[Closed] SMIDSY - RAF pilots view...

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....

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?