Google AI
The Times Australia

Times Media Advertising

our research suggests it may be too many

  • Written by: Nathan Kettlewell, Chancellor's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Economics Discipline Group, University of Technology Sydney
our research suggests it may be too many

During the Easter school holidays, scores of learner drivers will hit the roads, with parents carefully logging all their driving hours. Many of us have experienced this process, whether as a learner, a supervisor, or both.

The requirement is particularly high in New South Wales and Victoria, where learners must complete a minimum of 120 hours of supervised driving before they can drive without supervision. This one of the highest requirements for learner drivers in the world.

We set out to answer whether this supervised driving practice actually makes for safer drivers.

Our study[1] evaluated the effect of two significant increases in the minimum supervised driving hours mandate in New South Wales: the 2000 reform from zero to 50 hours, and the 2007 reform from 50 to 120 hours.

Read more: There's little to gain and much to lose from lowering the minimum driving age[2]

What we found

By comparing people who turned 16 – the minimum age to obtain a learner permit – just before the policy changed to people who turned 16 just after, we were able to isolate the effect of these policy changes on motor vehicle accidents, while abstracting from other factors that might affect accidents.

Our dataset contained all licensing and crash records in New South Wales over the reform periods. The crash data include all serious crashes – those that led to a hospitalisation and/or a vehicle being towed.

Consider people born in July 1991, or later. They were subject to the 120-hour mandate. But those born slightly earlier were subject to the 50-hour mandate if they obtained their learners’ permit relatively quickly.

If the policy was effective, we would expect to see a sharp drop in crash rates for people who turned 16 after the 120-hour rule came in. But we discovered there was no such drop.

We analysed the data in several ways, all of which suggested no effect of the 2007 reform on crash rates. Because of our large sample size, we were confidently able to rule out any meaningful effects. We did observe a small delay in the average age of obtaining a provisional (P1) license of around one month.

In contrast, the first policy change was effective. We found that increasing supervision from zero to 50 hours reduced the probability of a motor vehicle accident in the first year of unsupervised driving from 6.9 to 5.4 percentage points, a reduction of 21%. However, there was no reduction in the probability of an accident beyond this 12-month window, suggesting the extra experience is helpful initially, but does not change long-term driving habits.

Since young males are at higher risk of crashing than females, we thought there might be differences by sex. In fact, the results were very similar for males and females.

It is important to note that we evaluated the policy mandate, but we cannot guarantee compliance with it. In practice, people may do more hours than required, or may over-report their hours, risking penalties if caught. Widespread non-compliance could undermine the effect of the mandate. However, available evidence[3] suggests that drivers in Australia are largely truthful in their reporting.

The study showed that while the change from 0-50 required hours of driving made a difference to safety, the further shift to 120 hours did not. Mick Tsikas/AAP

Why does this matter?

Motor vehicle accidents are the second leading cause of death[4] for people aged 15-24 years in Australia. Many policies have aimed to lower the risk for young drivers, including the introduction of graduated driver licensing[5] and associated features such as provisional speed limits, passenger restrictions and engine restrictions.

Minimum supervised driving hours is a potentially important tool for improving road safety, but until now has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation. Evaluating this policy is important, as there are costs involved with the mandate.

The obvious cost is the time of learners and supervisors. However, there may be other social costs as well. For example, by placing barriers to obtaining a licence, such policies can limit young people’s access to work and education, and entrench disadvantage, particularly for those from single parent and low income families, or those who have moved out of home and lack access to a licenced driver.

Read more: What parents need to know about learner drivers: four key lessons[6]

How many hours should the mandate be?

Our findings suggest there are benefits to supervised driving experience. Moving from a regime of zero hours to 50 hours meaningfully reduced the risk of motor vehicle accidents. But moving from a regime of 50 to 120 hours provided no further benefits, suggesting the benefits are diminishing, and the mandate might be too high in New South Wales.

Like us, you might wonder where the 120 hours figure came from. We’re not certain, but a 2011 review[7] by the NSW auditor-general points to a Swedish study[8]. A group of young drivers who reported completing 118 hours of learner practice had a 35% lower accident risk than those reporting between 41-47 hours.

The problem is that it’s hard to attribute this difference in accident risk to the difference in reported hours, because the two groups of drivers were fundamentally different, having self-selected into different policy regimes and having experienced other policy differences as well. In particular, the former group were allowed to start driving a full 1.5 years before the latter group.

Where possible, policy changes should be informed by high-quality empirical evidence, and subjected to rigorous evaluation after they are implemented. For almost 25 years, teenagers in New South Wales have been logging their driving hours, but with little evidence on the benefits, until now.

Our results call for a re-think on how many hours learners should be required to complete, and suggest exploring other avenues for further improvements in the safety of young drivers.

References

  1. ^ Our study (arxiv.org)
  2. ^ There's little to gain and much to lose from lowering the minimum driving age (theconversation.com)
  3. ^ evidence (www.sciencedirect.com)
  4. ^ second leading cause of death (www.aihw.gov.au)
  5. ^ graduated driver licensing (en.wikipedia.org)
  6. ^ What parents need to know about learner drivers: four key lessons (theconversation.com)
  7. ^ 2011 review (media.opengov.nsw.gov.au)
  8. ^ Swedish study (www.sciencedirect.com)

Read more https://theconversation.com/120-hours-of-supervised-learner-driving-our-research-suggests-it-may-be-too-many-203225

Times Magazine

VoltX Energy expands into Victoria & ACT to meet surging home battery demand

Leading Australian energy solutions provider VoltX Energy and premier sponsor of the NRL Manly Wa...

Victorian Drivers To Receive 20% Rego Rebate From June 1 In Major Cost-Of-Living Measure

Victorian motorists will begin receiving significant registration savings from June 1 as the Allan...

How Australian Businesses Are Using AI To Cut Costs And Improve Efficiency

Artificial intelligence was once viewed by many small business owners as something futuristic, exp...

Quickest Way of Getting Rid of Your Old Cars in Brisbane?

If you are done searching for a practical solution for quickly getting rid of your old car, this w...

The Human Supplement Craze Has Officially Gone to the Dogs (Literally)

Australians’ appetite for supplements is no longer limited to their own vitamin cabinets. New reta...

AI Guilt: It’s Real — But it is irrational

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming one of the most powerful tools ever made available to ...

Australians Are Keeping Their Cars Longer — And It’s Changing The Market

Australia’s car market is undergoing a subtle but important transformation. People are keeping th...

Streaming Fatigue: Australians Overwhelmed By Subscriptions

Streaming was once supposed to simplify entertainment. Instead, many Australians now feel overwhe...

Why Shopping Centres No Longer Feel Exciting

There was a time when going to the shopping centre felt like an event. Families spent entire Satu...

The Times Features

Remember All-You-Can-Eat Restaurants? Australia Still M…

For many Australians, few dining experiences created more excitement than the words: “All you can ...

Australia’s Changing Family Dynamic: When Adult Childre…

Australia’s housing affordability crisis is no longer simply an economic issue. It is reshaping t...

ASX Movements Since Labor’s Budget: What Investors Are …

Australia’s share market has spent recent weeks digesting the implications of Labor’s federal budg...

QLD Day

On Saturday 6 June, parkrun events across the state will be a sea of maroon, with communities  str...

NAGNATA: ‘FUTURE = FIBRE’ — Movement 21 at AFW 2026 …

Photography by Cesar OcampoOn Day 3 of Australian Fashion Week 2026, the energy at the runway shifte...

Flu Season in Australia: Why Health Authorities Are Tak…

As winter settles across Australia, so too does the annual flu season — a recurring health challen...

Smart Supermarket Shopping: The Money-Saving Hacks Aust…

Australians are becoming smarter supermarket shoppers. Rising grocery prices, higher mortgage rep...

Kmart’s Homewares Revolution: How a Discount Retailer B…

There was a time when many Australians viewed Kmart as the place to buy low-cost basics, school su...

“People Are Spending Less”: Small Businesses Feel Austr…

Sometimes the real state of the economy is not found in Treasury papers, Reserve Bank statements o...