Safe Speed Forums

I heard today that we, in the UK, have the hardest driving test in Europe - or in fact just about anywhere else in the world.

Both driving and motorcycle tests, (and therefore the lessons and training necessary to get through them), are getting increasingly harder every few years and yet our safety record remains poor compared to other countries.

Failure rates vary, according to what source you read, but I've seen anything from 43% - 77% failure. So let's say all those who past their test have acquired a very good standard of driving and it sorts the good from the bad by enlarge. Does this fly out the window as soon as they take the L plates off?

If our test is so hard and yet we are producing such bad drivers/driving, compared to our European counterparts, does it not beg the question how effective training is likely to be?

We here, (if I can put it that way), have often extolled the virtues of more training. I'm behind this too, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's more nature than nurture, or maybe something in our culture or English mindset perhaps?

Am I missing something?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Does it include the theory test?
If so then sure I can understand, our theory test now is extensive with the hazard perception and needing to get 55 odd answers right - IMO however a theory test is near pointless, the old 30 question test was plenty, seeing things on screen and memorising answers goes no way to making a good driver.

If it does not include it then I'd say it's because the test focusses on the wrong things entirely. We don't teach motorway or busy a road driving, we're not tested on how well we keep to lanes, how we move with traffic, our general driving attitude - we're tested on speed and 5 (?) basic manouveurs... parallel parking, reverse parking, reverse around a corner, emergency stop and 3 point turn... all these will be done when no one is around on empty side strees. The tester might keep an eye on how often you check your mirrors, but students are aware of this (as I was) and simply make a point of checking them often, at the expense of learning to look when needed and at the expense of knowing when NOT to look and instead focus on the road ahead.

Er I've blabbed.

In Summary - we're taught to focus on and tested on mostly the wrong things

You have me at an advantage there mmltonge, because I past my test yonks ago. So I'm guessing you know more about how it is today.

But as I understand, from talking with people who have recently past their test, it's quite an ordeal - unrecognisably more difficult in practice and theory than from 20 - 30 years ago.

Also, like I say, if someone takes anything from 10 to 50 lessons this does constitute training in all conditions, except motorways like you said.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Not much of an advantage, I squeezed my theory in 2 days before they introduced the Hazard Perception test, and fortunately passed first time having never picked up the highway code! (it's quite common sense though isnt it)

I took my practical test when I was 17, 5 years ago now, and it wasn't very hard at all. Having said that I still failed first time (my emergency stop wasn't quick enough apparently) but passed at the second attempt (during which I broke the speed limit (36 in 30), had the radio on and chatted with the examiner most of the way - he was born where I now live, and was asking loads about what it's now like. Despite failing first time I didn't feel the test was particularly hard, you dont go out on busy roads (at least I didnt), nor on a dual carriageway, nor on roads with above 40 limit etc etc

Perhaps it's not the test, as you say 50 lessons SHOULD get you experience with all sorts of roads, but the instructors instead. After 6 lessons with my instructor I decided she was a useless driver and didn't go back, instead opting to simply drive around with my dad in the car every day to 6th Form making sure I drove a variety of routes (3 lane A3 included) and in a way which was realistic.

My own opinion is that a very basic retest should be taken every ten years or so. More training can never be a bad thing.

Are we worse drivers than our European conterparts?

I would agree that the test focusses on completely the wrong things. Certainly when I passed mine in 1999 the emphesis was on the mechanics of driving - gear changes at the right time, going up and down the box using every gear, putting your hands in the right place on the steering wheel etc - rather than proper forward planning / observation etc.

The theory test is a joke. The questions are IMO very badly worded and open to all sorts of misunderstanding, and you can buy a book / DVD that contains all the answers! You don't actually have to learn anything so long as you can memorise the correct answers. Likewise the hazard perception test actually penalises you for spotting hazards TOO EARLY!!

I personally would be in favour of making the current test easier, keeping the focus on the mechanics of driving BUT only entitling you to a provisional licence. Then you have to demonstrate improvement / mastery of different conditions and road types etc within 2 years in order to achieve the full licence. I don't believe you can TEACH the finesse of driving, it has to come with experience.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Yes, I imagine that the lessons would have been the valuable thing here.

If about half of people fail, the way I break it down is that the half that past were of a good standard and hopefully this continues into their driving as they continue to learn the ropes. The other half will, I presume, take more lessons to get up to the required standard.

So either way, I still get back to my point that despite all this training and high standard of test we're getting something very wrong and I'm beginning to think training may not be the key to the solution.

The trouble IMHO is that any amount of training, just like passing a test, is at best a snapshot of your ability or at worst simply duping the examiner/trainer into believing that you are good but will wreak havoc just as soon as you're left to your own devices.

To put a different slant on it. I have yearly courses for the same thing each year like: manual handling, customer care, infection control etc. We don't just pass a test and that is it for life.

Maybe I've just answered my own question; yearly assessments rather than a one-off. (Not a repeat of the driving test, I hasten to add)

For myself, I had motorbikes before getting a Reliant. (I was that plonker). Going from that onto a proper car wasn't very different. I had three lessons and the instructor said he was just taking my money and I should put in for my test.

Passed first time

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

What is the incentive for a driver to seek more training?

There is no leeway given for speeding offences.
There is little or no reduction in insurance premiums. Arguably being less likely to loose your ncb could answer this one.

If a driver believes, rightly or not, that their driving is of a sufficient standard to allow them to be safe at legal speeds and to additionally distinguish the circumstances when exceeding the speed limit is not unsafe then why improve further? This is not my attitude I hasten to add, I recognise within myself that it would be easy for it to be so however.

I believe training needs to have a carrot not a stick, compulsory retests or assessments would have negative associations for drivers I think.

That said some kind of ongoing training and assessment over the first 2-5 years of a drivers license would seem reasonable. After this initial period training and assessment should be available and encouraged but only imposed in the event of certain traffic offences or accidents.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I agree with everything you said but your closing statment leaves me a little uncomforable toltec. What about those who become infirm - bad eyesight, worstening health etc. How many have give up driving when they know they should and really start to become a threat to themselves and others? An accident waiting to happen?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

There must be a balance struck between the freedom to act responsibly, or not, and a stifling and impractical bureaucracy. Not that I am saying you are suggesting the latter as you do have a valid point. It is simply that I prefer a system that encourages responsibility with some checks to catch the recalcitrant rather than the application compulsory enforcement. At least that is where I end up when I pause for thought, my instinctive reactions can sometimes fall "somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun" as the saying goes.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Now I've thought about it more I think you're right.

I expect the more risky group would be the younger, head strong, and there's more of them than the older more experienced group (Oh no! I usually get into trouble when I start talking groups )

As you say, it's all about balance. Like most things in life I guess.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Does this look familiar?Your version of graduated licensing sounds refreshingly sensible. While I'm not sure that the social behavior of driving can't be taught, I'm almost sure it can't be taught effectively while the student is still concentrating on / learning how to operate a car.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation