Better Driving Please

[TripleS]

I’m nothing more than you say, but it does seem that those you entrust with understanding this complex interaction are taking far too simplistic a view of it. This simplistic view does not fit what is happening.

No I'm not talking about anyone specific, I'm just saying that you seem to be contradicting many road safety experts. Some of these surely have more time and data available than you or I and we should both respect their considered collective opinion.

Having more time and data available is one thing, but unless they are working with reliable data they're not going to get the best result. The fact that some of these people are supposedly experts does not mean their proposals and measures are unchallengeable.

In my opinion it is not difficult to find examples of their failings - I'm jolly sure we have them round here.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[vonhosen]

I am being honest here, and have the upmost respect for Von on these forums, so apart from the odd leg pull, I don't like posting against him....

However.......

As a bad boy driver/rider who has gotten older and now behaves more than he ever thought possible it is education, NOT enforcement of any kind that has led me to change my driving behaviour.

I dislike these scameras so much (and all the messages they convey) I have to keep reminding myself that I'm getting older, am married, have children and other responsibilities to stop me becoming the next captain gatso (although I'd use electronics to defeat them, rather than explosives).

The part soren keeps getting right, time & time again, is involve the motorist, stop the guardian reading liberals turning it into an anti car thing, stop using excuses like global warming to raise money etc.

Nigel

I know education is best, I say education is best, but what I also say is that you've got to have the education before you have the release.

You don't let your small child loose with the cooker until they have learned to use it properly, or it's going to end in tears. If they start messing around doing risky things with it, you stop them using it before the accident happens.

I'd love all our drivers to be excellent, but frankly a lot of them I wouldn't trust to do anything more than beans on toast.

You can't educate someone who has no interest in the subject matter. Most people have got the licence & beyond that they don't give a stuff.

We all want more education.

But the most important facet of education is to release our pupils to learn from experience. To do that they need to be trusted to be responsible for their own safety and others safety too.

This IMO requires good refereeing. it requires recognition that certain skills are essential, and certain ground rules should be irrevocable. Beyond that certain additional skills are advantageous.

The ground rules are the basic legality rules such as driving licence, insurance, VEL, roadworthy, registered, belted, con&use legal, no impairment, etc etc. These are premeditated offences or ommissions and must be enforced to absolutely the highest standard.

Essential skills are the basic driving test skills, to enable a person to drive with a satisfactory degree of hazard recognition, courtesy and concentration.

It's then currently down to individual interest and decent refereeing to maintain and improve 'motoring' skills.

The failure of basic driver ability and concentration skills need observation, education, and perhaps enforcement. These involve failures like lack of road awareness, passive tailgating, failure to negotiate hazards appropriately, SMIDSY movements etc. These are basic skill failings, and should always be corrected if possible to do so.

Beyond that are indiscretions which are indicative of a dveloped level of driving and motoring skill, and in my view they fall neatly into two categories.

A) Indiscretions knowingly undertaken for reasons of thrill or aggression.

B) Indiscretions advertently or inadvertently resulting from ones reasonable effort to drive according to conditions.

These two categories are easily distinguishable, and need to be refereed distinctly and appropriately i) for best road safety dividend and ii) for best recognition of responsible good motoring.

If we keep putting our drivers more and more on rails, more worried about speed enforcement than proper motoring skills, I'm afraid that more and more drivers will be less interested in good driving, and the skills will diminish. It's an unnecessary spiral of decline which we need to halt.

You allow them to learn skills within parameters, not without parameters.
Driving is a hazardous activity & where ever somebody wishes to learn they have to do so within established ground rules. Our road traffic laws are the ground rules. Our road traffic rules include speed limits. Our speed limits are another skill that by definition within the basic test, they have to be able to operate within & to. They have to be a part of any driving plan.
When you did your Police driving courses, did you not have to keep within posted speed limits (NSLs aside) ?
Of course you did & you would be marked down as a failing where you couldn't do that as a part of your driving. It is considered an essential skill that you be aware of your speed.

I'd love all our drivers to be excellent, but frankly a lot of them I wouldn't trust to do anything more than beans on toast.

But exceeding the speed limit is a possible or probable contributory factor, not cause, in less than 5% of collisions.

And the vast vast majority of these must be thrill seekers like boy racers and weekend bikers.

I fear your lack of trust is misplaced von.

We don't ignore contributory factors just because it isn't the primary cause.

I don't want to see speed dealt with in isolation, I want to see all contributory factors & causes dealt with.
I don't want to see people transgressing speed limits by small margins punished (unless the use of speed was considered inappropriate).
I don't want to see people exceeding our limits by larger margins, because they are out on an experiential learning exercise either.
If we are going to allow some people to travel at larger margins in excess of the limits, then I'd like to see a system of available training & testing before that happens. Tiered licencing presents many difficulties I am sure, but it does also offer a unique opportunity to encourage people to take further training, not to just allow them to travel quicker, but to become more skilled all round.

[TripleS]

I don't want to see speed dealt with in isolation, I want to see all contributory factors & causes dealt with.
I don't want to see people transgressing speed limits by small margins punished (unless the use of speed was considered inappropriate).
I don't want to see people exceeding our limits by larger margins, because they are out on an experential learning exercise either.
If we are going to allow some people to travel further in excess of the limits, then I'd like to see a system of available training & testing before that happens. Tiered licencing presents many difficulties I am sure, but it does offer a unique opportunity to encourage people to take further training to not just allow them to travel quicker, but to become more skilled all round.

Experiential learning seems OK to me (but then I would say that wouldn't I?) so long as it is done in small easy stages. You then have a chance to look at what's happening and make adjustments before seeking to progress further.

As I have recognised previously, formal advanced tuition is no doubt the best way to learn, but I suspect most of the genuine enthusisasts get a pretty good result without it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[crr003]

.... Our road traffic laws are the ground rules. Our road traffic rules include speed limits. Our speed limits are another skill that by definition within the basic test, they have to be able to operate within & to. They have to be a part of any driving plan.....

All good stuff. But what annoys me is the constant reduction in speed limits. Why? Perfectly acceptable SC NSLs reduced to 50 or 40. Leading to aggressive tailgating and dodgy overtakes.
I'm all for playing by the rules, but when the speed limits are reduced too low for "normal" people to stomach, there's got to be something wrong with the system that assigns speed limits.

[crr003]

.......but I think you need to be careful not to undermine professional road safety engineers and researchers who's job it is to make sense of the complex relationship between driver behavior and car/road engineering.

35 years ago I was told to "go to work on an egg". (OK, school for me).
Later, it was - "don't eat eggs - they're bad for you"
More lately I believe it was decided you can eat x per week.
Googling tonight I find "scientific" sources saying there is no limit to the number of eggs I can eat in a week.

All good solid scientific research there then.

But maybe the professional road safety engineers and researchers are above any sort of error or statistical misinterpretation.

Right.............

My local ones have found the magic of red tarmac which they form into rumble pads many yards long. Stunningly annoying if you have a car with firm suspension. And at what cost in £? Instead of teaching drivers to notice hazards, they throw red tarmac everywhere.

I digress.

[vonhosen]

.... Our road traffic laws are the ground rules. Our road traffic rules include speed limits. Our speed limits are another skill that by definition within the basic test, they have to be able to operate within & to. They have to be a part of any driving plan.....

All good stuff. But what annoys me is the constant reduction in speed limits. Why? Perfectly acceptable SC NSLs reduced to 50 or 40. Leading to aggressive tailgating and dodgy overtakes.
I'm all for playing by the rules, but when the speed limits are reduced too low for "normal" people to stomach, there's got to be something wrong with the system that assigns speed limits.

I wouldn't know why each individual limit was changed. Each LA is certainly supposed to be doing a review of all limits over the next few years.

I would imagine that in a lot of cases it may be that the things you are describing are happening already in NSLs. SC NSLs have a higher proportion of fatality collisions than other roads after all. There is probably an element that a lot of drivers do stupidly think, that just because you are within the limit the speed must be safe & there are lots of places on our SC NSLs that 60mph is never going to be safe. The wider the variations attainable between the slowest speed you have to do & the highest speed you can possibly achieve, the more critical sound judgement & reading of the road is. If you limit that variation you could effectively reduce the cost & likelyhood of getting it seriously wrong. A lot of policy is towards dumbing down to the lowest common denominator it would appear.

If you have a lower limit & enforce it, the opportunities for the overtakes you describe do not legally exist & anyone caught doing them is more easily punishable.

As somebody said elsewhere

There's a teacher's saying that you don't realise how thick the average is until you actually start trying to teach them. I suspect a similar thing may apply in the Police ; you don't realise how cr*p Britain's underclass is until you start trying to Police them.

To which I'd add, you don't realise how poor the average driving licence holder is until you start teaching them either.

[crr003]

...To which I'd add, you don't realise how poor the average driving licence holder is until you start teaching them either.

So, the government's solution to poor driver training/testing is to blanket reduce speed limits to try and keep the death count down.
I'm glad I haven't got too long left to put up with this. Roll on the GPS speed limiter.
Maybe I'll start up a 4-wheel Hell's Angels type band of desparados whose hedonistic pleasure is to go out and have a good drive once in a while.......

[vonhosen]

...To which I'd add, you don't realise how poor the average driving licence holder is until you start teaching them either.

So, the government's solution to poor driver training/testing is to blanket reduce speed limits to try and keep the death count down.
I'm glad I haven't got too long left to put up with this. Roll on the GPS speed limiter.
Maybe I'll start up a 4-wheel Hell's Angels type band of desparados whose hedonistic pleasure is to go out and have a good drive once in a while.......

What evidence do you see of other measures addressing driver training with non professional drivers ?

We are seeing CPCs for LGV etc, but I thbk perhaps the governmental are fearful of imposing such thing on non professionals. The prosfessionals will do it because it's their livelyhood. The majority may not accept it for themselves, they'll say target the bad drivers, not me

[waremark]

VH, you are very positive about the effect of the current road safety regime, the main plank of which is reduced speed limits and more rigid enforcement. I think it is failing to reduce casualties - which have not fallen as much as would have been expected as a result of vehicle engineering improvements - and that Soren has given us a number of persuasive explanations of why this may be.

I have several times pointed out that Scotland, which has not gone down the same route, and which has very extensive rural roads subject to the NSL, has a better road safety record.

You seem to have a very low opinion of people's driving abiliities. Although I do not train nearly as many drivers as you do, my experience is that people find it much easier to drive at a safe speed than to drive within the speed limit - they all find it quite extraordinarily difficult to keep to unrealistically low limits, and it distracts their attention from other aspects of driving.

I think we used to trust drivers to make reasonable and responsible judgements of safe speed. In the last 10 years we have ceased to do so, with massive lowering of limits and non-discretionary enforcement. Sadly, this has distracted from other road safety activities, has caused a great deal of pain and alienation, and has not contributed to road safety.

[vonhosen]

VH, you are very positive about the effect of the current road safety regime, the main plank of which is reduced speed limits and more rigid enforcement. I think it is failing to reduce casualties - which have not fallen as much as would have been expected as a result of vehicle engineering improvements - and that Soren has given us a number of persuasive explanations of why this may be.

I continually say I prefer to see education. I am an observer only of the path taken & a speculator as to future paths. The path taken is not any of my doing.
I wouldn't say I'm positive about it, I'm just dealing in the facts presented, with maybe a little bit of devil's advocate thrown in as well.
2005 saw the lowest number of deaths (3201) ever & reductions in all injury collision types despite the largest number of vehicles & miles ever.
2004 before that had seen likewise (3221 deaths).
Is that not reducing casualties ?

I have several times pointed out that Scotland, which has not gone down the same route, and which has very extensive rural roads subject to the NSL, has a better road safety record.

Depends what figures you use.
Whilst Scotland faired better on fatalities it was worse on KSI reductions.
5.3% reduction against 6.2% in England over 2004.
I'm not sure exactly how Scotland isn't going down the same route though. They are seeing more cameras there (which they lagged a bit behind England & Wales in introducing).

You seem to have a very low opinion of people's driving abiliities. Although I do not train nearly as many drivers as you do, my experience is that people find it much easier to drive at a safe speed than to drive within the speed limit - they all find it quite extraordinarily difficult to keep to unrealistically low limits, and it distracts their attention from other aspects of driving.

I speak on ability levels as I find. There is little point in me saying the world is flat if I can see it is not. I do what I can to improve the situation, but my influence is in a limited arena.

I think we used to trust drivers to make reasonable and responsible judgements of safe speed. In the last 10 years we have ceased to do so, with massive lowering of limits and non-discretionary enforcement. Sadly, this has distracted from other road safety activities, has caused a great deal of pain and alienation, and has not contributed to road safety.

I don't think we did. I have always seen people prosecuted for being a margin over the limit without evidence of real danger being shown. You still see it now where real trafpol prosecute people for excess speed in Police camera action type programs. People driving were prosecuted for simply going over someone elses tolerance threshold. It's just with the advent of cameras they are ruthlessly efficient at doing that prosecuting. Without fear or favour they will report all who they see transgress above a tolerance limit they have been instructed to report for.

[Gareth]

I think we've had part of this discussion before. VH appears to believe that before people are given responsibility, they must prove they are worthy of responsibility. I and others believe that you must give people responsibility for them to learn to take responsibility.

I liken it to bringing up children - if you never give them the opportunity to take responsibility for making decisions that affect their future lives, they are ill prepared to function as independent adults. Instead a parent needs to give them a basis of knowledge and experience, and then let them start to take responsibility but also to suffer the consequences.

Look around and it is easy to see the consequences of this approach in many people, both young and old, today. Its especially worrying to see some young adults, when they've never had the opportunity to learn to handle money in a responsible fashion, go and make a complete pig's ear of it as soon as they get their first job.

I submit that by having a net lowering of speed limits, coupled with rigid enforcement of limits that are slower than most drivers accept as reasonable, we've switched from saying that vehicles should be appropriately slow in urban areas where the danger to other road users is greatest, to the idea that the posted limit is the appropriate safe speed.

As decisions appear to be and are removed from drivers, they loose interest in driving, and switch off from noticing and reacting to hazards. Yes, VH, accidents rates have been reducing. But the really big question is, have they been reducing as much as we could reasonably expect in recent years?

[martine]

...we've switched from saying that vehicles should be appropriately slow in urban areas where the danger to other road users is greatest, to the idea that the posted limit is the appropriate safe speed.

Hear, hear.

Yes, VH, accidents rates have been reducing. But the really big question is, have they been reducing as much as we could reasonably expect in recent years?

Absolutely. The obvious problem though is: it costs more money to educate the public than bang-up loads of 'self-financing' speed cameras. I think this, and many arguments around road safety come down to money.

Personally I would be prepared to pay more (road tax, petrol tax whatever) to fund improved driver education or tiered licences or more traffic police if it meant a better standard of responsible driving allowing a relaxation of speed limits. It's a hell of a big job and would take many years but I would support it if I could see the benefits.

Any one else agree?

[Roadcraft]

On the same subject but sliightly off.... Id feel better about people's driving and flexibility issues if more of the public took advanced training (of any kind)..be it IAM, RoSPA, HPC, private companies etc etc...

However, people think that the original and basic driiving course and test through DSA is good enough for life...

That attitude needs to change..

[martine]

...people think that the original and basic driiving course and test through DSA is good enough for life...

That attitude needs to change..

I'm sure everyone here agrees with that.

Do you know of any plans (or even an awareness) with the 'powers that be' that this is being considered? Is this something ACPO could voice an opinion on? What about local road safety teams? There are some MPs that take a particular interest in road safety - anyone know of an MP who would be sympathetic...in fact more than sympathetic?

[crr003]

...... Yes, VH, accidents rates have been reducing. But the really big question is, have they been reducing as much as we could reasonably expect in recent years?

I read somewhere the rates are down because the method of defining a KSI has been changed.