What exactly is Advanced Driving?
Discussion
Variomatic said:
They only contradict if you live and drive in a black & white world where things are either "safe" or "unsafe" by clearly defined standards. In the real world there are degrees of risk.
I quite agree. That was basically my point. How much more black & white can you get than "You have no right whatsoever to risk their safety if you get it wrong"?R_U_LOCAL said:
There is nothing wrong with enjoying driving our cars just for the sake of it, and that's probably where "advanced driving" is letting itself down. It seems to be promoted as safe and serious and sensible, when it can also be enjoyable, challenging and spirited - exactly the things which should attract keen drivers and car enthusiasts.
The subject needs lightening up a bit - not without losing any of the key principles of course - but with a view to attracting more people, especially enthusiasts, to the idea that becoming a better driver is just as satisfying and enjoyable as getting a better car or improving your current one.
I think that's hugely important. I think keen drivers and car enthusiasts are a good area for the idea of becoming a better driver, for two reasons. Firstly, as long as the message is presented in the right way (and I don't suggest that's easy), I think they could be a more receptive audience than people for whom driving is an uninteresting necessity. And secondly, enthusiasm can be a good way of getting yourself into trouble.The subject needs lightening up a bit - not without losing any of the key principles of course - but with a view to attracting more people, especially enthusiasts, to the idea that becoming a better driver is just as satisfying and enjoyable as getting a better car or improving your current one.
I'm afraid messages of the flavour of Martin A's could be a serious turn-off for some enthusiasts, and turning off people like that does a great disservice to road safety in my opinion.
SK425 said:
I quite agree. That was basically my point. How much more black & white can you get than "You have no right whatsoever to risk their safety if you get it wrong"?
If you honestly believe that your wish to "make progress" on any given drive entitles you to take arbitrary risks (as assessed only by you) with no regard to how they affect other road users (including how they might perceive or react tp your actions) then I doubt we're ever going to agree on appropriate attitudes.And thats from someone who's very rarely overtaken, but does his share of overtaking, even in an 18 year old diesel estate on rural roads
Variomatic said:
SK425 said:
I quite agree. That was basically my point. How much more black & white can you get than "You have no right whatsoever to risk their safety if you get it wrong"?
If you honestly believe that your wish to "make progress" on any given drive entitles you to take arbitrary risks (as assessed only by you) with no regard to how they affect other road users (including how they might perceive or react tp your actions) then I doubt we're ever going to agree on appropriate attitudes.That's the semantics dealt with. On a more constructive note, I am interested in how you deal with the question of how the overtaken driver might perceive or react to your actions. If I'm planning an overtake I can easily assess how I might perceive or react to it if I were in the other driver's shoes, but who knows what neuroses, prejudices or generally bonkers ideas they might be suffering from? How do you decide how much further to go than, "what would I think if I were them"? Can you go any further than that at all, or are you just into guesswork at that point?
SK425 said:
[...] On a more constructive note, I am interested in how you deal with the question of how the overtaken driver might perceive or react to your actions. If I'm planning an overtake I can easily assess how I might perceive or react to it if I were in the other driver's shoes, but who knows what neuroses, prejudices or generally bonkers ideas they might be suffering from? How do you decide how much further to go than, "what would I think if I were them"? Can you go any further than that at all, or are you just into guesswork at that point?
I quite agree that you can't allow for the genuinely neurotic, or the axe-wielding maniac who's going to chase you down when you upset him. Thankfully, both of those are more rare than Hollywood might suggest 
What you can allow for is the fact that the driver ahead has made his own judgement about what's an appropriate speed, for him, in the circumstances. He has different information to rely on than you do involving his own abilities, experience, car, line of sight etc - all of which are different from yours (and may actually be superior because no-one's perfect).
For whatever unknown reason, those factors are making him drive enough slower than you want to that you wish to overtake. So, when considering "how I might react if I were the other driver", it makes sense to view that from the POV of someone who, at that particular time, has a more cautious approach than you do.
A more cautious approach (at that particular time) certainly doesn't qualify him for having any sort of neurosis, and can be allowed for in the decisions you make - generally by backing off from the more "extreme" decisions at the limits of safety.
the video in the "saved by the system" thread is an example. There's been a fair amount of discussion on there about whether or not it was an appropriate overtaking opportunity. Having watched the video carefully, including estimating the speeds involved (about 40mph at the start, reaching about 60 at the end of the overtake) I agree with those saying it was a "technically" valid opportunity.
But it probably wouldn't have been a "comfortable" one for the front overtaken car as both overtakers found it necessary to cut in so close as they approached the sharp left-hander. There was no real danger involved in the cut-in because of the high speed differential (the gap would have been opening at about 1/2 a second per second even without the overtaken car reacting) but there was a lack of courtesy - it's perfectly reasonable to think he might not have enjoyed having two cars cut sharply across his front wing at that point!
SK425 said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
There is nothing wrong with enjoying driving our cars just for the sake of it, and that's probably where "advanced driving" is letting itself down. It seems to be promoted as safe and serious and sensible, when it can also be enjoyable, challenging and spirited - exactly the things which should attract keen drivers and car enthusiasts.
The subject needs lightening up a bit - not without losing any of the key principles of course - but with a view to attracting more people, especially enthusiasts, to the idea that becoming a better driver is just as satisfying and enjoyable as getting a better car or improving your current one.
I think that's hugely important. I think keen drivers and car enthusiasts are a good area for the idea of becoming a better driver, for two reasons. Firstly, as long as the message is presented in the right way (and I don't suggest that's easy), I think they could be a more receptive audience than people for whom driving is an uninteresting necessity. And secondly, enthusiasm can be a good way of getting yourself into trouble.The subject needs lightening up a bit - not without losing any of the key principles of course - but with a view to attracting more people, especially enthusiasts, to the idea that becoming a better driver is just as satisfying and enjoyable as getting a better car or improving your current one.
I enjoy driving and riding. I enjoy improving my both my control skills and my road awareness. I do enjoy getting a move on and the more smoothly I can manage it the better -the latter part has been the biggest change from my earlier driving days.
Not everything I do received full marks from a RoSPA examiner, but the bits that I consider important (rather than just prescriptive and arbitrary) were considered good.
SK425 said:
I'm afraid messages of the flavour of Martin A's could be a serious turn-off for some enthusiasts, and turning off people like that does a great disservice to road safety in my opinion.
Too right. It is easy to do too much intellectualising.Maybe it should be promoted like something from Men's Health:
"Men, learn the secret to exciting the ladies by driving better in only 2 months!"
R0G said:
As an IAM observer I inform my associates that advanced driving for civilians is generally a new way of thinking which in turn gives the driver more options
I then go on to inform them that better observation and risk consideration allows for more options to be considered
That's it
That should enthuse the masses....I then go on to inform them that better observation and risk consideration allows for more options to be considered
That's it
Variomatic said:
But it probably wouldn't have been a "comfortable" one for the front overtaken car as both overtakers found it necessary to cut in so close as they approached the sharp left-hander.
I think "uncomfortable" would also come from denying the cars being overtaken the opportunity to use the full width of the road to navigate the corner which they may have been planning to do. Its entirely possible (although improbable in the saved by the system case) that the overtaken cars had to alter their plans because of the overtake. We've been discussing that thread on and off for a fair while and the OP had a short time while following them to assess the behaviours of the cars and then maybe 5s to weight everything up and commit to the overtake. That just tells me its a judgement call and we all draw that line in a different place.Strangely Brown said:
...If it is not completely safe it should not be attempted at all.
Overtaking should always be completed in the minimum of time to leave the road clear for approaching or following vehicles.
On a similar note, I contend it can never be completely safe to overtake. I much prefer the focus on risk evaluation and reasonable care. An overtake should also be respectful of what's being overtaken. I overtake horses for instance VERY slowly (not in the minimum time). Its the problem with trying to be succinct with 10 commandments, the essence is fine, but I would not take the specifics literally. Overtaking should always be completed in the minimum of time to leave the road clear for approaching or following vehicles.
Variomatic said:
So, when considering "how I might react if I were the other driver", it makes sense to view that from the POV of someone who, at that particular time, has a more cautious approach than you do.
OK. Sounds sensible. But how do I incorporate that into my planning? In what way might that turn a yes into a no when deciding whether to overtake?Variomatic said:
the video in the "saved by the system" thread is an example. There's been a fair amount of discussion on there about whether or not it was an appropriate overtaking opportunity. Having watched the video carefully, including estimating the speeds involved (about 40mph at the start, reaching about 60 at the end of the overtake) I agree with those saying it was a "technically" valid opportunity.
But it probably wouldn't have been a "comfortable" one for the front overtaken car as both overtakers found it necessary to cut in so close as they approached the sharp left-hander. There was no real danger involved in the cut-in because of the high speed differential (the gap would have been opening at about 1/2 a second per second even without the overtaken car reacting) but there was a lack of courtesy - it's perfectly reasonable to think he might not have enjoyed having two cars cut sharply across his front wing at that point!
I think the debate in that thread about the validity of the opportunity was mainly just about whether it's OK to overtake on bends or not, wasn't it? As for the cutting in, wasn't that a question of execution. Who knows why they moved in as early as they did, but presumably they needn't have in that case. There was nothing oncoming all the way along the subsequent straight, which they must have (hopefully!) been able to see before deciding to overtake, so just stay out until you're well past.But it probably wouldn't have been a "comfortable" one for the front overtaken car as both overtakers found it necessary to cut in so close as they approached the sharp left-hander. There was no real danger involved in the cut-in because of the high speed differential (the gap would have been opening at about 1/2 a second per second even without the overtaken car reacting) but there was a lack of courtesy - it's perfectly reasonable to think he might not have enjoyed having two cars cut sharply across his front wing at that point!
The camera car appeared to start moving back into the left lane whilst still alongside the overtakee, so I'm not sure I'd agree there was no real danger, but the red car looked borderline OK. I guess that's what you're getting at - if the only way to get the overtake is to move back in at a point that's borderline OK to you, it might not be quite OK to the overtakee. Perhaps the principle is to think, "what would I be OK with if I were the other driver" and then add a bit for good measure.
MC Bodge said:
R0G said:
As an IAM observer I inform my associates that advanced driving for civilians is generally a new way of thinking which in turn gives the driver more options
I then go on to inform them that better observation and risk consideration allows for more options to be considered
That's it
That should enthuse the masses....I then go on to inform them that better observation and risk consideration allows for more options to be considered
That's it
R_U_LOCAL said:
Now, apart from the overt 1970’s sexism, this is quite a nice little paragraph. It’s quite dated, of course, but the basic principles are correct.
Now on to Reg’s principles of advanced driving. Let’s start with a few positive mental attributes:
4. An ability to remove emotion from driving
A good driver doesn’t personalise situations and has the ability to forgive others and themselves. This is a very simple principle, but is one of the most difficult abilities to acquire & some of the most technically competent drivers can never achieve it completely.
I’m happy to admit I struggle myself sometimes.
I realise that I am often in the minority on this forumNow on to Reg’s principles of advanced driving. Let’s start with a few positive mental attributes:
4. An ability to remove emotion from driving
A good driver doesn’t personalise situations and has the ability to forgive others and themselves. This is a very simple principle, but is one of the most difficult abilities to acquire & some of the most technically competent drivers can never achieve it completely.
I’m happy to admit I struggle myself sometimes.
The point I made earlier was to emphasise that driving for it's own sake is an emotional journey. We do it for enjoyment and each of us use differing aspects of our driving skills to give us that enjoyment.
That is what I meant by the fact that advanced driving is a step on the way to expert driving. If there is emotional involvement, especially one caused by accelerative forces be they due to throttle brake or cornering, we are more likely to cause others to feel threatened.
The milk float or tractor driver will find it quite reasonable that they are overtaken in the context of expert or even advanced or non-advanced driving.
The driver who is a few mph below the speed limit following at a safe distance in a queue of traffic will not find it reasonable if someone breaks the speed limit to overtake and then forces their way into what was a safe gap.
That is the kind of performance road driving that is frequently as regarded as making progress which as I mentioned is the focus of advanced driving for many.
I'm as keen as the next person for others to improve their driving skills but I just like to make the point that mcuh of what some people think of as advanced is anti-social.
Martin A said:
The driver who is a few mph below the speed limit following at a safe distance in a queue of traffic will not find it reasonable if someone breaks the speed limit to overtake and then forces their way into what was a safe gap.
Why would someone find it unreasonable to help faster traffic overtake? That's part of the reason why you should leave a sensible following distance if you've decided to just follow rather than look for an overtake yourself.I can understand why someone who is just myopically tailgating in a queue might be a bit put out (although I have to reach awfully deep down into my conscience if I am to have any hope of cobbling together much sympathy) but in the bit I bolded you seem to be specifically not talking about those people.
Jon1967x said:
Strangely Brown said:
...If it is not completely safe it should not be attempted at all.
Overtaking should always be completed in the minimum of time to leave the road clear for approaching or following vehicles.
On a similar note, I contend it can never be completely safe to overtake. I much prefer the focus on risk evaluation and reasonable care. An overtake should also be respectful of what's being overtaken. I overtake horses for instance VERY slowly (not in the minimum time). Its the problem with trying to be succinct with 10 commandments, the essence is fine, but I would not take the specifics literally. Overtaking should always be completed in the minimum of time to leave the road clear for approaching or following vehicles.
Horses should also be overtaken in the minimum time WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE FACT THAT IT IS A HORSE! I slow right down for horses too, slower, and wider than most in fact, but I don't go so slowly that its ridiculous. That's the problem with trying to be succinct with 10 commandments, the essence is fine, but I would not take the specifics literally.
Also bear in mind that Roadcraft from that era was never intended for public consumption. It was still pretty much as it started: a set of teaching notes; a syllabus. Context and intelligent application are key.
Strangely Brown said:
Jon1967x said:
Strangely Brown said:
...If it is not completely safe it should not be attempted at all.
Overtaking should always be completed in the minimum of time to leave the road clear for approaching or following vehicles.
On a similar note, I contend it can never be completely safe to overtake. I much prefer the focus on risk evaluation and reasonable care. An overtake should also be respectful of what's being overtaken. I overtake horses for instance VERY slowly (not in the minimum time). Its the problem with trying to be succinct with 10 commandments, the essence is fine, but I would not take the specifics literally. Overtaking should always be completed in the minimum of time to leave the road clear for approaching or following vehicles.
Horses should also be overtaken in the minimum time WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE FACT THAT IT IS A HORSE! I slow right down for horses too, slower, and wider than most in fact, but I don't go so slowly that its ridiculous. That's the problem with trying to be succinct with 10 commandments, the essence is fine, but I would not take the specifics literally.
Also bear in mind that Roadcraft from that era was never intended for public consumption. It was still pretty much as it started: a set of teaching notes; a syllabus. Context and intelligent application are key.
The commandments made NO reference to what is being overtaken.
I was agreeing with you in the essence but as a definition of advanced driving, the commandments are incomplete.
I've not said you shouldn't overtake. I take acceptable (to me) risks when I drive which allows. I also take acceptable risks to me regarding the law (ie speed). As people we both all draw the acceptable risk line in different places (and we tend to move that line ourselves from day to day) but, and more importantly we evaluate risks factors differently. I think there is a group on here that feel the risks are reduced to a minimum and hence become negligible, I prefer to assume there is continual risk ie before during and after an overtake. The risk doesn't stay static which 'completely safe' also implies
Is it ever completely safe not to overtake though?
Being behind another vehicle is arguable less safe (in the sense of less margin for error) than having a clear road in front of you. Of course if you correctly allow for stopping distances and the restricted distance view there shouldn't be a problem. But then an overtake is safe if you don't make any mistakes.
Being behind another vehicle is arguable less safe (in the sense of less margin for error) than having a clear road in front of you. Of course if you correctly allow for stopping distances and the restricted distance view there shouldn't be a problem. But then an overtake is safe if you don't make any mistakes.
Jon1967x said:
The commandments you put stated it needed to be completely safe. 'Completely' is an absolute. That can almost never be the case.
The commandments made NO reference to what is being overtaken.
I was agreeing with you in the essence but as a definition of advanced driving, the commandments are incomplete.
I've not said you shouldn't overtake. I take acceptable (to me) risks when I drive which allows. I also take acceptable risks to me regarding the law (ie speed). As people we both all draw the acceptable risk line in different places (and we tend to move that line ourselves from day to day) but, and more importantly we evaluate risks factors differently. I think there is a group on here that feel the risks are reduced to a minimum and hence become negligible, I prefer to assume there is continual risk ie before during and after an overtake. The risk doesn't stay static which 'completely safe' also implies
And once again an AD thread descends into the pointless minutiae and semantics of language. If you want to know what puts people off AD then you need look no further than that. As I said: Context and intelligent application are key. If you want to pick holes in the choice of words when the meaning is perfectly clear then you knock yourself out. I'm going out for a drive.The commandments made NO reference to what is being overtaken.
I was agreeing with you in the essence but as a definition of advanced driving, the commandments are incomplete.
I've not said you shouldn't overtake. I take acceptable (to me) risks when I drive which allows. I also take acceptable risks to me regarding the law (ie speed). As people we both all draw the acceptable risk line in different places (and we tend to move that line ourselves from day to day) but, and more importantly we evaluate risks factors differently. I think there is a group on here that feel the risks are reduced to a minimum and hence become negligible, I prefer to assume there is continual risk ie before during and after an overtake. The risk doesn't stay static which 'completely safe' also implies
Nothing is ever completely safe though, is it?
A helicopter could crash on to you just before you go for an overtake. Likely? No. Possible? Well, it's not impossible, so yes.
Every driver knows there is an element of risk whenever we get into our car and start it up. Advanced driving is about minimising risk - not completely eliminating it.
Overtaking involves no more or less risk than any other manoeuvre we carry out whilst driving. If it's well planned and the risks are kept to a minimum, it's fine.
If you hold back from an overtake because there is a blind junction to the right, or there is a hidden dip with a zone of invisibility, or you think that you might get an aggressive reaction from the overtaken driver then, in my view, you are displaying the qualities of an "advanced" driver. If you hold back from an otherwise safe overtake because there is a possibility that the overtaken car may have a blowout while you're passing, in my view you're being overcautious. There is nothing inherently wrong with being overcautious, of course, but is it a quality of an advanced driver? Not in my view.
A helicopter could crash on to you just before you go for an overtake. Likely? No. Possible? Well, it's not impossible, so yes.
Every driver knows there is an element of risk whenever we get into our car and start it up. Advanced driving is about minimising risk - not completely eliminating it.
Overtaking involves no more or less risk than any other manoeuvre we carry out whilst driving. If it's well planned and the risks are kept to a minimum, it's fine.
If you hold back from an overtake because there is a blind junction to the right, or there is a hidden dip with a zone of invisibility, or you think that you might get an aggressive reaction from the overtaken driver then, in my view, you are displaying the qualities of an "advanced" driver. If you hold back from an otherwise safe overtake because there is a possibility that the overtaken car may have a blowout while you're passing, in my view you're being overcautious. There is nothing inherently wrong with being overcautious, of course, but is it a quality of an advanced driver? Not in my view.
SK425 said:
Martin A said:
The driver who is a few mph below the speed limit following at a safe distance in a queue of traffic will not find it reasonable if someone breaks the speed limit to overtake and then forces their way into what was a safe gap.
Why would someone find it unreasonable to help faster traffic overtake? That's part of the reason why you should leave a sensible following distance if you've decided to just follow rather than look for an overtake yourself.I can understand why someone who is just myopically tailgating in a queue might be a bit put out (although I have to reach awfully deep down into my conscience if I am to have any hope of cobbling together much sympathy) but in the bit I bolded you seem to be specifically not talking about those people.
People who are in a queue of traffic going just a bit slower than the speed limit know that people who overtake are going to be breaking the speed limit. That is why they may well not find it reasonable if someone overtakes, because that someone is braking the law to gain an advantage over them and possibly causing them to suffer a disadvantage in terms of journey time.
Also it has been shown that travelling at steady speeds benefits the majority, which is why there are speed controls on motorways to keep the traffic flowing. So we should ask not why should they help an individual who doesn't seem to have planned their journey well but also, why should any of them act against the benefit of the majority
I would argue that many people don't myopically tailgate, but do so to prevent those who disregard the Highway Code and the Law from doing so. Just like they might intervene in other Lawbreaking activities if there was essentially little risk to them. Much like they might prevent queue jumping at the post office.
Martin A said:
... but do so to prevent those who disregard the Highway Code and the Law from doing so. Just like they might intervene in other Lawbreaking activities if there was essentially little risk to them. Much like they might prevent queue jumping at the post office.
...and that's where we're going to have to agree to disagree.As far as I'm concerned, the moment a driver becomes more aware about the driving of others than their own and sets themselves up as a moral guardian for those around them, they lose any chance of being considered an 'expert driver'.
As for queue jumping, FWIW, 99% of people I overtake never see me again.
It's worth bearing in mind that every other driver you come across is probably thinking: 'Anyone going faster than me is a dangerous maniac, anyone going slower is an incompetent fool.'
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff