There's another poll over on the IAM website, here. Open to all, as before. This time it's about the topic of driver pre-training: getting youngsters behind the wheel off the road so that they can get familiar with the control of a car before they start to learn on the road. The questions seem a little better designed than the last one. Some are complete no-brainers, but I suppose they have to try to cover all bases. If you are interested, head on over and say your piece. Takes less than a minute.
I did a post on this topic earlier this year, so I knew what I wanted to say before I started. I think it's a VERY good idea.
Showing posts with label driving lessons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label driving lessons. Show all posts
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Thursday, 16 September 2010
A SORI state of affairs
OK, team talk, group hug. Help me out here, folks.
When I learned to drive back in - er - 1970, the procedure for dealing with roundabouts was quite clear. Turning left: approach in the left lane (if more than one), indicating left. Turning right: approach in right lane (if more than one), indicating right. After the exit before the one you want, start to indicate left, move to the outside and leave the roundabout. Going straight ahead: do not signal on the approach, use whichever lane is appropriate (normally the left), after the exit before the one you want, start to indicate left, move to the outside and leave the roundabout.
Perfectly clear and logical. Everyone is in the right position, everyone knows what everyone else is doing, no conflict, no confusion, everyone happy. The Highway Code hasn't changed:
Now I have noticed, over many years, that a significant minority of drivers do not follow this procedure. When going straight ahead on a roundabout, they signal RIGHT on the approach (and often stay in the right lane, if there is one) and then signal left at the turning before, and leave the roundabout. I'll call this the SORI method (straight on, right indicator).
It's hard to give any statistics, so this is anecdotal, but for those who do bother to signal at roundabouts - a declining number, I think - about one in twenty follow the 'going straight on, signal right', SORI approach. I can't understand this. Not only is it not what the Highway Code says today, but it wasn't what the Highway Code said forty years ago either.
If it was only one car in a hundred, you could dismiss it as someone who had never learned to drive properly, or a genuine mistake, or a last-minute change of mind, or whatever. But I see this enough to believe that a goodly number of drivers today actually think this is the correct way to do it. And that puzzles me.
You see, driving instruction these days is a highly-regulated profession. If they pay for lessons, learners must learn with an DSA-approved instructor, and these people all have to pass a test of competence which surely to God involves knowing the right way to deal with a roundabout. So I am looking for an explanation, and I can only come up with:
Only this week, I was nearly totalled by one of these goons. I was approaching a roundabout, intending to go straight ahead. The van in front of me signalled right and went into the right-hand lane, so I came up in the left lane and took the outside lane round the roundabout. I was going faster than he was, so I went past him on the outside and was about to take my exit when he sliced across me and took the exit I was going for, and he went straight for the left lane, as well, which left me nowhere to go. I was prepared for this, so no drama other than a few choice curses under my breath, but it did occur to me that his actions were completely out of order. I don't so much mind being cut up - shit happens - but why the right-turn signal? It happens all the time, and they can't all be changing their minds at the last minute, can they?
Next time it happens, and the car stops soon afterwards, I think I will pull over and ask the driver why he did it. I might get in a fight, possibly - I mean, it's hard to say "why did you just do that?" without sounding aggressive, but it's worth it if I can find out what the hell is going on.
If anyone reading this has the faintest clue about it, I'd love to hear an explanation.
You can tell I've been on the road a lot this week.
When I learned to drive back in - er - 1970, the procedure for dealing with roundabouts was quite clear. Turning left: approach in the left lane (if more than one), indicating left. Turning right: approach in right lane (if more than one), indicating right. After the exit before the one you want, start to indicate left, move to the outside and leave the roundabout. Going straight ahead: do not signal on the approach, use whichever lane is appropriate (normally the left), after the exit before the one you want, start to indicate left, move to the outside and leave the roundabout.
Perfectly clear and logical. Everyone is in the right position, everyone knows what everyone else is doing, no conflict, no confusion, everyone happy. The Highway Code hasn't changed:
186
Signals and position.
When taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
- signal left and approach in the left-hand lane
- keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave
When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
- signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
- keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
- signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want
When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
- select the appropriate lane on approach to the roundabout
- you should not normally need to signal on approach
- stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout
- signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want
Now I have noticed, over many years, that a significant minority of drivers do not follow this procedure. When going straight ahead on a roundabout, they signal RIGHT on the approach (and often stay in the right lane, if there is one) and then signal left at the turning before, and leave the roundabout. I'll call this the SORI method (straight on, right indicator).
It's hard to give any statistics, so this is anecdotal, but for those who do bother to signal at roundabouts - a declining number, I think - about one in twenty follow the 'going straight on, signal right', SORI approach. I can't understand this. Not only is it not what the Highway Code says today, but it wasn't what the Highway Code said forty years ago either.
If it was only one car in a hundred, you could dismiss it as someone who had never learned to drive properly, or a genuine mistake, or a last-minute change of mind, or whatever. But I see this enough to believe that a goodly number of drivers today actually think this is the correct way to do it. And that puzzles me.
You see, driving instruction these days is a highly-regulated profession. If they pay for lessons, learners must learn with an DSA-approved instructor, and these people all have to pass a test of competence which surely to God involves knowing the right way to deal with a roundabout. So I am looking for an explanation, and I can only come up with:
- At one time, SORI was the correct method, and some kind of race-memory has kept it in the minds of learner drivers through the ages, perhaps passed down through families (although any driver taught to do this must have taken his or her test at least 40 years ago)
- These people were taught by Grandad, not a proper instructor, and Grandad's memory isn't what it was
- Some driving instructors are part of a secret cabal of revolutionaries, who deliberately teach people the SORI method as part of a plot for world domination
- Some drivers have such a poor spatial awareness that they think straight ahead is a kind of subset of 'right'
- Some people are just fucking thick.
Only this week, I was nearly totalled by one of these goons. I was approaching a roundabout, intending to go straight ahead. The van in front of me signalled right and went into the right-hand lane, so I came up in the left lane and took the outside lane round the roundabout. I was going faster than he was, so I went past him on the outside and was about to take my exit when he sliced across me and took the exit I was going for, and he went straight for the left lane, as well, which left me nowhere to go. I was prepared for this, so no drama other than a few choice curses under my breath, but it did occur to me that his actions were completely out of order. I don't so much mind being cut up - shit happens - but why the right-turn signal? It happens all the time, and they can't all be changing their minds at the last minute, can they?
Next time it happens, and the car stops soon afterwards, I think I will pull over and ask the driver why he did it. I might get in a fight, possibly - I mean, it's hard to say "why did you just do that?" without sounding aggressive, but it's worth it if I can find out what the hell is going on.
If anyone reading this has the faintest clue about it, I'd love to hear an explanation.
You can tell I've been on the road a lot this week.
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Car drivers and emergencies
Toyota driver in 90 mph runaway terror ride - The Times
A terrified Toyota driver was forced to use a police vehicle to help stop his own runaway car after the accelerator pedal in his Prius became stuck at speeds of more than 90mph on a California highway.
What is the most powerful system on your car? The engine, with 100, 200 or even 300 brake horsepower? Nope.
The braking system of any modern car is worth about 500bhp - that is, it can apply deceleration to the vehicle faster and more effectively than any possible acceleration from the engine.
If your accelerator pedal gets stuck in the fully-down position and your car is rocketing away out of control, simply brake. Brake very hard. The car will stop - guaranteed. If you don't believe me, try this (on private land, wearing a fireproof suit, ACU-approved helmet and with your life insurance intact, obviously, and WEAR YOUR SEAT BELT): drive the car at 50 mph in third gear; put your foot on the throttle as far as it will go, and put your left foot on the brake pedal. Brake hard. The car will not accelerate - indeed, it will start to slow down. (Don't do this for long - it will break.)
In the unlikely even of your brakes suddenly deciding not to work (you did keep up with the servicing and inspection schedule, didn't you?), put the car into neutral (automatics - easy; manuals may need a bit of force) and coast to a halt with the engine screaming.
Turning the engine off (but not to the steering lock position, obviously) while in gear will also work as the movement of the car will keep the engine turning and the power steering working, while the drag of the engine will slow the car down very effectively.
All quite simple. So why are Toyota drivers apparently dying in their hundreds because of a fault in the car? I'm pretty sure it is because no-one knows how cars work any more. We jump in, we fill them with fuel, have them serviced occasionally, and that's it. There's a system to take care of almost any driver error (ABS, traction control, stability programs), and we have become de-skilled. In the 'good old days', you didn't get far if you didn't know the basics of how the car functioned - and, therefore, unexpected mechanical behaviour could be understood and dealt with.
All motorcycles have a kill switch - a big red button on the right handlebar grip. It kills the engine dead. On the Honda, with 125 bhp driving less than a third of a tonne of metal [1], I'm glad it's there - just in case.
[1] That's over 400 bhp per tonne - more than a Ferrari F430 Scuderia (£172,500) at a mere 333 bhp/tonne, or a Maserati 4200GT (£59,950) at a pathetic 230 bhp/tonne. To get better than that, you'd need a Caterham Superlight R500 (£36,995), which nudges the magic 500 bhp/tonne figure. Even a lardy touring motorcycle can beat a supercar where it counts.
A terrified Toyota driver was forced to use a police vehicle to help stop his own runaway car after the accelerator pedal in his Prius became stuck at speeds of more than 90mph on a California highway.
What is the most powerful system on your car? The engine, with 100, 200 or even 300 brake horsepower? Nope.
The braking system of any modern car is worth about 500bhp - that is, it can apply deceleration to the vehicle faster and more effectively than any possible acceleration from the engine.
If your accelerator pedal gets stuck in the fully-down position and your car is rocketing away out of control, simply brake. Brake very hard. The car will stop - guaranteed. If you don't believe me, try this (on private land, wearing a fireproof suit, ACU-approved helmet and with your life insurance intact, obviously, and WEAR YOUR SEAT BELT): drive the car at 50 mph in third gear; put your foot on the throttle as far as it will go, and put your left foot on the brake pedal. Brake hard. The car will not accelerate - indeed, it will start to slow down. (Don't do this for long - it will break.)
In the unlikely even of your brakes suddenly deciding not to work (you did keep up with the servicing and inspection schedule, didn't you?), put the car into neutral (automatics - easy; manuals may need a bit of force) and coast to a halt with the engine screaming.
Turning the engine off (but not to the steering lock position, obviously) while in gear will also work as the movement of the car will keep the engine turning and the power steering working, while the drag of the engine will slow the car down very effectively.
All quite simple. So why are Toyota drivers apparently dying in their hundreds because of a fault in the car? I'm pretty sure it is because no-one knows how cars work any more. We jump in, we fill them with fuel, have them serviced occasionally, and that's it. There's a system to take care of almost any driver error (ABS, traction control, stability programs), and we have become de-skilled. In the 'good old days', you didn't get far if you didn't know the basics of how the car functioned - and, therefore, unexpected mechanical behaviour could be understood and dealt with.
All motorcycles have a kill switch - a big red button on the right handlebar grip. It kills the engine dead. On the Honda, with 125 bhp driving less than a third of a tonne of metal [1], I'm glad it's there - just in case.
[1] That's over 400 bhp per tonne - more than a Ferrari F430 Scuderia (£172,500) at a mere 333 bhp/tonne, or a Maserati 4200GT (£59,950) at a pathetic 230 bhp/tonne. To get better than that, you'd need a Caterham Superlight R500 (£36,995), which nudges the magic 500 bhp/tonne figure. Even a lardy touring motorcycle can beat a supercar where it counts.
Monday, 22 February 2010
Young Drivers
Driving a car is a complex skill, requiring manual dexterity, spatial awareness and an ability to read rapidly-developing situations and plan responses in real time. It's enormously difficult if you look at it from that point of view, and yet most people manage it to a fairly successful degree.
Most people learn to drive on the road. They are told how to start and stop the car, and then are expected to drive around some quiet roads to get the hang of it before venturing into more challenging situations. In this way, the muscle co-ordination required to control the car and the ability to read and respond to the events around you have to be developed simultaneously. It is very noticeable that people who learn to drive at a young age seem to be the most instinctive and natural drivers: those who pass their test later in life often remain nervous and reluctant.
I was very lucky. My Dad worked about half a mile away from where I went to school, and if I missed the school bus I would walk down to his workplace and get on with my homework until he was ready to leave. When I got to 16 or so, I used to ask him is I could get the car out ready to go home. He parked his car in a garage on a piece of private land, and if he was in a good mood I would take the keys and reverse the car out and perhaps shunt it to and fro for a few minutes. After a while, as my confidence grew, and as I learned his movements better, I was able to spend 10 to 15 minutes driving up and down this piece of land, changing up to second gear and getting used to the oddness of reversing in confined spaces. At this time, Dad would occasionally take me to Elvington airfield near York, where for a small fee you could drive about unlicensed, and there I learned about going faster than 5 mph and dealing with junctions and corners. Of course, when it came to 'proper' learning to drive, I had no fear at all. I could control the car quite well, and was able to concentrate on learning the roadcraft side of things. I passed my test first time, and have driven ever since. Driving doesn't hold any fear or apprehension for me, and I am sure that this level of confidence is because I learned to drive in easy stages.
So what? Well, it appears that this was a very unsafe way to go about things. The BBC reports (under the scary headline "Fears as children aged 11 take driving lessons") that:
Thousands of children - some as young as 11 - are enrolling for driving lessons at a growing number of specialist centres, but the trend has police and safety groups concerned.
A company called 'Young Driver', amongst others, is offering courses to children and young people who want to master the basics of driving before they ever get anywhere near a road. I would have thought this was an admirable aim. But the 'authorities' don't seem to agree.
But Insp Alan Jones, from the Police Federation of England and Wales, said he had reservations.
"Driving on one of these courses at 11 years old, it's another six years until you can get a driving licence. How does it replicate the real world, the spontaneous incidents?" he said.
It doesn't, you plonker. That's the whole point. Learning to deal with the real world, the spontaneous incidents, will come later when they get lessons on the road - but they will be better equipped to understand and deal with them because they have the basic control of the vehicle mastered already.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has warned the courses could make youngsters over confident and more likely to crash.
Kevin Clinton, from the group, said while early education was a very good thing, the same did not apply to driving a car.
"It will probably mean youngsters will take fewer lessons when they come to learn to drive and if they take fewer lessons they will get less experience," he said.
But they won't need extra experience, because they were already half-way there.
"That means when they pass their test they may be at greater risk of crashing because they won't have had as much experience when they are supervised."
Good God, these people are thick! Learning a foreign language as a child is a good thing; learning Maths as a child is a good thing - because learning young makes things natural and easy, and you are fluent and comfortable with the subject when you become an adult. But somehow this doesn't apply to driving a car? If time spent under the supervision of an instructor is desirable, than why not make it compulsory, as they do with pilots' licenses, where a trainee has to demonstrate a certain number of logged hours before they are allowed to fly solo? Deliberately hampering the acquisition of the skill to prolong the instructor contact time seems a strange way to achieve this.
Make no mistake - only about 10% of safe driving is about actual skill. I would say that another 40% is about observation and concentration, and a whole 50% is about attitude. A youngster who comes to driving lessons with a good degree of basic control over the car has got all of his or her mind free to concentrate on learning how to drive well. The instructor has the time to pass on all the good stuff about safe and efficient driving because he or she has to spend less time explaining how to use the clutch.
In Britain, one in five newly qualified drivers has an accident within six months of passing their test.
But in Sweden, allowing drivers to practise on roads from the age of 16 cut accidents amongst newly qualified drivers by 40%, according to a study.
Exactly.
Most people learn to drive on the road. They are told how to start and stop the car, and then are expected to drive around some quiet roads to get the hang of it before venturing into more challenging situations. In this way, the muscle co-ordination required to control the car and the ability to read and respond to the events around you have to be developed simultaneously. It is very noticeable that people who learn to drive at a young age seem to be the most instinctive and natural drivers: those who pass their test later in life often remain nervous and reluctant.
I was very lucky. My Dad worked about half a mile away from where I went to school, and if I missed the school bus I would walk down to his workplace and get on with my homework until he was ready to leave. When I got to 16 or so, I used to ask him is I could get the car out ready to go home. He parked his car in a garage on a piece of private land, and if he was in a good mood I would take the keys and reverse the car out and perhaps shunt it to and fro for a few minutes. After a while, as my confidence grew, and as I learned his movements better, I was able to spend 10 to 15 minutes driving up and down this piece of land, changing up to second gear and getting used to the oddness of reversing in confined spaces. At this time, Dad would occasionally take me to Elvington airfield near York, where for a small fee you could drive about unlicensed, and there I learned about going faster than 5 mph and dealing with junctions and corners. Of course, when it came to 'proper' learning to drive, I had no fear at all. I could control the car quite well, and was able to concentrate on learning the roadcraft side of things. I passed my test first time, and have driven ever since. Driving doesn't hold any fear or apprehension for me, and I am sure that this level of confidence is because I learned to drive in easy stages.
So what? Well, it appears that this was a very unsafe way to go about things. The BBC reports (under the scary headline "Fears as children aged 11 take driving lessons") that:
Thousands of children - some as young as 11 - are enrolling for driving lessons at a growing number of specialist centres, but the trend has police and safety groups concerned.
A company called 'Young Driver', amongst others, is offering courses to children and young people who want to master the basics of driving before they ever get anywhere near a road. I would have thought this was an admirable aim. But the 'authorities' don't seem to agree.
But Insp Alan Jones, from the Police Federation of England and Wales, said he had reservations.
"Driving on one of these courses at 11 years old, it's another six years until you can get a driving licence. How does it replicate the real world, the spontaneous incidents?" he said.
It doesn't, you plonker. That's the whole point. Learning to deal with the real world, the spontaneous incidents, will come later when they get lessons on the road - but they will be better equipped to understand and deal with them because they have the basic control of the vehicle mastered already.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has warned the courses could make youngsters over confident and more likely to crash.
Kevin Clinton, from the group, said while early education was a very good thing, the same did not apply to driving a car.
"It will probably mean youngsters will take fewer lessons when they come to learn to drive and if they take fewer lessons they will get less experience," he said.
But they won't need extra experience, because they were already half-way there.
"That means when they pass their test they may be at greater risk of crashing because they won't have had as much experience when they are supervised."
Good God, these people are thick! Learning a foreign language as a child is a good thing; learning Maths as a child is a good thing - because learning young makes things natural and easy, and you are fluent and comfortable with the subject when you become an adult. But somehow this doesn't apply to driving a car? If time spent under the supervision of an instructor is desirable, than why not make it compulsory, as they do with pilots' licenses, where a trainee has to demonstrate a certain number of logged hours before they are allowed to fly solo? Deliberately hampering the acquisition of the skill to prolong the instructor contact time seems a strange way to achieve this.
Make no mistake - only about 10% of safe driving is about actual skill. I would say that another 40% is about observation and concentration, and a whole 50% is about attitude. A youngster who comes to driving lessons with a good degree of basic control over the car has got all of his or her mind free to concentrate on learning how to drive well. The instructor has the time to pass on all the good stuff about safe and efficient driving because he or she has to spend less time explaining how to use the clutch.
In Britain, one in five newly qualified drivers has an accident within six months of passing their test.
But in Sweden, allowing drivers to practise on roads from the age of 16 cut accidents amongst newly qualified drivers by 40%, according to a study.
Exactly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
