Safe Speed Forums

In another thread, Paul has advocated setting up an official, national "advanced driving" qualification, which in effect would supplant those offered by the IAM or RoADA.

But unfortunately, in the present climate, such a scheme could all too easily add up to no more than becoming a "registered numpty". To their credit, at least the IAM (in my experience) do make some effort to promote the joy of driving and encourage brisk progress where safe and legal. "He's very good at making sure his speed is down to 30 well in advance of the sign" is not in my view a sign of a safe or competent driver.

How could an official scheme be structured so that it genuinely develops more capable as well as more law-abiding drivers? There is far more to good and safe driving than just obeying the law, and in view a too-rigid view of sticking to the law can at time compromise safety.

I can't see this becoming reality until there is a major step-change in official attitudes towards speed and safety. But at the same time it is important that it would be seen as worthwhile for the average driver in the Nissan Micra or Citroën Picasso as well as the enthusiast.

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Hell, yes. I've done loads of unpublished work on this. Too much for a forum message. I'll stick it on the to-do list and create a new web page. I don't think I'll have time for a week or so.

Key issues are:

Motivating drivers to get better training
Proving to drivers that they don't know it all
Creating social value out of actual driver skill
Creating a standard that enables the insurance companies to measure the benefits by examining accident data.
Re-establishing a centre of driving excellence
Re-balancing safety priorities
Keeping 17 year olds out of Porsches
Rewarding skilled and responsible behaviour
Making Britain the real road safety world leader again
Improving the accident avoidance skills of the average (i.e. arithmetic mean) driver
Feeding the safety culture

I think that's most of the key issues. I really don't have time to do this subject justice today.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'm sorry but I have a problem with this. Yes, a lot of 17 year olds are immature, and drive too fast to impress their mates. But we aren't all that bad! Something should not be denied to someone *just* based on their age. Yes, 17 year olds are always inexperienced drivers, and experience may help you to drive better in a powerful car - but then, surely you should be keeping 'new drivers' out of Porsches, not 17 year olds.

Or maybe you mean - and I think this is better - a new test could entitle you to drive more powerful cars with engines bigger than, say, 1.6 litres.

<-- Concerned 17 year old!

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Please don't worry - what I wrote was very illustrative and shorthand. I'm sure in practice anyone who could meet the required standard would be allowed to drive any vehicle.

Have you driven anything powerful yet? You might be surprised just how quickly you can get into serious trouble if you don't plan far enough ahead.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

This raises the interesting question of power limits, which could be used as an incentive to encourage people to pass an advanced test.

But should they be set at (say) 75 bhp/tonne, so that non-advanced drivers could only drive the slowest and most basic cars, or (say) 125 bhp/tonne, so that non-advanced drivers could drive most cars, but not high-performance vehicles?

There certainly have been high-profile cases of rich kids being given Porsches and promptly wrapping them round trees, but overall it's not a major problem.

In a situation where an official advanced test existed which most drivers were expected to pass, I can see a power limit as being a worthwhile incentive, but as a pure safety measure it has little value.

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I rather like both those limits - maybe 60 to 75 bhp/tonne limit for new drivers and 100 to 125 bhp/tonne limit for "standard" (i.e. not new and not advanced) drivers.



Agreed. I'd see the larger benefit as the cultural one. However saving a few 17 year olds per year is a likely and worthwhile bonus.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Thinking about it, I would not like to see the lower limit as it would prevent learners using dad's car, which where possible I would see as a major safety benefit, as it gives more experience in non-judgmental situations.

Before I passed my driving test I had on more than one occasion driven over 70 miles from home (with my dad in the passenger seat, obviously). Gaining experience is a key component of learning to drive.

A 125 bhp/tonne limit would include cars such as a 2.0 Mondeo. However, for most people, that would remove most of the incentive for taking the higher-level test.

There needs to be some worthwhile motivating factor.

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Absolutely. In fact that's an argument I've used myself in the past and obviously forgot all about. Thanks for the reminder.

I'm still attracted to the basic idea - I always worry about the lack of safe speed behaviour exhibited by young and inexperienced drivers (more frequently to do with underdeveloped hazard perception than anything else).

How can we help them? An unaccompanied power to weight ratio limit?
Power limiter keyed to electronic driving licence? A no overtaking rule? (tractors!) A log book system with limited hours in more powerful vehicles? Anyone got any good ideas?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I would like to see the Pass Plus course made mandatory. No pass/fail, but if candidates show a seriously negative attitude or low skill level they could be referred for retesting. Less than 5%, I would hope, but it would happen.

I would also like to see all newly qualified drivers required, as part of the Pass Plus course, to do a 200-mile roundtrip over a variety of roads. That would sort 'em out. It's all too easy to pass the test doing no more than 30 on local roads and never really learn to drive.

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I have always wondered about the motives of the "advanced" driver.

While I am sure that they will learn a lot of "good stuff" at advanced driving courses, ( I believe that the police consider them very important ), I wonder if these qualifications actually make the pupil any better a driver, or do they just turn him or her into an elitist.

As an analogy, let's compare the advanced driving qualifications with the original driving course and test.....I mean do any of us dare to say that we have retained ANY or much of the stuff that we we were taught as learner-drivers.

I am sure that few of us would pass the original test if we were to take it without cramming for it now. In fact I would like to suggest that in our confidence as experienced drivers we have managed to learn a lot of bad habits and personal quirks in our driving skills.

Would we hold the stuff that we learn as advanced drivers any more than we hold the basic knowledge I wonder ?

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

People undertake advanced driving courses for various reasons, one of which is to improve driving skills when required (for work or other reasons) to do a lot more driving than previously. They are by no means all "confident" drivers wishing to validate their skills.

I don't think there's any evidence that those holding advanced qualifications consider themselves to be "superior" or behave in the way that might suggest.

I have gained the IAM qualification and firmly believe it has made me a better driver and also one who is capable of further improvement via self-criticism.

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I agree. My Porsche spent a week in the garage having a new clutch fitted and, for that week, I rode around in a 1.3l courtesy car. Underpowered it might have been, but it could still get up to about a ton on the motorway. Problem is, neither the roadholding, handling nor braking were up to much, and it really gave me a few scares - like when I was going down a hill at about 50mph in the rain, touched the brakes just to scrub off a bit of speed, and nearly went into a skid.
The more powerful cars normally have far superior braking, roadholding etc, and so, IMO, are safer for inexperienced drivers.

Regards
Peter

I don't know if I'd go that far - particularly in something like a high-powered RWD car - sure it may have better brakes, and so be able to stop in a shorter distance from a given speed, but it's also a hell of a lot easier to get up to a higher speed without realising. And of course there's the added factor that RWD tends to oversteer rather than understeer, perhaps not the best thing for newer drivers to be experiencing.



Hmm, 200 miles!? With a driving instructor I take it, not a driving examiner? Would cost ~£100 to have a long enough driving lesson to do a 200 mile round trip, plus a newly qualified driver might need extra lessons to know how to go about this trip. With a driving examiner, it would no doubt cost a heck of a lot more, in addition to contributing to the existing shortage of staff.

Since passing my test the longest journey I've been on was about 120 miles. (another 120 back two days later.) In July I'm driving down to Silverstone for the Grand Prix, which is 233.5 miles, mostly on the motorway. I feel confident to tackle this journey because I have quite a lot of motorway experience (the drive to school and back has ten miles of motorway, and I do it two days a week at least [so travel on the road 4 times a week]); and because I undertook the 120 mile trip previously. Not quite sure what point I'm making here - probably that compulsory 200 mile trips might not work, but that drivers should be able to prepare themselves for such trips sensibly by building up to such long distances.



No worries. And no, I've not really driven anything powerful as such. Backed dads car down the road, but never even needed to start the engine! Friend of mine has just got his mits on a BMW somethingorother with a 2.0, and I know he was amazed by the difference he noticed from his 1.4 Clio. When (hopefully 'when' is the word, rather than 'if'!) I get a faster car, I'll have to make sure to take the time to get used to it before actually making full use of its power - i.e. no overtaking (on single carriageway) until I know what it can do! I've overtaken on single carriageway twice since I passed my test in my current car. I need about 20 seconds clear on the other carriageway before I feel safe doing it!



That sounds quite a sensible solution. (Potential problems with enforcement?: "No it only has 80bhp officer, honest, I know the handbook says 83 but it's an old car and the engine's a bit worn...")



And that. Perhaps initially you're limited to 60/75 bhp/tonne, but then after your two year probation period you're allowed 100/125 bhp/tonne. Taking an advanced test at any point removes the restrictions - or something along those lines!

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

I've often wondered about this subject myself, and the sugeestions coming out on this thread make a HUGE amount of sense and well worth while.
Especially good to see a "concerned 17 year old" speaking so far beyond his years and experience. I can see a young driver there lasting a long time.
In a car park today, I observed the antics of a driver totally outclassed by the sheer size of his car, didn't know where the corners were and making a complete hash of reversing out of a parking bay he had driven into nose first. Total lack of use of door mirrors, they might as well as not been fitted.
Having said that, he probably would have had as much problem in a smart car.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

I don't think 17 yr olds in Porches are much of a problem. It's the 17yr olds (to be fair a lot of them are a lot older than 17) in Corsas, decked out to look like race cars, who think they are driving Porches.

Not sure how effective a PWR based system would be. I don't think there is a car on sale which isn't capable of getting in enough trouble to kill either it's occupants or someone else.
More powerful cars have the grip and brakes to match and will probably scare an inexperienced driver before they pass it's limit. Whereas a sub 1litre car will most likely be beyond it's limits before the inexperienced driver knows it.

There is also the tendancy to compensate for a lack of power by trying to hold onto as much speed (through corners, junctions, etc.) as possible.

I agree with your analysis as far as it goes. I don't think PWR limits would save many lives directly - but the few it would be likely to save would be a welcome bonus.

The real benefits are indirect and would arise through:

messages of responsibility
motivation for further training
the implied warning about experience and skill levels

These are the sort of factors that enhance the safety culture and reduce the accident rate of the average (i.e. aritmetic mean) driver. They are the sorts of factors that distinguish our road safety performance from that in other countries.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I took my motorbike test on the cusp of the L-Rider regulation changes, limiting all learners to 12.5 bhp bikes or 125cc (down from 250s which was what I had).
Trouble is, once you get your license you can go out and buy a 1000cc screaming death machine (at a fraction fo the cost of a car of equivalent 'get you in the mire' capability).
Do you know of any figures for Motorcycle casualy rates pre and post the regulation changes in the '80s Paul?

From: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/stats/graphs.html

What year were these regulation changes? We saw a huge step improvement around late 70s / early 80s.

We must also remember that bikers are vulnerable to dozy car drivers. If we make car drivers dozier, on average, then more bikers get killed.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Regulations changed in 1981 I'm fairly sure, in the middle of a downward trend by the looks of the chart.
Wonder how the figures break down as pre and post test casualty figures, 'cos of course a biker can ride unsupervised on L-Plates and giving them lower powered bikes may have made a difference to the pre-test statistics.

Sadly... not being part of the "in-squad" but looking in from the outside while I was a member of the Civil Service motoring club, I saw dozens of examples of people sticking their advanced driving qualification under the noses of the "lesser" beings.

It was pue elitism and snobbery and it was not even done in a quiet way, it was done as loud and proud as it could be. In fact there were times when not having an advanced driving qualification felt like being somehow OUTSIDE that secret-society.

I have been driving for more than 40 years and it was only during my youthful years on powerful motor-bikes that I had any accidents. Since I went into cars I have had two accidents, ( both of which were blameless rear-end shunts ), and without being an advanced driver I have more than 25 years safe driving under my belt.

Advanced drivers....Pah !

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558