The future of Advanced Driving.

[vonhosen]

johnao said:

SK425 said:

Martin A said:

But before I give my ideas, can anyone see if there is a problem with this familiar statement about the system(s) of how to approach a hazard (There may be nothing wrong, I'm just wanting to see if anyone thinks there might be)

When you identify a hazard use the IPSGA / MSM (according to choice of system) routine.

It sounds a lot like an instruction. Is that how you meant it to sound?

I'm not really understanding any of this.

So, you're saying, if a trainee/associate identifies a hazard and the coach says (or, "I suggest that")you should/could use IPSGA, MSM or whatever. Then, that's an instruction. Well, I agree that is an instruction. But, what is the alternative to giving an instruction, whether it concerns IPSGA, MSM or any other methodology? I see no problem with offering the trainee any number of options from which to choose a methodology for dealing with hazards, but, I can't see any alternative to instruction when explaining those options to the trainee. Instruction in the sense of... "this is what you do" and "this is how you do it" when you use IPSGA, MSM or whatever.

Maybe your point is that you don't believe that a trainee should be instructed to use just one particular methodology. I am sympathetic to that view. But, and it may be that I'm completely missing the point here, do you and vonhosen wish for the trainee not to be exposed to any pre-existing methodology for dealing with hazards and is simply guided to a methodology of their own invention through self-discovery and use of the higher levels of GDE?

They can develop their own methodology through questioning which may be exactly the same as an established methodology or different from any other (slightly or markedly). What's important is that it works for them.

[Martin A]

25NAD90TUL said:

johnao said:

... Even if GDE levels 3 & 4 are built in to DSA training and the DSA test I'm sceptical that they will have the sort of profound effect that will be necessary to make a difference to the 17 to 25 year old group that are most at risk.

You may well be right, but as long as things stay the same the results are likely to stay the same.

25NAD90TUL said:

Leads me back to my question, what is it that is going to motivate the desire to get good at driving in the first place? Once the license is obtained? Drivers know it has to be something pretty serious to result in it being taken from you, merely being not very good isn't enough.

Taking fewer lessons, with lower overall cost, to get a licence in a shorter time and with fewer tests than is the current average.

Make the test 2 part. Have 2 tests one to two months apart in different test centres. Pass the first and you're licenced to drive until your second one which should then include motorways. Pass that and you're fully licenced. Fail it and you start all over again.

25NAD90TUL said:

Why would that percentage who view driving as nothing more than a mode of transport ever have any interest apart from gaining a license? Why are the driving enthusiasts themselves mostly not interested in AD?

The first bunch probably wouldn't but if telematic insurance were made compulsory, and insurance were reduced to just an admin charge if you didn't transgress, then car owners among them might take extra care or extra training. Once a critical mass of people are driving in this way theuy would be better prepared to deal with those who don't.

The second bunch of people you refer to are level 1 dynamics enthusiasts, as I would expect many on here used to be. Getting these people interested in level 2 would be a start. Tell them that they could get somewhere quicker using better level 2 skills.

25NAD90TUL said:

Compulsory driver re-testing, whatever the method used to train, the compulsory part is the important one. The DSA driving test needs to be harder, would it be too much to have the DSA test the same standard as a current AD test?

The test is 'hard' due to the bad training that is delivered. The test could be easier to pass and deliver better trained, more aware drivers if the training was altered and the test marking system were changed.

25NAD90TUL said:

A great many drivers are just hoping their luck holds out, and for a great many it probably will, reinforcing their belief that they are efficient, how to get them interested I have no idea, IAM/RoSPA don't know either. Tbh I don't think switching methods of instruction is going to make much difference in that respect either, you have to motivate them first before these new methods will have any positive effect, that is the bit that isn't coming through to me.

As has already been said, it's not really about hoping that luck holds out. Few I have met believe that they have to rely on luck after their test. And those that do stay safe by keeping their driving to a minimum

[Martin A]

vonhosen said:

johnao said:

SK425 said:

Martin A said:

But before I give my ideas, can anyone see if there is a problem with this familiar statement about the system(s) of how to approach a hazard (There may be nothing wrong, I'm just wanting to see if anyone thinks there might be)

When you identify a hazard use the IPSGA / MSM (according to choice of system) routine.

It sounds a lot like an instruction. Is that how you meant it to sound?

I'm not really understanding any of this.

So, you're saying, if a trainee/associate identifies a hazard and the coach says (or, "I suggest that")you should/could use IPSGA, MSM or whatever. Then, that's an instruction. Well, I agree that is an instruction. But, what is the alternative to giving an instruction, whether it concerns IPSGA, MSM or any other methodology? I see no problem with offering the trainee any number of options from which to choose a methodology for dealing with hazards, but, I can't see any alternative to instruction when explaining those options to the trainee. Instruction in the sense of... "this is what you do" and "this is how you do it" when you use IPSGA, MSM or whatever.

Maybe your point is that you don't believe that a trainee should be instructed to use just one particular methodology. I am sympathetic to that view. But, and it may be that I'm completely missing the point here, do you and vonhosen wish for the trainee not to be exposed to any pre-existing methodology for dealing with hazards and is simply guided to a methodology of their own invention through self-discovery and use of the higher levels of GDE?

They can develop their own methodology through questioning which may be exactly the same as an established methodology or different from any other (slightly or markedly). What's important is that it works for them.

When I posted my question about the problem with IPSGA or MSM I did not envisage the discussion taking this direction, but I'm pleased that it has. It has opened my eyes wider.

The coachee doesn't even need to be driving, in fact if they are that may result in them not being able to give full attention to noticing things depending on how much of their brain power they have to use to complete the driving task.

They could watch the coach offer various styles of dealing with things and then be encouraged to offer their insights.

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

By the way, if you don't 'tell' your students to ignore the 'this is the way to do it' bits of Roadcraft, what do you say to them about how to use Roadcraft? Don't they still get examined on Roadcraft?

You are missing the importance of them learning to take responsibility for their choices & the consequences of them. Telling them undermines levels 3 & 4 & that's where the root cause of their collisions are, poor irresponsible choices. That's why work on levels 1 & 2 has to be done so that 3 & 4 are also explored/developed.

So what do you say to them about how to use Roadcraft (I feel like John Humphreys on the today programme, trying to see how many different ways I can ask the same question)?

I don't think the Police are wholesale any better at this. I've said before about the stylised testing & the difficulties that causes with coaching.
They have to make choices.

For instance
They could adopt it full scale & continue with it afterwards.
They could adopt it full scale (if they are able) for the test & stop doing it that way after the test.
They could use it as a learning opportunity for their own external benefit & not worry about passing the test & performing the role.
They could make a conscious decision not to follow certain aspects (that they either find difficult to swallow or assimilate into their driving) & just accept being marked down for them.
etc etc.

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

vonhosen said:

You are missing the importance of them learning to take responsibility for their choices & the consequences of them. Telling them undermines levels 3 & 4 & that's where the root cause of their collisions are, poor irresponsible choices.

Is that so? What about poor judgement of entry speeds, not recognising the distance it takes to stop, lack of awareness of hazards, not having developed the habit of Observing, Anticipating and Planning?

They can all be accessed via levels 3 & 4 too.

I've had a look at GDE levels 3 & 4, page 259 of Roadcraft, in relation to the topics that waremark raised. I am unable to relate one with the other in terms of access. I would be grateful if you could explain how you would access waremark's topics via GDE levels 3 & 4, please.

[vonhosen]

johnao said:

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

vonhosen said:

You are missing the importance of them learning to take responsibility for their choices & the consequences of them. Telling them undermines levels 3 & 4 & that's where the root cause of their collisions are, poor irresponsible choices.

Is that so? What about poor judgement of entry speeds, not recognising the distance it takes to stop, lack of awareness of hazards, not having developed the habit of Observing, Anticipating and Planning?

They can all be accessed via levels 3 & 4 too.

I've had a look at GDE levels 3 & 4, page 259 of Roadcraft, in relation to the topics that waremark raised. I am unable to relate one with the other in terms of access. I would be grateful if you could explain how you would access waremark's topics via GDE levels 3 & 4, please.

You sit them down & talk to them about what influences (extrinsic/intrinsic) their choices of entry speed. Does it change with different journeys, what factors affect their ability to arrive at a place at the speed they want to etc. You can do simple exercises such as getting them to drive through a bend & them concentrate on the furtherest piece of uninterrupted road surface that they can see (as it moves) & they emergency stop when you shout stop. They can then relate how far they could see & how far short of it they actually stopped. You don't actually have to point anything out to them as they are seeing it or themselves. They tell you the results. You can do this on a variety of bends. You can get them to practice their brake modulation to arrive at a marker at a given speed & get them to grade their performance in relation to factors that they identify as key in good performance around that. You can get them to describe in detail what they feel as they are doing it. Of course these exercises are dependant on what problems they experience. That will do far more than telling them 'you were too quick there' or 'you could safely be quicker there' etc.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 10th February 21:55

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

Martin A said:

But before I give my ideas, can anyone see if there is a problem with this familiar statement about the system(s) of how to approach a hazard (There may be nothing wrong, I'm just wanting to see if anyone thinks there might be)

When you identify a hazard use the IPSGA / MSM (according to choice of system) routine.

A different question. When you (a Roadcraft adherent) introduce IPSGA to an experienced driver, what do you highlight? You have had a brief assessment drive, and seen that they change down through the gearbox, at the same time as braking and steering, signal automatically and late, and brake more than once, more firmly at the end. The drive was perfectly safe.

And what do VH and the coaching adherents say to this driver after their brief assessment drive?

That depends who they are & why they are coming to me.

[Martin A]

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

Martin A said:

But before I give my ideas, can anyone see if there is a problem with this familiar statement about the system(s) of how to approach a hazard (There may be nothing wrong, I'm just wanting to see if anyone thinks there might be)

When you identify a hazard use the IPSGA / MSM (according to choice of system) routine.

A different question. When you (a Roadcraft adherent) introduce IPSGA to an experienced driver, what do you highlight? You have had a brief assessment drive, and seen that they change down through the gearbox, at the same time as braking and steering, signal automatically and late, and brake more than once, more firmly at the end. The drive was perfectly safe.

And what do VH and the coaching adherents say to this driver after their brief assessment drive?

That depends who they are & why they are coming to me.

I don't use IPGSA or MSM as I have developed my own system, which my customers have told me they prefer.

I'd get them to assess their drive. Tell me where they were 100% perfect and rate themselves for those areas where they didn't think they were.

[waremark]

vonhosen said:

You sit them down & talk to them about what influences (extrinsic/intrinsic) their choices of entry speed. Does it change with different journeys, what factors affect their ability to arrive at a place at the speed they want to etc. You can do simple exercises such as getting them to drive through a bend & them concentrate on the furtherest piece of uninterrupted road surface that they can see (as it moves) & they emergency stop when you shout stop. They can then relate how far they could see & how far short of it they actually stopped. You don't actually have to point anything out to them as they are seeing it or themselves. They tell you the results. You can do this on a variety of bends. You can get them to practice their brake modulation to arrive at a marker at a given speed & get them to grade their performance in relation to factors that they identify as key in good performance around that. You can get them to describe in detail what they feel as they are doing it. Of course these exercises are dependant on what problems they experience. That will do far more than telling them 'you were too quick there' or 'you could safely be quicker there' etc.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 10th February 21:55

I like all of that - this is getting much closer to what I think of as training.

[waremark]

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

vonhosen said:

You are missing the importance of them learning to take responsibility for their choices & the consequences of them. Telling them undermines levels 3 & 4 & that's where the root cause of their collisions are, poor irresponsible choices.

Is that so? What about poor judgement of entry speeds, not recognising the distance it takes to stop, lack of awareness of hazards, not having developed the habit of Observing, Anticipating and Planning?

They can all be accessed via levels 3 & 4 too.

My 'is that so' was about poor choices rather than lack of skills being the root cause of their collisions. I believe sometimes its poor choices, sometimes its lack of skills. And that the skills part is much easier to alter.

[waremark]

waremark said:

7mike said:

This was in the local news recently. Guess it doesn't make a blind bit of difference how good someone's vehicle handling skills are if their own beliefs are flawed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-26...

If asked about his level 3 and 4 stuff, that driver would have admitted that safety was not his only priority, and that he thought his skills were such that the risk of talking on the phone while towing his race car was insignificant. So where would the coaches have gone from there?

And just as it happens, I don't suppose that his use of the phone actually was a principle cause of the crash either - it just made the court treat him more severely. I have certainly been known to fail to spot a bicycle at night when not using a phone - though happily with no adverse consequences.

Anyway, how would you get a regular phone user who believes that his use of the phone is not a significant risk to stop using the phone when driving? (I often speak on a hands free phone when driving - and have commented before that I would expect to be able to pass an advanced driving test while doing so - but I realise that if I regarded safety as the highest priority, rather than as a reasonably high priority, I would not talk and drive. Actually, I would not drive unnecessarily at all. So how do you alter my level 4 to stop me doing this?).

[Toltec]

I am finding this thread very interesting, COAST and IPGSA etc. were things I learnt about long after I had been practicing them, at least in some form. Separation is completely alien to me as I see driving or riding as a continuous flow, though I have tried it and as a focusing exercise I found value. Similarly the GDE matrix is interesting and until reading this thread had not really come across, though I have come across something similar in the simpler learning matrix. The level 3/4 stuff I again worked out for myself about a decade ago, though as I have been driving for over 30 years all I can say is that it took too long.

I don't consider myself qualified to instruct on driving so when I have spoken to other people that have sought advice or wanted to discuss an incident I will just get them to talk through a situation. When they have given me the 'I did, he did' bit I usually ask what they think the other driver saw. I try to take them out of their car and put them in a different position, another driver, a cyclist a pedestrian. Something I don't think I have seen mentioned on here yet is the idea of not just assessing your own motivations, but those of the road users around you. You see a hazard, what do they see you as?

All of the nice abbreviations are handy ways to try and get someone to retain information and training, however I do not think you should start by teaching the list first. Introduce the ideas, discuss them, get them to try them out and then give out the mnemonics.

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

Is that so? What about poor judgement of entry speeds, not recognising the distance it takes to stop, lack of awareness of hazards, not having developed the habit of Observing, Anticipating and Planning?

They can all be accessed via levels 3 & 4 too.

You sit them down & talk to them about what influences (extrinsic/intrinsic) their choices of entry speed. Does it change with different journeys, what factors affect their ability to arrive at a place at the speed they want to etc. You can do simple exercises such as getting them to drive through a bend & them concentrate on the furtherest piece of uninterrupted road surface that they can see (as it moves) & they emergency stop when you shout stop. They can then relate how far they could see & how far short of it they actually stopped. You don't actually have to point anything out to them as they are seeing it or themselves. They tell you the results. You can do this on a variety of bends. You can get them to practice their brake modulation to arrive at a marker at a given speed & get them to grade their performance in relation to factors that they identify as key in good performance around that. You can get them to describe in detail what they feel as they are doing it. Of course these exercises are dependant on what problems they experience. That will do far more than telling them 'you were too quick there' or 'you could safely be quicker there' etc.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 10th February 21:55

You suggest that waremark's topics can all be accessed via levels 3 & 4. You have given examples of how you believe this can be achieved.

I don't agree with your assertion of access via levels 3 & 4 is relevant in the situations described. Nor do I believe that you have demonstrated how this might be achieved.

I'm thinking of my average associate, someone who has already bought in to AD. If I was to... sit them down & talk to them about what influences (extrinsic/intrinsic) their choices of entry speed. Does it change with different journeys, what factors affect their ability to arrive at a place at the speed they want to etc. the responses would range from... "I don't know. I just misjudge my entry speed" to "I don't know what you mean", plus a whole load of other responses none of which would assist in the manner you propose. For me, this issue is simply GDE level 1 "Controlling your vehicle" and any forays in to levels 3 & 4 will shed no light on the cause or cure.

Indeed, everything you suggest from your third sentence onwards is level 1 stuff and nothing to do with levels 3 & 4. The approach that you advocate of the trainee arriving at the solution of their own discovery and volition is fine. We all try and achieve that outcome. But, your suggested scenarios appear to have nothing to do with level 3 (The purpose of the journey), or 4 (Human factors before you get in the vehicle - eg. your personality, confidence, attitudes and mood).

waremark's suggested lack of awareness of hazards, not having developed the habit of Observing, Anticipating and Planning... this is level 2 (The traffic situation - including road and weather conditions).

I don't think you have made out a credible case for accessing these issues via levels 3 & 4. But, as always, I'd be happy to consider any further views that you may wish put forward.

[waremark]

And I still struggle to see a connection between a coaching approach to levels 1 and 2, and achieving a change to level 4 attitude (my question about how you would stop me talking on the phone while driving is relevant here).

Also, how specifically are ADI's to be required to change the way they teach learners?

[vonhosen]

johnao said:

vonhosen said:

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

Is that so? What about poor judgement of entry speeds, not recognising the distance it takes to stop, lack of awareness of hazards, not having developed the habit of Observing, Anticipating and Planning?

They can all be accessed via levels 3 & 4 too.

You sit them down & talk to them about what influences (extrinsic/intrinsic) their choices of entry speed. Does it change with different journeys, what factors affect their ability to arrive at a place at the speed they want to etc. You can do simple exercises such as getting them to drive through a bend & them concentrate on the furtherest piece of uninterrupted road surface that they can see (as it moves) & they emergency stop when you shout stop. They can then relate how far they could see & how far short of it they actually stopped. You don't actually have to point anything out to them as they are seeing it or themselves. They tell you the results. You can do this on a variety of bends. You can get them to practice their brake modulation to arrive at a marker at a given speed & get them to grade their performance in relation to factors that they identify as key in good performance around that. You can get them to describe in detail what they feel as they are doing it. Of course these exercises are dependant on what problems they experience. That will do far more than telling them 'you were too quick there' or 'you could safely be quicker there' etc.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 10th February 21:55

You suggest that waremark's topics can all be accessed via levels 3 & 4. You have given examples of how you believe this can be achieved.

I don't agree with your assertion of access via levels 3 & 4 is relevant in the situations described. Nor do I believe that you have demonstrated how this might be achieved.

I'm thinking of my average associate, someone who has already bought in to AD. If I was to... sit them down & talk to them about what influences (extrinsic/intrinsic) their choices of entry speed. Does it change with different journeys, what factors affect their ability to arrive at a place at the speed they want to etc. the responses would range from... "I don't know. I just misjudge my entry speed" to "I don't know what you mean", plus a whole load of other responses none of which would assist in the manner you propose. For me, this issue is simply GDE level 1 "Controlling your vehicle" and any forays in to levels 3 & 4 will shed no light on the cause or cure.

Indeed, everything you suggest from your third sentence onwards is level 1 stuff and nothing to do with levels 3 & 4. The approach that you advocate of the trainee arriving at the solution of their own discovery and volition is fine. We all try and achieve that outcome. But, your suggested scenarios appear to have nothing to do with level 3 (The purpose of the journey), or 4 (Human factors before you get in the vehicle - eg. your personality, confidence, attitudes and mood).

waremark's suggested lack of awareness of hazards, not having developed the habit of Observing, Anticipating and Planning... this is level 2 (The traffic situation - including road and weather conditions).

I don't think you have made out a credible case for accessing these issues via levels 3 & 4. But, as always, I'd be happy to consider any further views that you may wish put forward.

Where do intrinsic influences sit?
Where do journey specific differences sit?

It's not easy to map out for you how it goes with coaching because it's not led by me, it's led by what the candidate says. The next question depends on their last reply. Of course if people come with a mind to being obstructive with any method then they can be obstructive, that's true of any method. If they engage then level 3 & 4 will be accessed & the benefits of that felt.

The mind controls the body.

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

And I still struggle to see a connection between a coaching approach to levels 1 and 2, and achieving a change to level 4 attitude (my question about how you would stop me talking on the phone while driving is relevant here).

Also, how specifically are ADI's to be required to change the way they teach learners?

I can't stop you talking on the phone, you've got to want to stop.
I can only help raise awareness & responsibility through questioning. That has more chance of promoting a change than me telling you 'don't use the phone whilst driving'.

One potential way about the phone is having learnt a bit about you when we started out I would read a letter out to you. A letter from a fictional driver apologising to the family of a child he had killed when he hit them whilst on the phone. You could as the letter progresses drop in little bits that build a picture, a picture that as it grows makes the victim sound increasingly familiar.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th February 19:52

[waremark]

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

And I still struggle to see a connection between a coaching approach to levels 1 and 2, and achieving a change to level 4 attitude (my question about how you would stop me talking on the phone while driving is relevant here).

Also, how specifically are ADI's to be required to change the way they teach learners?

I can't stop you talking on the phone, you've got to want to stop.
I can only help raise awareness & responsibility through questioning. That has more chance of promoting a change than me telling you 'don't use the phone whilst driving'.

One potential way about the phone is having learnt a bit about you when we started out I would read a letter out to you. A letter from a fictional driver apologising to the family of a child he had killed when he hit them whilst on the phone. You could as the letter progresses drop in little bits that build a picture, a picture that as it grows makes the victim sound increasingly familiar.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th February 19:52

Why does that work any better if you have avoided making suggestions to me about how I might improve my steering (for example)?

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

Where do intrinsic influences sit?
Where do journey specific differences sit?

It's not easy to map out for you how it goes with coaching because it's not led by me, it's led by what the candidate says. The next question depends on their last reply. Of course if people come with a mind to being obstructive with any method then they can be obstructive, that's true of any method. If they engage then level 3 & 4 will be accessed & the benefits of that felt.

The mind controls the body.

This is interesting.

This particular discussion centres around your assertion that a problem with entry speed can be accessed (and presumably addressed and resolved) via GDE levels 3 & 4

You pose the questions...Where do intrinsic influences sit? Where do journey specific differences sit. I suggest that if one was to introduce these questions in to a conversation/discussion about entry speed problems with the average IAM/RoSPA associate he would be bemused as to the relevance of the questions and unable to respond in any way coherent or relevant. On the ADUK forum there is a thread currently running regarding the entry speed to a specific bend. Just about every coachee entered the bend at just over 22mph. The coach entered it at 15mph. All transitions through that bend by each coachee was safe inasmuch as everyone could have stopped in the distance seen to be clear. I was one of the coachees and I agreed afterwards that 15 mph was a better speed for that particular bend. I arrived at that conclusion because I felt that there was a better sense of GDE level 1 control. Neither I, nor the coach, examined or considered GDE levels 3 or 4 during the course of my reaching the conclusion I arrived at. If he had, he would have been greeted with bewilderment on my part. This is not the same as coming with a mind of being obstructive. this is simply a matter of not being able to see the relevance of examining my lifestyles and values, my impulsiveness, my motives for the actions I take, the tendencies and attitudes that I need to manage when driving, my competitiveness, excitement with speed and irritation with other road users, in order to achieve what I considered to be a more appropriate entry and transition speed on that particular bend. The coach told me, showed me and I agreed. It was as simple as that.

I can obviously see the relevance and benefits to be achieved by considering GDE levels 3 & 4 for a driver whose driving is potentially dangerous and who accepts that he is in need of help. I also accept that if one wishes to consider levels 3 & 4 with regard to one's own driving then that's fine. But, I'm still failing to see that there will be any wide, general application, or relevance, of GDE levels 3 & 4 with regard to the vast majority of drivers out there in the big wide world of real life.

In my opinion, the situations where a practical application of examining/considering competency levels 3 & 4 during the training of the average IAM /RoSPA associate would have any relevance will be few and far between.

In other words, at present, the conclusion that I'm coming to is that GDE levels 3 & 4 will prove to be of extremely limited practical value in driver training. Hopefully, time will prove me wrong.

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

And I still struggle to see a connection between a coaching approach to levels 1 and 2, and achieving a change to level 4 attitude (my question about how you would stop me talking on the phone while driving is relevant here).

Also, how specifically are ADI's to be required to change the way they teach learners?

I can't stop you talking on the phone, you've got to want to stop.
I can only help raise awareness & responsibility through questioning. That has more chance of promoting a change than me telling you 'don't use the phone whilst driving'.

One potential way about the phone is having learnt a bit about you when we started out I would read a letter out to you. A letter from a fictional driver apologising to the family of a child he had killed when he hit them whilst on the phone. You could as the letter progresses drop in little bits that build a picture, a picture that as it grows makes the victim sound increasingly familiar.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th February 19:52

Why does that work any better if you have avoided making suggestions to me about how I might improve my steering (for example)?

We're dealing with the phone. I'm not telling you not to use the phone (which frankly won't work - you've no doubt been told before), I'm placing you in an emotional place that is relevant to you. A place where the consequences are personal to you & it's how you feel that could promote the change in behaviour without any criticism from me.

If it's steering that you are having a problem with then we'll dissect the problem, I'll get you to do that taking me in detail through what you are thinking, doing & feeling when you encounter the problem, then I'll draw from you changes you could make (both the mundane & extravagant). When you can think of no more, if there are some others I can think of I'll tell you I can think of a few others & ask 'wold you like to hear them?' (your choice) & then you'll decide which you want to try. Then we'll talk about the new experience & tweak it/ try again OR try others if you want, until 'you' achieve 'your' goal.

That is for a short time because I won't be in this line of work for much longer

[25NAD90TUL]

vonhosen said:

I won't be in this line of work for much longer

You've mentioned this a couple of times. What's happening Von? Are you retiring from this job or changing career path?

Best wishes with this whichever it is.