Why reduce the speed limit to 50mph on rural roads?

[lyndon]

I submit that what won't work is misrepresenting data from the Road Safety Research Report No. 87.

Could you explain what you mean by that bit?

What I mean is that the 7% figure that is often quoted is not an accurate or complete interpretation of the data. Therefore, if we use that figure we reduce the impact of our argument.

If no-one can demonstrate that advanced training reduces accidents, then that would mean that the Government is justified in trying to reduce deaths by reducing the speed limit, among other measures.

I'm not suggesting that the spreadsheet is a good model, but is the kind of model that is being used by planners. If we really want to change hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate the flaws in the model, and come up with better models. Sadly, I don't think we have better models.

[Gareth]

If no-one can demonstrate that advanced training reduces accidents, then that would mean that the Government is justified in trying to reduce deaths by reducing the speed limit

There is no logical connection between the first and second clauses in that sentence.

[lyndon]

If no-one can demonstrate that advanced training reduces accidents, then that would mean that the Government is justified in trying to reduce deaths by reducing the speed limit

There is no logical connection between the first and second clauses in that sentence.

I agree with you. Try 'The Government has set itself the task of reducing the number of road deaths. If no-one can demonstrate that advanced training reduces accidents, then that would mean that the Government is justified in trying to reduce deaths by other means'.

[Gareth]

Try 'The Government has set itself the task of reducing the number of road deaths. If no-one can demonstrate that advanced training reduces accidents, then that would mean that the Government is justified in trying to reduce deaths by other means'.

Still doesn't follow, for two reasons. First it may be supposed that some training reduces accidents, else otherwise there'd be no need for a driving test. I imagine you really mean additional rather than advanced, and the case for additional training is already made by the fact that some is offered partly or wholly as an alternative to punishment for some transgressions. Who can say whether or not more training would be beneficial? Finally, the word justified isn't justified in this context.

[michael769]

I submit that won't work is misrepresenting data from the Road Safety Research Report No. 87.

Could you explain what you mean by that bit?

I don't know of anyone who can demonstrate that advanced training reduces accidents. The IAM used to claim ambitious figures (was it a 70% reduction?), then they said they were going to initiate research to update their claim, then they published what seemed to me to be very 'wishy-washy' research from Brunel University about the effect of advanced training on driver behaviours, not on accidents. I have the feeling that if they could establish a relationship between training and accidents they would - they do have a research department.

I believe that the 70% figure came from TRL research published in 1972 (Report LR499) that concluded that drivers who passed the IAM test showed a 50% reduction in accidents and a 70% reduction in blameworthy accidents (I remember seeing IAM literature which claimed a 50-70% reduction with little explanation of what the numbers meant). It is, I feel, fair to say that a lot has changed since 1972, that there is IMHO a real need for new up to date rigorous research in this area, if only to back up the IAM's (and others) marketing claims about AD making drivers safer.

Like most here I believe that AD training does make drivers safer, but it would be really nice to have some good quality up to date research to back up that belief.

[lyndon]

Like most here I believe that AD training does make drivers safer, but it would be really nice to have some good quality up to date research to back up that belief.

My point exactly. I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe I was safer as a result of AD training. But unless we can back up that belief, we shouldn't be surprised if policymakers use other techniques to try to reduce accidents.

[MGF]

As the chances of having a (serious) accident are very small for most experienced drivers it is difficult to show any safety benefit from taking an advanced driving test. The chances are that none of the contributors to this forum would be involved in a serious accident in any event.

I have to say that for me safety was an incidental benefit of AD. I always enjoyed driving generally but I often found it stressful. Now I genuinely enjoy my driving most of the time, as well as sometimes receive compliments from passengers about the smoothness of the drive. Hopefully I have also reduced the chances of being involved in an accident, especially as serious one.

The fact that it appears we are all happy to be driven by people who have not passed an advanced driving test suggests that the safety benefits of having done so cannot be too significant.

[jont]

The fact that it appears we are all happy to be driven by people who have not passed an advanced driving test suggests that the safety benefits of having done so cannot be too significant.

I'm not sure I'd leave "happy" in that sentence. I'm often a fairly uncomfortable passenger with people who have a very choppy, reactive style that seems typical of those that haven't had any post-test training, and it can be quite hard sometimes not to say something. There are certain people that having once been in a car with, I will go out of my way to avoid being a passenger with again (no-one who I've met at an ADUK day I'm pleased to say)

Most people don't crash on most of the journeys they make, so the odds of coming across an event as a passenger when you really do need to say something are small. That doesn't mean the risks can't be reduced.

[Gareth]

The fact that it appears we are all happy to be driven by people who have not passed an advanced driving test suggests that the safety benefits of having done so cannot be too significant.

I'm with jont on this - I'm wary of being driven by people I don't know, and the (relatively) small number that I've been relaxed with have almost all spent a lot of money on additional training.

When I'm ill at ease, I'm monitoring everything the driver does. When I'm relaxed I don't need to do this.

[GJD]

I assume we all agree that there are far too many deaths and serious injuries as a result of road accidents

That's a bold assumption. If we all agree that, it means we've all got a sufficiently clear idea of how many is "too many", or how safe is "safe enough", to be confident that the current level is far above "safe enough". Off the top of my head I'm afraid I don't have the foggiest about how many deaths and serious injuries is not "too many".

All things being equal, I'd like there to be zero. But all things aren't equal, because any attempt to reduce the number will involve changing something - maybe training, maybe regulation, maybe publicity, maybe road design, maybe something else. So more relevant than considering whether there are, overall, too many deaths and serious injuries or not, is to consider the negative impacts of any particular change against the reduction in deaths and serious injuries it is expected to bring about (and, if the change is implemented, to establish over time whether the expected reduction actually happened, and if it didn't, to consider whether there's any reason not to reverse the change).

Gavin

[GJD]

As the chances of having a (serious) accident are very small for most experienced drivers it is difficult to show any safety benefit from taking an advanced driving test. The chances are that none of the contributors to this forum would be involved in a serious accident in any event.

The chance is very small for an individual driver, but that's not a problem. A significant change in that very small chance (halving it, say), while imperceptible to the individual because of its absolute level, would show a significant effect in practice across the population.

You could only do the analysis if you had enough advanced drivers in the population though. That might be what would make it difficult.

I have to say that for me safety was an incidental benefit of AD.

Me too. I do it because I enjoy it.

The fact that it appears we are all happy to be driven by people who have not passed an advanced driving test suggests that the safety benefits of having done so cannot be too significant...

...on an individual level. They might be very significant on a population level.

Gavin

[Grumpyoldwoman]

This thread = music to my eyes...

IMO if this becomes standard, the drop would be a psychological one - not enough in my book I'm afraid.

IMO There is no such thing as a dangerous road - it's the driver that makes it dangerous (apart from the one Jeremy Clarkson drove in South America - that was close) .

IMO re 'accidents' - it's not an accident! All parties are to 'blame' for a collision. Ooooh this is a tough one to swallow . Think about it logically with your AD knowledge. Blame cannot simply be apportioned to one party. (there's an hypothesis there for further discussion methinks). 'They' say 95% of collisions are human error... I say 99.999....% (recurring) .

Mind Driving by Stephen Hayley should become as much as a bible as Roadcraft. It should be adapted appropriately and become part of the national curriculum in schools. It contains all the core subjects; maths, english, science, creativity, sociology, psychology etc. A great example of combining all those subjects into REAL LIFE. Thank God someone saw the 'light' and put it in writing.

IMO what's been missing in previous driver education is the thinking bit because their instructor simply taught them just to 'drive a car' and that's all the instructor passed on because he/she didn't know any better. In my experience, people have absolutely no idea how much of their true personality comes out when they're behind the wheel. It's a very personal thing - a bit like getting naked in public... ooeer

IMO has taken over here ... I'll stop ranting and get back to my knitting <...knit>

[zadocbrown]

Interesting that we have several people implying that they improved the safety of their drive, as a pleasant side effect of enjoyment of driving. Can we therefore suggest that if this enjoyment had been prevented they would have turned out to be less safe?

If so, what effect does current government policy have on people's enjoyment of driving and by extension on the safety of their driving?

[waremark]

Interesting that we have several people implying that they improved the safety of their drive, as a pleasant side effect of enjoyment of driving. Can we therefore suggest that if this enjoyment had been prevented they would have turned out to be less safe?

I am confident this is the case for me - motivation for training was enjoyment and satisfaction, safety was/is a by-product. Would I have had the same motivation to take training in today's very different driving environment (I did a course with the then BSM High Performance Course in 1980)? Maybe, maybe not.

[Gareth]

Can we therefore suggest that if this enjoyment had been prevented they would have turned out to be less safe?

I would venture to suggest that the core issue is one of engagement - enjoyment may arise out of being engaged but it isn't necessary always the case.