Driver training question
 

Howdy - Wondering about the legality and practicality of a couple things. Hope this is the right place to ask :)

So my wife (27yo) learned to drive when she was 18, got her driver's license (back in Portugal) and crashed on her 2nd day driving - someone ran a stop sign, she slammed on the brakes and skid right into his door. No major damage or anything, but it scared her out of driving for a few years, even though it really wasn't her fault, it would have been easily avoidable for someone with a bit more experience.

After we moved to Canada, she decided to give it another go - she liked the idea of driving an automatic car :D It did make it a lot easier and she passed her Class 5 test, etc etc etc.

I consider her a careful and considerate driver, she does not drive beyond her abilities and knows her limitations. Despite all that, I still feel like she could do with a bit more confidence behind the wheel. To that effect, we've been to a couple of Driving Unlimited training type things in Pitt Meadows which helped a LOT. But there are specific things I want her to try and do that she had trouble with even in the training courses - just general emergency action stuff. Braking mid turn, emergency lane changes, just general reaction time and range of motion - she tends to go very stiff and not turn the wheel enough, etc.

Anyway, that should be enough back story! So suppose I buy a couple cones on eBay and bring them late at night to a deserted parking lot and help her with some exercises. What would be the odds of a police officer not taking too kindly to this? :) And by the way, I will not be teaching her to "drift", it isn't an excuse to go hooning late at night. Her car is quiet and none of the stuff I want her to do will be causing much tire squeal.

If the likelihood of making it out of this with a license and a car is small, what other options are there? I might take her to another driving unlimited thing next year, but I can't think of anything else. I can't see her being into autocross AT ALL. I wouldn't be able to make her stand in a parking lot all day for 3 minutes of driving. Track days wouldn't be a bad idea, but to be honest, she needs repetition in pretty specific exercises rather than speeding around the track. I race a formula vee at mission, she has no interest in driving around a track of going fast.

Any tips? :)

You would probably have to clear it with the owners of the parking lot first. Most of the big lots (such as Lansdowne Centre in Richmond), the security will definitely kick you out before the police would even show up. It's all about liability - and the owners of the lot would not risk you doing exercises like (IMO). If you can find a private lot that gives you permission, and you close off the lot to public (with a gate, etc), you have no issues whatsoever.

^ Lansdowne has a rule written on their Parking Regulation Board that there can not be any student training on their lots. However, I still see instructor cars there reverse stall parking all the time.

I'm also not sure if the owners of parking lots will give you permission to practice driving like gars mentioned even if they gated the lot because of liability issues, but I guess it's worth a try.

IMO emergency situation driving can't be prepared for, but that's just me. It's like doing Fire Drills/Earthquake Drills at school. If one was to actually happen, I don't think everybody will be walking calmly out the door. If this was up to me, I'd rather let your wife start by getting more confidence behind the wheel, by driving on the road for a longer period of time in one sitting, maybe a bit later at night when there's less cars. And maybe you can point out make believe situations or make her answer Hazard Perception questions.

I strongly disagree that you can't prepare for emergency situations. Now some stuff is plain unavoidable, but with enough repetition, muscle memory kicks in. I'm not trying to get her ready to do stunt driving, but pushing your limits in a controlled environment repeatedly WILL expand your limits tremendously. Have a look at what driving students in Finland have to go through to get their license, I find that experience invaluable in creating safe drivers. The challenge is, how do you teach young kids car control skills while making sure they won't use those skills for "harm"?

I don't think teenagers in North America (or most European countries, for that matter) have enough respect (both for others and themselves) that you could teach them how to be great drivers without them doing whatever they can to show it off at any possible opportunity. Which in turn, makes it hard for me to help my wife, liability and insurance be damned!! *shake fist*

:D

Confidence comes from proving to oneself that you are capable of doing a task. The more you practice, the better you get and the more confidant you become. If you want to practice emergency moves then you had better find a location that is not classified as a "highway" and have an expert teacher ( you will note that I did not say driver because a good driver is not automatically a good teacher) help her practice away from any safety concerns. I believe BMW has some sort of advanced courses in the LMD and somebody here can probably tell you how to contact them, or have other suggestions.

I know what you mean by a good teacher being completely different from a good driver. In this context, I'm a much better teacher than I am a driver. I do not consider myself an expert driver or above average. From what I see every day on Lougheed Hwy, I must be a horrible, horrible driver, cause I couldn't do some of the stuff I see every day in good and clear conscience without being absolutely sure that I wouldn't eventually hit someone.

I do pride myself in driving as safely as I can, and part of that is leaving my racing at the track. I drive my little formula car as fast as I can (and sometimes a bit faster, ask the grass!), so I can drive "like a grandma" every other day.

Either way, back to the original topic - she has done one of the BMW courses (winter driving skills) which was great, but limited. The size and pace of the class means she got an introduction to the skills, but not enough repetition (practice) to be confident in them. I will be contacting them again (www.duacademy.com by the way, the collision avoidance course at $99 is definitely great value for novice drivers!) to ask if there are other options for this.

Cheers

The only other option I could suggest is to join the RCMP...driver training and advanced driver training are free as part of the package. :)

I'll let her know that. Hey, if the RCMP pays for our permanent residency application, we're in! :lol

in my young drivers course years ago we set up cones in a parking lot and did anything we wanted. I guess they leave you alone if you are in a driving school car...

You have to be a Canadian Citizen to join the RCMP.

Imagine if a portion of the traffic fines collected in BC went to fund driver training centers that places like YD could use for their "driving around cones" training. Imagine that, helping people become better drivers!

I'll send you the business case for that I submitted before I retired. Maybe you could have more success with it than I did....

As a current "Young Drivers" Instructor all I can say is that the course must have changed. There is a collision avoidance segment that uses cones in a very specific course to avoid rear end craashes, but the current course does not involve doing anything you want. I'm sure Peter would be interested to hear about that addition.....that's if you are referring to the real YD courses and not a generic driving course for new drivers..

I know you said your wife isn't interested in racing/motorsports, but consider having her enroll in an autoX driving school and perhaps attending a couple of autoX's to learn the limits of her car.

http://www.vcmc.ca/forum/content.php...er-Development

You must hate getting to the part where they teach "going with the flow" :p

We teach that if you choose safety over legality, you are leaving yourself open to getting a ticket. It may be an explanation in court, not a legal argument. The "go with the flow" choice has limitations. If the traffic is going too fast and illegal then you choose to get out of it. Just because a majority of drivers choose to speed, it doesn't make it right and in most cases, safe. Drivers make thousands of choices on every trip, skilled drivers make safe ones. Just today I told a student to pull over and let traffic pass. We were doing the limit and a couple of cars behind started tailgating us. I could have suggested that he speed up a bit but that was not the right choice. Everyone was safer and the cars behind us got stopped by the next red light ahead and arrived 2 car lengths sooner than we did.

I can't imagine the mess if even 10% of drivers being tailgated pulled over to the curb to let the tailgaters pass. Surely it is safer to go with the flow than to stop and re-merge every single time you're being tailgated.


"We teach that if you choose safety over legality, you are leaving yourself open to getting a ticket"

Sounds like the ticketing system isn't always designed to improve safety then ;)

In a Disney world, everybody would obey the laws & there would be no tail gaters. When people choose to break them the problems start. If everybody was ticketed every time they broke the laws you would see remarkable compliance and a corresponding rise in safety. The ticketing system is always designed to improve safety but a lack of 100% enforcement results in less than 100% compliance. Given the choice most drivers would choose legal and safe driving habits over illegal and unsafe. I have wondered what would happen if everybody actually was forced to drive 100% legally, by some sort of mechanical or electronic override system? ;)

Photo Radar was what you would call 100% enforcement, yet the outcome wasn't 100% compliance. Red light cameras catch 100% of all drivers who run past them and through a red light, however the outcome isn't 100% compliance either.

You will gain more voluntary compliance with speed limits if the limits are set based on the reasonable actions of the reasonable majority of drivers. The vast majority of collisions don't occur solely because someone was going with the flow.

Photo Radar was not 100% compliance or enforcement. Many of the pictures taken were rejected for technical and legal process reasons and not followed through to prosecution. Red light cameras, when at intersections where they actually are placed (there are far less cameras than there are actual installations) reject a substantial number because of similar reasons. Because of these factors you cannot say they represent 100% enforcement and compliance. To be 100% enfoprcement and compliance you would need an automatic system that would charge 100% of the times the law was broken. I would guess that even some of the strongest "pro speeding because I'm a better driver in a better car" drivers here, would obey the laws if they knew they would get penalized 100% of the time. My criminology courses taught me, as did my on the job experience...that the higher the chance you will get caught, the higher the chance you will obey the laws. If this is not so, why does everybody behave when they see the Cops watching them, unless they have some sort of death wish? :)

But none of the drivers who drove past the speed camera vans at illegal speeds knew that.

Drivers knew that if they sped by the camera they would be photographed and ticketed. If that doesn't create the illusion of 100% enforcement I don't know what else will.


I'll change my tune about speeding tickets being more about revenue collection than safety if you agree to back my proposal to make any speeding offense of 5km/hr or more over the limit punishable by a mandatory 24-hour jail term without any fines and fees.

It would require the government to prove that minor speeding offences are really dangerous enough to receive the incredibly disproportionate levels of enforcement and help restore public confidence that the police aren't simply out there to write revenue generating tickets.

[QUOTE=sebberry;7220458][U]But none of the drivers who drove past the speed camera vans at illegal speeds knew that. ]

I beg to differ and many of those posting here during photo radar days will tell you that too. It was common knowledge that you had a better than average chance of getting away with it. The NDP Govt even said you could speed 10 ks over the limit and not get charged. It was a political decision that was not run the way it should have been. They took the concept from Australia where it had a huge impact and crashes, injuries and costs dropped substantially...and replaced it with BC politics as usual. Politics launched it and politics squashed it.



I'll change my tune about speeding tickets being more about revenue collection than safety if you agree to back my proposal to make any speeding offense of 5km/hr or more over the limit punishable by a mandatory 24-hour jail term without any fines and fees.

You will not get ticketed for 5 kms over the limit unless it is a speed relative to conditions charge...and most know that you can do a lot more than that and not even raise an eyebrow. As far as jail terms go, that is your suggestion. If we follow your arguement to the limit, why not just excecute the drivers...no recidivism then?

I've seen people get ticketed for 5 over. It happens, albeit rarely. Speeding is an absolute liability offense. Once again, it would only be politics that prevents more people from being stopped and arrested for 5km/hr over the limit.

Most people would much rather pay a hundred and some odd dollar fine than spend a night in jail, meaning the latter is much more likely to drastically reduce collisions, no?

And yet there are plenty of locations in the UK where speed camera locations have seen little reduction in collisions. I attempted to look up the speed-related collision stats for speed-camera loving Alberta but they don't seem to mention "speed" at all in their collision stats. I wonder what they're hiding.

The down-unders aren't perfect either.

Originally Posted by sebberry


I've seen people get ticketed for 5 over. It happens, albeit rarely.

I would be astonished to find a VT issued for 5k over the limit under normal circumstances. Many times drivers speeds are registered long before they see the Cop and slow down. Inm other cases they slam the brakes on and then look at the speedo. The speed at which they are initially targeted is not what they see on the speedo and they may think they were doing 5 k over when in fact it was much higher initially. With so many drivers exceeding the limit by at least 20 k, why would you go for the small fish at 5k over...and seriously risk loosing your credibility in Traffic Court with the JP? In my experience if you actually only had 5k over the limit the JP would find a way to toss the case or suspend the fine...you would find yourself in difficulty when you tried to convince them in future cases if they figure you issue C.S. tickets.



Most people would much rather pay a hundred and some odd dollar fine than spend a night in jail, meaning the latter is much more likely to drastically reduce collisions, no?

My experience with a fine or jail situation in the past is that a significant number chose the jail over the cash when they know that checking into jail at 11pm and then checking out at 6am the next morning gets them credit for 2 days. A few hours lying in a cell sleeping or reading instead of paying fines makers sense if you don't want to pay. Most local cells are not the black hole of Calcutta and in most cases you get meals free as well. I have slept in hostels way worse than local jail cells and paid to do so....with no free meals.