martine wrote: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 wrote:It wouldn't be so bad if the ADI retests weren't also focussed on testing the ability to teach novices.
daz6215 wrote: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.
martine wrote:daz6215 wrote: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.
martine wrote:Vonhosen: can you expand a little?
MGF wrote:martine wrote:MGF wrote: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.zadocbrown wrote:MGF wrote:zadocbrown wrote:MGF wrote:martine wrote:MGF wrote:waremark wrote: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.martine wrote: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.zadocbrown wrote: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.zadocbrown wrote: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.waremark wrote:MGF wrote:zadocbrown wrote: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.waremark wrote: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 but not by an hour with a DSA instructor every few years. Experienced drivers need additional training appropriate to the fact they are experienced.waremark wrote:Of course newer drivers are less safe that experienced drivers - but the experienced drivers could be safer still.waremark wrote: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.
zadocbrown wrote: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.
zadocbrown wrote: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.
zadocbrown wrote: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?
zadocbrown wrote: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.
zadocbrown wrote: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.
vonhosen wrote:zadocbrown wrote: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.
zadocbrown wrote:vonhosen wrote:zadocbrown wrote: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...........
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests