Advanced Driving Hub

martine wrote:

sussex2 wrote:My own observations of peoples eyesight which in many cases is poor and rarely tested.
We did, many years, ago a completely unprofessional test of pupils at a driving school and found many of them had poor eyesight; legal (just) for the driving test but poor.

OK but all I can say is, it's not my experience. I've not come across a leaner yet who falls below the legal minimum and I've only had one driver on the NDORS National Driver Alertness Course (I help with) who was marginal.

That's not to say it's not a problem (esp with older drivers) but personally I think there are other more effective things which could be done to better improve road safety.

Do you think the legal requirements for the test are adequate? I admit that whilst I was teaching ab initio (some years ago) I was always dubious.
Ps I also think there are other things we can do to make the roads more safe, but wonder if there is likely to be a will from the government in years to come.

Edited to add ps.

Astraist wrote:

Horse wrote:Things that can't be altered are the 'scientific' aspects: reaction time and minimum braking distance*. What can be influenced are the elements I've mentioned, and they're not unique to AD.

* And that could pretty much be achieved by anyone with ABS stamping on the pedal.

Both reaction time and braking distance can be changes with driver training. Reaction time is longer for the unexpected. An observant driver will enjoy shorter reaction times in those instances where he or she can anticipate the possible outcomes.

Braking distance for most drivers is largly elongated through hesitant braking (hence the need, largely, for Brake Assist), too much fiddling with the steering and sometimes by not using the clutch appropriately in doing so.

Yes, correct on both cases. But not right :)

The absolute minimum reaction time can't be reduced by training. It's roughly 0.4s for most people. What it can do is get longer if a driver, for example, is confused.

The same with braking. The majority of drivers will achieve a certain distance. Poor technique will extend it.

Horse wrote:The absolute minimum reaction time can't be reduced by training. It's roughly 0.4s for most people. What it can do is get longer if a driver, for example, is confused.
The same with braking. The majority of drivers will achieve a certain distance. Poor technique will extend it.

Really? I'd have said 0.1s - 0.2s, but I guess my reference (martial artists) is not representative. Also, there are probably significant variations around that 0.4s figure. it's frightening just thinking those folks who drive around with 0.8s reaction time...

For the braking, I'd have said more than technique, which car and tyres you use can have an even greater impact. But that just reinforces your point: it's likely that the absolute minimum braking distance is very rarely what occurs in practice.

Point is, AD stuff tends to reduce those situations where reaction time is of most importance.
Like most Human activities, practice makes?
Better performance?

WhoseGeneration wrote:Like most Human activities, practice makes?

Permanent.

ChristianAB wrote:Really? I'd have said 0.1s - 0.2s, but I guess my reference (martial artists) is not representative. Also, there are probably significant variations around that 0.4s figure. it's frightening just thinking those folks who drive around with 0.8s reaction time...

It's significantly longer. You can get 0.4s in a very simple reaction time test (press button when the red light goes on), or maybe pulling off of the line at traffic lights.

Reacting to things in traffic, especially to situations that are not entirely forseen, takes 0.7s if you are lucky, 1-ish if you are a normal human being, and even 3s if were paying much attention.

WhoseGeneration wrote:Point is, AD stuff tends to reduce those situations where reaction time is of most importance.

You require some reaction time for everything you do behind the wheel, so not an entirely fair statement. Also, you cannot completly prevent situations where quick reaction is needed. It all depends on the degree of idiocy of your fellow drivers and the exact timing in which said idiocy ultimately transpires.

WhoseGeneration wrote:Point is, AD stuff tends to reduce those situations where reaction time is of most importance.

Nope, it's not just AD. The introduction of the HPT for learners is credited with an up to 11% decrease in crashes.

Also:
http://www.trl.co.uk/reports-publicatio ... ortid=6763 (free download)

Hazard perception skill is an important skill for road safety. There is a reasonable body of evidence that drivers with better hazard perception skill have fewer accidents, and also that the skill can be trained and may be especially beneficial to inexperienced road users (see e.g. Wells et al., 2008). Despite the great deal of work in hazard perception generally, there has been very little looking at this skill specifically in motorcyclists. This project sought to develop a measure of hazard perception skill and a training package to address this gap. The measure was based on the speed choice method used by McKenna, Horswill and Alexander (2006) and the training package based on having small groups of either experienced or novice motorcyclists engage in commentary and discussion using video clips filmed from a motorcycle. Results showed that both experienced and novice groups showed a sensitivity to the hazards in the test (through choosing lower speeds in those clips with hazards than in those without), but that experienced riders were more sensitive to the presence of hazards than novices were. The training intervention made novice riders reduce their speed choice but did not have any impact on those of experienced riders.

Horse, across all forums I've discussed this stuff on all I've ever suggested is that AD is about "hazard perception".
The old observation, anticipation and planning.
So, HPT for learners is, in fact, introducing AD concepts?

WhoseGeneration wrote:Horse, across all forums I've discussed this stuff on all I've ever suggested is that AD is about "hazard perception".
The old observation, anticipation and planning.
So, HPT for learners is, in fact, introducing AD concepts?

I got into trouble with another poster for talking openly about my experiences and achievements, so I'll hope you'll forgive me for doing so here

When the BMF RTS started its Blue Riband Award advanced course we deliberately (and, from the sales PoV, mistakenly) called it 'high standard' training. And that's really how I've understood AD (or AM).

However, I've always said that I could only see benefits from singling out the 'best' bits of AD and embedding them into L training, rather than waiting and hoping that people would voluntarily take post-test training.

So whether it's called HP, situational awareness, or anything else, IMHO, it's increibly important. FWIW, I'd add in internal locus of control and theory of planned behaviour.

That gives:
- Identify situation of potential vulnerability
- Take responsibility for avoiding it
- Know what to do to control the situation

WhoseGeneration wrote:Horse, across all forums I've discussed this stuff on all I've ever suggested is that AD is about "hazard perception".
The old observation, anticipation and planning.
So, HPT for learners is, in fact, introducing AD concepts?

So now I'm going to challenge you: are you suggesting that L instructors *don't* teach hazard perception?