Diary Of An ADI

I saw this story on Sky News today. Apparently, the DSA has altered its website wording and no longer claims that doing the Pass Plus course reduces your chances of having an accident.

The move comes after the agency was told there was no evidence to back up the claim.

Now, it’s very important to understand what this is actually saying. Unfortunately, such understanding appears to be totally beyond many ADIs.

• it isn’t saying that Pass Plus causes accidents
• it isn’t saying that the DSA was lying when it made its original claims

What is is saying is that after looking at 4,000 insurance claims there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that those doing Pass Plus are less likely to have accidents.

It’s worth pointing out that even if those 4,000 claims are all for different people and different accidents (this isn’t stated, neither is the type of accident, cause, blame, etc.), it represents just 1% of the total number of people who have taken the Pass Plus course. Something is statistically very fishy in there. If Sky (and Admiral) can make such a sweeping assessment about such a complex subject based on such a tiny sample, it would appear highly likely that the actual analysis was flawed through not taking into account accident type, and so on.

It’s also amusing that although it has taken 4 years to obtain the data and draw this conclusion, Professor Frank McKenna, a psychologist (so, not quite a real scientist) on the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport (so, not an unbiased employee, either), makes this counter statement:

“The worst thing you can do with a young driver is increase their confidence without increasing their competence,” he said.

“If there’s no increase in competence you potentially run the risk of increasing the chance of accidents.”

Let me emphasis this again: it took 4 years to get enough data (and it’s debatable that it is enough) to conclude that Pass Plus has a limited effect, yet a pseudo-scientist in the employ of the government can come out with something like that in a few seconds… and get published as an authority! I suspect this is partly yet another LibCon attempt to smear the previous government.

McKenna is expressing an opinion – opinion based on political leaning/employment – and not a fact.

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that they can’t prove whether or not Pass Plus decreases accidents. Most of the time, drawing a neat conclusion even from a single accident is difficult, so adding a heap of these together is hardly going to give a definitive answer to the Meaning Of Life.

Pass Plus is still a useful course. Any post-test training of this kind is – it HAS to be. However, it if there is no insurance benefit and comedians like McKenna appear to suggest incorrectly that it’s useless, it’s hard to see what justification people will have for taking it.

If McKenna can make statements of the obvious and use them out of context, the rest of us can make them and use them IN context…

McKenna says it is dangerous to increase someone’s confidence without increasing their competence. That’s all he says, so you have to fill in the rest yourself (e.g. by implication, therefore, “Pass Plus is a dangerous course that is more likely to kill young drivers than to save them”).

I say that ANY post-test training is beneficial and as long as it is delivered correctly it’s effects will be beneficial. ANY negative effects, such as driving dangerously, are entirely the responsibility and decision of the driver. He or she can drive in a dangerous manner before taking a course, and most do. If a course doesn’t say “drive fast”, you cannot blame the course for things if people do.

At the very least, not until you have years and years of statistical data instead of just a political axe to grind. Oh, and perhaps a proper scientific qualification if you’re going to dabble in complicated topics.

Courses provide additional tools and knowledge… they do not change attitudes.

I saw this story in the Daily Mail today. This guy specialised in taking driving tests for people – charging them £600 to sit the Theory Test and £3,000 for the Practical Test!

Gageen Preet Singh, 35, used wigs and false moustaches to disguise himself during theory and practical driving tests.

Investigators said that people desperate for driving licences would pay the Indian national around £600 to sit their theory exam for them and £3,000 for a practical test.

Whenever I hear of fraudsters doing this – and it appears to be quite a big problem – it isn’t so much the criminals themselves I think of, but the idiots who pay them.

A typical learner takes around 40 hours to learn to drive (or let’s say 60 for an older person). Even at 60 hours, and adding the cost of the test, that’s a lot less than £1,500. And even if you don’t pass first time, it’s hard to see how £3,000 comes into it unless you really have serious issues.

And the Theory Test is a doddle. No excuses if you don’t speak English – you can easily get voiceovers in your own language, or you can take an interpreter. You can pass it for less than £20 spent on a book and a DVD, plus the cost of the test. Much less than £600.

The only thing you really have to provide is a little bit of effort. If you can’t do that, you are a complete prat for thinking you can do it this way instead.