So
What Happened to Our Driving?
This
first chart (fig1) is going to try to explain our journey from novice to
experienced driver.
It also explains why so many young drivers
have such a high collision risk over experienced drivers. And it also explains
why many experienced motorists would not pass the driving test, if required to
do so again. This brings into question the age old beliefs that the more
experience you have, the better driver you must be.
Fig1
Great
driving is not based on experience but on technique. Truly great drivers can
only be created by adding experience to solid motoring foundations.
Adding experience to a poor technique does
not develop a good driver. Many motorists have years of experience, but sadly
it seems is wasted experience. To illustrate this point ‘White Van Man’ has
more miles under his belt than most and yet he has developed a far higher
collision risk than our average driver to become one of the ‘high risk’ groups
of drivers on the road. So could it be possible, that contrary to popular belief,
the more experience we get, the worse drivers we become?
Novice
Driver
At point 1 the novice driver has just taken
up driving lessons, their collision risk would be high as they have yet to
develop driving skills and experience. However, the novice collision risk here
is contained in a controlled environment by the Driving Instructor (ADI) that
keeps collision risk to a minimum. Novices driving without the constraints of
an ADI have a higher collision risk.
Between point 1 & 2 the ADI is working
very closely with the novice to turn them into a real motorist, everything from
basic vehicle control, steering, manoeuvres, junctions, traffic lights,
roundabouts, effective observations etc. you get the picture. But the
instructor is also trying to promote good attitudes, awareness, knowledge,
confidence and responsibility into their driving to produce a well informed,
safe and competent driver, who has in place, all of the safe guards to prepare
them for today’s roads. This motorist is then tested on their knowledge and
ability and if successful, given the green light. This young and inexperienced
motorist has a collision risk that is probably going to be at the lowest point
that it ever will be throughout their motoring lifetime. Lower than that of most
experienced motorists. So what happened that gave them such high fatality
rates?
From point 2 though is where, in many cases
it all goes tragically wrong. Free of the constraints of the ADI, the young and
vulnerable motorist starts to make changes. Changes to their driving styles
that inevitably result in the newly qualified driver (NQD), removing many of
the motoring safe guards, the instructor had put into place. Observations and
therefore awareness becomes weaker followed by a degradation in mirror and
observational work, speed gets faster and so on.
What results from this self re-education, is
a collision risk of the newly qualified driver that rises rapidly and results
in greater numbers of young drivers, being involved in serious collisions, which
are out of proportion with the rest of the motoring community. Young motorists
do have a higher collision risk than the average motorist, but they didn’t
start out that way.
From point 3 onwards, as experience kicks in,
the collision risk of the NQD slowly starts to reduce, eventually settling
around the same level as today’s experienced drivers. Many newly qualified
drivers sadly never make it this far.
As the novelty of the car begins to fade, it
is increasingly used as a means to get from A to B rather than for recreational
reasons. Collision risk begins to reduce and eventually settles around the
average driver standard.
This
is a journey that many of us should recognise.
(Also at point 3, I have shown what happens
to the collision risk of the average driver who made the decision to become an
advanced driver, which is incidentally the same route I took).
Had the novice only been told to keep the
skills they had learned just after passing the test and then added experience
to them, then our NQD’s could have been, the safest group of motorists on the
road.
The answer to reducing the casualty rates in
young drivers is not making the driving test harder, or expecting the novice to
have a minimum of 100 hours driving time with their instructor, this may have
some minimal casualty reduction benefit, but not as much as desired as all that
is likely to occur, is a delaying of the skills degradation process. But by
preventing the degradation of skills that all too often happens just after
passing the driving test, would yield the greatest possible casualty reduction
in novice drivers.
One way in which this could possibly be
achieved, without hitting the young motorist too hard, is to adopt a process
similar to that which ADI’s have to undergo, a ‘test of continued ability’
after 12 months whereby the novice has to re-take the driving test under the
same stringent criteria. This is one possible way to inspire the novice driver
to keep up his standard if he wishes to keep his licence.
It also has to be said that many novice
drivers do follow the ideal path, retain their skills and add experience to it.
These are quite probably amongst the safest and best drivers on the road and
yet, as they are grouped with the worst, they are unjustly punished by the
insurance industry.
Just to illustrate this point, some years
ago, I had a group of friends who were probationary police officers. Before
they were allowed to drive the liveried police vehicles, they were required to
undergo a test of basic driving competence. One of the lads approached me,
knowing I had been an ADI and asked if I would take him out for an assessment,
which I did. I tested him on all aspects of his driving ability and made the
appropriate corrections which took a further three or four hours, after which
he got through the tests.
Needless to say, I was approached by several
more Police Officers who were in need of the same treatment. (I have to say at
this point that at no time were any of these officers charged for these
services).
Anyway, one of the officers was a young
female who was not very confident, as her driving had been the brunt of some
jokes by her colleagues. One of her colleagues told me beforehand that she
would probably be hard work. However, on taking her for her assessment, I found
that she was not overly confident in her ability. At the end of the assessment
though, I could find very little wrong with her driving ability that could not
be put right within minutes. She had not long passed her driving test and yet
her ability was far superior to that of her more experienced colleagues. She
went on to pass the assessment with ease.
Experienced
Driver
Throughout all of this, the experienced
driver is trundling along as he/she always has done. His driving style has developed
quite a few errors by this point in time, which is reflected in their elevated
collision risk. Errors such as speeding, weaker observational powers and so on
have all made their contributions but a slower overall average speed has
reduced the average motorist’s collision risk leaving him feeling that after
all these years and all this experience, that he must be a good driver.
White
Van Man
Even though white van man has gained way more
experience than most motorists on the road, he also possesses a
disproportionately higher collision risk than the average motorist, why?
Well, ‘Van Man’ has developed in the exact
same way as the average motorist. ‘Van Man’ spends so much time on the road
that he has developed a far more aggressive driving style. This is probably due
to the pressures placed on him to meet targeted deliveries etc. In addition, he
has also developed a far more lazy driving style than many other motorists with
fewer observations included. Van mans speed may also be a little higher than
average, this has all combined to create his higher than average collision
rate.
It just goes to show that our perception of
what a real driver should be is impaired, most of us have no idea of what a
motorist should be and much of the advice we give to young motorists, is
dreadfully flawed. We should be pointing our critically blame laden fingers
back at ourselves for a change and try to understand where we ourselves are
getting it wrong.
All of us at one point in time had driving
perfection in the palms of our hands, only to let it go to eventually see our
standard settle within the realms of motoring mediocrity.
What it really meant, when we were told to go
out and learn how to drive, was that we were expected to retain all of the
skills and techniques we learned as novices and then, add experience to them.
Over the years, as our experience grew, we were supposed to become more
altruistic with our attitudes but sadly, it appears that its meaning has been
somewhat lost down the years.
It is interesting and worthy of note to
explore what happened through this transition, to our risk of being involved in
a collision.
Every element of driving a vehicle
defensively has been developed into a driving technique. For example, the
reason why we push and pull a steering wheel as opposed to crossing hands, is
so as we retain complete control of the steering, all of the time. When we
cross our hands, at one point both hands will be on the same side of the
steering wheel and then if we need to steer further, then one or both hands
have to be repositioned. Now this repositioning may only take half a second
longer, than if we were pushing and pulling the wheel as suggested, but if this
error were to occur at 40 mph, you could have travelled an additional 30 feet
before being able to steer again whilst correcting this mistake, over the
motorist who was pushing and pulling. These sorts of distances can make huge
differences in determining the motorist’s ability to avoid a collision.
However, you will probably never find any statistics on collisions that have
occurred due to this error. This is one scenario that I will now use to explain
how speed cameras compensate for poor driving habits.
A motorist drives in a 30mph limit at 40mph
and is not in total control of the vehicles steering.
Another vehicle pulls out in front of him 30
feet away; it takes him ½ a second to reposition his hands on the steering
wheel to allow further steering, by which time he has travelled 30 feet. Too
late, and the collision occurs just as he has regained control of the steering
wheel.
The same vehicle at 40 mph in a 30 limit but
with total control of the steering, when the same vehicle pulls out in front of
him 30 feet away. He is now able to steer immediately giving himself a chance
to avoid the collision.
Now
with a speed camera present
The same vehicle at 30mph, not in control of
the steering would travel a distance of approximately 22.5 feet before
regaining control of the steering wheel, but would have a much lower impact
speed and still has almost 8 feet left in which to steer.
The same vehicle driving at 30mph, in full
control of the steering has 30 feet to steer and stands the greatest chance of
completely avoiding the collision.
Effectively the speed camera, by forcing us
to reduce our speed is in the same way, allowing a degree of compensation for
all of the other errors that we make.
There are thousands of examples such as this
one and driving instructors, will be able to give a potentially fatal scenario
for virtually any driving error. So it is by no means unreasonable to conclude
that many serious collisions are not caused because of speed alone, but because
there are many other factors that contribute towards collision causation. If
all that we see is the speed of a vehicle, then speed gets all of the blame. It
follows therefore that by improving certain aspects of driving, other than that
of speeding we can realistically reduce the chance of getting involved in a
serious collision. Obviously keeping to the speed limits or below, currently
gives us the greatest chance of reducing collisions, but expecting 28 million
motorists to stop speeding is in reality, impossible. So the best practical way
to reduce collisions is to address driver standard. This is where the
philosophy behind this book can be summed up in one simple statement.
‘You
can’t take the speed out of the motorist, but you can take the danger out of
speed’.
I am a firm believer that anyone expecting
our nation of motorists, not to use a bit of excessive speed is living in
dreamland. But what the statisticians say is occasionally right, speeding is
dangerous and has been linked to many deaths and serious injuries. However, I
also believe that mildly excessive speed will not actually increase the risk
you present on the road exponentially (yes, I did get that out of the
dictionary) provided that the other errors you make are reduced. This can be
achieved relatively simply and quickly by instead of hammering down a little
excessive speed that may influence a half percentage improvement in road
safety, improve the basic standard of the motorist instead and influence a 5%
improvement in their driving. This would allow most motorists to avoid speed
camera activations whilst at the same time, helping to reduce road casualties.
Or in other words, you can’t take the speed out of the motorist, but you can
remove some of the danger out of speed.
I have heard it said many times by motorists
that they were penalised for speeding when they were driving on a perfectly
safe road. The reality is that even a car that is parked on the road has an
element of risk attached to it, as it becomes a hazard. There are no perfectly
safe roads.
Simply due to the presence of a vehicle on
the road, risk exists. When you get into that vehicle, risk is then slightly
raised and continues to climb as you pick up speed. Eventually, speed reaches a
point whereby either, the limitations of the vehicle or the ability of the
motorist get exceeded and total loss of control is inevitable. Because of the
degradation of our driving skills, we all too often see these limitations being
exceeded at speeds well within the posted speed limits. It is your basic
driving standard that determines how sharply that ‘speed risk’ rises.
As you progress through the book it will
become abundantly clear, that most collisions are caused because the motorist
failed to see the potential of a hazard or failed to see the hazard itself.
Then when the collision occurs, the severity of that collision is then
determined by the speed at which the vehicle was travelling at. However, if the
hazard was spotted because of good hazard perception skills, then the collision
is far more easily avoided and what could have been a fatal road traffic
collision now becomes a non incident, with no change to the motorists’ use of
speed.
Did
you know that the average cost that a fatal road traffic collision incurs, is
now heading towards £1.5 million and a serious injury collision around £400,000.
Use of speed though has to be reasonable,
irrespective of whether it is excessive or inappropriate, go beyond the
boundaries of reason and you enter the realms of information overload, where
there, you start prioritising hazards instead of dealing with them all.
