Good driving's a matter of learning
Coached drivers are safer, finds research
Surveys often tell what you already believe to be true – but it's nice to have it confirmed by hard evidence. So research has found that motorists who rely on their basic L-test as a motoring "passport for life" are more likely to blame others when they are involved in incidents or minor accidents, according to a new study by Brunel University in West London.
Previous research has shown that drivers who regularly blame others for near-misses instead of taking responsibility for their own part in such incidents are more likely to be involved in fatal road accidents.
The Brunel study, carried out by Prof. Neville Stanton and Dr. Guy Walker, shows that drivers who improve their abilities behind the wheel are less likely to "play the blame game" and more likely to read the road and expect the unexpected.
Nearly 70 per cent of drivers who received advanced coaching showed significantly safer skills in a number of key areas, including cornering, gear changing, seating position, safe distances, use of mirrors and speed, according to the scientific comparison of normal and advanced drivers.
The IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) commissioned the study to examine whether advanced coaching can be proven to change drivers' attitudes, skills and knowledge.
Peter Rodger, IAM Chief Examiner, said: "This research shows that motorists who think that simply accumulating years of experience on the road is enough to improve their driving are wrong. What makes the difference is having extra coaching, just as it would be in any other activity. Drivers are more likely to blame chance or bad luck, if the only training they've ever had is those early driving lessons. But they're more likely to take responsibility for avoiding and responding to incidents if they've taken the trouble to try to improve their skills later in life."
In a measure of people's attitude towards whether they believe they are controlled by luck or chance, or have 'self' control over their actions - normal drivers score 60 per cent worse than drivers with advanced coaching, and show significantly more of the attitude that previous research has shown to be implicated in involvement in fatal accidents.
Professor Neville Stanton of Brunel University said: "There were 207,000 accidents in Great Britain in 2004, involving 281,000 casualties, according to the latest Department for Transport statistics. While we have one of the best records of lowering casualties, there is still much to do. The more we can understand driver behaviour and what affects it, the better chance we have of further reducing road accidents. This is why we felt it was important to conduct such a rigorous study into whether ‘practice makes perfect’ in terms of ability - or whether people need further coaching to improve how they drive.
"This is the first research of its kind and the results are telling. The performance of those who did not receive coaching was erratic, but those who were coached showed marked improvements in the three main areas of driving - skills, knowledge and attitude. These three skills are interdependent - when all three are improved, a driver is likely to be safer. It’s as simple as that."
Rodger said: "The findings of this research lay to rest the old joke that advanced driving is all about where you position your hands on the steering wheel. It shows the value of lifelong learning in motoring, just as in the fields of work. All drivers should be encouraged to continue developing their skills, long after their driving test."
Academics concluded at the end of the 15 month study that:
- Driver attitudes changed with coaching - those who had received coaching were less likely to blame external factors when driving (increased accountability has been linked favourably to accident prevention)
- Coached drivers saw a marked improvement in driving skills - almost 70 per cent of those who received coaching improved their basic driving skills (ie. speed, gears, cornering, headway, use of mirrors).
- Drivers with coaching showed a 30 per cent increase in their knowledge, or situational awareness - i.e speed, decision-making and road features.
So many of our customers tell us after their respective driving sessions that they believe every driver should be made to complete some form of post-test training. That way the roads would be a lot safer, there would be less signs and speed limits, less speed cameras and driving would remain a pleasure.
carreraplanes said:
The government's current initiatives on road safety are a sham because, in a nutshell, the legislators don't know what they are talking about.
Abso-flippin’-lutely!!! Considering that the Government have cut some of the funding to the IAM and other similarly funded organisations, presumably to divert such funds into speed cameras and other ways to continually stamp on the motorist as if he were a petulant child, it is very much a case of the motorist being dictated to by the uninitiated.
Also insurance companies could do a lot. If companies would offer a significant discount to the customer who subjected themselves to some advanced training more people would take it up. We see a great many people pass through our hands, but they are the ones who are enthusiastic about getting it right. The ones we really need to grab hold of, the ones that are the risk factor, won’t do anything unless there is a huge great big carrot to dangle in front of them.
Has anyone been to any Road Safety conferences? It wouldn’t be so bad if the point of having them was anything to do with Road Safety, but it isn’t. What they do tend to be about is the speakers concerned, each trying to outdo the next in an attempt to win favour and power. It is all about individual gratification of an over inflated ego by empty-headed nobodies trying to be some bodies. They don’t give a toss about what the title of the meeting is meant to mean. I gave up going to these things on the grounds that if I did continue to put in an appearance I would probably end up lumping someone for being so bloody self-righteous and pompous.
Jungles said:
Doesn't the British have something called Pass Plus, which includes motorway driving and other skills not covered in the normal driving test? Why don't the DSA make Pass Plus the standard driving test, rather than the lousy one they have now?
Pass Plus would be fine if the system was policed better. We are currently working with a local authority to help them do something about the appalling death and serious injury rate among young drivers. The council’s old system was to part-fund youngsters to do the Pass Plus scheme. What they discovered after some time was that the system was being abused. Instructors were telling these kids that they didn’t have to do the lesson just so long as they handed over their forms having signed them to say they had done it. That way the young driver saved his or her money from their part of the would-be payment and the instructor was then claiming the council grant money for doing nothing. What stinks even more is that insurance companies buy into this scheme and give discounts on insurance and yet by comparison to what else is available the input is quite poor.
So as to make a comparison, the council concerned put 3 youngsters, who had actually done their Pass Plus properly, through what we were offering and these kids were blown away. They were raving about it saying that by comparison the Pass Plus input was no more than an extension of a learner lesson, whereas the proper advanced skills they felt were more real life preparation that they could actually use to keep themselves safe..
I know this sounds like a trumpet blowing session, but you have to ask what does your average ADI learner driver instructor have in the way of driving skills? The majority have neither the training nor the background to know the first thing about anything beyond the learner teaching scenario, and that is not meant with any disrespect. What I am trying to say here is that Pass Plus could be a heck of a lot better and would stand a chance of actually making more of a difference if it was administered properly and by properly trained people. Give the job to the IAM, for example. They have Government funding, so build that organisation up with more people and who get paid for their work rather than having to do it voluntarily.
>> Edited by Ride Drive on Friday 24th March 08:43
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff