Advanced Driving Hub

I encourage you to listen to this BBC podcast – it’s fascinating and thought-provoking. But the IAM’s representative (Neil Greig) accepts Vision Zero's removal of individual responsibility from the safety equation, focusing on “systems” managed by the authorities instead:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000yknw

It implies IAM Roadsmart is happy to talk itself out of business (the business of advanced motoring). This IAM position would be highly controversial with many of its members! So, how does the IAM form and agree on policy positions?

And while the podcast made me more sympathetic to Vision Zion’s approach, I feel it would be a mistake to give up on all attempts to improve driver behaviour. For example, fleet training had a highly positive impact on many of my colleagues and reduced the company’s accident rate. Yet Vision Zero’s approach assumes behaviour change never works – removing responsibility from individual road users and handing all responsibility to the authorities.

One Vision Zero consequence is imperative to “manage kinetic energy”. So, cars can’t travel at speeds that could kill vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians, etc.) unprotected by crumple zones. Hence 20 mph limits where cars share the road with cyclists. But nobody – not even the IAM’s Neil Greig – mentioned motorcyclists and scooter riders once in the podcast. What about powered two-wheelers?

I wonder why anyone bothers with the IAM as all the organisation does is follow the government propaganda and has done for years.

sussex2 wrote:I wonder why anyone bothers with the IAM as all the organisation does is follow the government propaganda and has done for years.

Don't you mean Brake's propoganda?

Ohlins wrote:
I feel it would be a mistake to give up on all attempts to improve driver behaviour. For example, fleet training had a highly positive impact on many of my colleagues and reduced the company’s accident rate. Yet Vision Zero’s approach assumes behaviour change never works –

Trouble is that there's little solid evidence that driver (and rider) education makes much difference to crash rates.

That goes from pre-licence through to post-test.

Ohlins wrote: removing responsibility from individual road users and handing all responsibility to the authorities.

That's odd because I often think the authorities are about the worst people to give any sort of responsibility to.

Horse wrote:

Ohlins wrote:
I feel it would be a mistake to give up on all attempts to improve driver behaviour. For example, fleet training had a highly positive impact on many of my colleagues and reduced the company’s accident rate. Yet Vision Zero’s approach assumes behaviour change never works –

Trouble is that there's little solid evidence that driver (and rider) education makes much difference to crash rates.

That goes from pre-licence through to post-test.

So I'll ask again, why do we even bother with an L-test then?

jont- wrote:

Horse wrote:Trouble is that there's little solid evidence that driver (and rider) education makes much difference to crash rates.

That goes from pre-licence through to post-test.

So I'll ask again, why do we even bother with an L-test then?

And, as I've often said, my view is that *good* training works. I wouldn't have been involved for decades otherwise.

But it can't be denied that [and I've been involved with research on it showing it, unfortunately not publicly available] that a lot of training doesn't adequately prepare learners for post-test. Motorcyclists, for example, persist in getting caught by the same three 'gotcha' crash types. Either the training is insufficient or they ignore it - which suggests that it's insufficient in a different way.

Even the uk car test pass rate raises questions:
Most Brits will fail their practical test first time around. According to the DVSA, the 2019/20 pass rate for practical tests is 46.4% in the UK

Pre-test
https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/scotla ... effective/
The time has come to step back and consider how pre-driver interventions can have the most impact on improving road safety in Scotland, a new report has concluded.

The report, authored by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), says there is no evidence to demonstrate that pre-driver interventions in Scotland are currently effective in terms of improving road safety on their own.

L training
https://trl.co.uk/publications/ppr673
The over-representation of young novice drivers in road collisions is a public health risk in Great Britain (GB), and worldwide. The key contributory factors to this problem are known and are cross-cultural; they are youth and inexperience. This report reviewed and synthesised evidence of effectiveness for three approaches to tackling young and novice driver safety, for consideration in GB

Post-test
https://www.devittinsurance.com/guides/ ... er-riders/
The research exposed curious anomalies however – and they won’t all be welcomed by advanced training advocates. Drill down into the data and it shows that while advanced riders have fewer collisions per mile once their higher mileage is accounted for, IAM RoadSmart members do not report fewer injury and ‘damage-only’ collisions per respondent. In fact they have ‘similar proportions of collision involvement’ to others. They are also less likely to believe they were at fault, although that’s not much consolation if you’ve been knocked off.

angus wrote:

sussex2 wrote:I wonder why anyone bothers with the IAM as all the organisation does is follow the government propaganda and has done for years.

Don't you mean Brake's propoganda?

You'd have a hard time convincing me there is any difference these days. The goal of BRAKE is to remove the driver. The goal of the IAM is to agree with BRAKE and the goal of the Gov's appears to be to remove freedom of movement.

That might appear a bit tinfoil hattish but all the signs are there.

Horse wrote:...

Even the uk car test pass rate raises questions:
Most Brits will fail their practical test first time around. According to the DVSA, the 2019/20 pass rate for practical tests is 46.4% in the UK

It's been around 50% for hundreds of years.
I wonder how much money the DSA/DVSA needs to bring in each year to keep the organisation afloat......

What is the pass rate for second tests? Are most that fail first time getting right with the next attempt?