A case for advanced driving
Discussion
The direct cost to UK PLC of road accidents is estimated at £18 BILLION pa (2002 Roads Policing Strategy)
... and the number of vehicles registered at about 30 MILLION (same source)
The IAM claim a reduction of 20% in accident risk (IAM fleet presentation)
Could the government profit by offering a discount on the road fund licence of cars belonging to advanced motorists?
... and the number of vehicles registered at about 30 MILLION (same source)
The IAM claim a reduction of 20% in accident risk (IAM fleet presentation)
Could the government profit by offering a discount on the road fund licence of cars belonging to advanced motorists?
Piloti said:
Could the government profit by offering a discount on the road fund licence of cars belonging to advanced motorists?
Dream on, my friend. I wish. You have to look at it this way - by being an Advanced Driver YOU are less likely to have a prang and are therefore less likely to lose your no-claims-discount on your insurance.
Yes, the government would do well to incentivise advanced driving. It would be a good to incentivise and reward advanced drivers, and no doubt more popular than simply enforcing speed limits. A party that rewarded and incentivised advanced driving would certainly get my vote.
Also, I'd say the % accident reduction is more applicable to an overall driving population, as opposed to an individual.
Incidentally, the TRL study put advanced drivers at 50% less accident risk. From where did IAM Fleet get 20%?
Also, I'd say the % accident reduction is more applicable to an overall driving population, as opposed to an individual.
Incidentally, the TRL study put advanced drivers at 50% less accident risk. From where did IAM Fleet get 20%?
SVS said:
Yes, the government would do well to incentivise advanced driving. It would be a good to incentivise and reward advanced drivers, and no doubt more popular than simply enforcing speed limits. A party that rewarded and incentivised advanced driving would certainly get my vote.
Also, I'd say the % accident reduction is more applicable to an overall driving population, as opposed to an individual.
Incidentally, the TRL study put advanced drivers at 50% less accident risk. From where did IAM Fleet get 20%?
Is that a 50% reduction based upon age and vehicle, or just 50% less than everage?Also, I'd say the % accident reduction is more applicable to an overall driving population, as opposed to an individual.
Incidentally, the TRL study put advanced drivers at 50% less accident risk. From where did IAM Fleet get 20%?
Think if you`re to make an accurate comparison you need to chart accidents per mile.
(Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
(Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
Edited by crisisjez on Sunday 6th April 09:57
SVS said:
Yes, the government would do well to incentivise advanced driving. It would be a good to incentivise and reward advanced drivers, and no doubt more popular than simply enforcing speed limits. A party that rewarded and incentivised advanced driving would certainly get my vote.
Also, I'd say the % accident reduction is more applicable to an overall driving population, as opposed to an individual.
Incidentally, the TRL study put advanced drivers at 50% less accident risk. From where did IAM Fleet get 20%?
I don't know the methodology that IAM Fleet used to determine 20%. It's best treated as a tentative and indicative figure to establish the case...Also, I'd say the % accident reduction is more applicable to an overall driving population, as opposed to an individual.
Incidentally, the TRL study put advanced drivers at 50% less accident risk. From where did IAM Fleet get 20%?
As far as TRL goes, I found the following:
There is no doubt that advanced driver training and testing significantly reduces accident involvement among those who undertake it. The Transport Research Laboratory found that drivers who passed the Institute of Advance Motorists’ test had 25 per cent fewer accidents than those who failed it. One fleet manager recorded an 85 per cent reduction in accident rate among company drivers after implementing a driver training and risk management regime, and benefited from a 30 per cent cut in insurance costs84. When advanced drivers do have accidents, they are less serious in terms of injuries and damage, are less likely to involve pedestrians or cyclists, and the advanced driver is less often at fault.
Sourced from the http://www.conwayfor.org/policypapers/transport_po... which in turn provides TRL references...
crisisjez said:
Think if you`re to make an accurate comparison you need to chart accidents per mile.
(Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
That isn't necessarily a valid comparison either. (Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
If somebody is doing all their mileage on our safest roads & others are doing their mileage (even if it is less miles) on riskier roads at riskier times of the day, is it equal exposure to risk ?
vonhosen said:
crisisjez said:
Think if you`re to make an accurate comparison you need to chart accidents per mile.
(Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
That isn't necessarily a valid comparison either. (Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
If somebody is doing all their mileage on our safest roads & others are doing their mileage (even if it is less miles) on riskier roads at riskier times of the day, is it equal exposure to risk ?
Without which no survey can be truely accurate.
vonhosen said:
crisisjez said:
Think if you`re to make an accurate comparison you need to chart accidents per mile.
(Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
That isn't necessarily a valid comparison either. (Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
If somebody is doing all their mileage on our safest roads & others are doing their mileage (even if it is less miles) on riskier roads at riskier times of the day, is it equal exposure to risk ?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
crisisjez said:
vonhosen said:
crisisjez said:
Think if you`re to make an accurate comparison you need to chart accidents per mile.
(Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
That isn't necessarily a valid comparison either. (Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
If somebody is doing all their mileage on our safest roads & others are doing their mileage (even if it is less miles) on riskier roads at riskier times of the day, is it equal exposure to risk ?
Without which no survey can be truely accurate.
jayrockwell said:
crisisjez said:
vonhosen said:
crisisjez said:
Think if you`re to make an accurate comparison you need to chart accidents per mile.
(Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
That isn't necessarily a valid comparison either. (Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
If somebody is doing all their mileage on our safest roads & others are doing their mileage (even if it is less miles) on riskier roads at riskier times of the day, is it equal exposure to risk ?
Without which no survey can be truely accurate.
How about this for research?
Identify a large sample of high mileage drivers, sales reps and so forth.
Get a statistician to divide them into 2 groups with similar accident risk.
Allow the govt to choose one group to have speed limiters fitted.
The other group gets a brief IAM type course.
Then count the accidents...............
Identify a large sample of high mileage drivers, sales reps and so forth.
Get a statistician to divide them into 2 groups with similar accident risk.
Allow the govt to choose one group to have speed limiters fitted.
The other group gets a brief IAM type course.
Then count the accidents...............
vonhosen said:
WhoseGeneration said:
Funny how Aviation, at all levels, requires licence proving, on a regular basis.
Yet road vehicle piloting not.
Why?.
Aviation is safer.
I believe the answer why is because the public would be very much against compulsory retesting for riding/driving.Yet road vehicle piloting not.
Why?.
Aviation is safer.
In any case it doesn't need routine re-testing of everybody, not that the resources are there to do it anyhow. What we might do is some kind of assessing and tailored training for those who seem to be getting into particular trouble, if such a group can be identified - such as the young drivers - or at least some of them.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I don't see having people doing retests as being practical, There are just too many drivers. Not to mention the fact that even the current driving test is by no means a sufficient test of driving abillity/skill.
The OP suggestion of discounts on road tax and the like for proving advanced driving skills by means of advanced driving curses or the like seems a very good idea to encourage better driving standards on the road.
The OP suggestion of discounts on road tax and the like for proving advanced driving skills by means of advanced driving curses or the like seems a very good idea to encourage better driving standards on the road.
This is from the "Of course he would say that" category...From the RoSPA newsletter...extracts...ONE Hospital...SIX per DAY?
""Jaqueline Richards, an emergency nurse from Queens Hospital, Romford, talked about her experiences with road traffic victims. Her presentation provided an in depth analysis of road traffic collision victims...during the eight week period Nov - December 2007 ...330 casualties were admitted....the following summary shows significant factors...
70% of drivers were unlicensed
50% of car driver casualties were of East European origin
The 19-28 year group were the most at risk
Front seat passengers are most at risk
Size of vehicle affects level of injury
Drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol
Mobile phones
Overloaded cars
Non seatbelt compliance - unrestrained children - babies on laps.
"Driver education for all age groups is essential in reducing these casualties, said Jaqueline" about the grim realities she faces on a daily basis.""
As an IAM Observer, all I can do is try to help one at a time.
But, IF I was a Government Minister, I might suggest that drivers of unlicensed cars are barred for life and the cars crushed...same for drink or drug offences.
Mobile phone use, overloaded cars, seatbelts not used...ONE YEAR driving ban...any smart lawyers looking for 'loopholes'...barred from legal practise for life.
VFC[
!]
""Jaqueline Richards, an emergency nurse from Queens Hospital, Romford, talked about her experiences with road traffic victims. Her presentation provided an in depth analysis of road traffic collision victims...during the eight week period Nov - December 2007 ...330 casualties were admitted....the following summary shows significant factors...
70% of drivers were unlicensed
50% of car driver casualties were of East European origin
The 19-28 year group were the most at risk
Front seat passengers are most at risk
Size of vehicle affects level of injury
Drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol
Mobile phones
Overloaded cars
Non seatbelt compliance - unrestrained children - babies on laps.
"Driver education for all age groups is essential in reducing these casualties, said Jaqueline" about the grim realities she faces on a daily basis.""
As an IAM Observer, all I can do is try to help one at a time.
But, IF I was a Government Minister, I might suggest that drivers of unlicensed cars are barred for life and the cars crushed...same for drink or drug offences.
Mobile phone use, overloaded cars, seatbelts not used...ONE YEAR driving ban...any smart lawyers looking for 'loopholes'...barred from legal practise for life.
VFC[
!]It is fascinating see so many opinions about what is right or wrong about advanced driving, some good and some definately not so good but the main point is that anyone who takes an interest in improving their driving skills will become a lower accident risk. I have been with people who claim to have passed an IAM test and wonder how ! Yet another experienced driver with no qualification may be very good even if the technique is not all there.
If i were to change anything it would not be incentives for additional driving traing but getting the basic driving right in the first place. We are still in the dark ages with driving tests requiring the completion of a number of manouvres and some general driving which is usually in a built up area. All this actually proves is that a person can pass a fairly basic test and drive a car slowly.
IAM is not rocket science, it is about demonstrating the ability to drive progressively and safely over a varied route. My proposal would be that all new drivers do the manouvring stuff at approved off road sites. Once passed they move to the roads where they are taught to drive and tested in smiliar vain to IAM. If successful the final bit should include motorway driving before being let loose on their own. Test failures would undoubtedly rocket but we would only see people who could actually DRIVE succeeding. That has got to be a greater contribution to overall safety in the long term.
If i were to change anything it would not be incentives for additional driving traing but getting the basic driving right in the first place. We are still in the dark ages with driving tests requiring the completion of a number of manouvres and some general driving which is usually in a built up area. All this actually proves is that a person can pass a fairly basic test and drive a car slowly.
IAM is not rocket science, it is about demonstrating the ability to drive progressively and safely over a varied route. My proposal would be that all new drivers do the manouvring stuff at approved off road sites. Once passed they move to the roads where they are taught to drive and tested in smiliar vain to IAM. If successful the final bit should include motorway driving before being let loose on their own. Test failures would undoubtedly rocket but we would only see people who could actually DRIVE succeeding. That has got to be a greater contribution to overall safety in the long term.
vonhosen said:
crisisjez said:
Think if you`re to make an accurate comparison you need to chart accidents per mile.
(Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
That isn't necessarily a valid comparison either. (Same system the aviation world use to determine air accident statistics (hull loss/incident per flying hour)
Its a little unbalanced comparing the risk faced by a salesman travelling 10`s of thousands of miles a year against someone who may only drive a few miles each week.
If somebody is doing all their mileage on our safest roads & others are doing their mileage (even if it is less miles) on riskier roads at riskier times of the day, is it equal exposure to risk ?
Deaths because this is incontrovertible (more or less), unlike serious injuries. Per passenger mile as a coach crash is more serious than a bike crash. I reject the "choice of road" risk. Choose a different route. No road is inherently dangerous. If people are dying a lot in one place, then that is a matter for highways engineers, not statisticians.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff