DfT 2007 Accident Stats

[vonhosen]

It wouldn't be so bad if the ADI retests weren't also focussed on testing the ability to teach novices.

They're not, I didn't do anything novice like (or even conventional) for my check test.

[martine]

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.

I'm confused - don't you have to be an ADI to be on the fleet register? Does taking a fleet check test absolve you of the ADI checktest? Sorry for my ignorance.

Vonhosen: can you expand a little?

[daz6215]

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.

I'm confused - don't you have to be an ADI to be on the fleet register? Does taking a fleet check test absolve you of the ADI checktest? Sorry for my ignorance.

You do have to be an ADI to be on the fleet register, once you are on the register the check test changes to fleet which has precedence over a normal ADI L check test.

[vonhosen]

Vonhosen: can you expand a little?

I'd rather not , other than to say it was nothing to do with what a novice would expect to be taught. You have far more freedom for your check tests than the part 3. It's a test of instructional ability (admittedly around a DSA prescribed format if you want a good grade), but what you cover is very much under your control.

[martine]

Thanks daz and von - so the check drives don't have to be as irrelevent as I thought but there are still chunks of wasted effort in the initial ADI tests if your not going to be teaching novices.

Perhaps it will all change with the 'learning to drive' review...why is it something inside tells me it will become more bureaucratic, complicated and restrictive rather than less?

[jont]

Vonhosen: can you expand a little?

I'd rather not

IIRC the Stressed one has some good stories about check tests

[fungus]

I am not on the fleet register. On my check test three years ago I could not provide a pupil, so the examiner role played a driver with 25 yrs experience driving white vans, who was just coming off a ban. Obviously the style of driving was nothing like a learners.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer.

[zadocbrown]

A check test can be given to a full license holder, for 'driver improvement', so long as it's not another ADI.

The part 3 was recently updated, and can now include (at examiner's discretion) tuition of a 'full license holder'. It is, of course, still largely geared towards provisional license holders.

I don't think getting through the adi exams is really that difficult for anyone who has what it takes to be a good intructor/ advanced coach or whatever; even if some of the content isn't very relevant. As with driving itself, its what you do after the test that determines whether you'll be any good.

[zadocbrown]

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.

No, I never said it was about only maintaining standards. If we were to introduce re-testing, it would surely be some kind of graded system?

I don't think changing the way learners are taught will make a huge difference. It's still catering for the lowest denominator, and will be heavily constrained by economic considerations. i.e. learners can't afford more, longer, or more complex tuition.

We need to face the fact that newly qualified drivers will never be finished products; and the only way to make sure more people develop in the right direction after the L test is further education.

[martine]

We need to face the fact that newly qualified drivers will never be finished products; and the only way to make sure more people develop in the right direction after the L test is further education.

Hear, hear!

[vonhosen]

No, I never said it was about only maintaining standards. If we were to introduce re-testing, it would surely be some kind of graded system?

I don't think changing the way learners are taught will make a huge difference. It's still catering for the lowest denominator, and will be heavily constrained by economic considerations. i.e. learners can't afford more, longer, or more complex tuition.

We need to face the fact that newly qualified drivers will never be finished products; and the only way to make sure more people develop in the right direction after the L test is further education.

I don't think that's the way it's going at all.

The movement doesn't appear to be towards a graded test, the focus is on the learning environment & promotion of awareness & responsibility within it. Something for the new driver to carry forward for the rest of their driving lives.

[MGF]

No, I never said it was about only maintaining standards. If we were to introduce re-testing, it would surely be some kind of graded system?

Your original, unedited, post is below.

Re-testing at least every 10 years. Its the only logical thing to do.

'Health and Safety' is a constant irritant to me, in that it's often taken to ridiculous extremes. But for some reason, driving seems mysteriously exempt from any such concerns (for the general public at least). Where else today would you be allowed to carry out an activity involving substantial risk of death, both to one's self and to innocent bystanders, on the strength of having passed a test 20 years ago (when standards were different) and had zero training or assessment since?!!!!!

It would also allow for a grading system, which could be taken into account for insurance purposes, which would be a good incentive for people to improve.

Re-testing at the same level, ie taking the same test is about maintaining standards. What you suggest is that the DSA examiner will give grades of pass which 'could be taken into account for insurance purposes'.

This presupposes that there is a relationship between how well you comply with the set of competences in the DSA test and your risk to an insurer. With respect, that is misconceived. Unless of course you can cite evidence to substantiate this.

Note, endorsement points can be taken into account for insurance purposes yet insurers don't necessarily, (actuarially speaking), believe there is an increased risk to them. We cannot tell the insurance companies what premium to charge people.

I don't think changing the way learners are taught will make a huge difference. It's still catering for the lowest denominator, and will be heavily constrained by economic considerations. i.e. learners can't afford more, longer, or more complex tuition.

We need to face the fact that newly qualified drivers will never be finished products; and the only way to make sure more people develop in the right direction after the L test is further education.

But re-testing isn't education is it? It is maintaining a standard of 'the lowest common denominator' which I agree with you shouldn't be our aim with experienced drivers. (By the way if the DSA is 'the lowest common denominator' then all statutory driving tests would be the same in every country and ours is quite difficult comparatively).

My view if there is going to be 'education' is to treat experienced drivers as just that, experienced and offer them appropriate further training.

This may involve a requirement to engage in a defensive driving course eg every 10 years. No test, as that may be too difficult politically and economically, but something useful to the experienced driver rather than dragging him back to the 'lowest common denominator' test you refer to.

If Waremark is correct in saying fleet training has had a positive effect on road safety, and it seems plausible, then this seems the way to go.

Defensive driving is, in my view, the perfect step for most drivers who wont be persuaded to learn a new system of car control necessary for advanced driving.

It is all to easy to make statements such as this "Where else today would you be allowed to carry out an activity involving substantial risk of death, both to one's self and to innocent bystanders, on the strength of having passed a test 20 years ago (when standards were different) and had zero training or assessment since?!!!!!

but on closer analysis it is misconceived. It is claiming that all other activities that are potentially dangerous have mandatory regular re-testing and re-training and that is simply not the case.

Again it is all too easy to say we need more 'education' of drivers without a proper consideration of the most effective way this could be applied.

This is why when someone on this forum mentions the word 're-test' others appear to jump for joy but is this the best solution for road safety? I would liken it to reducing a speed limit and erecting a speed camera as being the obvious solution to improving road safety.

[martine]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree MGF.

What we do agree about (I think ) is not to leave drivers once they've passed their L-test to their own devices for the rest of their driving career - which could easily be 50 years. It sounds quite ridiculous when stated like that if most people were honest...yet the DSA review as has been mentioned, is focussing on improvements in learning to drive.

Perhaps they'll come back to this after the 'improvements'.

[zadocbrown]

No, I never said it was about only maintaining standards. If we were to introduce re-testing, it would surely be some kind of graded system?

I don't think changing the way learners are taught will make a huge difference. It's still catering for the lowest denominator, and will be heavily constrained by economic considerations. i.e. learners can't afford more, longer, or more complex tuition.

We need to face the fact that newly qualified drivers will never be finished products; and the only way to make sure more people develop in the right direction after the L test is further education.

I don't think that's the way it's going at all.

The movement doesn't appear to be towards a graded test, the focus is on the learning environment & promotion of awareness & responsibility within it. Something for the new driver to carry forward for the rest of their driving lives.

I know. And I fear it's going to be largely a waste of money. I hope to be proved wrong...........

[vonhosen]

No, I never said it was about only maintaining standards. If we were to introduce re-testing, it would surely be some kind of graded system?

I don't think changing the way learners are taught will make a huge difference. It's still catering for the lowest denominator, and will be heavily constrained by economic considerations. i.e. learners can't afford more, longer, or more complex tuition.

We need to face the fact that newly qualified drivers will never be finished products; and the only way to make sure more people develop in the right direction after the L test is further education.

I don't think that's the way it's going at all.

The movement doesn't appear to be towards a graded test, the focus is on the learning environment & promotion of awareness & responsibility within it. Something for the new driver to carry forward for the rest of their driving lives.

I know. And I fear it's going to be largely a waste of money. I hope to be proved wrong...........

I don't think it will be as far as new drivers are concerned. It won't of course address established drivers though.