Marvelous training is given by you. Thank you for giving this good post. By taking our driver ed class, you will learn: the rules and laws of the road, the meaning of various traffic signs, the many responsibilities associated with driving, the main causes of accidents and how to potentially avoid them.

Thanks
Sofia.

The reason for highlighting the examples from Dr Christie’s work is that although I in no way doubt his qualifications, it is important to recognise the far reaching impact of his report and by whom the report was funded.

When these facts are considered, the negative sway of his argument draws a certain falsity to his conclusions and also contradicts the equal amount of data supporting the fact that well provisioned driver training can indeed make a difference to the mindset of a student, be they any age.

It seems in summary that the report takes the attitude that training is too hard to implement over the wider spectrum so is therefore not worthwhile, and that scare tactics, catchy slogans and pinky waving are thought to have a greater impact. It simply isn’t so.

If even half the money spent on the TACs advertising was distributed among schools for driver training I’m sure the impact would be further reaching – now if only I could have the chance to prove it.

But anyway, rant over, for now we’ll just wait and see what comes of our little initiative.

Kind regards Matt.

In my opinion advanced driver training programs provide drivers with the opportunity to know the limits of their cars and their personal abilities during various simulated conditions. They allow you to practice emergency accident avoidance through braking and direction changing. They teach you how to set up your seat and mirrors for maximum vision and control. They let you experience how long it takes to stop in an emergency and hence give credence to the notion of being proactive rather than reactive. Sure activities like skid pans are competitive and even fun, but these behaviours are not taught for reproduction on the road, rather to highlight limitations of car and driver.

Like Mr T, “I pity the fool” who calls advanced driving training counter-productive.

I encourage CarAdvice to contact us, as we would like to participate in their research and provide their members with discount incentives. Until then, TT Driver Training will offer a 5% discount on all of our driver training services to members who mention the CarAdvice driver training programs article.

That is good that you are approaching this with an open mind and considering different types of training, I would strongly encourage you to consider the CDTA courses if it is possible to get them. Orica use the courses as many of its employees regularly drive over 1500kms a week, often carrying dangerous goods, it makes drivers more aware of their responsibilities. Those responsibilities are of course essentially the same as those of every other road user, and that is to ensure EVERYONE can go home to their family without being hurt.

Yes Nathaniel was a little abrupt in his wording, however I draw your attention to Car Advice’s public criticism of the RACV’s report into driver training. As you should be aware, it is important to back up your statements, and I believe the report justifies its conclusions with statistically reliable sample data. I think perhaps you should more carefully consider your position before publishing work that brings into disrepute the work of a recognised expert in the field.

If you wish to have more information from the driver education program we use I would suggest visiting the Corporate Driver Training Australia website.

Can I add the following to the debate:

1. Advanced/Performance/skidpan training can create over-confidence, not Defensive driving. My company bans under 21′s from attending the “advanced” programs unless they have done a Defensive driving course first There is often a mis-use of terminology here and skidpan training is called Defensive driving (there are some training schools they don’t help the distiction by wrongly labelling their courses).

2. In every course, trainers see people who just don’t get it. Many participants are over-confident before attending. We sleep well at night because we did not create the monster and we definetly challenged their attitudes and added knowledge. But probably did not change their attitudes. How can 1 day undo 17 years of mis-information. Training therefore is not the answer..but it is part of the solution. You can lead the horse to water…….

3. The true measurement of training’s effectiveness should be knowledge gain, not crash involvement. On this scale driver training would prove a huge success. People leave with more knowledge than they came with.

4. Our company has trained 30,000 Year 12 students and each year 145 schools enrol students. Never has a teacher (a professional eductor in their own right) said our training was methodologically unsound or did not bring their students back each year since they thought our courses increased the confidence of participants.

5. If the behaviour scientists acknowledge that training can change attitude (ie. create overconfidence) then doesn’t this follow that training done correctly can change attitudes for the better. Why does research always claim that the training had a negative outcome, since if it can change attitudes it proves how valuable correct training can be in the road safety puzzle.

I could go on defending my business. But we are fully booked for the next 3 months (every day of every month in several locations). I think people are voting for themselves.

More information on our research can be found off our website (www.sdt.com.au)