20 limits (split from rodk introduction)

[akirk]

I agree completely of course further driver trainer works, if the individual undertaking the training let's it work. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous to my probably flawed logic.

It rather depends on the content of the training & it's delivery/quality.
Training can actually make matters worse.

That brings us on to how much training out there has the right content & delivery/quality, as well as just because we believe it's the right stuff it doesn't follow that it actually is. Our personal bias can mask the reality. What does the evidence show?

Valid points
however as we are mainly discussing this at a conceptual level - then we must surely accept that progression is good - therefore training / learning is good - the flip side is that yes more effort could go into ensuring that it is effective!

Alasdair

[fengpo]

Alasdair beat me to answering; I would of answered the questions in a similar way.

[vonhosen]

I agree completely of course further driver trainer works, if the individual undertaking the training let's it work. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous to my probably flawed logic.

It rather depends on the content of the training & it's delivery/quality.
Training can actually make matters worse.

That brings us on to how much training out there has the right content & delivery/quality, as well as just because we believe it's the right stuff it doesn't follow that it actually is. Our personal bias can mask the reality. What does the evidence show?

Valid points
however as we are mainly discussing this at a conceptual level - then we must surely accept that progression is good - therefore training / learning is good - the flip side is that yes more effort could go into ensuring that it is effective!

Alasdair

We can split that in two.

1) "we must surely accept that progression is good"

Answer: Yes

2) "therefore training / learning is good"

Answer: Only where it results in progression & we can't assume training will result in that.

[akirk]

We can split that in two.

1) "we must surely accept that progression is good"

Answer: Yes

2) "therefore training / learning is good"

Answer: Only where it results in progression & we can't assume training will result in that.

Agree sadly - as someone who is passionate about education & training, it saddens me when it is not effective - it is why a retreat to concept is easier - where all training is effective

Alasdair

[waremark]

I agree completely of course further driver trainer works, if the individual undertaking the training let's it work. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous to my probably flawed logic.

I believe that the IAM has several times set out to show an accident reduction from their training and has never succeeded. I wish it were otherwise. I hope that data from the IAM Surety scheme will show a lower claims ratio from IAM members than from a comparable group of non members but if there was good statistical evidence available I expect we would have seen it. Surety offer competitive premiums for a large proportion of members but this could well be the case for any large affinity scheme,

[sussex2]

The only statistic that training works I need is that I am still here

[Pontoneer]

the problem is that we know there is little desire for driver education:
- from drivers who see no need
- from politicians who see it as too long term and expensive

therefore there is a tendancy to say that it doesn't work as an excuse to not have to do it... - well of course, if you don't do it, there is no positive result!

I also fail to understand anyone who says that training / education doesn't work...
doesn't matter what you call it - but no-one learns any skill / gains any ability other than by some form of progression, whether self-motivated or externally imposed - how anyone thinks that a human goes from child with no ability to drive to adult capable of driving without some form of progression is most bizarre - and it is equally logical that to continue that progression is to become more capable / to widen that progression is to become richer in capability - if there is an issue with people not driving safely in an urban area, then quite simply it is not sufficiently embedded in the progression expected before a licence is granted - so add it.

Alasdair

Of course driver education works !

For the evidence , just look at the origins of AD : the London Metropolitan police who were having a pretty appalling crash rate before they decided to do something about it and consulted the Earl of Cottenham who helped them devise 'the system' which , once implemented brought about a marked reduction in the frequency of crashes .

[Pontoneer]

One comment I would add is that near the beginning of this thread there was some mention of 'social benefits' of 20 mph limits - this presumably includes increased exhaust pollution caused by vehicles forced to drive in lower gears at 20 mph ( thus more compression strokes per distance travelled and therefore more exhaust emissions than one travelling in a higher , and more economical gear ) , along with increased fuel consumption , which is additional cost for the vehicle owners .

As well as worsened air quality , there may also be increases in noise level caused by vehicles driving at higher revs in a lower gear at 20 than in a higher gear at 30 .

I agree with the comments that blanket implementations of these limits are unnecessary and borne out of ignorance , due to either misinformation provided by pressure groups along with those elected to vote being lay-people with no particular knowledge of road engineering or any other relevant disciplines .

I wonder whether , in areas where these blanket implementations have already been imposed , there are any measurable statistics showing a reduction in casualties ( surely the primary reason for imposing them ? ) .

One could compare the imposition of these limits to that of the National Speed Limit in the 1960's as an attempt to reduce casualties on motorways and other rural roads .

[Ancient]

Of course driver education works !

For the evidence , just look at the origins of AD : the London Metropolitan police who were having a pretty appalling crash rate before they decided to do something about it and consulted the Earl of Cottenham who helped them devise 'the system' which , once implemented brought about a marked reduction in the frequency of crashes .

4 (or 6?) weeks of intensive training given to motivated students (do it right or lose your job) is hardly comparable to what can be rolled out widely enough to improve general driving standards though; not even widely enough for all 'professional' drivers.

[trashbat]

One comment I would add is that near the beginning of this thread there was some mention of 'social benefits' of 20 mph limits - this presumably includes increased exhaust pollution caused by vehicles forced to drive in lower gears at 20 mph ( thus more compression strokes per distance travelled and therefore more exhaust emissions than one travelling in a higher , and more economical gear ) , along with increased fuel consumption , which is additional cost for the vehicle owners .

As well as worsened air quality , there may also be increases in noise level caused by vehicles driving at higher revs in a lower gear at 20 than in a higher gear at 30 .

Anecdotally, both of these are probably not that significant.

Air pollution as you would notice it is primarily a factor of congestion and traffic density, not individual tailpipe emissions.

Similarly noise pollution is, within typical boundaries, usually more about road noise (rolling tyres and air displacement) than it is engine noise.

I don't necessarily support 20mph limits as they have been implemented, but a lot of the common criticism is an opinion desperately seeking a technical backing.

A key social benefit includes a fuzzy and often quite irrational feel of safety. You might be very, very unlikely to be run over regardless, yet slower traffic in your neighbourhood is likely to make you feel more comfortable walking your local streets, despite being statistically not that different. Just because it's not rational doesn't mean it's not valuable.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I believe that the IAM has several times set out to show an accident reduction from their training and has never succeeded.

This, and other research, is what Horse was probably referring to (I expect it was his post that prompted the indignant responses that "of course" training works). Having read some of his posts, and the technical papers he's contributed to, I'm inclined to take him a little more seriously than some, and react with caution rather than just gut feeling

[akirk]

I believe that the IAM has several times set out to show an accident reduction from their training and has never succeeded.

This, and other research, is what Horse was probably referring to (I expect it was his post that prompted the indignant responses that "of course" training works). Having read some of his posts, and the technical papers he's contributed to, I'm inclined to take him a little more seriously than some, and react with caution rather than just gut feeling

It is hardly gut feeling, we have a country with centuries of tradition of training and education demonstrating that training / education clearly works in progressing people along a path...

one example of one oragnisation with a skewed population taking the training (a desire to do the training could mean less likelihood of accident anyway, so no difference with the training) does nothing to disprove the notino that training works - yes, it has to be good training effective / targetted / etc. - but as someone who is a trained teacher, and has decades of experience in education as a teacher / governor / etc. I can absolutely confirm that training works...

how anyone can believe that training doesn't work is beyond me - I have several tennis lessons a week and my tennis clearly progressing (well it couldn't really have gone backwards!), on Saturday I had a training session on off-road rally driving - I learned from it and moved forwards, over the last decade or so I have consciously taken training in something new every year - from learning to water-ski to progressing my skiing, yacht masters to advanced powerboats - and of course driver training... it is absolutely clear that training works...

when people say that training doesn't work, what they really mean is:
- the training was poor
- the trainer wasn't up to standard
- objectives and training were not matched
- the training wasn't focused correctly
- the participants weren't motivated / interested / were tired / etc.
- etc.

none of that means that training doesn't work just that the particular instance wasn't good...

with the IAM and accident reduction - the IAM course is not focused on reducing national accident statistics - if it were, it would probably target a different market, and have different content, so hardly surprising then that you get such a result - it is an inappropriate expectation...

Alasdair

[Pontoneer]

Of course driver education works !

For the evidence , just look at the origins of AD : the London Metropolitan police who were having a pretty appalling crash rate before they decided to do something about it and consulted the Earl of Cottenham who helped them devise 'the system' which , once implemented brought about a marked reduction in the frequency of crashes .

4 (or 6?) weeks of intensive training given to motivated students (do it right or lose your job) is hardly comparable to what can be rolled out widely enough to improve general driving standards though; not even widely enough for all 'professional' drivers.

Either compare the introduction of AD training to the police , for which statistics existed for crashes per 000's of miles , before and after , or compare the introduction of the civilian driving test , prior to which no training at all was required ( I can still remember an elderly next door neighbour who drove until the late 70's/early80's , having never passed a driving test since starting in the early 20th century , and she was truly awful , always having minor 'bumps' and her car adorned with dents on pretty much every panel ) .

Whichever level of driving you look at , training and requiring a set standard , works .

[Ancient]

Either compare the introduction of AD training to the police , for which statistics existed for crashes per 000's of miles , before and after , or compare the introduction of the civilian driving test , prior to which no training at all was required ( I can still remember an elderly next door neighbour who drove until the late 70's/early80's , having never passed a driving test since starting in the early 20th century , and she was truly awful , always having minor 'bumps' and her car adorned with dents on pretty much every panel ) .

Whichever level of driving you look at , training and requiring a set standard , works .

It worked for the general population when comparing a change in law which required the training in order to get the licence = motivation. Improving the current training required to get a licence may also improve the future standard, but (like your neighbour) not the standard of those who already have a licence. Or driverless cars may arrive big-time first .
But can training work to improve the unmotivated mass of existing drivers, who already consider themselves 'good enough'? Even drivers motivated by personal intention (IAM members) apparently do not have a better record than the general mass of current drivers: So has their training worked? Or RoSPAs? What does the evidence say?

[Pontoneer]

I think it is unclear since there probably aren't reliable statistics showing the incident history of people who went on to take AD instruction both before and after the instruction . The only ones I am aware of were the ones quoted by the police as the reason AD was developed .

Given that most ( although sadly not all ) people probably improve anyway as they learn from experience and just become more mature in their behaviour , even without further training , and the position becomes even less clear .

However , the fact that many employers use AD as a tool to reduce fleet operation costs , both in terms of the costs incurred through crashes as well as just in vehicle running costs , would seem to support the assertion that AD training does 'make a difference' .