RE: Tuition improves drivers: survey
Wednesday 6th September 2006
Britain's 30 million drivers may have many clocked up many years' experience at the wheel between them, but that is no guarantee that they will get better at the actual driving task. In some cases they may actually get measurably worse over time, according to new research this week from Brunel University.
Tuition improves drivers: survey
Standards can improve finds research
Brunel say that drivers coached beyond the L-test are more aware of what is going on around them. This greater awareness is not restricted to just other road users, road conditions, and infrastructure, but the "joining up" of these elements into an overall understanding of their meaning in terms of potential hazards and the appropriate driver response.
Professor Neville Stanton of Brunel's Ergonomics Research Group said: "This was the first scientifically controlled study into the effectiveness of advanced driver coaching by the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists). We are satisfied that coaching, plus practical on-road assessments and feedback, leads to better drivers. The IAM group were significantly better drivers by the end of the two-year study than either of the control groups, who remained the same or got worse."
Researchers divided up three groups, each with 25 drivers, matched by gender (seven women and 18 men), age (from 22 to 65, with an average age of 44), annual mileage (typically 13,000 miles per annum), driving experience (an average of 23 years) and points on licence. Together they were "observed" for more than 650 hours at the wheel.
The group that was coached by "observers" showed measurable improvements in all three areas of driver competence: knowledge of what was going on around them, skills applied to the driving tasks, and attitude towards driving.
IAM Chief Examiner Peter Roger, said: "Just because you have had a few more years on the road, it doesn't mean that your attitude to driving is any more healthy. We know that by working on the skills of drivers, they cannot help but start to re-evaluate their ability to spot hazards early and this leads to safer driving. Advanced drivers are also less prone to the frustrations that lead to road rage."
The IAM commissioned Prof Stanton, Dr Guy Walker, Dr Tara Kazi and Dr Mark Young to carry out the research. The team concluded that nearly 70 per cent of drivers who received advanced coaching showed significantly safer skills in a number of key areas, including speed, safe distances, cornering, gear changing, seating position, and use of mirrors, according to the scientific comparison of normal and advanced drivers.
Discussion
HURRAH!! At last some actual evidence that backs up what we all new.
Firstly, as an aside, I'd just like to say how much I LOVE these types of surveys - someone spends x number of months and x number of pounds to tell us what we all already new.
But hopeully this can encourange the government to do something about the standards of driver training...! It's certainly a step in the right direction.
The results of the test would surely have been known before the start - insurance companies aren't ready to throw money away or give discounts willy nilly so the fact that there are a number of insurers who offer discounts to IAM drivers obviously goes to show that it does make a difference...
Vive la revolution...!
Firstly, as an aside, I'd just like to say how much I LOVE these types of surveys - someone spends x number of months and x number of pounds to tell us what we all already new.
But hopeully this can encourange the government to do something about the standards of driver training...! It's certainly a step in the right direction.
The results of the test would surely have been known before the start - insurance companies aren't ready to throw money away or give discounts willy nilly so the fact that there are a number of insurers who offer discounts to IAM drivers obviously goes to show that it does make a difference...
Vive la revolution...!
The circle of knowledge & learning:
1) You start to lean to drive & you know you cant, your 'Consciously incompetent'
2) You learn to drive but your not very good, your now 'unconciously competent'
3) You then gain confidence & start cutting corners you've slipped in to 'unconciously uncompetent'
4) Only when some one points it out do you then realise your driving has slipped back to stage one & your then 'Consciously incompetent'
This happens in everything we do, driving, work, relationships, everything.
Human nature. A good driver will recognise this & be aware of it.
1) You start to lean to drive & you know you cant, your 'Consciously incompetent'
2) You learn to drive but your not very good, your now 'unconciously competent'
3) You then gain confidence & start cutting corners you've slipped in to 'unconciously uncompetent'
4) Only when some one points it out do you then realise your driving has slipped back to stage one & your then 'Consciously incompetent'
This happens in everything we do, driving, work, relationships, everything.
Human nature. A good driver will recognise this & be aware of it.
Hurrah! Used to be I disliked "state the obvious" press releases like this, but now idiotic agenda-sharpeners are releasing things like, "We interviewed five people from the Triumph Acclaim owners' club, beige division and 80 percent of them supported a reduced speed limit" left, right and centre, more power to every organisation that throws some common sense into the ring.
One thing that I don't think helps is that most drivers measure how good they are solely in time since last accident.
The problem is, the more bad habits one picks up, the more other drivers notice early the signs of an incompetent wheelman, and the more they make allowances for that; thus reducing the risk of accident, and reinforcing the bad driver's belief that they are doing just fine.
Having had the stages of competence mentioned, I'd hazard a guess that most drivers are in an state of being able to roughly identify (in)competence in others, but not necessarily in themselves - hence they respond well to tuition by identifying the tutor as a "better" driver with information of worth to impart.
Although some drivers slip below even this state and become unable not only to drive competently, but also to identify competent driving. How often have you been given some truly cringe-worthy advice by someone whose driving left a lot to be desired? My favourite, incidentally, was "if your car is understeering, then just keep turning the steering wheel, although be careful because it might tip over if you turn too much."
Incidentally, if you want to really deflate the ego of a "Last accident: 20 years ago. Conclusion: safe." type driver, try asking them how many near misses they had in the last month. Be prepared either for a disturbingly big number, or the need to suddenly leg it to a safe place!
One thing that I don't think helps is that most drivers measure how good they are solely in time since last accident.
The problem is, the more bad habits one picks up, the more other drivers notice early the signs of an incompetent wheelman, and the more they make allowances for that; thus reducing the risk of accident, and reinforcing the bad driver's belief that they are doing just fine.
Having had the stages of competence mentioned, I'd hazard a guess that most drivers are in an state of being able to roughly identify (in)competence in others, but not necessarily in themselves - hence they respond well to tuition by identifying the tutor as a "better" driver with information of worth to impart.
Although some drivers slip below even this state and become unable not only to drive competently, but also to identify competent driving. How often have you been given some truly cringe-worthy advice by someone whose driving left a lot to be desired? My favourite, incidentally, was "if your car is understeering, then just keep turning the steering wheel, although be careful because it might tip over if you turn too much."
Incidentally, if you want to really deflate the ego of a "Last accident: 20 years ago. Conclusion: safe." type driver, try asking them how many near misses they had in the last month. Be prepared either for a disturbingly big number, or the need to suddenly leg it to a safe place!
Here's the best bit of cringworthy advice I've ever heard from an unconscious incompetent:
"In a Golf [note in a Golf specifically, not any other car], when the tail skids out just downshift two gears and floor it."
Probably useful information for dragging the boot of your Golf out of the hedge it just buried itself in, assuming you still have four wheels attached to the car...
I was also the unfortunate passenger once in an Opel Kadett GSi 16V which was driven by someone who firmly believed that the best way to combat understeer was a technique which can only be described as cadence acceleration... full throttle, then no throttle, then full throttle, then no throttle. It could also be described as "how many times can I poke this thing before it gets upset and bites back?"
I also don't know how many times I have heard someone say about whatever arbitary car they were driving when they had a huge accident: "If I had been in any other car I'd be dead" or "Any other car would have rolled". Uh huh.
Speaking of the circle of competence mentioned earlier about training, an instructor has presented that idea once to me before, but he had the order slightly different. His version went like this:
1) Unconsciously incompetent - like a non driver. Doesn't know how bad their driving is because they've never tried
2) Consciously incompetent - learner driver. Has now attempted to drive a car and realised that their skill levels and knowledge are low. They are lousy drivers and are aware of it.
3) Consciously competent - New driver has been taught how to drive a car and is now applying these skills consciously in order to control the vehicle in a competent manner. Has skill but has to concentrate on what they're doing
4) Unconsciously competent - A consciously competent driver with lots of practise. Can now competently drive a motor vehicle without actively thinking about it. Driver now has more capacity to concentrate on surroundings, evaluate hazards and formulate escape plans because they are spending less time concentrating on not crunching their gearchange or thinking "signal, mirror...no wait..." whenever they want to change lanes.
Both versions make sense, and perhaps at cover different areas of driving. While I agree that an experienced driver is not neccessarily a safer driver, I would say that with practise they become more competent at making a car move around, at least within the their experience envelope.
Good survey. I hope the government takes notice and starts realising that road users are responsible for their own safety, and that the key to road safety is well educated drivers who are aware of this responsibility and are aware how to manage their safety.
"In a Golf [note in a Golf specifically, not any other car], when the tail skids out just downshift two gears and floor it."
Probably useful information for dragging the boot of your Golf out of the hedge it just buried itself in, assuming you still have four wheels attached to the car...
I was also the unfortunate passenger once in an Opel Kadett GSi 16V which was driven by someone who firmly believed that the best way to combat understeer was a technique which can only be described as cadence acceleration... full throttle, then no throttle, then full throttle, then no throttle. It could also be described as "how many times can I poke this thing before it gets upset and bites back?"
I also don't know how many times I have heard someone say about whatever arbitary car they were driving when they had a huge accident: "If I had been in any other car I'd be dead" or "Any other car would have rolled". Uh huh.
Speaking of the circle of competence mentioned earlier about training, an instructor has presented that idea once to me before, but he had the order slightly different. His version went like this:
1) Unconsciously incompetent - like a non driver. Doesn't know how bad their driving is because they've never tried
2) Consciously incompetent - learner driver. Has now attempted to drive a car and realised that their skill levels and knowledge are low. They are lousy drivers and are aware of it.
3) Consciously competent - New driver has been taught how to drive a car and is now applying these skills consciously in order to control the vehicle in a competent manner. Has skill but has to concentrate on what they're doing
4) Unconsciously competent - A consciously competent driver with lots of practise. Can now competently drive a motor vehicle without actively thinking about it. Driver now has more capacity to concentrate on surroundings, evaluate hazards and formulate escape plans because they are spending less time concentrating on not crunching their gearchange or thinking "signal, mirror...no wait..." whenever they want to change lanes.
Both versions make sense, and perhaps at cover different areas of driving. While I agree that an experienced driver is not neccessarily a safer driver, I would say that with practise they become more competent at making a car move around, at least within the their experience envelope.
Good survey. I hope the government takes notice and starts realising that road users are responsible for their own safety, and that the key to road safety is well educated drivers who are aware of this responsibility and are aware how to manage their safety.
I too love these surveys. So the survey says you teach people how to drive and they become better drivers. Pure bloody genius, give Professor Neville Stanton a Nobel prize for Stating the Bleeding Obvious. Presumeably he thought the reason that the IAM had been doing all their training over the years was because they were bored
. The same reason the police train their drivers above the standard of your average driver. Oh, maybe that's why we have driving lessons in the first place - so that somebody who has been trained is better than someone who has never had a lesson!
Anyway, I'm off to the pub this evening to research whether beer makes you drunk, would the dean of Brunel University care to send me a cheque to cover this important research
. The same reason the police train their drivers above the standard of your average driver. Oh, maybe that's why we have driving lessons in the first place - so that somebody who has been trained is better than someone who has never had a lesson! Anyway, I'm off to the pub this evening to research whether beer makes you drunk, would the dean of Brunel University care to send me a cheque to cover this important research
Edited by mondeohdear on Wednesday 6th September 15:18
havoc said:
splodge s4 said:
The circle of knowledge & learning:
Splodge - right concept, wrong order. See Alfa's post above.
See im not so sure, If Alfa is right & it ends Unconsciously competent then theres no need for wake up refresher training, we are all competent with out even thinking about it, I think it definately ends by becoming 'unconciously uncompetent' because you have slipped into bad habits & you dont know it! Some one points it out & your then 'consciously uncompetent', you know your wrong & do something about it!
Either way, i'm just conscious I dont write i'm consciously impotent.....
For me the important word here is attitude. All EEC driver training is in the process of being harmonised so a new set of driver training standards is being put together. In the past the training was given very much at a physical level ie this is a gear stick this is what it does this is how you use it. Currently perception and planning is layered over the top of this physical skill ie the new hazard perception test in the theory module of the L test and driving examiners having a box to mark against planning. Driving instructors are now being asked to teach social responsibility and attitude to other people as well to promote safe good driving for life. Most 'normal' drivers who have held a licence for many years (10+ maybe) would be shocked at their driving if they had an examiner/instructor sit next to them for half an hour because it was unusual to have these higher functioning skills taught to them when they learnt to drive.
splodge s4 said:
havoc said:
splodge s4 said:
The circle of knowledge & learning:
Splodge - right concept, wrong order. See Alfa's post above.
See im not so sure, If Alfa is right & it ends Unconsciously competent then theres no need for wake up refresher training, we are all competent with out even thinking about it, I think it definately ends by becoming 'unconciously uncompetent' because you have slipped into bad habits & you dont know it! Some one points it out & your then 'consciously uncompetent', you know your wrong & do something about it!
Either way, i'm just conscious I dont write i'm consciously impotent.....
It is right - unconsciously competent means doing things properly without having to think about it, which is the highest stage of training in anything - instinctively doing the right thing. And with driving very few people make it that far. Many don't make it out of unc. incompetent, tbh!
"Why cant we all just drive slower why take the risk set the limit for the worst drivers then it wont matter if ur good or bad (unless ur speeding)"
My favourite was a girl I used to know who I kid you not gave me grief on a daily basis for "speeding". Every time *she* wrote off another car (we're talking roll-overs on DC here) she'd get more angry about *my* driving. 10 years and 4 cars later she still hasn't understood that perhaps some remedial training is in order..
dave
My favourite was a girl I used to know who I kid you not gave me grief on a daily basis for "speeding". Every time *she* wrote off another car (we're talking roll-overs on DC here) she'd get more angry about *my* driving. 10 years and 4 cars later she still hasn't understood that perhaps some remedial training is in order..
dave
Don said:
Of course the IAM had to do a proper study. Just saying that Advanced Driving is safer doesn't make it so. You have to prove it.
The shit I've had on here about whether or not doing the IAM does you any good is unbelievable.
There will still be some who don't believe it.
The shit I've had on here about whether or not doing the IAM does you any good is unbelievable.
There will still be some who don't believe it.
I'm sure it does. But there would seem to be a great many IAM observers who are very strict about:-
- method of steering;
- speed limits.
Now I neither employ the apparently IAM-mandated steering method of 'feeding the wheel', nor do I rigidly obey speed limits. Yet I want to improve my observation (Inc. sit'l awareness and anticipation), positioning, and car control. But I (rightly or wrongly) don't feel my method of steering (fixed-hand input at speed for <1/4 lock; variant on 'feeding' for medium and slow-speed manoeuvres), nor my personal decision to drive at a speed appropriate for conditions (esp. in the current age of ever-reducing limits!) to be something that I MUST change just because an IAM observer tells me to do so.
I personally despise dogma in any form, and those two examples thoroughly reek of it - there is more than ONE safe way to drive a car! And when the IAM appreciate this, THEN I might take up one of their courses, with the intention of passing, not just taking. Until then, I see little point in spending half of each drive arguing with the observer about who is 'right' (we both can be, but would the observer see that?!?).
havoc said:
Don said:
Of course the IAM had to do a proper study. Just saying that Advanced Driving is safer doesn't make it so. You have to prove it.
There will still be some who don't believe it.
There will still be some who don't believe it.
I'm sure it does. But there would seem to be a great many IAM observers who are very strict about:-
- method of steering;
- speed limits.
The last few I.A.M meets ive been to remind me of the quote from Maggie on Ricky Gervias's Extras.. 'its looks like the cast of last of the summer wine' so you get the idea about their driving style
While I definitly agree that more driving training is needed in this country (myself included!) can I play good old devils advocat....
If this was a report from the government you all would be rubbishing it saying that you can make stats say what you want and the report was done purely to get the results the people who commissioned the report wanted...
"The IAM commissioned Prof Stanton, Dr Guy Walker, Dr Tara Kazi and Dr Mark Young to carry out the research. "
Seeing as the IAM commissioned the study isn't it a surprise when it finds out the results the IAM would have wanted....
However I do agree with the results.. just wanted to point out a slight amount of hypocrisy when I saw it!!
If this was a report from the government you all would be rubbishing it saying that you can make stats say what you want and the report was done purely to get the results the people who commissioned the report wanted...
"The IAM commissioned Prof Stanton, Dr Guy Walker, Dr Tara Kazi and Dr Mark Young to carry out the research. "
Seeing as the IAM commissioned the study isn't it a surprise when it finds out the results the IAM would have wanted....
However I do agree with the results.. just wanted to point out a slight amount of hypocrisy when I saw it!!
Have to agree with mx5rob - it was the first thing I though on reading the article, i.e. "IAM sponsored study shows that IAM-trained drivers are better than non-IAM trained drivers, as assessed by IAM observers" 
Having said that, I agree with the results! Perhaps it would have been better to try and and make the study appear a bit more independent?
Having said that, I agree with the results! Perhaps it would have been better to try and and make the study appear a bit more independent?
mx5rob said:
However I do agree with the results.. just wanted to point out a slight amount of hypocrisy when I saw it!!
I agree. We always support the information which agrees with our viewpoint. Just look at the reporting in any "extremist" (left or right) newspaper!
One small difference of note:
IAM said:
Researchers divided up three groups, each with 25 drivers, matched by gender (seven women and 18 men), age (from 22 to 65, with an average age of 44), annual mileage (typically 13,000 miles per annum), driving experience (an average of 23 years) and points on licence. Together they were "observed" for more than 650 hours at the wheel
SCP or similar said:
Researchers picked a nebulous and undiclosed selection of people, often with no control group, and exposed them to a guided survey or non-real-world "exercise".
In my opinion, the research here has been more scientifically grounded than a lot of the research favouring a safety-by-numbers approach. Or at the least, the IAM have been happier to reveal their methodology.
Edited by Timberwolf on Thursday 7th September 11:46
Schmeeky said:
davidra said:
Every time *she* wrote off another car (we're talking roll-overs on DC here) she'd get more angry about *my* driving.
Hopefully I'm not showing my ignorance here, but what's DC? Damp cabbage? Deceptive custard? Deceitful Conservatives?
Could be Dual Carridgeway???
mx5rob said:
Schmeeky said:
davidra said:
Every time *she* wrote off another car (we're talking roll-overs on DC here) she'd get more angry about *my* driving.
Hopefully I'm not showing my ignorance here, but what's DC? Damp cabbage? Deceptive custard? Deceitful Conservatives?
Could be Dual Carridgeway???
Either that or she's shagging David Coultard?!?
Edited by havoc on Thursday 7th September 14:26
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff