I'm sorry if this comes across as disagreeing for the sake of it but that is utter rubbish! I made no mention of the things you highlighted above, "stylistic objectives?" "pull/push steering" "BGOL" or anyone being excluded for "style" we actually encourage natural flair! 7 out of 10 safe and the remaining 3 not dangerous doesn't seem unreasonable? What you are saying from reading your posts is that it doesn't matter if you steer with your feet as long as it's safe and smooth, I'm sorry but that's not a way I would like to see emergency drivers trained anywhere, people demand a high standard of driver for a demanding role, what we do agree on is that it needs to be safe and smooth...
Gary

I do believe that Von is chanelling the late Bruce Lee.
"Use only that which works, and take it from any place you can find it.".

I gave examples of stylistic objectives, the sort of things that people are often told to change in order to pass the test. If you don't impose stylistic objectives at all then that's great (but from what you do say I doubt that is the case).

If somebody did steer better with their feet than their hands , would you force them to steer with their hands ?
To what purpose if they are worse with them ?

Pragmatism vs dogmatism.

The fact they seek improvement in an area is what drives change in that area. That change can be a tweek, it can be adopting a completely different methodology. The point though is that there shouldn't be one option (ie 'What you need to do is.....') dictated. They should try to think about as many different possible ways it could be done & then choose which way they'd like to go with it. The pros & cons of each potential path should be explored. The choice to stick with that new method (or tweek), or to try another one of the options is also theirs. They are taking responsibility for their learning, their choices & their outcomes. Any failures or successes are theirs.

To be honest it doesn't matter how much the employer wants eco driving if it doesn't interest the candidate. If they desire it they'll work towards it, if they don't they'll ditch it.

If you see what you consider a problem, they won't change if they don't see a problem. The skill of the coach is to raise awareness through insightful questions, not to provide answers. You use non-judgemental questions to encourage them to reflect on the values/beliefs that underpin their current choice of behaviours. Your questions encourage them to think about & even challenge their own beliefs/values. You are a bit like a grain of sand in an oyster. A grain of sand that through it's presence encourages the oyster to produce a pearl. The oyster does the work & produces the results.

Come on! Stop teasing. Be bold, it doesn't do your argument any good to be so evasive - give us some real life examples based on your experience, please!

Oh, Von! now you’re just being naughty. Nobody has remotely suggested that you... regurgitate in type a whole coaching session. Shame on you for such a feeble attempt at putting up a smokescreen. All we are asking for are a few examples, real life examples, of what it is that you say to your students following their reflections on... what they think of it & why they think it.

Go on, don't be shy, we're hanging on every word!

I'm guessing it's something like, for a right hand bend on a sensibly wide road, with a puddle on the left side of the road...

Von: "Why did you not take a wider line around the corner?"

Student person: "I saw a puddle there and it could have been hiding a pothole or at least unsettled the car."

Von: "Good reason."

Or, say, the student hits the puddle.

Von: "Why did you go through that puddle, there might have been a pothole there"

Student: "I wanted a better sight line around the corner, and going by the condition of the road for the last few miles and this section, a pothole seemed unlikely. I also knew the puddle was coming so I made sure I was ready to correct any effects the puddle had on the car."

Von: "Good reason".

Basically I just think Von goes by understanding of the situation, and if you can give a good reason to a decision you've made and it makes sense, then it shows you've put some thought into the process of driving? Or is my interpretation of you completely wron, Von? In which case y'all can ignore this.

Clues ?
We are working on a deficiency in his/her driving that he/she has asked for us to. Something that they are aware they aren't doing as well as they'd like. They don't need a clue because it's resulting from their realisation & desire. They already know there is potential for better. They might not know what the blockage is yet, but we'll break it down in an attempt to get them to decide what they think it is & then get them to think about the potential changes they could make to deal with it. They then choose which option they want & they try that, reflect & tweek, choose another choice to try etc etc.

By questioning them on what they do/don't believe/value in driving, by presenting them with observed evidence of behaviours/action they display & encouraging them to reflect on how those observed actions may conflict with the desirable values they hold.
They realise their actions are breaking what 'they say is important' & that provokes desire to change (They are their rules).

That they are safe, smooth, considerate, have good all round observation/awareness, anticipate, plan their approach & make an appropriate level of progress for the activity.

Because irrespective of the methods they use or system they develop they don't have many problems achieving successful outcomes in the all situations they encounter on the road.