There are multiple suggestions about how a learner-driver could develop the skills, instincts and confidence to be able to drive independently. These range from: a certain number of professional driving lessons; having a certain number of logged hours of supervised practice with an experienced driver; the use of driving simulators to replicate a range of driving conditions and gather data and feedback; and the learner getting a time discount by doing a defensive driving course.
Finally, it is suggested that “there is no substitute for on-road training and experience, but it is unclear whether any benefits of training would translate to meaningful improvements in road safety”.
The last comment is highlighted. It is a direct quote from a very recent NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) position statement that categorically states: “NZTA does not support the use of simulators to train procedural or vehicle-handling skills amongst learner-drivers, or to train higher-order cognitive skills as a replacement for on-road training and experience.”
The problem with all those suggested interventions to the restricted driver process is that there is very little research evidence to support their effectiveness when measured against improved road safety or, more specifically, against the metric of reduced crashes or injuries. That is what it seems that NZTA needs to be satisfied about, in respect to the use of driving simulators.
It’s an impossible task to show that a component of a learner-driver’s training will show up at some later stage as something that never happened – reduced crashes.
NZTA has no proof that the use of simulators results in improved crash or injury statistics, and therefore it does not support their use. It’s not only an extraordinary position to take but it also shows how difficult it is to measure what actually works in the road safety space.
The ultimate arbiter of whether a learner-driver has sufficient knowledge, attitude and skills to be able to guide more than a tonne of metal in a competitive and congested roading environment is the final driving test. That has to be as comprehensive and searching as possible, to ensure the new driver can be safely independent on the road.
The process by which the learner gets to that final test, though, is still in play. In many respects, we are left with the notion of common sense, and how this fits into road safety training.
Commonly, we regard common sense as “being intrinsically obvious to everyone”. That of itself is a problem, as we don’t necessarily agree as to what is obvious.
A very recent study by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania used a case study of 4407 claims of common sense from several sources and asked more than 2000 people how commonsensical each claim was. These claims included: “Triangles have three sides”; “Numbers don’t lie, you should always trust the math”; “All human beings are created equal”; “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength” and “Avoid close contact with people who are ill”.
The researchers found that between individuals, things considered to be common sense varied considerably across claims and at the collective level, few claims match the definition of common sense as “being obvious to everyone”. Effectively, the researchers found that each person’s common sense is pretty much unique to them, so as a consequence, common sense isn’t that common.
Common sense seems to me to be the power of judgment that allows us to be rational creatures with a strong moral compass. But that is not necessarily proven by experts or research evidence. Beware, though, of the person who declares something as “plain common sense”. That could reflect a lack of judgment or moral compass.
The Government has yet to decide the best way to get from a learner to a full driver’s licence, but let’s hope for the potential use of common sense as part of the final decision.
