The future of Advanced Driving.
Discussion
25NAD90TUL said:
vonhosen said:
Or alternatively people could do what the IAM want to see for the test & then go back to an alternative they prefer (that they don't consider to be a bad habit in any way shape or form).
Had to laugh VH, I could have predicted this response from you more or less word for word!However, yes I accept there is truth in your comment! Take out and use the bits you feel are of value and those areas that are of little value, bin. Yep makes sense and no argument from me.
Best wishes Von!
ETA: Actually Von, apart from the obvious (PP, separation) what, if any, of the other parts of the training would you abandon? Purely out of curiosity. Are there any other areas you consider unnecessary to continue using post-test?
I'm not against pull/push or separation etc, if that's what they want to do that's fine, but it should be because that's the way they want to do it & it gets them the results they are looking for. I'm more concerned with good repeatable outcomes than methods chosen.
25NAD90TUL said:
Agreed. Actually WM, apart from the obvious (PP, separation) what, if any, of the other parts of the training would you abandon? Purely out of curiosity. Are there any other areas you consider unnecessary to continue using post-test?
Best wishes.
What aspects would you consider to be necessary?Best wishes.
vonhosen said:
<More candidate driven>
How does that work with a candidate that perhaps, doesn't know that much? I can understand that in Police training circles with candidates that are already pretty knowledgeable and perhaps already have some good techniques down, but what about in ordinary civilian further training, where perhaps little is known about good technique?25NAD90TUL said:
Tartan Pixie said:
Personally I can't wait for the the first EEG controlled electric car, it'll be proper smiles per miles and arguments over BGOL will be as relevant as horse riders arguing over the difference between having a snaffle or pellum bit on their bridle.
The military already have un-manned ATVs...I personally prefer the Egbert snaffle...
Good post that was, I read it again and it was good, personally I'd rather stay with 1950s technology, I feel as though the latest driver aids are a 'dumbing down' move, parking sensors/ABS/airbags etc I believe are no substitute for driver skill.
'Tomorrows world' in the 70s predicted we would be travelling by stepping on to conveyor belts by the year 2000, it hasn't happened but the driverless car, or perhaps it will be an Omnibus or Tram type thing is just around the corner imo, wonder what the government will do for money then? No car tax, no speeding fines etc, they'll have to think of other stealth taxes then eh?
Mind you, currently they spend some of all those billions gained from Road tax, not on road maintenance and stuff, it's all spent on cameras to nick you and speed bumps to slow you down/wreck your car, the rest of it god knows what they spend it on. Where I live you can't drive 50 yards without a speed bump, one in particular is like driving up a curb, even in a 4x4 it seems very excessive and it's only 10 yards from a t-junction, surely a Stop sign would have been money better spent. The mind boggles, mind you it's a well known fact that our roads department is staffed by non-drivers, not a joke that is a fact!
Best wishes. Thanks for your input.
waremark said:
What aspects would you consider to be necessary?
Forward obs, sign-awareness, safe distances, the general attitude to safety etc, vehicle sympathy, smoothness (does this really matter much, we're not always driving Grandma or the Queen)...I'd perhaps drop rev-matching, separation, PP and commentary...Although I am a big fan of these things myself, those are the things perhaps less necessary imo, to be fair to me I wouldn't change anything, but then I'm not the knowledgeable one here with the ideas for change.
So yeah, I'd probably drop the 'flair' aspects only, but then would I be sacrificing the 'sparkle'?
I really don't know, that's why I'm asking I guess.
25NAD90TUL said:
vonhosen said:
<More candidate driven>
How does that work with a candidate that perhaps, doesn't know that much? I can understand that in Police training circles with candidates that are already pretty knowledgeable and perhaps already have some good techniques down, but what about in ordinary civilian further training, where perhaps little is known about good technique?2) You provide a safe supportive learning environment. Together you work on what's important 'for them' to improve on (where they come into conflict with others or struggle with things). You don't give answers, you ask questions that encourage them to search for the options & answers to overcome their problems. They are their problems, their options, their solutions, their success or failure. They practice & you help them make sense of that experience through their thoughts/feelings. They own it all. They are learning to be responsible for it all & they learn to work through their own problems, rather than 'we never covered that scenario at school'.
mph1977 said:
What a good post shame it's negated by reference to 'road tax' thus removing any credibility you had.
Oh sorry about that.What is the issue? I said 'Road-Tax' instead of Road fund duty? Or my view generally on the subject? Perhaps the government DO spend that money on filling pot-holes etc, and they spend other money on speed cams and humps?
I can't have lost much credibility, I had very little to begin with!
Best wishes.
25NAD90TUL said:
mph1977 said:
What a good post shame it's negated by reference to 'road tax' thus removing any credibility you had.
Oh sorry about that.What is the issue? I said 'Road-Tax' instead of Road fund duty? Or my view generally on the subject? Perhaps the government DO spend that money on filling pot-holes etc, and they spend other money on speed cams and humps?
I can't have lost much credibility, I had very little to begin with!
Best wishes.
vonhosen said:
1) You over estimate Police circles.
2) You provide a safe supportive learning environment. Together you work on what's important 'for them' to improve on (where they come into conflict with others or struggle with things). You don't give answers, you ask questions that encourage them to search for the options & answers to overcome their problems. They are their problems, their options, their solutions, their success or failure. They practice & you help them make sense of that experience through their thoughts/feelings. They own it all. They are learning to be responsible for it all & they learn to work through their own problems, rather than 'we never covered that scenario at school'.
I know Von, what you are saying, but like I've said before to me that looks like suggesting stuff and then convincing the candidate that it was their own idea. Again if they come up with little in the way of options and answers what are you going to do? Just leave it at that? Or suggest things? 2) You provide a safe supportive learning environment. Together you work on what's important 'for them' to improve on (where they come into conflict with others or struggle with things). You don't give answers, you ask questions that encourage them to search for the options & answers to overcome their problems. They are their problems, their options, their solutions, their success or failure. They practice & you help them make sense of that experience through their thoughts/feelings. They own it all. They are learning to be responsible for it all & they learn to work through their own problems, rather than 'we never covered that scenario at school'.
To me, in my plebeian way, coaching is just another word for instruction, a more 'softly-softly' approach maybe, but still very similar imo.
Not for the first time have you said I overestimate the bobbies, I accept that there may be little in the way of natural talent, but after coming through all this 'coaching' surely they should be up to scratch. A lot of people consider our Police driver training as the best in the world, clearly not in your eyes, I can't argue though, not having experienced any Police training myself.
Instruction: 'You must do this...'
Coaching: 'What if we considered doing this...'
I'm not arguing btw, I know your views and respect them, just wonder what you do with a candidate that isn't forthcoming with their own suggestions, or the suggestions given are not very sound? What if the candidate suggested something you consider unsound, and argued the point that they haven't crashed using it? Would you allow this and then fail them? Or instruct/coach them in a better technique? To me I see very little difference in the two concepts, plebian I know, no pressure to respond.
mph1977 said:
vehicle excise duty has not been hypotheticated since the 1930s.
Is that all it was? VED then, so do you agree with, or take issue with my view on VED and the way that money is spent?I see, VED money isn't hypothecated since the 30s meaning it hasn't been used to pay for road services since the 30s. Yes that was what I was saying.
25NAD90TUL said:
vonhosen said:
1) You over estimate Police circles.
2) You provide a safe supportive learning environment. Together you work on what's important 'for them' to improve on (where they come into conflict with others or struggle with things). You don't give answers, you ask questions that encourage them to search for the options & answers to overcome their problems. They are their problems, their options, their solutions, their success or failure. They practice & you help them make sense of that experience through their thoughts/feelings. They own it all. They are learning to be responsible for it all & they learn to work through their own problems, rather than 'we never covered that scenario at school'.
I know Von, what you are saying, but like I've said before to me that looks like suggesting stuff and then convincing the candidate that it was their own idea. Again if they come up with little in the way of options and answers what are you going to do? Just leave it at that? Or suggest things? 2) You provide a safe supportive learning environment. Together you work on what's important 'for them' to improve on (where they come into conflict with others or struggle with things). You don't give answers, you ask questions that encourage them to search for the options & answers to overcome their problems. They are their problems, their options, their solutions, their success or failure. They practice & you help them make sense of that experience through their thoughts/feelings. They own it all. They are learning to be responsible for it all & they learn to work through their own problems, rather than 'we never covered that scenario at school'.
To me, in my plebeian way, coaching is just another word for instruction, a more 'softly-softly' approach maybe, but still very similar imo.
Not for the first time have you said I overestimate the bobbies, I accept that there may be little in the way of natural talent, but after coming through all this 'coaching' surely they should be up to scratch. A lot of people consider our Police driver training as the best in the world, clearly not in your eyes, I can't argue though, not having experienced any Police training myself.
Instruction: 'You must do this...'
Coaching: 'What if we considered doing this...'
I'm not arguing btw, I know your views and respect them, just wonder what you do with a candidate that isn't forthcoming with their own suggestions, or the suggestions given are not very sound? What if the candidate suggested something you consider unsound, and argued the point that they haven't crashed using it? Would you allow this and then fail them? Or instruct/coach them in a better technique? To me I see very little difference in the two concepts, plebian I know, no pressure to respond.
There are a lot of techniques to draw from others through questioning & the problem with instruction is that it tends not to recognise what knowledge people already do have. Instruction tells what the instructor thinks instead of asking what the candidate thinks. All those candidates will have spent at least a decade watching a variety of other people drive before they even started driving themselves. They'll have seen a variety of ways & a variety of outcomes, but don't limit them to them. Be creative & there is knowledge in their subconscious that they aren't aware of, but it can be drawn from them. Instruction & coaching are completely different philosophies. You don't ask questions in coaching to get an answer you are looking for, you ask them to find out what the candidate thinks/feels & aid the candidate gain insight.
If you think they are going down the wrong path you let them (safely) go there. They'll either find it doesn't work & come back to try another or it'll work for them & you would have been wrong. What they gain from the method of learning is every bit as important as any physical skill the learn through the practice. Most collisions don't happen because of a lack of skill, they happen because of poor choices & irresponsible behaviour. The method constantly re-enforces you are responsible for your choices & the outcomes of them. It addresses more than your driving, it addresses who you want to be as a person, because the way you drive is a visible representation of who you are (your values/beliefs etc).
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 2nd February 23:02
vonhosen said:
They are going to be driving on their own, having to make decisions on their own & be responsible for those decisions/outcomes. They may as well start learning to do that now, because you won't be there to tell them what to do in the future.
There are a lot of techniques to draw from others through questioning & the problem with instruction is that it tends not to recognise what knowledge people already do have. Instruction tells what the instructor thinks instead of asking what the candidate thinks. All those candidates will have spent at least a decade watching a variety of other people drive before they even started driving themselves. They'll have seen a variety of ways & a variety of outcomes, but don't limit them to them. Be creative & there is knowledge in their subconscious that they aren't aware of, but it can be drawn from them. Instruction & coaching are completely different philosophies. You don't ask questions in coaching to get an answer you are looking for, you ask them to find out what the candidate thinks/feels & aid the candidate gain insight.
I can't respond to that, it still looks exactly as I put it in my post, instruction via nurturing, the outcome still has to be that the candidate does/says/demonstrates what the coach needs to see/hear. It just looks to me like a more PC way of saying instructing, or as you put it 'aiding the candidate to gain insight'. I can't get away from this view. There are a lot of techniques to draw from others through questioning & the problem with instruction is that it tends not to recognise what knowledge people already do have. Instruction tells what the instructor thinks instead of asking what the candidate thinks. All those candidates will have spent at least a decade watching a variety of other people drive before they even started driving themselves. They'll have seen a variety of ways & a variety of outcomes, but don't limit them to them. Be creative & there is knowledge in their subconscious that they aren't aware of, but it can be drawn from them. Instruction & coaching are completely different philosophies. You don't ask questions in coaching to get an answer you are looking for, you ask them to find out what the candidate thinks/feels & aid the candidate gain insight.
The coaching side of it seems fine and I have no issue with it whatsoever but it's just semantics to me, a different approach to the same thing. The candidate still has to arrive at the same point, where the coach is happy with what is being demonstrated.
If anything, in my case, I prefer the concept of coaching, this as I said before is the reason I gave up on observing, I would have preferred an approach similar to your own. I still consider coaching as a softly-softly method of instruction. Either way you are still going to be altering anything which iyo is unsound. Again when a candidate comes up with an idea/technique which is sound great, but when it isn't sound the coach is going to have to change that one way or another. It's still a teacher/pupil relationship.
I'm still more interested in the techniques you are going to coach, rather than the semantics of the wording used to describe the method of teaching.
vonhosen said:
If you think they are going down the wrong path you let them (safely) go there. They'll either find it doesn't work & come back to try another or it'll work for them & you would have been wrong.
How does that sit with a driving test examiner?IME a lot of people drive in a way that an AD will consider unsound, their defensive argument is often the fact that they haven't crashed yet using their method, which if I'm correct is considered by most as a moot point, surely to examine a drive in a test situation it needs a certain amount of standardisation and is assessed against a criteria...
Anyway no point me posting on this, I'm not a teacher or driving instructor, whatever method of training you prefer is fine with me, I'm more interested to know what you would consider unsound or unacceptable that's all, I have no grounds or need to take issue with anything you've said. I'd be happy to be trained in that way, as long as the end result is acceptable I care not what method is used. I'd like you to post something about actual driving rather than the method of instruction. Not taking issue on your methods, just the wording I struggle with.
Best wishes.
Edited by 25NAD90TUL on Sunday 2nd February 23:29
25NAD90TUL said:
vonhosen said:
They are going to be driving on their own, having to make decisions on their own & be responsible for those decisions/outcomes. They may as well start learning to do that now, because you won't be there to tell them what to do in the future.
There are a lot of techniques to draw from others through questioning & the problem with instruction is that it tends not to recognise what knowledge people already do have. Instruction tells what the instructor thinks instead of asking what the candidate thinks. All those candidates will have spent at least a decade watching a variety of other people drive before they even started driving themselves. They'll have seen a variety of ways & a variety of outcomes, but don't limit them to them. Be creative & there is knowledge in their subconscious that they aren't aware of, but it can be drawn from them. Instruction & coaching are completely different philosophies. You don't ask questions in coaching to get an answer you are looking for, you ask them to find out what the candidate thinks/feels & aid the candidate gain insight.
I can't respond to that, it still looks exactly as I put it in my post, instruction via nurturing, the outcome still has to be that the candidate does/says/demonstrates what the coach needs to see/hear. It just looks to me like a more PC way of saying instructing, or as you put it 'aiding the candidate to gain insight'. I can't get away from this view. There are a lot of techniques to draw from others through questioning & the problem with instruction is that it tends not to recognise what knowledge people already do have. Instruction tells what the instructor thinks instead of asking what the candidate thinks. All those candidates will have spent at least a decade watching a variety of other people drive before they even started driving themselves. They'll have seen a variety of ways & a variety of outcomes, but don't limit them to them. Be creative & there is knowledge in their subconscious that they aren't aware of, but it can be drawn from them. Instruction & coaching are completely different philosophies. You don't ask questions in coaching to get an answer you are looking for, you ask them to find out what the candidate thinks/feels & aid the candidate gain insight.
The coaching side of it seems fine and I have no issue with it whatsoever but it's just semantics to me, a different approach to the same thing. The candidate still has to arrive at the same point, where the coach is happy with what is being demonstrated.
If anything, in my case, I prefer the concept of coaching, this as I said before is the reason I gave up on observing, I would have preferred an approach similar to your own. I still consider coaching as a softly-softly method of instruction. Either way you are still going to be altering anything which iyo is unsound. Again when a candidate comes up with an idea/technique which is sound great, but when it isn't sound the coach is going to have to change that one way or another. It's still a teacher/pupil relationship.
I'm still more interested in the techniques you are going to coach, rather than the semantics of the wording used to describe the method of teaching.
First they'll identify their problem, they'll then be encouraged to talk about what happens & why it's a problem. They'll talk about what they'd like it to be like instead. You'll ask them about what they think/feel when they are having difficulties, who doesn't suffer from their problem & what they do differently etc. Through a variety of techniques you'll draw up a list of options to try & they'll choose which they'd like to try first. As I say there is no directing them towards 'a way' there, it's learning to work through things yourself & take responsibility for the process.
vonhosen said:
In instruction you are telling them how they are to do it (the technique), in coaching you aren't. In instruction you are steering them towards 'the way', in coaching you aren't. In coaching your questions are to help them find a way that works for them.
First they'll identify their problem, they'll then be encouraged to talk about what happens & why it's a problem. They'll talk about what they'd like it to be like instead. You'll ask them about what they think/feel when they are having difficulties, who doesn't suffer from their problem & what they do differently etc. Through a variety of techniques you'll draw up a list of options to try & they'll choose which they'd like to try first. As I say there is no directing them towards 'a way' there, it's learning to work through things yourself & take responsibility for the process.
Yes I have a grip of the concept and have no issue with it. I edited that previous post while you were posting this.First they'll identify their problem, they'll then be encouraged to talk about what happens & why it's a problem. They'll talk about what they'd like it to be like instead. You'll ask them about what they think/feel when they are having difficulties, who doesn't suffer from their problem & what they do differently etc. Through a variety of techniques you'll draw up a list of options to try & they'll choose which they'd like to try first. As I say there is no directing them towards 'a way' there, it's learning to work through things yourself & take responsibility for the process.
The only issue I see with this is that it's going to take more time, I'm fine with it, I look at it the same way as Music lessons or Driving lessons, when being paid for this service are you going to be quick to reach the end or slow? Which makes better business sense? My eldest son had an ADI that adopted this approach, cost him hundreds and still couldn't drive, he then changed to a domineering ex-army ADI who had him test ready very quickly, didn't work for him, he needed instructing firmly.
25NAD90TUL said:
vonhosen said:
In instruction you are telling them how they are to do it (the technique), in coaching you aren't. In instruction you are steering them towards 'the way', in coaching you aren't. In coaching your questions are to help them find a way that works for them.
First they'll identify their problem, they'll then be encouraged to talk about what happens & why it's a problem. They'll talk about what they'd like it to be like instead. You'll ask them about what they think/feel when they are having difficulties, who doesn't suffer from their problem & what they do differently etc. Through a variety of techniques you'll draw up a list of options to try & they'll choose which they'd like to try first. As I say there is no directing them towards 'a way' there, it's learning to work through things yourself & take responsibility for the process.
Yes I have a grip of the concept and have no issue with it. I edited that previous post while you were posting this.First they'll identify their problem, they'll then be encouraged to talk about what happens & why it's a problem. They'll talk about what they'd like it to be like instead. You'll ask them about what they think/feel when they are having difficulties, who doesn't suffer from their problem & what they do differently etc. Through a variety of techniques you'll draw up a list of options to try & they'll choose which they'd like to try first. As I say there is no directing them towards 'a way' there, it's learning to work through things yourself & take responsibility for the process.
The only issue I see with this is that it's going to take more time, I'm fine with it, I look at it the same way as Music lessons or Driving lessons, when being paid for this service are you going to be quick to reach the end or slow? Which makes better business sense? My eldest son had an ADI that adopted this approach, cost him hundreds and still couldn't drive, he then changed to a domineering ex-army ADI who had him test ready very quickly, didn't work for him, he needed instructing firmly.
vonhosen said:
Funnily enough the army did an experiment with their driver training. They trained some of their students using coaching & some with traditional instruction & looked at the results. Those coached were ready for test quicker & had a higher pass rate. With regard to your son you are looking at it in a single example (you may for instance have just had a poor coach), the wider the sample, the better.
Agreed, in that instance that particular ADI is well known for taking a very long time to get learners test ready, in fact she has ceased trading, it wasn't just my son, most of her learners had the same problem, not only that but she used to take two fag breaks during a lesson and always arrived back well before the hour was over, she was just a crap ADI. The other guy he was a quite formidable ex RSM type who got the job done very quickly. Interesting what you say about MoD training, I wonder though if a squaddy or a bobby is going to be better equipped than a civvy though with regard to responding to the coaching. I wasn't suggesting that my small sample size was anything to use as an argument against your method, that ADI was flawed in many ways.Does MoD driver training differ much from the bobbies, or is it along pretty similar lines, obviously apart from B&T training and exemptions? How much similarity is there between them and IAM training? In terms of techniques I mean?
I often wonder when in these forums how much there can be to this driving malarkey, after all it's something that millions of people do to one standard or another on a daily basis and I have struggled to understand what it is we find to discuss at these lengths. As in all walks of life I feel as though I don't know enough, yet I find very little insight when I read our threads, even this one has come up with very little in the way of alternative approaches to the actual drive as yet.
25NAD90TUL said:
vonhosen said:
Funnily enough the army did an experiment with their driver training. They trained some of their students using coaching & some with traditional instruction & looked at the results. Those coached were ready for test quicker & had a higher pass rate. With regard to your son you are looking at it in a single example (you may for instance have just had a poor coach), the wider the sample, the better.
Agreed, in that instance that particular ADI is well known for taking a very long time to get learners test ready, in fact she has ceased trading, it wasn't just my son, most of her learners had the same problem, not only that but she used to take two fag breaks during a lesson and always arrived back well before the hour was over, she was just a crap ADI. The other guy he was a quite formidable ex RSM type who got the job done very quickly. Interesting what you say about MoD training, I wonder though if a squaddy or a bobby is going to be better equipped than a civvy though with regard to responding to the coaching. I wasn't suggesting that my small sample size was anything to use as an argument against your method, that ADI was flawed in many ways.Does MoD driver training differ much from the bobbies, or is it along pretty similar lines, obviously apart from B&T training and exemptions? How much similarity is there between them and IAM training? In terms of techniques I mean?
I often wonder when in these forums how much there can be to this driving malarkey, after all it's something that millions of people do to one standard or another on a daily basis and I have struggled to understand what it is we find to discuss at these lengths. As in all walks of life I feel as though I don't know enough, yet I find very little insight when I read our threads, even this one has come up with very little in the way of alternative approaches to the actual drive as yet.
vonhosen said:
The army training in question was for DSA tests, not emergency response etc.
Oh I see.Perhaps you are wondering, as may others, what happened to my 'know it all' attitude in these forums, so I'll explain.
I lost the attitude because I am suffering from a growing dissatisfaction with my own driving and knowledge of driving. I spend a lot of time reading these forums and very little time posting because the more I read, the more questions I can't answer, both about technique and laws. I feel as though I'm missing out on a lot of knowledge hence the never-ending questions.
At one time I considered myself as 'Advanced', this situation has changed, when I can't answer questions such as Waremarks' 'what do I consider unnecessary' and get completely lost in most threads to the point where I daren't post at all, I get to more and more thinking that I know very little, also when I see that things such as the system are considered old-hat and I'm not savvy with the current thinking that too adds doubt in my mind.
Hence this thread and my ceaseless probing for answers, it's even started to irritate me.
I am trying to get as much insight as possible, and do understand that this may be a cause of irritation...
I feel as though I'm not developing any longer, a problem for me in every aspect of my life not just driving, this has always been a problem and a frustration.
Best wishes VH, sorry if I come over as argumentative, it is frustration on my part.
25NAD90TUL said:
Absolutely. It's very clear that this is certainly the case with a great many. Not criticising this attitude, people use the parts they feel are useful and bin the parts they don't consider useful, the obvious ones being PP and separation. Just out of curiosity are there any other bits you personally would leave out or consider unnecessary, or just those two aspects?
I wouldn't have a list of things like that. If there was something I would leave out or consider unnecessary, I think it would be part of the definition of "doing it wrong". I don't think the way you operate the controls (e.g. PP or separation) or the order in which you do things (e.g. which order you do the PSG parts of IPSGA, or whether you finish them all before you get to the hazard) should be the measure of whether you're doing it right or wrong.25NAD90TUL said:
vonhosen said:
1) You over estimate Police circles.
2) You provide a safe supportive learning environment. Together you work on what's important 'for them' to improve on (where they come into conflict with others or struggle with things). You don't give answers, you ask questions that encourage them to search for the options & answers to overcome their problems. They are their problems, their options, their solutions, their success or failure. They practice & you help them make sense of that experience through their thoughts/feelings. They own it all. They are learning to be responsible for it all & they learn to work through their own problems, rather than 'we never covered that scenario at school'.
I know Von, what you are saying, but like I've said before to me that looks like suggesting stuff and then convincing the candidate that it was their own idea. Again if they come up with little in the way of options and answers what are you going to do? Just leave it at that? Or suggest things? 2) You provide a safe supportive learning environment. Together you work on what's important 'for them' to improve on (where they come into conflict with others or struggle with things). You don't give answers, you ask questions that encourage them to search for the options & answers to overcome their problems. They are their problems, their options, their solutions, their success or failure. They practice & you help them make sense of that experience through their thoughts/feelings. They own it all. They are learning to be responsible for it all & they learn to work through their own problems, rather than 'we never covered that scenario at school'.
To me, in my plebeian way, coaching is just another word for instruction, a more 'softly-softly' approach maybe, but still very similar imo.
Not for the first time have you said I overestimate the bobbies, I accept that there may be little in the way of natural talent, but after coming through all this 'coaching' surely they should be up to scratch. A lot of people consider our Police driver training as the best in the world, clearly not in your eyes, I can't argue though, not having experienced any Police training myself.
Instruction: 'You must do this...'
Coaching: 'What if we considered doing this...'
I'm not arguing btw, I know your views and respect them, just wonder what you do with a candidate that isn't forthcoming with their own suggestions, or the suggestions given are not very sound? What if the candidate suggested something you consider unsound, and argued the point that they haven't crashed using it? Would you allow this and then fail them? Or instruct/coach them in a better technique? To me I see very little difference in the two concepts, plebian I know, no pressure to respond.
The ultimate aim, as I understand it, is that drivers should become much more self-sufficient and reliable in their assessments and judgements of whatever they may encounter, from their own resources. After all, when we're let loose and out on our own, with nobody to guide us and prevent us from making mistakes, isn't that what's really required?
Edit: I think suggesting is perhaps a more delicate form of instructing; whereas questioning (done in a relaxed and easygoing manner) may be more conducive to opening up the thinking processes and creating more awareness and versatility.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Edited by p1esk on Monday 3rd February 17:15
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff