IAM report

[vonhosen]

That'll be because of mileage covered & therefore exposure to risk.

This implies a proportionate risk according to how many miles a driven.

But the previous driving may have an effect on the later driving & therefore the risk you represent in it.

This is saying something different. Not that you are exposed to the same level of risk for longer but that the risk increases with extra miles driven.

The insurance companies no doubt have data that supports that lorry drivers present a higher risk than some other groups (despite being subject to CPC).

No doubt and all other comments are just plausible explanations for that statistic. Hopefully the insurance companies are only looking at car claims when looking at risk rather than all claims. If it is the latter they may be paying twice for the same risk.

Somebody mentioned it earlier, Police drivers insurance being higher for their private car. Police drivers are at greater risk of being killed driving to & from work, than they are at work (driving or any other cause).

[WhoseGeneration]

Somebody mentioned it earlier, Police drivers insurance being higher for their private car. Police drivers are at greater risk of being killed driving to & from work, than they are at work (driving or any other cause).

Is that because of 12 hours and, possibly , longer, shifts?
A shift that might have meant a long high speed pursuit and difficult arrest.
Seems to me there might be a lack of care on the part of their employer.

[martine]

Anyone fancy commenting on the original post?

[Gareth]

The general points are all fairly obvious with a small amount of thought, thus less interesting for discussion.

[Kevin]

To get back to the original post, I assume when the IAM calls on the government to introduce post-test training, it is asking for that to be compulsory as there is plenty of non-compulsory post-test training available. Is that a realistic request on the part of the IAM? Who is going to provide the training, how much is it going to cost, what is the content of the training and, if the effectiveness of post-test training it going to be assessed, who and how is the assessment to be carried out?

Workplace training for professional drivers is often carried out by employers, either in-house or by external trainers, but its quality and usefulness is sometimes not all that good. In some cases it's little more than a 'tick-box' exercise for those responsible for a company's health and safety policies. What's to stop a government post-test training scheme being the same?

[ROG]

To get back to the original post, I assume when the IAM calls on the government to introduce post-test training, it is asking for that to be compulsory as there is plenty of non-compulsory post-test training available. Is that a realistic request on the part of the IAM? Who is going to provide the training, how much is it going to cost, what is the content of the training and, if the effectiveness of post-test training it going to be assessed, who and how is the assessment to be carried out?

Workplace training for professional drivers is often carried out by employers, either in-house or by external trainers, but its quality and usefulness is sometimes not all that good. In some cases it's little more than a 'tick-box' exercise for those responsible for a company's health and safety policies. What's to stop a government post-test training scheme being the same?

Any Govt in power will not introduce compulsory post test training in the first place as it will lose them votes at the next election so any discussion on those points is probably fruitless...........

[Kevin]

Any Govt in power will not introduce compulsory post test training in the first place as it will lose them votes at the next election so any discussion on those points is probably fruitless...........

Which makes me wonder why the IAM actually bother to call for post-test training. Is it a way of bringing attention to the training they offer rather than a request of the government that they have no reall expectation of having actioned?

[crr003]

To get back to the original post, I assume when the IAM calls on the government to introduce post-test training, it is asking for that to be compulsory as there is plenty of non-compulsory post-test training available. Is that a realistic request on the part of the IAM? Who is going to provide the training, how much is it going to cost, what is the content of the training and, if the effectiveness of post-test training it going to be assessed, who and how is the assessment to be carried out?

Mere details!

If statistics are ever to be believed and acted upon, isn't the IAM request a logical/sensible one? If everybody is so driven to reduce KSIs, should the effort and time spent on catching slightly speeding motorists not be spent on higher percentage KSI factors?

Or is the business built up around punishing speeders (Speed Awareness Courses) and corporate health and safety driver assessment too well rooted to allow any change in overall driver training and standards?

[gfoot]

Don't KSIs already reduce year on year, even before normalizing for the increase in road use? It seems hard to argue that reducing them even more should be much of a priority, especially if it's going to cost money, given the current economic climate. The only time government will make any changes is if you can demonstrate a sharp increase.

I don't disagree that there's potential for more significant reductions if the current post-test training options were more widely promoted - even without providing more options. I just think that the current statistical trend is in the wrong direction for any central action to be taken.

[Horse]

Don't KSIs already reduce year on year, even before normalizing for the increase in road use?

Google 'smeed' on this.

I don't disagree that there's potential for more significant reductions if the current post-test training options were more widely promoted

Woudn't it be more efective, then, to improve initial driver training, as young drivers form one of the biggest casualty groups?

[gfoot]

Young drivers or new drivers? As a relatively new driver, but not an especially young one, I find the question interesting. My insurance premiums are low enough that we can see where the insurers (and hence statistics?) stand on this one.

As a new driver I'm not really qualified to comment on this, but equally it's fresh in my mind, so I'll say what I think. I'm afraid it's rather a lot!

I learned with a professional instructor, taking around 40 hours of lessons, and it was a great experience - I appreciated the quality of the tuition, and the fact that it was focused on learning to drive safely rather than just learning to pass the L test. But I don't think I would have benefited from more tuition at that stage - what I needed most was practice, and like many I had no way to get any practice outside lessons until I'd passed my test. Everybody told me how important it was, but I still didn't fully appreciate its value in advance - however, nine months later, I can see how much I've gained through experience.

I just can't see any way for a new driver to get this experience before passing the L test - the supervision requirement makes it too hard to spend enough time on the road. And without this experience I don't think there's much value in further training. Given the way I feel at the moment, I suspect that now might be a good time for me personally to press on with "advanced" driver training, but maybe I should wait to gain more experience first, as I'm sure in another nine months my driving - especially my judgement - will have improved even more. I'm sure the returns are diminishing, but I hope they continue for a long time.

So regarding new driver training (young or not), I think there is a lack of clarity about options after passing the L test. There is a perception that the L test is the end of training, the end of learning, and that's what needs to change. The DSA try to communicate this, as do some instructors. I think organizations like the IAM are also putting across the right message - that advanced training is for everybody, not just the elite, and using an emphasis on personal safety to persuade people that it has tangible benefits beyond driving as a hobby.

These are all the right messages but I suspect they fall on deaf ears. I don't know whether shouting them louder will help. There is a difference between not hearing the messages, and not wanting to go along with them. I certainly wouldn't have heard them if I hadn't actively gone out looking for them (by coming to sites like this one).

Offering carrots like reduced insurance premiums (surely that's up to the insurers though?) or road tax breaks is great if people do know the training is available but don't value its benefits enough - assuming you do want to educate these people. But it won't help if they just don't know, or forget, that the training is available.

So perhaps people just need reminding about the option to take further training. If six months (or a year?) after the L test is a good time to start advanced training, mailshot everybody at that time and remind them. Who would do the mailshot? Is it appropriate for the government (or DSA) to advertise RoSPA and IAM? I'm not sure.

No doubt these issues have been debated ad nauseam in the past though, and RoSPA and IAM are surely doing everything they can think of to encourage participation. The bottom line for me, though, is that I think the training options currently available are fine - if anything, it's people's perception of them that needs fixing.

[Kevin]

Lates IAM press release...has a nice message in my view...(my bold bits should make interesting reading for BRAKE )

‘Travelling too fast for the conditions’ accounts for more fatal accidents than ‘exceeding speed limit’, which represent fourth and fifth places. Driving too fast isn’t necessarily just a case of a legal requirement – you could be driving too fast for the conditions, without breaking any official speed limits at all.

I think I'm missing the point here, so perhaps someone can help to explain this to me. I can understand how 'travelling too fast for the conditions' can account for an accident, be it fatal or otherwise, but how can 'exceeding speed limit' account for an accident? The speed limit is exceeded by many people on many occassions, but it doesn't always result in an accident. I would view having an accident while exceeding the speed limit as driving too fast for the conditions. In other words, if a driver is travelling so fast that a situation develops that he or she cannot avoid, then he or she is travelling too fast for the conditions.

I'm probably taking a too simplistic view of the statement, and by 'conditions', they are probably referring to road surface eg wet, icy etc, and to the weather conditions, fog etc, whereas as I would include all hazards that are present as the prevailling conditions, eg junctions, other road users, the drivers abilities and state of alertness, etc etc the list goes on

[Horse]

Lates IAM press release...has a nice message in my view...(my bold bits should make interesting reading for BRAKE )

‘Travelling too fast for the conditions’ accounts for more fatal accidents than ‘exceeding speed limit’, which represent fourth and fifth places. Driving too fast isn’t necessarily just a case of a legal requirement – you could be driving too fast for the conditions, without breaking any official speed limits at all.

I think I'm missing the point here, so perhaps someone can help to explain this to me. I can understand how 'travelling too fast for the conditions' can account for an accident, be it fatal or otherwise, but how can 'exceeding speed limit' account for an accident?

I haven't read the report, but I think the research is from examination of 'Stats19' data, which is the form completed by police at each crash.

These have 'contributory factors', and it's those which have been ranked.

[MGF]

...The speed limit is exceeded by many people on many occassions, but it doesn't always result in an accident....

And many people drive at a speed too fast for the conditions on many occasions but it doesn't always result in an accident.

As Horse says, these are contributory factors. (The IAM report is misleading in this respects as it uses the word "accounts for" which implies causes which is not necessarily the same as being a contributory factor).

The point of identifying inappropriate speed above the speed limit is that if the driver had complied with the limit the accident may well not have happened. Driving at an appropriate speed within the limit is a matter of judgement not compliance. In other words the solution is more complex.

[Kevin]

I’ve found STATS 20, Instructions for the Completion of Road Accident Reports which details which codes and when they should be used for completing STATS 19.

Annex 4 of this document lists the codes for Contributory Factors with an explanation of what they mean. I counted 76 different contributory factors (77 if you include ‘Other - please specify’)

Code 306 is used for exceeding speed limit, and the guidance note that accompanies it states:

Driver/rider caused, or contributed to the accident, by exceeding the posted speed limit. This code should also be used in cases where the actions of another road user were the immediate cause of the accident but a speeding vehicle also contributed to causing the collision.

Includes exceeding variable speed limits (eg. on motorways) and speed limits based on vehicle type (including towing).

Use this code (not code 307) if the driver/rider was exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions

Code 307 is used for ‘travelling too fast for conditions’ and the guidance note states:

Driver/rider was travelling within the speed limit, but their speed was not appropriate for the road conditions and/or vehicle type (including towing), and contributed to the accident.

Statistics can be quite revealing, but how they are recorded needs to be understood before any conclusions can be drawn.

In the report submitted by the police officer, if a driver involved in an accident is both exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions, the contributory factor recorded is only the one for exceeding the speed limit, code 306.

Does anyone know how it is decided if a vehicle in an accident was exceeding the speed limit? I would have thought that for code 306 to be selected, there would have to be some compelling, independent and accurate evidence of the vehicle’s speed to prove that it was exceeding the limit, whereas travelling too fast for conditions is more of a subjective assessment and easier to prove by the mere fact that there has been an accident especially in adverse driving conditions. This might be one reason why there appears to be a bias towards code 307.

The IAM seem, however, to be stating the blindingly obvious, but using the stats in a poor way to try to prove their point, if indeed anyone was in any doubt that travelling too fast for the conditions was perfectly possible without exceeding the speed limit.