For the full report rather than a bit of BBC-style reporting which only touches upon the subject, you can read it by clicking here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 5/355i.pdf
ScoobyChris said
Does anyone else think that more driving education in schools (a bit like the Americans appear to have) would be useful in educating kids and starting them younger, rather than older?
The committee appear to be taking the situation of young/new/inexperienced driver deaths and serious injury statistics quite robustly. There is a wonderful ‘wriggling moment’ from the Minister under questioning about the inclusion of driving and driver safety in the curriculum. As he was previously quoted as stating that the curriculum was already 150% full, the Education Department (or whatever it’s called this week) will have to do a re-think with some urgency if he wishes to avoid receiving a detention from Ms Dunwoody
ipsg.glf said
Do you think that people purposely set out every day to kill other people on the road? Apart from the odd lunatic, most collisions are due to people making a simple mistake. A tragic, but simple mistake.
and
We have to look at fatalities in terms of the number of miles travelled by road users in total. Every activity is risky, even picking your nose…
Of course 99.999% of the population don’t go out expecting to crash but it isn’t as simplistic as being a tragic, simple mistake. Often a crash occurs because two drivers or a combination of road users (car/pedestrian; bike/car etc) don’t make the correct critical risk decisions. Everyone can to a great extent, control the risks caused by other people but much of this comes with experience. We also need the time to develop a sense of where the most likely danger will come from. Steve Haley sums up risk assessment and control as Speed, Surprise and Space.
Speed (too fast for the situation, rather than ‘speeding’) – more crashes occur at speeds below the limit in force
Surprise – younger drivers tend to rely on their fast
reactions, which is of less importance than reacting to the right things. We have to learn how to
anticipate in order to predict and control a likely event. We also have to display a car body language that is easily interpreted by others and doesn’t surprise them
Space – we need to understand when and how our space is threatened by others’ impending encroachment in order to assess the risk and that space needs to be increased when the level of threat heightens
The learning environment and novice test has previously been too much focused on the mechanical skills and too little on the mental processing required to be “a careful, competent driver” as detailed by the DSA to gain a pass. This report goes some way towards identifying how improvements can be made, accepting that draconian changes will not be acceptable to a public that has come to expect driving as an automatic right.
There iis a hint of acceptance (and I hope not to offend the youngest or newest drivers here)
that parts our brains don’t fully develop until we are in our mid-twenties. It would be impossible to make a drastic change to the age at which we could start learning to drive and any raising of that age would not sit comfortably with the strategists in the major political parties. By keeping the starting age at 17 but not allowing the test to be taken until 18 and with the need to provide evidence of an ongoing structured process of learning, rather than a last-minute dash to concentrate the learning process into the final few months, the committee has done much to encourage a greater depth of knowledge.
I was pleased to note the inclusion of a modular signing-off process. Ideally, if the various manoeuvring techniques could be assessed by an suitably qualified instructor other than the one employed by the candidate, we would hopefully remove any inclination to circumvent the system. This would greatly enhance the opportunity to demonstrate the mental processes of driving, rather than the ability to execute a perfect turn in the road. Additionally, I think it’s a good idea to suggest the inclusion of what they call ‘commentary’, but to my mind should just be an interaction between the examiner and the candidate, that would enable the examiner to form an opinion of the decision-making processes. In its simplified form, it would not be the onerous task some people feel is necessary to achieve ‘standard commentary’ parlance.
We tend to forget that there are many, many more nervous, hesitant new drivers on the road, who feel out of their depth and keep asking for additional guidance on motorway driving, night and foul weather driving etc. They far outweigh the very small minority of headline grabbing thrill seekers and risk takers. The former are the ones who will benefit from the experience and guidance of the philanthropic members here, who are happy to devote time to them. The latter could also benefit but convincing them that safe driving can be just as much fun as their adopted style is indeed a tough challenge.
Susie