The future of Advanced Driving.

The future of Advanced Driving.

Author
Discussion

waremark

3,241 posts

212 months

Wednesday 12th February 2014
quotequote all
I understand that higher levels are relevant to use of the phone. That is why I introduced that example. I also suggested that higher level issues are far harder to address, and I don't suppose you would be able to stop me using the phone. But I don't understand or believe that you have a better chance of getting me to stop using the phone if you have already driven me round the bend by refusing to tell me what issues you see with my level 1 & 2 performance and to make suggestions on how to improve. On the other hand if I have a poor attitude to speed I do think you can address that by giving me better skills to judge safe speed and a much better idea of what constitutes good driving.

waremark

3,241 posts

212 months

Wednesday 12th February 2014
quotequote all
Johnao, about this bend. Are you sure coach had a better way than the coachees? Other superb coaches adopt extremely high entry speeds .... Other superb coaches don't generally make early applications of gas .... But this is not the place for that discussion.

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Wednesday 12th February 2014
quotequote all
johnao said:
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.
It seems to me you're still coming at this in a 'reading from a textbook' fashion. A great coach would gently explore these things, not directly smash you over the head with academic questions.

In your example of entry speed, take a step back and look at your experience. What did the coach achieve? You'll take that particular bend at 15mph again and again, at least for a while, because there was 'a better sense of control', which you say was L1. Well, good.

However, will you reduce your entry speed to all hazards now? Even for that one bend, will the change persist, or will it fade away as you repeatedly survive at higher speeds? What about when you're late for an appointment? That's all 3 & 4.

Furthermore, and this bit is more debatable, I would pick at your 'better sense of control' and ask you to consider whether any of that is value-based. If it's about control, why is 7 mph not a better choice? The optimal choice is subjective and influenced by various subjective factors.

johnao

667 posts

242 months

Wednesday 12th February 2014
quotequote all
waremark said:
Johnao, about this bend. Are you sure coach had a better way than the coachees? Other superb coaches adopt extremely high entry speeds .... Other superb coaches don't generally make early applications of gas .... But this is not the place for that discussion.
Mark, did the coach have a better way than the coachees? is probably not the right question. The answer to that question requires a comparison be made between the coach and the coachees as a distinct discrete group. We are individuals. I know that whilst I was happier with the lower speed, others weren't convinced.

Your observation about other coaches is pertinent. For me it's a question of going with as many coaches as possible, listening to what they suggest (which as you know will in all probability be different from the last coach attended), trying/attempting whatever it is they advocate and then me deciding what suits my lifestyle and values wink

We'll discuss this further at a more appropriate time; would an AM appointment suit you?

John

johnao

667 posts

242 months

Wednesday 12th February 2014
quotequote all
trashbat said:
johnao said:
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.
it seems to me you're still coming at this in a 'reading from a textbook' fashion. A great coach would gently explore these things, not directly smash you over the head with academic questions.
I like your comment about... not directly smash you over the head with academic questions, and I agree, that really isn't the way to go about things. I also agree that I am... coming at this in a 'reading from a textbook' fashion. But, unfortunately, that's how this whole subject of GDE competencies is presented to us (see, Roadcraft pages 12 & 259.)

I can see the purpose and benefit of, as you say, gently exploring the perceived problem (in this case entry speed) but I can't see that any benefit is to be obtained by exploring the relevance of lifestyles and values, ie, the personal factors, in something so mundane as entry speed. Unless of course there are obvious, and acknowledged, problems with aggressive/anger/competitiveness involved; which is going to be rare in the experience of most most observers/coaches.

trashbat said:
In your example of entry speed, take a step back and look at your experience. What did the coach achieve? You'll take that particular bend at 15mph again and again, at least for a while, because there was 'a better sense of control', which you say was L1. Well, good.

However, will you reduce your entry speed to all hazards now? Even for that one bend, will the change persist, or will it fade away as you repeatedly survive at higher speeds? What about when you're late for an appointment? That's all 3 & 4.
This is where an academic approach goes far too deeply into the driver's psyche. this wasn't an exercise in dealing with a problem of how to lower entry speeds to all hazards. That wasn't the issue under discussion on the day in question. Not wishing to replay the debate currently ongoing on the ADUK forum I will just say it was about reducing entry speed, getting the vehicle settled earlier, and thereby being in a position to get the power on earlier through and out of the bend if one so wished.

In so far as... will the change persist?, that's a good question. I hope so. I've booked another session with the coach and we'll see if I can properly incorporate this style in to my driving. If I don't succeed in permanently changing this particular aspect of my driving I doubt that I'll be examining my level 3 & 4 competencies to find out why. Nor do I think that if I did, (examine competencies 3 & 4), it would have any effect on my choice.

trashbat said:
Furthermore, and this bit is more debatable, I would pick at your 'better sense of control' and ask you to consider whether any of that is value-based. If it's about control, why is 7 mph not a better choice? The optimal choice is subjective and influenced by various subjective factors.
Yes, it is value based. The "value", I suppose, is in how I perceive it as being a better style of driving for me; others may/will prefer a different style and different entry speeds, that's their choice of course. I think when GDE talks about lifestyles, motives and values it's going in too deep. We're only talking about whether to adopt one particular style of bend transition over another. It's not exactly a life changing decision of any consequence.

This may all come across as a very negative attitude towards GDE levels 3 & 4 and their relevance. It isn't meant to be. In the the quote that follows I don't cast myself as an "expert", merely a practical person. Simon Sinek: There are two kinds of experts, academic experts and practical experts. One is not better than the other, but they are very different and each offers very different value. The difference is, the practical expert, as their name conveys, only takes or uses the parts that make sense them them.

Thanks for your input, it's much appreciated.

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Wednesday 12th February 2014
quotequote all
A lot of what it comes down to is that much of it has absolutely nothing to do with driving, and is about psychology - both your internal psychology as a driver on your own, and the psychology behind optimally changing behaviours as relevant to both pupil and coach. The context would be different, L1 and L2 would be different, but all of the mechanics behind the higher stuff would equally apply in teaching someone piano, being taught piano, and your attitudes to going off and playing piano when left to your own devices.

I suspect & hope that the full time professional advanced driving coaches have spent much time and effort thinking about psychology, sometimes more than the actual material. Equally I suspect that the amateur observer types amongst the IAM haven't considered teaching technique and whether it works very much at all, only the technical aspects; that's not really a criticism, just the nature of the beast. Intriguingly I've little idea where ADIs would fit on that spectrum.

I'd caution you against taking L3 & L4 to always mean some sort of all-encompassing Zen belief system. It could be as simple as catching your own attitude sometimes as a bit hasty and working on correcting it, or as complex as asking you to consider what kind of driver or person you aspire to be, and what behaviours that requires.

If you think it doesn't apply to your one bend scenario, so be it. A great coach would see your bend and soon discover whether you habitually entered hazards too fast, or habitually failed to comprehend the severity of tightening bends, or sometimes got the red mist and overcooked the next section, or none of these things except as a one-off, and they'd apply technique to coaching you appropriately; like medicine, only what the patient needs.

Having been through IAM, I know what elements I accepted and integrated, I know what elements I notionally agreed with but didn't integrate or maintain long term, and I know what elements I privately rejected and never bothered with. The middle of those is the most interesting and it comes down to both my attitudes (e.g. stubbornness, failing to see tangible benefits) and the impression the coach made. To me that's the biggest bit of how L3 and L4 applies to coaching.

My background in this, by the way, is little more than a layman, but I find it interesting. My GF is a cognitive behavioural therapist and does this sort of thing professionally, obviously in a different context. Her work entails lots of different things, but as one example, getting a patient to overcome an irrational social anxiety of turning bright red that would result in other people staring at them.

It's never about logic; these patients usually know their worries are logically stupid, but it makes no difference to them, so no telling will ever help. It's about getting them to come up with their own recognition and shepherd them towards changing their own beliefs. In practice this includes lots of exploring, lots of what ifs, and a practical experiment: covering the patient in blusher, taking them round the shops and showing them that actually noone pays the slightest bit of notice.

vonhosen

40,202 posts

216 months

Wednesday 12th February 2014
quotequote all
johnao said:
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.
So a change happened in level 4 - your beliefs - that will affect your level 1.

You were motivated to go to the the event (level 4) & went with prior beliefs & constructs (level 4). You weren't told what to think & adapted your beliefs (level 4) following the session & that has led to an adaption in your level 1.

Anyway, I've said enough on it.

p1esk

4,914 posts

195 months

Thursday 13th February 2014
quotequote all
25NAD90TUL said:
vonhosen said:
I won't be in this line of work for much longer smile
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.
Seconded. He'll be missed here, and on ADUK. When he makes his move I expect a good pair of goggles and some warm clothing might be in order. cool

Best wishes all,
Dave.