Forgive yourself.

[R_U_LOCAL]

Forgive Yourself

There comes a point in a driving course when the nature of an instructors job changes. Take an advanced course for instance, which in my force is 4 weeks long. The first three weeks are very intensive for the instructor, who initially "drives" the car from the passenger seat, constantly staying ahead of the student, and issuing timely instructions designed to encourage the student to change their driving habits and improve their observations and planning.

Towards the end of week 3, however, the instructor starts letting the students have a go by themselves, and into week 4, they should be consistently producing drives of an advanced standard, without instruction. This is really the make-or-break point for the student, because it's the point when the instructor finds out whether all their efforts have been worth it, or whether they might as well have taken the opportunity to have the occasional drive themselves, because a student is hopeless when left to their own devices.

By far the most difficult task for an instructor is getting students ready for test. It goes without saying that driving tests of any description, by their very nature, are stressful events. Imagine, however, the additional stress on a students shoulders if that test meant the difference between getting their dream specialist role, or going back to their old job. That's why, on the lead-up to test day, the instructors role changes from teacher to psychoanalyst/coach/ego-booster/confidence builder/mind-reader and all-round shoulder to cry on.

The most difficult aspect for students to deal with is how to cope with their own mistakes. A common misconception is thinking that the examiner is looking for the perfect drive. Believe me - if the examiner were looking for a perfect drive from a student, they'd have the most disappointing job in the entire world. The thing is, you see, being human beings, none of us are perfect, and we all make mistakes.

Every single time I drive a car, no matter how far, I make a mistake or a series of mistakes. I could take you out and give you an advanced-level demonstration drive with full commentary, which to the untrained eye would be smooth, systematic, progressive and correct in every way, but there would be mistakes in there. I might allow my following position to slip back to 3 seconds a few times, or conversely, I might accelerate within my following position when overtaking. I could mis-judge my acceleration sense and have to brake gently on a motorway, or I might position incorrectly in a following position and miss an overtake. You might miss all the errors because my commentary would be directing your attention further up the road, but I'd know they were there.

So what chance have students got then, after 4 weeks training, of producing a perfect drive?

None whatsoever, and this is what's difficult to get across to them on the lead-up to test day.

You will make mistakes during your drive, and the examiner isn't looking to fail you for those mistakes. What they're looking for is your ability to recover from the mistake, and for you not to make the same mistake again. The examiner's view is that everyone can make a mistake, but if you make the same mistake again and again, then it's not a mistake anymore - it's a fault, and faults will fail you.

So how does this translate to our everyday driving? Better than you might think, actually.

The trick, if you can do it, is in three parts...

1. Recognise the error immediately.
2. Make a mental note of it.
3. When similar circumstances arise again, don't make the same mistake again.

And above everything else, you must forgive yourself.

If you carry on with the drive, mentally beating yourself up about a mistake that you have made, your ability to concentrate on your driving will drop considerably. I've known students who, for the first half of a test, have produced a very good, advanced-level drive. They have then made a simple mistake around the halfway point, and spent the rest of the drive going over that mistake in their mind - the second half of the drive has then suffered dramatically and the student has failed, simply because they struggle with the mental process of forgiving themselves.

If you're out for a drive and you make an error, providing an accident doesn't occurr, just forgive yourself, wave an apology to anyone else who might have been affected, and then leave the mistake where you made it.

Just remember to make that mental note, and don't make the same mistake again.

For the length of that particular drive, anyway.

[R_U_LOCAL]

ipsg.glf said:

Would commenting on the mistake be useful for the instructor?

So they know that you know of the mistake.

No - there is always the slight (and it is slight!) possibility that they've missed it, so don't draw their attention to it. Use your commentary to keep their attention in the distance, and keep telling them what you're going to do, and you could possibly distract them from a minor error.

Knowing the examiners though, it's unlikely you'd succeed.

They're not looking to see if you're aware of the mistake - they're looking if you'll make the same mistake again. So by making sure that you don't repeat the error, you're demonstrating that you are aware that you made it in the first place.

If that makes sense?

[R_U_LOCAL]

willibetz said:

With this level of coaching and preparation, akin to an athlete preparing for a significant event, will the candidate's performance on test flatter to deceive? What steps are taken to ensure that their performance a month or so later, when it still really matters, is comparable?

My interest stems from a personal view that the real test of a quality driver is how they perform when asked to provide a demonstration without warning, in somebody else's car, in difficult weather, on unfamiliar roads, preferably abroad.

WilliBetz

In all the time I spent instructing, I never once had a student who over-performed on test. They become comfortable with the instructors presence over the duration of the course, and by week 4, a good student should be consistently producing advanced level drives for their instructor.

The added pressure of performing on test day for an examiner of whom they have very little experience, whose only input during the drive is to issue directions and make notes, always has a detrimental effect on a students drive. It's only to be expected really, and the examiners will take it into account when marking. However, that additional pressure is an important part of the test, because if a student can't perform under test conditions without nerves affecting them, how can we trust them in a high performance Police car in a pursuit, or in an un-marked car carrying out surveillence? If they think a driving test is nerve-wracking, wait until they're ground commander in a pursuit for the first time.

An advanced student in my force will be given three final marks for road driving at the end of the course. Two of those are from their two test drives, and the third is a mark from their instructor on their overall performance throughout the course. This is usually a better guage of a drivers genuine ability than their test marks.

[R_U_LOCAL]

sato said:

Interesting thread.

Yesterday a taxi pulled out in front of me, forcing me to take evasive action. It would be easy to come to the conclusion the taxi driver was in the wrong, and congratulate myself on avoiding it, but we all know things are rarely that simple. I am very much aware that despite being within the speed limit, if I had been going slightly slower I would have had more time to react (I did after all know the entrance the taxi emerged from was there), and that I had checked my mirrors moments before spotting the car, and in hindsight this was not the best place to momentarily takes my eyes off the road.

Which brings me to the point of my post, is it realistic to get to a level of driving where after every 'close shave' that you can honestly reflect that you did everything is your power to minimise the likelihood of an accident, or is it the case that the more experienced drivers very rarely get into such situations?

That's an interesting point, and one I was pondering only yesterday.

As your observation and planning skills improve, your ability to spot potential problems increases, and with that, your ability to avoid conflict with other road users grows. You can get to a point where you can spot most problems soon enough to avoid those "oh st! moments, but one thing you should never do is become complacent with your new-found skills.

I was out for a drive yesterday, and I'd just lined up a perfect overtake on a Rover 200. It was on a perfectly straight piece of road across an earth dam which seperates two reservoirs. Obviously, there were no junctions left or right, there was no on-coming traffic, and my closing speed on the Rover was approximately +30mph. Ther Rover driver was happily bimbling along at about 30mph with no sideways weaving, no change in speed, and no indication that they were about to do anything other than continue bimbling straight on.

It was going to be a perfect "rolling overtake" with no need to slow into a following position and no need to alter my speed, my gear, or to accelerate - all I had to do was move sideways nice and early, and roll past it.

I was about 5 car lengths from the rear of the Rover when, in the space of less than a second, the driver put on a right indicator, braked, and pulled right across the road to park next to the offside kerb. This prompted some heavy brake application from me, and a very quick swerve to the nearside, followed by some selective Anglo-Saxon phrases.

My point is that it doesn't matter how good you are, or how experienced you become at spotting potential hazards, there are still things out there that can catch you out.

Incidentally, I looked in my mirror immediately after that little episode, and the driver of the Rover had her head down and was busy rummaging in her handbag, not only totally unaware of what had (nearly) happened, but blissfully unaware of my presence. She's still out there, and she's out to get you!

[R_U_LOCAL]

bertbert said:

Just out of interest, what was going to be your passing speed differential? The same +30 or less than that? I assume that at distance, you were indicating?

I assume she didn't check behind her, but was wondering what she would have seen if she had.

Bert

She'd have seen me approaching on the offside of the road, and yes, my speed would have remained the same.

My point was that we are all capable of misjudging situations, so any criticism of my overtaking technique is fairly irrelevant, as I'd have to agree with you in this case.

The mistake was hers, but there was also an element of error on my part, as it is possible that I missed a clue that she was about to park on the offside.

I'm buggered if I can think what it was I missed though!

Oh, and no, I wasn't indicating. I don't generally indicate when overtaking and I've never taught students to either. I consider it a wasted signal, and can sometimes be mis-understood as an intention to turn right.

[R_U_LOCAL]

bertbert said:

Sorry my intention was to understand the situation to put into practice in my driving, not to criticise!

No need to apologise - I have no problem with people challenging my views and practices, and I'm happy to defend them robustly, or to accept criticism where it is due.

In this case, a small part of the situation was caused by my inability to realise what was about to happen, and so I'm happy to accept my mistake.

bertbert said:

On the indicating, why is it a wasted signal? There is always someone to indicate to (the overtakee) and if they are looking it gives them a clue that you are doing something. I appreciate the scope for misunderstanding though.

Bert

My opinion is that it's a bit like putting an indicator on when entering a motorway - where else am I going to go from a slip road, other than into lane 1? Nowhere. So a signal is unnecessary. The same goes for overtaking - what else would the overtaken driver think I was about to do when I moved out onto the offside at a considerable closing speed. The only time I advocate indicating your intention to overtake, is when a mirror check reveals a vehicle behind you who appears to also be looking for the opportunity to overtake.

I expect there will be plenty of people who disagree with this, so bring it on.

[R_U_LOCAL]

It's not conceited to omit a signal. A good driver will make a decision whether to signal or not based on whether anyone will benefit from that signal.

When a learner is taught to drive, the "signal" phase is an essential aspect, and they'll be expected by the examiner to put on an indicator as part of their approach to any maneouvre. Thinking about whether anyone will benefit from that signal doesn't come into it - they're taught to stick the signal on irrespective, and, quite understandably, most drivers continue to automatically signal their intentions long after they pass their test (and right up until they buy their first BMW )

At advanced level, drivers are expected to think more deeply about what they're doing, and to demonstrate a higher level of road observations and planning. I expect advanced students to think about whether anyone will benefit from a signal - this stops them from acting "automatically" in the car, and encourages them to extend their observations and make a decision whether to signal or not based on part of their planned approach to a hazard.

Of course, the information phase runs throughout the system, and the information available to a driver can change at any time, so there's always the option to stick a signal on at any time whilst dealing with a hazard, if the driver realises that there is someone who will benefit from a signal.

In my experience, overtaking a single car hardly ever requires a signal, apart, as I mentioned earlier, from when there is a vehicle behind which appears to also be looking for the overtake.

The same is true for joining a motorway. You should be matching your speed with the vhicles in lane 1 and slotting in where appropriate. A signal isn't generally required, unless the traffic in lane 1 is particularly heavy.

[R_U_LOCAL]

Don't get the wrong idea about my opinion on the matter. I don't have a massive issue with wasted signals and there's really nothing much wrong with signalling automatically for every maneouvre.

However, you keep insisting that the omission of a signal is conceited. It's not. As long as the decision is made with full consideration of all available information, then, as someone who has tested Police Officers at advanced level, it demonstrates to me that a driver has moved on from simply operating the vehicles controls without thinking, to a driving style where they are thinking about what they are looking at outside the vehicle, and making an informed decision as to whether a signal is necessary or not.

I understand where you're coming from with your point - if you don't feel confident enough in your abilities to make that decision, or you're simply more comfortable with signlling automatically, then that's fine - we all develop our own driving styles and who am I to say that your style is wrong for you?

But don't confuse the genuinely conceited, self-centred drivers who don't consider a signal at all, with those who consider it, and on occasion, choose not to signal. There is a vast difference between the two.

Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Thursday 8th March 23:24

[R_U_LOCAL]

bertbert said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

At advanced level, drivers are expected to think more deeply about what they're doing, and to demonstrate a higher level of road observations and planning. I expect advanced students to think about whether anyone will benefit from a signal - this stops them from acting "automatically" in the car, and encourages them to extend their observations and make a decision whether to signal or not based on part of their planned approach to a hazard.

Out of interest, if you were critiquing an advanced student about a signal that might or might not have been redundant, if they had a strongly held rationale of who they were signaling to and why (such as the overtaking/signalling debate here), would you be happy with their signalling, or would you instruct them differently?

Bert

Let's not get too obsessed with the signalling thing. A driver who produces a good advanced-level drive on test, but who automatically signals, will still pass. It'll certainly be mentioned by the examiner on de-brief, but it's not something that they would fail for - it's just one of many aspects that an examiner looks for to show whether the driver is observing and planning correctly. On the other hand, a driver who produces a similar level of drive on test, but who consistently fails to signal where appropriate will not pass.

I can understand people's reluctance to accept that I'm advocating that, on occassion, you shouldn't signal, but, s with any other aspect of driving, you should take the bits you like, and leave the bits you don't like.

[R_U_LOCAL]

7db said:

bertbert said:

Out of interest, if you were critiquing an advanced student about a signal that might or might not have been redundant, if they had a strongly held rationale of who they were signaling to and why (such as the overtaking/signalling debate here), would you be happy with their signalling, or would you instruct them differently?

And furthermore if they didn't know the difference between being conceited and a conceit would you correct them, or would you just let it lie?

That would depend on whether they were being pedantic by accident, or deliberately being a smart-arse.

[R_U_LOCAL]

I was warned when I started writing on here that some people like to drag threads into pedantic arguments. It seems this one is going in that direction.

Please don't expect me to fall into an argument about the meaning of a single word in one of your posts. If you disagree with my points, then at least find something valid to disagree with.

Edited to add - does anyone else find it ironic in the extreme that someone should try to show off their superior intellect by arguing over the meaning of the word "conceit"?

Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Friday 9th March 11:25

[R_U_LOCAL]

7db said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

If you disagree with my points, then at least find something valid to disagree with.

I thought I did...

1. Signalling when there is little obvious benefit is sometimes the best course where:-
- the cost of signalling (potential for confusion, distraction from controls) is less than the benefit
- the cost of signalling later (when benefit becomes obvious) is significantly higher than later
Whilst agreeing with your point that sometimes not signalling at all is fine.


2. Signal benefits are to do with what might be helpful to another unthinking, unaware or unobservant road users, not whether you judge them necessary from your particular point of view
- in particular where signalling to join a motorway, a big flashing light helps the people in lane one do their thinking for them.


3. 1-on-1 overtakes can benefit from signals - particularly where there are high closing speeds.
- headlamp flash
- horn signal
- flashing orange thingy
all help the person in front to be more aware of the person behind.


..but then you kept on going-on about whether not signalling was conceited, and decided to question my confidence in my abilities.

Why not come out for a drive sometime, it's more fun that posting here, but harder to do whilst at work.

That's more like it!

I'd rather have a disagreement on valid points than on my use of the English Language, so, let's have a look at your points then.

1. That reads as though you pretty much agree with me, although you have some difficulty with the "later signal". Think back to the diagram showing the system of car control in Roadcraft - the information phase runs throughout the system, and a big part of the information phase is the giving of information. A good planned approach to a manoeuvre should include various alternatives, one of which is whether to signal or not. The system allows you to put a signal on at any point during that manoeuvre if the information available to the driver changes.

Don't get me wrong - I can see your point of view - what if there is someone there who could benefit from a signal, but I've missed them? Well, that's the whole point of the exercise - having to think about whether there is someone who will benefit is whet makes a student look more carefully at the whole environment when scanning, and forces them to consider more things when formulating their driving plan, rather than just sticking an indicator on "just in case".

The "cost of signalling" as you put it, isn't really valid, as it's a very basic driving skill, and I've never once encountered anyone who became distracted from a vehicles controls by using an indicator.

Although the new-style Vauxhall indicators are a bit of a bugger.

2. "Signal benefits are to do with what might be helpful to another unthinking, unaware or unobservant road users, not whether you judge them necessary from your particular point of view".

This doesn't differ from my point of view at all. If another road user might benefit from a signal, then you should put one on. I'm glad to see we agree on so much! The motorway join is a nice example to come back to. If I thought for one second, that a driver on the motorway would benefit from a signal, then I'd put one on, but on more occasions than not, this isn't the case. Do you stick a right indicator on when you're entering a quiet, empty motorway? What about if there's one vehicle way behind you in lane 1? Or if there is scattered, light traffic, and your intention is to slot in behind an HGV in lane 1. Or if it's heavy traffic, and you need, in effect, to "ask" your way into a suitable gap? Each situation is different, and should be assessed individually.

Don't forget, that it's the responsibility of the driver who's entering the motorway to adjust their speed, and fit in with the other traffic. There is a tendency these days, for people in lane 1 to move out to lane 2 on the approach to on-slips, in order to allow people to join. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm all for this, as it's a nice display of courtesy, which is severely lacking on todays roads. It does, however, become a problem when people make the move to lane 2 without checking behind them correctly. We all know that the majority of drivers don't check their mirrors often enough, and there are a large number of occasions when I've seen people make a courteous move to lane 2 to allow vehicles to join, when they haven't checked their mirrors first, and a considerable amount of swerving/braking/swearing has resulted.

There is also a knock-on effect from that, in that a lot of drivers now expect that move to lane 2 to allow them to join, even when it's not appropriate. Rather than accept that they should be adjusting their own speed to slot in, a lot of drivers power down a slip-road, stick on a right indicator, and expect someone in lane 1 to move over and allow them to join. This is fine in light traffic, but if you're the poor sod sitting behind a slow HGV and being overtaken by a bus, then where are you expected to move to? If you drive on the motorways regularly, you'll be familiar with those scenarios.

Switching on a right indicator when joining a motorway can encourage people to move to lane 2 even if it's not necessary for them to do so, and how do we know if they'll check their mirrors correctly first? We don't. There might be no need whatsoever for these people to move and your signal may well just be a signal of your intention to join lane 1, but it could be misinterpreted.

That's why I very rarely use an indicator when joining a motorway.

3. Again, the signals you describe could illicit a bad response from the very person you're trying to benefit. Come and have a ride out in my police car with me some time and see how badly some people react to blue lights, flashing headlights and sirens. If they react badly to those signals, then the same will be true if I flash my lights and sound my horn in my own car.

Don't get me wrong - I see your point, but the psychology of driving has changed dramatically in this country over the last 40 years, and whereas a horn warning or headlight flash would once have been taken exactly as they were intended - a friendly warning of your presence - they are now considered (wrongly - granted) to be aggressive and confrontational. I'd much rather overtake a single car without headlight flash/horn use than with them, as I'd be too conscious of getting an aggressive response from the driver. I accept that these are legitimate signals, and used correctly, can form part of a progressive advanced drive, but I tend to avoid them unless I think they're absolutely necessary.

Oh, and some of us get days off during the week - I've tried accessing this site from work, but it's blocked, and operating a laptop is on the list of things which you shouldn't do whilst driving, along with using a mobile phone, eating spaghetti bolognese and playing Texas hold 'em poker.

[R_U_LOCAL]

henrycrun said:

I have to disagree with the OP, if you are overtaking anything it is only commonsense and courtesy to let everyone know your intention. They can then react to the information and adjust their own speed and position as necessary. The overtakee may even assist the overtake.
With the Reservoir incident, the overtakee would have seen you indicate in her mirror, and maintained her position.

Edited by henrycrun on Friday 9th March 12:31

You could be right - an indicator might have prevented her from making that manoeuvre. But in all honesty, I think I could have been driving a 40 foot high inflatable luminous pink elephant, and pulling a trailer containing the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra playing Ride of the Valkyries, and she'd still have made the move. It was obvious afterwards, that at no point before, during or after the incident, was this woman aware of my vehicles presence. It's unlikely that a right indicator would have changed that fact.

As with my previous post, an indicator prior to overtaking is just as likely to result in a negative reaction form the overtaken car as a positive one these days, and so I tend to avoid it.

[R_U_LOCAL]

bertbert said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

3. Again, the signals you describe could illicit a bad response from the very person you're trying to benefit. Come and have a ride out in my police car with me some time and see how badly some people react to blue lights, flashing headlights and sirens. If they react badly to those signals, then the same will be true if I flash my lights and sound my horn in my own car.

Is that a possibility Reg? I (genuinely) would love to come out and watch it done in real life. I posted on S,P&L to see if it was feasible for a mop to go out, but didn't get any offers!

Bert

It's a possibility, but there are certain considerations that the job has to make, such as insurance issues and your safety at the scenes of potentially dangerous incidents.

PM me, and we'll discuss it away from the public forum.

[R_U_LOCAL]

It may be recommended by some people on here, but it's not exactly taught, is it? I haven't recommended it in my original post, and I don't recommend it for the reasons that Flintsone has so nicely described.

I wasn't taught to accompany overtakes with a headlight flash when I did my original advanced course, it wasn't taught on my instructors course, and I've never taught it myself.

Just because it's something you favour doing yourself, doesn't mean that it's the correct way to do it.

[R_U_LOCAL]

havoc said:

irm said:

no - got position, got gear off you set

pull the stalk back and hold it back until you're past

its not f off I’m coming through its hello I’m here (bye bye i'm gone)

Don’t do it at every overtake just if I’m passing two or more and then not every time just if i think it’s necessary

I find myself doing this sometimes if I'm overtaking multiple cars, most often if it's on a wide A-road and I'm overtaking down the centreline with cars coming the other way (in effect I've created a 3rd lane). However, I'm using dipped not main beam. It's just another way of making sure people know you're there - turning the lights on as you pull out means you suddenly appear in people's wingmirrors more noticeably (for good or bad), and also people coming the other way can't miss you - the combination of manoeuvre out and 'lighting up' draws their attention to you.

Irrespective of how wide the road is, you should try to avoid making a line of three moving vehicles abreast. This is a mistake that motorcyclists often make - they assume that because they take up less road space, it's safe to overtake in the face of on-coming vehicles.

It isn't safe and it's a very ill-advised move. You should try to time your overtakes so you're not three-abreast (two alongside and one on-coming) whenever possible. If there isn't a suitable gap in oncoming vahicles to allow you to do so, you should wait.