Dinosaur Driver Training

I went to a meeting yesterday, supposedly with the echelons of the driver training industry. The movers and shakers. The people who meet with the DVSA on behalf of the driving instructor industry and put forward the view of the ADI to then discover they have not moved with the times. As a coaching business we put forward a presentation and the most resistant members of the group were an organisation purporting to be the oldest, which was reflected in their attitude and behaviour. The younger members and those who understood the psychology behind the way we do things and why, were a different audience, whose interaction of the presentation was spoiled by ungentlemanly and down right rude behaviour, from the top of an association tree and two former DSA registrars chatting amongst themselves during all presentations from guest speakers. What hope is there for a modern test and serious acceptance of road safety, if those who are supposed to support it do not actually believe it.

Introducing something new is always a challenge and that is to be expected, but if the minds of some older road safety 'professionals' are stuck in the past, how can the ADI believe that their real wishes and understanding is being presented to the ministers. A point I have today raised with my MP.

It is true making changes within the world of road safety takes time, evidence of that is the fact it took SEVEN years after announcement of a change to the driving licence for this to actually come into force. Incidentally today. Maybe that is why we are now looking at a diluted driving test. It resembles the test of years gone by, with no interest in maneuvering the car and driving out of town. So how will a pupil once passed tackle the trials of driving in built up areas, turn the car around, a skill that is essential in all drivers, it is a fact that fatal accidents happen during this move by unskilled or unpracticed drivers. So with a driving test that would be laughable in most EU countries, how will that help road safety?

On being questioned about the new driving test a spokesman for the MSA said " I wouldn't get involved with this one" so how on Earth are driving instructors supposed to get proper representation when the providers of people power, don't believe in it?

A survey by Direct Line and Brake actually identified there is a greater risk with young drivers using sat nav in the car on their own. The driving test would still require intervention from the examiner if the sat nav makes an error, how does that prepare drivers for post test capabilities. The evidence has always supported preparing pupils for post test, this is not the case when looking at the new proposals.  It is of course an easy teach for driver trainers.

Driving forward into a parking bay, reversing out of a parking bay, surely that is part of learning to drive anyway. Parking on the right. Pupils already do this on a one way street.

The new driving test is not reflective of the NDRS and totally represents a waste of tax payers money. More publications, more research, more trials, more money.

The new driving test has returned a higher pass rate. Hardly a surprise, trails involve new skills from the trainer, so refreshed, pupils who take part in trials are usually the better able learner who would have also most likely passed the old style test.

ADI's who know what is needed for safer roads and better educated young drivers, need real representation within the DFT.

.Support the ADI within the industry, don't fight them.

From a personal note, sabotage of a professional presentation is rude, disrespectful and damaging for the industry as whole. Thank you to all of the attendees at yesterdays meeting who contacted us with words of support and encouragement. It is heartening to find that there were many who did not support the poor and unprofessional behaviour of someone who is supposed to be a leading supporter and owner of a national association for ADI's.

Changes to the Driving Test

There's a whisper, it is only a whisper that once the trials are completed it is unlikely implementation will take place. As there will be a consultation it is unlikely to find enough support unless it is not well advertised. If 100 people take part and they can all be DFT staff and 60 say yes it will be approved. However it is likely the press will run with this story more prolifically because it sells newspapers, with voting on line making it easy to take part it may cause more of a furore than previous voting efforts.  Of course this in expected to be a 2017 vote thereby clashing with the more popular referendum of whether the UK remains in the EU.

The DFT announced cuts of £545m, the fact that nearly the same amount is being taken from business, innovation and skills is bad news for the small business owner, directly in conflict with the Tort party declaring they are the supporter of small businesses. As these cuts will be spread across all DFT departments rather than one target area, the DVSA will come in line for yet more trimming, this may affect the decision to train more examiners for the new test, or just be the inroad to privatisation of the driving test.

Although there is a tweak to the manoeuvres in the new test it hardly reflects real driving. if you cannot drive through one bay and park in another, or reverse into a bay directly behind you. Although the statement is that killing someone while reversing at slow speed is unlikely and therefore the manoeuvres lose importance, surely it's about demonstrating skill in both directions. To take turn in the road from the test seems a little strange. The original manoeuvre was introduced to the test because of the missed observations and associated risk when performing this, in today's traffic this is still something that needs to be learned. There have been several fatal accidents in recent years, one involved a grandmother with her two grandchildren in the car, she turned the car around without sufficient observations and a van drove straight into the side of her car, she suffered serious injuries and the children were killed. Mistakes do happen but this is a common way to turn the car around in built up areas.

If the UK leaves the EU the pressure to tackle road death is relieved and along with that the compulsory conformity.  If we stay then there will be an intention to enforce mandatory road safety changes, but the Government will want to weigh up the cost, as they are looking to make cuts across all public services of £4.5 bn.

Road Safety - Stop Now!

Taking a McLaren P1 for a spin at 60 mph, then stop on a pin head, time to stop 30.2 metres excellent, with it's carbon ceramic discs, behind you is a Renault Megane, time to stop 48.4 metres. Highway code 55 metres. So are stopping distances as described in an official publication wrong? Now add the thinking time while on the way home from work on a regular journey, the auto pilot drive. Warm car, music on low, dinner on your mind. Business meeting, warm day aircon humming, medium traffic flow. How long will it take you?

If it's never gone wrong before we do not anticipate it going wrong now.

The expected time to process the information, just under one second (TRL 2013), so I believe I can stop, what if I'm wrong? Although the Highway Code figures may be disputable with the amount of technology available, in reality the driver has not been upgraded, in terms of behaviour, knowledge and reaction. Add in the modern distractions such as the mobile phone and sat nav. Do you want other drivers to acknowledge the Highway Code figures or the proposed assumption of the experienced driver in a brand new car with good brakes and tyres?


What is the message from road safety professionals?

At the end of the day to message to young drivers is all of the information you have learned is actually dated, it's not true, look around at other drivers in their modern cars. Do your family and friends stop when they need to? Can you? You are young, your reactions are quicker? Just look at Facebook and Twitter for the information.

So how will Graduated Driving Licences (GDL) tackle this?

GDL doesn't tackle attitude. A ridiculous amount of money, millions of pounds, has been spent trialing something we already know the answer to. Learning by rote as in the advent of black box technology. Do this again and again and again until it becomes your habit.  Training. Some will remember this parrot fashion approach, some still use it, some will advocate this, and why not it has a proven worth.

GDL takes control to the the extreme but it still does not guarantee saving lives.  Figures quoted relate to collision not fatality. This could be of any level. Can GDL make a distracted driver pay attention - no. Can GDL, and the extreme cost associated to implementation guarantee the reduction of young driver fatality? No.

Do I want my teenage daughter to be restricted by not driving at night, the time specifically I do want her to drive as opposed to walk. Do I want her to drive alone, not really, a young female driving alone, seriously? I do agree with phones free, but who will implement it, when hands held is on the increase not the decrease, despite the fact it is illegal. Who is going to Police this?

Less talk, less of my money spent on yet more research, and time for some proper action. It's make you mind up time, while we are in the EU, because there will be no pressure to proceed with anything if we are solo.

A 12 month learning process?  

That has potential.

Driver Training - as we know it

Wow the world of blogging has so taken off, does it help promote services, business or person, ooh a difficult call. Yes of course it must, if your blog is read the audience is reached, but how does your business reach the giddy heights of excellence in a competitive world and market place.  Well coaching has to be the move forward.  Coaching has almost become a dirt word in driver training, the influx of training courses and almost the taking of sides in the uncertain future of the DVSA and of course the ADI. One course rivaling another yet surely variety is the spice of life.  Making a stand in favour rather than having an open mind not only restricts the trainer but has a limiting effect on the learner, in the days of CCL, the client is king or queen of course. Limiting beliefs are not the order of the day. Coaching is not all encompassing but are we open minded enough as a society to let in the professional coach, bare our soul with the aim of improving ourselves and our business.  Well, the feedback is that business is good so now is not the time to invest in our soul, yet the advisors tell us this absolutely the time, not only can we currently afford it we can also expand and manipulate a buoyant market.  Or is that just too much to carry.

The DVSA has seen a decade of change, but as an evolving civil community we can expect no less, but what our options of this agency when the vote is cast in May,  Only the foolish will believe it can stay the same.  The world of driver training is actually in limbo, with heavy goods vehicles reaching dizzy heights of weight freedom, charges set in stone and CPC extending to the populous of van drivers. A new Government sees new targets a UKIP Government sees a relaxation.  If you believe in road safety then the way forward is to cast a vote for the sanctity of young life.  But which party has road safety at it's core.   Surprisingly Labour favour compulsory CPD for ADI's, and the Tory Government in favour of privatisation of these public services, which would raise standards and meet targets, but at the expense of the advocate.  Which would you choose.  Is their any fight for standards? Or is it left to someone else.

Can you make a name by fighting the rad safety corner, the general public have little support for raised standards or increased financial commitment to reducing road fatality figures, a driver with minimal or zero accident history dies not support the direction of tax payers money on what is considered a right if not a leisure activity.  Is there any hope for drivers and driver training after Mat 2015, really Are you sure? Do you care? Do you believe?

Expectancy is deeper then reality and reality is minimal compared to concern. Which side do you fall on? The vocationer? The believer? The sceptic?

Coaching, the key. Who coaches the coach?

2015 a significant year, for everyone.

AI Solutions: Why change the check test?

AI Solutions: Why change the check test?: The check test was changed as a result of many factors. One being the need for a recognition of more up to date teaching styles, and ...

Why change the check test?

The check test was changed as a result of many factors. One being the need for a recognition of more up to date teaching styles, and to encourage extra education amongst instructors.  In 2007 the transport select committee heard evidence to support change, and typically it has taken some years to come about.

However there is considered to be another reason, unconfirmed as political moves are never announced until the ink is dry, that testing will be delivered by an outside agency, therefore all ADI's need to have their check test grade replaced with the new A or B system.  Cardington would continue to train examiners for private companies who win the tender, similar to the tendering process of theory tests. The role then of the DVSA senior examiners would be quality control.

To pass the mantel with testing they would need to have a more simplex system, so an A, B or fail is much easier to train an outside agency with than the previous more complex, three pass or three fail grades.

EU inspired conversations have led to this in the light of making testing of instructors more cost effective, so the standards check fee would not go directly to the DVSA in future, but be processed independently.

The standards check has seen more fails than the previous test, but is that due to examiners coming to grips with the system or a reality.  There has been so much consideration to the current part three being replaced with teaching qualifications, that some companies actually ask for PTTLS or equivalent for their trainers. There would need to be a direct relation between driver training and teaching so this has stalled the progress. It is however subject to change.

Many believe the part three system isn't robust enough, yet many instructors who qualified through that system have delivered safe young drivers, so the system cannot be so flawed. There are a minority who would seek huge change, but then say this is not a career to enter.  If the entry is to be improved then the public awareness of the role of the instructor and the impact on the safety of their students needs more clarification. It also would then need to see a suitable fee for the work carried out. After all I have never seen a dentist or plumber offering first visit free.

So is the change to the check test to protect young lives? Essentially that is the carrot. The stick is who will be controlling it.

CCL - Reality or Fantasy?

Taking driver training into the future we must have CCL - bold statement, but one that seems to appear a lot.

So must we?

Well that depends on the driver training industry. For years we have been sending safe drivers out to fight the battlefield alone and shockingly they survived. However we do know there are small group who were either blagging it - seriously? Or they just happened to have enough knowledge and car control to carry them through - most likely.  Do they end up being the unlucky drivers though, well not necessarily, its long been known that educational background, financial background and criminal background plays a part too.

Are we led by the crowd, does our behaviour reflect our peer group, certainly it does but not necessarily when out of that environment. So playing with the crowd does not reflect a solo performance. How can the driver who is going to be a statistic be identified, well if we knew the answer to that we could intervene surely, actually it's not that easy. Teaching by rote can be a useful tool but there is no responsibility attached to that, so along came client centered learning which in fact is a dual tool. Client centered reflects value for money, the aim of the DVSA. Client centered also reflects client dominated learning.  Transfer of responsibility from trainer to learner does in fact increase the tools for managing driving when alone.  So by creating environment, time and real world driving scenarios during training the novice has an image of how they would deal with a situation post test, this involves more q & a than many previously used and it also involves more time parked at the side of the road.  Unfortunately many see being parked discussing a situation with a pupil as 'not driving', so a negative, when in reality a visual image to aid learning and then developed is more effective in terms of appreciating responsibility and effect, a positive.

However when the driver cub plays with the driver lions they can get into deep trouble, one that inexperience cannot tackle, because the events happen so fast. Experienced drivers have more tools available to them, but their response to a potentially life threatening situation is based on two things, testosterone and oestrogen.

It is a fact that hormone surges do affect out behaviour, response time and understanding, when travelling at speed, using a 60 mph rural lane as an example, distance covered can be too great for reaction. Hormone surges do not affect everyone and age is a relevant factor.

So is CCL a reality?

Well yes an additional aid to keep someone safe has to be a reality, if one life was saved through the process that would make it worthwhile

Is CCL a fantasy?

The predominant age of those taking part in developing CCL for use in driver training were male over the age of 45 so not in the group affected by natural factors (hormones). So how much real life that is not nurture but nature was factored in to the decision to change driver training approaches?

The higher levels of the GDE are dealing with post test responsibility, however behaviour is also affected by consequence, if there has been no consequence then complacency will become part of driving and that involves autopilot driving, so the driver who feels that they are less competent than their friends or family will be more attentive to their driving, they may be less able to tackle risk so choose situations where their risk is reduced, so busy times rather than quiet ones.

A natural personal responsibility is noted to change with experience, when moving from teens into 20's and 30's after this point moving into 50's and later years drivers tend to have less daily pressure, their driving becomes more relaxed and so does their ability to deal with pressure from other drivers, hence the 40 mph in a 60 mph brigade. The risk in this group is potential health problems that affect mood and behaviour.  Road rage can easily be borne from an un-diagnosed medical condition that affects the natural chemical make up of the body.


How can client centered learning help instructors move away from traditional methods of rote?
By taking control and not misunderstanding the watered down coaching methods that have come to the fore.