Safe Speed Forums

I'm sure most of us agree with the benefits of additional driver training beyond basic L test standard.

This thread is for discussion of any methods we might imagine to help pursuade drivers to take up training of their own accord and at their own expense.

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

During my driving career I took it upon myself to do my own skid control and other manouveres in private grounds as I found it satisfying to know that if I found myself in any situation that required calm and responsive actions that I would be able to react in a more favourable way towards minimising/eliminating personal and secondary casualties in the event of any unforseen circumstances. This has proved invaluable as I have saved myself in many situations that I know the ordinary driver would not have been so fortunate to recover from.

I also feel some people have a natural 'feel' for driving a car; sadly not many people seem to possess this trait. I feel that I do have this trait as I know the workings of a car and the many behaviours that crop up from the different car makes/models.

Educating people who are just not interested in cars and just want an A to B chariot is a challenge but an element of proper road 'etiquette' needs to come across in the education of all our drivers.

Andrew

Perhaps we need to include desirable aspects of road manners, courtesy and etiquette in prime time "Think!" adverts - which we do not see enough of! Another reason perhaps why we are not getting more important messages re. road safety across?

Personally, I think voluntary schemes are, on the whole, a waste of time. They need to be compulsory. Advanced drivers are self selecting. Those drivers who really need to improve their driving don't go down the advanced route du to ignorance.

I think the best present a loving parent could give an 18 year old driver would be an IAM/RoSPA membership.

Historically I agree that advanced driver training doesn't reach a wide enough audience and that candidates are self selected. But does it always have to be that way? I don't think so.

If we had an official graded advanced driving licence, then that alone would get more folk to participate.

If we gave the right to exceed certain speed limits to advanced licence holds that would get more folk to participate.

If we disbarred non advanced drivers from the most powerful vehicles that would get more folk to participate.

If we had the porposed official advanced driving licence the insurance companies would be able to accurately measure the benefit in their accident stats and be able to offer reduced insurance premiums.

I'd very much favour any scheme that gave greater advantages to higher mileage drivers. This would have an effect on the number of advanced drivers in the traffic. One such scheme would be reduced fuel tax for advanced drivers. Obvioulsy equipment in the petrol station would need to inspect a driving licence for the lower duty to apply and I recognise that any such scheme would be some distance off.

But surely, we should be able to come up with a basket of proposals that would deliver much of the benefit without the massive social cost of compulsory advanced training?

And what about 55 year old Mrs Jones who only does 750 miles each year to do the weekly shopping. She might be a crap driver, but she totally depends on her car. She might be 10 times more dangerous than the average driver, per mile driven, but her low mileage mitigates the net risk to society down to below "normal" levels. Could she be expected to pass an advanced test? Should we deny her the use of the roads?

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

Paul

I agree with much of what yuo say. However, I think we are muddling too issues.

The advanced scheme should fit into the unadvanced scheme (see the other thread for thoughts about grading).

As long as Mrs Jones is able to meet the absolute minimum standards for driving competence then she should keep her licence. If she cannot meet those stadnrds, then she should not be permitted to drive.

I feel this is a strong argument, in that the underlying message is one of only allowing safe competent drivers the use of the roads.

But you said: "Personally, I think voluntary schemes are, on the whole, a waste of time. They need to be compulsory." and that is what I was responding to. I was suggesting that it would be unreasonable to compel Mrs Jones to take an advanced test.

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

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. If Mrs Jones is happy at her level and is competent then fair play to her.

I don't think we can compel people to take advanced tests, some people simply wouldn't ever have the requisite skill levels (my mother for one).

But what we can do is make it more financially appealing for those drivers who can make the higher grades, to aim for them.

Borrowed from the world of aviation, I'd suggest a rating system where passing your L test allowed basic access to the road system. Further training would be required to gain additional privileges. For example, reduce the general motorway speed limit to 60 mph but allow those who've obtained a "high-speed" rating to do 80, 90, or even 100 mph on motorways at their (now expert) discretion. Additional ratings could be required for night driving, urban driving, etc.

As with aviation, I'd suggest a requirement to keep current with a check-ride being required to regain a rating for which currency had elapsed.

_________________
Will

It's a good idea on paper but there are some practical problems with enforcement. How do you tell which drivers are allowed to go faster and which are restricted? It can't be anything as simple as number plate records, or households with one advanced and one standard license could easily get round it. They could just swap cars from time to time or register two cars to the advanced driver. I once thought that displaying a removable A-plate was a possibility, but then it occurred to me that plates would often get "borrowed", and a lively little industry would soon spring up to produce fakes and steal originals as well. I'm not sure what the answer is, but the police (and the cameras if we never get rid of the damn things) would have to be able to reliably tell the difference between someone who's speeding and someone who's allowed to drive faster.

On the other hand, ratings could be used with power limitations. My Aussie friends tell me that newly qualified drivers have a probationary license for three years which prevents them from driving vehicles with bigger engines. However, the Aussie love of monster V8 lumps means that the limit is 125KW per tonne or 3.5 litres per tonne - not exactly forcing probationers to drive gutless cars is it? Still the DVLA is theoretically notified of all changes in car ownership, so it ought to be possible for them to make enquiries if they see a powerful car being sold to an address where one or more drivers aren't licensed to drive it. Still a possible problem with unregistered or improperly registered cars, but it's a smaller problem. For new car sales it's even easier if the dealers had to see a license before selling the car - "Sorry Mr Gatsobait, your license doesn't allow you to drive a Ferrari. We'd be closed down if we sold one to you".

Keeping current is something that could be borrowed from aviation. It's pretty much the same as some of the ideas on the retesting thread. The only real problem is the logistical one of having to assess 24 million drivers on a regular basis, but it might be possible to solve this doing the poorest ones frequently and exempting the best.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I think that for a lot of people the chance to attain a higher standard would be incentive in itself IF the test was standardised.

At the moment the range of schemes is bewildering, as is the incentives conferred by insurance companies for those who complete such schemes.

The idea of being able to go faster on motorways if you hold an advanced licensed would be hard to manage and would send out the wrong message, but a simple reduction in road-taxes, and well-publicised insurance savings would be a great incentive for many people.

Considering though for a minute that the majority of accidents are by young drivers that have recently passed, and linking this with the keenness displayed by kids to get every license on the Gran Tourismo racing game, we could make the advanced license highly desirable to young drivers, to whom it could convey a significant amount of resepect from their peers.

Imagine for a minute having a "blue" license, to compliment the green and pink licenses. As a relatively young driver myself I often find it amusing how much stigma is attached to the "green" provisional licenses - if an advanced license were available it is not unreasonable that a similar stigma might be attached to the green license - thereby encouraging more people to go for their advanced licenses

Why would it send out the wrong message? To me, licensing advanced drivers to go faster says, "You've shown that you're responsible and have the skill, so we will trust you to use your own judgement." Not getting a "high-speed rating" says, "You have yet to prove you have the skill for faster speeds and so may use motorways only at reduced speed until you do."

Of course, I agree that enforcement is difficult. However, it's not impossible. For example, you could issue advanced drivers with a transponder that would announce your speed entitlement to automatic enforcement and trafpol. Of course, that has potential for abuse but hopefully less than the current driving without insurance and/or license problem.

_________________
Will

It is irresponsible because you of the message it promotes - as I mentioned previously it would be most useful amongst young drivers, and would quickly become seen as a "license to go faster".

Current research shows that people often have no problem in adhering to speeds an driving well in order to pass their tests, but when it comes to practise, this is almost never the case.

To incentivise any such scheme in this way would lead to the license being less a "badge of honour" and more a means to the freedom to drive faster, and would have people going through the motions solely to gain this freedom.

I think the transponder idea - aside from any technical difficulties, would be highly unpopular among motorists because for many it would represent an infringement of our human rights, as another step toward some Orwellian dystopia

How about simplifying it a bit and having A and B licenses for advanced and basic. Since the standard driving test doesn't include motorway tuition call it a B license, and have B license holders barred from driving on the motorway unsupervised. Possibly have a lower threshold for penalty points before you have to do a retest. Then make the current Pass Plus include motorway tuition (if it doesn't already) and more demanding, generally make Pass Plus teach safe driving to a higher standard. That get's you an A license which allows you on the motorway. Since everyone on the motorway should then be of a higher standard the speed limit could be raised. It could also be tied in to performance restrictions e.g. B licenses would have a maximum power:weight ratio, or perhaps anything with a sub 10 seconds 0-60 time would need an A license. I reckon very few people would be satisfied with a B license, as most people would want to use motorways at some point, and many cars would be over the power limit. Again, B license holders could drive a more powerful car under supervision. Hopefully this would make things simpler for the police to enforce. Badly driven car on the m-way and no passenger - pull 'em and see if they've got an A or B license. If it seems like a car has more power than it's driver has skill, pull 'em and see if they've got an A or B license. This would mean that having your driving license with you would have to be compulsory, and we'd also need loads more trafplods. Personally I think both of those would be a good idea anyway.
IAM and RoSPA passes could still be worth a few quid off insurance, but from our experience the only insurers that offered a discount were the ones with ridiculously high premiums in the first place, so perhaps a reduction in VED might be better. Okay, there's still the problem of reduced revenue if everyone got A licenses, but that's Gordon Brown's problem.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Gatsobait - potentially sound idea, but! Surely that would mean that just after this legislation was introduced, the entire population was banned from the motorway. The consequences would be a somewhat overloaded A road infrastructure!

Maybe you could run the test for a year before the enforcement came in - but then you'd have massive over-demand for the advanced test.. I can't really see a good, practical way to implement this.

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

Said it before - if the Krauts can include Autobahn run on their L-test and not have any incidents with their Learners - then we superior Brits can cope and do better! Pass Plus is optional at the moment and does include the drive on the fast road and a night drive - according to our family members whose kids have done this. We say this should be compulsory withing probationary period at the very least.

Problem with this - what do you do if numpty wants to go on motoring hols in EU - bit of a sod to administrate across all member states. Also - our new members - direst standards - and can we realistically test to our standards once they have come over here and disappeared! Germany does insist that non EU citizens take German test within set period of time - think it is 12 months - but cannot remember exactly - only know that US friend had to do this few years back when he was on research contract in Gottingen. Original (pre 1st May04) EU members are exempt under existing legislation as far as I know - but maybe this will change as substandard motorists hit our roads. (Germany blames their current RTA rate on those Trabi trained ex-Stasi muppets )

Still say best way forward in relatively immediately realisable time is to train up ADIs for routine graded assessments with reasonable carrots and booby prizes (full long retest!). The decent grades may even provide the motivation to achieve higher goals - and the prizes include VED "holiday" and/or reduced rate plus further insurance discount for the turbo charged motor .



From what I gather from In Gear's and our other tame family puss cops' rants to us - they have enough bother enforcing the law to current miscreants. And you would still have the problem of lesser qualifieds driving the top family driver's car to the shops or simply just taking over the driving on long journey - whilst the top stream driver has a kip!



We do need the trafpols - but when you read that they are cutting training by as much as 5 weeks, and replacing with these auxiliary cops - and conning us that "they are recruiting cops!".... We also have these HighWay Patrols being tried out in the Midlands - or somewhere. (Read so many papers - you lose track! ) Again - not the real thing!



IAM /RoSPA passes - given that we will be driving flashiest motors on which we get special deal on production of our turbo charged super clean licences ---special card at the petrol pump - which means NO tax, duty, vat on our fuel. Plus large discount on insurance, and freeparking everywhere and anytime-- and free VED!

Now there's an incentive...... (of course to make up Gordon's deficit --- I then get clobbered all the harder on my income tax, council tax - and they will introduce variety of taxes - on the cat, dog, budgie, goldfish, golf club membership .....)

Sorry, I should have explained it better. Implementation would have to take place over many years, probably more like decades. In the same way that those of us who learnt to drive before the theory test came in didn't have to go back and do the new bit, existing license holders would be unaffected. Not ideal, but I think making 30 or so million drivers get the A license is probably impractical. Instead there would be a gradual change as new drivers with either A or B licenses gradually replaced those who are already on the road. No quick fix this I'm afraid. It might take twenty years but eventually 'old' license holders will be outnumbered by new ones, most of whom hopefully would have A licenses.

Ah, the golf obsessed doctor. Next you'll be telling us VED should be free to anyone who can go round 10 over par or better.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Hmmm! I see trafpols having to actually work here!

Kidding aside - we just need to upgrade ordinary L-test as we know it to include that motorway drive or make Pass Plus compulsory within probationary period and preclude unsupervised motorway driving until this is achieved.

Then - we gradually train up ADIs to implement those graded assessments we keep droning on about - with prizes such as discounts for high grades and booby prizes like full retest for the real numpties. Given that in-car technology, (pinching a WildCat post on PH Lurk there sometimes!) is always improving - all the more need to train people in its workings. Too many buy a car with ABS - but have no idea as to how to use it effectively.




Agreed - a sad lad there! He gets up at dawn in the summer to go try reduce his handicap before work!

You are going to give him even dafter ideas there!