Education - What will it take?

[rastuscat]

I've been reading a lot over the years about what the gubbermint needs to do to educate drivers to make the roads safer. I work in enforcement, and people frequently tell me that there should be more effort given to education. Normally when I'm giving them enforcement, specifically.

Ironically, when I ask them what education they have bought themselves, they almost always think it's other people who need to education.

Anyway, that aside, what do you think is needed in terms of education? I almost think I am asking for two separate answers i.e.

What education should we give to other people?, and
What education do you think you need yourself?

Is advertising education e.g. the ads on telly. The newspaper ads telling us that the faster we go the bigger the risk. Is that education?

So, tell me what education is, coz until we can actually define it, it just ain't gonna happen.

Bring it on..............

[Blinkwing]

Is advertising education e.g. the ads on telly. The newspaper ads telling us that the faster we go the bigger the risk. Is that education?

That's propaganda, pure and simple.

[rastuscat]

That's propaganda, pure and simple.

Cool, so that rules the ads out.

But you haven't answered the question.........what is the education I keep having people bang on about?

[cheshirecat]

My 2 cents.

It goes down to the driving test. It should be much more comprehensive and show how to take pride in road craft - practical. The current multichoice is a farce

The driving age is far too low

Plus the road rules are badly written, treating us in a somewhat officious patronising manner and stuck in the 1950's

Bigtime fines and disqs for things like running traffic lights, crossing centerlines, pulling out into oncomming traffic (so they have to brake)

Oopps went on a bit - the education would be the driving test part.

[bogan]

been thinking bout it myself a bit, it's very difficult to force education on people, far easier to educate the willing. Therefor it's the attitudes towards driver education that need to change, as you say most think its the others that need educating.

The targetting must stop, speed alcohol etc, everyone needs to look at thier driving habits. Targetting speed and alcohol only makes those who don't do it more assured that thier driving is perfect.

Practical suggestions from me would be to increase the level of driving skills required to gain, and hold a license. Serious driving infringements (basically anything causing a crash) to require retesting, retesting for every license holder every 10 years (maybe just choose one class of license to do it if they hold more than one).

Make upskilling much more accesible, cheap and widely and standardised providors in all regions etc.

[Hitcher]

Government officials are philosophically opposed to driver/rider education and training. They believe that it makes drivers/riders "overconfident". I have heard them say such in as many words. I kid you not.

[rastuscat]

There is education already available. Driving schools deliver it.

So if we all want more education, why don't we just go and buy it?

Just trying to get some thoughts running here, as I'm worried that it's basically a dead duck, trying to get people to educate themselves.

Whoops, that's right, it's OP that needs education. Yes, OP. Other people.

[ckai]

That's propaganda, pure and simple.

Cool, so that rules the ads out.

But you haven't answered the question.........what is the education I keep having people bang on about?

Not all ads are uneducational (see, I made up a word so I'm ejdamacated). I recently heard some of the best ads on the radio. One of them was a chick going on about me, me, me. It ended saying there are other road users as well.

Pretty much the thing that is lacking from all the types of education...respect. This is should be the first thing taught.

EVERYONE needs more education. If someone thinks they have learnt all they need to know or it's others that need the education, they should be in the front of the classroom.

Which makes another point. Driver education should be both classroom/theory based and practical. The current theory based education should be more comprehensive and we just need more practical practical. Why can't we have something like driver-ed like the states in school? It doesn't matter if you want to get your license or not, you should still need to do it.

As for educating us existing drivers...lets sit a driving test every 10 years we have to re-apply for license?

A license is privilege not a right. I feel pretty strongly about our large number of muppets on the road (that includes me sometimes) and if I had my own business, the first thing I would do would be to put money towards driver-ed programs for staff at the very least. Being 30 yo, it's something I'm aiming for, less talking and more action...gotta start somewhere though.

EDIT: For the record, I did advanced driving when I was a younger lad, defensive driving a few years back and several rider training sessions...all paid by myself.

[bogan]

There is education already available. Driving schools deliver it.

So if we all want more education, why don't we just go and buy it?

Just trying to get some thoughts running here, as I'm worried that it's basically a dead duck, trying to get people to educate themselves.

Whoops, that's right, it's OP that needs education. Yes, OP. Other people.

exactly, I'm a good driver, I don't drink or speed so what could possibly go wrong?

realistically people who have been driving for many years will know they are good at it until proven otherwise, learner drivers put in some effort then fall into bad habits over the years. Increase learners skill level so it takes longer to fall into bad habits, and set up a system to re-educate those who fall into bad habits.

[98tls]

Fwiw start them all off on motorcycles,2 years minimum then they can move on to 4 wheels if so inclined,at the very least it will teach them a few road skills.

[NinjaNanna]

Customs is already using face recognition software, this should be deployed in Driver License testing, by automating the process it will then become cost effective to instigate a license re-newal policy that requires theory exams every 2 yrs.

For the punter it would be the simple matter of rocking up to an automated booth, entering their license number, a new photo is taken and compared against the online record, a random selection of questions from the road code would need to be answered. Pass and your license is extended for 2years, fail and you get 2weeks in which to achieve a pass. Fail to pass a test within 2 weeks and your license is suspended until you've passed.

Any traffic violations could also trigger the 2 week period in which you must pass a theory test. Likewise if a police officer issues you with a warning this could also trigger the re-test.

This system could be implemented cost effectively as its only a standard office pc and a webcam plus some software development. Under this proposed model I see no need for a testing fee to be charged, it should be fully government funded.

Equally important the software would include sufficient anti-cheating mechanisms to stop people substituting themselves once they've been identified, motion detection via the webcam could do this, likewise a microphone would detect if somebody was reading the questions out to somebody else in order to get the answer. Similarly as the tests would be randomly generated then people can't have cheat sheets.

In addition to ensuring that all licensed drivers are engaged in consistent and ongoing self education this system could also have the capability to allow the authorities to tailor or prioritize the exam questions such that they focus directly on specific traffic offence trends that the police are identifying on a town by town basis.

Further it would also be possible to add a reaction test module which could be used to great effect in hammering home the importance of leaving sufficient gap in which to react and start breaking.

Whilst this does not address poor driving skills of some people I can't help but believe it would make a marked improvement to driving over all.

[Swoop]

So if we all want more education, why don't we just go and buy it?

It should be mandatory before getting a licence.
We (currently) have 15yr olds getting taught the bad habits of parents. Lessons from a capable driving school should be top of the list.

It dosen't matter what category of licence (H.T., bike, car, etc).
Correct instruction from the beginning (primacy in learning, etc) backed up with a competent testing programme. No "scratch-and-win" bullshit, either.

[NinjaNanna]

Fwiw start them all off on motorcycles,2 years minimum then they can move on to 4 wheels if so inclined,at the very least it will teach them a few road skills.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment - smidsy moments would all but disappear - the problem with this is that you are starting the most vunerable road users off on the most dangerous form of transport.

If the majority of accidents were in fact due to smidsy, then I'd whole heartedly agree, but unfortunately the majority of accidents are not smidsy's.

[Goblin]

Fwiw start them all off on motorcycles,2 years minimum then they can move on to 4 wheels if so inclined,at the very least it will teach them a few road skills.

I agree 100%! But it will never happen. What gets me is the fact that a learner on a bike is restricted to 250ccs and 70kph. Car learners should have more restrictions too. And ACC levies should be higher on people movers than 600cc+ bikes because honestly, look at the carnage teenagers are causing on our roads.

[satchriossi]

I agree 100% with the guy above. I took driving lessons with a qualified instructor shortly after turning 17. I'd already been riding a restored 1974 Garelli Tiger on a CBT (Compulsory Basic Training - which trains you on using round abouts, when and how to indicate, lane discipline and all the fundamental stuff) whilst i was 16 and had had good road positioning, blind spot checking, forward planning (reading the road) etc hammered into by my Dad before i started learning in a car. I learnt 10 times more useful and extremely important stuff from my instructor too. Without which i wouldn't have stood a chance of passing my test. In which i got 5 minor faults i think - mostly due to not checking my mirrors often enough (every few seconds - he times you) and letting my speed pick up too much when coasting down a hill. You have to learn about 8 advanced maneuvers and you get tested on 3 random ones on the day (i think). I got; reverse around a corner, reverse park and parallel park. I'd had so much practice with my instructor that i nailed them. If you fail to do them perfectly you fail the whole test by the way. If you pass first time then you've done very well - alot of people don't.

I later took my bike test (after 9 lessons with another qualified instructor) which is similar in structure, only you have the guy following you on another bike, talking through an intercom. I had to do my test in Nottingham city centre traffic... I was shitting myself. Passing first time was important to me so i didnt want to fuck it up. Got three minors on that one - i cant remember why. But there are alot more 'life saver' glances into your blind spots and road position is very important - there's much more to learn and remember on the bike test. I also learned about target fixation and always looking where you want to end up when cornering.

You come out of the whole system fairly clued up.