What exactly is Advanced Driving?

[Jon1967x]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Nothing is ever completely safe though, is it?

A helicopter could crash on to you just before you go for an overtake. Likely? No. Possible? Well, it's not impossible, so yes.

Every driver knows there is an element of risk whenever we get into our car and start it up. Advanced driving is about minimising risk - not completely eliminating it.

Overtaking involves no more or less risk than any other manoeuvre we carry out whilst driving. If it's well planned and the risks are kept to a minimum, it's fine.

If you hold back from an overtake because there is a blind junction to the right, or there is a hidden dip with a zone of invisibility, or you think that you might get an aggressive reaction from the overtaken driver then, in my view, you are displaying the qualities of an "advanced" driver. If you hold back from an otherwise safe overtake because there is a possibility that the overtaken car may have a blowout while you're passing, in my view you're being overcautious. There is nothing inherently wrong with being overcautious, of course, but is it a quality of an advanced driver? Not in my view.

I'm in 100% agreement. My objection is to glib 'commandments' - I said I agreed with the essence of those - but there is a world of difference in contribution between 'if it's not completely safe to over take don't' (which is patronising in the extreme) to the variety of factors you have pointed out that require evaluating.

The 'saved by the system' thread highlights this, the road was wet, there was a bend, a line of traffic, no obvious landing area other than to complete the overtake of all cars, road markings indicating various hazards, body language of the cars ahead etc etc. I want to debate these, which are the most pertinent in that situation, how to mitigate them, as this is informative and through examples we learn.

[SK425]

Martin A said:

That is why they may well not find it reasonable if someone overtakes, because that someone is braking the law to gain an advantage over them and possibly causing them to suffer a disadvantage in terms of journey time.

This came up in a different thread the other day. What is it with this idea of 'advantage'? We're not racing each other and so I don't see how the concept of 'advantage' can have any meaning. There is nothing competitive about overtaking. If someone wants to drive faster than someone else, it's better all round if the faster one is in front of the slower one. That way, two people get to drive at they speed they wish rather than just one, and the two drivers have a short, temporary interaction rather than a continuous, permanent one. That's all overtaking is.

Martin A said:

I would argue that many people don't myopically tailgate, but do so to prevent those who disregard the Highway Code and the Law from doing so.

I think I would generally give people more credit than that. I know self-appointed road police attitudes exist, but I don't believe they are as widespread as you suggest. I think most people who fail to leave sociable gaps ahead for overtaking drivers are doing it out of simple thoughtlessness and lack of imagination, rather than being deliberately confrontational.

[Strangely Brown]

Jon1967x said:

I'm in 100% agreement. My objection is to glib 'commandments' - I said I agreed with the essence of those - but there is a world of difference in contribution between 'if it's not completely safe to over take don't' (which is patronising in the extreme) to the variety of factors you have pointed out that require evaluating.

FFS. You agree with the essence. You understand the meaning, the same way that everyone else does. Yet you persist with the pedantic objection to "completely". As has been pointed out: nothing is ever 100% risk free so, as has also been pointed out, "completely safe" is, and always will be, a judgement call. It simply means that it is as safe as can reasonably be expected. But you know all this, so just accept the 37 year old text[*] as it was intended.

Yes, the commandments could have listed a variety of factors which need to be taken into consideration but that is not their job. All of that is covered in much more detail in the main body of the text, and the teaching that accompanies it - it is a syllabus remember. The commandments convey very simple (yet much broader) messages from which anyone can benefit. To be more [situationally] specific would take away their succinct nature. If you really find that "patronising in the extreme" then perhaps the problem is not with the list.

A wise driving coach once answered my question to him thus: "It depends. The answer to any question about driving begins with 'It depends...'".

[*] The commandments were taken from the 1977 edition of Roadcraft. "The Blue Book".

[Martin A]

SK425 said:

Martin A said:

That is why they may well not find it reasonable if someone overtakes, because that someone is braking the law to gain an advantage over them and possibly causing them to suffer a disadvantage in terms of journey time.

This came up in a different thread the other day. What is it with this idea of 'advantage'? We're not racing each other and so I don't see how the concept of 'advantage' can have any meaning. There is nothing competitive about overtaking. If someone wants to drive faster than someone else, it's better all round if the faster one is in front of the slower one. That way, two people get to drive at they speed they wish rather than just one, and the two drivers have a short, temporary interaction rather than a continuous, permanent one. That's all overtaking is.

The advantage is that being one car further down the road may result in getting through a set of lights or other holdup. This may then delay the queue follower while the overtaker has the perceived advantage of making progress at the expense of the overtaken.

I've really no problem with people wanting to drive fast. It's just that I don't see breaking the Law and Highway Code as being compatible with advanced and expert driving.

SK425 said:

Martin A said:

I would argue that many people don't myopically tailgate, but do so to prevent those who disregard the Highway Code and the Law from doing so.

I think I would generally give people more credit than that. I know self-appointed road police attitudes exist, but I don't believe they are as widespread as you suggest. I think most people who fail to leave sociable gaps ahead for overtaking drivers are doing it out of simple thoughtlessness and lack of imagination, rather than being deliberately confrontational.

It's quite possible that you're correct, but why give them credit for one sort of social activity (not being road police) and not another (being myopic)? A sociable gap means a delay in their own progress, even if only a couple of seconds. I would suggest that they are also interested in making progress just in a different way, and want to make sure that they reach the next set of lights without others doing what they might very well see as queue barging.

I'm not saying this is right, just an observation of what I see on the roads everyday

[vonhosen]

I'm glad I'm not an advanced driver, just an ordinary driver making their way in the world.

[Strangely Brown]

Martin A said:

The advantage is that being one car further down the road may result in getting through a set of lights or other holdup. This may then delay the queue follower while the overtaker has the perceived advantage of making progress at the expense of the overtaken.

If the queue follower was that bothered about getting through a set of lights or other holdup then wouldn't they be looking to overtake themselves? If they are content to wait and follow along then surely they are content to wait at the holdup.

Martin A said:

I've really no problem with people wanting to drive fast. It's just that I don't see breaking the Law and Highway Code as being compatible with advanced and expert driving.

Why do you assume that overtaking is necessarily "breaking the law"? They may well be overtaking within the limit. And even if they're not, if it's safe, does it really matter?

Also, exactly which part of the highway code are they "breaking" by overtaking a slower vehicle?

Martin A said:

I would suggest that they are also interested in making progress just in a different way, and want to make sure that they reach the next set of lights without others doing what they might very well see as queue barging.

Firstly, it's not a queue. It's a line of vehicles moving along a road. There is no single point of service at the end that they are all waiting for so the label of "queue" is incorrect. It's not "first come first served".

Secondly, if there are appropriate gaps between the followers then there is no barging involved and, further opportunities permitting, they're unlikely to be there for long anyway so what are you worried about?

Finally, if your definition of "expert driving" is following a queue of traffic travelling below the speed limit with no intention to look for overtaking opportunities and getting snotty with those who do then I suggest that you may have a somewhat different definition to most.

[SK425]

Martin A said:

The advantage is that being one car further down the road may result in getting through a set of lights or other holdup. This may then delay the queue follower while the overtaker has the perceived advantage of making progress at the expense of the overtaken.

If that sort of thing were important to the queue follower they would presumably be an overtaker, not a queue follower. I still don't think 'advantage' or 'at the expense of' are appropriate terms to describe that situation because the overtaker and the overtaken are not in a race. We share the roads with other people and choosing to settle in the queue rather than look to move through and past it unavoidably raises the possibility of there being someone behind, either now or later, who has made the other choice. You can't do anything about that - it's just a fact of life. If you decide to settle in the queue, it would be a complete mistake - and a very bizarre one - to imagine that you had some entitlement to remain no further than n vehicles back from the head of the queue.

Martin A said:

It's quite possible that you're correct, but why give them credit for one sort of social activity (not being road police) and not another (being myopic)? A sociable gap means a delay in their own progress, even if only a couple of seconds. I would suggest that they are also interested in making progress just in a different way, and want to make sure that they reach the next set of lights without others doing what they might very well see as queue barging.

I'm not saying this is right, just an observation of what I see on the roads everyday

Well I suppose it's quite possible you are correct too . I guess what I thought just seems a simpler and more likely explanation. Perhaps I was being too charitable, but I'd rather err that way than the other. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

[waremark]

Martin A said:

I've really no problem with people wanting to driving fast but I don't see breaking the Law and Highway Code as being compatible with advanced and expert driving.

I do. I don't consider those to be relevant criteria.

BTW, if I have decided not to overtake because of my respect for the speed limit (or indeed for any other reason) I will actively cooperate with any driver behind who is seeking to overtake. If a driver in front whom I want to overtake is not cooperating I will not be upset or put off, but will take it into account in deciding whether a safe overtake is available.

[MC Bodge]

Martin A is the personification of the stereotype of the 'Advanced Driver', sent to test us and I claim my £5.

Anybody who is unsure about why 'Advanced Driving' is no more popular than it is need look no further than this thread.

I poke my nose in here occasionally, but it always amazes me just how long some of the threads go on and on for.

I'll stick to enjoying my driving and riding. Some people appear not to do this.

I will overtake queues of sheep like drivers, where safe to do so.

[Medic-one]

Martin A said:

For many, Advanced driving is high speed road driving with a label to make it acceptable.

Being able to drive fast, safely, is a big part of advanced driving isn't it though.

I work on a rapid reponse car, part of my job is to drive fast, constantly overtaking traffic on either side of the road, and get to my patient as quickly as possible, in a safe manner.

Part of my course was two weeks "advanced driving" which focused on car control, acceleration, cornering, overtaking and driving above the speed limit (without the use of blue lights). This was then followed by a week of "emergency driving" which was the blue light driving.

Because or our training and experience we are then classed as "advanced drivers", and we can use that principle when driving in our own cars as well.

I feel i can drive my own cars fast, in a safe manner due to my training, but mostly due to my experience. It's good to do some extra training/courses, but even if you do a 2 day course in car control etc, do you actually get the use that often enough for it to stick ?

I'm speeding/overtaking etc every day, and have so for the last 10 years, and i feel it's more my experience then my training, that's made me an advanced driver.

So for me an advanced driver is an experienced driver, that can drive in a safely and anticipating manner, and who can make progress if safe/possible to do so.

[7db]

Medic-one said:

Being able to drive fast, safely, is a big part of advanced driving isn't it though.

Driving well (call that what you will) is harder to do faster than slower. It's harder to do in narrower roads with less vision. It's harder to do tired or distracted. It's harder to do with other roads users driving badly, aggressively or inattentively.

The better you are at then the more you'll be able to cope with continuing to drive to a high standard in imperfect conditions.

Medic-one said:

I'm speeding/overtaking etc every day, and have so for the last 10 years, and i feel it's more my experience then my training, that's made me an advanced driver.

Experience will help engrain training into a reactive / subconscious state. As golfers say, practice makes permanent. It will also help inform what is "normal" and what requires active consideration and thought: it's easier to spot the abnormal with a large "library" of experience.

[Martin A]

So it seems that the PH consensus is that advanced driving is:

1 good anticipation/observation

2 the ability to corner at above average speeds

3 making progress by selectively breaking the law or Highway Code depending on the individual's personal whim.

Not quite what I think R U Local originally suggested it might be but then perhaps I misunderstood what his take on it was.

Is there anyone that disagrees with this summing up?

[7db]

Martin A said:

Is there anyone that disagrees with this summing up?

Pretty much everyone, I suspect, but me if you need a specific one.

[Red Devil]

Martin A said:

SK425 said:

Martin A said:

That is why they may well not find it reasonable if someone overtakes, because that someone is braking the law to gain an advantage over them and possibly causing them to suffer a disadvantage in terms of journey time.

This came up in a different thread the other day. What is it with this idea of 'advantage'? We're not racing each other and so I don't see how the concept of 'advantage' can have any meaning. There is nothing competitive about overtaking. If someone wants to drive faster than someone else, it's better all round if the faster one is in front of the slower one. That way, two people get to drive at they speed they wish rather than just one, and the two drivers have a short, temporary interaction rather than a continuous, permanent one. That's all overtaking is.

The advantage is that being one car further down the road may result in getting through a set of lights or other holdup. This may then delay the queue follower while the overtaker has the perceived advantage of making progress at the expense of the overtaken.

I've really no problem with people wanting to drive fast. It's just that I don't see breaking the Law and Highway Code as being compatible with advanced and expert driving.

SK425 said:

Martin A said:

I would argue that many people don't myopically tailgate, but do so to prevent those who disregard the Highway Code and the Law from doing so.

I think I would generally give people more credit than that. I know self-appointed road police attitudes exist, but I don't believe they are as widespread as you suggest. I think most people who fail to leave sociable gaps ahead for overtaking drivers are doing it out of simple thoughtlessness and lack of imagination, rather than being deliberately confrontational.ely

It's quite possible that you're correct, but why give them credit for one sort of social activity (not being road police) and not another (being myopic)? A sociable gap means a delay in their own progress, even if only a couple of seconds. I would suggest that they are also interested in making progress just in a different way, and want to make sure that they reach the next set of lights without others doing what they might very well see as queue barging.

I'm not saying this is right, just an observation of what I see on the roads everyday

Sorry, but the bit in bold is simply false logic. The size of a sociable gap (or any other with whatever label you care to put on it) does not delay them at all if they are not intending to overtake. Their progress is dictated by nothing other than the speed of the car in front.

Edited by Red Devil on Monday 12th May 04:11

[Jon1967x]

7db said:

Martin A said:

Is there anyone that disagrees with this summing up?

Pretty much everyone, I suspect, but me if you need a specific one.

I don't agree 'all think that' either but I understand why you feel it.

What I do find disappointing with this thread is if anyone tries to make a reasonable point, rather than it discussed it tries to be crushed by others and emotive and condescending words are used to describe other roads users etc. if this behaviour is carried onto the road then it explains a lot.

I tried to make the point about risk evaluation commenting against a 30 old text - rather discuss the fact that language and communication has moved on over 30 years, discuss the risk factors etc I was forcibly told I was wrong, only to be eventually told I was right but I knew what it meant.. Go figure

There was a second line through here which implied if you are in a line of traffic you're either looking to overtake or you're a sheep following in line. At any given overtaken opportunity the car in front may decide they aren't going to, they draw the line in a different place to you, possibly their risk factors are different (a car with much less power for instance) but the blanket assertion seemed to be just overtake them as they are a lemming, use any gap they have left as a landing zone and not particularly care (that is the impression I take).

Why do some feel it impossible to try and have a constructive discussion? One of, if not the first, point of r_u_locals list was willing to learn. Some definitely act like they are only here to give the rest the benefit of their knowledge. What did someone say about Advanced drivers being a term that implied it meant 'I'm better than you'? How many of us can honestly say on this thread that we haven't fallen foul of that?

It's disappointing that the one corner of PH where the attributes of understanding what others are thinking and doing, an open mind, a rational debate etc has the lowest ability to do so. I suspect that is why so few stick around.

[p1esk]

vonhosen said:

I'm glad I'm not an advanced driver, just an ordinary driver making their way in the world.

Never mind, I expect you get around without undue difficulty.

[R_U_LOCAL]

Time out please gentlemen.



This thread is becoming exactly what I didn't want it to become.

Anyone care to bring it back on track?

[MC Bodge]

Advanced driving:

Driving in such a way that if everybody else did the same, the roads would flow more smoothly and all road users would be able to interact in a more harmonious way.

[Strangely Brown]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Time out please gentlemen.

This thread is becoming exactly what I didn't want it to become.

And you're surprised by that?

R_U_LOCAL said:

Anyone care to bring it back on track?

"Advanced Driving" is different things to different people. I think the range of views goes from the Top Gear view of the IAM as "Wheel Shufflers" , through the retired Colonel, flat cap and string backed driving gloves in a Jaaaag, to people trying to get the very best out of themselves and their vehicles, to the very high demands of emergency response driving at the other end. Then there's all the off-road stuff too.

Note for the pedantic: This is not intended to be a definitive or necessarily ordered list and there are a million shades of grey in between, and probably at the ends.

AD is a horrible term and I really don't think there will ever be a consensus as it is [almost] entirely subjective, covers many disciplines, and, to large extent, you only get out of it as much as you put in.

YMMV. Other opinions are available.

[MC Bodge]

The first thing to do to improve this forum would be to change the title to,
"Driving".

- ditch the " Advanced" word.

Good driving needs no label, syllabus, certificate or club tie

It is in everybody's interests for more people to take an interest in it. There's no need for exclusion or perceived elitism.

Granted, even the pedantic, pompous and socially inadequate need somewhere to hang out too, but they / we would still be welcome, of course.

Edited by MC Bodge on Monday 12th May 09:56