DECISIONS OF PRINCIPLE

4.4.1 I do not wish to seem to be pressing too far my comparison, in respect of

the way in which they are learnt, between principles of driving and principles of
conduct. It is necessary also to bear in mind some distinctions. In the first place,
the expression 'good driver' is itself ambiguous in that it is not immediately clear
what standard is being applied. It might be simply a standard of expertness; we
might call a person a good driver if he were able to do just what he wanted with
his car; we might say 'Although a very good driver, he is most inconsiderate to
other road users'. On the other hand, we sometimes expect a good driver to have
moral qualities as well; we do not, according to this criterion, call a man a good
driver if he drives expertly, but without the slightest heed for the convenience or
safety of other people. The line between these two standards of good driving is
not easy to draw in practice. There is also a third standard, according to which a
driver is said to be good if he conforms to the accepted principles of good
driving as laid down, for example, in the Highway Code. Since the Highway
Code is compiled with a definite purpose in view, this standard coincides to a
great extent with the second.
Secondly, there are two ways of looking at driving instruction:
1. We establish at the beginning certain ends, for example the avoidance of
collisions, and instruction consists in teaching what practices are
conducive to those ends. According to this way of looking at them, the
principles of good driving are hypothetical imperatives.
2. We teach at first simple rules of thumb, and the learner only gradually
comes to see what the ends are, at which the instruction is aimed.