20 limits (split from rodk introduction)

[waremark]

Training adds skills. Lack of skills may not be a major reason for road traffic casualties.

Before (according to older editions of Roadcraft) the introduction of police training reduced the rate of crashes from 1 per 7000 miles to 1 per 70000 miles (correct me if I have remembered incorrectly figures read years ago, but probably still a dreadful rate by modern standards) ordinary drivers had hardly any training at all. My mother passed her driving test in 1937 on her 17th birthday.

[Gareth]

How would the accident statistics change if all people without a driving licence didn't need to pass a test to be permitted to drive? If training doesn't work, why is so much money being wasted training learners to drive?

[vonhosen]

How would the accident statistics change if all people without a driving licence didn't need to pass a test to be permitted to drive? If training doesn't work, why is so much money being wasted training learners to drive?

It wasn't about training to get a licence though (as far as I can see) & those likely to be subjected to other methods, such as speed limit changes, will have already done that stage. The discussion about training for learners & those who already hold a licence are different things.

This discussion seems to primarily be about whether better results can be achieved through further training for those who have got past that stage (than other methods) in order to reduce casualties etc.

How much training are they going to realistically have?
How often?
The lasting effects?
There's a saying that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, is there the will for more than just a little knowledge?

I think it is accepted the value in training for novices & as such the focus with training at the moment is in making the 'learner' training more effective, rather than concentrating on those who have acquired a licence already, because those looking to gain the licence are the greater risk.

[Gareth]

I think it is accepted the value in training for novices & as such the focus with training at the moment is in making the 'learner' training more effective, rather than concentrating on those who have acquired a licence already, because those looking to gain the licence are the greater risk.

I was struck by waremark's comment about his mother; it seems to me that training for the L-test is progressively being increased to overcome the lack of post-test training in the driving population, rather than because post-test training isn't effective.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

This isn't a tennis forum, Alasdair

The point is that it appears there is no good evidence that advanced driver training produces safer drivers or lowers casualty rates. Horse's credentials in the field of transport research far outweigh mine, I was just clearing up the misunderstanding that seemed to exist. You may feel you're a better driver, subjectively, and safer. There's some contrasting evidence, however, that adding skills leads to a misplaced feeling of confidence and riskier behaviour as a result. YMMV.

[revian]

If the evidence is that, for effective learning, a greater degree of commitment is needed... A bigger carrot and stick... maybe that's an argument for a retest pattern. To run with any hope of practicality I suppose it would have to be something like every 10 years.

I doubt it would ever come to pass.

[vonhosen]

If the evidence is that, for effective learning, a greater degree of commitment is needed... A bigger carrot and stick... maybe that's an argument for a retest pattern. To run with any hope of practicality I suppose it would have to be something like every 10 years.

I doubt it would ever come to pass.

Indeed.

They have the novices where they want them, post test training is a different matter altogether.
It's niche & too many hurdles to make it effective system wide. The concentration with training is on addressing attitudes of learners in a way for them to carry that forward for a lifetime of driving.

[jont]

If the evidence is that, for effective learning, a greater degree of commitment is needed... A bigger carrot and stick... maybe that's an argument for a retest pattern. To run with any hope of practicality I suppose it would have to be something like every 10 years.

I doubt it would ever come to pass.

It's already coming to pass. It's called introducing inappropriate speed limits, then letting offenders off with a "speed awareness" course

[Kimosabe]

If the evidence is that, for effective learning, a greater degree of commitment is needed... A bigger carrot and stick... maybe that's an argument for a retest pattern. To run with any hope of practicality I suppose it would have to be something like every 10 years.

I doubt it would ever come to pass.

It's already coming to pass. It's called introducing inappropriate speed limits, then letting offenders off with a "speed awareness" course

So if further driver training, limit reductions and fandango awareness blerrrgh (can't bring myself to say it as it brings me out in hives) isn't improving road safety ie reducing KSIs, what is, if not initial driver training standards?

The forecast in Brighton and Hove is that by 2020, KSIs will be so incredibly low that i'm inclined to wonder about what our local roads policy has in store for us. Perhaps cyclists in mandatory dayglow 'fat suits'? It is Brighton, after all.

[waremark]

If the evidence is that, for effective learning, a greater degree of commitment is needed... A bigger carrot and stick... maybe that's an argument for a retest pattern. To run with any hope of practicality I suppose it would have to be something like every 10 years.

I doubt it would ever come to pass.

It's already coming to pass. It's called introducing inappropriate speed limits, then letting offenders off with a "speed awareness" course

You are only allowed to attend one speed awareness course in any period of three years. The reason you are allowed to attend a further course if you are caught offending again after more than three years is that it is alleged that research has shown that the effect wears off after three years. (So I was told when attending my second !!! speed awareness course - is it brave or foolish of me to admit that here?

[WhoseGeneration]

(So I was told when attending my second !!! speed awareness course - is it brave or foolish of me to admit that here?

It's honest and to be applauded but also gives ammunition to those who argue for ever lower limits if such as you, with all your interest and credentials in AD, can "offend".

[akirk]

This isn't a tennis forum, Alasdair

The point is that it appears there is no good evidence that advanced driver training produces safer drivers or lowers casualty rates. Horse's credentials in the field of transport research far outweigh mine, I was just clearing up the misunderstanding that seemed to exist. You may feel you're a better driver, subjectively, and safer. There's some contrasting evidence, however, that adding skills leads to a misplaced feeling of confidence and riskier behaviour as a result. YMMV.

nope - 20mph is too low for tennis

if we actually wind back to the start of the training discussion, one of my early points was that conceptually to train people is better than to place a blanket ban on anything above 20mph in a residential area...

while I accept that it can be difficult to analyse the success of training, a number of people have come back with the assertation that training doesn't work - which is really a slightly lazy response... my point above was that training clearly does work as a concept - and it clearly works in driving as seen by the learner test and people learning / being trained to drive...

we can already see that this can develop and change over time - and in fact the introduction of the Hazard test is one attempt to tackle some of these issues - but there are other options...

If the learner test had more on residential area driving and the need to vary speed according to situation / hazards, that is not a particularly advanced technique and could easily sit at the learner level... then back it up with a change in law so that if you are found guilty of any hazardous / dangerous driving in a residential area you lose your licence permanently - it wouldn't be impossible to change attitudes... and then you leave the law as it is, drive as needed to the situation...

the issue at the moment is that for a lot of drivers points / fines are not a deterrant - yet for young drivers today, I have certainly noticed a big change around here, especially with the threat of losing your licence with 6 points in the first 2 years - so there are lots of alternative methods - which are about changing driver habit - that is training...

to say that AD training doesn't work is a) nonsence because there are many on here who clearly show that it changes people and b) irrelevant because this debate doesn't require AD level training to achieve what is needed

Alasdair

[WhoseGeneration]

How long before the next pressure group?, with the tagline;

M A or B, 50's enough.

I'm really now too old to care about all this stuff, irrespective of the DVSA test is now harder, the main thrust of the Authorities as regards road safety appears to be lower limits, not true driver education and really dealing with the poor driving manifested daily.

[akirk]

perhaps we need a pressure group called 'Free to be Safe'
advocating intelligence in driving - safety for all and promoting the use of the road network by all users equally - cyclists / horses / pedestrians / cars / lorries /etc. with freedom to do as you wish within the constraint of the roads being used by all and for all...

a major problem we have in this country is that people identify with a specific group and then form pressure groups based on a totally skewed perspective focused around their identified needs at the expense of all others... I am constantly amazed at how people identify themselves as a cyclist / a motorist / etc. - surely we are simply humans who at different times might cycle / drive / etc. - I don't often drive a lorry, but am and have been since childhood a regular member of all those other groups, so I have seen the road from horseback / bicycle / walking / driving - and from any perspective there are idiots in all groups and 90%+ sensible members of all groups who are considerate to each other...

we are heading into an era worse than communism - where the communistic idealism is imposed by those who are unelected / have no remit / but are clever with words and have too much time... government is meant to take the bigger picture and understand how it ties to together for all groups - sadly that seems to happen less and less

Alasdair

[Pontoneer]

If the evidence is that, for effective learning, a greater degree of commitment is needed... A bigger carrot and stick... maybe that's an argument for a retest pattern. To run with any hope of practicality I suppose it would have to be something like every 10 years.

I doubt it would ever come to pass.

It's already coming to pass. It's called introducing inappropriate speed limits, then letting offenders off with a "speed awareness" course

That is one approach , another might be for more drivers convicted of certain offences to be ordered to resit their driving test before getting their licence back - a 'normal' test for less serious offenders and the extended one , as at present , for more serious ones .

There probably aren't enough driving test centres or examiners to cope with regular retesting of everyone , although with forward planning it could perhaps be done , maybe recruiting new examiners from retiring police traffic officers who might need less retraining than most others .