Why is it wrong to brake and down-change simultaneously?

[25NAD90TUL]

waremark said:

25NADetc, what makes you think that someone can teach you a right or better way? Why do you want more driving qualifications? You are obviously an expert driver; from where you are at,

Waremark I'm no expert, I am a keen driver holding some 'slightly above DSA entry level' as Von and I have agreed, certificates. I have a small level of expertise to draw from and by no means know it all. As far as mechanics go I am happy to say I'm an expert, that's all.

For me to claim to be an expert in this esteemed company would be foolish in the extreme. Hell as I said in an earlier post I'm not the best driver I've seen, 'pretty good' is how I described myself in that previous post.

[Snowboy]

Wow. That was painful to catch up on.

I didn't realise IAM was a charity with volunteers.
It explains a lot about how they operate and why they seem so close minded.

Let's ignore theory and look at facts.
Does bgol cause accidents?
Has there ever been a single accident where the cause was recorded as bgol?
Is there any proof it's less safe?

[waremark]

25NAD90TUL said:

I don't want teaching any better way, my comments were directed at Von Hosen who was telling me there are other methods but wouldn't elaborate, my input was more on the lines of wanting to know what training she was recommending...I got no satisfactory answer.

I am surprised you don't know where VH is coming from. He used to be a very rigid supporter of the methods set out in older versions of Roadcraft, and most of us have understood him to be a current or possibly former police advanced instructor. Of course he could be a she, as you imply. In recent years he has completely changed his stance, and he now believes that different drivers get the best results from different techniques and that the best way to imptove people's driving is to encourage and help each person to find out what works best for them - and particularly to get into their heads, and help them to develop suitable attitudes and beliefs for safe driving.

VH - I hope you won't be offended by any way in which I have misrepresented you, and look forward to your correcting me!

25NADetc, if you find that you sometimes get an adverse reaction to your online posts, perhaps you should re-read what you write to see whether you write things in a way which is liable to cause offence to others.

[bob bobbleton]

I'm not sure I've learnt anything reading these 25 pages

Same rules bikes and cars, give me a pointer

Await yours

Bob

[Toltec]

waremark said:

Toltec said:

Having said that I am interested in how you handle a downhill bend using separation. How do you stop the car from gaining speed without using either the brakes or engine braking? Another option would be slowing sufficiently before turn in so that even the subsequent gain in speed would still leave you going slow enough at the apex. That would be very messy though.

Personally I enjoy using H & T and that is what I do into a downhill bend in most vehicles including a diesel Land Rover. However I sometimes think you can get a perfectly satisfactory result without using H & T. The option you mention is rather untidy, but there are others. You can stay in your current higher gear - since you are going downhill you don't need the torque of a lower gear. If it is flat after the downhill bend and you do need a lower gear you can change down after you finish braking when you need the torque. Otherwise you can overlap, changing gear while still braking but when going slow enough or into a high enough gear that the revs are still low after you let the clutch out; at low revs failing to rev match is not a significant problem.

It is all a bit of a trade off really,
take a gear after braking but while in a bend,
take a gear after braking, before the entry and have the weight balance rock,
take a gear towards the end of braking but without a rev match which is still technically bgol,
just take a gear towards the end of braking using h&t.

[25NAD90TUL]

waremark said:

I am surprised you don't know where VH is coming from. He used to be a very rigid supporter of the methods set out in older versions of Roadcraft, and most of us have understood him to be a current or possibly former police advanced instructor. Of course he could be a she, as you imply. In recent years he has completely changed his stance, and he now believes that different drivers get the best results from different techniques and that the best way to imptove people's driving is to encourage and help each person to find out what works best for them - and particularly to get into their heads, and help them to develop suitable attitudes and beliefs for safe driving.

VH - I hope you won't be offended by any way in which I have misrepresented you, and look forward to your correcting me!

25NADetc, if you find that you sometimes get an adverse reaction to your online posts, perhaps you should re-read what you write to see whether you write things in a way which is liable to cause offence to others.

I read something in a post I think on ADUK that made me think VH was a woman, not that it makes any difference whatsoever. I have always thought VH was or had been a Police Instructor, either way very knowledgeable and a pleasure to deal with, although very vague at times. Well if sometimes I cause offense it isn't intentional, I always assume it's because of the way I criticised the fragmentation and endless waffling at ADUK, and the way the members there lambasted my posts aimed at helping beginners navigate that same minefield, others don't seem to take offense in the same way. Those who only post personal insults at me know what they can do, they only show themselves up with that and it doesn't hurt or stop me, well, maybe a little sometimes but I just keep away for a while and do other stuff. I have read many times in ADUK threads since I left there the statement, 'perhaps the separation master was right about us' they're a good bunch but very prone to fragment posts and go way off-topic rendering the forum pretty useless to outsiders I pointed that out and it didn't end well, also it spilled over to IAM forum sadly resulting in my quitting, a big loss to the observer team I'm told, however I am pretty much over it now (I'm a sensitive soul) and may be about to re-join, unfortunately my main supporter the group chief obs has also left so I don't know the current situation, perhaps nobody there now knows of my driving I don't know. Socially I'm 'different' and didn't really come from the same social group as most IAM people but my small level of skill wasn't lost on them...All a bit sad really. Best wishes.

[Snowboy]

If you want an honest answer.
I think your posts are very unpleasant.

It's not that you have a different opinion, different opinions are good
It's that you are so dismissive and insulting of other opinions.
Writing them off as 'trial and error' or 'novices who don't know better'.
And when people challenge you, you say it's because they are threatened by your powerful build and great knowledge and it must be jealousy.


I don't feel that you want to discuss driving.
I think you just want to preach the IAM way, without giving any thought to other opinions.

As asked earlier - do you have any examples of bgol causing accidents?

[25NAD90TUL]

Snowboy said:

If you want an honest answer.
I think your posts are very unpleasant.

It's not that you have a different opinion, different opinions are good
It's that you are so dismissive and insulting of other opinions.
Writing them off as 'trial and error' or 'novices who don't know better'.
And when people challenge you, you say it's because they are threatened by your powerful build and great knowledge and it must be jealousy.


I don't feel that you want to discuss driving.
I think you just want to preach the IAM way, without giving any thought to other opinions.

As asked earlier - do you have any examples of bgol causing accidents?

Thanks! But look here, I answered the OPs question, 'why in the context of AD AS PER IAM etc is it not ok to BGOL?' I haven't offered up any view only the reasons why it's considered bad form to BGOL.
This doesn't come from me it comes from the training manual period! End of, it isn't an opinion I've formulated or anything I'm telling you to do, it is merely a response from someone who has been through the training.
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BGOL BE MY GUEST, JUST DON'T EXPECT TO PASS AN AD TEST ANYTIME SOON.
End of.

Do I have any stats about accidents related to BGOL? Yes of course I do, after all I'm an encyclopedia of stats of accidents and their causes...

Once again I'm only stating what it says in ROADCRAFT! Take it or leave it the choice is yours but the answer to the OPs question remains the same!

Can I ask you, do you have any AD passes at all?

[stuttgartmetal]

It isn't.
F1 drivers do it every lap.
Never been off the agenda afaic.

[BertBert]

Snowboy said:

If you want an honest answer.
As asked earlier - do you have any examples of bgol causing accidents?

That's an interesting question, but perhaps not the right question. It also allows me to make my favourite IAM statement again. The way IAM works is that it is a simple system to reduce risk and increase safety. It's systematic and based on observable actions. So it's easy to teach to pretty much anyone and easy to test that it has been taught and is being applied. Separation is part of that system and according to the basic premise of the system, you can't just take it out. Now that would be a poor justification for the technique if it did not add value to the system.

So a better question is what value does separation add to the system? Well it:

-Plays a big part in teaching people planning and systematic approaches to hazards
-Slows down the approach to hazards and gets people prepared earlier
-Reduces the amount of time hands are off the wheel
-Avoids the need to teach HnT to rev match

I think those are good things and thus vote that separation does indeed contribute to safety and reduce accidents.

So if you want to take separation out of the system, you need to change the system to keep it systematic.

Bert

[vonhosen]

BertBert said:

Snowboy said:

If you want an honest answer.
As asked earlier - do you have any examples of bgol causing accidents?

That's an interesting question, but perhaps not the right question. It also allows me to make my favourite IAM statement again. The way IAM works is that it is a simple system to reduce risk and increase safety. It's systematic and based on observable actions. So it's easy to teach to pretty much anyone and easy to test that it has been taught and is being applied. Separation is part of that system and according to the basic premise of the system, you can't just take it out. Now that would be a poor justification for the technique if it did not add value to the system.

So a better question is what value does separation add to the system? Well it:

-Plays a big part in teaching people planning and systematic approaches to hazards
-Slows down the approach to hazards and gets people prepared earlier
-Reduces the amount of time hands are off the wheel
-Avoids the need to teach HnT to rev match

I think those are good things and thus vote that separation does indeed contribute to safety and reduce accidents.

So if you want to take separation out of the system, you need to change the system to keep it systematic.

Bert

Your first 3 points aren't dependant on separation.

You don't have to change the system, you just have to be more flexible over it's application into overlapping. You can already overlap in some circumstances (even as a traditionalist), you can just spread the circumstance wider.

The order & outcome of things (simplisticly) for me is that:-
a) I could separate & not rev match doing one gear change prior to hazard - Result = Not smooth enough for my tastes, but gives me progress to hazard I'm content with.
b) I could separate & not rev match doing multiple gear changes prior to hazard - Result = Not smooth enough for my tastes & doesn't give me progress to hazard I'm content with.
c) I could separate & rev match doing one gear change prior to hazard - Result = Smoothness level I'd be content with & progress to the hazard I'm content with.
d) I could separate & rev match doing multiple gear changes prior to hazard - Result = Smoothness level I'd be content with, but progress to hazard compromised.
e) I could overlap & rev match (H&T) doing a single gear change or multiple changes during that single application of brakes depending on initial speed - Result = Smoothness & progress to hazard I'm happy with.
f) I could overlap but not rev match - Result = Not happy with smoothness unless very very low speed.

As a result of that if I'm in a vehicle that it's possible for me to H&T in (due to pedal lay out etc etc) to a standard I'm happy with, I go with e) because it offers me the best combination & a higher degree of vehicle balance than c). If I'm in a vehicle that I can't H&T to a standard I'm happy with (for whatever reason) I favour c).

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 6th January 20:13

[BertBert]

vonhosen said:

If I'm in a vehicle that I can't H&T to a standard I'm happy with (for whatever reason) I favour c).

With respect VH I think you have completely missed the point, which given your new religious persuasion with regard to driving learning/teaching techniques is not surprising

The system of which I speak is absolutely, utterly, completely not aimed at you nor your new world order! It's aimed at the lowly driver making their first move at imrpovement and they certainly cannot HnT. It'll take them more that the whole time it takes to do IAM and pass the test to perfect HnT.

But you know that.

Bert

[Craikeybaby]

I think the question is more related to why someone who has learnt/mastered H&T has to unlearn it to pass the test to be considered an advanced driver.

[vonhosen]

BertBert said:

vonhosen said:

If I'm in a vehicle that I can't H&T to a standard I'm happy with (for whatever reason) I favour c).

With respect VH I think you have completely missed the point, which given your new religious persuasion with regard to driving learning/teaching techniques is not surprising

The system of which I speak is absolutely, utterly, completely not aimed at you nor your new world order! It's aimed at the lowly driver making their first move at imrpovement and they certainly cannot HnT. It'll take them more that the whole time it takes to do IAM and pass the test to perfect HnT.

But you know that.

Bert

But they'll mark down people who can H&T perfectly well.

[Futuramic]

25NAD90TUL said:

Apart from the obvious?...I pass my AD tests!

Only benefit I can think of is that it lets me know I'm planning ahead and concentrating.

I didn't write Roadcraft, I don't know why it's in there, only that it is. I'm assuming it's connected to fumbling with the gear stick while braking and possibly steering and taking observation. Each piece of the system is separated out I'm assuming. All I do know is that now to overlap seems incredibly amateurish and fussy, when I watch other people overlap it always seems as if the gearchange is hurried and sloppy and late. When I was an associate I had the same argument as others offer me here, separating seemed so alien and I didn't understand the point and the only answer I got was more or less that it was what was required no reason given why. Perhaps Von you could inform me as to why it was included originally? Like double-declutching, supposedly outdated since the arrival of synchromesh...In actual fact even on a modern synchromesh trans if you double-declutch as you go down into second or first it's more sympathetic, the synchros will last longer! What are your views on overlapping steering with braking?

You still didn't tell me what organisations or tests recommend overlapping, for example where would you be marked down for using the separation technique?

Furthermore, why is separation bad?

Are the Police not the high standard of driving that I have been led to believe? And if not why not? Surely they should be shaken up if their methods are outdated.

Who, aside from the Police should I be looking to for this better method? What driving manual should I be reading instead of Roadcraft?

So many questions, so few answers, you're meant to be the expert here not me. Let your expertise flow and enlighten one who wishes to be enlightened.

You're starting to sound like a religious fundamentalist here....

Just because it's in 'Roadcraft' doesn't mean it's right. It's not wrong but it isn't the only way.

The modern police system is designed to take poor to average drivers and give them enough education to drive on roads more quickly than they could before. They follow a specific system in order to tackle the problem and are taught enough to cover most eventualities. It treats driving as a linear event in that each hazard or corner or whatever has a specific response and that is what must be done. Such responses are simplified such to minimise overlapping control input.

It doesn't really make a bad driver into a good one, just a bad driver with a bit more knowledge. The key concept is simplification: the police, or advanced, driver is taught to look for limit points of a corner and to be in the right gear and off the brakes on approach.

This isn't the wrong way to enter a corner, but it isn't the fastest either. A truly skilled racing or rally driver will be doing something else entirely but will have heightened awareness of how to transfer the car's weight to maximise grip and get the best line with maximum acceleration. Thus they will overlap gears, brakes, steering and acceleration.

Sadly the average police trainee, or budding 'advanced road user' isn't capable of that. Few people are!

It's akin to a painting class they ran at my office a while ago. All those who attended were given instruction on how to produce an oil winter landscape. It was a pleasant enough piece and good fun those who tried. They all came up with high standard copies of the first artwork - something to be proud of.

But what they can't do is go and paint something entirely new. They could have a go at another, similar winter scene. But they haven't become artists.

So Roadcraft might make you capable of making a nice copy, but Botticelli you ain't...

[waremark]

vonhosen said:

BertBert said:

vonhosen said:

If I'm in a vehicle that I can't H&T to a standard I'm happy with (for whatever reason) I favour c).

With respect VH I think you have completely missed the point, which given your new religious persuasion with regard to driving learning/teaching techniques is not surprising

The system of which I speak is absolutely, utterly, completely not aimed at you nor your new world order! It's aimed at the lowly driver making their first move at imrpovement and they certainly cannot HnT. It'll take them more that the whole time it takes to do IAM and pass the test to perfect HnT.

But you know that.

Bert

But they'll mark down people who can H&T perfectly well.

Yes, they won't fail you for it, but they will mark you down, because what they are marking is your conformity to what they themselves were taught on their police advanced driving course.

I suspect that it takes much more skill to mark based on how satisfactory the outcomes are than on how closely you conform to a specific system. Heaven knows what if anything they will be capable of marking when police advanced drivers trained by VH work their way through the system to IAM staff examiners.

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

vonhosen said:

BertBert said:

vonhosen said:

If I'm in a vehicle that I can't H&T to a standard I'm happy with (for whatever reason) I favour c).

With respect VH I think you have completely missed the point, which given your new religious persuasion with regard to driving learning/teaching techniques is not surprising

The system of which I speak is absolutely, utterly, completely not aimed at you nor your new world order! It's aimed at the lowly driver making their first move at imrpovement and they certainly cannot HnT. It'll take them more that the whole time it takes to do IAM and pass the test to perfect HnT.

But you know that.

Bert

But they'll mark down people who can H&T perfectly well.

Yes, they won't fail you for it, but they will mark you down, because what they are marking is your conformity to what they themselves were taught on their police advanced driving course.

I suspect that it takes much more skill to mark based on how satisfactory the outcomes are than on how closely you conform to a specific system. Heaven knows what if anything they will be capable of marking when police advanced drivers trained by VH work their way through the system to IAM staff examiners.

Yet DSA examiners manage to look more at assessing outcomes.

[MC Bodge]

Futuramic said:

25NAD90TUL said:

Apart from the obvious?...I pass my AD tests!

Only benefit I can think of is that it lets me know I'm planning ahead and concentrating.

I didn't write Roadcraft, I don't know why it's in there, only that it is......

You're starting to sound like a religious fundamentalist here....

^This has been suggested before...

I really can't quite work out what Mr 25NAD90TUL is about, why he bothers to write these long sermons in the style of a street evangelist or what he is looking for.

Ps. I can't believe that this thread is still going! (Okay, I can, the Advanced Driving forum often does this)

[waremark]

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

vonhosen said:

BertBert said:

vonhosen said:

If I'm in a vehicle that I can't H&T to a standard I'm happy with (for whatever reason) I favour c).

With respect VH I think you have completely missed the point, which given your new religious persuasion with regard to driving learning/teaching techniques is not surprising

The system of which I speak is absolutely, utterly, completely not aimed at you nor your new world order! It's aimed at the lowly driver making their first move at imrpovement and they certainly cannot HnT. It'll take them more that the whole time it takes to do IAM and pass the test to perfect HnT.

But you know that.

Bert

But they'll mark down people who can H&T perfectly well.

Yes, they won't fail you for it, but they will mark you down, because what they are marking is your conformity to what they themselves were taught on their police advanced driving course.

I suspect that it takes much more skill to mark based on how satisfactory the outcomes are than on how closely you conform to a specific system. Heaven knows what if anything they will be capable of marking when police advanced drivers trained by VH work their way through the system to IAM staff examiners.

Yet DSA examiners manage to look more at assessing outcomes.

Do they? I had understood that you would be marked down on a DSA test for not turning your head the right way before reversing, regardless of your level of confidence that a particular direction was clear, or for straightlining a roundabout, regardless of how safe it was. Is this wrong?

[SVS]

I've never been marked down on an advanced test for using H&T. Recognising that my Examiner wouldn't be trained to favour H&T, I used commentary to justify in advance why H&T was part of my driving plan. Both IAM and RoSPA Examiners have always been satisfied with this.