Driving skill experiment.

[geckoGT]

There are many here that have openly stated that due to the better condition of their car and the higher driving skills they possess through both experience and advanced courses, that they are safer at 10-20 km/h over the limit than others at the speed limit. I find this concept very interesting and I would love to explore it a little. I see that this statement in many cases could in fact be true but see a weakness in it. Who is it that has deemed the vehicle condition and driver skill to be of a high enough standard to allow the higher speed?

So far it seems to be a self perceived competency, or is that over confidence, I can not tell the difference? That is the question that I would love to find out an answer for. With that thought in mind, I have two friends that run their own advanced driver training company, both are police driver training instructors and both are ambulance driver training instructors, quite credible abilities I am sure everyone will agree. I am contemplating getting them to donate a bit of their time and put some people to the test.

The test will be quite simple, no advanced skid pan work as this incurs a lot of cost, just an hour of driving in a variety of road conditions in clear daytime hours. The theory is said drivers of advanced skills should be able to pass the exercise with flying colours, if they can't then perhaps their perceived abilities are not suitable for higher speeds. Of course if I was to get this off the ground, the identity of the participants will remain anonymous and expressions of interest would be via pm only. Of course the results would be discussed on a dedicated thread here but no identities will be given.

My question of you all is if I can get the interest from the instructors, who would be interested in participating? My intent is to make it no cost to you and I have no doubt that everyone would learn something from the day.

I can not guarantee this will get off the ground, it will depend on if I can get the instructors to donate their time, I think I have a pretty good chance though (the resulting thread might have to give them a bit of a plug though), do any of the Admin team see an issue in this?

I will be interested in how much interest I get. If interested, please send me a pm and once interest is there I will take it to the instructors.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

There are many here that have openly stated that due to the better condition of their car and the higher driving skills they possess through both experience and advanced courses, .

I think another factor is location and conditions.

If you are on a quite country road and you have good visibility and can see there is no cars ahead of you, is another 10 or 20 going to make a difference.

[84xespac]

I think this is a fantastic idea. Would be interesting to see how many on here shape up for a test like this. I have believed for years that if they made people sit for their licence every 5 years or so that most licenced drivers would probably fail due to the bad habit that we all develop along the way.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I think another factor is location and conditions.

If you are on a quite country road and you have good visibility and can see there is no cars ahead of you, is another 10 or 20 going to make a difference.

My aim would be to in conjunction with the instructors, plan a route that would encompass urban roads, busy shopping precincts and quiet country roads.

Just at concept stage so far and open to ideas.

[FreddyDUZ747]

Is speeding on public roads allowed with an instructor?

[Revolver]

A damn good idea gecko. You bet. I've always been one who is passionate about road education, & drivers skills. It would be good to see how these courses & experience actually translates to everyday driving......

Originally Posted by FreddyDUZ747

Is speeding on public roads allowed with an instructor?

Of course! You in safe hands, under instruction.

I thought that would be obvious. No. The test would simply to see if drivers who have completed courses. (or not, to establish a baseline between normal, & drivers who have completed courses), if your extra up-skilling actually translates you into being a better driver. Or a better driver in your head. This would help put to ease some if the "overconfidence" that can be caused by doing courses & years of driving. That in the end after all that you really aren't anymore "aware" than a newly minted p-plater.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by FreddyDUZ747

Is speeding on public roads allowed with an instructor?

No, the test will have to occur at posted speed limits but this will not affect the experiment. My reasoning is that someone that comes up short at posted speed limits will also come up short at greater speeds. It is more of a test of actual driving skill against percieved skill amongst experienced drivers. Of course all this is assessed by experienced driver trainers, not just some numpty that thinks they know what they are doing.

[geckoGT]

I forgot to add something.

Because an element of the argument to which I refer is that a well maintained vehicle is a factor in the safe speed an experienced driver can travel, the exercise must be done in your own vehicle.

Therefore, it must be roadworthy but do not worry about mods too much, these guys aren't going to be too concerned if it is too loud (knowing these guys they will love it), as long as it is safe.

[GTP owner]

Interesting concept. One limitation i see is that everyone rates their driving abilities as above average. Of course the natural bell-curve of driver ability distribution negates this self-perceived rating.
The second problem relates to insight and adjusting ones' self perception based on experience. One of my favourite graphs (i cant find it at the moment) is the one where actual IQ is graphed against perceived IQ. Those with average all the way up to the high end of IQ scored fairly closely between actual and perceived ratings. But...and this is where it gets funny...as you go down the graph for actual IQ, they started to show an increase in their perceived IQ. So we get a situation where those with below average IQ rate/perceive their own intelligence as being above average, and thos with some of the lowest actual scores rated themselves as highly intelligent.
So apply this same logic to your interesting experiment and I think you may agree that it would have to rate as a major confounder. Those with lower IQ and higher self-rating are very likely to stuff up the results.

PS I do not expect those on the lower end of the actual scale to understand what I just said.

[FreddyDUZ747]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

No, the test will have to occur at posted speed limits but this will not affect the experiment. My reasoning is that someone that comes up short at posted speed limits will also come up short at greater speeds. It is more of a test of actual driving skill against percieved skill amongst experienced drivers. Of course all this is assessed by experienced driver trainers, not just some numpty that thinks they know what they are doing.

Gotcha,will be watching with interest.

[el_wagon]

I remember the RACQ doing some research on drivers that completed advanced driver training. It found it gave the drivers more confidence and skills. This sometimes resulted in these drivers having accidents at higher speeds. It comes down to common sense. Speeding on an empty smooth country road isn't as dangerous as speeding in a school zone on a rainy day.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

Interesting concept. One limitation i see is that everyone rates their driving abilities as above average. Of course the natural bell-curve of driver ability distribution negates this self-perceived rating.
The second problem relates to insight and adjusting ones' self perception based on experience. One of my favourite graphs (i cant find it at the moment) is the one where actual IQ is graphed against perceived IQ. Those with average all the way up to the high end of IQ scored fairly closely between actual and perceived ratings. But...and this is where it gets funny...as you go down the graph for actual IQ, they started to show an increase in their perceived IQ. So we get a situation where those with below average IQ rate/perceive their own intelligence as being above average, and thos with some of the lowest actual scores rated themselves as highly intelligent.
So apply this same logic to your interesting experiment and I think you may agree that it would have to rate as a major confounder. Those with lower IQ and higher self-rating are very likely to stuff up the results.

PS I do not expect those on the lower end of the actual scale to understand what I just said.

I understand your concept with regard to bell curves, and it also seems apparent when you compare an IQ with a person's self esteem - there are low IQ high self esteem, and high IQ, low self esteem variants, plus all the other areas in the bell curve, but I'm not sure exactly how that would change the results. Gecko's suggestion is that it seems to be a self perceived competency, this seems to be a pretty good way of finding out whether it is fact or fiction. I'm not so sure it would be confounding at all, as this seems to be the general idea.

So far it seems to be a self perceived competency, or is that over confidence, I can not tell the difference?

I don't feel my driving skills are awesome, nor do I feel they're crap.

I fear my lack of ability to handle 'stressful' situations these days might have a very negative effect on the outcome, and as such, would choose not to participate, but I think the idea is absolutely fantastic, and it seems that in part it will probably sort 'the men from the boys' so to speak.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

. But...and this is where it gets funny...as you go down the graph for actual IQ, they started to show an increase in their perceived IQ. So we get a situation where those with below average IQ rate/perceive their own intelligence as being above average, and thos with some of the lowest actual scores rated themselves as highly intelligent.

I think its a little bit to do with having a chip on their shoulders if they didnt achieve well at school, since they were not good at maths etc(and IQ tests do have a significant component in mathematical thinking), then they by default they believe they must possess superior "real world" intelligence, that doesnt get handed out to people who can pass exams at school.

As for Getcko's idea, it would be interesting research for the TAC, and where the conditions of the test and actual testing scenarios are controlled by skilled researchers, rather than the conflict of interest that would present itself if it were the actual instructors/proprietors of advanced driving schools.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

Interesting concept. One limitation i see is that everyone rates their driving abilities as above average. Of course the natural bell-curve of driver ability distribution negates this self-perceived rating.
The second problem relates to insight and adjusting ones' self perception based on experience. One of my favourite graphs (i cant find it at the moment) is the one where actual IQ is graphed against perceived IQ. Those with average all the way up to the high end of IQ scored fairly closely between actual and perceived ratings. But...and this is where it gets funny...as you go down the graph for actual IQ, they started to show an increase in their perceived IQ. So we get a situation where those with below average IQ rate/perceive their own intelligence as being above average, and thos with some of the lowest actual scores rated themselves as highly intelligent.
So apply this same logic to your interesting experiment and I think you may agree that it would have to rate as a major confounder. Those with lower IQ and higher self-rating are very likely to stuff up the results.

PS I do not expect those on the lower end of the actual scale to understand what I just said.

Yes you see that as a confounding element, but I ask you could that very factor be the purpose.

Now lets not put it into the context of IQ, that is not the question. Could it be the case that those with superior understanding of the system of vehicle control, situational awareness, hazard perception and driving aptitude, believe themselves to be of this state? Could it also be that some that believe to be of this state of driving ability and therefore worthy of being allowed to travel at a greater speed, actually come up short and display the driving ability of the average road user? Perhaps the bell curve does apply here.

Now for this to have even the slightest relevance to the question I have proposed, it needs participants that can accurately self assess, some that assess themselves as highly competent and worthy of unusual allowances in regards to speed and those that assess themselves as average and believe the current speed limits in most conditions are appropriate.

That will be the limitation, but it could be fun anyway.

[XDV800]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think its a little bit to do with having a chip on their shoulders if they didnt achieve well at school, since they were not good at maths etc(and IQ tests do have a significant component in mathematical thinking), then they by default they believe they must possess superior "real world" intelligence, that doesnt get handed out to people who can pass exams at school.

As for Getcko's idea, it would be interesting research for the TAC, and where the conditions of the test and actual testing scenarios are controlled by skilled researchers, rather than the conflict of interest that would present itself if it were the actual instructors/proprietors of advanced driving schools.

[GTP owner]

Yes absolutely Gecko. I think you will find quite a few "great drivers" are shockers, while some of the more modest ones do far better.

I would put my hand up for being very average in traffic (not enough practice down here), while being competent in twisty, Targa type roads, due to the type of driving I do on a daily basis. But I guess I am a bit far away for your testing.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

As for Getcko's idea, it would be interesting research for the TAC, and where the conditions of the test and actual testing scenarios are controlled by skilled researchers, rather than the conflict of interest that would present itself if it were the actual instructors/proprietors of advanced driving schools.

Sudszy

I see your point of the conflict of interest but ask what do the instructors have to gain from it? This will be a no cost to participant exercise, the instructors will be donating their time (which I am pretty sure they will). Yes they may get some flow on business from the exposure but I see no harm in that.

By the way, I have no doubt that this will not meet the parameters of a true experiment with data produced that will stand up to professional scrutiny. It is just a bit of fun and a test of a point of discussion that comes up frequently here.


By the way, my user name in its shortened form is Gecko, not Getcko, I take the time to get yours right, on a number of occasions you have not for mine.

[Jim Goose]

It love to participate if i was closer!

One thing which always annoys me is the lack of driver training facilities and areas set aside for track days etc, where people could gain experience and have fun in their cars....

I did about 12 laps when I attended the Easternats a few yrs ago and even at those mundane speeds i was doing in a lumbering XB enjoyed it.

Good luck with the idea though!
Maybe also approaching friends and work mates???

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I see your point of the conflict of interest but ask what do the instructors have to gain from it? This will be a no cost to participant exercise, the instructors will be donating their time (which I am pretty sure they will). Yes they may get some flow on business from the exposure but I see no harm in that

if you see the conflict of interest, then why are you stating they have nothing to gain from it? These people are running a business, pure and simple. They will tell you how much better they make drivers and increase the safety on the roads for obvious reasons, but the cold hard facts are that they dont. So why would we trust them with the nature and assessment of the testing when there is potential to increase their business, yes, even by word of mouth on forums such as these

Originally Posted by geckoGT

By the way, I have no doubt that this will not meet the parameters of a true experiment with data produced that will stand up to professional scrutiny. It is just a bit of fun and a test of a point of discussion that comes up frequently here.

If its just for entertainment value, fair enough.

[DBourne]

I like the idea Gecko! Look forward to the results.

I think a lot of people (me included) have an element of arrogance and false belief in their abilities.

In Sydney especially, you get to see the real numpties at play all the time, so in a way it's hard not to feel like you are much better than the general driving public.

I'd like to think I have a handle on my driving and my car, but no doubt in extreme situations I could be quickly humbled.

[xisled]

There is 1 problem I can see with this. The problem is that I do not see the results will be accurate. The reason behind this, is that the the participants are going to be ready for what ever may happen. So the reaction time is going to be better than on any given normal day of driving. Most people will get better results from the day, because they will be trying to get good results and be more alert.

The only way you could get accurate results be record them over a period of time and get the results from the actual car.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

if you see the conflict of interest, then why are you stating they have nothing to gain from it? These people are running a business, pure and simple. They will tell you how much better they make drivers and increase the safety on the roads for obvious reasons, but the cold hard facts are that they dont. So why would we trust them with the nature and assessment of the testing when there is potential to increase their business, yes, even by word of mouth on forums such as these



If its just for entertainment value, fair enough.

And a government funded experiment would be any different? The government would want the result to find that increased driver training does nothing, increased skills and vehicle condition do not contribute to higher speeds and that speed limitation is the key. The result will be tailored to the financier and such a result could demonstrate the notion of increased enforcement and therefore increased revenue is better than increased training, assessment and vehicle assessment standards (which are often a government financial liability). that is a sword that cuts both ways that you wielding there.

What I propose is nothing more than a chance to have a look at this self perceived competency that is talked about often here. Considering these driver trainers focus primarily on large corporate training, it would be little more than a good will gesture from them. I will not be promising them any flow on work from it, if it happens then good, they will deserve it. Think about it, they will not be actually training the participant, just assessing them and giving constructive feed back.

There will be no skid pan work, no witches hats and simulated obstacles and definitely no high speed work. Instead it will be an assessment of driver habits, hazard perception, real world vehicle control systems etc. These are all areas that corporations and emergency services around the world consider to be important enough to spend a lot of money training their employees in. Why not assess our apparent upper echelon of regular drivers against this criteria?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by xisled

There is 1 problem I can see with this. The problem is that I do not see the results will be accurate. The reason behind this, is that the the participants are going to be ready for what ever may happen. So the reaction time is going to be better than on any given normal day of driving. Most people will get better results from the day, because they will be trying to get good results and be more alert.

The only way you could get accurate results be record them over a period of time and get the results from the actual car.

I have already considered this. It will not be using simulated hazard exercises as this demonstrates that particular weakness. I am thinking of another exercise that does not. I think the focus should be more on hazard perception rather than hazard reaction. If a driver perceives a hazard and prepares contingency plans, the reaction to that hazard is much more efficient and safe.

I personally believe that in the assessment of experienced drivers, that is where the most interesting and relevant observations will be made in regards to road safety and the question of increased road speeds.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I think another factor is location and conditions.

If you are on a quite country road and you have good visibility and can see there is no cars ahead of you, is another 10 or 20 going to make a difference.

I timed the difference between cruising at 90km/h compared to 100km/h on my daily trip to work, it was only 4 minutes difference to getting to work/home between 90 and 100.

That also depended if I got caught in the few busy roundabouts as well, or had a lucky run where I could just go right through.

I found it made more of a difference if you leave earlier or a bit later, just a few minutes makes the difference between getting caught in a ******** of traffic or barely anything on the road.

Its not only "speed" which affects your journey time.

Personally, I'd rather be doing 90 because the chance of avoiding that bastard kangaroo is a bit easier, even better still thats the reason why I have driving lights and highbeams and lowbeams as +80s so I can see it in the paddock or on the side of the road way back.

[flappist]

The only issue I see with this is you cannot simulate dangerous situations on a public road so all it will be is a "can you follow the driving handbook".

How do you simulate emergencies safely when there are others involved and emergencies are where the skill is required.

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.
Making instant decisions in emergencies like slippery surface, blocked road, some idiot drifting onto your side etc. is what can save lives.
If all you know how to do is minimise the chance of getting into trouble this will be of no use whatsoever when you are actually IN TROUBLE.

I remember some grass cutting on hungry. I am quite sure the quick save was not just the result of dumb luck.....

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

The only issue I see with this is you cannot simulate dangerous situations on a public road so all it will be is a "can you follow the driving handbook".

How do you simulate emergencies safely when there are others involved and emergencies are where the skill is required.

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.
Making instant decisions in emergencies like slippery surface, blocked road, some idiot drifting onto your side etc. is what can save lives.
If all you know how to do is minimise the chance of getting into trouble this will be of no use whatsoever when you are actually IN TROUBLE.

I remember some grass cutting on hungry. I am quite sure the quick save was not just the result of dumb luck.....

Aaahhh Flappy, the famous John Deere incident!

The test I have in mind is not a reaction to actual hazards, it is the perception of potential hazards and the planning for them that I am looking at. There is a way of testing this on normal roads and believe me, it is an eye opening experience.

[Ben73]

I would like to do this experiment, but it's too far away. I believe you live in QLD Gecko?

Sudszy, do you have any opinions of your own? or do you just read a thread, see what the majority says, then go against them?

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I timed the difference between cruising at 90km/h compared to 100km/h on my daily trip to work, it was only 4 minutes difference to getting to work/home between 90 and 100.

That also depended if I got caught in the few busy roundabouts as well, or had a lucky run where I could just go right through.

I found it made more of a difference if you leave earlier or a bit later, just a few minutes makes the difference between getting caught in a ******** of traffic or barely anything on the road.

Its not only "speed" which affects your journey time.

Personally, I'd rather be doing 90 because the chance of avoiding that bastard kangaroo is a bit easier, even better still thats the reason why I have driving lights and highbeams and lowbeams as +80s so I can see it in the paddock or on the side of the road way back.

How far is the distance you travel to work?

In the work 4wd we are always on quite country roads at all times of the day and night.
Last week I took a 100kms drive for work on Bylong Valley Way in the Hunter Valley NSW. Got onto the road at about 5am and got off it at about 6:15am. In 75 minutes I passed 2 vehicles.
So for my driving speed is often a factor in travel times for me.

On a 250km trip how much time would you save between 90 and 100kmh?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

And a government funded experiment would be any different? The government would want the result to find that increased driver training does nothing, increased skills .......?

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.

[2011G6E]

You want to know the best, most 100% accurate indication that someone isn't really a very good driver or motorcycle rider who is probably going to be a danger to themselves and everyone else around them?

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

Riders and drivers who don't blow thier own trumpet but simply (usually after being observed by someone else and praised for a skill) say in an understated way "Oh, I suppose that I'm pretty good if you say so, but could always improve", are the ones I will respect and trust more.

You never finish learning, you can always learn better and improved skills, and there's always someone better than you...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by flappist

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

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.