including motorcycle riding. This view is supported by Ms L. Ivett, Manager of Education Programs, VicRoads, who stated in evidence:
...the types of attitudes we are trying to cultivate for the motorists of tomorrow equally apply for motorcyclists so although there may not be a strong emphasis on motorcyclists per se the material provided is looking at the general issue of appropriate attitude development for a road user, whether that person be a motorist, a motorcyclist a pedestrian or a cyclist. [39]
The Directorate of School Education has delegated to VicRoads responsibility for development of materials and providing consultancy services. The Road Safety Committee congratulates VicRoads for their practical commitment to traffic safety education in primary and secondary schools.
Despite VicRoads' activities in this area, developments in traffic safety education in the Directorate of School Education have led the Committee to the view that the priority for traffic safety education, sought in recommendations of the Social Development Committee and acknowledged in the Government response, has not survived administrative and resource changes since 1986 because:
The previous Social Development Committee heard evidence that a significant number of students have an interest in motorcycle safety. [40] Therefore, the Directorate should be assisting the interested schools to deliver the program. It has not delivered the training and other resources needed to maintain the motorcycle rider education program.
The Road Safety Committee expresses concern at the insufficient action by the Directorate of School Education which suggests a lack of commitment to implementing traffic safety education in schools.
In November 1991, the Social Development Committee tabled the Report of its Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria. In that context, the Social Development Committee expressed the view that an effective means of shaping driver attitude is through long-term education programs beginning at kindergarten and continuing throughout primary and secondary school. [41] The Social Development Committee recommended that:
The Government response to these recommendations supported the emphasis on attitude rather than skill development, stating that:
Both VicRoads and the (then) Ministry of Education and Training support and promote attitude development as the major focus of school based traffic safety education programs. This approach is promulgated through the Personal Development Curriculum guidelines published by the Ministry of Education and Training and is reflected strongly in traffic safety curriculum resources developed by VicRoads. [43]
The Government supported evaluation of VicRoads education programs advising that:
VicRoads currently evaluates the usage and perceived value of traffic safety education curriculum programs on a biennial basis. This incorporates data collection on the value of consultancy services provided by VicRoads to enhance the uptake and quality of school based traffic safety education programs. Whilst evaluation of some curriculum resources in relation to knowledge acquisition and attitude development has already been undertaken, it is intended that similar studies of more recent resources also be included. [44]
However, the Government denied responsibility for funding evaluation of private programs stating:
...the Government encourages private off-road facilities to evaluate their education and training programs. Public funding is not available for this purpose, however VicRoads has expertise in this area and will write to D.E.C.A. and other operators outlining the Government's Response to this recommendation and offering to assist with advice on methodology if required.[45]
The Road Safety Committee is of the view that the Government response to the recommendations in the Social Development Committee report has declined to acknowledge the importance of evaluation in improving the delivery and uptake of traffic safety education in schools. It is critical of this lack of evaluation because it leads to wasted resources and inadequate preparation of young people before they are exposed to the skills training required to obtain a licence in driving a car or riding a motorcycle.
Education has to start at the infant level. By the time a person is sixteen, his or her attitudes are pretty well cemented. They are still being moulded but their attitudes are probably in concrete by the time they are 25...Until there is some sort of strategy in place for an integration of different educational ideas...we are wasting our time.[46]
The inadequacies in the school-based education system and other community structures which influence the attitudes and general behaviour of young people must be taken into account when setting goals and designing curricula specifically to train motorcycle riders.
Motorcycle training is like other forms of education in that the community accepts and promotes it as a 'good thing' to do even when there is no conclusive evidence that the education has any direct influence on attitudes or behaviour.
Motorcycle rider training has suffered from a series of uncomplimentary evaluations which suggest that it has no effect on crash rates or, worse, that it increases the risk of riders becoming involved in a collision. [47] For example, the comprehensive study undertaken by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the United States demonstrated no significant difference in the accident or conviction rates over two years between riders subjected to no formal rider training, riders who undertake three hours formal training and riders who undertake 20 hours formal training. [48] Rather, they found that age, motorcycle ownership, gender, marital status and income were statistically significant predictors of the accidents rate of novice riders. [49]
Despite the findings of these various studies, motorcycle rider training is offered in all Australian states. It is compulsory in Tasmania and South Australia. The government contributes to financing voluntary programs in Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. In these states, training courses are also run by private operators. In Western Australia, pre-licence training is not compulsory and not publicly funded.
The Social Development Committee heard evidence from Mr C. Cuthill, Manager/Chief Instructor, Honda Australia Rider Training, whether, based on his practical experience, it is possible to change the attitude of young adults:
MR. MAUGHAN, MP: Do you believe you can change the attitude of a person after the age of 18 years?
MR CUTHILL: I believe we can. People have come through our course who have never really looked at the issues of riding motorcycles. ...We show them bluntly how they should modify their attitude if they want to stay alive. [50]
In Victoria, training programs are well established and are a given component of the road safety environment. The Road Safety Committee has considered the way in which motorcycle training programs can be improved to ensure they achieve the greatest possible influence on road safety. This approach addresses issues such as availability of courses, curriculum, cost and evaluation.
Motorcycle rider training in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia is not compulsory for riders who seek to obtain their learners' permits or motorcycle endorsement on their licences. In South Australia and Tasmania, training in a government controlled program is required before riders obtain their learners' permits and probationary licences.
The Committee heard evidence that the decision to make motorcycle rider training compulsory in South Australia was based on pragmatism rather than philosophy:
It was a pragmatic decision given that South Australia is a broad geographic area with isolated pockets of population. If we were to have an equitable program we had to establish training programs in various country areas as well as the metropolitan area. It would have been exceptionally costly and, to get some money back, we decided on a user pay system...so, if we could guarantee that throughput, we could come up with charges to amortise the fleet of motorcycles, the hiring of trainee teachers and so on. [51]
Other reasons given by witnesses for implementing a compulsory program included research which indicated that people who volunteer for training programs were more safety conscious than those who avoid training [52] and the possibility that training requirements will deter some people from riding a motorcycle. [53]
The Committee however has evidence to challenge the assertion that compulsory programs in Australia reduce the number of riders who attempt to obtain a licence. Introduction of compulsory rider training in South Australia in 1986 was preceded by a decline in the number of learner motorcycle permits but these numbers have been increasing since 1988 . There was no relationship in time between introduction of compulsory training, the number of learner permit holders, the number of registered motorcycles and the number of motorcycle rider casualties. (Figures 8, 9 and 10)
| Click here for | Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 |
In Tasmania, there was no decline also in the number of licensed motorcycle riders when compulsory training was implemented in 1981 (Figures 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14).
| Click here for | Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 |
The Committee is aware that the crash risk of riders is related to their age and their experience. It believes that training programs compensate to some degree for inexperience and therefore warrant continued encouragement. In the absence of education programs which ensure adequate attitude development at the age when this is most easily developed, the Committee is of the view that training programs should target those who are most at risk of crash involvement. Training is also less likely to affect the attitude and behaviour of mature riders. Therefore, the Committee sees training as more important for novice riders aged under, say 25 years, than for older riders.
Therefore, the Committee is of the view that motorcycle rider training programs in Victoria should be strongly encouraged for learner and probationary riders aged under 25 years. This encouragement should be supported by provision of incentives such as reduced registration fees or shortened licensing requirements for riders who undertake approved training.
The Committee does not advocate compulsory training because of the difficulty ensuring equal access to training facilities.
As is detailed further in this Chapter, training facilities are concentrated in the metropolitan area and are not uniformly available throughout country Victoria. To make training compulsory would require substantial Government funding either directly or through subsidy and this is not financially realistic. VicRoads also support voluntary training because it is felt that if a licence applicant who has not undertaken formal training can demonstrate the necessary competency skills to pass the licence tests then it is unfair to make that applicant undergo formal training prior to testing.
Motorcycle rider training was implemented in Victoria in 1983 as a community program with the involvement of the Government and the Motorcycle Industry Division of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce. [54] It was anticipated that the Government's involvement would only be in the initial phases of establishment of the training centres with industry then assuming full responsibility. However:
The whole program was in danger of collapse during that fledgling stage. It was the old Road Traffic Authority [VIC ROADS' predecessor] that stepped in and took it under its wing and it has continued to subsidise and support it to this very day. [55]
Historically, then, motorcycle training was conceived as community-based training to operate in a decentralised way with part-time instructors. However, by default VicRoads inherited the role of motorcycle trainer. VicRoads has continued this philosophy, employing experienced riders as part-time instructors, conducting training at weekends, often at sites used for other purposes during the week.
Four providers of motorcycle training in Victoria made contact with the Committee. These were VicRoads and the private training organisations, Honda Australia Rider Training (HART), Motorcycle Motion and the Driver Education Centre of Australia. VicRoads provides training at seven sites in the metropolitan area and eight in country areas. HART offers training at its Tullamarine premises. Motorcycle Motion trains riders at Highett, Clayton and Waverley. The Driver Education Centre of Australia operates a small novice motorcycle rider training program at Shepparton as an agent for VicRoads. Therefore, novice rider training programs cover the metropolitan area but are not available uniformly throughout the rest of Victoria.
The situation is similar in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. In Queensland, the Department of Transport runs several motorcycle training programs but they are supported by a strong private enterprise involvement. In New South Wales, the Roads and Traffic Authority contracts out provision of motorcycle training programs to private organisations such as Stay Upright NSW and the New South Wales Traffic Education Centre. In these states, programs cover the main urban areas of the state but are not available to everyone in rural areas.
In contrast, government motorcycle training programs in both Tasmania and South Australia cover over 90% of the State. In Tasmania this is achieved by using a permanent facility at Hobart and a mobile training facility to access remote areas of the state. In South Australia, a permanent facility is located in Adelaide and in rural areas training is conducted at local government or community facilities such as tennis and netball courts. A mobile facility was found to be unnecessary.
The Committee is of the view that the Tasmanian and South Australian experience indicates it is feasible to offer motorcycle training programs which are accessible to most potential novice riders in Victoria.
In coming to the view that motorcycle training should be encouraged and made available to all potential motorcycle riders, the Committee was concerned to balance three issues relating to cost. These are:
The Committee received evidence from several organisations describing how they coped with funding of novice rider training courses.
In Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania, government-subsidised training courses for novice motorcycle riders charge participants about $50 for a Level 1 course leading to a learner’s permit and $65 to $75 for a Level 2 course which leads to a probationary licence.
In Victoria, VicRoads offer two Level 1 courses leading to the issue of a learner's permit. A nine hour course for novice riders who have no motorcycle experience costs $80 and a six hour course for novice riders with some motorcycle experience costs $64. A six hour Level 2 course for skilled riders costs $22. Whilst training in Victoria is not compulsory the Committee understands that many of the applicants for the Level 2 course are learner permit holders wishing to undergo further training before being tested for their motorcycle licence endorsement.
In 1991 the fees charged by VicRoads accounted for about 15% of the overall cost of the VicRoads training courses. In 1993 VicRoads estimate that this recovery rate has increased to about 55%. VicRoads cite the reasons for this dramatic increase as:
Learner Rider Courses 1991 Estimate - 40% of riders seeking a Learner Permit Current estimate - 52% of riders seeking a Learner Permit Skilled Rider Courses 1991 estimate - 13% of riders seeking a Licence Current estimate - 25% of riders seeking a Licence
In Tasmania, cost recovery is about 60%. In South Australia, cost recovery is about 50%. [57] In New South Wales, the participants contribute about 60% of their Level 1 course and nearly all of the Level 2 course.
Private courses for novice motorcycle riders in Victoria charge their clients the full cost. For example:
Whilst these latest figures from VicRoads are encouraging, the VicRoads courses are still more expensive to conduct than those operated by the private sector in Victoria. This inability to recover full costs therefore contributes to significant Government expenditure in this training. No other form of vehicle driver training receives any State Government subsidy and the Committee, whilst appreciating the historical reasons for this funding, believes it is now timely to review this arrangement.
The Committee sought to understand why motorcycle rider training programs in other states of Australia do not impose complete ‘user pays’ principles on novice motorcycle riders who seek training. In evidence before the Committee, the following reasons for subsidising the programs were expressed:
The Committee is of the view that, given the real cost of VicRoads training courses, all these arguments carry some validity. In its submission to the Inquiry, one option presented by VicRoads was to increase the cost recovered from trainee participants in their courses. [58] However, they did not address the reasons for the large disparity between the costs of existing VicRoads programs and the costs of private programs in Victoria.
The first step toward cost-recovery is for VicRoads to delegate its responsibility to provide motorcycle training for novice riders to private organisations. Government funds for motorcycle training should be used to subsidise courses to ensure equity in access for this training. This will ensure that all novice riders who live outside the metropolitan area have the same access to training as their urban counterparts.
VicRoads have recently implemented a policy of delegating rider training and testing to non-government agencies. In April 1993, VicRoads formally advertised for expressions of interest from suitable organisations to operate four or five training and testing establishments in the west, east and south east regions of Melbourne.
The Committee understands that there will be no Government funding to assist these applicants in the capital cost of establishing their facilities - a stance the Committee endorses. Honda Australia Rider Training received no government assistance in the construction and equipping of the facility at Tullamarine and for Government to now provide such funding to other organisations would be inequitable.
To assist the commercial viability of such centres however, VicRoads has undertaken to ensure that each centre will be suitably located so as to minimise competition between these centres and also existing VicRoads facilities.
VicRoads have developed comprehensive guidelines, specifications and standards for the accreditation of external providers for motorcycle training and testing. These requirements cover business reputation, types of vehicles, training facilities, administration support, quality assurance, instructor/trainer qualifications, codes of practice etc. Under the quality assurance specifications the providers must prepare and maintain a quality assurance manual in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and be subject to regular review and audit of their performance. (Copies if these guidelines and standards are attached to this Report as Appendices D and E.)
The Committee believes that these requirements will mean a sufficiently high barrier to entry that will ensure only competent organisations are accredited.
Honda Australia Rider Training have been granted approved provider status and VicRoads anticipates that the other establishments will be registered from July 1993 onwards. Whilst
the Committee supports these initiatives, the problem of equity in access to quality training and assessment by all novice riders remains an issue. As mentioned earlier in this Chapter, such access is not uniform across Victoria. The Committee considers that whilst the delegating of this training and licensing in the metropolitan area will save the Government considerable funding, some funding will still be needed to ensure that novice riders in rural Victoria are able to access this training and testing at no greater cost than that for riders in the metropolitan area. The Committee recognises that in reality VicRoads might be required to provide training and testing in some country areas where it is commercially non-viable for a private organisation to operate.
In 1989, the Australian Transport Advisory Council agreed to a core syllabus for off-road pre-licence motorcycle training. [59] This core syllabus followed motorcycle rider training and licensing workshops in 1984 and 1987. [60]
Despite this attempt to develop a national standard for motorcycle rider training, no effort has yet been made to impose the core syllabus on motorcycle trainers. There remain fundamental differences between motorcycle training experts in the relative importance which should be given to skills and attitude development in the curricula offered to novice riders. The course content in different programs reflects the basic philosophy of those who designed it. The Committee notes however that the differences in philosophy between training and attitude contents of these courses is often more in the definition than in the practical training offered.
For example, Mr M. Scandrett-Smith, Manager, Driver Development, Driver Development Centre, Department of Road Transport, South Australia, told the Social Development Committee, in evidence:
We took the view that the training program should be based on skills...I have always had a leaning towards skills competency. People need a way of inculcating those skills and measuring the effects. The RiderSafe program is exactly that model. [61]
This model differs from that advocated by psychology researchers from the University of Armidale and adopted by the New South Wales Traffic Education Centre motorcycle training course. They emphasise the need for road users to accept control over the dangerous situations which confront them, stating that:
...young drivers normally approach driving task with a world view which has been derived from their past experiences, and which is therefore inappropriate in a number of ways...the only way to change this world view is to challenge it in some way and replace it with one which is more appropriate to the task at hand. This replacement view would place more emphasis on the controllable, modifiable aspects of the driver’s behaviour, so that the person is likely to learn from near misses and other forms of driving failures, rather than dismiss them as out of their control. [62]
In Tasmania, Senior Constable Jerrim, Tasmania Police, said:
The problem we face in implementing programs is to have an impact on the cultural behaviour and social issues...it has become increasingly clear that education-perhaps training-to develop psychomotor skills does not work. There has never been an integrated and thorough educational program tried anywhere in the world. The whole concept of education (motorcycle training in Tasmania) has to be extended through the classroom situation in relation to all issues of road safety, law enforcement and improving environmental character. [63]
In Victoria, Mr C. Cuthill, Manager/Chief Instructor, Honda Australia Rider Training program, believes:
The most important part of riding on the road is attitude and road craft. Skill forms only a small component of what one does to stay alive. An average person can ride with a low degree of skill but if that person has a good attitude and a lot of road craft skills it is possible to ride safely. [64]
VicRoads motorcycle instructors say skills are more important, advising that:
...all the indicators in the past suggest that skill is of the utmost importance to the motorcyclist...Those who undergo our training program (are better because) we dedicate a significant component to roadcraft discussion which enhances the rider’s ability to perform more adequately in the road mix. [65]
The Committee has the view that training of novice riders in Victoria must include a significant attitude component in order to compensate, where possible, for the inadequacy of school-based traffic safety education. The Committee further holds the view that trainers charged with the responsibility of the classroom component of motorcycle training be appropriately qualified trainers rather than just motorcycle skills and handling trainers.
Further the Committee believes that all existing and future motorcycle safety training programs should include a budget which allows for their components to be evaluated separately and improved. This approach will allow curriculum decisions to be based on objective information rather than opinion.
The Committee could find no evidence that any motorcycle training program in Australia has been objectively evaluated against road safety criteria such as crash involvement or, even, reported traffic offences. The evidence of success of which the Committee is aware comprises reports of user satisfaction like those administered by the Stay Upright program in New South Wales and anecdotal evidence from Tasmania about the small number of trained motorcycle riders who have died since particular courses began.
The Committee is aware that objective evaluation in Victoria is almost impossible because of the inadequacy of the State licence record system and the lack of reliable data about the distance motorcycle riders travel. However, the Committee repeats its recommendation that these data bases be improved and that evaluation become an important component of all motorcycle crash countermeasures including novice rider training programs.
As VicRoads progressively delegates responsibility for training and testing of motorcyclists, the Committee expects that a proportional amount of financial and personnel resources will become available within the VicRoads organisation. As a matter of priority these resources should be directed towards the evaluation of motorcycle safety training programs without which judgments about the effectiveness of existing or alternative programs are severely compromised.
This Committee endorses the findings and recommendations of the previous Social Development Committee that the lack of evaluation of various road safety initiatives and media campaigns is a flaw in the management of road safety in Victoria.
There is no consistency between states in Australia or within Victoria in the standards required of motorcycle rider trainers. These issues were addressed in a seminar organised by the Federal Office of Road Safety and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries in September 1992. The seminar concentrated on training standards and accreditation of trainers. [66] Arising from this seminar, the Australian Rider Trainers Association was formed with an aim to establish uniform rider trainer standards throughout Australia.
Concurrently, the National Road Transport Industry Training Council has commissioned a study to identify and document the core competencies required of driving/rider instructors and assessors, and submit the results for registration and promulgation by the National Training Board as national core competency standards. This project has been carried out by the Road Transport Training Council of Queensland and it is proposed that the draft standards will be reviewed by expert panels in each State. It is anticipated that this expert review will be completed by mid-year.
Currently in Victoria, VicRoads has approximately 85 part-time instructors. They are all casual employees with full-time jobs elsewhere. Originally, Victoria Police motorcycle instructors trained prospective VicRoads instructors. VicRoads now trains its own personnel. The selection process and criteria set by VicRoads for its instructors together with the instructor classification requirements are attached as Appendix F.
Private operators train their own instructors. For example, HART's chief instructors were trained in Japan at the Suzuka Traffic Education Centre and all HART instructors are trained to Honda's World Instructors Standard. HART estimates that the cost of training each instructor is approximately $10 000, not including their wages. [67]
In Tasmania, motorcycle instructors are trained by the senior part-time instructors who have been trained by senior Department of Transport personnel.
The South Australian program has a group of part-time instructors selected from the motorcycling population. The majority of instructors are members of the Motorcycle Riders Association. [68] They are trained at the Driver Education Centre. [69]
In New South Wales, trainers must be trained and licensed by the Chief Riding Instructor. [70] However, after trainers are licensed, control over the standard of training and curriculum delivered to participants is relegated to the agencies which provide the service.
The Committee strongly endorses the need for uniform competency standards for rider trainers and assessors. This need will become even more pressing with the delegation by VicRoads of its responsibilities for training and licensing.
VicRoads has the statutory responsibility for the issuing of drivers' licences in Victoria. These licences, of whatever type are issued only after the applicant has demonstrated certain competency levels. As mentioned in paragraph 6.3.4. current VicRoads initiatives with motorcycling are to delegate the training and testing of the competency skills to outside providers. These initiatives have the complete support of the Committee.
Motorcycle riders in Victoria may obtain their learner's permit when they are 17 years and nine months old. These riders are required to pass both written and skills tests. Testing for learner permits is currently provided at VicRoads, HART and the Driver Education Centre of Australia in conjunction with their learner permit training programs or separately at VicRoads testing stations. In South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania, similar arrangements between the state licensing authority and the training organisations apply.
In Victoria riders with motorcycle endorsement of their driver’s licence must have passed the American Motorcycle Skill Test (MOST) to assess skills and the Motorcycle In Traffic Test (MITT) to assess on-road skills and in-traffic strategies. These tests are usually conducted by VicRoads personnel. HART instructors can administer the MOST test to their clients.
The MOST and MITT tests have not been evaluated in Australia. The VicRoads submission stated this was due to the labour intensive and costly process of matching each motorcycle accident with corresponding licence records. [71] American research suggests that riders who undertake the MOST test are no different from riders who undertake easier tests to obtain their licence in the number of accidents in the first two years of riding, when allowance is made for the distance ridden. [72]
The Motorcycle Safety Foundation in the United States has developed a new test as an alternative to MOST, called the Motorcyclist Licensing Skill Test (MLST). It requires a suitable area to carry out the test and less sophisticated equipment. This test is used in New South Wales.
VicRoads has been asked to trial the MLST. However, VicRoads has not sufficient funding to evaluate the test. [73]
HART and Victoria Police witnesses were critical of the current test for probationary riders. HART complained that current testing passed students whose skills were inadequate. In these cases HART instructors are required to be very open with students about their need for further training prior to venturing into the 'real world'. [74]
Senior Constable K. Ansell, a motorcycle instructor with the Victoria Police, was critical of roadcraft tests VicRoads conducted, stating in evidence that:
There is a skills riding test whereby you have to prove the ability to brake from around 23 km/h in a distance of 6 metres, which is ludicrously generous. You do not need to use both of the braking systems; either will stop you in that distance, either in or out of control at 23 km/h. It is just not realistic.
You also have to demonstrate going around a curve without running over two marked lines, and there is a slow riding test where you have to take at least ten seconds to cover a certain distance between two white lines without crossing them, which is hardly a life-threatening situation. That is basically the skills test.[75]
His superior, Inspector T. Peperkamp agreed, stating:
Unfortunately many people do these advanced courses in driving or in motorcycle riding and then they tend to get the Superman syndrome - 'I have done a course; I can do anything'! [76]
The Committee is of the view that, under the current licensing scheme, the type of skills test applied to motorcycle licensees has little influence on motorcycle safety in the longer term. Motorcycle riders can legally ride after having obtained a learner’s permit. They have to survive more than three months in order to obtain a motorcycle endorsement on their probationary licence. The MOST test has not been shown to influence riders’ potential safety in the United States. The main problem, which cannot be handled adequately in a test situation, remains that of rider attitude.
The Committee questions the logic of requiring a novice rider to pass a learner's test which, apart from a few restrictions, allows the rider to ride totally unsupervised at any time in any traffic. The rider is then required to undergo further testing before receiving a motorcycle endorsement on their licence. The Committee considers that this notion of a second test is a fallacy. Rather, as training is not compulsory, the Committee believes that a means whereby novice riders can receive strong encouragement to undergo training is to offer a full motorcycle endorsement at the completion of a combined basic and advanced course. Naturally this course would last longer than the existing novice course and, it is expected, ensure that riders have adequate skills to ride a motorcycle.
The Committee recommends that:
|
