Fast Road Tuition

[Speary8]

johnao said:

You're right, it is more than a bit tricky.

One of the essential arts of advanced driving is being able to spot the b*ll*cks at source; just as soon as it is spouted by the misguided "advanced driving expert" . Unfortunately, most of those new to advanced driving and who are unable to "spot the b*ll*cks", or not alert to its existence, are put off the whole process and then reject both the IAM and RoSPA because they're spouting b*ll*cks. Which they are. But, those of us versed in the art of being immediately able to identify b*ll*cks just ignore it and do our own thing. which includes observing/tutoring for the IAM and RoSPA. Don't forget the old adage... the rules of advance driving consist of 20% things we must do, 20% things we must not do and 60% things we argue about interminably. And, in addition, 50% or more of that 60% consists of pure b*ll*cks.

Sounds like anything you don't agree with or understand is bo!!ocks. Presumably as you believe that what the main Advanced driving organisations teach is bo!!ocks, you are a self taught driving god who has invented your own "advanced driving" method. Good luck with that.
Most people who take advanced driving courses are not petrol heads or even really keen drivers and need a system and syllabus to work to. This will include routines and checks that to you are quite obviously bo!!ocks but in reality give these people some structure and order in the process of preparing to drive, actually driving and finishing the drive

[BertBert]

I'm not sure I know what this means!

Rick101 said:

I did get caught out a couple of times and I definitely had one moment where I was flat through a section and on exit could feel the car lifting.

[johnao]

Speary8 said:

Sounds like anything you don't agree with or understand is bo!!ocks. Presumably as you believe that what the main Advanced driving organisations teach is bo!!ocks, you are a self taught driving god who has invented your own "advanced driving" method. Good luck with that.
Most people who take advanced driving courses are not petrol heads or even really keen drivers and need a system and syllabus to work to. This will include routines and checks that to you are quite obviously bo!!ocks but in reality give these people some structure and order in the process of preparing to drive, actually driving and finishing the drive

I thank you for your critique of my earlier post. Regrettably, the critique contains too many mistaken presumptions, misconceptions and erroneous assertions to warrant a reasoned response.

Edited by johnao on Friday 28th July 17:13

[Pica-Pica]

johnao said:

Vaux said:

As an aside, in RoADAR I was told if I started the engine without my seat belt on it would be an instant fail. The theory being that if the engine is running you're technically driving so legally must be wearing the seat-belt.

This is pure b*ll*cks of the kind alluded to in my earlier post. It's the sort of nonsense which can put "sensible" drivers off advanced driving. A driver isn't required by law to wear a seat belt when reversing. So, according to the RoADAR "b*ll*cks spouter", if one was starting the engine immediately prior to reversing, the procedure would be... fasten seat belt, turn engine on, put car into reverse, unfasten seat belt before half-turning to look over one's shoulder and then moving backwards. Or, maybe he would have been happier if the seat belt was unfastened immediately after starting to reverse in order to avoid any technical breach of the law. He's an idiot.

https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law/when-you-dont-ne...

Edited by johnao on Monday 24th July 18:41

I almost always put my seat belt on before starting, but my glasses on after starting (the glasses are kept in the car), where do I stand on that.
It may sound unbelievable, but someone I know was done for using a mobile phone when parked up with keys in ignition. She was 'in control of a motor vehicle' apparently.

[johnao]

Pica-Pica said:

...

It may sound unbelievable, but someone I know was done for using a mobile phone when parked up with keys in ignition. She was 'in control of a motor vehicle' apparently.

This is an interesting point. I know when the "driving and use of mobile phone" law was first introduced one had to be safely parked with the engine switched off in order to avoid prosecution. But, the advice on the official government website now simply says... "Using mobile phones when driving: You can use a hand-held phone if... you’re safely parked". No mention of switching the engine off.

Does anyone know if the law has been changed, either by amendment to the act, or interpretation by the police.

See: https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-drivin...

[waremark]

Speary8 said:

johnao said:

Sounds like anything you don't agree with or understand is bo!!ocks. Presumably as you believe that what the main Advanced driving organisations teach is bo!!ocks, you are a self taught driving god who has invented your own "advanced driving" method. Good luck with that.

Most people who take advanced driving courses are not petrol heads or even really keen drivers and need a system and syllabus to work to. This will include routines and checks that to you are quite obviously bo!!ocks but in reality give these people some structure and order in the process of preparing to drive, actually driving and finishing the drive

Does it change your interpretation to know that John is a former Chief Observer/Tutor for both IAM and RoSPA groups, a current active Masters Mentor, and achieved a Distinction on his Masters Test with a particularly high score? He just happens not to believe in doing things by rote without understanding the reasons.

Sorry for outing you John.

[p1esk]

johnao said:

Speary8 said:

Sounds like anything you don't agree with or understand is bo!!ocks. Presumably as you believe that what the main Advanced driving organisations teach is bo!!ocks, you are a self taught driving god who has invented your own "advanced driving" method. Good luck with that.
Most people who take advanced driving courses are not petrol heads or even really keen drivers and need a system and syllabus to work to. This will include routines and checks that to you are quite obviously bo!!ocks but in reality give these people some structure and order in the process of preparing to drive, actually driving and finishing the drive

I thank you for your critique of my earlier post. Regrettably, the critique contains too many mistaken presumptions, misconceptions and erroneous assertions to warrant a reasoned response.

Edited by johnao on Friday 28th July 17:13

FWIW, I agree completely with your earlier post, and the fact that you've received some pretty crude and dismissive criticism doesn't alter that.

[johnao]

waremark said:

Speary8 said:

Sounds like anything you don't agree with or understand is bo!!ocks. Presumably as you believe that what the main Advanced driving organisations teach is bo!!ocks, you are a self taught driving god who has invented your own "advanced driving" method. Good luck with that.

Most people who take advanced driving courses are not petrol heads or even really keen drivers and need a system and syllabus to work to. This will include routines and checks that to you are quite obviously bo!!ocks but in reality give these people some structure and order in the process of preparing to drive, actually driving and finishing the drive

Does it change your interpretation to know that John is a former Chief Observer/Tutor for both IAM and RoSPA groups, a current active Masters Mentor, and achieved a Distinction on his Masters Test with a particularly high score? He just happens not to believe in doing things by rote without understanding the reasons.

Sorry for outing you John.

No problem, Mark. I'm just flattered that you still have time to read anything I write.

[johnao]

p1esk said:

johnao said:

Speary8 said:

Sounds like anything you don't agree with or understand is bo!!ocks. Presumably as you believe that what the main Advanced driving organisations teach is bo!!ocks, you are a self taught driving god who has invented your own "advanced driving" method. Good luck with that.
Most people who take advanced driving courses are not petrol heads or even really keen drivers and need a system and syllabus to work to. This will include routines and checks that to you are quite obviously bo!!ocks but in reality give these people some structure and order in the process of preparing to drive, actually driving and finishing the drive

I thank you for your critique of my earlier post. Regrettably, the critique contains too many mistaken presumptions, misconceptions and erroneous assertions to warrant a reasoned response.

FWIW, I agree completely with your earlier post, and the fact that you've received some pretty crude and dismissive criticism doesn't alter that.

I thank you for your comments and am gratified that you have identified the serious point that I was attempting to convey. I will often try and get a serious point across by using a bit of humour and tongue-in-cheek comment. I do however accept that not everyone will either understand or appreciate this approach to a discussion, or criticism, of advice proffered in the furtherance of advanced driving, and the manner in which it is delivered, by some of the representatives of the established organisations.

[SVS]

Speary8 said:

Most people who take advanced driving courses are not petrol heads or even really keen drivers and need a system and syllabus to work to. This will include routines and checks ...

Unfortunately those same routines and checks, when taught inflexibly, can put off many people from advanced driving. I'd argue that it's better to develop an Associate's knowledge and understanding, as opposed to instilling routines and checks by rote.

[SantaBarbara]

Try to find a retired army or military police instructor in Defensive driving techniques

[ian in lancs]

SVS said:

Speary8 said:

Most people who take advanced driving courses are not petrol heads or even really keen drivers and need a system and syllabus to work to. This will include routines and checks ...

Unfortunately those same routines and checks, when taught inflexibly, can put off many people from advanced driving. I'd argue that it's better to develop an Associate's knowledge and understanding, as opposed to instilling routines and checks by rote.

You speak as if the 'system' and checks are a bad thing. They're not! The best road drivers in the country - plain and uniformed law enforcement, royal protection, military, special forces, MI5, 6 etc - use the 'system'. Read Reg Local's book for how police training is structured.

Checks are used by civil and military pilots pre and post flight so everything is covered and risk minimised. Not a bad thing. Especially in a situation where they are jumping in and out of different cars. Indeed, would it not be reckless to jump into a car without ensuring handbrake secure, doors closed, seat adjusted, mirrors adjusted, belts on, brake firm, neutral, power steering working, warning lights out, enough fuel, rolling brake test. I would argue you do most of those without thinking. Miss any one, warning light for example or mirrors and it's an issue. Teaching 'checks' is a good routine and in practice takes no time at all.


I've seen the system work for many people including petrol heads. In fact in my experience petrol heads get it quicker and benefit more.

Yes I am a petrolhead! Whatever that means?! As are a number of IAM colleagues.

[Vaux]

johnao said:

Vaux said:

As an aside, in RoADAR I was told if I started the engine without my seat belt on it would be an instant fail. The theory being that if the engine is running you're technically driving so legally must be wearing the seat-belt.

This is pure b*ll*cks of the kind alluded to in my earlier post. It's the sort of nonsense which can put "sensible" drivers off advanced driving. A driver isn't required by law to wear a seat belt when reversing. So, according to the RoADAR "b*ll*cks spouter", if one was starting the engine immediately prior to reversing, the procedure would be... fasten seat belt, turn engine on, put car into reverse, unfasten seat belt before half-turning to look over one's shoulder and then moving backwards. Or, maybe he would have been happier if the seat belt was unfastened immediately after starting to reverse in order to avoid any technical breach of the law. He's an idiot.

https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law/when-you-dont-ne...

Well yes, but it's a bit difficult to invoke when you're facing out of a McDonald's parking bay with no reverse required! He's a nice enough chap, and as he does my retests, best not to wind him up!

[ScoobyChris]

ian in lancs said:

You speak as if the 'system' and checks are a bad thing.

I think you're missing the word "inflexibly" from John's reply. Imvho, associates perform much better when they buy into something because they think it's a good idea rather than being told "this is what to do (because this is what the examiner expects)" which is a line often trotted out by observers. Convincing someone to change their beliefs is much more challenging than telling someone what to do and what separates the good coaches from the mediocre ones.

Chris

[ian in lancs]

ScoobyChris said:

I think you're missing the word "inflexibly" from John's reply. Imvho, associates perform much better when they buy into something because they think it's a good idea rather than being told "this is what to do (because this is what the examiner expects)" which is a line often trotted out by observers. Convincing someone to change their beliefs is much more challenging than telling someone what to do and what separates the good coaches from the mediocre ones.

Chris

i didn't! - just chose to ignore. Next time you're flying somewhere reflect on whether you'd like the crew to follow the script or be flexible in what they check. I agree with you though! Convincing argument is better by far. I was told and pass it on that a particular examiner doesn't like straightening a bend by using the whole width of the road. Fair enough! If conditions allow I do it but not during any assessment.

[Rick101]

All this just reinforces why I'm not looking to 'pass'. It seems more about massaging ego's than actually just trying to be a skilled driver.

I'm actually a bit nervous about my session with Reg. Either we'll get on really well or we'll have a disagreement early on, hopefully it's the former.

[SVS]

I'm sure Reg will be great

ian in lancs said:

You speak as if the 'system' and checks are a bad thing.

Where did I say that? I argued that routines and check can put off people from advanced driving when taught inflexibly. I even emphasised inflexibly in italics. Both Roadcraft and Motorcycle Roadcraft stress the need to use the system flexibly.

ian in lancs said:

Checks are used by civil and military pilots pre and post flight so everything is covered and risk minimised.

Roadcraft emphasises that you should consider checks at appropriate points. Also, Roadcraft points out times for breaking the rules (e.g. when to brake/gear overlap in the car or when to skip a lifesaver on the bike).

[ian in lancs]

Rick101 said:

All this just reinforces why I'm not looking to 'pass'. It seems more about massaging ego's than actually just trying to be a skilled driver.

I'm actually a bit nervous about my session with Reg. Either we'll get on really well or we'll have a disagreement early on, hopefully it's the former.

My money is on the former!

[ian in lancs]

SVS said:

ian in lancs said:

Checks are used by civil and military pilots pre and post flight so everything is covered and risk minimised.

Roadcraft emphasises that you should consider checks at appropriate points. Also, Roadcraft points out times for breaking the rules (e.g. when to brake/gear overlap in the car or when to skip a lifesaver on the bike).

I was talking about stationary vehicle cockpit checks that are worth making into a routine. Brake/gear overlap is of course related to the IPSGA System as are shoulder checks to gather information to plan. Brake/gear overlap is perfectly acceptable in the right circumstances - downhill bends for example - so its ok to flex. Depends on the associate though.

[Rick101]

I always wonder if it's (BGOL) acceptable in one scenario, why is it unacceptable in another?

Surely it's safe, or it isn't.

I feel it's dumbing down. I think there is much more to braking. Vehicle balance, brake bias, geometry/suspension and it's affect on mechanical grip can all be discussed. Not to mention tyre pressures, compounds, road surface, weather etc. All are a factor in braking. I appreciate not everyone want's to go to this level but it saddens me that many observers are unwilling or simple unable to.