What is advanced driving like around the world?

[Johnnie]

Reading the thread about driving overseas, I was struck by a thought. Is advanced driving the same around the world?

Does anyone have any experience of beng an advanced driver overseas? Are the techniques employed the same? Do advanced drivers even exist overseas in the same manner as we have here?

[James]

Reading the thread about driving overseas, I was struck by a thought. Is advanced driving the same around the world?

Does anyone have any experience of beng an advanced driver overseas? Are the techniques employed the same? Do advanced drivers even exist overseas in the same manner as we have here?

I have... absolutley no idea. They probably do bit I would like to think that we Brit's have a degree of finesse, skill and attitude at a higher level than the others.

[waremark]

Does anyone have any experience of beng an advanced driver overseas? Are the techniques employed the same? Do advanced drivers even exist overseas in the same manner as we have here?

Not in many places. There are one or two offshoots of the IAM and people trained by the IAM elsewhere, but I have not heard of any evidence of independent similar movements. From participants in other forums, it is clear there is no similar movement in the US, Canada or Australia. In the US in particular with the exception of one former UK traffic policemen searches for advanced driving tend to pull up references to track and limit handling training - which as we know is something completely different.

Another interesting point to note is that what we regard as best driving practise in not necessarily taught elsewhere - for example, the Canadians teach rotational steering as the approved steering method.

[TripleS]

Reading the thread about driving overseas, I was struck by a thought. Is advanced driving the same around the world?

Does anyone have any experience of beng an advanced driver overseas? Are the techniques employed the same? Do advanced drivers even exist overseas in the same manner as we have here?

I have... absolutley no idea. They probably do bit I would like to think that we Brit's have a degree of finesse, skill and attitude at a higher level than the others.

I suspect you're right. What a scandal it is that the government and other assorted muppets seem to be pursuing a policy that is devaluing all that.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Johnnie]

Another interesting point to note is that what we regard as best driving practise in not necessarily taught elsewhere - for example, the Canadians teach rotational steering as the approved steering method.

I thought rotational steering was an approved method here, just not the recommended one, to be used in particular circumstances - putting on opposite lock in the case of a skid etc

The existence of advanced drivers in this country would suggest that our roads should be safer compared with other countries. Is that borne out in the statistics? I suppose though that it depends on the stringency of the basic driving test abroad and the number of drivers on the roads, number of advanced drivers as a percentage of total driving population etc etc.

[vonhosen]

This is 1997 to 2000.

http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm

[Johnnie]

Wow, thanks. Those numbers really show it, don't they.

I'm not sure I really want to drive on the continent now!!

[TripleS]

Wow, thanks. Those numbers really show it, don't they.

I'm not sure I really want to drive on the continent now!!

They do indeed show it, assuming the information has been collected and presented fairly, in which case it is a great credit to us. Now what was all that about us all being surrounded by total numpties whenever we venture out on the roads? I don't happen to agree with it, but that seems to be the view taken by a large proportion of the contributors to some of these forums. Quite obviously we are not doing at all badly.

Even so, I still have the feeling that we could make a very useful improvement in road safety without a huge effort in formal training and testing, merely by the delivery of a few key messages via TV presentations. What we need is something to raise the general level of interest in driving and promote some attitude adjustments, not an easy matter I grant you, but that is where we should start IMHO.

BTW RJ - soak up a bit of the good advice from your friends here and you need have no fear of driving on the continent. Just be wary though 'cos they're mostly furriners over there and they drive on the wrong side of the road, but I'm sure you'll cope.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Johnnie]

...Even so, I still have the feeling that we could make a very useful improvement in road safety without a huge effort in formal training and testing, merely by the delivery of a few key messages via TV presentations.

I would support that wholeheartedly.

People generally are under the impression that "it will never happen to them" and have very little idea of it will be like when it does happen. As a Johnnie, I have seen a little of what happens when it goes wrong. I'm sure that for the emergency service drivers on this forum it will be all too familiar. Of course, it's usually the young males who think they are invincible that are the worst (Regretably, speaking from personal experience )

[James]

So my rather vague comment, all be it based on my heart and opinon, might be correct. Ta Von.

[Lady Godiva]

Dear Johnnie - I cannot comment on whether other countries are formally advanced. However , I have drivien in many countries abroad, including Greece, Turkey, USA, Canada, etc, etc. Some are excellent, are are very very scary indeed.

By the way, I read Mr. Vonhosen's link, and I wasn't sure exactly what the originator was saying. The reason I'm confused is that he demonstrated that we have the safest roads in Europe. He then said (and I quote):

"When the UK clearly has by far the safest roads in Europe, we have to ask why we also have the most anti-car government in Europe, if not the world.

The British government spends millions of pounds of public money on propaganda which gives the impression that our roads are the worst in Europe.

To implement it's so called "road safety" policy, it imposes speed cameras, traffic calming, speed humps, unreasonably low speed limits, bus lanes, road narrowing, and complete road closures. It covers our roads and pavements with a shambolic mess of white lines, red and green splodges, textured surfaces and obstructions.

Despite our motorways being the safest in Europe by a country mile, the government pig-headedly refuses to raise the utterly discredited 70 mph motorway speed limit."

The bit I'm confused about is that surely it would be reasonable to argue that all the above policies, cameras, humps, low speed limits, etc, are what have contributed to the best safety record. To take a specific point, could it be that our motorways are the safest in europe BECAUSE of the 70mph limit. Or our other roads are the safest in Europe BECAUSE of the white lines and signage.

Please not I am not suggesting anyone is wrong who thinks differently, or has an argument with any of the above policies. I just dont understand the logic that says we have these rules, and this result, so that proves the rules are unecessary .

Or is it just me.

Regards
Sally

[vonhosen]

Dear Johnnie - I cannot comment on whether other countries are formally advanced. However , I have drivien in many countries abroad, including Greece, Turkey, USA, Canada, etc, etc. Some are excellent, are are very very scary indeed.

By the way, I read Mr. Vonhosen's link, and I wasn't sure exactly what the originator was saying. The reason I'm confused is that he demonstrated that we have the safest roads in Europe. He then said (and I quote):

"When the UK clearly has by far the safest roads in Europe, we have to ask why we also have the most anti-car government in Europe, if not the world.

The British government spends millions of pounds of public money on propaganda which gives the impression that our roads are the worst in Europe.

To implement it's so called "road safety" policy, it imposes speed cameras, traffic calming, speed humps, unreasonably low speed limits, bus lanes, road narrowing, and complete road closures. It covers our roads and pavements with a shambolic mess of white lines, red and green splodges, textured surfaces and obstructions.

Despite our motorways being the safest in Europe by a country mile, the government pig-headedly refuses to raise the utterly discredited 70 mph motorway speed limit."

The bit I'm confused about is that surely it would be reasonable to argue that all the above policies, cameras, humps, low speed limits, etc, are what have contributed to the best safety record. To take a specific point, could it be that our motorways are the safest in europe BECAUSE of the 70mph limit. Or our other roads are the safest in Europe BECAUSE of the white lines and signage.

Please not I am not suggesting anyone is wrong who thinks differently, or has an argument with any of the above policies. I just dont understand the logic that says we have these rules, and this result, so that proves the rules are unecessary .

Or is it just me.

Regards
Sally

No you are not alone

Other countries do have siminalr limits to us, so it isn't the speed limit alone (although it will be part of it). It's all of the things that form part of UK driving culture & that includes organisations like the IAM/RoADA etc.

[waremark]

Lady G, the basis for the comments on the Safe Speed site is that we had the safest roads 10 years ago, before the intensive Speed Kills movement got underway. This movement has seen massive and widespread reductions in speed limits, more rigorous enforcement of those limits, and public education advertising focused on obedience to the speed limit.

During the same periods we have seen a reduction in roads policing and a reduction in other types of education and enforcement.

Many people believe that the improvements over the last 10 years in vehicile safety engineering and in paramedic procedures would on their own have achieved greater reductions in casualties than we have seen overall, thereby indicating that the focus of Road Safety on Speed Kills has been not only unhelpful but actually damaging. Paul Smith of the Safe Speed website believes this strongly. As has been discussed here on ADUK recently, some people think he is an extremist and others that he is moderate nd reasonable.

Von and I both participated in a very extended and I think high quality debate on this issue a few months ago on the Traffic Answers forum. There were Traffic Officers on both sides of the debate. If you want to read a long thread look here (starting at page 2 of 17 where this topic really starts):
http://www.traffic-answers.com/forum/in ... ic=3462.15

I am going to resist going over the same ground again here!

[vonhosen]

Lady G, the basis for the comments on the Safe Speed site is that we had the safest roads 10 years ago, before the intensive Speed Kills movement got underway. This movement has seen massive and widespread reductions in speed limits, more rigorous enforcement of those limits, and public education advertising focused on obedience to the speed limit.

During the same periods we have seen a reduction in roads policing and a reduction in other types of education and enforcement.

Many people believe that the improvements over the last 10 years in vehicile safety engineering and in paramedic procedures would on their own have achieved greater reductions in casualties than we have seen overall, thereby indicating that the focus of Road Safety on Speed Kills has been not only unhelpful but actually damaging. Paul Smith of the Safe Speed website believes this strongly. As has been discussed here on ADUK recently, some people think he is an extremist and others that he is moderate nd reasonable.

Von and I both participated in a very extended and I think high quality debate on this issue a few months ago on the Traffic Answers forum. There were Traffic Officers on both sides of the debate. If you want to read a long thread look here (starting at page 2 of 17 where this topic really starts):
http://www.traffic-answers.com/forum/in ... ic=3462.15

I am going to resist going over the same ground again here!

I like Paul.

He is an articulate intelligent man.
He is passionate but polite.
I think we agree on many things, but he & I have different thresholds on others.

I'd hate to see this place descend into the same debates on one subject that rage elsewhere though.

[NalaGee]

Some info' in reply to recent posts on this thread

Eddie Wren - ex UK PL1 operates the first two
organisations shown.
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/index.htm

The ADA training follows the teachings of Roadcraft
and the System
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/index.htm

RoADAR Gold amongst other drivimg qualifications
are held by Gordon Booth operator of the following
California based advanced driving school.
Roadcraft and the System also work here.
http://www.drivetrainusa.com

The RCMP seem to be the only Police Training course
in Canada that offers their own driver training.
Its not as long as a UK's PL1 course or as intensive.
They do prefer/insist on 'pull-push' steering
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/about/driving_e.htm

Ontario & Quebec are the only Provinces that have a
Provincial Police Force = OPP and QPP, and train their
own Police Force drivers.

The RCMP are a federal Police Force and are also contracted to various towns, cities & rural areas
across the nation.
It would seem that many of the other Police Forces throughout the country are trained by private driving organisations on a contract basis.

There are several organisations that purport to teach advanced driving training, but not to the standard that UK advanced drivers receive. These Schools all teach off road courses, there being no public road driving, believe this to be due to high Insurance, which would increase their fees.
Each School have their own syllabus, and as far as I'm aware there is no Provincial or National standard.

Hope this helps those that are interested in what N.A has as far as advanced driving goes.