Welcome to my new monthly column in which I will be commenting on current issues in all matters related to driving and learning.
Without being presumptuous that any of you will have noticed, I had taken a break for six months or so from my fortnightly column taking you on the ‘learner journey’.
To kick us off we have the issue of whether or not the current driving test is ‘fit for purpose’ in terms of making the roads safer.
The Institute of Advanced Motoring (IAM), a well-respected road safety charity has commissioned a poll to get an idea of whether the test is helping in making young drivers safe.
Its results are mostly as you might expect, but I have a different take on the results. In order to explain I will have to give you some of the key points to illustrate:
20% of people killed or seriously injured in a reported road accident were involved in a collision where at least one of the cars was driven by a young driver (18-25).
Around 22% of all accidents involved at least one young driver. The 32,400 accidents involving at least one young car driver resulted in 350 deaths and more than 4,1000 seriously injured casualties.
Nearly 25% of all car drivers (133 out of 542 drivers) who died in 2012 were young drivers.
At first glance this may illicit the reaction that “we need to do more to make young people safer on the roads”.
But flip this over and it means that 75 to 80% of people involved in accidents/deaths are over 25 and considered to be more mature, experienced drivers. Where would making changes in the test be beneficial in these cases?
Of course this isn’t the whole picture, because although young drivers do not make up the majority of accidents, they are over-represented in accidents proportionally to the number of young drivers on the road, so there is work to be done on improving their safety.
The IAM propose the following six points, because “this survey shows that younger drivers simply don’t feel adequately prepared for independent driving.”
1Road safety education as part of the school curriculum (good idea).
2Theory and hazard perception tests be delivered online and in education establishments (irrelevant).
3Insurance companies not penalising L drivers gaining experience in the family car (great idea but impractical as you can’t force insurance companies to do this).
4A 12-month minimum learning period with a logbook to build experience safely.
5A practical driving test that includes high speed roads (a good idea, if these were available to all testing stations).
6Post-test assessment and training for all in the high-risk early months of solo driving (not necessary if people were well prepared).
My comment on point 4 is last as it needs the closest examination.
A minimum amount of time for learning will do nothing to help prepare young drivers better. If we are serious about getting people better prepared, a minimum number of hours on the road before a test can be taken are required.
Currently, the biggest driving force behind people’s learning is economics. As a result, once a pupil has learnt everything, and the instructor is happy that they are ready to take the test, they usually do.
I had a pupil who was ready for the test after 35 hours of teaching, as they were very good at learning. This doesn’t mean they were best prepared to drive independently.
But it is difficult to insist they spend more money on lessons when they are technically ready for the test. And as the statistics in this piece show, the majority of people involved in accidents are not young drivers.
Testing and all the criteria surrounding it are only a part of making our roads safer. It is impossible to eradicate all danger; some people are inherently risk takers, basic human error will always play a part and there will always be those drivers whose poor decisions compromise the safety of everyone else on the roads.