Driving skill experiment.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

They'll tell you how skilled and how good they are, without hesitation, loud and long

i was thinking that most of the aff members could actually teach the professionals - then again, most people outside of aff could too - they are all perfect driver's who have nothing to learn and so much wisdom to impart



it could and should be a good idea gecko, but for one it is too far for me to go and for two, i do wonder how many people who do any form of course are actually there to learn or to prove how good they are. some will learn, but if it is free, i wonder how many will just shrug off any constructive criticism because they are already such a great driver. remembering the license testing thread, there were so many who knew they were the best even during their driving test - and they were still on l's then, so imagine how much better than the best they are now



it is good that someone actually cares though, and looks for something constructive to help, because road safety is a very serious matter

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Says who? Government goes with what the research tells them already, that advanced driver training is non-effective and/or actually increases problems.

Govco is a conspiracy, who else are you going to get to do the research?

Ill take CSIRO or TAC working in collaboration with University departments over the offerings put forward by some retired racing car drivers trying to make a quid any day of the week.

I will try and make this clear for you considering you don't read more than three lines of my posts. The instructors are not retired racing drivers, they are ex highway patrol officers, ex police driver trainers and current driver trainers for Queensland emergency services (both of them), although i am nor sure I could get both of the for this.

Also this is not driver training, it is essentially assessment of driver habits, hazard perception and driver attitudes.

Explain how that could not be relevant to road safety.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I will try and make this clear for you considering you don't read more than three lines of my posts. The instructors are not retired racing drivers, they are ex highway patrol officers, ex police driver trainers and current driver trainers for Queensland emergency services (both of them), although i am nor sure I could get both of the for this.

Also this is not driver training, it is essentially assessment of driver habits, hazard perception and driver attitudes.

Explain how that could not be relevant to road safety.

You were talking in general terms on how government research is corrupted(based on goodness knows what), I was talking in general terms on how most advanced driving schools seem to be staffed by retired,washed up has been racing drivers who are desperate for quid.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

You were talking in general terms on how government research is corrupted(based on goodness knows what), I was talking in general terms on how most advanced driving schools seem to be staffed by retired,washed up has been racing drivers who are desperate for quid.

That is not what this thread is about, it is about the test of driver ability in the real world that I am going to attempt to put together.

If you have something constructive to say regarding the conduct of it, I am all ears. I am going to suggest that either you have not done any low risk driver training courses or it has been a long time since you have. The focus is no longer on slide control and other skid pan activities. The focus is now on driver attitude, situational awareness and hazard perception. Correct me if I am wrong but these are all areas that "washed up racing drivers" may struggle with but I am sure two ex highway patrol guys that have extensive experience training police officers and ambulance officers might have a clue about.


Anyway, I believe I have made my point clear and I have also defended the credentials of the instructors I have in mind enough. If you have something constructive to the thread to add, please do. If not and you just want to criticize the notion of training drivers, please start your own thread and do it elsewhere.

[Road Games]

Too much experience is NOT a bad thing IMO...

[SLO AU XR8]

Lynton, depending on when you are looking at holding this, I am extremely interested. I have some rather important maintenance to do on my car, but if it comes up after I have completed it, I will be in for this.

Brett

[Seduce XR6]

Sounds like a great idea to me however I do have some issue with how accurate it would be simply because as has been said if I knew I was on this test I would most likely drive in a different manner even if I did not intend to do so & why, well because under a testing situation you may try harder, may be more nervous than you would be normally (or nervous/ tense when normally your not) & as a result not get as good a result that you may get if say a camera was in your vehicle on your daily driving if that makes sense.

Yes you would still be watched (recorded) but after awhile you may even forget it was there & is not the same as a person sitting beside you on a test.

Oh & the other thing is how far away you are from many of us.

As for IQ tests I think they are flawed & may only show a measure of ones academic intelligence & not how Intelligent a person is in regards to everyday life, problem solving, knowing what is the right or wrong way to behave & how quick or slow a persons brain can process everyday real life scenarios & not just remember facts or figures.

[Road Games]

Hey Lynton, is Braden Murphy part of this mate ?

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by flappist

Back when I learned to fly almost every time I had an instructor on board I was faced with engine failures, instrument failures, visibility blockage, landing gear failures, weather emergencies etc.

Driving "safely" the right speed in the right lane with the right distance between cars can be done by almost any moron.

I disagree al lot of people seem to have trouble with even doing this. Also flying is a little different to driving im sure you would agree.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Says who? Government goes with what the research tells them already, that advanced driver training is non-effective and/or actually increases problems.

Govco is a conspiracy, who else are you going to get to do the research?

Ill take CSIRO or TAC working in collaboration with University departments over the offerings put forward by some retired racing car drivers trying to make a quid any day of the week.

Do you just post in every thread to create an argument? Give it a rest would ya.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by sudszy

blah blah yap yap.

the idea is in good faith.
instead of shooting at it, let others decide whats right for them...thank's "mum"

[RAREV8]

It a shame that during your supposedly long lifespan so far, you negated to learn any decent interpersonal skills- I imagine you simply didn't have the time whilst you were honing your telepathic driving manner to perfection.

You sound like the perfect candidate for this test.

I don't believe I'm a super above average driver- I may have quite a bit of experience for someone my age (35) but experience doesn't necessarily convert automatically into great driving skills........if it did, I can't explain all the geriatrics around Sydney enjoying the freedom of the right hand lane, 30kmh below the posted limit!

I'd love to be a part of the test and happy to post publically how badly I perform!

Originally Posted by sudszy

It would seem not, if we could get more people to adhere to the basics there would be no need to have the rest of us trained up to be drift kings to avoid them.

The idea that even with training that at the drop of the hat we'd be able to apply the necessary maneouvre and get it right and not get ourselves into more trouble is laughable.

Ive been driving for longer than most people on this forum have been alive, to date Ive never had to perform any maneourve other than firm braking to avoid anything, whereas people that do an advanced driving course come away and tell you after a couple of months that the skills they learned have saved them numerous times and how they'd of been dead without it, ......go figure.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by XR6menace

Hey Lynton, is Braden Murphy part of this mate ?

No he isn't. I will provide details of the instructors once I have run it by them and have their consent.

By the way, I am in the Brisbane area, south side.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by DJM83

I disagree al lot of people seem to have trouble with even doing this. Also flying is a little different to driving im sure you would agree.

Yes flying is very different from driving.

You can't just pull up on a cloud and wait for a problem to go away and if your aircraft stops it does just roll to a halt and allow you to get out and call for RACQ/RACV/NRMA to come out and save you.

This is why in order to pass the licence you have to be able to demonstrate a high level of skill and the level of skill is retested over and over at a maximum of 2 year intervals. You stuff up you will probably die.

It is interesting that even though it appears some if not many people are just not skilled enough to drive safely the solution is to dumb everyone down to their level rather than increase their skill levels to a safer level.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by Seduce XR6

As for IQ tests I think they are flawed & may only show a measure of ones academic intelligence & not how Intelligent a person is in regards to everyday life, problem solving, knowing what is the right or wrong way to behave & how quick or slow a persons brain can process everyday real life scenarios & not just remember facts or figures.

I knew there would be somebody - IQ tests test problem solving in a limited time frame, not remembering facts and figures. (right and wrong comes under theading of ethics).

I was also not suggesting that they needed to be incorporated into the terms of the study. But I think Gecko got it spot on for understanding what the confounder is. That being that there will be some good drivers who know that they are good drivers (a true positive if you speak statistical speak), and there will be those who think that they are good drivers, but are too dumb/ignorant/arrogant to realise that the are in fact not a good driver (a false positive in statistical terms).
To take the statistical analysis one step further, you could incorporate those who rate themselves as poor drivers, but who turn out to be actually good (false negative), and those who rate themselves as poor and are actually poor drivers (true negative).

[FgNewbie]

I love the idea. Kudos geckoGT

When someone makes claim to their " " driving ability, I accept it on face value based on being relative to their peers not necessarily the greater community.

The poor driving skill of the twitty 17 yr old next door might make GrandPa on the otherside think he can still drive as good as 50 years ago.

I see no issue with people being on their best behaviour for the proposed test. The fact they are able to demonstrate a higher driving standard on demand is better than not being able to at all. It may remind them they need to lift their game and drive like it more often.

The more I read the thread, I perceive the test is more about RoadCraft than CarCraft.

I say that based on time I spent with Trev Sobey in Ballarat back in the early 80s http://www.drivertrainingacademy.com...ftCarcraft.pdf

Relative to AFF members, I wonder where you set the bar.

I've spent a fortune on various courses and driver education, invariably watched many wannabes come unglued too. For whatever reason, some people just don't realise or accept how little they really know nor their ability to deliver.

VACC included me in one of their articles (about advanced driving courses) last century, they showed me pushing my car beyond its limits. Does that make me a bad driver or someone wanting to learn the limits of my lethal weapon?

[2011G6E]

I believe a big problem is probably not people who claim to be better than they are and know damn well they aren't...rather it's those who think that behind the wheel they are Peter Brock reincarnated, yet have no idea that they aren't and have no inkling of when the are reaching thier limits...they're the dangerous ones.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Sounds like a great idea to me....

[93EB_SXR6]

I'd like to have a go at this.
I drive cautiously all the time and don't think I'm a superhero driver.
I know I have good skills but don't think I can drive 20kms above the speed limit all the time.

Would I still qualify?

[geckoGT]

The notion of driving faster than the current speed limits (within certain limits) with the correct road skills is not a new one, emergency services do it every day. Yes sure we have all the flashing lights and sirens but really is that what makes the biggest difference? Some will say it is, I suggest it is only about 25% of it, the rest is down to driver elements. Why do I say that, because of the number of motorists that do not see our flashing lights or hear our siren, our skill must make up for their shortfall, simple fact.

Some here have stated they have those skills, the same skills that have been ingrained into emergency service vehicle operators in their training and practiced every working day. Now perhaps you can gain those skills through years of driving experience, perhaps not. I just think it would be interesting to get a snap shot of if this is plausible or not.

I do have some exercises in mind that will test my theory, they are unlikely to be commonly known. No they do not involve any slides or illegal act, just good road craft. I will discuss this with the instructors if they agree to playing and in conjunction with them I will coordinate the exercise and come up with the assessment system. Unfortunately I really can not give too much more detail as it will give too much of a heads up to the participants.

Again, this is not training and there will be no advice given during the assessment, that would defeat the purpose. There will however be constructive feedback after the assessment and a chance to gain some information from the instructors once it is done and the marking guide is put away. I will be allocating each participant to a group, either those that believe they are capable of the posted speed safely, or those that feel they are competent at greater speeds up to 20 km/h more than the posted speed limit. The instructors will not know which category the participants self assessment put them into until after the assessment is done. Only I will know that information but I will have no part of the marking process.

Just so that I demonstrate I can put my money where my mouth is, I might throw myself in as a participant, depending on numbers and not assessed as part of the overall result as I will be involved in the design therefore my results should not count in the interest of integrity of the exercise. I just hope that I do not come up short, that would be embarrassing considering the government does let me speed legally.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by FgNewbie

The more I read the thread, I perceive the test is more about RoadCraft than CarCraft.

That is precisely what it is about, that is what most low risk driver development courses are about now, not flinging car through witches hats and on skid pans. It is no longer about learning the limits of your car and how well you can control slides. It is about perception of hazards and avoiding them in the first place before they become an incident. Of course in most courses there is still some skid pan work, but that is more to do with vehicle dynamics than what to do if your are in a slide. We now teach to avoid the slide in the first place and how to use your vehicle safety systems.

[2011G6E]

As well as "knowing your limits", how about "knowing your car"?

I've met guys who claim quite boldly that they can hop in any car...any car at all...and begin wringing it's neck down a twisty stretch of road and immediately know how to get the best out of it, or any other car they've never driven before.

Rubbish.

It takes quite a while to get accustomed to all the little foibles of your particular vehicle, be that bike or car...yes indeed, some people pick it up faster than others, but if you are facing reality you will realise it will take time to learn what it's going to do and how it feels when everything is going right.
I've owned my 1974 Kawasaki 750 two-stroke triple for around 15 years now, and know every nut and bolt, every little twitch it gives in a corner, every little idosyncrasy of handling and what it does under part-throttle openings in a corner. I know it intimately, inside and out, after so many years of constant use.
It sits in my shed. In my garage in front of the G6E is a 2008 Suzuki GSX-1400. I've owned it for about six months. I am just starting to get a feel for it...what it does in corners, what it does when you have it in a certain gear at a certain revs, how it feels when it's settled on a twisty road, etc...but I'm still a long way off learning everything it will do in a lot of circumstances.

Same with our G6E. The other car we own, a 1982 Toyota Celica we've owned for just over three years, we know inside and out as well...how it behaves on a twisty road, what it does when overtaking or braking hard into a corner, etc. The G6E which we have owned for only a couple of months is still on the "learning curve" part of ownership at the moment.

I'd say I'm a pretty good driver and motorbike rider...sometimes a little too cautious, but in a good way. I really get a lot of enjoyment not out of outright speed, but in feeling the car or bike beneath me and learning to feel it's rythms and "pulse", getting the vehicle to feel just right in any given situation, feeling it flow as you negotiate a series of bends. This can all be done at the speed limit, and is perfectly enjoyable if you see driving or riding as more than a simple task for getting from A to B.
I always look for an opportunity to learn more skills. I know there are people who can outdrive and outride me, but it doesn't overly worry me...it just gives me something to am for when I'm ready.

[Seduce XR6]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

I knew there would be somebody - IQ tests test problem solving in a limited time frame, not remembering facts and figures. (right and wrong comes under theading of ethics)

AS you can see below some IQ tests are based on arithmetic or memory (short term) & so in one of these tests I would possibly not do that well while in the other tests listed I would fair much better so would that follow that if I was given a particular type of IQ test such as one that relied on memory or arithmetic & did poorly that I am unintelligent? or given an IQ test based on abstract-reasoning or general knowledge I may do much better & would that then mean I am Intelligent?

And this is my point in regards to IQ tests, I don't think they are in all cases the best way of measuring a person general intelligence.

General intelligence factor:

There are many different kinds of IQ tests using a wide variety of methods. Some tests are visual, some are verbal, some tests only use of abstract-reasoning problems, and some tests concentrate on arithmetic, spatial imagery, reading, vocabulary, memory or general knowledge. The psychologist Charles Spearman made the first formal factor analysis of correlations between the tests in the early 20th century. He found that a single common factor explained for the positive correlations among tests. This is an argument still accepted in principle by many psychometricians. Spearman named it g for "general intelligence factor". In any collections of IQ tests, by definition the test that best measures g is the one that has the highest correlations with all the others. Most of these g-loaded tests typically involve some form of abstract reasoning. Therefore Spearman and others have regarded g as the perhaps genetically determined real essence of intelligence. This is still a common but not proven view. Other factor analyses of the data are with different results are possible. Some psychometricians regard g as a statistical artifact. The accepted best measure of g is Raven's Progressive Matrices which is a test of visual reasoning.

[Seduce XR6]

Sorry off topic (above) however it had been brought up so I answered it.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The notion of driving faster than the current speed limits (within certain limits) with the correct road skills is not a new one, emergency services do it every day. Yes sure we have all the flashing lights and sirens but really is that what makes the biggest difference? Some will say it is, I suggest it is only about 25% of it, the rest is down to driver elements. Why do I say that, because of the number of motorists that do not see our flashing lights or hear our siren, our skill must make up for their shortfall, simple fact. .

What troubles me here is your intent, and this ^ raises the cynic in me. If we all go through the ambulance driver training routine and pass, then it appears to me that you are suggesting that we can up the speed limits by 20km/h. Im sure you will probably tell us how safe ambulances are statistically.

Only problem with where you may be going, is that you have no idea about how things will work when all traffic at once is trying to go 80km/h in a 60km/h zone, Ive got a fair idea......carnage and mayhem.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

What troubles me here is your intent, and this ^ raises the cynic in me. If we all go through the ambulance driver training routine and pass, then it appears to me that you are suggesting that we can up the speed limits by 20km/h. Im sure you will probably tell us how safe ambulances are statistically.

Only problem with where you may be going, is that you have no idea about how things will work when all traffic at once is trying to go 80km/h in a 60km/h zone, Ive got a fair idea......carnage and mayhem.

Perhaps it might pay to not overthink things quite so much?

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The notion of driving faster than the current speed limits (within certain limits) with the correct road skills is not a new one, emergency services do it every day. Yes sure we have all the flashing lights and sirens but really is that what makes the biggest difference? Some will say it is, I suggest it is only about 25% of it, the rest is down to driver elements. Why do I say that, because of the number of motorists that do not see our flashing lights or hear our siren, our skill must make up for their shortfall, simple fact.

It looks to me, as though he's suggesting that increasing the speed limits isn't a new idea, that many people have suggested it before.

It's NOT ambulance driver training. Please try reading in full?

There was another five paragraphs that it seems you didn't bother reading...particularly this one.

Originally Posted by GeckoGT

Again, this is not training and there will be no advice given during the assessment, that would defeat the purpose. There will however be constructive feedback after the assessment and a chance to gain some information from the instructors once it is done and the marking guide is put away. I will be allocating each participant to a group, either those that believe they are capable of the posted speed safely, or those that feel they are competent at greater speeds up to 20 km/h more than the posted speed limit. The instructors will not know which category the participants self assessment put them into until after the assessment is done. Only I will know that information but I will have no part of the marking process.

To me it seems to be more about attitude and perception, and he has said that...

Originally Posted by GeckoGT

It is about perception of hazards and avoiding them in the first place before they become an incident.

- think of it as psychometric testing, do you see the hazard before it's presented itself, or do you jam your foot on the brakes after the hazard has appeared. Every day we drive on the road there are hazards, and not always very clear ones. Surely in your 'years' of driving experience, you would know this right?

He's not suggesting that we increase speed limits based on a small number of people participating in an 'experiment'.

[DJR-351]

Interesting link Lynton....

http://www.ambulancedriving.com/rese...r-trainer.html

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

It's NOT ambulance driver training. Please try reading in full? There was another five paragraphs that it seems you didn't bother reading...particularly this one.

.

how about you try some politeness?

Its not ambulance driving , the implication was that if all drivers had the "same training" as ambulance driving then we'd be fine to be doing 20km/h over, or did I miss something?

Originally Posted by Sezzy

He's not suggesting that we increase speed limits based on a small number of people participating in an 'experiment'.

Appears he is saying many things about what he hopes to achieve, I have expressed concern about several things here, just as the faithful here would if govco were doing the testing.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

how about you try some politeness?

Its not ambulance driving , the implication was that if all drivers had the "same training" as ambulance driving then we'd be fine to be doing 20km/h over, or did I miss something?



Appears he is saying many things about what he hopes to achieve, I have expressed concern about several things here, just as the faithful here would if govco were doing the testing.

Politeness? Where was I not polite, or was there an 'implication' there as well?

Can you point out where that implication is...because I sure as hell can't see it...perhaps I'm not just trying to pick apart a fantastic idea, and pitter it with rubbish though...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

Interesting link Lynton....

http://www.ambulancedriving.com/rese...r-trainer.html

Some interesting information there except a few details.

The most recent study they reference was done 9 years ago and the average is more like 11 years ago. Now I did advanced driver training 9 years ago and back then it was a high percentage of skid pan work involving learning to control slides which has now been proven over and over to have little to no benefit, in some studies it is shown that it breeds over confidence and may increase crash risk.

Low Risk Driver Development has evolved as a result of those same studies, they no longer teach you how to control an oversteer slide etc. In fact they give simulated driving tasks in an element of reduced grip but any form of slide is a fail on that exercise, the aim is to negotiate it without any loss of traction. They also still do emergency braking exercises but not in order to teach you to threshold brake like a pro, this is a skill that requires frequent practice to maintain any competency. Now it is about experiencing in an environment that no one will be hurt so that you can experience how the car will feel and behave when ABS activates. When I did this training, I came from a military background with many years experience driving off road (low grip environments) in a variety of vehicles. In my first go at the emergency braking/avoidance exercise, I managed to slow the ambulance and negotiate the obstacle without using ABS due to effective threshold braking. Yes I pulled up the vehicle in less distance than someone using ABS, but that was not the purpose of the exercise, you can not train those skills and expect retention of that ability in any reasonable time frame. The aim was to experience the ABS system of the vehicle and therefore my run was a fail for the exercise and I was made to do it again. In the course now, you only spend 1 day on the skid pan and none of that training even resembles making you into a drift king or controlling any form of slide, a slide in this day is a fail and you have to do the exercise again. The end result is the students often complete the course slower on their last run to what they do on their first run, but they complete it in control and with nil obstacles struck. In essence the training does not make the student faster, it often makes them slower but safer and in control. The rest of the course is about on road exercises (or closed road circuit) where elements of hazard perception, scanning, incident avoidance, road positioning, vehicle dynamics, following distances, vehicle lighting etc are covered. This is all stuff that does not teach you what to do if you are in a near crash event, the attitude now is if you are in a near crash event, no infrequent training can prevent it from being a crash event. The training now is focussed on road skills that prevent you from ever being in that near crash event.

So basically their information on those studies is very dated and of little significant industry relevance.

Also they suggest that they have received assistance in course development from members of QAS, not from a QAS sanctioned source they have not. If QAS sanctioned this input, wold they not use the result? Which they don't. Also I personally know the lead instructor, the course coordinator and the officer responsible for QAS driver training, no input into this has come from these people in the last 5 years at least.

Finally, this website sell a product, it may be a good one or it may not, I don't know. When they are selling a product, as Sudszy has accused me of in this very thread, research is manipulated to support that product.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

how about you try some politeness?

Its not ambulance driving , the implication was that if all drivers had the "same training" as ambulance driving then we'd be fine to be doing 20km/h over, or did I miss something?



Appears he is saying many things about what he hopes to achieve, I have expressed concern about several things here, just as the faithful here would if govco were doing the testing.

I will address this in PM as it is going off topic.