DfT 2007 Accident Stats

[waremark]

But at the moment the ADI qualification is a pre-requisite. I suggest that a ROSPA Diploma (or more widely available equivalent) should be sufficient to permit you to sell qualified driver training.

While a very good qualification it does not contain any elements about the particular training needs of someone who has never driven.

I am not suggesting for a moment that a Rospa Diploma should entitle you to be paid to teach learners. I am suggesting you should not have to be an ADI to be paid to help existing drivers improve. There should be a suitable alternative qualification.

ADIs also now have to prove that they are a fit and proper person to be allowed to train people who may themselves in a vulnerable group.

I suspect that this only applies to teaching those under 18, and that it will not be long before it applies to IAM and Rospa Observers/Tutors (this is speculation, not certain knowledge, based on the fact that it is going to apply to unpaid gliding instructors from next year). If I am correct that it only relates to those under 18 it will not be relevant to a potential 10 year retraining requirement.

[waremark]

I suggest that a ROSPA Diploma (or more widely available equivalent) should be sufficient to permit you to sell qualified driver training.

That's not going to happen is it ?

The DSA will have no control over it.

No reason why the DSA should not introduce a post learner driver training qualification which does not require you to have an ADI first.

Edited to add:

They would be motivated to do so if existing driver retraining expanded beyond the ability of the ADI network to cope.

The DSA currently recognise and approve the IAM/Rospa testing regime, but not our training process. They may have to move towards recognition of the training process, in which case we could find the DSA themselves helping to clarify the law in our favour. In the DSA Consultation document on possible changes to learning to drive, I noticed this:

8.26.Currently, less than 0.5% of licence holders have
passed an advanced test, and fewer than 10,000
advanced tests are conducted each year. DSA is
working with all four providers of advanced tests,
to promote the benefits of post-test training. All
four providers will be working together to promote
a single overarching post-test training brand, and
will start using a common assessment system. In
order to encourage greater take-up, there will be
incentives for participation.

The consultation period ends on October 6th - still a few days to submit comments.

The document is at: http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/Consult ... 080508.pdf

[daz6215]

[ I am suggesting you should not have to be an ADI to be paid to help existing drivers improve. .

Why? The ADI should be the basic qualification you should have to teach any driver, it shows you have reached the DSA standard, any other qualifications should be built on top of that foundation. This will help to give some sort of quality assurance to perspective delegates that the person sitting next to them has had to reach at least ADI standard.

[MGF]

You are conflating self-regulation and practice with what is 'allowed'. Perfectly reasonable to make the point on self-regulation but unhelpful to try and argue this as meaning a holder of a PPL is not 'allowed' to maintain his licence without re-testing.

I agree with you if you look at the precise legal position but my central point, which you may like to comment on, is trying to highlight the difference in attitude (and practice) between driving and flying. If people drove with the same attitude that is inheirant in flying I am sure we'd have safer roads. In aviation extreme safety is built in to all training, maintenance, design, methods and practise and regulation even at PPL level.

Do you agree MGF?

What you state is self-evident but this doesn't mean an hour with a DSA instructor once every few years will have a significant effect on road safety. There is no evidence whatsoever it would have an effect on driver attitude.

Flight with an instructor every two years as well as 12 hours in the year up to renewal to keep a PPL alive. Excellent idea.

But that's not a test is it?

Not a 'test' in the sense that you can fail but it is a legal requirement to have the flight with an instructor every 2 years and it's syllabus is defined.

That's not a test in any sense is it? Holders of a PPL are not required to have regular tests to maintain their licence.

It's unusual for any pilot (even a PPL) not to have been formally tested for any period of time for one reason or another.

But it's not a legal requirement is it? Therefore it must be 'allowed'. You can hold a PPL indefinately without any further assessment and only 1 hour of flying with an instructor every two years.

That seems to me to be a good example of what zadocbrown was referring to.

I think it's clear that, in practice, pilots do keep up to date. If it didn't happen, and there were accidents as a result, I think we'd soon see people compelled to take more training. Which is exactly what I would like to see happen for driving.

Why do you believe that would improve road safety?

Have a look at the current situation.

The vast majority of people who have passed their test recently are under the age of 25.

The vast majority of people who passed their test 20 years ago and not been re-tested since are over 40.

Now compare accident statistics for each group. I would suggest those drivers who haven't passed a test for a long time are much safer drivers than those who have passed one recently.

Re-testing sounds good but I haven't seen any evidence that it would provide us with any significant advantage in terms of road safety.

Having said that we might benefit from staged testing with wider rights gained with each stage.

Oh dear. This is a pet hate of mine.

Of course inexperienced drivers are more at risk; why should we be surprised by this? I would be horrified if 20 years experience didn't yield some safety benifit!

Hardly 'some safety benefit' is it? It is huge. What it shows is that recent test experience is not very significant in terms of safe driving. This undermines the claim that re-testing to the same standard will have a significant effect on road safety.

Young drivers need good role models. They don't have any. If older drivers take a complacent attitude to their own driving, and this is sanctioned by society, youngsters will follow suit.

Do you honestly believe that an hour with a DSA instructor every few years will maintain a DSA standard of driving in more experienced drivers? I believe you are hugely over-estimating the impact this would have on driver behaviour.

I challenge anyone to suggest that the average 'experienced' driver wouldn't be safer if they took further training and took a pride in their driving.

We're not talking about further training though are we? We appear to be talking about maintaing a DSA standard from your original post.

I think it's clear that, in practice, pilots do keep up to date. If it didn't happen, and there were accidents as a result, I think we'd soon see people compelled to take more training. Which is exactly what I would like to see happen for driving.

Why do you believe that would improve road safety?

As a PPL holder I consider my flight with an instructor every two years makes a material contribution both to the maintenance of my skills and to my motivation to continue to fly well. Although not billed as a test, the qualified flight instructor has to sign off that the flight was conducted to an adequate standard.

Yes but as martine has stated and I am sure we are agreed as PPL holder you are an enthusiast. As a driver you are also an enthusiast. The vast majority of drivers, not being enthusiasts are unlikely to view an hour with a DSA instructor every few years as beneficial to their driving.

At best it may help to filter new methods of driving into the population eg encouraging drivers to merge in turn, but I cannot see drivers going back to a DSA standard of driving as a consequence.

I think there are proven accident reduction benefits of defensive driving courses in corporate fleets. This supports the argument that retraining for all drivers on a regular basis would improve road safety.

But defensive driving courses are not about maintaining DSA standards are they? They are about improving them. They are further education and I fully endorse them and would agree they are likely to have a positive effect on road safety.

Of course newer drivers are less safe that experienced drivers - but the experienced drivers could be safer still.

Of course but not by an hour with a DSA instructor every few years. Experienced drivers need additional training appropriate to the fact they are experienced.

Furthermore, a culture of regular retraining would also improve the attitude of new drivers - and the quality of driving by family and friends to which they have been exposed in their impressionable pre-driving years.

I cannot see this myself and can only suggest this is somewhat optimistic view of things. The logistics would be immense and we need to have some evidence there would be a significant, positive effect on road safety.

[crr003]

[ I am suggesting you should not have to be an ADI to be paid to help existing drivers improve. .

Why? The ADI should be the basic qualification you should have to teach any driver, it shows you have reached the DSA standard, any other qualifications should be built on top of that foundation.

Why? There are plenty of IAM/RoADAR Observers/Tutors who happily get people to advanced test standard without being ADIs themselves.

edited to add advanced as I forgot it....

[waremark]

[ I am suggesting you should not have to be an ADI to be paid to help existing drivers improve. .

Why? The ADI should be the basic qualification you should have to teach any driver, it shows you have reached the DSA standard, any other qualifications should be built on top of that foundation.

Why? There are plenty of IAM/RoADAR Observers/Tutors who happily get people to test standard without being ADIs themselves.

And I have known of successful instructors from police driving schools, people of a far higher standard than basic ADI's, who have struggled and had to waste time and money learning completely irrelevant stuff before they were allowed to teach advanced driving for a living.

CRR means Advanced Test standard, of course.

And my idea of suitable retraining for licence revalidation every ten years is not an hour to achieve DSA standard, but a full day following the sort of accident reduction programme which is used for fleet defensive driver training.

[daz6215]

[ I am suggesting you should not have to be an ADI to be paid to help existing drivers improve. .

Why? The ADI should be the basic qualification you should have to teach any driver, it shows you have reached the DSA standard, any other qualifications should be built on top of that foundation.

Why? There are plenty of IAM/RoADAR Observers/Tutors who happily get people to test standard without being ADIs themselves.

So if they want to be paid do the qualifying exams, no one is disputing that they are'nt capable of getting someone to L test standard, i could get someone to L test standard ADI or not, the difference is i chose to do it as a profession not as a hobby or a bit of cash on the side, so if they want to help existing drivers follow the route that is already in place, you never know you may learn something new!

[crr003]

So if they want to be paid do the qualifying exams, no one is disputing that they are'nt capable of getting someone to L test standard, ..

Sorry - waremark correctly corrected me - I meant advanced type add-ons not the basic L Test training.

[daz6215]

So if they want to be paid do the qualifying exams, no one is disputing that they are'nt capable of getting someone to L test standard, ..

Sorry - waremark correctly corrected me - I meant advanced type add-ons not the basic L Test training.

Yeah but why not have everyone in the driver training industry at least an ADI and use that a a foundation to build on?

[martine]

Yeah but why not have everyone in the driver training industry at least an ADI and use that a a foundation to build on?

ADI tests Parts 1-3 contain stuff that is irrelevent to people teaching advanced driving to qualified drivers.

A whole section of P1 is around interpreting the forms used by DSA examiners, another is around the procedure for applying for a DSA test and how to appeal. P3 includes tested exercises on how to teach really basic car control (clutch control etc).

The ADI tests are very much geared to training novices and getting them through the DSA test.

[daz6215]

Agreed, but its a good place to start! and it teaches fault recognition and analysis etc which surely come in handy when teaching/ coaching drivers.

[crr003]

Yeah but why not have everyone in the driver training industry at least an ADI and use that a a foundation to build on?

Because it isn't required? I dabble with Observing. I don't teach people how to drive. I try and give some tips and hints that might help an already reasonable driver be a bit more profficient and maybe get some fun out of driving.

I see L drivers every day, their faces seemingly frozen in fear as they move around our roads. Now you do deserve to get paid for that!

And it can cost £1500-£2000 to get an ADI badge that says what? I can learn the multiple choice theory test question/answer bank; I can drive like a really good L driver; I can convince a DSA bloke I know how to teach from the ten set examination exercises. (If it still works like that?)
OK - it's tough to do and I'm not saying good ADIs aren't good. But what if your idea is taken up? How many IAM Observers are going to bother taking the ADI path just to keep up their hobby? Even if they could get paid for it?

I'm all for some quality control level setting to help people with AD training, I just don't think it needs to be based on the ADI ticket.

[martine]

It wouldn't be so bad if the ADI retests weren't also focussed on testing the ability to teach novices. Bear in mind that to maintain an ADI qualification you have to have a retest every 2-4 years and it's based around using a current 'novice pupil' with the examiner in the back or if that's not possible, then the examiner takes the role of a novice - all quite irrelevent to someone teaching advanced driving.

Some of the content of the ADI P1-3 (and the retest) is of course relevent - perhaps there should be a new 'AADI' test and retest (Approved Advanced Driving Instuctor).

Seems a nonesense the ADI qualification is compulsory as it stands for all car instruction at any level.

[TripleS]

I'm not convinced personally by the STATS19 figures as I know how they're collected (from a form filled out by any Tom, Dick or Harry PC who may or may not have appropriate training) and as such could be a subjective opinion.

Bobby turns up to RTC, hears verbal account from witnesses about how the accident occured and fills in appropriate forms. Job done.

Isn't everything Plod does largely open to subjective opinion?

Does every PC need to be a Collision Investigator or Forensic Scientist in order to work out that Joe Bloggs pulled out in front of a double decker and got squashed in the process.

Maybe not, but it's easy to see how some misleading conclusions could be reached in the more complex accidents, unless the reports are prepared by people with reasonable understanding of these matters.

I don't like idea that the basis of the process is merely a matter of ticking the boxes that seem to most closely fit the situation - if that's what happens. Easy answers - job done? I'm not so sure.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[daz6215]

It wouldn't be so bad if the ADI retests weren't also focussed on testing the ability to teach novices. Bear in mind that to maintain an ADI qualification you have to have a retest every 2-4 years and it's based around using a current 'novice pupil' with the examiner in the back or if that's not possible, then the examiner takes the role of a novice - all quite irrelevent to someone teaching advanced driving.

Some of the content of the ADI P1-3 (and the retest) is of course relevent - perhaps there should be a new 'AADI' test and retest (Approved Advanced Driving Instuctor).

Seems a nonesense the ADI qualification is compulsory as it stands for all car instruction at any level.

My retest/check test is a fleet check test which is a check test for qualified drivers not learners, so the infrastructure is already in place with certain elements of ADI's for teaching qualified drivers, most of the ADI's on the fleet register have taken the advanced route as opposed to the DSA 3 part test to gain access to the register, so its not all learner orientated by any stretch of the imagination.