Reply to: Fail-Pass or distinction

[vetran]

Of course "monitor your driving" means "monitor your speed" as that's the only factor they can consider. Then the next step is for insurance companies to refuse to pay out if you were 1mph above the limit, leaving drivers with thousands of pounds to pay in the event of an accident that was nothing to do with speed. Those with a hysterical old woman approach to road safety would probably welcome that.

Actually they can monitor a number of things, excessive acceleration & braking for instance.

[vetran]

I actually have a Friend who is a driving instructor who is quite well regarded (he gets some interesting jobs), he bemoaned the fact the test is the end of the learning journey.He is quite keen to take new drivers on post test training and sometimes throws a few lessons in free afterwards.

Takes them on a Motorway and teaches some advanced observation techniques. He tries to do a few night driving sessions before the test.Many times the pupils are so focussed on the test they don't take in the subtleties.

I would recommend phased access to Motorways and young passengers plus a 6month - 1 year second test - probably digital rather than physical.

I would also like to see 5 year tests for all of us. Again digital turn up at test centre show ID, sit at a computer with steering wheel etc . 3 tries then you need to resit original test. It would force everyone to see a driving licence as a privilege.

Digital Tachos in all company funded vehicles and maybe private vehicles being used > 5000 mile a year for business, minimum repayment levels per mile a year to stop employers using employees cars to push down wages.

Limits for commercial driving with rest breaks. Stop white van men & salesmen's BMW/Audi's crashing into everything.

[VectraMan]

In any case insurers are now issuing gear that can monitor your driving and guess your chances of an accident, so something like this is inevitable.
Also I hear that police can crack open your SatNav and extract useful evidence about how you were driving just before an accident.

Of course "monitor your driving" means "monitor your speed" as that's the only factor they can consider. Then the next step is for insurance companies to refuse to pay out if you were 1mph above the limit, leaving drivers with thousands of pounds to pay in the event of an accident that was nothing to do with speed. Those with a hysterical old woman approach to road safety would probably welcome that.

[VectraMan]

The answer is retests. Retest everyone 5 years after their test to make sure any bad habits are corrected, then every 10 years thereafter.

[vetran]

The 15-19 bracket is a bit misleading. You would have thought they would have made the break point at 17 so you can identify the number of deaths attributable to the teenagers driving. I would imagine the numbers of 15 & 16 year olds is skewing the figures compared to the 17-19 year olds.

I suspect they aren't just talking about the drivers. Passengers & Pedestrians seem to be included.

But the general shape of the graph illustrates the point that these ages are most at risk.

[Dominic Connor]

It is observed that on average if people get feedback that they are doing well, they tend to do better, thus a useful effect may be achieved by telling everyone they got a distinction.

In any case insurers are now issuing gear that can monitor your driving and guess your chances of an accident, so something like this is inevitable.
Also I hear that police can crack open your SatNav and extract useful evidence about how you were driving just before an accident.

I'm not sure I quite believe that, at least not yet, but the day is coming where your detailed driving habits are part of your insurance and prosecution.

This will be widely welcomed, because a standard bit of psychology is that most people think they are in the top 20% of drivers, so they will think they are getting a better deal and not subsidising oiks.

[northernladuk]

How to teach your children to drive - Telegraph



http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/...-%20110511.pdf

figure 8

The 15-19 bracket is a bit misleading. You would have thought they would have made the break point at 17 so you can identify the number of deaths attributable to the teenagers driving. I would imagine the numbers of 15 & 16 year olds is skewing the figures compared to the 17-19 year olds.

[vetran]

Oi be a bit fick but doesn't that mean that 75% of accidents resulting in death or serious injury are not caused by young drivers?

How to teach your children to drive - Telegraph

Association of British Insurers says an 18-year-old is more than three times as likely as a 48-year-old to be involved in a crash, and a third of drivers killed in car accidents are under 25.

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/...-%20110511.pdf

figure 8

[Old Greg]

No, it means that more than 75% of accidents resulting in death or serious injury are not caused by young drivers.

No, it means that more than 75% of accidents resulting in death or serious injury are not caused by drivers under 24.

[MyUserName]

Oi be a bit fick but doesn't that mean that 75% of accidents resulting in death or serious injury are not caused by young drivers?

No, it means that more than 75% of accidents resulting in death or serious injury are not caused by young drivers.

[Benny]

Test: Almost a quarter of the road accidents resulting in death or serious injury last year involved a driver under 24.

Oi be a bit fick but doesn't that mean that 75% of accidents resulting in death or serious injury are not caused by young drivers?

[MyUserName]

The only difference would be that the insurance companies would charge those who have distinctions what they charge standard beginners now and then charge those who just get a 'pass' a higher premium.

[northernladuk]

If you're not safe enough to be on the road, you shouldn't be on the road. The main thing that improves your safety is experience, and you already get discounts as you gain experience.

I agree with the first bit but I don't quite agree with the experience element .If you drive badly experience will only allow you to drive badly better if you get my meaning. Many people have basic flaws in their driving that won't allow them to progress any further. For example, the IAM test teaches you to look at the driver not the car when you are approaching a roundabout for example. The car may slow so you think you are safe to go but if you watch the driver you will see if he has looked at you or not. He slows, hasn't seen you and then sets off unexpectedly and you have an accident.

The IAM course also teaches you to look a lot further forward for risks than normal. Apply these two fundamentals and you will immediately become a better driver. Some people may do this out of habit and experience but many won't.

[Ticktock]

yes but gaining experience requires you to be on the road. how do we make people safe to get experience?

Lots of countries have restricted priviledges for new-passers for the first year or so.
These can include daylight only driving, only being allowed on major roads when accompanied by a 5+ year experienced driver, restrictions on the number or age of passengers, and so on.
These can be accompanied by stiffer penalties for offences during that period.

Sort of a ramped approach towards being let loose solo.

[northernladuk]

I thought that there was an advance driving lesson / test that you can take already & if you passed some insurance companies offered discounts.

You can do the IAM advanced course but only a very few will offer a discount with it as it private course not a govt one. Years ago Cornhill used to offer 5% off but they were 15% more expensive for anyone under 40 with a clean record anyway so was really worth it for most drivers. It will however improve your driving significantly so will pay for itself over time.