ADUK Archive

Sorry for two replies on the run - but I thought I'd just get the first bit out of my system.

My answers to the questions:
1. I am a bit unsure on what the changes really are. And what is meant from no direction from the examiner.
2. If done properly then yes, but if run on propaganda terms no.
3. Blanket 50 not really. Some people will reduce speed but will they pay attention if they didn't before? All these tweaks do in my mind is make crashes happen at slightly lower speeds until they hit the magic number where the culprits miss each other.
4. Same as above. Often in many town centres 20 is difficult to attain. There are streets that I can think of that speed should be reduced. I would be interested in knowing how well the present 20 limits are adhered to - by my experience not a lot.
5 Yes - where do we start?

Perhaps we should put our own ideas here and present them to the government. For a start what would be your aim? If you were to change the test what changes would you make? Do you think that speed limits are a good tool?

Regards
Brain Haddon

brianhaddon wrote:Perhaps we should put our own ideas here and present them to the government. For a start what would be your aim? If you were to change the test what changes would you make? Do you think that speed limits are a good tool?

Surely the starting point is to identify the problem ... so with approx 3000 deaths per year, how many million miles per death? How are the deaths distributed, in terms of circumstances? How many millions of miles per death for each category? I'm thinking, for example, motorways, rural primary, rural non-primary, and urban, might be possible categories. Then we need to ask what are acceptable levels given the utility that motorised mobility gives. And then when we have identified the problem we want to fix, we can consider the impact of proposed changes - is the impact to the benefits worth the expected improvement.

brianhaddon wrote, 1. I am a bit unsure on what the changes really are. And what is meant from no direction from the examiner.

There are seven test centres, five in England, one in Scotland, and one in Wales where the independant driving ellement is being trialled. What it involves is for a period of about ten minutes during the test, the candidate is asked to,

(a) follow the signs to a given destination.

(b) Given a set of verbal directions to follow, as if they had asked a passer by for directions.

Or (c), shown a map, and told to drive to a destination.

At least that is my understanding of the independant ellement, from a conversation I had with an ADI who was participating in the trials in Dorchester. Currently the examiner tells the candidate to follow the road ahead unless he/she or road signs say otherwise.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

Gareth wrote:Surely the starting point is to identify the problem ... so with approx 3000 deaths per year, how many million miles per death? How are the deaths distributed, in terms of circumstances? How many millions of miles per death for each category? I'm thinking, for example, motorways, rural primary, rural non-primary, and urban, might be possible categories. Then we need to ask what are acceptable levels given the utility that motorised mobility gives. And then when we have identified the problem we want to fix, we can consider the impact of proposed changes - is the impact to the benefits worth the expected improvement.

Gareth - Have you read the consultation documents? There is a very long pdf where most of this stuff is detailed. I've only glanced through it so far.

I too wondered about the merits of ADUK raising its voice, but previously we've come to the conclusion that our voices are too disparate to be coherent. There may be some stuff we could agree on, such as continued training, a culture change away from antisocial driving, and the emphasis on individual choice, freedom and responsibility?

I notice on the list of parties consulted (presumably at least asked) that every man and his dog is listed, including IAM and Rospa.

Gareth wrote:

brianhaddon wrote:Perhaps we should put our own ideas here and present them to the government. For a start what would be your aim? If you were to change the test what changes would you make? Do you think that speed limits are a good tool?

Surely the starting point is to identify the problem ... so with approx 3000 deaths per year, how many million miles per death? How are the deaths distributed, in terms of circumstances? How many millions of miles per death for each category? I'm thinking, for example, motorways, rural primary, rural non-primary, and urban, might be possible categories. Then we need to ask what are acceptable levels given the utility that motorised mobility gives. And then when we have identified the problem we want to fix, we can consider the impact of proposed changes - is the impact to the benefits worth the expected improvement.

Very much the line taken by the consultation document. For example, it identifies that 60% of fatalities happen on rural roads which carry 40% of miles travelled (interestingly, used roughly equally by urban and rural dwellers). It calculates IIRC that a 10 mph reduction in the speed limit will reduce average speed by 2.7 mph (may have got that one a bit wrong), that that will in turn reduce the number of collisions, and the remaining collisions will result in fewer fatalities. It then compares the cost saving to society of the reduction in fatalities with the increased cost to society of taking longer to get places, which according to this rather speculative calculation comes out rather higher. It therefore concludes that it would be a bad idea to make a blanket reduction in the NSL for rural single-carriageways to 50 mph, in spite of saving some lives. It recommends instead a selective reduction of the limit on the more dangerous single-carriageways.

Incidentally, for those who treat the limit on NSL's differently from red ring limits, a blanket reduction in the NSL might have been preferable!!

One of the consultation questions is: "Do you agree that our vision for road safety should be to have the safest roads in the world?"

I do not agree. If I did, I might instantly recommend banning recreational motorcycling. I think the vision should be to reasonably balance safety with the interests of an efficient transport system and of the enjoyment of recreational road users.

One interesting point which I learned from the consultation document is that ESP systems are to be required to be fitted to all new cars throughout the EU 'progressively from 2011'. This I welcome.

ROG wrote:2 - Is the new pre-qualification course which is likely to be an 'option' of the school curriculum a good idea

and

5 - Have they missed out on any ideas which you would like to see included

Oh yes. They totally missed compulsory post test training and/or periodic assessments.

Pre-qual course: I think attitudes to road safety are pretty well entrenched long before 17 so I do welcome pre-driver training. The 'smaller print' says that passing a test at the end of the course within three years will entitle new drivers to take an abbreviated theory test instead of the full theory test. This implies a course after 14, which I think is a bit late to start. But they do also talk about earlier introduction of road safety, and about the modern version of cycling proficiency.

Post test-training and periodic assessments - they specifically reject blanket post-test compulsory training or assessments, other than 'on a targeted basis' (ie for offenders). The lack of substance on post-test training is disappointing.

This indicates the thinking of the current government, but it is a consultation document. Do you think the next government will implement the proposals as they stand?

waremark wrote:This indicates the thinking of the current government, but it is a consultation document. Do you think the next government will implement the proposals as they stand?

I guess it depends how far down the legislative road we are by then (and I assume you're expecting a different party to be in power). I imagine it won't be that high on the agenda compared to economic issues and as a lot the proposals seem to be asking councils to do the work (whether review or implementation), I don't see how it can be stopped. It would be interesting to know whether there is a threshold of public objection above which the proposals would have to be abandoned.

waremark wrote:I think the vision should be to reasonably balance safety with the interests of an efficient transport system and of the enjoyment of recreational road users.

I agree, although I would argue all road users, not just recreational. There is no mention in any of the documents of the enjoyment of road users. It is not a factor which they would consider in their cost benefit analyses, as it is intangible. It is also politically incorrect to talk about enjoyment in terms of road safety. I think we need to overcome that mindset. I think our message should be that enjoyment fosters skill, and boredom fosters complacency.

Also, although I agree with your vision, it does not have a good spin/soundbite to it, whereas theirs (making Britain's roads the safest* in the world) does.

* and dullest

waremark wrote:One interesting point which I learned from the consultation document is that ESP systems are to be required to be fitted to all new cars throughout the EU 'progressively from 2011'. This I welcome.

Doesn't this undermine driver responsibility?

Custom24 wrote:

waremark wrote:I think the vision should be to reasonably balance safety with the interests of an efficient transport system and of the enjoyment of recreational road users.

I agree, although I would argue all road users, not just recreational.

Yes, recreational driving is too insignificant for the majority to worry about. Whether or not Britain should have the safest roads depends on how other countries are achieving their road safety. I have a feeling that historically we have been more road safety conscious than a lot of other EU countries however their recent efforts have led to them catching up with us. We need to be careful of chasing the first place position as we need to think about the means rather then the ends although politically it is a very attractive goal.

MGF wrote:We need to be careful of chasing the first place position as we need to think about the means rather then the ends although politically it is a very attractive goal.

The danger of having a target such as having the safest roads is that the measurement of anything meaningful is twisted to allow the government to "prove" we are meeting their target. The focus moves from chasing an arbitrary metric than remembering the underlying reason for introducing that metric in the first place and what it was supposed to help us understand.

eg does "safest" mean lowest casualties, or lowest casualties per passenger km? What about factoring in traffic density? Then you've got whether the figures are compiled from police attendance at accidents, hospital/doctors treating victims, or insurance claims, never mind how other countries collect their statistics. It's a meaningless soundbite.

To quote Robert Mc Namara, "Measure what's important, don't make important what you can measure"

Nigel

Any ideas why the government don't think of restricting engine size of car a new driver can drive for the first year or 2 of passing their test - much like someone who passes a bike riding test on a 125cc machine? Seems sensible to me to limit power output of car for a new driver who currently can drive anything from a small car like a KA to a porsche 911 or worse still transit van!!!!

For someone like myself who is currently training to be an ADI I am finding some of the material a little illogical shall we say - I do like the idea of the pupil being told for example take me from point A to point B and not instructing on route as this is how real driving happens and will bring in the whole aspect of having to navigate and read road signs whilst driving the car! Planning and Observation being the key!