This is an old story from 2011. So much for government ideas – as of 2015 the idea is no nearer coming to anything, and yet it is one of the most important changes they could make to the driving test.
I saw this in the newsfeeds today. It appears that from sometime next year, learners will be allowed on motorways as long as they are with a qualified instructor.
It won’t be compulsory to take motorway lessons (M-lessons), as many learners live too far away from one.
The story also mentions that the trainee (“pink”) licence system is going to change. This is where unqualified or trainee instructors currently teach pupils. It isn’t mentioned precisely how the change will manifest itself (although the story in the Telegraph – see link below – indicates that this will involve PDIs being actually supervised
They’re also talking about scrapping Pass Plus and replacing it with something else. Again, they don’t say what, yet (well, not in this story, anyway).
The story is also covered by MSN Cars and the Telegraph,
What is interesting is that on a certain web forum frequented by young people of “learn to drive” age, a great many of them think that M-lessons for learners are a bad idea… now that they have passed their tests and are world-renowned (in their own imagination) experts in the field of driving. They appear to hold the opinion that if your test is on a Wednesday, you are totally incapable of driving on a motorway on the Tuesday – but an expert at it come Thursday.
The attitude of some young people on that forum clearly illustrates where the real problems lie – and it ain’t due to lack of motorway tuition, of that you can be sure.
Although I mainly approve of M-lessons, I do have some reservations. The first is that having M-lessons is not going to prevent certain young people being prats, because that’s an attitude that comes with the hormones.
Another concern is the quality of the instructor. Let’s be honest about it: some instructors are not that good even now. How will they fare out on the motorway? And since the motorway is an optional lesson subject which, according to Penning, is down to the fact that many people don’t live near one, what will the cheapo instructors choose to do, faced with the prospect of having to drive more miles up one junction of a motorway on a single lesson than they normally do in all of their “10 for £50” ones? And what will those old fossils do, who only teach test routes and local driving to the more challenging learner, and who consider themselves superior to anyone under 60? Will these choose to cover motorways – or will they simply persist in blaming the DSA for everything and throw up excuses?
I doubt that the DSA information went into such minute detail (it rarely does – because it doesn’t need to), but there is a world of difference between “had to have” an interpreter and “chose to have” an interpreter. And yet The Argus bases its rant on the premise that none of these people could speak a word of English!
A few simple sums are also in order, I think. Looking at the year between April 2010 and March 2011, the Sussex test centres conducted at least 35,000 tests (not including Lancing and Brighton figures). Even if we round up “nearly” 1,000 to “actually” 1,000 interpreters on test, it still only equates to about 3%. The words “big” and “deal” spring to mind.
The Argus joins the dots in its story by claiming that they used interpreters “because they didn’t have a strong enough command of English”. How can it possibly know this?
If your first language isn’t English, there isn’t much you can do about it. You may be able to get by in normal life with a bit of arm-waving and a few laughs with your mates, but if you’ve got a driving test coming up – on which your future employment prospects might rest – given the opportunity to use an interpreter in your native tongue, you are going to take advantage of it unless you’re a complete fool. And why shouldn’t you?
Of course, the average Sussex resident – after having raised his Union Jack on his flagpole of a morning, and then gone to fetch his copy of the Daily Mail – will have made certain assumptions about the story. But he’d be wrong – the most popular languages requested appear to be Polish, Turkish, and Arabic. Gujarati, Urdu, and Hindi were way down the list.
The Argus points out that interpreters have to be supplied (and paid for) by the candidate. Obviously disappointed by this, it goes on to point out that the cost of the translation from English to various languages for the theory test questions is met by the tax payer. What it means is that the DSA pays for it, but since the DSA is a government body, WE pay for it.
All of this is being fomented by Mike Penning and his war on “politically correct” foreign language tests (this also needs translating: Penning is a Tory, and it is vital that every change be blamed on Labour, who introduced some of the things he is trying to reverse). Penning is stupidly arguing that people whose first language isn’t English are a danger on the roads purely because they don’t speak English too well.
Fortunately, intelligent life still exists somewhere – in this case, at the AA. Andrew Howard, Head of Road Safety, said:
…he did not feel drivers who didn’t speak English would pose a road safety threat.
He said: “Fundamentally road signs are designed to be symbolic and so reading ability isn’t a factor.”
He’s almost completely right. Far Eastern drivers do have a problem, though. I had a Chinese pupil a few years ago, and when she panicked she “saw things in Chinese”. On one occasion this led to her missing a 30mph sign. But for almost everyone else who uses Arabic numerals, it isn’t a problem.
So, The Argus is just stirring up racial prejudice, it would seem. Not intentionally, I’m sure.
This article appeared in today’s Daily Mail in a sort of agony column for people who think they’re middle-class investors. A woman – presumably at least middle-aged – from Surrey, writes:
I paid for my grandson to have driving lessons with the AA and feel I have been taken for a ride.
He has had 38 lessons and in that time has reversed round a corner once, has had no parking tuition and has not done an emergency stop.
It appears he spent long periods parked up talking while his instructor was having a smoke.
He changed to an independent instructor, who said his driving standard was the level of someone who had received only six lessons.
My complaint to the AA has been going on for nearly 11 months, in which time they have replied just twice.
Obviously, the most likely first reaction from many people is “tut-tut. Shocking” But it’s worth pointing out a few things.
It’s virtually impossible to prevent people from learning when you are teaching them to drive. So if this learner is only as good as someone who has had 6 lessons, the signs definitely don’t point to him being that quick out of the starting gate when it comes to driving.
On the same point, any instructor who thinks he can make such an assessment is an idiot! I can imagine this “independent” wetting his trousers when the opportunity to bad mouth a national driving school came his way.
I’ve said before that ALL (close enough to 100% for me to use the word) instructors are self-employed. It doesn’t matter if an ADI is franchised to the AA, BSM, Red, a local school, or if he’s independent. You’re as likely to get a good/bad one wherever you go. The only genuine difference between an AA instructor and an independent one is that the former will pay money to the AA to supply him with a car and pupils, whereas the independent one will supply his own car and pupils. The chances of either of them being complete pillocks is identical.
It’s worth remembering that many, many, MANY independent ADIs were once franchised to one of the national schools. In these inclement economic times, many of independents are going back to franchises. They’re all still the same people. All that changes is the rubbish they come out with depending on which way they’ve jumped.
If this instructor stopped to have a smoke in pupils’ paid time, my own opinion is that he should be struck off the register and be tarred and feathered. It’s a filthy habit, and if you’re so pathetically desperate that you can’t wait for an hour or two to have a smoke, then you’re a weak-minded prat who has no business doing this job. But that’s just me.
The old granny who writes about her beloved grandson is probably under the impression that independents don’t smoke or something stupid like that. Well, I can assure her that we’ve got one up here who does (many of instructors do, in fact). He smokes on lessons and he stinks (many do). He’s even smoked in the Colwick toilets before (several have done). It was because of him – and several others – that the manager had to put signs up, which quite clearly state that people had been doing it. When you’re sitting in the test centre, many of them have to walk down the driveway to have a smoke (and some just do it outside, in spite of the signs there).
So in a nutshell, the problem is a grandma who wants to blame her grandson’s limitations on someone else. The only issues of any relevance, though, are the instructor smoking and maybe the lack of communication from the AA.
The columnist, Tony Hazell, makes some idiotic comment about the average number of lessons – erm, Tony, an “average” has a spread BOTH sides of it. Think before you offer stupid advice to someone who is already confused.
My fastest ever (no previous experience) was 17.5 hours. My longest was in the mid hundreds (can’t remember if it was 140 or 160 now). The Golden Grandson does not appear to be sub-20 hour material, though Doting Granny obviously thinks he is.
Some of what the article attributes to her makes sense – some sort of probation, and some restrictions are definitely needed for new drivers. But it is when you get down to the nitty-gritty detail that the cracks start to appear.
For one thing, she wants to limit their access to the motorways. Why, for God’s sake? That’s not where they have their accidents.
She wants to force them to stick P plates on their cars. Big deal! I’m sure they’ll drive really carefully after they get one of those.
Davenport justifies all this after seeing “the ruin and havoc” when she was a traffic officer. It’s a shame she didn’t understand it, though. Because she then comes out with the most idiotic and misguided comment imaginable:
At the moment, people learn to drive mainly in calm residential streets when it’s light. They don’t have much experience of driving on busy A-roads or in the dark.
Yet as soon as they get a licence they can drive on motorways at speed and carry as many passengers as they like. The vast majority are responsible but some – especially young people – take risks and drive too quickly.
This is simply not true. Some new drivers might well only be taught on calm streets in the light, but it would need a lot more data for me to accept that this applies to the majority. I teach every night – nights are a popular time – and I see a lot of other instructors around, so a large number of people are actually learning in the dark. Occasionally, I get someone who can only do evenings, and I have to make sure we get a few daytime lessons in at some point.
I also take all – and I mean ALL – my pupils along a dual-carriageway stretch of the A46, explaining that it’s as close as you can get to being on a motorway without actually going on one. It’s at least 10 miles away from the nearest Nottingham test centre, so isn’t going to be on a test route.
The problem with Davenport appears to be that she is trying to do too many things at once, and problems can’t usually be solved like that. She is calling for a complete ban on alcohol for all drivers, and prosecution for those caught using handheld devices. And she is stupidly tying all this into the issue of a graduated licence, which is specifically targeted at young/new drivers.
The prospect of any form of graduated licence is likely to be impeded by someone else with idiotic views. Roads Minister Mike Penning has already said that such restrictions would “unfairly penalise” those relying on cars to get to work or college. Penning apparently thinks that letting them kill themselves instead is a much fairer solution – and a great way to avoid losing votes at the next election, no doubt.
Just for the record, new drivers are paying around £2,000 or more for their first insurance. Hasn’t anyone sussed that this is a great way of keeping them off the roads? (And before anyone says anything, any driver who chooses to drive uninsured has already demonstrated what their attitude on the road is, and they’re not going to be influenced by any form of restriction placed on them).
And also on the insurance issue, £2,000 might be a bit high, but ask any young or new driver what they would consider “payable” and they will come up with a figure that most of us took at least 10 years to get anywhere near – and mostly before they were even born. The effect of a graduated licence on insurance would not “slash premiums” to anything like the level people imagine. And if it did, it would make matters worse by encouraging more people to drive who simply don’t need to.
But back to Suzette Davenport, and her extremely confused outlook on matters. The Mail reports:
Miss Davenport wants serious consideration given to a mandatory ‘P’ scheme. She also believes that new drivers should take extra lessons in motorway driving.
She notched up six penalty points ten years ago when she was twice caught by speed cameras exceeding the 30?mph limit.
Miss Davenport is a keen cyclist, and frequently pulls over drivers who fail to give consideration to cyclists. But she also has a reputation for stopping cyclists who are not wearing helmets, have poor lights or are dressed inappropriately.
Taking each of those paragraphs in turn…
Learners should be allowed on motorways with a driving instructor if you want to address this. FULL STOP. And sticking a P on your car won’t stop you having an accident – it tends to be a bit more complex than that.
Davenport no doubt had a wonderful excuse when she got those points on her licence. It could even have been her driving instructor’s fault. But let’s face facts, here. If the Deputy Chief Constable is such a bad driver that she got speeding points – and she was still allowed to become a Traffic Cop – surely that points to the deeper malady in our society?
And the malady goes even deeper in that last paragraph. Cyclists are one of the biggest nuisances on the roads, and especially when they use the road instead of the perfectly good cycle path next to it. Roads were designed primarily for cars – not cyclists. Cycle paths, on the other hand, are designed explicitly for cyclists. Yet it would seem that Davenport relishes having a go at motorists who are confronted with these Spandex-clad morons.
The last musical event of the year for me was QuoFest last night – the first of an 11-date tour by Status Quo, supported by Kim Wilde and Roy Wood’s Rock & Roll Band.
I must admit that when I was told Kim Wilde was appearing I wasn’t that impressed – even writing about it now feels odd. I mean, it’s hard to be a hard-core rocker when you are watching and writing about… Kim Wilde. It’s like when my mate from Leeds, who I go to these gigs with, is asking me if I can get Spice Girls tickets from my agent (loudly, in the mens toilets during the intermission of Rush’s R30 tour) or, this time, for the Steps Reunion (loudly, at the Evanescence gig, and then again last night). There for his daughters, of course, but it’s still not good for your street cred at these things!
But Kim was a total revelation. She has a good live voice, a great backing band, and she played all her well-known songs, plus a brilliant cover of the Buzzcocks’ Ever Fallen In Love With Someone.
She’s still a bit of a looker, and her backing singer was too – but let’s not allow that to detract from the musical side of the matter, eh? We’re all grown-ups, after all.
Roy Wood supported Quo on a previous tour – I may as well get this out of the way now, but he has a very attractive backing singer, too.
This time round, I felt that Roy was more rock & roll than rock, though he played many of his old hits and some great covers (although he DID write them), so maybe I’m just imagining things.
I should point out that the average Status Quo gig sees a lot of activity around the disabled access entrances with the lifts (more so than at a Queen concert these days). What I’m saying is that the average age of the audience tends to be a little on the high side, and for the support acts in particular people usually remain seated – with just the odder people trying to jive in the aisles. Tonight was no different, until Roy closed with I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday. That got most people up.
Even before Kim Wilde came on, there was a worrying number of inflatable guitars being assembled, along with the wearing of silly, oversized spectacles and Santa hats with flashing lights on. Of course, when Quo took to the stage everyone did stand up (apart from one bloke near the front, who Francis Rossi immediately picked out).
They played many of their hits, plus a few tracks from the latest album, Quid Pro Quo. At various stages, the inflatable guitars obscured any hope of a decent view – I think a lot of these people are so wound up in themselves sometimes that they’re not even aware of the music – but maybe I’m just a grumpy git! In actual fact, a Quo gig is a very musically competent affair – I suppose after all those years, it couldn’t be anything less – but people don’t just seem interested in that. Oh well.
At the end, Kim Wilde and Roy Wood came on stage again and the group did a medley of Christmas songs.
If you get a chance to go to one of the shows, I’d recommend it.
I was furious today. My first lesson was at 10am and I turned up bang on time. The pupil was a few minutes late (he normally waits outside as I drive up), and I was just about to go and knock.
So, he got in the car, and as he finished adjusting his mirrors he rubbed his face with both hands. That always makes me ask them if everything is OK – they are often unwell or haven’t slept for some reason.
But then I registered the familiar smell of alcohol, and asked “were you out on the piss last night?” “Yes”, came the reply. He didn’t get in until after 1pm, and although I didn’t ask, he probably drank at least 16 units of beer.
Working on the principle that it takes about an hour to get rid of one unit, I figure that he must have still had around 6 or more units in him – so three times over the drink-drive limit! (Those calculations are estimates, just in case one of the many, many pedants who become driving instructors are looking in).
We didn’t do the lesson. I read the riot act. And I charged him.
You see, young people appear singularly incapable of accepting that they are wrong, and will invoke all manner of pseudo-science (and rap or hip-hop lyrics) to prove their point. They are the modern day equivalent of the Flat Earth Society in this respect.
First of all, I found this Australian study from 1997, titled Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement (C. N. Kloeden, A. J. McLean, and G Ponte). It makes very interesting reading – particularly the findings represented by this graph:
What the researchers did was investigate the details associated with a number of crashes, and calculate the relative risk of an injury-accident for various speeds above 60km/h (which is around 40mph). They set the relative risk to 1.0 at exactly 60km/h.
The clear conclusion they drew was that for every 5km/h above 60km/h, the relative risk of an accident involving injury doubled. So at 60km/h it was 1.0, at 65km/h it rose to ~2, at 70km/h it was ~4, and so on. At 85km/h (approximately 55mph) – the upper limit of their study – the relative risk had risen to almost 60.
As the researchers point out, the risk of being involved in a casualty crash is quite low – this graph is relative risk. But the findings are quite clear. They conclude:
Above 60 km/h there is an exponential increase in risk of involvement in a casualty crash with increasing travelling speed such that the risk approximately doubles with each 5km/h increase in travelling speed.
Like the Australian paper, it makes reference to data from 1964, by Solomon. The original graphs are shown on the left, but you can see them in greater detail in the Australian paper.
The top one shows the involvement rate in accidents versus travelling speed – and there is one curve for daytime accidents, and one for nighttime. It is clear that the rate is lowest between 50 and 70mph. It rises exponentially either side of this.
The lower graph shows the involvement rate in accidents versus deviation for the mean speed of the traffic all around (again, one curve for daytime, one for nighttime). The involvement rate is lowest for cars travelling close to the mean speed – in other words, the same speed as everyone else. The greater the deviation, then the greater the involvement rate.
The lower graph explains the upper one. Basically, since most people will be travelling at somewhere around the speed limit, it is those who are deviating grossly – by either driving too fast or too slow – who appear most at risk. It doesn’t matter who is right and who is wrong as far as travelling speed is concerned, because this is just accident involvement, not accident responsibility.
The relationship between vehicle speed and crash severity is unequivocal and based on the laws of physics. The kinetic energy of a moving vehicle is a function of its mass and velocity squared. Kinetic energy is dissipated in a collision by friction, heat, and the deformation of mass. Generally, the more kinetic energy to be dissipated in a collision, the greater the potential for injury to vehicle occupants. Because kinetic energy is determined by the square of the vehicle’s speed, rather than by speed alone, the probability of injury, and the severity of injuries that occur in a crash, increase exponentially with vehicle speed. For example, a 30–percent increase in speed (e.g., from 50 to 65 mi/h [80 to 105 km/h]) results in a 69–percent increase in the kinetic energy of a vehicle.
This is precisely what I have been saying. That the faster you are going, the more serious will be the consequences if you have an accident. And the report adds this:
Solomon [from 1964, again] concluded that crash severity increased rapidly at speeds in excess of 60 mi/h (96 km/h), and the probability of fatal injuries increased sharply above 70 mi/h (112 km/h).
So on the one hand, it would appear that the current UK upper limit of 70mph IS the best in terms of convenience and safety. However, the report also mentions the effects of raising and lowering speed limits around the world in the last 20 years or so. The researchers found the following:
relatively small reductions in upper speed limits led to a reduction in fatalities by up to a quarter
relatively small increases in upper speed limits led to an increase in fatalities by up to a a third
It should be pointed out that some changes appeared to have no significant effect on accidents and fatalities (read the report yourselves), but the majority did. It was clear that increasing speed limits led to anything from a negligible to a dramatic increase in accidents and fatalities (with the exception of one US situation).
Finding this information is easy – and there is much more or it out there. However, what is also clear from reading it is that there is no single factor which governs safety, accidents, or anything else. You can’t just push a button or flip a switch and have everything all nice and comfy – something the DSA needs to take note of the next time it tries to make a silly blanket decisions about ADIs having to sit in on driving tests, and argue that this will reduce fatalities somehow.
Is it any wonder young people (mentioned in Part I of this topic) have stupid ideas about speeding?
The simple fact is that the faster you go, the less time you have to react – and as a new driver, you already have far less time than you think. You are not perfect, and you most certainly aren’t immortal. The result of this is that any accident you have will be worse – much worse – than if you’d have gone slower.
On a certain web forum frequented by students, someone has written that they were stopped at 2am on the M1 doing 96mph. They want to know how many points they are likely to get.
To be fair to the person, they do appear to be sorry and worried – though I can’t help wonder if that is much of a defence when you are going at a speed which is so far above the legal limit of 70mph. After all, if they hadn’t been caught, they’d still be out there behaving in exactly the same way. But that’s not my point.
Here are some of the typical responses – poor spelling and grammar left as is – from people who apparently represent the future. I will discuss the points highlighted with superscripts later:
thats pretty unlucky because my friend was on there on sunday and clocked up to 146mph and never even saw a, police car.
…96 at 2AM on the countries best motorway. TBH, for me, should be legal. Cars have minor stopping distances1 and amazing technology…
Tbh it’s ridiculous that you even get pulled for that at 2am in the morning.
I’ve done a lot of driving around that time, and there are hardly any other people on the motorway2.
It’s not as if you could harm other people…
…Oh, and 100mph.. big boy!! Its a bad ride if the bike doesnt touch 100 at least once on a ride out, and it’ll get there in about 5 seconds if I ask nicely. My licence is clean as well3.
From 100 mph my bike will stop quicker than most cars from 70… The bike is far far more agile than cars at speed due to the small amount of weight which has to change direction. My vision and road awareness is better than most car drivers4.
96 mph is nothing, last time few times iv been driving iv done 104mph on both the M40 and the A38. The only danger here is that my car is only a 0.9 engine and the whole thing starts vibrating like itl fall apart at any second5. Iv also been caught for speeding after half a year driving, a year and a half ago doing 50ish through a 30 in a place called milford common near stafford and i got three points, although in fairness to me, it was one of those 50 areas which is suddenly a 30 for about 500m.
Also, an excuse iv used before when cautioned by an officer is that I had a nut allergy6 and i had to get to a hospital quickly or id die. That works, so try it out!!!
It’s safe to go well over 100 at 2am7, tbh.
My dad just did one for going over 100mph on the motorway; was a £60 fine and £120 for the course, and much worse a waste of 3-4 hours of your time (they really take back the time u saved by speeding), but crucially 0 points.
Oh be apologetic and sorry in court ye 8
When my mate did it, He didn’t even bother stopping for the popo, Lol he got a fine and 6 month driving ban 9
The very first quote just illustrates the mentalities of these people. At best, they are a few months out of nappies, and it is all one big boast for them. I should point out, of course, that not all young drivers are like this – but the ones that are certainly screw things up for the rest.
Even if they try and argue their corner (1), they are frequently just wrong. This character reckons that cars have “minor stopping distances”. Well, at 96mph the overall stopping distance would be around 560 feet, or 170 metres (at best). That’s about 40 car lengths, or about 100 bicycle lengths, or over 500 pedestrian lengths… it would take you nearly 3 minutes to walk that far! Hardly a “minor” distance, is it?
Then there is the frequent comment (2) that it is “quiet” at 2am (or whenever), and at those times you should be allowed to do whatever speed you wish. I’m sure that fog, unlit sections of road, debris on the carriageway, potholes, foxes, deer, broken down vehicles, other drivers who don’t realise how fast the prat behind is going and so pull out, and so on all cease to be a factor at 2am in the morning. Or not, as the case may be. And this same idiot goes on to say that “it’s not as if you could harm other people”. And another one (7) states that going at that speed at 2am is “safe”.
As well as the general stupidity of many of the younger driving generation, there is always one who stands out as more stupid than the rest (3). The fact he is also a motorbike rider is surely just a coincidence..? He brags about doing 100mph regularly, otherwise it is a “bad ride”, and he is serious. He also brags about having a clean licence, as if this means what he is doing is somehow OK. He also makes the ridiculous statement (4) about his bike being “more agile” than a car and himself having better road awareness than anyone else.
Another boaster (5) even provides location information about his achievements. He makes it clear he has been caught before on several occasions, and has even lied (6) to avoid prosecution. If the police look in, I’d suggest following that one up because many of these people really shouldn’t be driving, and a chance to remove one of them from the roads without having to go outside ought to be appealing to them.
Yet another boaster (8) provides tips on how to behave in court to get a softer sentence. His father has recently been prosecuted for doing over 100mph on the motorway, so he obviously provides a superb role model for this little cretin.
And finally, another boaster (9) – who is obviously impressed by the impetuosity of his friend, who was fined and banned for “doing it” (“it” presumably being driving at 100mph or more).
What is important to realise here is that not a single one of these morons will have been taught to drive like that. They behave like this through choice, and when they start taking lessons many of them just yearn for the day they’ll be able to break free of the leash and go and behave like prats, under the impression that it’s cool and boastworthy. This is where the authorities are so far out of touch with reality that you really do despair. They think that things like forcing the instructor to sit in on tests is going to alter the way people choose to behave. They think that suddenly calling driving instruction “coaching” will sort out the problems, and then idiots who will gladly jump on any bandwagon that they think makes being an ADI something that it isn’t – with buzzwords like “life coaching”, “life skills”, “client-centred learning”, and so on – almost wet themselves trying to peddle their “enhanced” services as a result.
Going back to Mr Fantastic Motorbike Rider who I quoted above, he is typical of the vast majority of his kind – and by “kind”, I mean young motorcycle riders and motorists. He’s the best at everything, knows more than everyone else (even people who are experts), has faster reactions than Superman, and his bike is almost as good – apparently being able to go from 100-0mph over what would appear to be about 10m, if you believe his bullshit. He says in another one of his posts:
Doing 96mph on its own presents no more risk than doing 70mph. The problem comes from other traffic, and the weather/road conditions. I dont like your immediate assumption that because the speed is X it is so much more dangerous than speed Y. Not true. You could very very easily get conditions which are safer at 90, than different conditions at 70. For example a busy road with occasional slow moving traffic and heavy rain at 70mph is more dangerous than doing 100 down an empty 3 lane motorway in clear, dry conditions.
This is actually frightening. That someone so unintelligent should be allowed to drive a motor vehicle of any kind, believing that driving at 100mph is no more dangerous than driving at 70mph. To make matters worse, he is echoing some of the idiotic rhetoric that certain anorak advanced driving groups have been advocating in order to flex their political muscle.
I’ve never had to look this up, but I have always known that having an accident increases in severity the faster you are going. It’s just the application of simple physical laws – like a pedestrian colliding with a post can result in anything from embarrassment (if they just step into it) to a hospital stay (if they run into it and knock themselves out).
If you lose control of a car at 70mph you might spin, bounce off the barrier, and even roll the car over (which is obviously bad enough); but lose control at 100mph and you’re likely to go through the barrier, or over it, and into the path of other traffic, barrel-roll down the embankment, and probably disintegrate the car as you do it. People will be sellotaping flowers with your name on them to lamp posts. This is because there is more energy to get rid of before you stop.
But that’s not all there is to it. There are the small matters of reaction time and control even before the accident actually occurs.
The faster you’re traveling, the more difficult it is to keep the vehicle under control – this is yet again down to simple laws of physics. You see, if you are driving at 30mph on a typical road, in typical conditions, in a typical car, and you suddenly steer to avoid a pothole or something, the car will simply deviate in the direction you steer. At 70mph the borderline between keeping control and losing it is much closer because there is sufficient energy for a skid. At 100mph there is more than enough energy for a skid and even a slight overreaction could lead to loss of control – someone pulling out who doesn’t realise that you’re caning it, for example.
To make matters worse, further simple physics means that the faster you approach a hazard the less time you have to think about it. Adding a little human biology makes the risk of error greater the less time you have to think. At 30mph, even if you hit a pothole you’d not lose control. At 70mph, you’d have time to steer around it. At 100mph – with all the other things going on in your head – you probably wouldn’t even see it.
This has turned into a long article. I have some scientific data to discuss, so I’ll put it in a separate post (which is here).
The November issue of Despatch is now available. Click the logo to view it.
Articles include the recent document outlining new standards for driver and rider trainers, a story about the modernisation of drink-drive rehab courses, information about modernising driver training (which should go into consultation next year – and it includes getting rid of the current trainee/pink licence system), some nonsense (I’m sorry, but it is*) about the psychology of driving, a story about the BBC’s CBBC road safety campaign, and some bits and pieces at the end.
Interestingly, the bits and pieces section includes this:
Rules for cars used for driving tests
Following enquiries from instructors, DSA has confirmed there are no plans to change the rules governing which cars can be used on driving tests. DSA encourages instructors to accompany their pupils on test, and recommends cars presented for test have four doors, but there are no plans to make this a legal requirement.
Hopefully, that will put paid to the epic saga on several forums, where they’re all working themselves up into a frenzy over something which was never going to happen in the first place.
* the article in question says that psychology is important in the study of road safety. It may well be, but it is sod all use when teaching people to drive – unless you’re going to force them to take lessons over several years. It’s just pseudo-scientists trying to big themselves up again.
Well done to Inesh, who passed today with just 4 driver faults. A good driver, and a well-deserved result (in spite of some of those bloody strange things you’d been taught by your last instructor).
So, as well as that gig you went to last night, you got a Pass Certificate to round it off nicely today!
