titian wrote: - it appears to have worked for them!
However, that was 80 years ago, now the situation and results might not be the same.
titian wrote: The basic "L" test is just that, basic, my wife often remarks that following her passing the "L" test I said "now I'll teach you how to drive". I would suggest something along the lines of having passed the "L" test the individual is given a period of time, maybe upto 12 months during which time they will gain experience and further driving skills sufficient to be equiped to take a further test (maybe at a level short of the IAM basic test) passing which they are awarded a substantive driving licence. Failure to pass would mean they were only allowed to drive when accompanied by a "substantive" licence holder.
The lines are showing how age and on-road experience reduce accidents, not further training - it might do, but that's not what happens for the the majority of new drivers who don't take it.
Kinnear et al. (2007)
• Novice drivers with more than 1000 miles of driving showed similar physiological anticipatory response to hazards as experienced drivers (video HP test) So it's back to the same question: what
safety-related content can 'advanced' training provide that the current L system, with subsequent on-road experience, can't?
The AA admits that many insurers are refusing to give discounts for Pass Plus. A spokesman says: 'Pass Plus has got a bad name. Quite simply, the claims figures show that there is no difference between drivers who have Pass Plus and those who don't.' http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars ... z55sbauRme titian wrote: Re-tests would be mandatorty in the event of 6 points on the licence or involment in a "significant" your fault accident.
Worth noting that a new driver will lose their licence anyway for 6 points.
Might keep the examiners busy
May 2015 stats:
5-8 points 507,265 drivers
9-11 79,286
12 and over 6,867
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.