This Sub-topic is for discussing the article listed above, which can be read here. Please add your thoughts and reactions to the article.

I have been to Gary Magwood's course and have also listened to him speak at a conference. Mr. Magwood makes some very valid points about the way students are being taught in some areas of Canada. He does not, however know what is happening in every region and therefore should not paint all programs or Driver Educators with the same brush.

As a Driver Educator in the province of Saskatchewan I feel that my expertise with young drivers gives me some insight in this topic. Mr. Magwood thinks that we should take the age group that are the biggest risk takers of all, teenagers, and teach them how to get out of a dangerous situation after they have gotten into it. Do you not think it is better to teach them how to drive defensively so they don't get into those situations in the first place?

After students have taken a good driver education course with qualified instructors they should then be put on a graduated licence program. If this is then followed up with enforcement and laws that have some teeth, we will see a marked improvement in the collision rates.

Mr. Magwood's program is a very good program and would be an excellent course for people to take after they have a few years of actual driving experience and possibly even before they end their graduated licence program, but should not be taught to new drivers that have very little experience behind the wheel.

Ken,
First of all, please know that I am not a critic of any driving instructors or educators anywhere in Canada. I believe that the majority of individuals involved in the business are dedicated professionals and committed to providing the best training possible under the circumstances. I, do and will continue to, criticize what is being taught and how it is delivered. The information and testing process is out of date and out of touch with what is really going on.

My experience, based on teaching over 15,000 young drivers on skid pads across this country, demonstrated to me they really have not learned very much in the process of getting their license. This is not the fault of the educator or trainer in most cases.

The acquisition of a drivers license is the major right of passage for modern teenagers. Dull dreary dissertations on 'safe driving' and 'defensive driving' (must find another term to describe this training!) do not excite or grab the attention of young drivers.

Action, on a skid pad with brakes locking up and cones flying, dramatically demonstrates what happens if you aren't paying attention or climb behind the wheel impaired. I sincerely believe that teaching crisis management behind the wheel is a vital component in the process of learning to drive. I can't imagine a hockey or gymnastics coach not teaching their athletes how to deal with emergencies. How to take a check or how to land in a fall from equipment.

We have to deal with the reality that regardless of how careful or cautious one may be behind the wheel, eventually a situation is going to develop that will require the vision training and collision avoidance techniques that are not hard to learn and are fun in the process. As for enforcement: I would suggest that it is only effective in short bursts whenever the cops need to catch the politicians attention at budget time! If this sounds cynical, you're right. Have a look at the statistics regarding 'speeding' and attempts to force drivers to adhere to unrealistic limits.

I believe drivers should take skid pad training as part of the license acquisition process not after several years of 'experience'. Experience without education or training is useless.

I have trained thousands of new drivers, some with as little as two weeks of 'experience.' Believe me when I say that our instinct for self-preservation is very powerful. A skill that will enable us to avoid hurting ourselves is learned quickly and effectively. It needs to be taught even before the age of majority.

Mums and dads should be taking collision avoidance programs and putting the information to use long before they attempt to formally teach their kids. We can't seem to grasp the fact that the learning process starts the moment a child is strapped in to a 'safety seat', not when they turn 16 or whatever.

I would be delighted to continue this discussion here at Drivers.com. I appreciate your response.

Gary,
Let me say I agree with the idea of mums and dads taking collision avoidance programs. Having taught 3 of my 4 daughters (#4 doesn't drive yet), and having taken several defensive driving courses, including a military evasive course, I know the value of them. The training I imparted to my daughters has enabled 2 of them to turn potentially fatal accidents into relatively minor fender benders. All drivers should have such training before being licensed.

Gary,
A second point I'd like to make (after reading another of your articles) relates to how drivers are trained.

Many young people are now actively involved with video games including driving/racing simulations. This applies to femailes as well as males. Most of these seem to teach that speed is everything and that crashing is no big deal. Just right the vehicle and continue on.

Ford (for one) has a driving simulator that is fairly good. If our schools were equipped with driving simulators that stressed driving safety over enjoyment, and that were used for several years before a person is eligible to be licensed, drivers could have 'experience' prior to getting on the road and a better attitude about driving.

I would like to think that the automotive companies and governments could find a way to fund this type of venture. The costs spent now would be more than saved in future costs for injuries, damages, and deaths.

Gary,
Instructors like you and me are constantly tarred with the broad brush criticism that if we teach teens how to survive emergency situations (such as skid control) they'll just go out and do it. It is the same argument offered by the opponents of sex education. The alternative, of course, is to simply leave them ignorant of the consequences of carelessness and bad behaviors and let them discover those by themselves or at the hands of other teens.

The famous Brian O'neill of the IIHS laid the foundation of this argument in 1974 by examining the driving records of members of the Sports Car Club of America who (he claims)are taught the same principles. Since those records he examined were below average (as interpreted by him)ergo performance training makes unsafe drivers.

There are two flaws in his assertions. One, the sample base stinks. Anyone who cares enough about driving to join an enthsiast club is per se, not represenatative of the population and biased toward excess enthusiasm behind the wheel. Two, O'neill is not an SCCA licensed competition driver and never was one and doesn't have a clue as to what these drivers are taught. They are not taught accident avoidance and defensive driving--they are taught the fastest way around the race course. Of course some of the techniques apply well to both circumstances and that's the beauty of the training that you and I do as applied to young drivers.

So to those observers who insist that the only way to create a safe driver is to implore them never to exceed a speed limit, to be ever watchful for other drivers doing dangerous things, look both ways, be careful, always leave enough room between you and the car in front and behind, I say---take your head out of the sand, look around at the real world, recognize that such lectures may make you feel good but they do not equip the young driver with the athletic abilty to respond instantly and correctly to emergencies created by others.

Driving is not just risk assessment and good behavior. It is a psychomotor exercise requiring the same programming as any sport, playing a musical instrument, typing 70 words per minute or any other mind-over-muscle activity. It cannot be taught in the classroom--it must be taught on the "playing field" or instrument. In other words, one must "do it" to get it.

This does not require leading students down paths of self-destruction any more than lecturing about venereal disease and birth control entices sexual experimentation.

Soon, I believe, the "safety" world is going to understand that people crash at an early age less because of bad attitudes than because of inadequate training and understanding of real-world situations.

That's why we call our New Driver Car Control Clinics© Reality Training.

There are many good points in the above messages, but one part really made me wince, and that was the following, from David Thompson:

"...So to those observers who insist that the only way to create a safe driver is to implore them never to exceed a speed limit, to be ever watchful for other drivers doing dangerous things, look both ways, be careful, always leave enough room between you and the car in front and behind, I say---take your head out of the sand, look around at the real world, recognize that such lectures may make you feel good but they do not equip the young driver with the athletic abilty to respond instantly and correctly to emergencies created by others..."

David, I agree with you about the folly of anyone thinking that theirs was the (quote) 'only' way to teach kids to be safe, but you seem to be guilty of exactly the same attitude when you say that "such lectures may make [the speaker] feel good but they do not equip the young driver [etc.]..." So, here, I must disagree with you vehemently.

I have had the good fortune to be trained as an advanced driver and an advanced motorcyclist, as a traffic-patrol police officer in Britain. I later had the great good fortune to spend three years in that same job as a specialist road safety lecturer and during that time gave many hundreds of talks to kids in senior schools, colleges and apprentice training centres. My force engaged eight of us, full-time, on this task and the results were fabulous - very dramatic reductions in the death and injury rates of youngsters in our area (to which no other reasons for the reductions could be attributed).

But since then I have also worked as a driving instructor and always taught my pupils/students the practical aspects of skidding, cadence braking, etc.

So, having had the fabulous benefit of advanced driver training, plus the two above teaching roles, may I qualify your comments by stating that I think both 'sides' to this debate are wrong if they think that theirs is the only way to teach kids safety. Youngsters need a good grounding, both in the theory & reasons, and in the practical application of safety procedures. Either aspect, without the other, is weak.

And, as a last comment (not aimed at David), I dearly wish that race track owners and racing drivers would stop calling their 1/2/3/4-day courses "advanced driving". Nothing could be further from the truth. Advanced driving cannot be taught away from public roads, nor is it a skill that can be learned in such a short time frame.

Regards,
Eddie

In New Zealand driver educators are on the back foot as our Land Transport Safety Authority insist that driving instructors are not really needed here and that 'mum and dad' can do just as good a job as a profesional instructor.

The dreaded words 'research suggests' have now produced an avalanche of classroom based 'advanced driver training courses' where between 4 and 10 hours sees partcipants with a certificate which makes them a better driver.

To give you some background: My company provides courses from basic learner driver, kids start at 15 here in NZ, no complusory insurance and pretty poor testing standards, through advanced driver training, all my instrutors are Institute of Advanced Motorists, and high performace driver training, thisincludes high security driving. We have 2 skid cars one auto and one manual and we also do heavy truck training.

Did your Mum ever tell you not to walk before you could run? the same applies to driver training, skid cars and high level driving skills should only be bought in when initial basic skills are at a fairly high level, even then our ladder step approach ensures that training is absorbed before the next step is taken.

Many courses here in NZ are taken in race circuit type situations and run by ex racing and rally drivers who regale an anthralled audience of youngsters of how many times they have come off the race cicuit or rolled over! Having attended a course for about 30 youngsters I walked away half way through because the 'instructors' some as young as 16 were trying to wreck the sponsors cars and the whole thing was not really my cup of tea.

If kids are learning to drive, the basics have to well ingrained before being introduced to higher level driving skills and then on a 'one step at a time' approach. Young impressionable drivers enjoy 'thrills and spills' type courses but why taken them down this route whilst they are still trying to keep a leathal, we have 151/2 year old drivers driving 300bhp cars here, weaponon the correct side of the road.

My web site is on advancedrodskills.co.nz and would appreciate any communication from around the world, I seem to be fighting a loosing battle to improve driving skills here.

Wayne Price