Vote for harder driving tests
Discussion
instructormike said:
Tests should be valid for one year, during which the student must take a motorway/passplus unit that then validates their licence. Failure to do this would then require a retest. This would obviate the need for test centres to be near motorways. Simple really
Quite a few of our clients who have taken a passplus session with us then go on to do a trackday session. Without fail every single one has massively underestimated the level of skill needed to drive fast, around a circuit. They suddenly realise that they're not MS and that they still have so much to learn from the old git next to them. I wish I could take more new drivers on a circuit day - the accident statistics could change markedly.
Quite a few of our clients who have taken a passplus session with us then go on to do a trackday session. Without fail every single one has massively underestimated the level of skill needed to drive fast, around a circuit. They suddenly realise that they're not MS and that they still have so much to learn from the old git next to them. I wish I could take more new drivers on a circuit day - the accident statistics could change markedly.
Instructor Mike, I like your posts. I looked at your website and I liked that too.
I fully agree with your first paragraph that I have quoted - except that back at the start of this thread I recommended Passplus within six months rather than a year, and further learning after that.
I am not convinced by the second para. I know I should not draw conclusions from a single example, but ... My 19 year old son (still cross fingers and touch wood waiting for his first accident after a couple of years driving) has a same age friend who has taken an ARDS course to get his racing license, and has done about 10 track days. In his first six months since passing his test, this friend has had 8 car damaging incidents, including 3 significant accidents. This is not a great recommendation for the relevance of track driving to safe road driving, which as previously discussed is mainly about attitude. Now, I understand that one of your objectives when you take youngsters on the track is to make them aware of the limitations of their skill, and that is of great value, but others focus on teaching circuit techniques without adequately convincing the youngsters to do it differently on the road, and that is a dangerous road to go down.
As a 20 year old driver who can remember what the test is like as it currently stands, I can safely say that it is NOT an easy experience. Routes are chosen that will challenge the driver, and certain criteria have to be met on the test. How many of you still check your mirrors whenever you change speed? How many of you always leave appropriate gaps? how many of you stick rigidly to all speed limits?
The problem comes later, after the test. Drivers forget, after they have lost their L plates, what it was to drive well. Frankly, i'm all up for sticking GPS boxes in every car which tells the insurer exactly how fast a car is going at any time, and generally assess the drivers style on the go. So a kid who thrashes his knackered old pug around country lanes at 80 gets lumped with a realistic insurance quote for the damage he is likely to do. He drives well the next year, his rates go down. Someone who remembers to signal and takes things safely and within the highway code gets rewarded with a lower quote. For young drivers especially this would, I think, be a real incentive, as it would mean they could either save a fortune annually or quickly move up to something a bit nicer if they could prove to the insurance big brothers that they would take care in their new toy. Simple. I wouldnt have minded paying £100 on top of my first years insurance for a box, I would be paying a damn sight less than I am now for my corsa. I am 20, it has 60bhp, a top speed of 95 and a 0-60 of nearly 14 seconds (Not that that matters, i'm more concerned with it doing 60 to the gallon and never breaking down!). I am paying £500, even though I have never had a conviction or an accident. How is that fair on a student living on 3k a year of loaned money?
The problem comes later, after the test. Drivers forget, after they have lost their L plates, what it was to drive well. Frankly, i'm all up for sticking GPS boxes in every car which tells the insurer exactly how fast a car is going at any time, and generally assess the drivers style on the go. So a kid who thrashes his knackered old pug around country lanes at 80 gets lumped with a realistic insurance quote for the damage he is likely to do. He drives well the next year, his rates go down. Someone who remembers to signal and takes things safely and within the highway code gets rewarded with a lower quote. For young drivers especially this would, I think, be a real incentive, as it would mean they could either save a fortune annually or quickly move up to something a bit nicer if they could prove to the insurance big brothers that they would take care in their new toy. Simple. I wouldnt have minded paying £100 on top of my first years insurance for a box, I would be paying a damn sight less than I am now for my corsa. I am 20, it has 60bhp, a top speed of 95 and a 0-60 of nearly 14 seconds (Not that that matters, i'm more concerned with it doing 60 to the gallon and never breaking down!). I am paying £500, even though I have never had a conviction or an accident. How is that fair on a student living on 3k a year of loaned money?
fragile_al said:
I am paying £500, even though I have never had a conviction or an accident. How is that fair on a student living on 3k a year of loaned money?
Well done on your clean driving record.
Why don't you think your premium is fair? It may be difficult to afford, but that is a completely different question. The motor insurance market is incredibly competitive, and if one insurance company thought it could make money charging lower premiums to people in your situation they would do so. They charge you more than they would charge a 50 year old with the same car because there is simply too much evidence that young men are more likely to have accidents than young women or older men. If you did not have a clean license you would be paying even more.
You have probably already done your best to reduce your premium, but the standard advice to young people for getting their insurance costs down is: do Pass Plus for a substantial discount on your first year's premium, shop around very extensively, drive sensibly and take Advanced Training to give yourself the best chance of a clean license and no accidents.
Hi all. I think that passing the driving test only marks a succesful candidates ability to operate a vehicle with reasonable safety on a public highway. They cannot drive. It is hair spllitting, but to be able to drive requires dedication and more than a fair dollop of experience. Attitude also comes in significantly. I my opinion, new drivers should be limited on the power of the vehicle they can drive, and attaining a higher level that is tested within a limited time scale to lift certain driving exemptions. I also think that to take an Advanced course should be publically encouraged (not necesarily mandated) with official recognition once the road test is successfully undertaken. Speaking personaly, I passed my basic test first time back in 1981 without having taken any formal lesson. I often went out with my Father thereafter who held a RoSPA Gold Advanced Driving certificate and without fail he would rate my drive, no ranting, just helpful critisism followed by a rating number. It became a game where I would try to drive to acheive a higher number and less comment from him. Sad but it worked. Some years later, once attained the level of driving decent cars that one could operate smoothly (!) I sat an Advanced Test via the IAM (RoSPA not being prevalent in the area at the time). Worked for me - so come on Fathers, get off the soap box and encourage by leading from the front. Does wonders for Father-Son bonding as well - common ground you see!!!
ipsg.glf said:
instructormike said:
Without fail every single one has massively underestimated the level of skill needed to drive fast, around a circuit. They suddenly realise that they're not MS and that they still have so much to learn from the old git next to them. I wish I could take more new drivers on a circuit day - the accident statistics could change markedly.
MC
MC
Is there not a danger in allowing youngsters access to circuit facilities early on in their driving career, that they then seek to hone their newly acquired skills on the public road?
Funnily enough, I want the youngster to hone the skills they learn on track, looking through corners, progressive use of controls, awareness of traffic ahead, behind and next to. The fact that this is being carried out on track just adds balance into the equation.
What we teach on track is not aggression or desire for speed. It is an appreciation of aspects of the car that cannot be considered on the road. Only a couple of weeks ago I had a young lady who got to drive around Oulton in a Cupra, M3 and passenger in an XTR. She learned about throttle control and how it relates to steering angle. 300BHP and steering is not a good idea in a greasy Druids, as another M3 found out. Better to learn this with someone of 25+ years experience than their mate with Razorlight at 110dB on the way back from the pub. These pupils see people around them that "can drive", staring at mishapen evidence of speed>skill in the paddock. They learn respect. OK, they may be driving rather quickly, but they know that there is a time and a place. They have usually done a road course first and they know that I always want them to emulate a traffic T5, with space around at all times to enable options. They see me drive in this way at all times, professioanally and in charge. They also see me sitting on the tail of a GT3 for 5 laps around Donington in a Diesel hatchback and appreciate restrained capability.
There's instruction and there's instruction. I've taught kids in secondary education and have seen the sadness of fatalities on peers. Now I do my bit. I always look at what we do and ask the question. Are they going to turn into a loon?
The last laps we do I ask for 100% accuracy, not speed. Perhaps a useful tip for the average trackdayer....
(Incidentally we try and support the youngsters by giving them pro instruction at normal adi prices)
waremark said:
instructormike said:
Tests should be valid for one year, during which the student must take a motorway/passplus unit that then validates their licence. Failure to do this would then require a retest. This would obviate the need for test centres to be near motorways. Simple really
Quite a few of our clients who have taken a passplus session with us then go on to do a trackday session. Without fail every single one has massively underestimated the level of skill needed to drive fast, around a circuit. They suddenly realise that they're not MS and that they still have so much to learn from the old git next to them. I wish I could take more new drivers on a circuit day - the accident statistics could change markedly.
Quite a few of our clients who have taken a passplus session with us then go on to do a trackday session. Without fail every single one has massively underestimated the level of skill needed to drive fast, around a circuit. They suddenly realise that they're not MS and that they still have so much to learn from the old git next to them. I wish I could take more new drivers on a circuit day - the accident statistics could change markedly.
Instructor Mike, I like your posts. I looked at your website and I liked that too.
I fully agree with your first paragraph that I have quoted - except that back at the start of this thread I recommended Passplus within six months rather than a year, and further learning after that.
I am not convinced by the second para. I know I should not draw conclusions from a single example, but ... My 19 year old son (still cross fingers and touch wood waiting for his first accident after a couple of years driving) has a same age friend who has taken an ARDS course to get his racing license, and has done about 10 track days. In his first six months since passing his test, this friend has had 8 car damaging incidents, including 3 significant accidents. This is not a great recommendation for the relevance of track driving to safe road driving, which as previously discussed is mainly about attitude. Now, I understand that one of your objectives when you take youngsters on the track is to make them aware of the limitations of their skill, and that is of great value, but others focus on teaching circuit techniques without adequately convincing the youngsters to do it differently on the road, and that is a dangerous road to go down.
I couldn't agree more with these sentiments. Please read my last input. It should put your fears at rest. ARDS instructors are racers, by necessity, otherwise you can't be an ARDS instructor. I am probably the only track instructor who so massively promotes safety. Every one of my pupils is taught to look for stopped vehicles as they go through lights, for example. Cost=0 (i.e. no need to slow) Payback= your life if a drunk, druggy, Blue Light Vehicle etc. is going through.
The reason I want to take kids on track is to show that observation/control/consideration on the road doesn't mean you don't have skill. It just gets ramped up on track and you can learn about balance.
The only way for an average kid to show off is
a/ Music on full
b/ Screaming engine
c/ Car just makes it round corner
If they can learn that smooth accurate driving is highly skilful then this can be their way of showing off their skils. I have done school presentations on driving ( I'm ex secondary Physics teacher) and the fact that they can see vids/pics of me and Sabine at the 'ring, yet I advocate a safe style of driving has more of an impact than the average BSM lecture. I know as I always try to get as much feedback as possible.
Incidentally, this doesn't mean we can't teach you to be very quick!!!!!! Because we can!
Thanks, though it may be in an M3?
The reqarding bit when we take younger drivers out is when the parent rings some days or weeks later, telling us how their son/daughter has totally altered their approach. Only last Saturday a dad found it very amusing when his son was driving on the motorway. He saw a car enter the slip road into lane 1 which then moved straight into 3. The lad's comment "look at that ####, what's his rush. He hasn't even assessed the road yet". Dad smiles. His son used to do that all the time!
I took a lad out last week, never met before, just passed his test, days earlier. Instructor taught - apparently quite "pally" they were, according to his father, who booked him in to me. He was seriously aggresive. He had passed with 2 minors (very good) and his steering in corners was atrocious; an accident waiting to happen. His initial reaction to my observations was not fantastic. If he continued to drive like that then in the wet he would surely have an accident: And he lives on a very quick "A" road. We swapped places, I drove like he did, the same stretch of road. We turned around I repeated the same section, only drove properly. No twitches mid corner, we stayed on our side of the road on the exits, he couldn't feel the downchanges. "How come you can change gear so smoothly" was the first question. "I've been downchanging longer than you've lived, so it should be good" I said. "Let me show you". More questions............. We had a good day. Just needed to earn his respect.
Trouble is poor style is not really assessed in the DSA test. Yet poor style with ramped up speeds means a potential for accidents. An ex-police DSA examiner got out of a test some weeks back and remarked to the lad's waiting instructor "that was the worst drive I've seen in a long time", yet he passed but with 12 minor faults. He had to pass him based on the criteria.
The reqarding bit when we take younger drivers out is when the parent rings some days or weeks later, telling us how their son/daughter has totally altered their approach. Only last Saturday a dad found it very amusing when his son was driving on the motorway. He saw a car enter the slip road into lane 1 which then moved straight into 3. The lad's comment "look at that ####, what's his rush. He hasn't even assessed the road yet". Dad smiles. His son used to do that all the time!
I took a lad out last week, never met before, just passed his test, days earlier. Instructor taught - apparently quite "pally" they were, according to his father, who booked him in to me. He was seriously aggresive. He had passed with 2 minors (very good) and his steering in corners was atrocious; an accident waiting to happen. His initial reaction to my observations was not fantastic. If he continued to drive like that then in the wet he would surely have an accident: And he lives on a very quick "A" road. We swapped places, I drove like he did, the same stretch of road. We turned around I repeated the same section, only drove properly. No twitches mid corner, we stayed on our side of the road on the exits, he couldn't feel the downchanges. "How come you can change gear so smoothly" was the first question. "I've been downchanging longer than you've lived, so it should be good" I said. "Let me show you". More questions............. We had a good day. Just needed to earn his respect.
Trouble is poor style is not really assessed in the DSA test. Yet poor style with ramped up speeds means a potential for accidents. An ex-police DSA examiner got out of a test some weeks back and remarked to the lad's waiting instructor "that was the worst drive I've seen in a long time", yet he passed but with 12 minor faults. He had to pass him based on the criteria.
My opinion is that the current 'L' test is not seen by drivers as it was intended. It is meant to mark the point at which a driver can continue to learn to drive but without instruction from someone sat in the pasenger seat. Most people see passing their test as marking the end of their 'learning' and the begining of the open road to freedom. After I passed my L test in 1999 I considered myself to be a pretty good driver. I passed first time and had recieved lots of positive encouragement from the instructor.
It was only when I embarked on the IAM course 6 months later that I realised just how bad I was, after another 6 months of weekly sessions I was then ready to consider myself able to drive properly. Even then I still lacked experience and my driving skill was still dwarfed by some of the other guys in the local IAM group.
I am sure that had I not done the IAM course I would have had an accident or gotten points on my license by now. I am delighted to say that neither has ever happened. I think the current 'L' test should be followed by more instruction and then a second test similar to the IAM one. I constantly drive defensively and see plenty of examples of really poor driving. While some Road safety Gurus have an imagined utopia where no one ever drives faster than the limit, mine is where every driver on the road was qualified to 'advanced' standard.
It was only when I embarked on the IAM course 6 months later that I realised just how bad I was, after another 6 months of weekly sessions I was then ready to consider myself able to drive properly. Even then I still lacked experience and my driving skill was still dwarfed by some of the other guys in the local IAM group.
I am sure that had I not done the IAM course I would have had an accident or gotten points on my license by now. I am delighted to say that neither has ever happened. I think the current 'L' test should be followed by more instruction and then a second test similar to the IAM one. I constantly drive defensively and see plenty of examples of really poor driving. While some Road safety Gurus have an imagined utopia where no one ever drives faster than the limit, mine is where every driver on the road was qualified to 'advanced' standard.
People arn't taught to drive, they are taught how to pass the driving test...big difference.
Motorway drivimg should be part of the test, it's utter negligence that it's not really IMHO.
I was lucky, I had been exposed to Police Class 1 driving from my earliest days right through to some years after passing my test, as my father was Hendon trained, and I was able to learn and appreciate what advanced driving was all about from him and his collegues. My Dad insisted I took lessons though, as he said that you know how to drive, but you need to know how to pass the test.
The unrealistic playstation/fast n furious pre-driving culture of todays yoof's doesn't help either.
I think the insurance industry could do a lot more to positively encourage people, especially youngsters, to undertake advanced training by offering a much bigger %reduction incentive for advanced test passes. The supposed 10% if youre lucky isn't a great incentive as would a 30+% or more reduction when you are faced with substantial four figure quotes. Surely it would be in the long term interest of the insurance companies to reduce the accident rate and their payouts if more and more people were undertaking advanced driving, and I don't mean off road/circuit stuff.
Motorway drivimg should be part of the test, it's utter negligence that it's not really IMHO.
I was lucky, I had been exposed to Police Class 1 driving from my earliest days right through to some years after passing my test, as my father was Hendon trained, and I was able to learn and appreciate what advanced driving was all about from him and his collegues. My Dad insisted I took lessons though, as he said that you know how to drive, but you need to know how to pass the test.
The unrealistic playstation/fast n furious pre-driving culture of todays yoof's doesn't help either.
I think the insurance industry could do a lot more to positively encourage people, especially youngsters, to undertake advanced training by offering a much bigger %reduction incentive for advanced test passes. The supposed 10% if youre lucky isn't a great incentive as would a 30+% or more reduction when you are faced with substantial four figure quotes. Surely it would be in the long term interest of the insurance companies to reduce the accident rate and their payouts if more and more people were undertaking advanced driving, and I don't mean off road/circuit stuff.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff