To put my point a different way – the intro, methods, results and the most of the discussion is fine in that article, but the conclusions are shoddy. Shoddy because there is no need to make changes to the way people are taught to drive – people are already taught to a better standard than the article recommends….

there is no need to make changes to the way people are taught to drive

That’s not what the article is saying either. I read it as a call to change driver behaviour, not testing.

Although is the current system, where you drive satisfactorily for half an hour and do a peasy multiple choice test, then get the right to drive until you drop dead or seriously injure someone, the best solution? Even most driving instructors disagree, apparently:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3531657.ece

That article says that most of the 600 people that driving instructors RED suveryed said they’d like a cycling module introduced.

Me – I’d like compulsory retesting every 5 years.

At no point when I was learning to drive was I told: “By the way, even if your eyes are in perfect working order, they barely work. Objects that you aren’t staring directly at are practically invisible. If your eyes are swivelling everything is invisible. And you won’t know because your brain will just make up the scene you’re looking at and it’ll look real. Here’s the techniques to get around this…”

(Also, this explains why I can spin round the house and not find my keys despite “looking at them” half a dozen times!)

Me – I’d like compulsory retesting every 5 years.

is that from a viewpoint of an instructor, or a concerned road user or both ?

Would certainly cause some unease among the petrol heads- i think its treated as a sort of video game at the moment, responsibility seems a distant concept in road culture..

To put my point a different way – the intro, methods, results and the most of the discussion is fine in that article, but the conclusions are shoddy. Shoddy because there is no need to make changes to the way people are taught to drive – people are already taught to a better standard than the article recommends….

have you any evidence that people are actually learning to this high standard, or do you mean it’s the aspiration of their teachers that they might ?

What the article seems to be saying is that no matter how well taught you are, and no matter how careful you are, there will sometimes be scenarios where you don’t see things because your brain actually edits them out in order to preserve continuity and its own understanding of the scene.

I’d like compulsory retesting every 5 years.

Don’t think that’s necessarily a bad idea. But if the current standard of driver testing is so jolly amazing, how come new drivers are disproportionately likely to be involved in accidents?

I think the salient point to be taken from the article is HOW the eyes work & HOW we use them.

Most drivers are probably completely unaware of this information.

Lets not lose sight of that..
(Ill get my coat)

But if the current standard of driver testing is so jolly amazing, how come new drivers are disproportionately likely to be involved in accidents?

I’m not sure that they are, when you look at things on a crashes per mile basis. Could it be that they dont realise that theyre not solely at fault in a crash and end up taking the blame?