0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The thing that really annoys me is the continual quote from the government that 30% of all drivers with under 2 years experience will be involved in a road accident - now that really surprises me - NOT!! Of course one would expect to see this sort of figure and no amount of stricter training will reduce it UNTILL, the other drivers who contribute to the huge 70% of all road accidents are all subject to continued assesment to drive!The other 70% of accidents are caused by EXPERIENCED drivers so what excuse has the government got for this figure! Until this group is sorted out, then the inexperienced drivers will continue to have accidents as, the new driver will only emulate the behaviour of the experienced drivers they see driving every day! The new driver needs to be set a good example and not a bad one which is so much the case!
From time to time, rumours are passed round about raising the age to 18 from 17 for young drivers - this is not necessary as all that needs to be done is to consult school records upon the behaviour of young people who apply for driving licences at 17 - if they behaved badly at school, then they are likely to do that on the roads when they get driving, so kids with very bad school records would have to wait until they were say 21 to get their first licence - maybe not the best answer but it would certainly help!
I teach many 17 year olds who are just as intelligent on our roads as those who have been driving 50 years - so, not all young drivers are bad. Indeed I had student who turned 17 just two months ago who passed this week and was one of my recent students who passed with NO minor faults - the examiner said that toward the end of the test, he was getting bored as he couldn't find anything to mark down so againg, it shows that young drivers can also be good ones too!Take 1000 new drivers ( of the past two years ) and take 1000 long time experienced drivers and ask them to negotiate roundabouts correctly and include correct indication and positioning. I'll wager now that over 90% of the newer drivers would be able correctly manage it while I doubt whether 30% of the experienced drivers would be able to do it!Tony
Quote from: tonycsm on 08/02/2008 09:14:51The thing that really annoys me is the continual quote from the government that 30% of all drivers with under 2 years experience will be involved in a road accident - now that really surprises me - NOT!! Of course one would expect to see this sort of figure and no amount of stricter training will reduce it UNTILL, the other drivers who contribute to the huge 70% of all road accidents are all subject to continued assesment to drive!The other 70% of accidents are caused by EXPERIENCED drivers so what excuse has the government got for this figure! Until this group is sorted out, then the inexperienced drivers will continue to have accidents as, the new driver will only emulate the behaviour of the experienced drivers they see driving every day! The new driver needs to be set a good example and not a bad one which is so much the case!Sorry, but the statistics you quote don't mean what you think they mean (whether they are better or worse is another matter).To say that 30% of drivers will be involved in a road accident in their first two years of driving is not the same as saying 30% of accidents are caused by drivers with less than 2 years experience. It may mean that the 30% of drivers with under 2 years of experience represent 100% of all accidents, or that the 30% of accidents involving drivers with less than 2 years experience represent a small fraction of 1% of all accidents – one cannot say from those statistics.Nor is it the case that one can say that an accident involving an inexperienced driver does not also involve an experienced driver, nor does it in any way suggest that the 30% of inexperienced drivers involved in an accident were only involved in a single accident.Quote from: tonycsm on 08/02/2008 09:14:51From time to time, rumours are passed round about raising the age to 18 from 17 for young drivers - this is not necessary as all that needs to be done is to consult school records upon the behaviour of young people who apply for driving licences at 17 - if they behaved badly at school, then they are likely to do that on the roads when they get driving, so kids with very bad school records would have to wait until they were say 21 to get their first licence - maybe not the best answer but it would certainly help!Apart from being politically totally unacceptable, it would put teachers in an untenable situation.Giving candidates some sort of psychiatric or behavioural examination, as was/is the case with gun licence holders, may be more practical.Quote from: tonycsm on 08/02/2008 09:14:51I teach many 17 year olds who are just as intelligent on our roads as those who have been driving 50 years - so, not all young drivers are bad. Indeed I had student who turned 17 just two months ago who passed this week and was one of my recent students who passed with NO minor faults - the examiner said that toward the end of the test, he was getting bored as he couldn't find anything to mark down so againg, it shows that young drivers can also be good ones too!Take 1000 new drivers ( of the past two years ) and take 1000 long time experienced drivers and ask them to negotiate roundabouts correctly and include correct indication and positioning. I'll wager now that over 90% of the newer drivers would be able correctly manage it while I doubt whether 30% of the experienced drivers would be able to do it!TonyBut what does that prove? Correct and incorrect are inherently arbitrary notions, although one hopes they are based on some rationale, but that is not necessarily so.What is more critical to driving than formal correctness or incorrectness is hazard avoidance. Being technically correct, but dead, helps nobody.Nor does the fact that a driver can negotiate a roundabout correctly suggest they they would choose to do so in non-test conditions.Personally, I have not had an insurance claim in the last 16 years, but I certainly would not claim to drive correctly, and my technical driving skills today are probably inferior to what they were 20 years ago.
First of all don't patronise me - I DO know full well what the statistics mean! 30% of all new drivers with less that 2 years experience will be involved in a road accident - I didn't say that they would cause it or that the other driver was also a new diver - it's just a fact! The basic premise is that new drivers are much more likely to be involved in a road accient in the first 2 years of their driving.By the same token - Simple maths will also ascertain that 70% of road accidents will involve experienced drivers.
So I strongly disagree with your views on what is good driving - if the other road user can't even negotiate a roundabout correctly either under test or non-test conditions then they are by and large not safe as drivers!Poor indication and positioning on inner city roundabouts alone accounts for up to 15% poorer traffic flow simply because some irks can't be bothered to signal or take up a correct position or even find out from the Highway Code just how it should be done!
Regarding your comments on teaching being made untenable if reports on young people's behaviour at school affected the age which they would be allowed a driving licence - why should it be make it untenable??? I have firearms and have to undergo periodic police checks to ascertain that I am a suitable person to continue holding these weapons - what is wrong with doing the same when a driving licence is applied for?
As for your admission that you don't drive correctly, then I personally would be ashamed to admit that!
16 years without an insurance claim is no indicator that you drive correctly!
There is no such thing as a road 'accident' - there is careless or dangerous driving but no such thing as a road accident!