A new trial has found that a practical driving test does not give drivers the same health benefits as a more rigorous and costly test.Read more“The study, which looked at a total of 2,100 drivers in Australia, was conducted by the University of Melbourne and the University at Albany in New York, with the support of the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Participants were asked to take a driving test, which included a range of speed and distance limits, to assess their level of knowledge and awareness of the various features of driving.
The test was designed to test drivers’ ability to understand the differences between safe and unsafe driving behaviours and their ability to use appropriate road and traffic laws to achieve safety.
The researchers found that people who took the test performed significantly better in terms of their driving skills, driving ability and their willingness to obey traffic rules.
“A practical driving exercise is not a test of your driving skills.
It is a test for you to understand what you can and cannot do on the road and to know the road signs, how to get around them and to make sure you don’t get hit by a vehicle that you do not want to be hit by,” the researchers said in a statement.
The study involved 2,105 drivers who took part in the study, and compared them with a group of 6,200 who did not take part in a practical test.
The group who took a test had significantly higher levels of knowledge about the road than the other group, with those who took it outperforming drivers who did no test at all.
“People who took this test had much higher levels than those who did neither a practical nor a non-practical test,” Dr Paul Molloy, one of the study’s authors, told The New York Times.
The difference between the two groups in terms on road skills was more than the difference between driving lessons, the researchers found.
“The non-practice test was more expensive, but this was offset by the fact that there was less road traffic involved and drivers were less likely to be involved in collisions,” he said.
“We also found that those who used a practical approach performed more safely than those in a non‑practical approach.”
Dr Mollay said the test was “significantly more cost effective” than a test designed to assess the drivers’ health.
“It’s very expensive and has a high failure rate.
That’s why it’s not as widely used,” he told the Times.”
But we found it to be a very useful test.”
A spokesman for the NSW Government told the ABC that the test “is designed to detect the presence of COVID-19, but it does not assess the severity of symptoms or severity of disease, and therefore it does nothing to predict the outcome of the test.”
He said that while the tests are “a good way of assessing how well a person is doing on a practical level, we would not recommend it for routine road safety testing”.
Dr Mok, who has previously conducted studies on road safety for the state, said the study should serve as a wake-up call to road safety authorities and health authorities that people are still getting the message that “driving is not as safe as they want you to think”.
“I think it should be compulsory, because people should know that they should not drive on a road unless it is absolutely safe for them,” he added.
“I would also encourage people to think about their driving behaviour, how much they are going to miss out on if they do not take the test, how likely it is they will get a hit.”
Dr Paul Mok said road safety officials should take a more active role in road safety measures.