RE: 'A year of lessons' for new drivers: proposal
Wednesday 20th September 2006
The Association of British Insurers (ABI) reckons that new drivers need a year of lessons, claiming that the measure would cut 1,000 serious injuries and deaths among young drivers in the UK each year. It says too that the number of passengers accompanying new drivers should be limited at night.
'A year of lessons' for new drivers: proposal
New proposal misses the point, says road safety campaign
Road safety campaign Safe Speed reckons the ABI has missed the point. The campaign said it agrees that driver skill is key to road safety, and that higher standards of initial training would lead to improvements. It notes though that the 'year of lessons' proposal will not deliver the greatest benefit for least cost and misses the point.
The problem is that key driving skills such as observation and anticipation are learned by experience rather than taught, according to Safe Speed. This leads to an opportunity to improve road safety through influencing the quality of experience rather than extending formal training.
Safe Speed argues that the quality of experience comes from information and beliefs and these in turn come from cultural influences. In industrial health and safety, cultural factors are seen as key to delivering safe practices, said Safe Speed. This opportunity has so far been completely missed in road safety and indeed, modern policy provides a strong negative cultural influence, according to the campaign, focusing on legal compliance rather than safe behaviours.
Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "Everyone agrees that better drivers would make our roads safer. But new driver crash risks are more associated with lack of experience rather than lack of training. Simply upping the training cannot even begin to make up for the lack of experience. Instead we need to provide 'key support' for drivers in the process of gaining experience.
"We should also be concerned that proposals which delay the availability of a full driving licence will lead directly to an increase in dangerous unlicensed driving.
"The false and oversimplified road safety messages that come with speed cameras have done great damage to the process of becoming experienced. Society is telling them to invest substantial effort in remaining legal rather than becoming safe. Speed cameras have broken the essential link between legality and safety.
"Further driver training is best delivered after a few years' of experience. It is only then that the finer points make proper sense by fitting into a framework of experience. It is no accident that Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) training normally fits this pattern."
Smith said that Stephen Haley's new book 'Mind Driving' (published yesterday) makes it clear that 'driving lesson skills' are not the same skills that actually keep us safe.
Discussion
That is the stupidist thing ive ever heard.
Are these boffins now saying that if somebody has 1 lesson a week for 52 weeks thats better than having 2 lessons a week for 26 weeks.
what if somebody only has 1 lesson every 2 weeks for 52 weeks.
lol well i suppose they have to bring stuff like this out to make the taxpayer think they are actually doing something.
Being in a car on your own (i did it 00:00am 1/12/06) its a new experience cos there was nobody to tell u what to do. Fortunately being it was midnight on new year. I had plenty of time to get used to it without other drivers being in the way.
Are these boffins now saying that if somebody has 1 lesson a week for 52 weeks thats better than having 2 lessons a week for 26 weeks.
what if somebody only has 1 lesson every 2 weeks for 52 weeks.
lol well i suppose they have to bring stuff like this out to make the taxpayer think they are actually doing something.
Being in a car on your own (i did it 00:00am 1/12/06) its a new experience cos there was nobody to tell u what to do. Fortunately being it was midnight on new year. I had plenty of time to get used to it without other drivers being in the way.
Edited by bi9_jk on Wednesday 20th September 11:25
I think making people take the IAM test, or some advanced further test, after 2 years of passing the basic one would help.
Then use this with the insurance companies to reduce premiums.
Also I think having to do a re-test every few year would also be welcome, but make the insurance company pay the cost if you pass, and you pay the cost and extra training if you fail..
And introduce some form of Mway specific test...
Anything like this should improve skill levels and keep them high..
Then use this with the insurance companies to reduce premiums.
Also I think having to do a re-test every few year would also be welcome, but make the insurance company pay the cost if you pass, and you pay the cost and extra training if you fail..
And introduce some form of Mway specific test...
Anything like this should improve skill levels and keep them high..
A more sensible idea would be a log book style, a bit like pilots go through. You record so many hours of driving, with say at least an hour or so in each of a variety of areas like driving in poor weather/wet roads, driving in traffic, country, motorway, at night and so on. This way there is no real pass or fail type thing, just do it until you are competant at it with a final test at the end of it to make sure you haven't forgotten any of it. This need not be much more expensive than normal as basically there are no 'wasted' lessons, any lessons you do have count towards your licence. So if you do a a bunch of lessons then take the test and fail, you've basically wasted all that money, with the log book system those lessons just count towards your licence. But to prevent total incompetants from getting on the road, anyone who doesn't complete it all within a reasonable time frame, say a year, will then be deemed unsuitable for a licence and not allowed to reapply for 5 years or something.
It's the "big state" model again.
Not everyone has enough personal responsibility to ensure that they've achieved sufficient tuition and mentored experience before taking to the roads, so let's suggest we draft some legislation to sort it out. Because this societal model prevents any acknowledgement of common sense, personal responsibility or the simple observation that some people acquire skills differently to others, it needs to be done in an inappropriate one-size-fits-all manner.
I don't think the solution is an arbitrary target number of lessons to achieve. Do they really think that a kid who's been racing karts since the age of 12 needs the same number and duration of lessons as Driving School's Maureen?
I'm much more in favour of the "observed drive" approach suggested by the IAM a while back. It'd be more valuable to have someone spend half an hour pointing out all the bad habits acquired on familiar roads six months after the test than carry out another 100 parallel parking manoeuvres in a Micra six months before it.
But then again, that requires relying on the discretion and professional judgement of someone, and from what I've seen these organisations (Brake being the big one) don't like anything that isn't a table of numbers and tickable boxes.
Not everyone has enough personal responsibility to ensure that they've achieved sufficient tuition and mentored experience before taking to the roads, so let's suggest we draft some legislation to sort it out. Because this societal model prevents any acknowledgement of common sense, personal responsibility or the simple observation that some people acquire skills differently to others, it needs to be done in an inappropriate one-size-fits-all manner.
I don't think the solution is an arbitrary target number of lessons to achieve. Do they really think that a kid who's been racing karts since the age of 12 needs the same number and duration of lessons as Driving School's Maureen?
I'm much more in favour of the "observed drive" approach suggested by the IAM a while back. It'd be more valuable to have someone spend half an hour pointing out all the bad habits acquired on familiar roads six months after the test than carry out another 100 parallel parking manoeuvres in a Micra six months before it.
But then again, that requires relying on the discretion and professional judgement of someone, and from what I've seen these organisations (Brake being the big one) don't like anything that isn't a table of numbers and tickable boxes.
Ridiculous idea. Although I have no doubt the driving schools who would stand to rake in thousands of pound smore profit from it will have no objections.
Echoing some of the sentiments above, the ideas of tiered licenses or PassPlus/IAM type schemes should be whats invested in.
As an example, just now a learner driver is not allowed on a Motorway. If they're lucky they'll maybe get a stretch of dual carraigeway, otherwise the first time they get on a motorway will possibly be when they are on their own shortly after passing the test, with no tuition at all of how to drive there.
Echoing some of the sentiments above, the ideas of tiered licenses or PassPlus/IAM type schemes should be whats invested in.
As an example, just now a learner driver is not allowed on a Motorway. If they're lucky they'll maybe get a stretch of dual carraigeway, otherwise the first time they get on a motorway will possibly be when they are on their own shortly after passing the test, with no tuition at all of how to drive there.
lessons are only good up to a point my wife had terrible observation up to and after passing the test within a couple of months of real learning on her own she is 200% better to be honest tuition was only based upon passing the driving test not about real safe driving (some things in the test just seem to be plain stupid to me) a year of the same would produce nothing good at all except a lot of rich driving instructors some of which seem to be of dubious ability anyway
I disagree with the comments above. I think Safespeed's missed the point.
With all due respect to Paul, who I know works hard and tirelessly, against pretty impenetrable propoganda, resources and politics, this is the same reponse he is credited with to every other official road safety initiative. Don't get me wrong - I generally support Paul and what he stands for, but to be blunt, he's not being very effective (which frustrates me), and I wonder if it's because his reaction never seems to concede any positivity towards (official) proposals. Being a thorn in the side of policy makers will ultimately not have much of an impact. Coverage on PH is preaching to the converted. Brake!, IAM, AA, RAC, even ABD are often quoted in the context of news stories about road safety, but apart from the odd local radio interview I don't see Paul getting much coverage (and I'm disappointed about that). I'm less and less surprised by this however, as his reported reaction is always the same. If I'm bored of it I imagine news teams are as well. Take the present proposal. Is there nothing positive in it?:
Experience is exactly what it gives new drivers. In effect the proposal is for new drivers to be given a probationary period during which they can drive, but not unsupervised. They are forced to gain experience before independence. Yes the framework of the law which encourages driving by numbers is unchanged (as we so often hear). Yes they'll still only 'really learn to drive' once they've passed their test. What's that got to do with new driver probation, and why does it make it bad (as opposed to not as good as something else)? Instead of the usual knee-jerk criticism a little appreciation of the possible benefits in the context of the present imperfect situation might get him heard by a wider audience. OK so maybe I'm alone (on PH) in seeing benefits...
I appreciate that Safespeed's comments are intelligent, articulate and logical. Sadly the present road safety framework into which he tries to inject them are not. What I'm saying is that in such an imperfect framework maybe the present proposal does have benefits. Maybe if these were acknowledged Safespeed/PH views would be credited with a little more respect and enjoy more air time.
With all due respect to Paul, who I know works hard and tirelessly, against pretty impenetrable propoganda, resources and politics, this is the same reponse he is credited with to every other official road safety initiative. Don't get me wrong - I generally support Paul and what he stands for, but to be blunt, he's not being very effective (which frustrates me), and I wonder if it's because his reaction never seems to concede any positivity towards (official) proposals. Being a thorn in the side of policy makers will ultimately not have much of an impact. Coverage on PH is preaching to the converted. Brake!, IAM, AA, RAC, even ABD are often quoted in the context of news stories about road safety, but apart from the odd local radio interview I don't see Paul getting much coverage (and I'm disappointed about that). I'm less and less surprised by this however, as his reported reaction is always the same. If I'm bored of it I imagine news teams are as well. Take the present proposal. Is there nothing positive in it?:
Experience is exactly what it gives new drivers. In effect the proposal is for new drivers to be given a probationary period during which they can drive, but not unsupervised. They are forced to gain experience before independence. Yes the framework of the law which encourages driving by numbers is unchanged (as we so often hear). Yes they'll still only 'really learn to drive' once they've passed their test. What's that got to do with new driver probation, and why does it make it bad (as opposed to not as good as something else)? Instead of the usual knee-jerk criticism a little appreciation of the possible benefits in the context of the present imperfect situation might get him heard by a wider audience. OK so maybe I'm alone (on PH) in seeing benefits...
I appreciate that Safespeed's comments are intelligent, articulate and logical. Sadly the present road safety framework into which he tries to inject them are not. What I'm saying is that in such an imperfect framework maybe the present proposal does have benefits. Maybe if these were acknowledged Safespeed/PH views would be credited with a little more respect and enjoy more air time.
R998 said:
A more sensible idea would be a log book style, a bit like pilots go through. You record so many hours of driving, with say at least an hour or so in each of a variety of areas like driving in poor weather/wet roads, driving in traffic, country, motorway, at night and so on. This way there is no real pass or fail type thing, just do it until you are competant at it with a final test at the end of it to make sure you haven't forgotten any of it. This need not be much more expensive than normal as basically there are no 'wasted' lessons, any lessons you do have count towards your licence. So if you do a a bunch of lessons then take the test and fail, you've basically wasted all that money, with the log book system those lessons just count towards your licence. But to prevent total incompetants from getting on the road, anyone who doesn't complete it all within a reasonable time frame, say a year, will then be deemed unsuitable for a licence and not allowed to reapply for 5 years or something.
More info less rant
According to this the log book thing is a consideration.
I'm on the fence on this one atm, implemented correctly with careful thought it could work. However if this is the case I will be surprised!
Is this a potential money making scam, possibly?
Could the real downside to this not be the money, but the fact that those already short of cash and determined to drive ignore this and just drive anyway, increasing the risk further?
I am a driving instructor. And I teach more than "passing the test". And I do get some resistance from it too. Although to be fair not much as I incorporate it into normal lessons.
Many many pupils are allowed to take their test when they are deemed fit to pass, (not mine). Not deemed fit to drive alone afterwards.
One pupil comes to mind. He passed a few months ago, first time as most of mine do. He took me for a ride last week,. his driving is now awfull.
Why? Because he doesnt care.
Pass Plus? Ok, up to a point, making it compulsory would be a start.
12 months lessons, for some its not enough, others way too much. Rubbish say I, and I would earn more from the law too.
Basic problem? ATTITUDE. And not just learners/just qualified.
I think every three years everyone should have to spend two hous with an approved instructor. If they fail to meet the standard, lessons, or if they object, another test.
If you knew in three years or less a test was due, maybe you would take more care and remember how to drive properly. Most dont.
It is not a right to drive, but most think it is. Remove the right, make it a honour.
Blair and his idiots will do nothing because all they do is spend millions and waste it. A simple idea, like mine would be self financing as a charge would be made for the certificate proving competence.
Many many pupils are allowed to take their test when they are deemed fit to pass, (not mine). Not deemed fit to drive alone afterwards.
One pupil comes to mind. He passed a few months ago, first time as most of mine do. He took me for a ride last week,. his driving is now awfull.
Why? Because he doesnt care.
Pass Plus? Ok, up to a point, making it compulsory would be a start.
12 months lessons, for some its not enough, others way too much. Rubbish say I, and I would earn more from the law too.
Basic problem? ATTITUDE. And not just learners/just qualified.
I think every three years everyone should have to spend two hous with an approved instructor. If they fail to meet the standard, lessons, or if they object, another test.
If you knew in three years or less a test was due, maybe you would take more care and remember how to drive properly. Most dont.
It is not a right to drive, but most think it is. Remove the right, make it a honour.
Blair and his idiots will do nothing because all they do is spend millions and waste it. A simple idea, like mine would be self financing as a charge would be made for the certificate proving competence.
If anyone's interested here's the site for the Mind Driving book mentiond in the article:
www.minddriving.org
And Safe Speed did a reviw:
www.safespeed.org.uk/minddriving.html
I got a pre-release copy a while ago, and think its brilliant. An approach to driving skill that's fully from the "thinking" end. And definitely a positive offer to the policymakers if they take the trouble to notice it. Public launch was yesterday in the House of Lords...
www.minddriving.org
And Safe Speed did a reviw:
www.safespeed.org.uk/minddriving.html
I got a pre-release copy a while ago, and think its brilliant. An approach to driving skill that's fully from the "thinking" end. And definitely a positive offer to the policymakers if they take the trouble to notice it. Public launch was yesterday in the House of Lords...
You mean they just need a years training how to look at the Speedo that will make them better at driving and of course keep to the speed limits, the Police in Maidenhead have just spent all morning stopping commuters on the straight bit of Norden/Norries Drive/Road while every evening they howl pass by the bridge at the bottom only centimetre away from pedestrian, sometimes getting to the top of the hill in seconds - yet again they target motorist driving safely in preference to stopping dangerous driving where it matters another missed point.
P.S. Just why is all speed traps situated on straight roads?
P.S. Just why is all speed traps situated on straight roads?
heavybear said:
If anyone's interested here's the site for the Mind Driving book mentiond in the article:
www.minddriving.org
And Safe Speed did a reviw:
www.safespeed.org.uk/minddriving.html
I got a pre-release copy a while ago, and think its brilliant. An approach to driving skill that's fully from the "thinking" end. And definitely a positive offer to the policymakers if they take the trouble to notice it. Public launch was yesterday in the House of Lords...
www.minddriving.org
And Safe Speed did a reviw:
www.safespeed.org.uk/minddriving.html
I got a pre-release copy a while ago, and think its brilliant. An approach to driving skill that's fully from the "thinking" end. And definitely a positive offer to the policymakers if they take the trouble to notice it. Public launch was yesterday in the House of Lords...
Its got a chapter called "Legal Speeding", so it'll never work
www.skilldriver.org/sampleLegalSpeeding.pdf
Problem is that it won't help those who don't want to be helped or the ones who don't know they need help. Most don't think in the first place, and folk won't buy and read a book when they think they are perfectly ok as it is, and that all the problems are not caused by them chatting on their mobile while hoggin the middle lane, but are really caused by that dangerous lunatic over in lane 3 thats doing 71mph.
I think the regular testing would be beneficial purely because people need the problems pointed out to them.
Slowlane said:
You mean they just need a years training how to look at the Speedo that will make them better at driving and of course keep to the speed limits, the Police in Maidenhead have just spent all morning stopping commuters on the straight bit of Norden/Norries Drive/Road while every evening they howl pass by the bridge at the bottom only centimetre away from pedestrian, sometimes getting to the top of the hill in seconds - yet again they target motorist driving safely in preference to stopping dangerous driving where it matters another missed point.
P.S. Just why is all speed traps situated on straight roads?
P.S. Just why is all speed traps situated on straight roads?
because thats where the MONEY IS!!
I think Unobtainum has got it right when he says it's down to attitude. Perhaps the time to start shaping the attitude of young drivers is earlier on, perhaps with some kind of road safety instruction in the school curiculum.
Perhaps then learner drivers will be in a better frame of mind to take in lessons in responsibility, observation etc. when they embark on their driving lessons.
A good first step is the cycling proficiency test. It's the first time you get formal instruction as a road user, and it was the first time I was ever made to read the highway code (seven years before I could apply for my provisional driving licence).
As a related comment, I remember asking my driving instructor what the normal number of driving lessons would be. He replied that it varies, but a good guide is one lesson for every year of your age. He told me that in his experience, the older you were when you started to drive, the more lessons it took to get you to a standard to enable you to take the test. Sure enough, I had 17 lessons, and passed my test 4 months after my 17th birthday. Perhaps now I would need to have 18 lessons.
Perhaps then learner drivers will be in a better frame of mind to take in lessons in responsibility, observation etc. when they embark on their driving lessons.
A good first step is the cycling proficiency test. It's the first time you get formal instruction as a road user, and it was the first time I was ever made to read the highway code (seven years before I could apply for my provisional driving licence).
As a related comment, I remember asking my driving instructor what the normal number of driving lessons would be. He replied that it varies, but a good guide is one lesson for every year of your age. He told me that in his experience, the older you were when you started to drive, the more lessons it took to get you to a standard to enable you to take the test. Sure enough, I had 17 lessons, and passed my test 4 months after my 17th birthday. Perhaps now I would need to have 18 lessons.
The accident rate for unaccompanied 17 year olds is quite high isn't it. This insurance company proposal would eliminate these accidents. Of course it may be that they would go on to have their accidents at 18 but maybe not so many. It does sound harsh for those who would make safe drivers but how easy are they to identify. It's mostly boys who have these early accidents isn't it so maybe it could apply only to them.
antispeed said:
Slowlane said:
You mean they just need a years training how to look at the Speedo that will make them better at driving and of course keep to the speed limits, the Police in Maidenhead have just spent all morning stopping commuters on the straight bit of Norden/Norries Drive/Road while every evening they howl pass by the bridge at the bottom only centimetre away from pedestrian, sometimes getting to the top of the hill in seconds - yet again they target motorist driving safely in preference to stopping dangerous driving where it matters another missed point.
P.S. Just why is all speed traps situated on straight roads?
P.S. Just why is all speed traps situated on straight roads?
because thats where the MONEY IS!!
yep
This seems like a good idea to me, maybe not pre-test, but certainly post test along the PassPlus lines. Describing it as a probationary period is probably best.
You do learn from experience, but it takes time to get that experience and this proposal would see new drivers accompanied by qualified instructors who rather than just teaching basic control can concentrate on passing on their experience and keeping their young charges out of trouble.
Maybe graded licences like they have for bikes would help as well to encourage further training in order to buy better more powerful cars.
You do learn from experience, but it takes time to get that experience and this proposal would see new drivers accompanied by qualified instructors who rather than just teaching basic control can concentrate on passing on their experience and keeping their young charges out of trouble.
Maybe graded licences like they have for bikes would help as well to encourage further training in order to buy better more powerful cars.
The driving instructor chap hit it straight on the head with attidude. Perhaps a way to breaking that problematic attitude would be to restrict the power/ maximum engine capacity to a, ahem, "painful" level for new drivers! Speaking from my own experience, my old 850cc mini was certainly not a car for showing off in 
Also a compulsary post-pass test for motorway driving should be bare minimum.
Whilst on the subject, I would also have the cops clamp down on the derestricted scooters that the 16 year olds seem to hoon around on these days. I feel that whilst it helps with some road experience, it also fosters a "don't care" attitude. Confiscate them, I say!
And as I always say, ongoing training/ retests every few years is the only real way forward. Last year, work sent me on a driving awareness afternoon session, and ever since my m/way lane discipline has been much much better. Now I actually tend to get places quicker as I am rarely in the outside lane, where most of the bunch up jams start. The secret is out, doh!!
Also a compulsary post-pass test for motorway driving should be bare minimum. Whilst on the subject, I would also have the cops clamp down on the derestricted scooters that the 16 year olds seem to hoon around on these days. I feel that whilst it helps with some road experience, it also fosters a "don't care" attitude. Confiscate them, I say!
And as I always say, ongoing training/ retests every few years is the only real way forward. Last year, work sent me on a driving awareness afternoon session, and ever since my m/way lane discipline has been much much better. Now I actually tend to get places quicker as I am rarely in the outside lane, where most of the bunch up jams start. The secret is out, doh!!
Edited by mx-tro on Wednesday 20th September 18:14
I've been at a bit of a loss to understand why the young are as bad or perhaps even worse than my generation who started driving in the mid seventies, back when drink driving was regarded as almost 'normal', and when cars were much less safe.
I wonder if its because: in my view far too much of our society is turned over to the car and car drivers, to the point where everyone else is seen as a lesser being. Our safety record re peds and cyclists is crap, and lets face it, outside of London we've hardly got any cyclists. And yet we still kill too many children.
Because of this, children are taken everywhere by car, they aren't allowed to make their own way anywhere (genaralising here I know) by foot, or more importantly, by cycle. A few years spent on a treader gives kids a sense of road knowledge.
Then they turn 17 and are suddenly allowed out on the road behind the wheel of a car. They've no notion of how traffic 'works', the time spent learning to drive isn't long enough to replace the lost experience they could have had in their formative years, and the sheer sense of freedom they get when they do pass their test and for the first time are allowed out on their own, all forms a lethal combination.
I wonder if its because: in my view far too much of our society is turned over to the car and car drivers, to the point where everyone else is seen as a lesser being. Our safety record re peds and cyclists is crap, and lets face it, outside of London we've hardly got any cyclists. And yet we still kill too many children.
Because of this, children are taken everywhere by car, they aren't allowed to make their own way anywhere (genaralising here I know) by foot, or more importantly, by cycle. A few years spent on a treader gives kids a sense of road knowledge.
Then they turn 17 and are suddenly allowed out on the road behind the wheel of a car. They've no notion of how traffic 'works', the time spent learning to drive isn't long enough to replace the lost experience they could have had in their formative years, and the sheer sense of freedom they get when they do pass their test and for the first time are allowed out on their own, all forms a lethal combination.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff