Transport part 3- Driver testing and training and driving styles

Driving styles

Most of the people who derive enjoyment from the physical process of driving, or being driven, do so at least partly because of the sense of movement, similar to the enjoyment people get from being on a roller-coaster.  Unfortunately, it has become almost taboo to admit to this in the UK because of the stigmas generated by "boy racer" types who insist on driving excessively fast and/or "energetically" and take unacceptably high risks, and that's partly why I am so used to responses like, "Go to a race track."  In reality, in many circumstances, particularly on country lanes with a 50 or 60mph speed limit, it is possible to get a strong sense of movement without having to drive particularly fast or "energetically", and while keeping within the speed limit.

As a non-driver and passenger I also appreciate the variety in driving styles between individuals, i.e. being driven out by motorist A will often be a different experience from being driven out by motorist B.

But there is a strong push from road safety and environmental organisations to try to homogenise driving styles over to the "slow and smooth" extreme, e.g. through a combination of lower speed limits, road design, and "black box" technology which can be used to monitor people's driving styles.  There are various reasons as to why many groups advocate driving smoothly, e.g. reducing wear and tear on car parts, giving a smooth ride for passengers, reducing fuel consumption, and discouraging "boy racer" type tendencies.  But if driving slowly and smoothly is taken to too much of an extreme, you are left with just a limited sense that you are actually moving, and so much of the scope to enjoy the "making progress" aspects of driving/being driven is lost.

Driving "energetically" is not something that you either do or you don't, it is a sliding scale and it is relative.  If enforcement of smooth driving styles becomes increasingly draconian over the next 20 years then there is every chance that driving styles that are considered "smooth" today may be considered "energetic" in 20 years' time.  Ultimately, although these groups don't like to admit it, there is a strongly negative and unpopular agenda behind the push for slow and smooth driving styles- namely, to take the glamour out of driving and instil into everybody that driving should be purely a means of getting from A to B and not a means of "expressing yourself", and to get all "pleasure driving" tarnished by association with the reckless minority.
I have read campaign articles saying that enforcing slow and smooth driving styles very strictly would negate many of the downsides of car use.  Unfortunately, as I established in Part 1 of this series, it would also heavily negate most of the benefits as well.

Problems with the UK's current system of driver testing

The problem with the UK's training/testing system for drivers is not that it is too easy to pass (the UK driving test is one of the most gruelling and difficult to pass in the world), it is that it is too easy for people to become fully licenced drivers before they are ready for it.

Drivers are taught how to drive primarily in order to pass the test, where they must conform strictly to a certain approved style of driving and learn how to drive effectively at slow speeds in and around urban areas, and they do not get a strong grounding in areas such as car control and high-speed driving (most notably on dual carriageways and motorways) and adapting to different driving conditions.  Additions like the hazards perception test have improved matters a little but are still far from ideal.   Once drivers have passed the test, it is common for them to feel that they have to learn to drive all over again.

A common problem, particularly among teenage drivers, is a temptation to rebel against the rules and restrictions that they had to comply with in order to pass the test, such as by trying out motorway driving and long-distance journeys almost immediately, and driving "energetically" (rapid acceleration, going fast around corners etc. to get a greater sense of movement like on a roller-coaster).  Unfortunately, due to their inexperience and lack of understanding of car control, they initially have a poor idea of what is and isn't safe, and learn through trial and error, and the "error" part of this occasionally has tragic consequences.  Some drivers end up developing bad habits as a result of the trial and error because they have nothing to guide them regarding what is and isn't a good habit to get into.

I am used to many people being remarkably defensive of the idea that the rules of the driving test are always right because the rules are the rules, and insisting that anything that deviates from them is a bad habit, despite acknowledging that many of these rules are tailored to the novice driver's lack of experience and therefore may not be as applicable to relatively advanced drivers.  It is an attitude that we must shake off, as there is considerable room for improvement.

Proposed solutions

Thus, I am in favour of a more graduated system that focuses more on training than on error-based testing, to help drivers to achieve a large understanding of car control and hazard perception before they are fully "let loose" on the roads.  

The important point is being able to understand how to read the road correctly and be able to see and appreciate real and potential hazards in front of you, and drive at the appropriate speed for the conditions, ensuring that you are in the right gear and right position to give yourself a very favourable chance of avoiding an accident if unexpected hazards arise.  This is something that comes through experience, but it also helps somewhat if motorists are guided in the right sort of direction to begin with, as if they are not guided, there is a greater risk of them developing bad habits.  There are various aspects of systems like Pass Plus and police driver training, for example, that could be incorporated into a more graduated system.

As part of the graduated system, drivers who have not been fully through the process will have to be restricted in some ways before they get a full licence.  I favour restrictions that are tailored to the individuals' lack of experience and do not impinge heavily upon other road users, rather than "restrict everybody to legislate for the minority" type ones.  Thus, for example, restrictions on engine size and the types of high-speed road driven on may be advisable, prior to candidates learning the skills behind driving on high-speed roads and car control.  But when drivers with incomplete licences are subject to restrictions like lower speed limits and being banned from taking non-family members with them, this has negative impacts upon others.

One upshot of this is that there will be some people who simply don't have the required levels of skill and/or confidence to become fully-licensed drivers.  This is a significant problem in a car-dependent country like the UK where so many of us see the private car as a necessity rather than a luxury.  Thus, this ties in with what I blogged about in Part 1, i.e. we need to become less dependent on the car so that people are not heavily disadvantaged if they don't drive.

"Solutions" that I don't agree with

Instead, many people propose keeping the UK's testing system as it is, and legislating for its flaws by tightening up the restrictions on drivers, especially new drivers who are within two years of passing their driving tests.  Here are three, in particular, that I condemn:

1.  Restrictions on driving out non-family members.  It makes sense that if a driver's parent is present in the car, then the driver is less likely to drive recklessly than if it is a group of friends from school.  But when we get situations where someone is allowed to drive out a sibling or first cousin, but not a close friend, or where driving out a close friend is allowed only if there is a work-related reason for driving (because work is considered essential but recreation isn't) it starts to get unreasonable very quickly, as blood ties and work have very little bearing on the likelihood of someone being incited into driving recklessly.

2.  Lower speed limits for new drivers.  This results in experienced drivers being held up behind inexperienced drivers at 30% below the "standard" speed limit and the inexperienced drivers knowing that they can't speed up or they will soon find themselves up to the 6 penalty points and being forced to go through the whole learning/training/testing process again.

3.  Dumbing road traffic laws down to the lowest common denominator.  The argument here is, if the problem is that the current driver training/testing system doesn't give drivers enough of a grounding in things like car control, we can restrict traffic so that eventually traffic is so heavily restricted that drivers never need to make use of those skills.  This sort of policy would heavily negate many of the advantages that cars bring to society.

There will be situations where the public's lack of driving skill will be exposed, such as when overtaking a tractor on a country lane and finding that a car is coming the other way, thus requiring a burst of speed to complete the overtaking move without being hit full-on.  I suppose we could legislate for those with further draconian restrictions like banning overtaking, and enforcing those with "black boxes" too, but seriously, is this really where we want to be headed?