Lowering speed limits is an easy but ill-conceived and ultimately ineffective solution to tackling casualties. The wrong thinking also has no end. Why 50mph? Why not 40mph, or even 30mph?

The authorities know that most casualties occur below the posted speed limit on a given road. Trying to reduce casualties with speed limits alone would, therefore, need them to be set and rigidly enforced at levels that interfere with reasonable mobility.

Official figures also show that ‘exceeding the speed limit’ is reported by the Police as a contributing factor in only 7% of accidents for drivers aged 17-19, and less than 2% for drivers aged over 25 who form the majority of road-users (1).

Declaring more of our safe driving to be illegal is a weak and unthinking step for genuine road safety.

There is considerable concern over the ongoing proliferation of the Speed Kills campaign. This policy is continuing to create a population of drivers who do not know how to determine what a safe speed is for a given road or situation.

For more than a decade, Speed Kills has been teaching people, including millions of new drivers, that just keeping to the speed limit will keep them safe. This is a dangerous form of ‘zombie’ driving, meaning people focus much more on their speedometer as an indicator for safety, rather than the real hazards going on around them.

Advanced-Driving.co.uk is passionate about good safe driving, and believes that setting speed limits too low works against safety. It causes frustration in the average, responsible driver and focuses the driver’s mind on an arbitrary number (the limit) rather than encouraging good judgement of the speed which is safe for the conditions.

Sometimes even 30mph can be too fast for a rural road, whereas 60mph may be appropriate if the conditions are right for that road. Safety will always depend more on the circumstances than the posted limit.

The Government should be providing better driver training to stop the decline in driving ability. There are simple and teachable skills that would make drivers more aware of risk, give better control of hazards and improve the ability to select a correct and safe speed, yet these skills are not being taught.

It is also not only ‘young drivers’ who are let down by their training and the over-emphasis on speed. Crash figures show that ALL ‘new drivers’ irrespective of age have high crash rates – until they start to overcome for themselves the shortcomings in what they have been taught. Clearly, new drivers improve with experience, but this should not excuse inadequate training for learner drivers from day one (2).

Advanced-Driving.co.uk calls on the Government to abandon the simplistic and distracting focus on ‘speed’, and use the next decade to concentrate on tackling the fundamental failures in driver training to really improve road safety in the UK.

References:
1) DFT Road Safety Research Report No.87 Learning to Drive: The Evidence. Figure 5.5: Proportion of drivers in accidents with factors attributable to the driver, by age group of driver, 2006

2) DFT Road Safety Research Report No.87 Learning to Drive: The Evidence. Figure 1.1: The effects of age (maturation) and experience on accident liability

With its strong links to performance Car Clubs and driver training initiatives, Adrian Flux have teamed up with Advanced Driving UK and for those that have taken the step to improve their driving be rewarded for doing so.

Anyone completing a recognised course organised by RoSPA / IAM / Ride-Drive or any of the other recognised providers can claim at least 25% discount off their renewal premiums through Adrian Flux. Note that this is off the renewal and not the best premium to be found, meaning once you complete a course – you will receive a discount over and above what you currently pay in car insurance!

For those that complete other courses we do also acknowledge the steps you have taken to become a better driver and are also able to offer a significant discount in recognition. This will be up to 15% off your premium.

Flux have stated, “What initially attracted us to Advanced-Driving UK was the refreshing outlook it took to those persons looking to further their driving skills and a fresh new way of looking at road safety.’

Upon completing a course, please contact Adrian Flux on Freephone: 0800 505 3000 (Office hours 9:00 – 7:00 Mon – Fri, Sat: 9:00 – 4:00) and mention your advanced driving course or visit Adrian Flux

Neil Greig, Director of Research and Policy at the IAM, said: “Young people don’t tend to drive as frequently or as far as the average driver, and they have also grown up in a surveillance society, which could explain why they show less objection to safety cameras – older people are more likely to resent being monitored in this way. With this survey we now have 10 years worth of motoring opinion on the most contentious issue on the roads today.

The study also found that women have been consistently more supportive of safety cameras than men, although this support has fluctuated over the years. Support from men has declined from 83 per cent in 2002 to 66 per cent in 2009. “On average, women commit fewer traffic offences than men, so they may see cameras as less of a threat” said Mr Greig.

Very high mileage drivers (those driving over 20 thousand miles a year) were shown to be the least supportive of safety cameras. Mr Greig said: “20,000 miles is an unusually high distance to cover in a year, so the driver would typically be driving on business. Time is money for these drivers, they are more likely to be in a rush so more likely to get caught by safety cameras or be late because of them. They may blame the cameras for being late, rather than their unrealistic schedules”

The data, collected over 10 years, includes opinions on developments in safety camera policy and operations and acceptability of safety cameras.

Safety cameras had a 75% approval rating in 2009, compared with a 92% approval rating in 1999. “Support has declined gradually but consistently over the last 10 years, but overall speed cameras have maintained a good level of approval among the motoring public” added Mr Greig.

“However the firm belief remains that safety cameras are primarily for raising revenue. Until that link is broken it will remain very difficult to convince all drivers that safety cameras really do deliver fewer deaths and serious injuries”

This article has been reproduced with the permission of the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists)

Jackie Willis, a driving instructor and founder/director of Care Motoring, a Norfolk-based driving school, has come up with an innovative new way to help learner drivers beat the credit crunch by learning to drive with the help of a parent, or other qualified driver, together with a series of audio lessons, delivered by Jackie and called Virtual Driving Instructor.

“Many learner drivers have either put off learning to drive altogether, or are taking lessons with a driving instructor, but can only afford to pay for them once every 2 or 3 weeks, sometimes longer. If they are lucky, they will have the chance to practise in between, but sadly many do not,” said Jackie

According to a recent survey from an insurance company, applications to have learner drivers added to parents’ policies has increased by around 23% and it is this group of learner drivers that Virtual Driving Instructor is targeting. A survey by Churchill insurance in 2007 showed how much damage can actually be done when parents attempt to teach their children.

Virtual Driving Instructor takes away the responsibility of what to teach and how to teach it from the unqualified instructor, by ‘instructing’ the learner through these audio lessons. Jackie explains:

“The parent, or other supervising driver, and the learner, listen together before going off and practising, as instructed in the audio lesson. They then stop again after this practise and listen for further advice. And of course, if the instructions have not been fully understood first time, then the audio can be rewound and listened to again”.

Certainly the lessons seem to be very thorough. There are 25 in all, which includes 5 manoeuvres lessons, and each lesson is accompanied by a set of lesson notes to help the supervising driver. Each lesson contains the instructions for the skill being practised, encouragement for the learner to assess their own progress and set their own targets for improvement, risk management techniques, Highway Code references relevant to that lesson, and links to various websites for additional help and information, as well as recommended reading material.

As Jackie, an experienced teacher and classroom practitioner, points out, whatever a person is learning, success is achieved quickest and best when the subject can be learned through visual, auditory and kinaesthetic means. So, in the case of learning to drive, watching training videos and good role-model drivers, coupled with listening regularly to the audio lessons and getting as much driving practice as possible, will lead to accelerated learning which is of a much higher standard.

It is also recommended that the learner backs up this ‘diy’ training with some lessons with a ‘real’ driving instructor, who may then be able to focus their training on higher level skills, producing novice drivers who possess advanced driving skills as soon as they obtain their driving licence.

Now wouldn’t that be a novel idea?

Download and purchase information can be found at Virtual Instructor

Road safety is not a national problem – it is an international problem. SAFEX 2008 asks the question: what are the world’s governments doing to address this global catastrophe?

SAFEX 2008, organised by road safety experts IVV and sponsored by the DIA, is the only world road safety conference to target driver trainers and driver education and provide a truly international perspective to the issues involved in reducing the number of deaths on the world’s roads.

SAFEX 2008 is coming back to London after many years. The conference offers opportunities to meet old friends and make new contacts with road safety practitioners, academics, politicians, key researchers and members of the driver training industry from around the world.

The Driver Education World Conference is being held in London from the 16th-18th May inclusive. More information can be found at http://www.ivvsafex.com/

• only 36 per cent (1 per cent more than 2007) believed that cameras were positioned only at serious crash sites, and

• only 39 per cent (3 per cent fewer than 2007) believed that raising revenue was not the motive for using ’speed’ cameras.

Kevin Delaney, Head of Road Safety for the IAM Trust says, “This survey confirms a recent downward trend in numbers of drivers being caught by safety cameras*”.  Hopefully, it is because more believe that safety cameras save lives, but it could be to do with motorists becoming more aware of where cameras are sited. Either way, the trends are good news for road safety.

“Since April 2007, the money raised from speed cameras can fund a range of road safety schemes – including more safety cameras. Breaking the link between revenue and enforcement is a vital first step in regaining public confidence in the speed limit enforcement.”

* The number of motorists who said they, or a member of their household, had been flashed and fined fell from 28 per cent in 2007 to 20 per cent in 2008 (18 per cent in 2002).

This article has been reproduced with the permission of the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists)

The Government previously opposed the idea on the grounds that using lights in the daytime would increase fuel consumption and emissions, but conceded it was unable to oppose European legislation.

In response to a parliamentary question, Jim Fitzpatrick, the road safety minister, said: “The UK has been successful in arguing against the introduction of mandatory use of dipped headlamps during daylight hours by drivers of existing vehicles.

“However, from early 2011 all new types of passenger cars and light vans will have to be fitted with dedicated daytime running lamps in accordance with the relevant European directive. By summer 2012, all new vehicles will have to be so fitted.”

The move will anger motoring groups, which claim fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions increase by three per cent when drivers use dipped lights.

But the European Commission says that the lights increase fuel consumption by only 0.3 per cent because they use separate bulbs that are less bright than headlights.

The commission wants all European Union states to set a common date to make daytime running lights mandatory. About half of EU member states already require this.

A pilot scheme in Dumfries and Galloway would see drivers go for an hour’s tuition with an advanced motorist.

They would then report back to the procurator fiscal on the young person’s driving ability and attitude.

Depending on the contents of the report it could then be decided that there was no need for formal prosecution.

Depute procurator fiscal Lyndsay Hunter said the idea provided an important extension to the range of options.

She said that if prosecution failed to bring about a change in driving behaviour then they needed to consider alternatives.

The scheme will start in the Stewartry area and, if successful, will be rolled out across the region.

‘Physical risks’

Insp John Thomson, of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, said the key was to improve driver safety.

“The primary objective of any road policing policy is to reduce crashes,” he said.

He said that enforcement and improved road design had a part to play.

“However, we fully appreciate the benefits of heavily investing in driver education and believe that this scheme presents a positive means of reducing the crash rate in our area,” he said.

“Experience has demonstrated that there is a significant minority of young drivers who aren’t deterred by the physical risks or criminal consequences of high risk driving and it is these drivers that the scheme is aimed at.”

The scheme is being funded by Dumfries and Galloway Council.

The BBC

In 2007, novice driver safety came into sharp focus again. The Dft revealed that the driver death rate has been getting worse for some years, the Transport Select Committee published its recommendations, and the year ended with news from the Norwich Union that young driver claims have increased by a staggering 300% in the last 5 years, while claims from other drivers fell by 10%. Quite rightly, the debate throughout the year took on a renewed sense of purpose.

This sits against a backdrop of measures taken over the past 15 years specifically to reduce crash rates, including the Theory Test, Hazard Perception Test, Pass Plus, speed cameras and more. But just as 2007 showed the extent of failure, so 2008 should mark the beginning of an approach that will work.

The long-awaited consultation document due soon from the DfT is a huge opportunity. But the outcome must concentrate on the causes of high crash rates, not just the symptoms. This means teaching drivers the proper skills, rather than restricting their driving as a substitute. Improving safety skills should also be more about teaching the right things than simply changing the process of learning. The worst outcome would be further major actions that fail to improve the figures.

For this very reason, Advanced-Driving.co.uk was founded to draw attention to the direct need for a change in the way learner drivers are taught. We are totally convinced that safety must be based on teaching the proper skills. The skills developed by more experienced drivers need to be defined and adopted in methods for teaching the young.

Stephen Haley’s “Essential Thinking Skills” (see link below) is an invitation to the Driving Standards Agency to review its methods of teaching, and introduce better skills. The current L-test and levels of enforcement have failed, and restrictions should not be imposed to offset inadequate teaching.

“When will people realise that driving is not just a hands and feet exercise?”, said Darren Tipton of Advanced Driving UK. “It is fundamentally about the decisions you make based on the risks you perceive. Those decisions can mean the difference between life and death for a novice driver”. This is at the core of Mind Driving and Essential Thinking Skills.

“How well should we expect drivers to gain skills they have not been shown? Or should we be surprised that their period of discovery when they begin to drive unsupervised proves to be dangerous?” says Stephen in his Essential Thinking Skills.

Youngsters currently learn quite well how get the vehicle moving in a “point and go” fashion, but the proper beliefs and thinking are missing if we want them to negotiate our busy roads in safety.

This is what the DfT must resolve to get right in 2008.

Using a mobile, sat-nav or MP3 player while at the wheel could send drivers to prison for up to two years.

But they could also be fined up to £2,500 for driving through a puddle and splashing pedestrians or for failing to dip headlights.

In future a range of misdemeanours will be treated as dangerous driving, which carries a two-year maximum prison sentence, rather than careless driving, which can be dealt with only by a community order or fine.

The policy outlined by the Crown Prosecution Service could also mean that motorists in England and Wales who cause death on the roads face life imprisonment.

The new detailed guidance, first announced earlier this year, will make clear that prosecutors should consider manslaughter charges for the worst cases of death by dangerous driving.

Sir Ken Macdonald, QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, said in September when announcing the policy change: “We accept that in cases where there is clear evidence that danger has been caused by their [mobile phone] use – such as texting while driving – then our policy should spell out that the starting point for charging will be dangerous driving.”

Current guidelines say manslaughter is “very rarely appropriate” in road death cases but the change will mean alternative charges could be brought.

Someone who has killed on the roads could be charged with manslaughter as well as causing death by dangerous driving, for example, leaving a jury open to return the lower charge if they find manslaughter has not been proved.

Rob Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “It’s not every single driver using a mobile phone while driving who faces jail, it’s those few drivers whose behaviour leads them to have a crash when they are using a mobile at the same time.

“What people are being reminded of is that driving is a complicated activity and it is better to concentrate on driving than talking.”

Sheila Ranger, head of campaigns at the RAC, said: “This is for people who are doing the most outrageous acts on their phone. We still see terrible crashes where people have been texting, driving into the back of stationary queues because they haven’t seen them.”

Jools Townsend, head of education at Brake, the road safety charity, said: “We welcome these new prosecution guidelines, which recognise that using a mobile while driving is an incredibly dangerous act. Too many people are still flaunting the law and endangering lives by using their mobile behind the wheel.”

Points

Dangerous driving
Maximum penalty of up to two years’ jail
— racing or competitive driving
— reading a newspaper
— sudden change of lane

Careless driving
Penalty points, £2,500 fine, possible ban
— tuning the radio
— lighting a cigarette, if avoidably distracted

Inconsiderate driving
Penalty points, community £2,500 fine
— driving a bus in a way that alarms passengers
— driving with lights on full beam
— driving through a puddle, splashing pedestrians

The Times

Using a mobile phone, sat-nav device or an MP3 player while at the wheel will in future be treated as dangerous driving instead of careless driving, with the possibility of up to two years in jail.

Dangerous driving comes with a two-year maximum prison sentence, whereas careless driving is dealt with by a community order or a fine.

The policy outlined by the Crown Prosecution Service could also see motorists in England and Wales who cause death on the roads facing life imprisonment.

The detailed guidance which was first announced this year will make clear that prosecutors should consider manslaughter charges for the very worst cases of death by dangerous driving.

Sir Ken Macdonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said in September when announcing the policy change: “We accept that in cases where there is clear evidence that danger has been caused by their [mobile phones] use – such as texting while driving – then our policy should spell out that the starting point for charging will be dangerous driving.”

Current guidelines say that manslaughter is “very rarely appropriate” in road death cases but the change will mean alternative charges could be brought against a motorist.

Someone who has killed on the roads could be charged with manslaughter as well as causing death by dangerous driving, for example, leaving a jury open to return the lower charge if it finds manslaughter has not been proved.

Rob Gifford, the executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory for Transport Safety, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It’s not every single driver using a mobile phone while driving who faces jail, it’s those few drivers whose behaviour leads them to have a crash when they are using a mobile at the same time.

“What people are being reminded is that driving is a complicated activity and it is better to concentrate on driving than talking.”

Sheila Ranger, the head of campaigns at the RAC, said: “This is for people who are doing the most outrageous acts on their phone. We still see terrible crashes where people have been texting, driving into the back of stationary queues because they haven’t seen them.

“It’s entirely appropriate to have this charge available for the most extreme circumstances.”

Jools Townsend, the head of education at Brake, the road safety charity, said: “We welcome these new prosecution guidelines, which recognise that using a mobile while driving is an incredibly dangerous act. Too many people are still flaunting the law and endangering lives by using their mobile behind the wheel.

“We hope this sends out a strong message to drivers that talking or texting while driving won’t be tolerated. Research shows that if you use a mobile at the wheel – even on a hands-free – you’re far more likely to crash, which can have catastrophic consequences. No phone call is so important that you should risk lives to take it, so we urge all drivers to switch their phones off while driving.”

In a separate development, a company is to ban its entire 135,000 employee workforce from using mobile phones, including hands free mobile sets, when driving on company business with effect from January 1 next year.

The decision by FirstGroup comes after research from the Transport Research Laboratory showed that driving performance is significantly impaired when holding a telephone conversation.

Research suggests that driver performance while making a hands-free telephone conversation is at a lower level than when driving at the UK legal limit of alcohol intoxication.

Staff at FirstGroup are being reminded through a poster campaign that mobile phones and other devices capable of making or receiving calls must be switched off when driving and to check that when receiving calls made by staff they are complying with the policy.

Dangerous driving (up to two years in jail) could include
*racing or competitive driving
*disregarded warnings from fellow passengers
*reading a newspaper/map
*aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or driving much too close to the vehicle in front

Careless driving (penalty points, community order or fine of up to £2,500)could include
*driving inappropriately close to another vehicle
*tuning a car radio
*selecting and lighting a cigarette or similar, if the driver was avoidably distracted by that use

Inconsiderate driving (penalty points, community order or fine of up to £2,500) could include
*flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
*unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane
*driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers;
*driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
*driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers

“News bulletins showing flashing blue lights and police breath testing drivers are a powerful reminder to the majority of responsible drivers not to be tempted to drive after drinking, for example, taking the car home from the station after drinks after work.”

The vast majority of drivers now believe drinking and driving to be socially unacceptable.  But in the long run-up to Christmas, daily routines can change, sometimes unexpectedly.  Festive occasions with colleagues, friends and family can place those who would not normally drink and drive in tricky situations.  Many of us will face these
dilemmas but it’s crucial to decide firmly at the outset either not to drink or to leave the car where it is.

The wrong decision can bring instant justice, as the police can haul you into court the next day for a fine and a year’s driving ban, and if you cause a fatal or serious accident, a prison sentence.  Then there are the less formal penalties, such as the huge inconvenience of being car-less, the possibility of losing your job and the social stigma of a criminal record.  Finally, once you get back on the road again, you face
many years with sky-high insurance costs.

The IAM Trust’s advice is simple, says Greig, “If you drink, don’t drive; if you are driving, don’t drink.  And always refuse a lift from someone you know has been drinking.”

Other points:

• Even one drink can reduce your determination not to drive
• At parties, drinks measures will be more generous than those served in pubs
• You face being breathalysed if you are involved in a road accident, even if it is not your fault
• As you make your way home without the car, remember that a high proportion of road accidents involve pedestrians who have been drinking
• Drinking heavily the night before can put you over the legal limit the morning after

It then completely ignores the ‘why’ and offers no answers at all. This is especially tragic because the ‘why’ should be the IAMs strongest suit.

But the ‘why’ is crystal clear to the Safe Speed road safety campaign. All the work we have done since 2001 points to one inescapable conclusion. British drivers are, on average, getting significantly worse.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: “There’s one fundamental reason that rural road crashes head the list. British drivers are getting significantly worse. Rural roads expose shortfalls in skills and attitudes.”

“Department for Transport doesn’t even have a working definition of what it means to be a good driver. Yet we know that crashes happen because drivers make mistakes. No wonder their policies are failing.”

“The IAM exists to promote improved driving standards, yet when they publish a report on rural road crashes caused by poor driving standards, driver quality doesn’t even get a mention. What on earth are they thinking of?”

“The IAM’s gross oversight is an indicator of the appalling failure of British road safety. No wonder road deaths aren’t falling significantly. No wonder road crash hospitalisations have risen every year for four years. No wonder we’ve slipped to 20th in Europe for rate of improvement. The IAM has fallen tragically short in what should be their strong suit.”

“One thing’s for sure. We cannot blame our rural road death rates on drivers speeding [2].”

“Safe Speed’s road safety manifesto [3] identifies driver quality management strategies that would reverse the decline almost overnight.”

[1] IAM Rural Road Report

[2] Press Release Link

[3] Safespeed Manifesto

Police will investigate whether the company carried out basic checks, such as ensuring that staff have an MoT certificate for their vehicle, are insured for business use and have a valid driving licence. They will also question managers on whether they made excessive demands of their employees and required them to drive when tired.

From April, companies may also be prosecuted under the new Corporate Manslaughter Act, which makes it easier to bring cases against organisations causing death through negligence.

The Metropolitan Police is one of several forces that have decided to investigate company road-safety policies after research by the Health and Safety Executive which shows that 20 people are killed and 250 seriously injured each week in crashes involving someone who was driving for work.

More than half of companies (53 per cent) fail to check that employees using their own cars for work have insured them for business use, according to a survey by the fleet management company Arval. Just over a quarter (26 per cent) ask employees to produce an MoT certificate and an even smaller number (17 per cent) make inquiries about whether private cars used on company business have been maintained regularly.

Superintendent Mark Bird, of the Met’s traffic unit, said: “More and more we carry out follow-up investigations with companies after collisions, to ensure that work-related road safety is embedded within company policies. In the event of a collision or injury, the police take seriously all the reasons that have led to it happening including the condition of the vehicle and why the driver was on the road, including if they were travelling for business reasons.” He said that employers needed to realise that their responsibility for ensuring safety did not end when employees left company premises.

“Just as employers would make sure that employees are safe in the workplace so they should while they are on the road. Businesses must face up to their duty-of-care responsibilities and realise that they are responsible for employees’ welfare when on the road for business purposes, whether they are driving a company car or not.”

Department for Transport figures show that about 300 people are killed each year as a result of drivers falling asleep at the wheel. About 40 per cent of crashes related to tiredness involve someone driving for work. Pacts said companies should be obliged to report any road deaths and injuries involving staff travelling on business. There are about 200 fatal injuries to staff in the workplace each year, compared with an estimated 800-1100 on the road.

Stats

• There are 3m company cars
• A further 1m private cars are used on company business
• 33% of company cars are involved in a collision each year
• The Health & Safety Executive estimate that £2.7bn is the annual cost to employers of “at-work” crashes
• There are 150 deaths and serious injuries each week in crashes involving someone driving on business

(Source: HSE, Pacts)

As darker evenings return this weekend, RoSPA along with many organisations are urging all road users to play a part in trying to reduce the toll of deaths and injuries made worse by the current way clocks are changed and the need to continue to press politicians to introduce a system which would bring lighter evenings all year round.

Studies have shown that 450 lives and serious injuries could be saved each year if we stayed one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time in the winter and two hours ahead in the summer.  Vulnerable road users such as children and the elderly are much more at risk during dark evenings than in the morning.

The initial experiment was scheduled to run for two years but the results have been consistently good that it is considered unnecessary to delay any longer so the announcement has been made.

Considerable investment was made in ensuring that the M42 infrastructure was in place before the experiment started. Let’s hope that a similar investment is made before hard shoulder running begins on other parts of the network.