Rear Fog Light Etiquette...

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
sussex2
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:43 am

Re: Rear Fog Light Etiquette...

Postby sussex2 » Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:18 am

waremark wrote:Interesting that according to that graph people licenced later have more accidents right into middle age. I am surprised that after 10 years of driving someone licenced at 21 has a higher accident rate than someone licenced at 18 - providing they survive the particularly high accident rate in their first year of driving!

It looks as though a mature driver who started at 18 has about 2 accidents per million km, or 600k miles. If the average annual mileage is about 10k, that suggests that an average accident rate is one every 30 years. I don't know what category of accident this graph is supposed to measure but I thought the average accident rate was very much higher. I seem to remember old Roadcraft suggesting one every 7 years.


When I taught ab initio driving it was often, but not always, older people who took longer and this is no surprise. I wonder if it is a life experience or simply that older people have to delve further back in a much used hard drive to absorb things.

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 3557
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Rear Fog Light Etiquette...

Postby Horse » Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:33 pm

Horse wrote:
waremark wrote: I don't know what category of accident this graph is supposed to measure


You'd probably need to delve into the original research, e.g. "1 The effects of age and experience on collision risk, from Maycock et al. (1991; figure reproduced from Maycock, 2002)"


https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/TRL527.pdf

Novice driver accidents and the driving test
Prepared for Road Safety Division, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
G Maycock
TRL Report TRL527
First Published 2002
ISSN 0968-4107


3.3.2 Self-report accident liability studies
Accident liability survey
Figure 4 shows the modelled results of an accident liability survey (Maycock, Lockwood and Lester, 1991) based on accidents reported by a sample of about 13,500 drivers split roughly equally between the sexes; the accidents were self-reported accidents on public roads, and were mainly damage only. The study was a cross-sectional study using a structured sample in which older and younger drivers, and drivers with limited driving experience were deliberately over-sampled. In considering the relationships shown in Figure 4 therefore, it should be borne in mind that the modelled effects are primarily ‘between driver’ effects which may or may not be precisely the same as a longitudinal ‘within driver’ effect – i.e. how accident rate changes for an individual driver as he or she ages and gains experience.

With this caveat in mind, the upper broken lines in Figure 4 show how the accident liability of male and female drivers in their first year (i.e. novice drivers) falls with increasing age.



In addition to the issue already mentioned of ‘cross-sectional’ versus ‘longitudinal’ effects, there are a number of other factors that need to be borne in mind when considering the modelled liabilities shown in Figure 4. First, the model corrects for the fact that drivers forget (or fail to report) some of the accidents in which they have been involved using an overall memory loss factor which is estimated from the data. This memory loss effect suggests that in a single year the number of accidents predicted by the model (and shown in Figure 4) are about 20% higher than those actually reported. Secondly, with the exception of the younger drivers, the model results are based on accidents averaged over a three year period. The young drivers in the sample reported accidents over a variable time period which ranged from a few months to several years. The effect of averaging over a number of years will have little effect on the model predictions where accident liabilities are changing slowly with time (the older drivers), but could introduce some error into the accident rates of novice drivers where the rates are changing rapidly.
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.

User avatar
jont-
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:12 am
Location: Herefordshire

Re: Rear Fog Light Etiquette...

Postby jont- » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:42 pm

sussex2 wrote:
Horse wrote:
sussex2 wrote: I believe it to be a myth that experience of itself will bring an improvement.


The stats for crash involvement post-test show IIRC that there is a learning curve, reduced with age. However, long-term, it's likely that there's no substantial further learning. I'll try and find a graph showing this.

Practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent.


I think you are correct and often when I get in a car with someone who has been driving for years, they still drive like a learner. Or, use motos and methods they learned many years ago and have not adapted to technological or methodical changes over the years.

Or law. Note all the handwringing about the problems with smart motorways at the moment somehow being the fault of the motorways, rather than drivers who are failing to comply with the conditions of their license and remain familiar with motoring legislation :bash:

Basically we've reached a point where driving is treated as a right, so everything is around engineering things for the inept, rather than keeping the inept out of the way, and ignoring the fact that over time idiots will drop the standard ever further :soap:

User avatar
dvenman
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:28 am

Re: Rear Fog Light Etiquette...

Postby dvenman » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:45 pm

jont- wrote:... over time idiots will drop the standard ever further :soap:


I disagree. Over time it appears idiots are becoming better idiots.

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 3557
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Rear Fog Light Etiquette...

Postby Horse » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:02 pm

sussex2 wrote: I get in a car with someone who has been driving for years, they still drive like a learner. Or, use motos and methods they learned many years ago and have not adapted to technological or methodical changes over the years.


*cough*Filly*cough*

Her first car had rubbish brakes (so I'm told) so her dad taught her to slow using the gears too :cry: and it's continued on to the present day … brake gear brake gear brake gear . . .

Odd, that when I drive the same vehicles, there's no need ...
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.

User avatar
jont-
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:12 am
Location: Herefordshire

Re: Rear Fog Light Etiquette...

Postby jont- » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:22 pm

Horse wrote:
sussex2 wrote: I get in a car with someone who has been driving for years, they still drive like a learner. Or, use motos and methods they learned many years ago and have not adapted to technological or methodical changes over the years.


*cough*Filly*cough*

Her first car had rubbish brakes (so I'm told) so her dad taught her to slow using the gears too :cry: and it's continued on to the present day … brake gear brake gear brake gear . . .

Odd, that when I drive the same vehicles, there's no need ...

What's wrong with that?

Oh, you mean she's not heel and toeing while doing it :D

kfae8959
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:36 pm

Re: Rear Fog Light Etiquette...

Postby kfae8959 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:18 pm

Grrrrrump...!

For the benefit of this discussion passim, "licence" is a noun, and "license" is a verb.

David


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests