AI Solutions: How do we Compare?

AI Solutions: How do we Compare?: The desire to reduce the figure where young drivers are concerned has picked up momentum significantly in the years since the millenni...

How do we Compare?

The desire to reduce the figure where young drivers are concerned has picked up momentum significantly in the years since the millennium, in the UK we are just starting to dip our toes into unknown territory as far as training is concerned, which means we lag behind some EU countries, Germany in particular.  So how can it be with their rigorous training the roads in Germany are not as safe as ours?

Theory test training has been viewed as a positive move, yet it appears drivers prior to 1996 studied the Highway Code in greater depth, and were more rigorous when learning road signs, Germany has taken this information on board with compulsory in class training and a steer away from multi choice practice, which we have lazily slipped into. Twelve double periods in class are a requirement, for a cat B licence.

Country roads or trunk roads training is carried out for a minimum distance of 50km in any one session and a minimum driving time of 225 minutes, with motorway driving attracting at least 135 minutes with a single journey being no shorter than 45 minutes. A minimum 90 minutes should be spent driving in the dark with half of that time on a country road. This demonstrates that there is
a good positive move towards dealing with the risk, in the UK it is country roads, an area that an instructor can choose to use for training as opposed to a compulsory requirement.

The driving test must be taken within twelve months of passing a theory test, you are required to have an eye sight certificate and have completed a first aid course. So much more rigorous than our requirements. Similar to Belgium, the pupil must enrol with a driving school, so no concerns over unpaid cancellations, there are approximately 28,000 driving schools, instructors are employed by the school this is after passing an eight month training course at a recognised training establishment, they need to be licenced to drive all classifications of vehicles regardless of the classification they plan to teach.

Training school for potential driving instructors involves a state testing system for written, oral and practical skills as well as a test of classroom and on road teaching skills, so a far reach from our system which highlights the potential for change and identifies where some of the proposals come from within the consultation document.  The EURSC consider a more formal approach to training and a serious commitment from the student to register with a school and to be bound by their terms and conditions, shows how much change could be effected in coming years.

So why have we not adopted a complete overhaul to coincide with similar training in other EU countries, cost is a major factor, we also have a high number of instructors this would mean a cull of the list, and how would that be possible when we are self employed, who would go and who would stay. The evidence is that research to date sees no dramatic improvement in road safety figures, with the UK being in the top three of best performing countries with regard to road safety and fatality figures year on year, without rigorous training, so the powers that be would struggle to justify the expense.  Change will obviously become apparent, but it will take a lot of years of input and a political party that rises above the expected to deliver serious results and keep a clear sight of the real target, zero vision borne out of zero tolerance.

The Standards Check - What's Next

Well, it's no surprise there has been a fair amount of scare mongering relating to the standards check, the clock is ticking and ADI's as usual are left in the dark by their regulating body, but don't worry help is at hand - from the psychic trainers and those who profess to be in the know, of course in the name of making a quick buck.

It's almost competitive when something new is announced, yet really it is baby steps for everyone, the current check test system still concerns many instructors, and rightly so, it should be taken seriously the outcome can range from a huge sigh of relief to tears, why dice with your livelihood. Yet this change isn't being taken seriously, I have lost count of how many emails have come into the office offering to save me from making a mistake on the day, or is it an invitation to stroke an ego.

I admit to an amount of surprise when I read exactly how this is supposed to affect us, an even greater surprise was how much is known already by the super guessers out there.  The standards check is a check test with a different marking system, it is not something new, remember marathons? Who became snickers, this attracted a ripple (no pun intended) of mistrust amongst chocolate eaters, but under the wrapper the sweet was the same.  Of course it did encourage a marketing campaign to raise public awareness and the price went up, feel a pattern?

Interestingly the examiners guide to marking has a few points that refer to CCL and a more focused approach to client pro action, which at least recognises a lax approach previously unrecognised by the rigid requirements of marking, but how will the ADI be able to ascertain the difference between the old style examiner and the examiner of old in a different hat, will it be worn efficiently or will there be a tilt towards habitual marking.  This could be a very confusing mix for all.

So how do we view change, well that question is easy to answer, few embrace change even when it is for the good, unsurprisingly we approach any political input with trepidation, even with the freedom of information act the law envelopes secrecy until the last fence. With surveys still filtering through about the predicted change to the check test of standards system it shows the ink is not dry.

While I am an advocate of a fresh pair of eyes from another trainer, and am a believer in taking additional training, falling into the trap of worry and embracing someone else's take on the future will surely need the safety net of a crystal ball.

The check test has confines that a modernised system wishes to shake up, this is not a change of style or a new test of ability, it just allows a freedom previously unseen and with a period of transition over the next few years it's not going to be the hard hit effect some would have us believe. To fall in line with EU requirements we will have to expect to up our game, but why would we part with our hard earned cash until we know what we should expect to spend it on.

AI Solutions: Is UK road safety suffering?

AI Solutions: Is UK road safety suffering?: During the last twelve months we have seen a couple of questionnaires reaching out to the learner driver, trying to find out what the...

Is UK road safety suffering?

During the last twelve months we have seen a couple of questionnaires reaching out to the learner driver, trying to find out what they want and the driver trainer too. Driving during restricted hours was quite unpopular, as you would expect along with a restriction regarding carrying passengers. So why was this survey carried out, because although it predates the green paper for young drivers, the responses are not reflected in the proposals, so this appears to just be an exercise rather than a serious piece of research.

Usually when time and finance is invested in research the conclusions are discussed, chewed over and debated, but this was a politically motivated attempt to give the impression that someone is listening not just to the road safety proposals from various groups but also to the young driver, who these proposals affect. In reality, this appears to not be the case.

All of the proposals have been trialled and researched outside of the UK, and conclusions have been reached, we were not one of the chosen 14 member states and involved in 30 months of study, but the resulting evidence means that we would be pushing forward with the results of this trial.  Therefore the green paper results have already been decided pre publication of the results in October.

Interestingly the learner driver, predominantly male who has a laid back demeanour, is not threatened by the potential of an accident and is prepared to demonstrate risky behaviour with an understanding of potential threat to life or liberty, does not show any evidence of wishing to change post test or post the age most associated with risk. So temperament and personality is a definite factor not changed by maturity. This research did demonstrate that the young driver in the risky group was the smallest group, with drivers from Bulgaria being over represented in this group, closely followed by Cyprus and Latvia.

Over confident drivers were the second largest group, with rage and anger becoming obvious when faced with an obstacle or traffic queue, they were more aggressive and most likely to be relaxed towards alcohol, mobile phones and driving, considering themselves to be suitably skilled and therefore unlikely to crash. This group were most likely to make a mistake.

Group three were the safe drivers, who still peaked with aggressive driving, they were however less likely to speed, commit violations, make mistakes but were the most anxious group, which in this research does not support the nervous driver as being a high risk. The safe group, when questioned, were most concerned about having a accident as a real possibility, compared to the other two.

Across the three groups the participants, which were 1000 from each of the 14 countries, so a significant group, the gender and age range was the same, showing that it is not so much an age related or gender problem as a personality, or genetic one.

Those who rode a scooter but not a car found the risky group considered themselves more likely to have an accident, risky behaviour was greater amongst the scooter rider group compared to the car driver, with their behaviour being more aggressive. The risky group stated their peers approved of their risk taking behaviour.

However, all groups, scooter drivers and car drivers or drivers of both, the majority had never had a drink and then driven with a reassuring 84%, which is a better figure than previously thought, all groups had however demonstrated they were most likely to have committed a speeding violation.

The research is many pages long and I will decipher more and blog the interesting parts, but the conclusion is the part that interested me, this research and data gathering took place prior to the green paper in the UK, the results of the findings were put forward for all EU countries to incorporate for the new driver, so it seems to me the writing is on the wall and this exercise is just a box ticker, not a real enquiry, hence the short consultation periods we have seen.

AI Solutions: Trusting the Learner

AI Solutions: Trusting the Learner: Over the last few decades there has been much research into the learner driver and their errors, their inexperience and what can be d...

Trusting the Learner

Over the last few decades there has been much research into the learner driver and their errors, their inexperience and what can be done to change their accident figures. However some recent research has identified some areas that are going to be difficult to change, which is their reaction in event of a danger.

Putting a young driver in an accident scenario in a simulator showed they may close their eyes, turn away from the risk but they do not include in their reaction the vehicle they are driving. This wasn't all drivers, but the majority, those who had to make a decision which involved the whole picture, vehicle and driver resulted in a much more lengthy reaction time. With a small time frame of just a couple of seconds to respond to an incident unfolding ahead, they were more likely to collide than avoid.

Is this a result of poor teaching, as some would have us believe, well vehicle handling and control can find some responsibility at the foot of the tutor, but inbuilt reaction is harder to control. You cannot make someone respond in a particular way in a moment of trauma. The shock and disbelief that someone else had got it wrong in the scenarios which were not the young drivers fault slowed the reaction time considerably, almost as if they were watching from a higher view point.

There is some research, not much as it has just begun, that questions young people who have been involved in a collision, either slight or with considerable vehicle damage, but not where anyone had severe injury. Their responses although varied in the description pointed to a handful of similarities. The time it took to assess and decide, the lack of natural desire to protect themselves inclusive of the vehicle and the pause for help.  So are young drivers spoon fed too much help from their tutor? Well the team behind this investigation are still questioning and searching data, as well as interviewing and following a group of new drivers who fall into specific category risk groups. This includes their class, finance and area they live, things that have previously been identified as increased risk.

In one of the groups a student was travelling in a car with their instructor when a vehicle was travelling towards them at speed on the wrong side of the road, over taking, the driver continued towards the risk, assuming the other car would move away from their path, the instructor reacted and moved the car away from the danger. Parked up afterwards the following conversation took place.

Tutor: Did you see the oncoming car?
Student: Yes
Tutor: Why did you not react, we could have been killed?
Student: But it was my right of way
Tutor: Do you believe the car that was driving towards us considered that?
Student: I don't know
Tutor: What would have happened if I hadn't moved the car away from the risk?
Student: Do you think he would have hit us?
Tutor: I don't believe we would be here for this conversation
Student: Oh

So a strange captured conversation, the student believing their priority would over ride the poor decision by the on coming driver, although the learner could see danger, they also truly thought the other driver would be the one to evade the risk rather than collide, yet for some faced with such danger a reaction to the extreme could have taken place.

The study group, which is an EU study, are trying to discover why the reactions of young drivers differ so greatly to new drivers over the age of 30. The older group, of which there are fewer participants, all responded earlier and were protective of not just themselves but the vehicle too when faced with a situation that had the potential to cause harm. The researchers do not believe this is related to tuition at all but related directly to the understanding of consequences.

A small sterile group of young drivers, who were particularly trained for ten hours dealing with consequence and risk against a group who were not still had the same reaction. This confirms some previous research carried out and published in the BMJ, where a young person is physically unable to distinguish between risk, speed and consequence, but which improves vastly over the age of 24. The variances in the group age 24 to 30 has not yet been explored.

So it seems with all the preparation and training, when faced with a real situation, not created by the young driver their responses are slower, despite in most cases the identification of risk was early. The data being accumulated from these studies is likely to continue for some time, whether it can help the future of road safety is yet to be seen. For me the most interesting study group is going to be cyclists and their behaviour.