SSS for Von - it's why your wrong!
Discussion
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
7db said:
vonhosen said:
Oh it's defintely prescriptive & it's also definitely conditioning. It's very much a case of you will do it this way with the mirrors. They can show individual flair elsewhere, but the mirror work has to be a systematic response. If it's not, then trouble will come in the end.
Bear in mind this is descriptive of a teaching system that takes very ordinary drivers for a amazingly short period of time and gets them to be safe at high speed and able to deal with all situations they might come across in their work sytematically.
There's no luxury of thinking through what is right and wrong in every manouevre. Little time for slow development of the enthusiast's skills, repeated practice drives. These are people getting job training who aren't necesarily enthusiasts.
Drilling, conditioning and inflexibility (strict systematic approach is a nicer set of words) are part of this method. And rightly so.
Yes, but I'm forever observing that most of the trainers and advocates of the whole training system don't understand why. They don't appreciate that they are programming subtle subconscious mental processes.
The stages they go through are
Unconsciously Incompetent
Consciously Incompetent
Consciously Competent
Unconsciously (read Subconsciously) Competent
I've always been aware that what I am trying to achieve is a result of subconscious competence in a systematic approach.
You are filling them with a databank of experiences & drilling them in a system to deal safely with what can reasonably be expected to happen on the road (Those experiences & that reasonable expectation, being beyond their normal experience & what they could be expected to ever achieve through a normal driving life.)
The 4 stage process is a bit too 'pop-psychology' for me as a description of parameters that are in reality continuously shifting. But I agree. And I'm not surprised that you are aware of the 'psychological programming' aspects of the training process. But when asked about mirror checks it wasn't anywhere in your reply. I'n neither surprised nor critical.
But this whole things goes so much further. All drivers end up with 'subconscious programming'. But most learn it all by themselves out on the road with little in the way of guidance. It's the subconscious nature of the task that makes large number of them declare that they are good at it - that because their life depends on them being good at it, but their own subconscious responses are felt to be outside of their conscious control.
And in the advanced driver it also goes much further. In areas like visual search our programming is only really trained from the back end (i.e. as a result of earlier failures) not from the front end (i.e. as suggested by an instructor). The same goes for hazard evaluation (risk assessment) these are 'personal experience' things.
If anyone has any doubts, imagine training someone on a simulator offering a very bland visual and tactile environment. We'll train them intensively and systematically as we would a police driver. We'll let tham practice for as long as they want (or can stand!). When we've finished we'll ensure that they meet all the standards, then stick them on the road in a fully rich environment and see what happens. Instant overload - I guarantee it.
Very very few people in the UK are giving sufficient weight to the vital subconscious processes that have been developed individually on an ad hoc basis. Yet, on average, they are good enough to give us the safest roads in the world.
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
7db said:
vonhosen said:
Oh it's defintely prescriptive & it's also definitely conditioning. It's very much a case of you will do it this way with the mirrors. They can show individual flair elsewhere, but the mirror work has to be a systematic response. If it's not, then trouble will come in the end.
Bear in mind this is descriptive of a teaching system that takes very ordinary drivers for a amazingly short period of time and gets them to be safe at high speed and able to deal with all situations they might come across in their work sytematically.
There's no luxury of thinking through what is right and wrong in every manouevre. Little time for slow development of the enthusiast's skills, repeated practice drives. These are people getting job training who aren't necesarily enthusiasts.
Drilling, conditioning and inflexibility (strict systematic approach is a nicer set of words) are part of this method. And rightly so.
Yes, but I'm forever observing that most of the trainers and advocates of the whole training system don't understand why. They don't appreciate that they are programming subtle subconscious mental processes.
The stages they go through are
Unconsciously Incompetent
Consciously Incompetent
Consciously Competent
Unconsciously (read Subconsciously) Competent
I've always been aware that what I am trying to achieve is a result of subconscious competence in a systematic approach.
You are filling them with a databank of experiences & drilling them in a system to deal safely with what can reasonably be expected to happen on the road (Those experiences & that reasonable expectation, being beyond their normal experience & what they could be expected to ever achieve through a normal driving life.)
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 25th June 10:59
But that ist how you learny anything .. even a foreign language .. und I am not exactly competent as I still cannot spell
I am told my driving und my work as "toppest scientist" reflect my true capabilities though!
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
7db said:
vonhosen said:
Oh it's defintely prescriptive & it's also definitely conditioning. It's very much a case of you will do it this way with the mirrors. They can show individual flair elsewhere, but the mirror work has to be a systematic response. If it's not, then trouble will come in the end.
Bear in mind this is descriptive of a teaching system that takes very ordinary drivers for a amazingly short period of time and gets them to be safe at high speed and able to deal with all situations they might come across in their work sytematically.
There's no luxury of thinking through what is right and wrong in every manouevre. Little time for slow development of the enthusiast's skills, repeated practice drives. These are people getting job training who aren't necesarily enthusiasts.
Drilling, conditioning and inflexibility (strict systematic approach is a nicer set of words) are part of this method. And rightly so.
Yes, but I'm forever observing that most of the trainers and advocates of the whole training system don't understand why. They don't appreciate that they are programming subtle subconscious mental processes.
The stages they go through are
Unconsciously Incompetent
Consciously Incompetent
Consciously Competent
Unconsciously (read Subconsciously) Competent
I've always been aware that what I am trying to achieve is a result of subconscious competence in a systematic approach.
You are filling them with a databank of experiences & drilling them in a system to deal safely with what can reasonably be expected to happen on the road (Those experiences & that reasonable expectation, being beyond their normal experience & what they could be expected to ever achieve through a normal driving life.)
The 4 stage process is a bit too 'pop-psychology' for me as a description of parameters that are in reality continuously shifting. But I agree. And I'm not surprised that you are aware of the 'psychological programming' aspects of the training process. But when asked about mirror checks it wasn't anywhere in your reply. I'n neither surprised nor critical.
I didn't mention it because I had an idea where you'd go next with it
safespeed said:
But this whole things goes so much further. All drivers end up with 'subconscious programming'. But most learn it all by themselves out on the road with little in the way of guidance. It's the subconscious nature of the task that makes large number of them declare that they are good at it - that because their life depends on them being good at it, but their own subconscious responses are felt to be outside of their conscious control.
It works against drivers as well with the self learning. They've no quality control & largely their mistakes go unpunished (because of the slack in the system) & in the end they genuinely see nothing wrong in their poor behaviour. So much so that when circumstances are unkind & they can't avoid the collision, it's got to be someone else's fault not theirs. After all they've been doing it that way for years & they've never had a collision before.
safespeed said:
With the the advanced driver it also goes much further. In areas like visual search our programming is only really trained from the back end (i.e. as a result of earlier failures) not from the front end (i.e. as suggested by an instructor). The same goes for hazard evaluation (risk assessment) these are 'personal experience' things.
Some people don't learn from earlier failures, they need to be shown why they failed. As I said they often don't believe the failure is theirs. In training you can provide a lot of the experiences for them, often beyond what they would normally encounter, by knowing where you can provide them with the experiences they need in relative safety. I'm afraid that I doubt much self reflection of the driving takes place, when a driver finishes the daily commute to or from work.
safespeed said:
If anyone has any doubts, imagine training someone on a simulator offering a very bland visual and tactile environment. We'll train them intensively and systematically as we would a police driver. We'll let tham practice for as long as they want (or can stand!). When we've finished we'll ensure that they meet all the standards, then stick them on the road in a fully rich environment and see what happens. Instant overload - I guarantee it.
I've yet to see a simulator that can offer anywhere near the kind of sustained interaction that you can get on road. That's why training is done in the working environment, not in a simulator.
safespeed said:
Very very few people in the UK are giving sufficient weight to the vital subconscious processes that have been developed individually on an ad hoc basis. Yet, on average, they are good enough to give us the safest roads in the world.
I disagree.
It's a complex blend, not ad hoc aquired subconscious processes, that lead to us having the safest roads.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 25th June 11:46
But being flippant in above post apart Liebchen... 
COAST if taught systematically become part of the fluently subconcious psyche. Ist like learning to use a software package or a new job for first time. Mistakes are made.. und then the fluency of frequent use kick in..und it become the norm.. so much so that you are very much in tune with work colleagues .. you read their intentions und plans with immediacy und with no need to ask... but you still evaluate und assess performance und attend courses to improve skills und learn more
Driving - to me - ist the same. I did all the courses und practised them - und say that only a complacent fool think he know everything as each drive.. each time I get into car .. ist a new experience und each thing I do ist unique as the situation und cars to bicycles on road will not be the same ones. Each one of these will perceive a hazard slightly differently to me too ..und you have to be aware of this as well - for most ist subconsciously aware und ist when they note an error that they either plan within 0.5 seconds und make adjusts to position or react - sometimes making an error themselves.
I think - speaking for self - because I have been using COAST principles from the outset.. the systematic use ist subconscious at one level und move very quickly to a very feline alert level when observation alert to potential hazard ahead .. und if kid ist skipping on pavement ahead of Mama for example.. you take sharp Mama Cat look at the body language of this child...will she stop at the kerb for example? Ist she skipping too fast to stop
Und of course .. I evaluate the drive afterwards.
COAST if taught systematically become part of the fluently subconcious psyche. Ist like learning to use a software package or a new job for first time. Mistakes are made.. und then the fluency of frequent use kick in..und it become the norm.. so much so that you are very much in tune with work colleagues .. you read their intentions und plans with immediacy und with no need to ask... but you still evaluate und assess performance und attend courses to improve skills und learn more
Driving - to me - ist the same. I did all the courses und practised them - und say that only a complacent fool think he know everything as each drive.. each time I get into car .. ist a new experience und each thing I do ist unique as the situation und cars to bicycles
on road will not be the same ones. Each one of these will perceive a hazard slightly differently to me too ..und you have to be aware of this as well - for most ist subconsciously aware und ist when they note an error that they either plan within 0.5 seconds und make adjusts to position or react - sometimes making an error themselves. I think - speaking for self - because I have been using COAST principles from the outset.. the systematic use ist subconscious at one level und move very quickly to a very feline alert level when observation alert to potential hazard ahead .. und if kid ist skipping on pavement ahead of Mama for example.. you take sharp Mama Cat look at the body language of this child...will she stop at the kerb for example? Ist she skipping too fast to stop
Und of course .. I evaluate the drive afterwards.
7db said:
safespeed said:
The 4 stage process is a bit too 'pop-psychology'....And I'm not surprised that you are aware of the 'psychological programming' aspects of the training process...
Eh - 4-stage process too pop-psychology and psychological programming isn't?!
Hell yes. I don't know why you're laughing. Perhaps you don't understand? Would you like me to explain?
safespeed said:
7db said:
safespeed said:
The 4 stage process is a bit too 'pop-psychology'....And I'm not surprised that you are aware of the 'psychological programming' aspects of the training process...
Eh - 4-stage process too pop-psychology and psychological programming isn't?!
Hell yes. I don't know why you're laughing. Perhaps you don't understand? Would you like me to explain?
AIUI, you're saying that one of the training techniques is overload so that stuff will either break or in some other way need to be dredged up from sub-conscious to conscious level to be worked on. So that the process is embedded. A bit like learning one's Frech grammar on a rollercoaster.
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
But this whole things goes so much further. All drivers end up with 'subconscious programming'. But most learn it all by themselves out on the road with little in the way of guidance. It's the subconscious nature of the task that makes large number of them declare that they are good at it - that because their life depends on them being good at it, but their own subconscious responses are felt to be outside of their conscious control.
It works against drivers as well with the self learning.
Ist why we employ a Driving School to teach our kittens
Und then whole family including the family BiB get involved in the practice sessions und then they have a block of more formal lessons. Ist an usual family - we are all IAM und only reason why we do not qualify for mention in that Guinness Book of Records ist because ist not meeting criteria of being achieved at same time. But then we would have to be a record breaking litter vonhosen said:
They've no quality control & largely their mistakes go unpunished (because of the slack in the system) & in the end they genuinely see nothing wrong in their poor behaviour.
Ist why automation fail. They cannot learn unless someone give lecture und constructive advice. Durham und North Yorks do this.. it appear to work
per their stat returns Und with the Speed Course.. they do it in area where nicked .. so ist not that easy to really establish how far this help Lancs und Staffs for example - as they still have worrying stats despite forests of cams und the course. But then - they have fewer BiB on patrol ....
vonhosen said:
So much so that when circumstances are unkind & they can't avoid the collision, it's got to be someone else's fault not theirs. After all they've been doing it that way for years & they've never had a collision before.
Usually both parties can be at some blame - unless a rear end shunt. But then there ist no feedback as to what went wrong.. und perhaps instead of loading the insurance premium - und then some deciding not to insure as beyond budget - perhaps the companies could suggest no claims would be unaffected provided person takes und gives proof of a corrective training session und this could even be achieved by booking a lesson with an ADI to correct any bad habits such as caressing gear stick 100% of drive und using Handy with the other hand und steering with knees .. as seen
the other week ... 
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
With the the advanced driver it also goes much further. In areas like visual search our programming is only really trained from the back end (i.e. as a result of earlier failures) not from the front end (i.e. as suggested by an instructor). The same goes for hazard evaluation (risk assessment) these are 'personal experience' things.
Some people don't learn from earlier failures, they need to be shown why they failed. As I said they often don't believe the failure is theirs. In training you can provide a lot of the experiences for them, often beyond what they would normally encounter, by knowing where you can provide them with the experiences they need in relative safety. I'm afraid that I doubt much self reflection of the driving takes place, when a driver finishes the daily commute to or from work.
Cameras do not teach though. They only build anger und resentment which backlashes against BiB.
I still think we should be going for periodic graded assessments ... with the grading providing positive incentives to improve by way of cost offeste with insurance und running cost discounts.
People these days want something material in return....
Pride in oneself for doing something well ist not enough .. nicht? vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
If anyone has any doubts, imagine training someone on a simulator offering a very bland visual and tactile environment. We'll train them intensively and systematically as we would a police driver. We'll let tham practice for as long as they want (or can stand!). When we've finished we'll ensure that they meet all the standards, then stick them on the road in a fully rich environment and see what happens. Instant overload - I guarantee it.
I've yet to see a simulator that can offer anywhere near the kind of sustained interaction that you can get on road. That's why training is done in the working environment, not in a simulator.
So why did Dick want that German one then? (BBC prog which focussed on North Wales training about 2 years ago.... they were not very good.. they kept looking into the camera und not at road as they drove
) Besides .. what if something go wrong whilst you are training in "working environment" I know my cousin BiB played the "bad guy" in one training session ..
apparently they never caught him... on more than one occasion So he says.. But what if you meet old Daisy tootling along und she panics as she ist an octogenarian driver but still safe or the girl who just passed her test the other day?
They don't know you are "training" und may panic.
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
Very very few people in the UK are giving sufficient weight to the vital subconscious processes that have been developed individually on an ad hoc basis. Yet, on average, they are good enough to give us the safest roads in the world.
I disagree.
It's a complex blend, not ad hoc aquired subconscious processes, that lead to us having the safest roads.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 25th June 11:46
But .. we are still safer than many places .. but we are becoming less safe for number of reasons
1. We urbanise too much. We create hazards und danger by poorest planning und construction.
2. We do not train people well enough.. to basic level und offer no encouragement to improve
3. We deplete police force, invest in plastic policemen instead.. und form road safety policy based on automation wich fail to give corrective instruction.
4. We have more cyclists in KSI stats than previously. This ist because we have more people taking to bicycles und not undertaking any training .. und if they bothered to contact CTC - they would find a truck load of trainers out there in many areas or even a glance at local council website give detail of FREE PROVIDED BY COUNCIL BY COUNCIL TAX PAYERS courses und as a council tax payer - I'd get my money's worth by going for this freeby
(Even though I do not need it .. I ride well enough but I think I would assess the quality und offer constructive criticism Edited by WildCat on Sunday 25th June 12:23
7db said:
safespeed said:
7db said:
safespeed said:
The 4 stage process is a bit too 'pop-psychology'....And I'm not surprised that you are aware of the 'psychological programming' aspects of the training process...
Eh - 4-stage process too pop-psychology and psychological programming isn't?!
Hell yes. I don't know why you're laughing. Perhaps you don't understand? Would you like me to explain?
AIUI, you're saying that one of the training techniques is overload so that stuff will either break or in some other way need to be dredged up from sub-conscious to conscious level to be worked on. So that the process is embedded. A bit like learning one's Frech grammar on a rollercoaster.
I don't think that's quite correct, or perhaps it just gives an exaggerated impression of the truth.
No decent trainer will deliberately 'overload' a traineee, however they will work close to the threshold of overload.
I was in close agreement with your post that I'm replying to until:
I disagree.
It's a complex blend, not ad hoc aquired subconscious processes, that lead to us having the safest roads.
I absolutely defy you to characterise an ordinary driver's crash avoidance skill (such as it is; and we're talking about 'normal driving') without basing it on subconscious visual search and risk assessment processes.
Or alternatively I defy you to show how visual search or risk assessment skills were 'given' or 'received' in a structured way.
These factors are the only possible foundation of baseline practical road safety.
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
Very very few people in the UK are giving sufficient weight to the vital subconscious processes that have been developed individually on an ad hoc basis. Yet, on average, they are good enough to give us the safest roads in the world.
I disagree.
It's a complex blend, not ad hoc aquired subconscious processes, that lead to us having the safest roads.
I absolutely defy you to characterise an ordinary driver's crash avoidance skill (such as it is; and we're talking about 'normal driving') without basing it on subconscious visual search and risk assessment processes.
Or alternatively I defy you to show how visual search or risk assessment skills were 'given' or 'received' in a structured way.
These factors are the only possible foundation of baseline practical road safety.
safespeed said:
These factors are the only possible foundation of baseline practical road safety.
Perhaps our roads are safer without our drivers being safer. Maybe we do more motorway miles, or our obsession with roundabouts is safer than other coutries methods of working junctions.
7db said:
safespeed said:
These factors are the only possible foundation of baseline practical road safety.
Perhaps our roads are safer without our drivers being safer. Maybe we do more motorway miles, or our obsession with roundabouts is safer than other coutries methods of working junctions.
But those sorts of factors are just gloss (comparatively).
Do a thought experiment - take them away and what do you get? Slight increases in crashes. Now take away one of the basic driver behaviours I described - now what do you get?
If they were individually developed on an ad hoc basis as you say, there would be nothing to make us different from anyone else at all. It's the influences that make us the same (at least to our base standard) as a nation, these being different to other nations influences, that determines our relative safety performance to theirs.
vonhosen said:
If they were individually developed on an ad hoc basis as you say, there would be nothing to make us different from anyone else at all. It's the influences that make us the same (at least to our base standard) as a nation, these being different to other nations influences, that determines our relative safety performance to theirs.
Forgive me if I'm not understanding you, but that looks like extremely dodgy or limited logic to me.
Our skills develop individually, but are widely influenced by culture. Isn't it obvious? <slightly puzzled>
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff