The future of Advanced Driving.
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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.
p1esk said:
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?
That's exactly what's required - particularly if you're going to brand your product "Skill for Life". If it doesn't develop self-sufficiency, there's nothing "for life" about it.p1esk said:
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.
Thank you.
There was anecdotal evidence in an earlier post that Coaching is better than instruction because it got some army recruits through their DSA test quicker than instruction. If this is true was it a statistically significant improvement with a large enough sample.
More to the point, that was not 'advanced' driving which is what is being discussed here.
That is not to say coaching can't work better, just that there is no evidence at the moment that it works better for advanced driver training.
Where coaching can score is self coaching by experts to gain insights that can then be passed on in an instructional way.
This way has been shown to be effective in many walks of life, cooking being a prime example. An expert cook may carry out experiments having extensive prior knowledge of the subject, they can then develop a new recipe and write a book so that those who are not experts in the field can produce very similar results without years of study.
There is no book that I have read about driving, and I've read many, that does this, which is why advanced driving has stagnated and it's future is likely to be the same as it's past.
Also the whole emphasis of driver improvement nowadays seems to be on the higher levels, 3 and 4 of the GDE matrix (journey and lifestyle choices). The problem with that is that no-one seems to be working on level 1 and 2 (car dynamics and control, and traffic management) skills.
This is because as those involved at the top of the policy making tree don't know what they don't know about the 'lower' order skills so they see no way of making improvements to them. That includes the driving experts as well as the academics, otherwise surely improvements to these skills would have been made public.
More to the point, that was not 'advanced' driving which is what is being discussed here.
That is not to say coaching can't work better, just that there is no evidence at the moment that it works better for advanced driver training.
Where coaching can score is self coaching by experts to gain insights that can then be passed on in an instructional way.
This way has been shown to be effective in many walks of life, cooking being a prime example. An expert cook may carry out experiments having extensive prior knowledge of the subject, they can then develop a new recipe and write a book so that those who are not experts in the field can produce very similar results without years of study.
There is no book that I have read about driving, and I've read many, that does this, which is why advanced driving has stagnated and it's future is likely to be the same as it's past.
Also the whole emphasis of driver improvement nowadays seems to be on the higher levels, 3 and 4 of the GDE matrix (journey and lifestyle choices). The problem with that is that no-one seems to be working on level 1 and 2 (car dynamics and control, and traffic management) skills.
This is because as those involved at the top of the policy making tree don't know what they don't know about the 'lower' order skills so they see no way of making improvements to them. That includes the driving experts as well as the academics, otherwise surely improvements to these skills would have been made public.
p1esk said:
It doesn't sound to me like suggesting, so much as questioning the pupil to bring out their thoughts and assesssments of what has happened, how well it worked, and what prevented it from yielding a better result, and how we might get that better result in the future, etc.
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.
I am not surprised that VH commented that you had seen the light. But I would counter that traditional instruction can result in reliable reproduction of effective techniques. When I was a lad, I wanted to be told how to drive like drivers who self-evidently drove better than me - such as policemen. I did not want to have to reinvent the wheel for myself. Like many others, I did my best to implement what I was taught, and continued practising until the good habits had become ingrained. I quite understand that you came to 'advanced driving' from a completely different place, and with a completely different attitude. Many decades later, and having developed a personal style which differs in some minor ways from what VH might call the 'stylistic' requirements of the AD organisations, I still enjoy receiving the benefit of expert opinion about driving techniques.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
The OP, otherwise known as SM, has asked for input on driving techniques, and has not received it. How about moving the thread on to a discussion about cornering techniques - the pro's and con's for example of entering a bend under brakes, after the end of braking but before reapplying acceleration, and under gentle acceleration? And considering each of an open bend and an unsighted bend.
As an opener, traditional AD teaches to complete braking in a straight line, and to reapply sufficient gas to maintain speed as you start to turn. Most racing instructors teach that - for some types of vehicle at least - you benefit from braking into the bend. Is one better advanced driving than the other, and in what situations, and why? Input welcomed from those who attended the ADUK cornering masterclass at the weekend!
As an opener, traditional AD teaches to complete braking in a straight line, and to reapply sufficient gas to maintain speed as you start to turn. Most racing instructors teach that - for some types of vehicle at least - you benefit from braking into the bend. Is one better advanced driving than the other, and in what situations, and why? Input welcomed from those who attended the ADUK cornering masterclass at the weekend!
Martin A said:
There was anecdotal evidence in an earlier post that Coaching is better than instruction because it got some army recruits through their DSA test quicker than instruction. If this is true was it a statistically significant improvement with a large enough sample.
More to the point, that was not 'advanced' driving which is what is being discussed here.
That is not to say coaching can't work better, just that there is no evidence at the moment that it works better for advanced driver training.
Where coaching can score is self coaching by experts to gain insights that can then be passed on in an instructional way.
This way has been shown to be effective in many walks of life, cooking being a prime example. An expert cook may carry out experiments having extensive prior knowledge of the subject, they can then develop a new recipe and write a book so that those who are not experts in the field can produce very similar results without years of study.
There is no book that I have read about driving, and I've read many, that does this, which is why advanced driving has stagnated and it's future is likely to be the same as it's past.
Also the whole emphasis of driver improvement nowadays seems to be on the higher levels, 3 and 4 of the GDE matrix (journey and lifestyle choices). The problem with that is that no-one seems to be working on level 1 and 2 (car dynamics and control, and traffic management) skills.
This is because as those involved at the top of the policy making tree don't know what they don't know about the 'lower' order skills so they see no way of making improvements to them. That includes the driving experts as well as the academics, otherwise surely improvements to these skills would have been made public.
The emphasis is on higher levels because it's there that the root causes of the crashes lay & the purpose of the training is to create safe drivers.More to the point, that was not 'advanced' driving which is what is being discussed here.
That is not to say coaching can't work better, just that there is no evidence at the moment that it works better for advanced driver training.
Where coaching can score is self coaching by experts to gain insights that can then be passed on in an instructional way.
This way has been shown to be effective in many walks of life, cooking being a prime example. An expert cook may carry out experiments having extensive prior knowledge of the subject, they can then develop a new recipe and write a book so that those who are not experts in the field can produce very similar results without years of study.
There is no book that I have read about driving, and I've read many, that does this, which is why advanced driving has stagnated and it's future is likely to be the same as it's past.
Also the whole emphasis of driver improvement nowadays seems to be on the higher levels, 3 and 4 of the GDE matrix (journey and lifestyle choices). The problem with that is that no-one seems to be working on level 1 and 2 (car dynamics and control, and traffic management) skills.
This is because as those involved at the top of the policy making tree don't know what they don't know about the 'lower' order skills so they see no way of making improvements to them. That includes the driving experts as well as the academics, otherwise surely improvements to these skills would have been made public.
The emphasis on coaching is because it accesses the higher levels more readily as it addresses ownership & consequence of what the candidate values & believes rather than what the instructor does.
I think the debate regarding instructional vs coaching styles of learning is truly the future of driver training. I instruct in a discipline which involves skills and decision making, not dissimilar to driving. The skills, specifically those skills safety related, are taught in an instructional manner with zero room for interpretation although a reason why is always given. Once all of the skills are taught including observation and communication, we move on to decision making.
I like to refer to the skills as tools in the tool box; the real skill is to know what tool to use when. This cannot be a prescriptive instructional activity because an individual’s perception of the situation will be different to the next person’s; this is where mentoring and coaching come in. The student should be asked “what do you see and what could it mean?” If they see what they should be seeing, then the observation skill is confirmed, if they fail to recognise what this could mean and what possible scenarios may unfold, then they are further questioned as to draw out the info. Once they understand what they are seeing and understand the possible scenarios, then they are required to choose a tool to deal with the highest/most likely risk. This empowers the student to think and understand that once on their own no one but themselves will be delivering the answers for them.
I see the problem with “Advanced Driving” is public perception and for “Advanced Driving” to be more widely accepted then perceptions need to change and that can only be driven by the custodians of AD for the public, IAM, ROSPA et al. The public perception, for the most part, is a bunch of beardy anorak wearing middle aged men teaching a very prescriptive system of driving which is do it my way or the highway. People want to be empowered, not turned in to tome driving android. BGOL is the perfect example of this; “you must NEVER BGOL” zealots’ vs choose the appropriate tool for the manoeuvre. With the best will in the world our highest risk road users will never find the former an attractive gang to be part of.
I am not saying I believe the above, but I believe that is the wider public perception.
I stated some posts back that the better driving standard is something that all road users should be aiming for, the problem being, in its current format, “Advanced Driving” is not attractive to enough people.
FWIW my additional driver training above the DSA was a two day driver improvement course in lieu of possible due care and attention for falling asleep at the wheel and a week with a Police Class 1 Instructor courtesy of my employer.
I like to refer to the skills as tools in the tool box; the real skill is to know what tool to use when. This cannot be a prescriptive instructional activity because an individual’s perception of the situation will be different to the next person’s; this is where mentoring and coaching come in. The student should be asked “what do you see and what could it mean?” If they see what they should be seeing, then the observation skill is confirmed, if they fail to recognise what this could mean and what possible scenarios may unfold, then they are further questioned as to draw out the info. Once they understand what they are seeing and understand the possible scenarios, then they are required to choose a tool to deal with the highest/most likely risk. This empowers the student to think and understand that once on their own no one but themselves will be delivering the answers for them.
I see the problem with “Advanced Driving” is public perception and for “Advanced Driving” to be more widely accepted then perceptions need to change and that can only be driven by the custodians of AD for the public, IAM, ROSPA et al. The public perception, for the most part, is a bunch of beardy anorak wearing middle aged men teaching a very prescriptive system of driving which is do it my way or the highway. People want to be empowered, not turned in to tome driving android. BGOL is the perfect example of this; “you must NEVER BGOL” zealots’ vs choose the appropriate tool for the manoeuvre. With the best will in the world our highest risk road users will never find the former an attractive gang to be part of.
I am not saying I believe the above, but I believe that is the wider public perception.
I stated some posts back that the better driving standard is something that all road users should be aiming for, the problem being, in its current format, “Advanced Driving” is not attractive to enough people.
FWIW my additional driver training above the DSA was a two day driver improvement course in lieu of possible due care and attention for falling asleep at the wheel and a week with a Police Class 1 Instructor courtesy of my employer.
waremark said:
I am not surprised that VH commented that you had seen the light. But I would counter that traditional instruction can result in reliable reproduction of effective techniques.
Oh, I wouldn't say that instructing has no part to play, but I would prefer it to be a small part, to be used only where specific, unchallengeable, points need to be taken on board.waremark said:
When I was a lad, I wanted to be told how to drive like drivers who self-evidently drove better than me - such as policemen. I did not want to have to reinvent the wheel for myself. Like many others, I did my best to implement what I was taught, and continued practising until the good habits had become ingrained. I quite understand that you came to 'advanced driving' from a completely different place, and with a completely different attitude.
Yes, a somewhat different attitude, but not so different that it affects anything too seriously: I have no doubt we both had a high degree of enthusiasm and interest in the subject. I suppose the principal difference is that you were eager to be told, and I was equally eager to learn; and I imagine that difference is still present. It doesn't matter though: whatever works, etc. Anyhow, by the time I started my driving lessons I had already spent a year or two eagerly reading books about advanced driving, though the term advanced hadn't really taken hold at that time. The two I remember particularly are "The Skilful Driver" by James S Blair, and one (can't remember the title) by S C H 'Sammy' Davis. These were both current round about the mid-1950s. Somewhat later, I also liked "Steering Clear" by Edwin Lambert.Most importantly, a long term keen interest in the subject had emerged, the objective being to become a good driver, not just pass the test and then get on with it without further thought. I have always felt fortunate that my driving instructors were clearly driving enthusiasts themselves. The whole atmosphere embodied a positive approach to the subject, and that promoted confidence and yielded enjoyment, and deservedly so. It was, I feel, a much more carefree era generally: now it all looks a bit sober and stifling for my taste. As a youngster I did have my overly exuberant moments with the little Austin-Healey Sprite, and I had my fair share of good fortune, but there was always that restraint of wanting to be a good (and fast) driver, and that surely curbed my worst excesses.
waremark said:
Many decades later, and having developed a personal style which differs in some minor ways from what VH might call the 'stylistic' requirements of the AD organisations, I still enjoy receiving the benefit of expert opinion about driving techniques.
Well I expect my personal style (such as it now is) may differ rather more significantly from what VH might call the stylistic requirements of the AD organisations, but I think it has served me quite well. As for receiving the benefit of expert opinion about driving techniques, I'm still quite interested in that, but not to have the opinion presented as if I'm the 'know-nothing-novice', but the better quality coaches/tutors wouldn't do that anyhow. The demolition technique - clear the decks and start from scratch - wouldn't work for me: not at this late stage.Best wishes all,
Dave.
Edited by p1esk on Tuesday 4th February 13:50
vonhosen said:
Martin A said:
There was anecdotal evidence in an earlier post that Coaching is better than instruction because it got some army recruits through their DSA test quicker than instruction. If this is true was it a statistically significant improvement with a large enough sample.
More to the point, that was not 'advanced' driving which is what is being discussed here.
That is not to say coaching can't work better, just that there is no evidence at the moment that it works better for advanced driver training.
Where coaching can score is self coaching by experts to gain insights that can then be passed on in an instructional way.
This way has been shown to be effective in many walks of life, cooking being a prime example. An expert cook may carry out experiments having extensive prior knowledge of the subject, they can then develop a new recipe and write a book so that those who are not experts in the field can produce very similar results without years of study.
There is no book that I have read about driving, and I've read many, that does this, which is why advanced driving has stagnated and it's future is likely to be the same as it's past.
Also the whole emphasis of driver improvement nowadays seems to be on the higher levels, 3 and 4 of the GDE matrix (journey and lifestyle choices). The problem with that is that no-one seems to be working on level 1 and 2 (car dynamics and control, and traffic management) skills.
This is because as those involved at the top of the policy making tree don't know what they don't know about the 'lower' order skills so they see no way of making improvements to them. That includes the driving experts as well as the academics, otherwise surely improvements to these skills would have been made public.
The emphasis is on higher levels because it's there that the root causes of the crashes lay & the purpose of the training is to create safe drivers.More to the point, that was not 'advanced' driving which is what is being discussed here.
That is not to say coaching can't work better, just that there is no evidence at the moment that it works better for advanced driver training.
Where coaching can score is self coaching by experts to gain insights that can then be passed on in an instructional way.
This way has been shown to be effective in many walks of life, cooking being a prime example. An expert cook may carry out experiments having extensive prior knowledge of the subject, they can then develop a new recipe and write a book so that those who are not experts in the field can produce very similar results without years of study.
There is no book that I have read about driving, and I've read many, that does this, which is why advanced driving has stagnated and it's future is likely to be the same as it's past.
Also the whole emphasis of driver improvement nowadays seems to be on the higher levels, 3 and 4 of the GDE matrix (journey and lifestyle choices). The problem with that is that no-one seems to be working on level 1 and 2 (car dynamics and control, and traffic management) skills.
This is because as those involved at the top of the policy making tree don't know what they don't know about the 'lower' order skills so they see no way of making improvements to them. That includes the driving experts as well as the academics, otherwise surely improvements to these skills would have been made public.
The emphasis on coaching is because it accesses the higher levels more readily as it addresses ownership & consequence of what the candidate values & believes rather than what the instructor does.
There is however no evidence to suggest that the problems can't be addressed by improving driver training of the lower levels because, as I said, they don't know what they don't know.
If policy makers and academics were willing to acknowledge their lack of awareness of the things that are missing and wrong in the training of learners on levels 1 and 2 they might well discover that research into the effects of improved instructive training on these levels could be effective.
These elements are possibly what were being looked for by the OP at the beginning of this post, as he believes, if my interpretation of his later posts is correct, that there is something that he is looking for that isn't currently on offer.
waremark said:
The OP, otherwise known as SM, has asked for input on driving techniques, and has not received it. How about moving the thread on to a discussion about cornering techniques - the pro's and con's for example of entering a bend under brakes, after the end of braking but before reapplying acceleration, and under gentle acceleration? And considering each of an open bend and an unsighted bend.
As an opener, traditional AD teaches to complete braking in a straight line, and to reapply sufficient gas to maintain speed as you start to turn. Most racing instructors teach that - for some types of vehicle at least - you benefit from braking into the bend. Is one better advanced driving than the other, and in what situations, and why? Input welcomed from those who attended the ADUK cornering masterclass at the weekend!
Firstly it was a Cadence Driver Development Masterclass - it just happened to be populated by denizens of AD-UK. Now that the pedantry is out of the way...As an opener, traditional AD teaches to complete braking in a straight line, and to reapply sufficient gas to maintain speed as you start to turn. Most racing instructors teach that - for some types of vehicle at least - you benefit from braking into the bend. Is one better advanced driving than the other, and in what situations, and why? Input welcomed from those who attended the ADUK cornering masterclass at the weekend!
Road cornering and racing cornering are so wholly different as to ensure that there can be almost no read over between the two - it is rare that road cornering g can exceed 0.5g if a driver is adhering to being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.
Stuff that came out of the day - from the coach's perspective (and backed up by the datalogger)
1. The initial rate of turning the steering is key - many drivers were forcing the car onto the desired line with later steering and thus had to use more steering and weren't able to balance on the power as well as they could.
2. Entry speeds are key - the habit of entering a bend at the limit of confidence given by an interpretation of the limit point is a recipe for not gaining speed as the limit point moves away in the second half of the corner.
3. With a lower entry speed than is strictly necessary, more power can be used into the corner and it's easier to apply more power to chase after the limit point as it moves away.
4. Trail braking into corners that are even slightly downhill seems to work well for a lot of drivers.
There's a whole lot of stuff that came out of the day - perhaps you'll book up for one next time
Martin A said:
It's the academics that believe that the root cause of the crashes lie mainly, if not solely, with higher levels. The societal status of academics encourages others to bow to their interpretation of facts, so they tend to be believed by policy makers and others.
This is a lazy argument.Martin A said:
There is however no evidence to suggest that the problems can't be addressed by improving driver training of the lower levels because, as I said, they don't know what they don't know.
I suspect that for the most part, they're capable of applying the relevant skills, but don't care. How do you address that with 1 & 2?stevesingo said:
I think the debate regarding instructional vs coaching styles of learning is truly the future of driver training. I instruct in a discipline which involves skills and decision making, not dissimilar to driving. The skills, specifically those skills safety related, are taught in an instructional manner with zero room for interpretation although a reason why is always given. Once all of the skills are taught including observation and communication, we move on to decision making.
I like to refer to the skills as tools in the tool box; the real skill is to know what tool to use when. This cannot be a prescriptive instructional activity because an individual’s perception of the situation will be different to the next person’s; this is where mentoring and coaching come in. The student should be asked “what do you see and what could it mean?” If they see what they should be seeing, then the observation skill is confirmed, if they fail to recognise what this could mean and what possible scenarios may unfold, then they are further questioned as to draw out the info. Once they understand what they are seeing and understand the possible scenarios, then they are required to choose a tool to deal with the highest/most likely risk. This empowers the student to think and understand that once on their own no one but themselves will be delivering the answers for them.
This is probably the most sensible post I've ever read on this subject.I like to refer to the skills as tools in the tool box; the real skill is to know what tool to use when. This cannot be a prescriptive instructional activity because an individual’s perception of the situation will be different to the next person’s; this is where mentoring and coaching come in. The student should be asked “what do you see and what could it mean?” If they see what they should be seeing, then the observation skill is confirmed, if they fail to recognise what this could mean and what possible scenarios may unfold, then they are further questioned as to draw out the info. Once they understand what they are seeing and understand the possible scenarios, then they are required to choose a tool to deal with the highest/most likely risk. This empowers the student to think and understand that once on their own no one but themselves will be delivering the answers for them.
stevesingo said:
I see the problem with “Advanced Driving” is public perception and for “Advanced Driving” to be more widely accepted then perceptions need to change and that can only be driven by the custodians of AD for the public, IAM, ROSPA et al. The public perception, for the most part, is a bunch of beardy anorak wearing middle aged men teaching a very prescriptive system of driving which is do it my way or the highway. People want to be empowered, not turned in to tome driving android. BGOL is the perfect example of this; “you must NEVER BGOL” zealots’ vs choose the appropriate tool for the manoeuvre. With the best will in the world our highest risk road users will never find the former an attractive gang to be part of.
Agreed; it's the outcomes versus inputs debate. Some of us are trying, admittedly with limited success at present, to persuade the custodians to change their approach in favour of an outcomes based assessment of their candidates instead of an inputs basis. But, ever the optimist, I believe that change is inevitable. It has to be, otherwise the custodians will eventually become the guardians of a long lost relic of a movement that once offered much promise.Martin A said:
Also the whole emphasis of driver improvement nowadays seems to be on the higher levels, 3 and 4 of the GDE matrix (journey and lifestyle choices). The problem with that is that no-one seems to be working on level 1 and 2 (car dynamics and control, and traffic management) skills.
What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that people in the driver training world believe aspects of level 1 and 2 - like co-operation, hazard perception, control - are unimportant for good driving? That's not the impression I've got (admittedly, I'm on the outside of the driver training world looking in). I thought that the idea behind the GDE stuff was - broadly, and expressed in my own clumsy words - that you won't get people better at the level 1 and 2 stuff if you only focus training on those levels, because it's the level 3 and 4 stuff that determines how interested they are in getting better and whether they think they're already brilliant.trashbat said:
Martin A said:
It's the academics that believe that the root cause of the crashes lie mainly, if not solely, with higher levels. The societal status of academics encourages others to bow to their interpretation of facts, so they tend to be believed by policy makers and others.
This is a lazy argument.trashbat said:
Martin A said:
There is however no evidence to suggest that the problems can't be addressed by improving driver training of the lower levels because, as I said, they don't know what they don't know.
I suspect that for the most part, they're capable of applying the relevant skills, but don't care. How do you address that with 1 & 2?Martin A said:
Not sure what you mean by a lazy argument.
I mean it's not really fair to dismiss it on the basis that academics came up with it, which seemed to be the gist.Martin A said:
They aren't taught the relevant skills in areas 1 and 2 to a high enough standard so are incapable of applying them. We will only know whether they don't care when they're better educated.
I don't think I agree with this. The DSA test is reasonably demanding, and thus the tuition leading up to it ought be providing them with those skills. I think we'd agree that the average person's driving would fall a way short of that standard, and yet most could probably pass the DSA test again without too much trouble if they were minded to do it. Therefore I think the majority of the sloppy driving is borne of attitude rather than incompetency, which is a level 3 and 4 issue.vonhosen said:
The emphasis is on higher levels because it's there that the root causes of the crashes lay & the purpose of the training is to create safe drivers.
The emphasis on coaching is because it accesses the higher levels more readily as it addresses ownership & consequence of what the candidate values & believes rather than what the instructor does.
Older versions of Roadcraft, dating from before any 'namby-pamby' discussion about coaching rather than instructing, used to claim that introduction of police driving schools in 1935 and the Roadcraft system of driving had resulted in IIRC an almost 90% reduction in the frequency of police accidents. Can a comparable claim be made for the change away from the systems of training and driving through which that was achieved? Is it possible that the reason for seeking another approach now is that the rigour of the teaching style introduced in the 30's had been too much diluted? And that the changes being contemplated are in education system terms more 1960's modernisation than Gove reintroduction of rigour to the education system? (Cue debate about the Gove reforms - but not here I suggest.)The emphasis on coaching is because it accesses the higher levels more readily as it addresses ownership & consequence of what the candidate values & believes rather than what the instructor does.
stevesingo said:
I see the problem with “Advanced Driving” is public perception and for “Advanced Driving” to be more widely accepted then perceptions need to change and that can only be driven by the custodians of AD for the public, IAM, ROSPA et al. The public perception, for the most part, is a bunch of beardy anorak wearing middle aged men teaching a very prescriptive system of driving which is do it my way or the highway. People want to be empowered, not turned in to tome driving android.....
I am not saying I believe the above, but I believe that is the wider public perception.
I stated some posts back that the better driving standard is something that all road users should be aiming for, the problem being, in its current format, “Advanced Driving” is not attractive to enough people.
My experience is that far from being put off by an unhelpful imgage, most drivers have no awareness of advanced driving whatsoever. When it is explained to them, they have no interest, but not because what is taught is too prescriptive; they have no interest because for a range of reasons they have no interest in being better drivers, or certainly not enough interest to invest any time or effort, let alone any money. At a Speed Awareness Course which I attended, the speaker asked whether anyone would have attended other than to avoid points on their license, even if the course was free. Not one said yes! Incidentally, at the end of the course most rated the course 'Highly Satisfactory'.I am not saying I believe the above, but I believe that is the wider public perception.
I stated some posts back that the better driving standard is something that all road users should be aiming for, the problem being, in its current format, “Advanced Driving” is not attractive to enough people.
SK425 said:
Martin A said:
Also the whole emphasis of driver improvement nowadays seems to be on the higher levels, 3 and 4 of the GDE matrix (journey and lifestyle choices). The problem with that is that no-one seems to be working on level 1 and 2 (car dynamics and control, and traffic management) skills.
What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that people in the driver training world believe aspects of level 1 and 2 - like co-operation, hazard perception, control - are unimportant for good driving? That's not the impression I've got (admittedly, I'm on the outside of the driver training world looking in). I thought that the idea behind the GDE stuff was - broadly, and expressed in my own clumsy words - that you won't get people better at the level 1 and 2 stuff if you only focus training on those levels, because it's the level 3 and 4 stuff that determines how interested they are in getting better and whether they think they're already brilliant.I'm suggesting that virtually everyone thinks that level 1 and 2 are being taught as well as they can be, not that they are unimportant. This is because those who influence policy not only have their own agendas, such as justifying their own pay, but also because they are ignorant that they are ignorant about the extreme detail of how driving is taught at levels 1 and 2.
This means that they can't see any way that 1 and 2 can be improved and therefore 1 and 2 are not worth bothering with. If this is the case (which it isn't) it means that the only possible way of improving things are 3 and 4, which is why so much emphasis is on those aspects.
The driving test itself could easily be changed in the way that it is marked and so necessitate much higher standards of level 1 and 2 training which would then lead to a trickle up effect and a better appreciation of levels 3 and 4.
Be aware that I can see how significant improvements can be made in all areas, it's just that I see 1 and 2 being ignored.
StressedDave said:
waremark said:
The OP, otherwise known as SM, has asked for input on driving techniques, and has not received it. How about moving the thread on to a discussion about cornering techniques - the pro's and con's for example of entering a bend under brakes, after the end of braking but before reapplying acceleration, and under gentle acceleration? And considering each of an open bend and an unsighted bend.
As an opener, traditional AD teaches to complete braking in a straight line, and to reapply sufficient gas to maintain speed as you start to turn. Most racing instructors teach that - for some types of vehicle at least - you benefit from braking into the bend. Is one better advanced driving than the other, and in what situations, and why? Input welcomed from those who attended the ADUK cornering masterclass at the weekend!
Firstly it was a Cadence Driver Development Masterclass - it just happened to be populated by denizens of AD-UK. Now that the pedantry is out of the way...As an opener, traditional AD teaches to complete braking in a straight line, and to reapply sufficient gas to maintain speed as you start to turn. Most racing instructors teach that - for some types of vehicle at least - you benefit from braking into the bend. Is one better advanced driving than the other, and in what situations, and why? Input welcomed from those who attended the ADUK cornering masterclass at the weekend!
Road cornering and racing cornering are so wholly different as to ensure that there can be almost no read over between the two - it is rare that road cornering g can exceed 0.5g if a driver is adhering to being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.
Stuff that came out of the day - from the coach's perspective (and backed up by the datalogger)
1. The initial rate of turning the steering is key - many drivers were forcing the car onto the desired line with later steering and thus had to use more steering and weren't able to balance on the power as well as they could.
2. Entry speeds are key - the habit of entering a bend at the limit of confidence given by an interpretation of the limit point is a recipe for not gaining speed as the limit point moves away in the second half of the corner.
3. With a lower entry speed than is strictly necessary, more power can be used into the corner and it's easier to apply more power to chase after the limit point as it moves away.
4. Trail braking into corners that are even slightly downhill seems to work well for a lot of drivers.
There's a whole lot of stuff that came out of the day - perhaps you'll book up for one next time
But why and in what circumstances (other than downhill) do some outstanding road drivers enter bends still at least gently on the brakes? (BTW, I can think of at least three different reasons).
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff