Discuss 'benefits'

[Horse]

Are new drivers really the problem, or is it more 'experienced' drivers who have become lazy and forgotten the basics more of an issue?

In very simple terms, yes, new (& newer) drivers are a bigger problem.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/i ... 082648.png

From:
https://www.cieca.eu/sites/default/file ... %20TRL.pdf

[Horse]

I think it's rather more interesting to consider the consequences of making the driving test more difficult

Well, more 'fail' certificates would be one likely outcome.

However, if another outcome is safer new drivers, might that be an acceptable trade-off?

Perhaps another avenue that I'd hope is being explored is the low car test pass rate, especially when compared to the bike tests rates.

For as long as I remember, bike pass rates have been around 70+% (and there are two tests now) but car pass rates have hovered around 45%.

I've no idea why there's always been that difference. Possibilities might include trainee enthusiasm, previous experience, or better tuition.

It could, now, be related to waiting times, with candidates booking a slot before being anywhere near ready. But the difference (bikes 4-6 weeks, cars 4-6 months) can't account for all of it.

Re experience, age 17-20 make up a relatively small number of bike test passes.

But worth noting that the UK's bike license categories and test structure effectively incentivise gaining a license later.

Graduated Driving Licence systems do the same delay but, unlike the UK bike regime, no extra tests are required.

FWIW, having seen drivers struggle with what I consider fairly basic techniques, I'm strongly of the opinion that increasing the mental work-load for new drivers is probably a really bad idea

they'd be better served by concentrating on the very simplest of techniques, recognising hazards and not barrelling into them too quickly.

Hazard perception is a mental skill.

And it's probably the area where improvements will provide safety benefits. Compared to improving control skills, that is.


Soon after you and John showed me 'hinting' and better use of the throttle, we went to stay with friends.

Their daughter was nearing her test, her mother asked that I accompany her on a drive.

Along the way, I talked her through setting the car on the throttle for bends.

"Why didn't my instructor tell me that?"

OK, sample of one

And, although use of the throttle is machine control, it's mental load to search, predict, and act.


Make it 1.5

Foal failed his first test. I deliberately didn't do any test training drives with him, only accompanied him on a couple of longer drives.

His examiner said "Shame you failed, that was the smoothest drive I've ever had."

AAMOI, Foal said "I deserved to fail".

From my very limited experience, the stress for new drivers is such that they often focus on the thing that comes next, rather than the thing that's urgent right now.

There's a lot going on with young new drivers. Inexperience, hormones, peer pressure, frontal lobe, etc. The frontal lobe being under-developed means that restraint will be lacking and urges will take control.

whether newer technology is making driving easier or merely making drivers less engaged.

New thread?

we've had this discussion before, started by you asking the same questions

Quite likely. IMHO they're fairly important questions to revisit.

The answers may have altered. They might not. Whatever, anyone involved in delivering advanced training ought to have some idea of what the benefits are. Very difficult to 'sell' it otherwise! Let alone if a trainee asks "why?". And I've had trainees make that challenge.

Re changing over time. When I started learning about 'advanced' stuff, it was blue book Roadcraft in the GLF era.

And if the question has been asked before, then you may have seen my answers before to:

Perhaps, instead of asking about the real or perceived benefits of advanced techniques, and whether they should be rolled into the standard test, you might be explicit in stating your views on that question.

When the BMF-RTS created the Blue Riband Award in 1988, the training world was a very different place. Within a few years, we did 150 tests across the UK in a year. About then, IAM did 600 and RoSPA 100. There was hardly anything in the way of independent schools like Rapid and CSS.

We took the deliberate decision to brand it 'high standard' rather than 'advanced'. It was rebranded 'advanced' about 6 years later for marketing.

Many years later, I began to have doubts about real benefits that could be obtained from specific advanced test training.

I'm sure everyone has, at some point, seen the "which is highest, Gold or Masters?" etc. questions.

Blue Riband was slightly different in that the B grade pass recognised 'good, safe, riding'.

Along with that was the image associated with 'advanced'. It was self-defeating and self-defining. And meant that many riders wouldn't even consider taking training.

I've often posted, here and elsewhere, that typical riding training can't be shown (from dozens of studies) to give definite long-term safety benefits.

So was I a hypocrite for continuing as an instructor?

I felt my training was different, better, with greater emphasis on risk and safety.

Also, as time went on, I realised that there were many riders who would benefit from sessions to sort their concerns and fears.

I still offered advanced training if requested. But not a test.

But I also questioned that, if there is a safety benefit from advanced training, shouldn't those elements be available for all riders, not just the 10% or so that took extra training?

Note that many riders crash in (or out of) corners - but the UK CBT syllabus, preparing total novice riders, still (after 32 years) doesn't include the basic control skill of how to steer a motorcycle.

I think the main safety benefits of advanced training come from increased forward OBS, hazard perception and planning. HPT has already been added to L training.

So, what other safety benefits does 'advanced' training create?

And is it justified to not find a way of developing L training to include those elements?

[Horse]

Perhaps, instead of asking about the real or perceived benefits of advanced techniques, and whether they should be rolled into the standard test, you might be explicit in stating your views on that question

And if any of the above doesn't answer sufficiently, I'm happy to clarify specific points, in a conversation.

[Horse]

I get fed up of explaining to Tesla owners that the only reason they feel more relaxed is because they're admitting to DWDCA, given the systems in the car aren't actually certified for autonomous operation. How do you know the car is missing things until it's too late? And yet they still don't seem to understand

In the US:

FSD confirmed to be active by state police based on data download when a motorcyclist was run over by a Tesla.

"The 56-year-old [Tesla] driver was arrested for investigation of vehicular homicide “based on the admitted inattention to driving, while on [FSD] mode, and the distraction of the cell phone while moving forward, putting trust in the machine to drive for him,”"

[Gareth]

Cherry-picking what jumped out at me ...

more 'fail' certificates would be one likely outcome.

I'd be expecting more uninsured drivers. Maybe someone, somewhere, has a handle on what moves and in what direction. I think the only way to avoid this might be to aim to increase learning and knowledge without making the pass rate worse, but I don't know how realistic this might be. Perhaps sidling knowledge in without them realising it?

For as long as I remember, bike pass rates have been around 70+% (and there are two tests now) but car pass rates have hovered around 45%.

Your ideas all seem plausible. I'd mostly imagined it was primarily that there's a sense of being exposed, on a bike, that might concentrate the mind and which doesn't seem to carry through to being in a car in quite the same way.

And it's probably the area where improvements will provide safety benefits. Compared to improving control skills, that is.

Based on a sample of one, I've been very surprised how difficult some people find basic control skills, whether in a car or on a bike.

Possibly a tangent - in recent times I've become a bit frustrated with how knowledge around advanced driving is shared, formal grading or marking often seems to miss the fundamental point, almost as if there's a desire to put a number to something even if it doesn't greatly help. FWIW I'd come to feel that lore shared in the journey was hugely more important than what might be scored in a test, after 'completing' the course.

For me, it also didn't help that the drive to improve standards of individuals is hampered by the formal setting, with people feeling there's no room for consenting adults to drive together under the auspices of at least the larger UK advanced driving organisation, without one of the people taking a distinctly observer role in the car.

[Horse]

I'd be expecting more uninsured drivers.

I think the only way to avoid this might be to aim to increase learning and knowledge without making the pass rate worse, but I don't know how realistic this might be. Perhaps sidling knowledge in without them realising it?

TBH, I hadn't thought any of it through as far as the test

But I suppose the test would have to be altered too. [No _, Sherlock]

For as long as I remember, bike pass rates have been around 70+% (and there are two tests now) but car pass rates have hovered around 45%.

Your ideas all seem plausible. I'd mostly imagined it was primarily that there's a sense of being exposed, on a bike, that might concentrate the mind and which doesn't seem to carry through to being in a car in quite the same way.

If you watch many riders, those thoughts have never occurred ...

Stats-wise (from insurance data), drivers crash as often as riders. It's the outcomes that are different.

But most riders don't crash most of the time.

And it's probably the area where improvements will provide safety benefits. Compared to improving control skills, that is.

I've been very surprised how difficult some people find basic control skills, whether in a car or on a bike.

Any examples?

FWIW, I was talking to a new rider recently. she'd not long gained a full licence. Bearing in mind that the Module 1 test involves corner and swerve exercises, she'd not been taught how to steer.

Appalling, shocking and, IMHO, damning of the DVSA that they have allowed this to happen and, worse still, continue.

They have a training syllabus that ignores one of the basic skills and introduced a test they knew many instructors were either incapable of, or reluctant to, deliver training for.

And that new rider highlights where current training is often insufficient. Note that the CBT syllabus is unchanged since 1990 and Module 1 was introduced in 2009.

Also highlights where a lack of [basic] techniques can have a severe effect on safety.

But how often does 'poor control skills' actually become a safety problem? If (ok, it's a big 'if') someone drives or rides within their limitations, they might be safer than someone who's over-optimistic.

... I've become a bit frustrated with how knowledge around advanced driving is shared, formal grading or marking often seems to miss the fundamental point, almost as if there's a desire to put a number to something even if it doesn't greatly help. FWIW I'd come to feel that lore shared in the journey was hugely more important than what might be scored in a test, after 'completing' the course.

Ah, this is part of what I was thinking of.

What is the fundamental point of advanced training? What is the 'lore'?

My emphasis, for many years, even in formal, to-test, advanced training, has been to build competence and confidence while encouraging understanding of limitations and likely problems, and actions required.

eg Ensure riders have good control skills for cornering, know how to assess and plan, then apply the skills - but also understand how things might go wrong and what to do if it happens.

But my concern (probably not the right word) is that only a small fraction of riders and drivers take post-test training. So essential / fundamental ought, where possible, to be part of L training.

For me, it also didn't help that the drive to improve standards of individuals is hampered by the formal setting, with people feeling there's no room for consenting adults to drive together under the auspices of at least the larger UK advanced driving organisation, without one of the people taking a distinctly observer role in the car.

That's partially where I ended up.

Outside of the constraints of formal test requirements, ie working towards a defined set of outcomes and particular style of riding.

Instead, trainee would have a problem they had identified. After discussion, we would agree typically three changes / outcomes they would want from the day. I would plan a day, with exercises and route.

And, typically, those changes would be achieved not long after lunchtime, leaving the rest of the day to see what else we could do.

It was more beneficial for the trainees than 'advanced' training* and more interesting for me.

Example 'case study'

Saturday morning, in the dealership. Rider comes in. Chatting, having problems - struggling to turn out of their residential road onto a more major road. Is seriously considering giving up riding because of this. Is genuinely scared.

Has been to the IAM, was taught 'lines' for bends. Not much good for pulling away at a T junction.

Off to the carpark.

Work on angled starts. Approach, set-up, execution. Understand the 'whys' of each part, what problems they overcome. Build competence and confidence - it really is a 'do or die' (well, 'do, or end in an embarrassing heap') manoeuvre.

Rider leaves happy. H feels he's earned his keep (albeit it was less than an hour and no charge).

[Gareth]

I'd come to feel that lore shared in the journey was hugely more important

What is the fundamental point of advanced training? What is the 'lore'?

It's something I struggle to put into words when asked, but then things come up while being driven, points to make, little chunks of knowledge that's missing, sometimes it can be where to look and why, other times it might be pointing out how other roads users are moving around and how that provides clues about what they might be about to do, even before they necessarily know themselves.

There are loads of little 'skills', which take practice, thought, perhaps a slightly different way of looking on something, and these little things add up and, over time, because a significant improvement. With the IAM driving course, having a course handbook provides a starting point, an explicit reason to be out practising, but then the session aims may be quite boring, and everything else helps it come alive.

One of the things that bothers me is nice cornering. Another is over-taking. One time I tried making the point that the planning for an overtake is what's fun; the other person thought it was the actual overtake. Hmm, that's an interesting difference of opinion. Seems to me to be better not to care whether or not you overtake, takes away loads of pressure leaving space to think and plan ... to the point the overtake is a 'nothing', you've gone passed, so what, just an opportunity to catch up with the next road user.

Anyway, I've written tons about what I talk about in a car, here and in the archive. My friends tell me I say the same things across many years, either I'm an incredible bore, or incredibly consistent

[Horse]

I'd come to feel that lore shared in the journey was hugely more important

What is the fundamental point of advanced training? What is the 'lore'?

It's something I struggle to put into words when asked, but then things come up while being driven, points to make, little chunks of knowledge that's missing, sometimes it can be where to look and why, other times it might be pointing out how other roads users are moving around and how that provides clues about what they might be about to do, even before they necessarily know themselves.

There are loads of little 'skills', which take practice, thought, perhaps a slightly different way of looking on something, and these little things add up and, over time, because a significant improvement. With the IAM driving course, having a course handbook provides a starting point, an explicit reason to be out practising, but then the session aims may be quite boring, and everything else helps it come alive.

Anyway, I've written tons about what I talk about in a car, here and in the archive. My friends tell me I say the same things across many years, either I'm an incredible bore, or incredibly consistent

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a third 'answer'. That, over time, you will have reviewed, adjusted and refined those views.

If you get bored start to compile everything. Even the act of gathering it might improve your thoughts.

In a way, that parallels what you're saying above. Adding finesse to the average. That's my interpretation, anyway

[Another Bill]

When I saw the subject of this thread I was enthused, as I thought it would let me vent annoyance about (in-)illegibility for winter fuel allowance.

Down to earth again, my perception of advanced benefits would be all about aspirations, and pride in driving. It might or might not equate to ‘better’ driving, of course, that does not necessarily follow. But I really think that pride in driving is missing these days, as driving seems to be seem as a necessary evil rather than a skill to to proud of. Even the word ‘pride’, in media usage, means something quite different to my suggested context but that’s way off topic.

[Horse]

When I saw the subject of this thread I was enthused, as I thought it would let me vent annoyance about (in-)illegibility for winter fuel allowance.

Having recently become a state pensioner, I can sympathise

... my perception of advanced benefits would be all about aspirations, and pride in driving.

But I really think that pride in driving is missing these days, as driving seems to be seem as a necessary evil rather than a skill to to proud of. Even the word ‘pride’, in media usage, means something quite different to my suggested context but that’s way off topic.

That's a really good point.

However, there can be a level of arrogance that comes with achieving a certain level of training (not just 'advanced').

e.g.
"I am an advanced driver, and I had right of way"
Letter in IAM magazine, about an incident at a roundabout.


The 'necessary evil' aspect isn't new. I recall someone calling drivers 'appliance operators' 30+ years ago.