Beyond the Test: Road Safety for the Real World · Part 3 of 10
Why people crash: what police records reveal about serious collisions, and how to coach the causes rather than correct the symptoms.
Most instructors were trained in a simple sequence: identify the fault, analyse it, put it right. It is a sound starting point. But on a Part 3 or Standards Check, spotting a fault and telling the pupil about it earns far less credit than helping the pupil understand why it happened and what to do differently.
Police crash records show why that matters. Most of the factors behind serious crashes are not about car control. They are about where the driver was looking, what they expected, and the choices they made.
What the police record at the scene
When police attend an injury collision, officers can record “road safety factors”: their judgement of what contributed to it. These are not proof of cause, and most collisions have more than one factor. But across tens of thousands of collisions a year, the pattern is very clear.
| Road safety factor (2025) | Fatal or serious collisions |
|---|---|
| Ineffective observation (driver, rider or pedestrian) | 50% |
| Overshot junction, or poor turn or manoeuvre | 22% |
| Travelling too fast for conditions | 16% |
| Exceeding the speed limit | 16% |
| Aggressive, dangerous or reckless driving | 15% |
| Distraction inside or outside the vehicle | 12% |
| Affected by alcohol | 9% |
| Inexperienced or learner driver or rider | 9% |
| Passing too close to another road user or pedestrian | 9% |
Ineffective observation appears in half of all fatal or serious collisions, more than twice as often as anything else. Behaviour or inexperience factors were recorded in 74% of collisions where any factor was assigned.
Looking is not the same as seeing
Ineffective observation is not always a failure to turn the head. Often the driver did look, but looked at the wrong thing, looked too briefly, or saw something and misjudged it. Classic examples include the motorcyclist approaching a junction who is “not seen”, or the pedestrian stepping out from between parked cars.
That has a direct consequence for how we teach. Telling a pupil “you didn’t look right” deals with the symptom. It does not tell you, or them, what they were actually looking at, what they expected to see, or why they decided it was safe to go. Those are the things that will cause the crash after the test.
Young drivers: a different pattern
The DfT’s 2025 younger driver factsheet compares the factors recorded in fatal or serious collisions for drivers aged 17 to 24 with drivers aged 25 to 69:
- Inexperienced or learner driver: 15.6% against 2.1%
- Exceeding the speed limit: 20.6% against 8.0%
- Travelling too fast for conditions: 18.7% against 7.9%
- Aggressive, dangerous or reckless: 16.5% against 7.6%
- Ineffective observation: 31.4% against 30.4%
Observation problems affect drivers of all ages. What marks out young drivers is inexperience combined with speed and risky choices. In GDE matrix terms, these sit at the higher levels: the journey and its context, and the driver’s goals and motives. A pupil can be technically excellent and still be exposed to every one of them.
From fault-finding to coaching the cause
The shift is from telling to exploring. When something goes wrong, or nearly goes wrong, the most valuable question is not “what did you do?” but “what were you thinking at that point?”
A simple coaching sequence after an incident. What happened? Let the pupil describe it in their own words. What were you looking at, and what did you expect? This uncovers the real cause. What might have happened if…? This links the incident to real risk without lecturing. What will you do differently next time? The pupil owns the solution.
This takes no longer than a well-delivered correction, and the learning lasts longer, because the pupil has worked it out for themselves.
On your next lesson
- Use a commentary for one short stretch. Ask the pupil to say what they see and what they expect to happen. You will learn more about their observation in two minutes than in a whole lesson of watching their mirrors.
- After a junction, ask what they were looking for. “What might have been coming that you couldn’t see?” builds the habit of searching for what is hidden.
- Replace one correction with a question. Next time you would say “you were too fast there”, ask “How did that speed feel on that bend?” and let the pupil judge.
- Link one fault to a real crash type. A rushed emergence becomes a conversation about the motorcyclist the driver never saw, not just a fault on the sheet.
Part 3 and Standards Check: why this matters
Two risk management competencies reward this approach directly: being aware of the surroundings and the pupil’s actions, and giving feedback that helps the pupil understand any potential safety-critical incidents. Notice that the second is about understanding, not just being told.
Teaching and learning strategies carry eight of the seventeen competencies, the largest share of the marks. Encouraging the pupil to analyse problems and take responsibility for their learning, giving appropriate and timely feedback, and encouraging reflection all improve when you coach the cause rather than correct the symptom.
The DVSA National Standard for Driver and Rider Training describes coaching as a core skill (Unit 3) and asks instructors to help learners take responsibility for managing risk (Unit 4). An instructor who only spots and corrects faults is meeting a small part of that standard.
Here is how this article’s lesson ideas map to the Standards Check competencies:
| Lesson idea | Area | Competency it supports |
|---|---|---|
| Commentary for one stretch | Risk management | Being aware of the surroundings and the pupil’s actions |
| Ask what they were looking for | Risk management / Teaching and learning | Feedback that helps the pupil understand safety-critical incidents; encouraging analysis |
| Replace a correction with a question | Teaching and learning | Encouraging the pupil to analyse problems and take responsibility for their learning |
| Link a fault to a real crash type | Teaching and learning | Using opportunities and examples to clarify learning outcomes |
Join the conversation
I would really like to hear what you think. Please share your views and experiences in the comments on Facebook, where thousands of ADIs and PDIs are already part of the conversation.
This week’s question. When your pupil makes a mistake at a junction, what is the first thing you say? Has it changed over the years you have been teaching?
You can also find me on LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube. If you disagree with something here, say so. A good debate is how we all improve.
Further reading on grahamhooper.blog
- Core Competencies: Fault Identification, Analysis, Remedial Action
- Questions to Find Solutions
- Making Sense of the GDE, Part 9: Risk-Increasing Factors
- Beyond the Test, Part 2: Why Your Part 3 Lesson Plan Should Start Where the Test Ends
Browse every series at grahamhooper.blog
Coming next
Article 4: The Fatal Four. Speed, drink and drugs, seatbelts and phones are linked to nearly two-thirds of fatal crashes. Four conversations that strengthen your risk management.
Sources
- Department for Transport (2026). RRCGB 2025: Road safety factors.
- Department for Transport (2026). Younger and older car drivers factsheet, 2025.
- DVSA. ADI standards check; National standard for driver and rider training. gov.uk
Leave a Reply