FAQFAQ   SearchForum Search    Join ADUKJoin ADUK  ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in  

'Learning to Drive' discussion on BBC Radio 4
View unanswered posts
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Advanced Driving UK Forum Home -> General Chat Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
martine



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 1376
Location: Bristol, UK




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:55 am    Post subject: 'Learning to Drive' discussion on BBC Radio 4 Reply with quote

Peeps might be interested to listen to...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00d3ssk

...hour long 'You and Yours' magazine program which was broadcast yesterday.
_________________
Martin - Bristol IAM Group Senior Observer and Secretary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Custom24



Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Posts: 118




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Was interesting.

Yes please - m/way and night driving compulsory before full license.

Limit on performance of car for new drivers ala CBT for bikes? Never thought of that before. But I don't know if this thing about new drivers who've learned in a Micra getting into a Porsche and ending up on their roof in a field is all that commonplace. As one of the "experts" said later, the most common crash is new driver in small car.

Taking your test again every 10 years. I would love to see that. Might make people (especially men) competetive about "improving their score"

Interesting to hear that the DSA lady at the start thought older new drivers were just as much at risk as younger ones. I can't see how that's true at all, but would be interested to see stats/evidence about it. I personally am glad I learned to drive when I was past the don't care about dying stage.

Not sure about the last guy, who suggested scaring people into better driving by making them see horrible accidents, etc. People still won't know any better about how to drive - you need to show them what to do. I guess it might make them concentrate more even if they don't have any increase in knowledge.

I skipped through some of it - was there any mention of IAM/ROSPA/HPC?

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Category.asp?cat=545 Is the page they mentioned where the public have until Oct6 to contribute their views. One thing I have noticed is that the DSA don't even mention, let alone endorse any of the AD charities as a way forward after passing your test, at least not that I've seen.

Is that something worth us lobbying for?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ROG



Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1091
Location: LEICESTER




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
One thing I have noticed is that the DSA don't even mention, let alone endorse any of the AD charities as a way forward after passing your test, at least not that I've seen.


I went to the first one of these consultations which was held in Leicester.
Post test training was one of the points at the forefront of that meeting with the IAM & ROSPA heading the list Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
The DfT (DSA) are putting pressure on insurers to recognise post test training more so that premiums for new drivers can fall as an insentive Exclamation
_________________
ROG
Civilian Advanced Driver
Senior Observer
Leicester Group of Advanced Motorists
UNEMPLOYED LGV instructor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
michael769



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Livingston




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Custom24 wrote:

Interesting to hear that the DSA lady at the start thought older new drivers were just as much at risk as younger ones. I can't see how that's true at all, but would be interested to see stats/evidence about it. I personally am glad I learned to drive when I was past the don't care about dying stage.



It is not true that older (over 70) drivers are as much at risk as the under 25. However it is true that they are a higher risk than an 35-55 year old.

Based on our claims rates for 2007, males under 25's have about 3.2 times the accident rate of the 35-55 yo (both sexes) baseline (and 4.2 times the fatal accident rate) with females being about 2.3 times (1.3 times the fatal accident rate).

Males over 70 are about 1.7 times (0.3 times fatal accidents) with females about 2.7 (0.1 fatals).

Unfortunately the detailed figures are confidential, so no numbers for you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ROG



Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1091
Location: LEICESTER




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a sort of follow on from this.....
BBC3 tonight at 8pm - 'Driving Mum & Dad' - where parents try to teach their offspring to drive without using an ADI
_________________
ROG
Civilian Advanced Driver
Senior Observer
Leicester Group of Advanced Motorists
UNEMPLOYED LGV instructor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ScoobyChris



Joined: 01 May 2006
Posts: 1174
Location: Andover, Hants




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

michael769 wrote:
Based on our claims rates for 2007...


Is there a possibility the figures could be skewed because (imhe) older drivers can afford to avoid going through the insurance route whereas most younger drivers are not in a position to buy themselves out of a situation? I'm also guessing that a claim could be a fault or non-fault claim too and that the number in the 16/17-25 age bracket outnumbers those significantly who are over 70?

Chris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
michael769



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Livingston




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ScoobyChris wrote:
michael769 wrote:
Based on our claims rates for 2007...


Is there a possibility the figures could be skewed because (imhe) older drivers can afford to avoid going through the insurance route whereas most younger drivers are not in a position to buy themselves out of a situation?



Why yes it could. It could also be skewed by the fact that the sample population is those who chose to accept a policy from us. It could also be skewed by a reluctance amongst young drivers to report collisions due to the impact of their premiums.

In practice (and based upon our in house reasearch) there is a very large gulf between low cost and high cost collisions and that a persons ability to pay is not significant factor as except for a very wealth majority no-one can afford to pay the high cost claims, while most people will bend over backwards to avoid having to lose their NCD for a couple of hundred pounds. We do not insure company schemes (who have no NCD to lose)

We also believe that our population size is sufficient to render any skews insignificant. Although statistics can never be 100%, we are able to achieve confidence intervals of greater than 95%

Quote:

I'm also guessing that a claim could be a fault or non-fault claim too and that the number in the 16/17-25 age bracket outnumbers those significantly who are over 70?



When broken down to fault/no-fault groups the proportions do not change significantly. Surprisingly when you look at the relative proportion of blameworthy claims to no-blameworthy there is no statistically significant difference between ages. The only risk factor that makes a driver more likely to be to blame for a claim is if they have had a prior blameworthy claim in the last 3 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ScoobyChris



Joined: 01 May 2006
Posts: 1174
Location: Andover, Hants




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for explaining that Very Happy

Chris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner



Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 607
Location: Swindon, Wilts




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess for every at-fault accident reported to one insurance company, there's the corresponding no-fault accident reported to another (except in the case of inanimate objects of course), so they pretty much cancel each other out.

I could be way off, of course.
_________________
Nick
North Wilts RoADAR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
michael769



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Livingston




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:
I guess for every at-fault accident reported to one insurance company, there's the corresponding no-fault accident reported to another (except in the case of inanimate objects of course), so they pretty much cancel each other out.

I could be way off, of course.


You would think so.

However many claims do not involve any no fault claims (trees tend not to bother with insurance Very Happy ), while many other claims involve multiple no fault drivers each of which generate a no fault claim.

The two effects do not cancel out and it turns out that there are about 1.2 times as many fault claims as there are no fault claims.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner



Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 607
Location: Swindon, Wilts




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right oh (I did mention inanimate objects as a skewing factor Razz , although I'm sure in today's litigation based society, the day will come when a householder has to insure his trees against the possibility of some innocent driver driving their car into one of them!)

If there's a reasonably constant ratio between the two, that's sort of what I meant - I didn't expect it to be exactly 1:1.
_________________
Nick
North Wilts RoADAR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
waremark



Joined: 15 Apr 2006
Posts: 721




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did anyone else watch Driving Mum and Dad mad? Two 17 year-olds being taught to try and pass their tests (more accurate description than being taught to drive) by very inexpert and in one case amazingly unpleasant Mums and Dads, in a total of 3 weeks, with no professional lessons.

From what we saw of the teaching process, I would have thought the programme was an advert for requiring at least some professional driving tuition. However, after the three weeks one teenager passed the practical driving test and the other nearly passed. I think the most interesting point for me was that in spite of what was an awful learning process, both new drivers ended up more or less able to drive.

I wanted to watch because I did most of the teaching of my two older children and plan to do the same with the third, who watched with me. Hopefully my youngest will appreciate her father's teaching more because of the complete contrast with what she saw on the programme!

There was no mention of any continued learning process after passing the test or of any other aspect relevant to young drivers and safety.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jonathan



Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 18
Location: Surrey




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

waremark wrote:
I think the most interesting point for me was that in spite of what was an awful learning process, both new drivers ended up more or less able to drive.


Well, able to scrape through a DSA test perhaps.

I found that quite painful to watch, but then it was more about the breakdown of relationships in the families involved than anything to do with driving. Sad

It did make a strong case for there to be a requirement for at least so many hours of professional tuition or some kind of overhaul of the way new drivers are assessed. I was tutored professionally but sat the 'L' test five times mainly because I was a bundle of nerves each time, as opposed to not being ready. I felt under a lot of pressure because not passing meant another months wait and a load more money I could barely afford at that time. My younger sister had a similar experience aswell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Custom24



Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Posts: 118




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

michael769 wrote:
Custom24 wrote:

Interesting to hear that the DSA lady at the start thought older new drivers were just as much at risk as younger ones. I can't see how that's true at all, but would be interested to see stats/evidence about it. I personally am glad I learned to drive when I was past the don't care about dying stage.



It is not true that older (over 70) drivers are as much at risk as the under 25. However it is true that they are a higher risk than an 35-55 year old.

Based on our claims rates for 2007, males under 25's have about 3.2 times the accident rate of the 35-55 yo (both sexes) baseline (and 4.2 times the fatal accident rate) with females being about 2.3 times (1.3 times the fatal accident rate).

Males over 70 are about 1.7 times (0.3 times fatal accidents) with females about 2.7 (0.1 fatals).

Unfortunately the detailed figures are confidential, so no numbers for you.

Thanks for those figures you did give.
What I was more wondering was about the correlation between age of the driver, driving experience and accidents. Do you have any figures you can share about those?
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martine



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 1376
Location: Bristol, UK




Direct link for this post
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Jonathan"]Well, able to scrape through a DSA test perhaps./quote]
Not really - if you remember the lad didn't pass but the girl did. I'd have to say the lad's Dad was simply awful as an instructor and a danger to his son and other road users.

This program struck home with me as my 2nd daughter is just learning now and yours truly is teaching her Shocked . I expect we'll do the same as I did with her elder sister...a mixture of me and an ADI.

Jonathan wrote:
...I was a bundle of nerves each time, as opposed to not being ready.

I sympathise...an L-test is quite nerve wracking and doesn't seem quite right really as I'm sure many reasonable drivers fail purely due to nerves in a situation that's very false and quite unlike normal driving.

I took got my flying licence (only a PPL) when I was 18 and the method is quite different...the final, actual flying test is normally a non-event and my examiner took time to make it interactive and teach some extra skills during the test. It difuses the situation somewhat and is more a friendly transfer of skills.

I suppose the difference is by the time the test comes, you've spent many hours with professional instructors who teach and test all the seperate skills and in effect 'sign you off' (take off, landing in various configurations, emergency procedures, navigation etc).

Perhaps that's something that could be incorporated in the new 'learning to drive' syllabus/methodology. Question
_________________
Martin - Bristol IAM Group Senior Observer and Secretary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Advanced Driving UK Forum Home -> General Chat Forum All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group