A short lived romance!
Discussion
vonhosen said:
Finally, I do wish Von could feel able to give the PH community some idea of what his work entails, aided by a suitably robust disclaimer of course. Differences of view on speed limits, for example, would of course remain, but I think it would open a few eyes.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I'll think about it some more, but people inevitably do start making those assumptions.
Even if you don't divulge what you actually do now it would certainly be interesting to have some insight into your background.
mefoster said:
If Dave doesn't use roadcraft steering methods, but never the less maintains absolute control of the vehicle in all circumstances, why should that preclude him from him seeking or getting advice on different aspects (say positioning for example) within roadcraft ?
I'm not talking about things like steering. I am talking about the core of roadcraft, the system itself. If you don't have a systematic approach then you don't have a sound base upon which to build the rest. Dave does not drive to the system. No, I have not been in a car with him but it is my deduction from the many exchanges we have had in various forums.
He may not drive to "the system", but he may have his own system.
mefoster said:
Don't get me wrong at all, Roadcraft in it's entirety is an excellent tool, I stand by it & drive to it. If everybody did, then our roads would be a much safer & pleasant place to be.
If you stand by it then you will remember this paragraph from it.
"THE SYSTEM OF CAR CONTROL IS A SYSTEM OR DRILL, EACH FEATURE OF WHICH IS CONSIDERED, IN SEQUENCE, BY THE DRIVER, AT THE APPROACH TO ANY HAZARD. It is the basis upon which the whole technique of good driving is built." [Their caps]
How can someone work on the finer points of positioning, steering, braking, acceleration when it is being done out of context.
I've known it word perfect for many many years.
People can learn each individual facet without the whole.
When you teach someone the "system" that is how you do it, you break it down into stages, it's not all or nothing in one go.
It doesn't have to be done in a particular order either. It may be done so for convenience of the instructor, but given enough time it doesn't have to be so.
Don't you see improvement in your charges bit by bit, before the get to test standard.
Dave just wants the little improvements in areas of his choice without necessarily the test standard.
It is entirely possible to impove your gear changes without having to improve your steering first.
Perfect system is desireable, but not essential to still see some improvement in performance. That can come from adjustment to just some aspects of the candidate's driving, without all.
mesfoster said:
But to exclude someone from developing only certain aspects of their driving further, because they are not willing to change totally, is a nonsense. It doesn't have to be all or nothing (unless you are going to be sitting a stringent prescribed test).
By seeking to learn & change things that he realises he could be doing better, it is doing him a favour. Doing nothing because he'd have to change everything, is what doesn't do him any favours.
Fine, I agree, but we're not talking about changing everything, we're talking about establishing a solid foundation and it doesn't matter whether it is a police advanced course or a DSA test, that foundation is essentially the same. It is a systematic approach that boils down to position, speed, gear (and don't overlap unless necessary and part of the plan).
I honestly don't believe that there is much benefit to teaching the finer points of positioning etc. if the approach is inconsistent or if the gear is taken halfway through the hazard or whilst still applying steering lock. The driver will get far more benefit (and so would everyone around him) if those things were addressed first.
But who says Dave doesn't drive to Mirror, Position, Speed, Gear. Just that he has a more relaxed attitude than roadcraft to steering methods or gear lever grip. He may also use heel toe that isn't taught in Roadcraft, but does that make it wrong if he does it without compromising safety or performance ?
mefoster said:
And therein lies the problem. Dave is resistant to change. He believes that he has something that works, for him and he is unwilling to be told that in order to order to get to point B you must start from point A rather than some point off to the side of A. There is no need to "start again" or "change everything". Just put aside all the years of experience he has, correct the foundation and then put that experience back. The difference now is that all that experience can be seen in a better context and it might well only need minor adjustements here and there.
I think that Dave has said he is willing to change if it is demonstrably better. The challenge is there for who instructs him. They can't get away with "because Roadcraft says so", they've got to know themselves why roadcraft says so & be able to point out to Dave why his approach is causing him a problem in some situations & why adopting the new way will remove those problems.
mefoster said:
Remember the 3 handicap golfer was still a good golfer by any standards, he just wasn't as good as he could be. Perhaps Dave is pretty happy with his standard & only wants to tinker, having no desire to reach dizzy heights that may involve a lot of money, time & work.
It's still a good analogy. The golfer has a basic flaw in his game and in order to take a step forwards he must take a step backwards. Like the golfer, Dave can tinker all he likes but I really can't see that it is going produce any real imrovement unless the foundation is improved.
Depends on the level you start at. With someone of a lower level ability a little tinkering can go a long way, with someone who has a higher ability level to start with, they may only have a limited amount of tinkering they can do, but invariably there will still be some scope. I don't think it's right to judge Dave personally without observing him. It seems from the observation that was made about him, was made entirely against the IAM test standards & that doesn't mean he is inherently poor because he is not driving against that syllabus. You'd have to identify why the faults make him more dangerous, not just that they don't comply with IAM standards. He doesn't seem he is interested so much in the pass of the IAM test, as learning just a few new skills. The more benefit you can show him, the more he will be willing to change.
mefoster said:
No good driver will ever be as good as they want to be either, no matter how much training they've had. They'll always seek improvement. It's when you stop trying to improve & think you've done it that decline starts. Getting to the standard is one thing, maintaining & improving on it is another.
I have no argument with that at all.
Well at least we have some agreement.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th April 11:38
vonhosen said:
Finally, I do wish Von could feel able to give the PH community some idea of what his work entails, aided by a suitably robust disclaimer of course. Differences of view on speed limits, for example, would of course remain, but I think it would open a few eyes.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I'll think about it some more, but people inevitably do start making those assumptions.
OK that's good news, thanks for that.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
vonhosen said:
I've known it word perfect for many many years.
People can learn each individual facet without the whole.
When you teach someone the "system" that is how you do it, you break it down into stages, it's not all or nothing in one go.
It doesn't have to be done in a particular order either. It may done so for convenience of the instructor, but given enough time it doesn't have to be so.
It is entirely possible to impove your gear changes without having to improve your steering first.
Perfect system is desireable, but not essential to still see some improvement in performance. That can come from adjustment to just some aspects of the candidate's driving, without all.
Sorry, I don't agree. The actual technique of gearchanging and the actual steering method are NOT part of the system. So, yes, what you say is partly true but teaching the individual elements of the system can only be done in relation to each other. The elements MUST be performed in order or each is pointless.
It is useless to take a gear until you know what road speed you are selecting it for. It is useless to adjust you speed until you have made a proper assesment of the hazard and you can't do that unless you are properly positioned.
vonhosen said:
I honestly don't believe that there is much benefit to teaching the finer points of positioning etc. if the approach is inconsistent or if the gear is taken halfway through the hazard or whilst still applying steering lock. The driver will get far more benefit (and so would everyone around him) if those things were addressed first.
But who says Dave doesn't drive to Mirror, Position, Speed, Gear.
Dave does. The examples above are things that Dave has defended doing himself. There are many other examples in other forums.
vonhosen said:
Just that he has a more relaxed attitude than roadcraft to steering methods or gear lever grip.
As I said, those things are not part of the system. I am talking about the foundation, not the stuff on top. That can be worked on later.
vonhosen said:
He may also use heel toe that isn't taught in Roadcraft, but does that make it wrong if he does it without compromising safety or performance ?
No, not at all. If it is done in accordance with a planned and systematic approach and because it is necessary for the vehicle that is being driven then how can it be wrong?
vonhosen said:
I think that Dave has said he is willing to change if it is demonstrably better. The challenge is there for who instructs him. They can't get away with "because Roadcraft says so", they've got to know themselves why roadcraft says so & be able to point out to Dave why his approach is causing him a problem in some situations & why adopting the new way will remove those problems.
I quite agree. When teaching, I have always adopted the approach, "it's not that your way is wrong... it's that this way is better." I have always tried to explain why and I have always used demonstration where possible. Now, I admit that Dave's first encounter with the IAM was not a good way for him to get started but there are enough people who have explained enough things enough different ways now that he should be absolutely desperate to change his basics rather than maintain the resistance that he has. That is why I keep suggesting that he gets a demonstration drive to expereince it first hand. The message is clearly not getting through and, I agree, the challenge is for us to find a method of delivery that he can relate to.
vonhosen said:
Dave can tinker all he likes but I really can't see that it is going produce any real imrovement unless the foundation is improved.
Depends on the level you start at. With someone of a lower level ability a little tinkering can go a long way, with someone who has a higher ability level to start with, they may only have a limited amount of tinkering they can do, but invariably there will still be some scope.
OK, I accept that there will always be some scope to tinker here and there. But I still ask the question, "what's the point?" If the foundation is flawed there is little to be gained in repainting the dining room apart from superficiality. The core problem will still exist.
vonhosen said:
He doesn't seem he is interested so much in the pass of the IAM test, as learning just a few new skills.
Perhaps, but I maintain that there is little point in learning new skills unless they are built on a solid foundation. For example, what is the point in having a really smooth gearchange technique if you're still likely to get into trouble because your approach is inconsistent and badly planned. (This applies in general and not as a criticism of Dave).
vonhosen said:
The more benefit you can show him, the more he will be willing to change.
Agreed. Get him out with a PC1 for a demonstration and I am convinced he will be hooked. I know I was.
I don't think Dave is setting out to learn "the system" as per roadcraft though. He wants to cherry pick bits he likes about the way roadcraft users perform & can add to the system that he uses currently. A system he believes serves him well & doesn't lead to him having conflict with other road users. I believe it is possible to do that.
What I am saying is that he can make improvements to his driving without necessarily changing the whole & some improvement is better than no improvement.
Sticking rigidly to Roadcraft is not the only way to be a safe driver.
Of course if he sees someone displaying the art well he may become totally sold on the idea of complete change, but equally if he got a Police driver who wasn't particularly accomplished then it could have a detrimental affect. Observation of ability level is relative from where you stand. There is a huge range of abilities in Police drivers from merely competent to stunning & beyond reproach.
What I am saying is that he can make improvements to his driving without necessarily changing the whole & some improvement is better than no improvement.
Sticking rigidly to Roadcraft is not the only way to be a safe driver.
Of course if he sees someone displaying the art well he may become totally sold on the idea of complete change, but equally if he got a Police driver who wasn't particularly accomplished then it could have a detrimental affect. Observation of ability level is relative from where you stand. There is a huge range of abilities in Police drivers from merely competent to stunning & beyond reproach.
mefoster said:
Dave does not drive to the system.
As a statement that seems to me very clear - and equally wrong. Everybody drives to the system*, so that should include me. Right?
I'm off to do some hospital visiting now, and then I'll have a look at the BTCC (ITV 15.05) and I'll be back later when Mark has recovered from his apoplexy.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
* read the small print later.
vonhosen said:
I don't think Dave is setting out to learn "the system" as per roadcraft though. He wants to cherry pick bits he likes about the way roadcraft users perform & can add to the system that he uses currently. A system he believes serves him well & doesn't lead to him having conflict with other road users. I believe it is possible to do that.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't see how the changes would be anything other than superficial. We'll have to agree to differ.
vonhosen said:
What I am saying is that he can make improvements to his driving without necessarily changing the whole & some improvement is better than no improvement.
Since you obviously missed the part where I said that I wasn't advocating changing the whole I'll say it again. There is no need to change everything but there *IS* most definitely a need for the foundation. Yes, he can tinker with bits here and there but I maintain the position that there is little point. If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly. Get the basics right first and THEN move on to placing his experience and existing skills into the context of that.
vonhosen said:
Sticking rigidly to Roadcraft is not the only way to be a safe driver.
I agree. It is not the only way to be a safe driver. But it is most certainly the best way to be a safer driver.
vonhosen said:
Of course if he sees someone displaying the art well he may become totally sold on the idea of complete change, but equally if he got a Police driver who wasn't particularly accomplished then it could have a detrimental affect. Observation of ability level is relative from where you stand. There is a huge range of abilities in Police drivers from merely competent to stunning & beyond reproach.
Which is precisely why I have stated quite clearly, many times, that he should go out with a PC1 (not just any old police driver). If he gets a demostration drive with someone who is capable of showing all the finesse and quiet efficiency of the way it *should* be done, Dave will almost certainly see what it is that I am trying to get across.
vonhosen said:
so VH, going to tell us what you do for a living, or going to keep us in the dark?
:-))
Graham
I've already said , I'm not saying because I don't want anyone thinking I'm a spokes person for any organisations that I am involved with or work for.
Fair enough, I wasn't asking to catch you out, just geniunely interested.
Graham
mefoster said:
I don't think Dave is setting out to learn "the system" as per roadcraft though. He wants to cherry pick bits he likes about the way roadcraft users perform & can add to the system that he uses currently. A system he believes serves him well & doesn't lead to him having conflict with other road users. I believe it is possible to do that.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't see how the changes would be anything other than superficial. We'll have to agree to differ.
Perhaps he is already safe though. Superficial may be all that is required for him to reach the standard he is looking to.
mefoster said:
What I am saying is that he can make improvements to his driving without necessarily changing the whole & some improvement is better than no improvement.
Since you obviously missed the part where I said that I wasn't advocating changing the whole I'll say it again. There is no need to change everything but there *IS* most definitely a need for the foundation. Yes, he can tinker with bits here and there but I maintain the position that there is little point. If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly. Get the basics right first and THEN move on to placing his experience and existing skills into the context of that.
What have you identified in Dave's foundations that is unsafe & MUST be changed in order to be safe ?
Just because his foundation isn't roadcraft compliant doesn't mean that it isn't safe & adequate for the driving he does.
mefoster said:
Sticking rigidly to Roadcraft is not the only way to be a safe driver.
I agree. It is not the only way to be a safe driver. But it is most certainly the best way to be a safer driver.
Perhaps Dave accepts that, isn't willing to invest in becoming the scrtach golfer & just wants to make small adjustments to try & get down to 2 from 3 handicap. If he gets the bug he may invest in the full works, but that would have to be his decision, it can't be forced on him.
mefoster said:
Of course if he sees someone displaying the art well he may become totally sold on the idea of complete change, but equally if he got a Police driver who wasn't particularly accomplished then it could have a detrimental affect. Observation of ability level is relative from where you stand. There is a huge range of abilities in Police drivers from merely competent to stunning & beyond reproach.
Which is precisely why I have stated quite clearly, many times, that he should go out with a PC1 (not just any old police driver). If he gets a demostration drive with someone who is capable of showing all the finesse and quiet efficiency of the way it *should* be done, Dave will almost certainly see what it is that I am trying to get across.
And the ability levels of PC1s vary greatly as well. Some believe it or not fail check tests & need remedial training because they don't maintain their skills.
vonhosen said:
What have you identified in Dave's foundations that is unsafe & MUST be changed in order to be safe ?
Just because his foundation isn't roadcraft compliant doesn't mean that it isn't safe & adequate for the driving he does.
I haven't said that he is unsafe. I said that if he wants to learn some of the skills of the traffic officer, as he has said he does, then he must start from the right place. There is no point in just trying to cherry pick the pretty bits off the top.
vonhosen said:
Sticking rigidly to Roadcraft is not the only way to be a safe driver.
I agree. It is not the only way to be a safe driver. But it is most certainly the best way to be a safer driver.
Perhaps Dave accepts that, isn't willing to invest in becoming the scrtach golfer & just wants to make small adjustments to try & get down to 2 from 3 handicap. If he gets the bug he may invest in the full works, but that would have to be his decision, it can't be forced on him.
Nobody is trying to *force* anything on anyone. Dave said what he wanted and he was told how to go about getting there. He said that he was going to invest in an IAM course and that was all very commendable. The problem came when he insisted that the process had to be a two-way thing with them learning from him as well as his learning from them. When it was pointed out that this was not really likely he was sure that the whole idea was unlikely to work. His first outing, albeit an unfortunate one, went almost exactly as predicted and you can read about the aftermath both here and elsewhere. He has been told many times, by numerous people that in order to achieve what he said that wanted he may have to make some changes at more basic level and he has, so far, been completely resistant to that change.
Now, you can continue defending him as long as you like but it is not going to change the fact that if he is not going to learn any of the skills of the traffic officer without a firm roadcraft base. He can tinker until the cows come home but it will be just that, tinkering, and no more. If Dave is content with that then so be it. That is entirely his prerogrative and he free to do what he wants. I have no problem with that at all. *IF* on the other hand, he really does want to do what he said then it is a waste of everyones' time and effort to keep on trying to help him unless he is prepared to accept that advice and do what is necessary.
mefoster said:
What have you identified in Dave's foundations that is unsafe & MUST be changed in order to be safe ?
Just because his foundation isn't roadcraft compliant doesn't mean that it isn't safe & adequate for the driving he does.
I haven't said that he is unsafe. I said that if he wants to learn some of the skills of the traffic officer, as he has said he does, then he must start from the right place. There is no point in just trying to cherry pick the pretty bits off the top.
I disagree, there are many little tips & hints that could be passed on that don't require him to adopt the foundations of roadcraft.
mefoster said:
Sticking rigidly to Roadcraft is not the only way to be a safe driver.
I agree. It is not the only way to be a safe driver. But it is most certainly the best way to be a safer driver.
Perhaps Dave accepts that, isn't willing to invest in becoming the scrtach golfer & just wants to make small adjustments to try & get down to 2 from 3 handicap. If he gets the bug he may invest in the full works, but that would have to be his decision, it can't be forced on him.
Nobody is trying to *force* anything on anyone. Dave said what he wanted and he was told how to go about getting there. He said that he was going to invest in an IAM course and that was all very commendable. The problem came when he insisted that the process had to be a two-way thing with them learning from him as well as his learning from them. When it was pointed out that this was not really likely he was sure that the whole idea was unlikely to work. His first outing, albeit an unfortunate one, went almost exactly as predicted and you can read about the aftermath both here and elsewhere. He has been told many times, by numerous people that in order to achieve what he said that wanted he may have to make some changes at more basic level and he has, so far, been completely resistant to that change.
Now, you can continue defending him as long as you like but it is not going to change the fact that if he is not going to learn any of the skills of the traffic officer without a firm roadcraft base. He can tinker until the cows come home but it will be just that, tinkering, and no more. If Dave is content with that then so be it. That is entirely his prerogrative and he free to do what he wants. I have no problem with that at all. *IF* on the other hand, he really does want to do what he said then it is a waste of everyones' time and effort to keep on trying to help him unless he is prepared to accept that advice and do what is necessary.
I'm not saying that Dave wasn't naive in what he expected of his encounter with the IAM & my advice (for what he wanted) would be to go elsewhere.
Let's be honest though, you aren't going to get the training that a Police/traffic officer does in the IAM either & if you think you are, you are kidding yourself.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th April 21:27
vonhosen said:
I'm not saying that Dave wasn't naive in what he expected of his encounter with the IAM & my advice (for what he wanted) would be to go elsewhere.
Let's be honest though, you aren't going to get the training that a Police/traffic officer does in the IAM either & if you think you are, you are kidding yourself.
Agreed, you're not going to get the same quality of training and I have never suggested otherwise. What you *will* get though is training in the same principles. (Let's assume that you get a decent observer who actually knows their stuff). You will get a grounding in the system and it's application and you will get some more on top of that. If you didn't it would be unlikely that you would pass the test.
Triple Liebchen - we post over on SS that you had maybe the Observer from hell to some extent.
My sister Kriss ist Observer with this bunch - she ist quite "tame"
You lucky you did not get the BiB cousin
Every drive with him ist like being on a test .. 
But as we said on SS as well .. take on board what they try to teach you.. adopt und adapt within your style.. ist all about safety, smoothness of drive, style und systematic style of drive.. und COAST of course
My sister Kriss ist Observer with this bunch - she ist quite "tame"
You lucky you did not get the BiB cousin
Every drive with him ist like being on a test .. But as we said on SS as well .. take on board what they try to teach you.. adopt und adapt within your style.. ist all about safety, smoothness of drive, style und systematic style of drive.. und COAST
of course Hello everyone - a little up-date for those who might be interested.
You may recall my horrendous first observed drive with the IAM in February this year, which brought my IAM training to an immediate halt by mutual agreement. I simply could not work with that Observer.
Anyhow after ignoring the subject for many weeks I have now had a run out with the Chief Observer this morning, and he was very happy with the drive, apart from one or two minor points. His conclusion seemed to be that had this been an IAM test I would probably have passed.
He has suggested that I give a bit of attention to the minor things he commented on, then we have another drive together in a week or two, and then all being well I should be able to take the test with reasonable confidence.
For the time being that all seems quite encouraging really - certainly not entirely hopeless after all.
Although I have not had any formal training since February, I have had informal assessed drives with ipsg.glf, StressedDave, Porker, Chris Kay and MikeG (from ADUK) and I'm grateful to them for accompanying me and offering helpful suggestions. Thank you everyone.
All I need now is a bit of time with my friend Vonhosen and then, who knows....
Best wishes all,
Dave.
You may recall my horrendous first observed drive with the IAM in February this year, which brought my IAM training to an immediate halt by mutual agreement. I simply could not work with that Observer.
Anyhow after ignoring the subject for many weeks I have now had a run out with the Chief Observer this morning, and he was very happy with the drive, apart from one or two minor points. His conclusion seemed to be that had this been an IAM test I would probably have passed.
He has suggested that I give a bit of attention to the minor things he commented on, then we have another drive together in a week or two, and then all being well I should be able to take the test with reasonable confidence.
For the time being that all seems quite encouraging really - certainly not entirely hopeless after all.
Although I have not had any formal training since February, I have had informal assessed drives with ipsg.glf, StressedDave, Porker, Chris Kay and MikeG (from ADUK) and I'm grateful to them for accompanying me and offering helpful suggestions. Thank you everyone.
All I need now is a bit of time with my friend Vonhosen and then, who knows....
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
For the time being that all seems quite encouraging really - certainly not entirely hopeless after all.
Although I have not had any formal training since February, I have had informal assessed drives with ipsg.glf, StressedDave, Porker, Chris Kay and MikeG (from ADUK) and I'm grateful to them for accompanying me and offering helpful suggestions. Thank you everyone.
Dave.
Congratulations Dave.
Actually, while you say you have not had formal training, you have been working on your driving with the assistance of some great drivers and trainers - probably all of whom have themselves had roadcraft based training.
It would be interesting to hear what input you have agreed with, and now incorporate into your driving, and what input you have rejected as not being for you? You might mention as a third category stuff which you accept you will have to do if you want to pass an IAM test but which you will switch off afterwards (like obeying the national speed limit, maybe?).
waremark said:
TripleS said:
For the time being that all seems quite encouraging really - certainly not entirely hopeless after all.
Although I have not had any formal training since February, I have had informal assessed drives with ipsg.glf, StressedDave, Porker, Chris Kay and MikeG (from ADUK) and I'm grateful to them for accompanying me and offering helpful suggestions. Thank you everyone.
Dave.
Congratulations Dave.
Actually, while you say you have not had formal training, you have been working on your driving with the assistance of some great drivers and trainers - probably all of whom have themselves had roadcraft based training.
It would be interesting to hear what input you have agreed with, and now incorporate into your driving, and what input you have rejected as not being for you? You might mention as a third category stuff which you accept you will have to do if you want to pass an IAM test but which you will switch off afterwards (like obeying the national speed limit, maybe?).
Hiya Mark - (I'm assuming it is Mark from Ware?).
Thanks for the congratulations, but I haven't actually achieved anything yet! Even so, the drives with the people I mentioned were interesting and one or two helpful points emerged, and I've tried to take on board what was said and make use of it. I can't say I've been very formal about this - 'working on my driving' - sounds to be overstating it a bit, as I'm fairly laid back about the subject in general. StressedDave claims to be the world's laziest driver, but I think I can sometimes give a good impression of that!
Right then, my reactions to the suggestions:
The main thing was that although I thought I was pretty smooth with the braking, I had not realised that I was coming off the brakes a bit suddenly.
Another thing was braking a bit late for bends, not to a serious extent, and it only tends to be gentle braking anyhow, but it ought to be finished a bit earlier, leaving a bit more time and space for the gear change. They were fair points and I'm trying to make adjustments.
My tendency to do a good deal of one handed steering was also commented upon, and I said that I found two handed steering to be a bit tiresome and unnecessary a good deal of the time. The suggested answer was that my seat position should be adjusted, placing me nearer to the steering wheel but I have my doubts about that. What I find happens is that I automatically adopt two handed steering as the driving situation gets more demanding - higher speeds, faster cornering, braking firmly at lowish speeds (or braking at all at higher speeds) and being in close proximity to other traffic, etc.
If I become sufficiently confident to go for the IAM test there will be a number of things that will require a considerable effort to maintain the standard. The most prominent of these items will be handling of the steering wheel - a good deal more formality and consistency will be needed there.
Another thing I regularly do - and this will horrify many people - is when slowing down in a queue of traffic I often slip into neutral and remove my foot from the clutch pedal as I approach the stopping point. My argument is that I prefer to slow down gently, which means I cover an appreciable distance and this also takes some time, and being in neutral (so long as you're fully aware of what is going on around you) is not detrimental to anything. I know some people are very fussy about always being in a responsive gear - but why, if you can be sure there is no possible need for a sudden burst of acceleration? I pay great attention to what other vehicles are doing, especially those behind me, and I aim to reduce speed carefully in such situations which leads them to brake long and gently also. So long as this is not taken to extremes (which could upset following drivers) it seems to work well in that it minimises the risk of being hit in the tail. I would suggest this is better than rushing up to the tail of a queue braking late and firmly and giving no early hint to the driver that is following you. Furthermore, my method here gives you the prospect that by the time you're arriving near the stopping point the traffic ahead of you may be moving off, and you might avoid needing to come to a halt anyhow.
OK, I expect I'll get a bit of stick for some of that, but I'm sure we can discuss these things.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Yes I am Mark from Ware. We met briefly at the Highwayman.
Thanks for being willing to post that.
Areas of potential disagreement with 'IAM' seem to be steering and slowing in neutral. I understand what you say about the times you would steer with one hand, but I think that with two hands on the wheel more or less at all times one is more ready to steer in either direction. I would encourage an IAM Associate to use two hands all the time.
On slowing in neutral, I don't consider that you are coasting if you are slowing under gentle braking. I strongly agree with starting to brake early and gently for a situation where if you arrive now you will have to stop. You keep moving for longer, and give yourself the best chance of not having to stop at all - safer, easier, more economical, and sometimes better for progress. Personally I don't see the benefit of coming out of gear early, but I don't see much harm either.
Interested to see what others have to say.
Thanks for being willing to post that.
Areas of potential disagreement with 'IAM' seem to be steering and slowing in neutral. I understand what you say about the times you would steer with one hand, but I think that with two hands on the wheel more or less at all times one is more ready to steer in either direction. I would encourage an IAM Associate to use two hands all the time.
On slowing in neutral, I don't consider that you are coasting if you are slowing under gentle braking. I strongly agree with starting to brake early and gently for a situation where if you arrive now you will have to stop. You keep moving for longer, and give yourself the best chance of not having to stop at all - safer, easier, more economical, and sometimes better for progress. Personally I don't see the benefit of coming out of gear early, but I don't see much harm either.
Interested to see what others have to say.
waremark said:
Yes I am Mark from Ware. We met briefly at the Highwayman.
Thanks for being willing to post that.
Areas of potential disagreement with 'IAM' seem to be steering and slowing in neutral. I understand what you say about the times you would steer with one hand, but I think that with two hands on the wheel more or less at all times one is more ready to steer in either direction. I would encourage an IAM Associate to use two hands all the time.
On slowing in neutral, I don't consider that you are coasting if you are slowing under gentle braking. I strongly agree with starting to brake early and gently for a situation where if you arrive now you will have to stop. You keep moving for longer, and give yourself the best chance of not having to stop at all - safer, easier, more economical, and sometimes better for progress. Personally I don't see the benefit of coming out of gear early, but I don't see much harm either.
Interested to see what others have to say.
Thanks for being willing to post that.
Areas of potential disagreement with 'IAM' seem to be steering and slowing in neutral. I understand what you say about the times you would steer with one hand, but I think that with two hands on the wheel more or less at all times one is more ready to steer in either direction. I would encourage an IAM Associate to use two hands all the time.
On slowing in neutral, I don't consider that you are coasting if you are slowing under gentle braking. I strongly agree with starting to brake early and gently for a situation where if you arrive now you will have to stop. You keep moving for longer, and give yourself the best chance of not having to stop at all - safer, easier, more economical, and sometimes better for progress. Personally I don't see the benefit of coming out of gear early, but I don't see much harm either.
Interested to see what others have to say.
Hello again Mark.
OK fair enough, I note what you say about two handed steering, though I tend to think that you can identify periods where you can be sure you will remain free from the need to take sudden action, in which case one hand is adequate. The thing to do is recognise when there is increased risk of a need to make a quick steering adjustment, and then you make sure both hands are there in case that need materialises.
With regard to slowing in neutral, my thinking is based on a mixture of realistic safety precautions, general practicalities and mechanical sympathy. Approaching a probable stopping point at about 30 mph from some distance away, I might be (for exapmple) in 4th gear and I'm starting to slow down early. When the speed falls to about 20 mph the engine speed will be too low to make 4th gear usable, so I have to declutch, but this still leave me an appreciable distance (not just a few yards) and some time from the stopping point. Unless there is something going on around me that introduces a possible need to accelerate suddenly I'll now slip into neutral and come off the clutch pedal. There is, I would suggest, no point in having a gear engaged unless it is a suitable one and likely to require use, in which case being in neutral is not detrimental. One thing I generally try to avoid is keeping my foot on the clutch pedal any more than is necessary, as there is no point is causing wear of components that do not need to be in use. Wrong thinking? I don't know. The logic seems reasonable to me, and I don't think safety is being compromised, but I'm still interested in other views on it.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
waremark said:
Yes I am Mark from Ware. We met briefly at the Highwayman.
Thanks for being willing to post that.
Areas of potential disagreement with 'IAM' seem to be steering and slowing in neutral. I understand what you say about the times you would steer with one hand, but I think that with two hands on the wheel more or less at all times one is more ready to steer in either direction. I would encourage an IAM Associate to use two hands all the time.
On slowing in neutral, I don't consider that you are coasting if you are slowing under gentle braking. I strongly agree with starting to brake early and gently for a situation where if you arrive now you will have to stop. You keep moving for longer, and give yourself the best chance of not having to stop at all - safer, easier, more economical, and sometimes better for progress. Personally I don't see the benefit of coming out of gear early, but I don't see much harm either.
Interested to see what others have to say.
Thanks for being willing to post that.
Areas of potential disagreement with 'IAM' seem to be steering and slowing in neutral. I understand what you say about the times you would steer with one hand, but I think that with two hands on the wheel more or less at all times one is more ready to steer in either direction. I would encourage an IAM Associate to use two hands all the time.
On slowing in neutral, I don't consider that you are coasting if you are slowing under gentle braking. I strongly agree with starting to brake early and gently for a situation where if you arrive now you will have to stop. You keep moving for longer, and give yourself the best chance of not having to stop at all - safer, easier, more economical, and sometimes better for progress. Personally I don't see the benefit of coming out of gear early, but I don't see much harm either.
Interested to see what others have to say.
Hello again Mark.
OK fair enough, I note what you say about two handed steering, though I tend to think that you can identify periods where you can be sure you will remain free from the need to take sudden action, in which case one hand is adequate. The thing to do is recognise when there is increased risk of a need to make a quick steering adjustment, and then you make sure both hands are there in case that need materialises.
With regard to slowing in neutral, my thinking is based on a mixture of realistic safety precautions, general practicalities and mechanical sympathy. Approaching a probable stopping point at about 30 mph from some distance away, I might be (for exapmple) in 4th gear and I'm starting to slow down early. When the speed falls to about 20 mph the engine speed will be too low to make 4th gear usable, so I have to declutch, but this still leave me an appreciable distance (not just a few yards) and some time from the stopping point. Unless there is something going on around me that introduces a possible need to accelerate suddenly I'll now slip into neutral and come off the clutch pedal. There is, I would suggest, no point in having a gear engaged unless it is a suitable one and likely to require use, in which case being in neutral is not detrimental. One thing I generally try to avoid is keeping my foot on the clutch pedal any more than is necessary, as there is no point is causing wear of components that do not need to be in use. Wrong thinking? I don't know. The logic seems reasonable to me, and I don't think safety is being compromised, but I'm still interested in other views on it.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Dear Dave - I think a lot is about risk and how much you want to negate it, balanced against doing something differently.
For example, I think most would agree that one handed steering is not as efficient or effective as 2 handed in an emergency, or when quick steering input is required. Therefore the 2 handed school (which I happen to agree with by the way) would ask that you do it that way in case of an unforseen emergency. Lets face it, if we could remove the possibility of accidents simply by identifying when there won't be one, then we would all have full no claims bonuses! The idea is that as something untoward can happen at any time, even if you think it's safe, then two hands on the wheel would deal with it better than one. You may say it's never happened, but what if? The idea is that IF it ever happened, you would be better able to deal with it with two hands on the wheel. So I would suggest that if you agree that 2 hands would be better than one in emergency, then the only reason not to do so is because the discomfort caused by doing it is greater than your assessment of the potential risk.
Re travelling in neutral, I'm not sure I agree with the comment that it is not coasting if you apply the brakes. However, leaving that aside, the idea is that if you need to apply power, then you want to do it immediately, rather than having to select a gear. Again, the idea is IF you needed the power, you are better able to deal with it already in gear. Any delay caused by having to select a gear (including the possiblilty of selecting the wrong one) could be fatal. One suggestion I would make (and this obviously depends on the conditions and the car) is that in a 30mph zone, 3rd gear is often more flexible than 4th, and will almost certainly mean you can slow down much more than if you remained in a higher gear. It also allows you to use acceleration sense to slow rather than the brakes, which can lead to a smoother slow down.
One thing I'm sure of (and this may not interest you in the slightest) is that if you drove one handed and coasted to a stop over long distances, you would almost certainly fail the IAM test. Another point of consideration is that Class1 drivers are generally regarded as safe and advanced. Yet they would consciously choose not to do what you suggest. Also, I don't think any 'Advanced' organisation (IAM/Roada/ADI/RideDrive, etc) would teach coasting in neutral, which suggests there must be something 'not quite right'. There must be a reason for it. Yet as we've always said, each to his own. I'm sure you know there are reasons for doing things (Julian Smith has a lot of very good comments on this site re the above issues - try www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=109&i=8194 and www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=109&i=7861 on features/driving tips)) so you just need to decide if you want to do them or not. As I say, balance your perception of the risk against the personal cost.
Anyway, just my thoughts, and good to discuss ideas with you as always.
Regards
Sally
P.S. The reason I mentioned all the 'Advanced' organisations (civilian and otherwise) is that everyone can and should decide how they want to drive. However, if ALL the organisations claim one thing (for example one handed steering is potentially unsafe and is to be avoided) then it takes a brave man or woman to claim they are all wrong. I would feel more comfortable if someone said "I accept it is potentially unsafe, but not enough to worry me" rather than "I'm not sure this is unsafe". Please note I'm not suggesting this about you Dave, just all those that look at the Scout Group marching down the road, and the Parent says, "ooh look, everyone is out of step apart from our Johnny".
Edited by Lady godiva on Tuesday 25th July 15:25
Edited by Lady godiva on Tuesday 25th July 17:06
Edited by Lady godiva on Tuesday 25th July 17:07
Hello Sally,
I think you are setting out the correct procedures and perhaps believing that these need to be diligently followed all the time, whereas I'm suggesting that there are situations where the strict rules can be relaxed, so long as you are fully aware of what is going on around you and ready to apply the correct technique at short notice to deal with what may reasonably be expected to happen.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I think you are setting out the correct procedures and perhaps believing that these need to be diligently followed all the time, whereas I'm suggesting that there are situations where the strict rules can be relaxed, so long as you are fully aware of what is going on around you and ready to apply the correct technique at short notice to deal with what may reasonably be expected to happen.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff