DfT 2007 Accident Stats

[zadocbrown]

MGF, I think we're boring everyone!

a) The minimum standard obviously has to remain the same, at each re-test, otherwise it's not a minimum standard. But you can still recognise a higher level of achievement. Some insurers already give discounts for further driving qualifications. If everyone was being assessed, the evidence would soon mount up. It's not true that you can't get a better idea of the risk a driver poses by testing. Otherwise why have a test at all?

b) Testing is educational. It gives objective feedback and advice on how to improve. Most people don't get this at present.

c) Compulsory training could be a viable alternative, but it's not automatically more economical. I'd rather have set standards (i.e. testing) and let people decide how much training they need to get to the level they aspire to, or that is required of them.

d) Do you have a better solution?

[waremark]

MGF, I think we're boring everyone!

c) Compulsory training could be a viable alternative

d) Do you have a better solution?

You are not boring me.

I think compulsory training is the better solution. More constructive, less stress, far less threatening.

[MGF]

c) Compulsory training could be a viable alternative, but it's not automatically more economical. I'd rather have set standards (i.e. testing) and let people decide how much training they need to get to the level they aspire to, or that is required of them.

d) Do you have a better solution?

My point is that whether testing or training it appears self-evident to offer experienced drivers something more than a DSA test and, in my view, defensive driving probably fits the bill.

It is also important not to view people in general as wanting to aspire to be better drivers. Most people aren't that bothered.

As for a better solution, I thought I had offered my thoughts on this; in fact I thought you'd answered them!

Possibly compulsory training, probably along the lines of defensive driving. Certainly something more than the DSA test and certainly geared to experienced drivers who will have picked up both good and bad habits over the years but on balance will be much safer drivers than when they passed their test.

Much more likely to have a positive effect on road safety than requiring drivers to take the DSA test every, say 10 years, with the threat of a losing their licence if they fail and the incentive of gaining less minors and so a higher grade of pass.

[zadocbrown]

I do recognise that drivers in general don't aspire to be better. But therein lies the problem. If they don't want to improve they won't. Changing that attitude is the most important task for us.

The reason i'm slightly dubious about compulsory training with no testing, is that i'm worried it could end being an ineffective compromise deal. We could easily end up with people having to do just a couple of lessons with a mediocre intructor, and not getting much out of it.

On the other hand, if we make everyone do more substantial training, it's expensive. And we still have no way of making sure attention is given where it's most needed.

Being forced to take lessons is not in itself a motivation to improve. Hopefully a good instructor could supply that motivation, given time, but can we count on this? There needs to be some clear goal beyond simply 'being a better driver' which we've agreed doesn't mean much to most people.

Of course, the most important thing is the training, not testing in itself; but I think testing can lead to more effective training. I'll perhaps think up a suggested scheme and put it on a new thread.