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

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

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?

You have to make effective observations & be seen to check all pertinent areas, If check & there is nobody around and you straighten a roundabout that wouldn't be a problem.

[Gary C]

''Braking and changing down at the same time is a control fault. All unwanted road speed should be lost by proper use of the footbrake or deceleration, then the appropriate gear selected. A gear change should not be made in the initial stages of braking. The 'Heel and Toe' method when braking and changing gear at the same time is not good driving while on the public highway and can be dangerous. Therefore it should not be done''

And there it is.

Because it's written down in a book, it must be the only answer (truly a 'bible')

[25NAD90TUL]

Good people of AD section of PH...

Please don't take this the wrong way. I need help here to understand.

Why is it that when 'the system' or 'the Roadcraft system' 'IPSGA' whatever the chosen name for it, is mentioned in AD circles, it's like a dirty word. Or if someone usually myself, praises the virtues of it, they are regarded as a religious fundamentalist?

I, as you know, happen to think it's a damn good way to drive, I really don't understand the issue with it, my feelings aren't simply because 'it is written'. Sure it is written down but that isn't good enough for me, I use the system myself and find it works for me very well, I haven't come across a better method as far as safe road driving is concerned. I'm open to suggestions and can adapt to different methods and am as far away from being a 'fundamentalist' as you can get.

I don't want to fall out and maybe I write things that come across as bolshi but it really is unintentional. I just fail to understand why we are meant to be open to ideas yet the system isn't one of the ideas we're open to.

Hell I'm so much of a fundamentalist that I threw in my position with IAM and am no longer a member of any driving organisations, the exception being the AA.

Please help me understand this, and that I'm not being nasty, just want to understand.

Best wishes all, and I mean that!

[25NAD90TUL]

stuttgartmetal said:

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

With respect, we're not discussing Formula 1 here.

[25NAD90TUL]

MC Bodge said:

^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)

It wouldn't be that way Bodge, it's just a case of when I post my response it gets a lot of replies. My post was not meant to be 'It must be this way' just what is said in the blue book about it, which is what the OP wanted to know. A bit of a waste of effort really as I'm sure the OP hasn't read this thread in a long time.

Let's not fall out please, perhaps the system isn't good for everyone, it is for me though and that's all I'm saying. It does seem that saying anything positive about the system is a big no no in these circles, a situation I fail to understand, if we are open to ideas then why not the system?

[25NAD90TUL]

BertBert said:

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

Bert, you are another supporter of the system. Why is it considered so wrong here to like and use it?

[SK425]

25NAD90TUL said:

Please help me understand this, and that I'm not being nasty, just want to understand.

The first thing everyone sees is the thread title and I think that's where the answer to your question lies. The OP asked (emphasis added), "Why is it wrong to brake and down-change simultaneously?" I think the red rag has been effectively waved at many of the bulls as soon as that thread title is read. The heated argument die is cast before we start.

Asking something like, "Why does the IAM style avoid braking and down-changing simultaneously?" is a very different question because it allows you discuss - as the OP's observer hopefully did - the reasons behind the IAM's choice of style and the benefits you may get from it, which you can do objectively without having to go near the unhelpful topic of right and wrong. Hopefully that's what the OP was really asking, and their IAM observer didn't actually ever say "wrong".

[25NAD90TUL]

Futuramic said:

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...

Good post. Thing is I don't think AD is about 'fastest' and anyway from what I've seen good Police AD are pretty fast.

The art analogy is a good one, I spent my early years as a professional musician in recording studios, I got this job because I had studied extensively the work of Abba, Beatles, Yes and other groundbreaking acts. This enabled me to put all I knew from 'copying' into making new riffs that were good because I knew the rules and was able to break them. Now same with the painting class, if you are taught the techniques of the masters this will hopefully come through in your own work, and make sense. To me the same with driving, if you have good techniques down to start with then your own formulations can make sense and be good. If however you're just 'busking it' with limited knowledge, imo it's haphazard, trial and error and could be flawed badly. Music, Art, driving, I feel are all similar in this respect. The perceived wisdom is that the more educated you are on the subject, the more you can experiment with it.
Best wishes.

Also VON HOSEN if you read this post I'd like to know your opinion on what I've said here.

[25NAD90TUL]

waremark said:

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?

Have you read the thread here entitled 'the worst course' in the link a guy has taken the DSA ADI course and the big thing that comes across is that the DSA don't recognise the system at all in their training.

[25NAD90TUL]

Gary C said:

''Braking and changing down at the same time is a control fault. All unwanted road speed should be lost by proper use of the footbrake or deceleration, then the appropriate gear selected. A gear change should not be made in the initial stages of braking. The 'Heel and Toe' method when braking and changing gear at the same time is not good driving while on the public highway and can be dangerous. Therefore it should not be done''

And there it is.

Because it's written down in a book, it must be the only answer (truly a 'bible')

It isn't 'because it's written' my attitude regarding the system is that I know it well, can use it well and imo it is a good way to drive. 'It is written' various alternatives to the highway code in Clarkson's book 'The alternative highway code' but I won't be using any of his suggestions any time soon just because 'it is written'.

Do you see how silly the comment you made is now?
Best wishes.

[25NAD90TUL]

Regarding this silly 'fundamentalist' tag, how much more bolshi are people about H&T? It's as if NOT using H&T is a hangable offense, yet I am considered the fundamentalist here.

[p1esk]

25NAD90TUL said:

Good people of AD section of PH...

Please don't take this the wrong way. I need help here to understand.

Why is it that when 'the system' or 'the Roadcraft system' 'IPSGA' whatever the chosen name for it, is mentioned in AD circles, it's like a dirty word. Or if someone usually myself, praises the virtues of it, they are regarded as a religious fundamentalist?

I, as you know, happen to think it's a damn good way to drive, I really don't understand the issue with it, my feelings aren't simply because 'it is written'. Sure it is written down but that isn't good enough for me, I use the system myself and find it works for me very well, I haven't come across a better method as far as safe road driving is concerned. I'm open to suggestions and can adapt to different methods and am as far away from being a 'fundamentalist' as you can get.

I don't want to fall out and maybe I write things that come across as bolshi but it really is unintentional. I just fail to understand why we are meant to be open to ideas yet the system isn't one of the ideas we're open to.

Hell I'm so much of a fundamentalist that I threw in my position with IAM and am no longer a member of any driving organisations, the exception being the AA.

Please help me understand this, and that I'm not being nasty, just want to understand.

Best wishes all, and I mean that!

I don't think it's a matter of 'the system' or 'the Roadcraft system' or 'IPSGA' etc. being, as you put it, a dirty word. What I think happened was that some people, including me, started to feel that the long established formal techniques embodied in advanced driver training, were too prescriptive. It seemed as if our driving had to be based on the consistent use of this system, and that approval of us as advanced drivers would not be forthcoming unless we complied. That got up my nose a bit too painfully, so I said balls to it, and decided to stick with my own methods, which had after all served me well for a very long time.

It then became apparent that quite a lot of other people had reached a similar conclusion, probably before I did, and so we started to hear more voices questioning the status quo. It now appears that the debate is well and truly out in the open, and this is naturally leading to a wider consideration of where it is best to go in terms of driver training, whether we are talking about beginners, or established drivers looking to overcome particular problems or make general improvements. As far as I'm concerned this is all to the good.

There is no doubt in my mind that 'the system' / 'the Roadcraft system' / 'IPSGA' etc. can provide a very good basis for producing safe driving, and I don't think they should be rubbished in any way. For anyone who prefers to base their driving around such methods, that's absolutely fine. The only thing that is wrong to my mind is the seemingly blind insistence that one can not produce good and safe driving, let alone 'advanced' driving, if they do not religeously apply this system. Where individuals can develop their own methods and techniques that equip them to be good and reliable drivers, I would prefer that they be free to do so, without being regarded as some kind of failure in the driving standards hierarchy. This sort of evolutionary process may take quite a long time, but so long as it yields steady improvement leading to a good solid competence, I think that is really all that matters.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[waremark]

25NAD90TUL said:

Regarding this silly 'fundamentalist' tag, how much more bolshi are people about H&T? It's as if NOT using H&T is a hangable offense, yet I am considered the fundamentalist here.

I don't think anyone suggests that not using H & T is wrong. The people who refer to fundamentalism don't think the concept of right and wrong is very helpful. The System is good, and can be used well, H & T is good, and can be used well and appropriately, and the same applies to other techniques.

Personally, I like your analogy of art and music - Picasso painted excellent realist pictures before he developed new styles. Controversially, I think it is quite helpful for drivers to learn to implement the System before they decide whether to adopt it consistently in their own driving.

[waremark]

Gary C said:

''Braking and changing down at the same time is a control fault. All unwanted road speed should be lost by proper use of the footbrake or deceleration, then the appropriate gear selected. A gear change should not be made in the initial stages of braking. The 'Heel and Toe' method when braking and changing gear at the same time is not good driving while on the public highway and can be dangerous. Therefore it should not be done''

And there it is.

Because it's written down in a book, it must be the only answer (truly a 'bible')

What book is this quoting from? Not Roadcraft or HTBABD - although it is the way some IAM examiners interpret Roadcraft.

As had been said on here many times, Roadcraft considers use of BGOL appropriate in specific circumstances, and H & T is just a way of rev matching during BGOL.

[25NAD90TUL]

waremark said:

What book is this quoting from? Not Roadcraft or HTBABD - although it is the way some IAM examiners interpret Roadcraft.

As had been said on here many times, Roadcraft considers use of BGOL appropriate in specific circumstances, and H & T is just a way of rev matching during BGOL.

Waremark that quote came from me originally. It's from 'The RoSPA Advanced Drivers association, Advanced Driving' By Gordon Cole ISBN 0-7110-2131-7.

[25NAD90TUL]

p1esk said:

I don't think it's a matter of 'the system' or 'the Roadcraft system' or 'IPSGA' etc. being, as you put it, a dirty word. What I think happened was that some people, including me, started to feel that the long established formal techniques embodied in advanced driver training, were too prescriptive. It seemed as if our driving had to be based on the consistent use of this system, and that approval of us as advanced drivers would not be forthcoming unless we complied. That got up my nose a bit too painfully, so I said balls to it, and decided to stick with my own methods, which had after all served me well for a very long time.

It then became apparent that quite a lot of other people had reached a similar conclusion, probably before I did, and so we started to hear more voices questioning the status quo. It now appears that the debate is well and truly out in the open, and this is naturally leading to a wider consideration of where it is best to go in terms of driver training, whether we are talking about beginners, or established drivers looking to overcome particular problems or make general improvements. As far as I'm concerned this is all to the good.

There is no doubt in my mind that 'the system' / 'the Roadcraft system' / 'IPSGA' etc. can provide a very good basis for producing safe driving, and I don't think they should be rubbished in any way. For anyone who prefers to base their driving around such methods, that's absolutely fine. The only thing that is wrong to my mind is the seemingly blind insistence that one can not produce good and safe driving, let alone 'advanced' driving, if they do not religeously apply this system. Where individuals can develop their own methods and techniques that equip them to be good and reliable drivers, I would prefer that they be free to do so, without being regarded as some kind of failure in the driving standards hierarchy. This sort of evolutionary process may take quite a long time, but so long as it yields steady improvement leading to a good solid competence, I think that is really all that matters.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Beautifully written and very sensible post TripleS. I agree with what is being said here. When it comes to a driver with years of experience driving different motors over a great many miles, with a good knowledge of roadcraft, I mean road craft, not the blue book, yes I would consider that person very much able to formulate their own way of driving that is very satisfactory, if not well above satisfactory. My issue is with drivers who perhaps don't have those same years/miles under their belt who think they are capable of coming up with their own 'better' ideas with very little practical experience or education, this could end very well but equally it could end very badly.

Dave what is the third S for in TripleS? Safe, smooth and?

[25NAD90TUL]

waremark said:

What book is this quoting from? Not Roadcraft or HTBABD - although it is the way some IAM examiners interpret Roadcraft.

As had been said on here many times, Roadcraft considers use of BGOL appropriate in specific circumstances, and H & T is just a way of rev matching during BGOL.

As I've stated many times previously I wouldn't hesitate to BGOL in an emergency, in fact last night when going to view an extreme weather event (a 30ft tidal swell at 2am) I BGOL'd several times, and realised my mind was on other things other than my driving as a result of the overlapping. As I have said if I achieve separation, it lets me know I'm concentrating and planning ahead sufficiently, which is my main reason for using the technique. I use it as an indicator of my performance, the single main reason I'm advocating it.

If people wish to HT or BGOL I'm fine with it. I don't do it if I can avoid it but that's just my own style and preference.

I'm fully open to new methodology, it's a case of no-one yet has informed me where I can get this new methodology or what it actually is. When I do I'll try it and if I find it better I may well adapt it into my own driving, trouble is I can't try it or evaluate it until I know what it is.

I'm not a fundamentalist in any way, and understand that many people regard AD training as stuck in the 1950s and are put off by that. If the big two change their training I'll be willing to sign up to give it a go. I wish they could reach out to more people, in the interests of mine and other road users safety.

[p1esk]

25NAD90TUL said:

Dave what is the third S for in TripleS? Safe, smooth and?

After a lot of thinking (by 'eck, it was hard work: limited resources y'see!) I eventually adopted TripleS as a username for joining PH. It means swift, smooth, safe, though I soon got into trouble with VH for having them in the wrong order. He doesn't miss much, that guy.

BTW, look in again at ADUK sometime. The pong really isn't that bad.

[25NAD90TUL]

p1esk said:

There is no doubt in my mind that 'the system' / 'the Roadcraft system' / 'IPSGA' etc. can provide a very good basis for producing safe driving, and I don't think they should be rubbished in any way. For anyone who prefers to base their driving around such methods, that's absolutely fine.
Best wishes all,
Dave.

To be absolutely fair to you Dave I have never seen you rubbish the system. I know you fell out with the IAM and mate that is easily done!

My main issue with what is said in these forums is that people not as experienced as the esteemed company here read these forums and I think those who may benefit most from some further training are put off by our discussions here. By starting with the system, then perhaps incorporating other methods AFTERWARDS no problem, surely the more educated we are, the more is added to the fabric of our driving.

In short I think it's fine that we discuss alternatives but I think for the benefit of those perhaps less experienced drivers who do wish to improve we should perhaps give them the impression that learning the roadcraft method can't be a bad thing, initially.

[Craikeybaby]

Why is it wrong to have learnt H&T before the IPSGA method?