Police Response Driving - My experience

[vonhosen]

DocSteve said:

vonhosen said:

They don't replicate though.

There is exceeding a limit & then there is exceeding a limit.
They don't do it routinely to the degree that the emergency response training does, in the places where the response trainer does, using the criteria that response does.

I'm not in any way suggesting that people don't exceed speed limits outside those that legally can, that would be absurd.

I'm talking about trying to make pointless comparisons between different disciplines (disciplines aren't only about speed).
What point is there in trying to make such a comparison? What is it supposed to serve?
Do what you do well without this 'I'd do better than others at Y because I've done Z' nonsense.
I've, for instance (but obviously this hasn't always been the case), seen IAM members who are in the emergency services come to response courses confident they were going to find it easy because of their IAM past & they were the only driver on the car to fail & not even make it to the end of the course (having to be removed early). At the end of the day it comes down to the individual & how they take to the task.

It's not better, it's just different.

It looks like a bloody school ground argument about my dad's bigger than your dad.
To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.

I've been involved in Police driving/training for decades (but I've also got quite a bit of experience in a variety of outside disciplines),But I'm not trying to sell to you that Police/Emergency services is an ultimate, in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'.
Too often I see people who have been trained that way, dogmatically stick to that way (whether they are doing emergency response/pursuit or not) & proclaim it as an ultimate because they were told it was. That & because they have invested a lot of themselves in trying to perfect doing it that way & nobody wants to admit they've worked hard at perfecting what isn't actually perhaps the best way to do it. Instead they should look at why they were being told to do it that way for that purpose & how for other purposes that reasoning doesn't necessary hold true. They should consider all the alternatives & make an informed choice on a piece by piece basis as oppose to swallowing one whole pie & believing that's the ultimate.

I'm far more outcome driven than process driven & a lot of training out there is too process driven (some of that perhaps for ease of transmission/delivery of the teaching than because it's what's actual best for the individual &/or circumstance).

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 10:57

Hi VH,

I don't want to get into an argument with you, mainly because I agree with you - in particular about trying to draw pointless parallels, even if there are some inevitable overlaps.

I guess moving away from the "playground" banter that could as you say put people off driver training, the more mature question is around what is best for the individual given what they are intending to do (including if that is, err, intending to break the speed limit regularly in certain scenarios) and how their mind works. Some will respond well to an extremely rigid approach and others will prefer to be flexible as it seems you are. As an example, I had the benefit of learning initially from an ex-Hendon instructor who was absolutely nailed to a particular type of steering technique. He was very good at it and is probably one of a few who can power slide and drive a racing car using that technique. Fixed position steering to him was absolutely not on in any scenario. But I could could not get on with that whether on a track or when driving quickly on certain types of road. It took a different instructor to guide me towards something I could do and that worked effectively and safely for me.

The police training experience reported is nonetheless interesting, especially as some say that police driver training is not what it used to be. I think professional instruction coupled with motivation and some inherent ability is going to be good for anyone; the length of that training and its bespoke nature for the individual undertaking it are going to be key to its value

Steve

ETA: Completely agree with watermark about the rural road skills overlap

Inevitably those who say 'it isn't what it used to be' tend to be those who did it when it was what they consider 'it used to be'.

I've said elsewhere that what I've observed over decades is it getting an ever more refined product (not necessarily in a good way as far as I'm concerned). What I mean by that is the process gets ever more refined in such a way that what is desirable or considered excellence gets narrower & narrower. It's a bit like driving down an ever narrowing funnel where choices get removed until there is only one acceptable way to do it in order to be successful. What that often results in is those who say 'it isn't what it used to be' find they can't now be successful under the new order because it's so practiced, refined & demanding in a way that they aren't accustomed to.

Having been involved for decades I can also say with confidence a lot of 'what it used to be' (& by inference a lot of what I used to do) was, with honest critical reflection, completely unacceptable.

It's actually harder to pass now than back in the day because they have to learn more competencies in less time to a narrower standard of acceptability.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 18:44

[DocSteve]

vonhosen said:

DocSteve said:

vonhosen said:

They don't replicate though.

There is exceeding a limit & then there is exceeding a limit.
They don't do it routinely to the degree that the emergency response training does, in the places where the response trainer does, using the criteria that response does.

I'm not in any way suggesting that people don't exceed speed limits outside those that legally can, that would be absurd.

I'm talking about trying to make pointless comparisons between different disciplines (disciplines aren't only about speed).
What point is there in trying to make such a comparison? What is it supposed to serve?
Do what you do well without this 'I'd do better than others at Y because I've done Z' nonsense.
I've, for instance (but obviously this hasn't always been the case), seen IAM members who are in the emergency services come to response courses confident they were going to find it easy because of their IAM past & they were the only driver on the car to fail & not even make it to the end of the course (having to be removed early). At the end of the day it comes down to the individual & how they take to the task.

It's not better, it's just different.

It looks like a bloody school ground argument about my dad's bigger than your dad.
To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.

I've been involved in Police driving/training for decades (but I've also got quite a bit of experience in a variety of outside disciplines),But I'm not trying to sell to you that Police/Emergency services is an ultimate, in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'.
Too often I see people who have been trained that way, dogmatically stick to that way (whether they are doing emergency response/pursuit or not) & proclaim it as an ultimate because they were told it was. That & because they have invested a lot of themselves in trying to perfect doing it that way & nobody wants to admit they've worked hard at perfecting what isn't actually perhaps the best way to do it. Instead they should look at why they were being told to do it that way for that purpose & how for other purposes that reasoning doesn't necessary hold true. They should consider all the alternatives & make an informed choice on a piece by piece basis as oppose to swallowing one whole pie & believing that's the ultimate.

I'm far more outcome driven than process driven & a lot of training out there is too process driven (some of that perhaps for ease of transmission/delivery of the teaching than because it's what's actual best for the individual &/or circumstance).

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 10:57

Hi VH,

I don't want to get into an argument with you, mainly because I agree with you - in particular about trying to draw pointless parallels, even if there are some inevitable overlaps.

I guess moving away from the "playground" banter that could as you say put people off driver training, the more mature question is around what is best for the individual given what they are intending to do (including if that is, err, intending to break the speed limit regularly in certain scenarios) and how their mind works. Some will respond well to an extremely rigid approach and others will prefer to be flexible as it seems you are. As an example, I had the benefit of learning initially from an ex-Hendon instructor who was absolutely nailed to a particular type of steering technique. He was very good at it and is probably one of a few who can power slide and drive a racing car using that technique. Fixed position steering to him was absolutely not on in any scenario. But I could could not get on with that whether on a track or when driving quickly on certain types of road. It took a different instructor to guide me towards something I could do and that worked effectively and safely for me.

The police training experience reported is nonetheless interesting, especially as some say that police driver training is not what it used to be. I think professional instruction coupled with motivation and some inherent ability is going to be good for anyone; the length of that training and its bespoke nature for the individual undertaking it are going to be key to its value

Steve

ETA: Completely agree with watermark about the rural road skills overlap

Inevitably those who say 'it isn't what it used to be' tend to be those who did it when it was what they consider 'it used to be'.

I've said elsewhere that what I've observed over decades is it getting an ever more refined product (not necessarily in a good way as far as I'm concerned). What I mean by that is the process gets ever more refined in such a way that what is desirable or considered excellence gets narrower & narrower. It's a bit like driving down an ever narrowing funnel where choices get removed until there is only one acceptable way to do it in order to be successful. What that often results in is those who say 'it isn't what it used to be' find they can't now be successful under the new order because it's so practiced, refined & demanding in a way that they aren't accustomed to.

Having been involved for decades I can also say with confidence a lot of 'what it used to be' (& by inference a lot of what I used to do) was, with honest critical reflection, completely unacceptable.

It's actually harder to pass now than back in the day because they have to learn more competencies in less time to a narrower standard of acceptability.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 18:44

Insightful comments and I know what you mean (at least the concepts rather than the actual detail). The very same could be said in my line of work. Overall though, and my medical training only spans a couple of decades, I think the ironing out of unacceptable past practices has not been offset by myriad expected competencies in increasingly narrowing fields which do not translate into good practice. When I was training, you could do many different specialties at a junior level and find your way before deciding on your definitive career path. Now you have to tick many boxes and follow a very structured curriculum which doesn't work so well for the person who is excellent and gets on with doing the job correctly, but might work ok for someone who is mediocre but complies with the requirements to the letter. The two things may not be entirely analogous but you get the idea.

This is rather tangential to the thread but given I mostly hear the sort of comments I mentioned about police training from those who are ex-police or have never actually worked in the police it's interesting to hear your views on it in the present day.

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

Just a quick request chaps - nested quotes like that make the thread pretty much unreadable. There's very rarely a need to 'quote all'.

[Len Woodman]

Re: Pursuit training - Check out Chris Gilbert's videos - one titled "Friendly follow". Back in the 1970's when HPC was run by BSM it wasn't unusual for two co-drivers (instructors) to take the same route "making progress" as a pair!

[watchnut]

Well done Op for the course. Theory is always difficult but you scored well there, when I did the "Roadcraft" questions at the end of each chapter I found that I didn't understand them, or had not read the chapter properly!

are you going to do IAM or ROSPA tests as well? using your roadcraft skills will make it a piece of P for each.

I did my IAM test some 13/14 years ago without any IAM training, I just used my ADI skills, and read roadcraft. For the ROSPA test I went out with a very nice retired lady, who moaned at my "eco" style of driving and told me to "get on with it!".....loved that feed back and after 2 x 2 hours with her took the test, I got only a "silver" and was gutted, so did it again about 2 months later and got a "gold"

For me the ROSPA test was the more challenging, especially as they required commentary driving. But, I am comfortable with that.

I have been "Plod" myself but not to "standard" driving, but sat next to the "area" car drivers on many occasions .....some were bloody hairy and clearly required a retest, the "traffic" blokes I sat next to were another few steps up, and i never felt at risk with them, but then traffic plods are about the best there is

You have done yourself no harm in doing the course, and wish you luck in getting in the force for proper ( I take it it's "Dorset")

For insurance discounts....forget it....never have I had one being and ADi, Rospa, IAM.....but strangely enough if I'd had "pass plus" some insurance companies offer discounts WTF! MY wife got her IAM certificate for having a"standard" ticket with Hants police, but again never helped with a insurance discount. I don't know if IAM will give you a certificate with proof of your standard course but worth the call

good luck

[rainmakerraw]

watchnut said:

are you going to do IAM or ROSPA tests as well? using your roadcraft skills will make it a piece of P for each.

A RoADAR test won’t be required, as all emergency response qualification holders get an automatic gold when they join RoSPA.

[northwick]

So am I right in thinking there is nothing on regaining control when its gone a bit wrong? As in you get out of shape at high speed and you need to calmly gather it back together without a half mile fish tail.

I know the stock response will be 'a well trained driver would never get into that situation' but lets be realistic - it can happen.

The reason I ask is that I know a ARV officer who also does a Task Force work including Royal Protection and he is useless at karting. Now I'm not trying to say the skills are the same (I completely accept that it is far far more complex than that) but I was surprised about how little intuition he had for a effectively controlling vehicle at speed that was sliding around on the standard slightly polished concrete factory floor.

[waremark]

northwick said:

So am I right in thinking there is nothing on regaining control when its gone a bit wrong? As in you get out of shape at high speed and you need to calmly gather it back together without a half mile fish tail.

I know the stock response will be 'a well trained driver would never get into that situation' but lets be realistic - it can happen.

The reason I ask is that I know a ARV officer who also does a Task Force work including Royal Protection and he is useless at karting. Now I'm not trying to say the skills are the same (I completely accept that it is far far more complex than that) but I was surprised about how little intuition he had for a effectively controlling vehicle at speed that was sliding around on the standard slightly polished concrete factory floor.

The view is probably that with all modern vehicles being fitted with ESP (which is never turned off) all you need to do is to steer where you want the car to go - and activate the ABS if that is still not keeping you on the black stuff.

Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.

[Bigends]

waremark said:

The view is probably that with all modern vehicles being fitted with ESP (which is never turned off) all you need to do is to steer where you want the car to go - and activate the ABS if that is still not keeping you on the black stuff.

Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.

Likewise - my force had its own skidpan - honed my skills on the local swimming pool car park during the winter on nights though

[Dr Jekyll]

waremark said:

The view is probably that with all modern vehicles being fitted with ESP (which is never turned off) all you need to do is to steer where you want the car to go - and activate the ABS if that is still not keeping you on the black stuff.

Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.

From my experience the benefit of a skid pan was learning how to drive around on a very slippery surface without skidding. Learning to detect the signs of incipient skid and the kind of control movements that would overcome the available grip.

[Red 4]

northwick said:

So am I right in thinking there is nothing on regaining control when its gone a bit wrong? As in you get out of shape at high speed and you need to calmly gather it back together without a half mile fish tail.

I know the stock response will be 'a well trained driver would never get into that situation' but lets be realistic - it can happen.

The reason I ask is that I know a ARV officer who also does a Task Force work including Royal Protection and he is useless at karting. Now I'm not trying to say the skills are the same (I completely accept that it is far far more complex than that) but I was surprised about how little intuition he had for a effectively controlling vehicle at speed that was sliding around on the standard slightly polished concrete factory floor.

I was taught on a skidpan and with a specially adapted Ford Mondeo which would understeer/ oversteer using a control box linked to the front and rear wheels, operated by the instructor.

Did both standard and advanced courses using the same set-up.

[waremark]

Red 4 said:

I was taught on a skidpan and with a specially adapted Ford Mondeo which would understeer/ oversteer using a control box linked to the front and rear wheels, operated by the instructor.

Did both standard and advanced courses using the same set-up.

Do you consider that it has been useful to you on the road (particularly since you have been driving modern cars with stability control systems)?

I have been lucky enough to have many opportunities to practice limit handling - several visits to frozen lakes in Sweden, wet grip facilities at MIRA, Porsche Silverstone, and Prodrive, in addition to more traditional cradle car (such as you describe) and skid pan experiences. It is all tremendous fun, and I can collect a little anticipated power oversteer. However I am not sure that all this experience and training actually reads across into safer driving on the public road. One benefit is that in modern cars it teaches you to take full advantage of the electronic systems and shows you what they can and cannot achieve.

[northwick]

waremark said:

The view is probably that with all modern vehicles being fitted with ESP (which is never turned off) all you need to do is to steer where you want the car to go - and activate the ABS if that is still not keeping you on the black stuff.

Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.

That is a good point. I can't really comment on if that is sufficient in terms of training as (so far) I've been lucky enough to have never had the ESP 'save' me but from what people say it is incredibly good at doing so. One thing that must be pretty certain is that the systems installed in cars the police routinely use are very conservative and therefore will kick in way before you can get too out of shape.

[vonhosen]

northwick said:

waremark said:

The view is probably that with all modern vehicles being fitted with ESP (which is never turned off) all you need to do is to steer where you want the car to go - and activate the ABS if that is still not keeping you on the black stuff.

Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.

That is a good point. I can't really comment on if that is sufficient in terms of training as (so far) I've been lucky enough to have never had the ESP 'save' me but from what people say it is incredibly good at doing so. One thing that must be pretty certain is that the systems installed in cars the police routinely use are very conservative and therefore will kick in way before you can get too out of shape.

1) They aren't great at quelling understeer, they do a bit but not that much.
2) They tend to be much better at stopping oversteer, you'll end pointing in the right direction rather than spinning out but you will get a sensation of skipping sideways even though you are pointing in the direction you desire (you'll still need the room available for skipping sideways).
3) They can't defy the laws of physics, they just have some means at their disposal that you don't (ie braking individual wheels to help control yaw).

You pretty much don't want to be doing what you learn on a skid pan without the systems, when your vehicle has the systems.
And if you haven't got the systems a few hours years ago isn't really good preparation for driving beyond the limits of grip on public roads.

Also a little bit of training on a skid pan can cause more problems than it solves.
It can create a feeling of you know what you're doing & create confidence that provokes greater risk taking (there is study evidence to back this up). Think about it, you go around the same bit of low grip surface again & again at pretty low speeds & get a feel for where it might let go. To that end you can pretty confidently predict what's going to happen & dial in the response you've been taught. It's all also happening at low speeds in a sanitised area.

Then out in the real world with your new found confidence you go from good grip to little grip at much higher speeds with far more hazards around & because you hadn't been over that bit 50 times today it catches you out. Now with much larger forces in on the act you're up the swanny without a paddle.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 21st November 20:45

[Red 4]

waremark said:

Red 4 said:

I was taught on a skidpan and with a specially adapted Ford Mondeo which would understeer/ oversteer using a control box linked to the front and rear wheels, operated by the instructor.

Did both standard and advanced courses using the same set-up.

Do you consider that it has been useful to you on the road (particularly since you have been driving modern cars with stability control systems)?

I have been lucky enough to have many opportunities to practice limit handling - several visits to frozen lakes in Sweden, wet grip facilities at MIRA, Porsche Silverstone, and Prodrive, in addition to more traditional cradle car (such as you describe) and skid pan experiences. It is all tremendous fun, and I can collect a little anticipated power oversteer. However I am not sure that all this experience and training actually reads across into safer driving on the public road. One benefit is that in modern cars it teaches you to take full advantage of the electronic systems and shows you what they can and cannot achieve.

It teaches you the basics of car control - it helps you understand why the car is behaving in the way it is and how to counter that.

Contrary to what Vonhosen says I don't believe skidpan training causes more problems than it solves - some people have never experienced understeer or oversteer prior to attending a course and it is a learning experience.

I accept that the training is done at relatively slow speeds and in a controlled environment but this type of training does have its benefits imo.

As for driving cars with modern safety aids - they won't always save you. The driver is the biggest factor.

Passing the courses doesn't make everyone a driving God - some Advanced drivers are better than others (and some Standard drivers are better than some Advanced drivers).

The courses are quite intensive though (especially the Advanced Course). Not everyone passes.

[waremark]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

As I mentioned above, the crossover area is minor rural road driving, where speeds below three figures can be challenging. The sort of civilian drivers I know who have raised their driving to high levels generally keep quite close to 70 mph limits, but may have some exposure to high speeds through track driving.

[Dr Jekyll]

waremark said:

As I mentioned above, the crossover area is minor rural road driving, where speeds below three figures can be challenging. The sort of civilian drivers I know who have raised their driving to high levels generally keep quite close to 70 mph limits, but may have some exposure to high speeds through track driving.

Is there any crossover between high speeds (as in approaching physical limits) on track and high speeds (as in wasting the minimum time while preserving safety margin for contingencies) on road though?

I was interested to see the comments about emergency trained drivers not generally involving themselves in civilian advanced driving circles due to the differences. I've come across a few police trained drivers who have been involved but got the impression they were so enthusiastic about what they'd learned they just wanted to pass it on. So it was up to the associate to remember the differences. My rule of thumb with police trained drivers, especially those who weren't instructors, is that if they feel safe but start hinting that I could perhaps make slightly better progress than I am, that's pretty much where I want to be.

This is perhaps why we are seeing this split in the IAM/ROSPA community between those who seem to define 'making progress' as driving as if on a blue light run, and those who seem to see some kind of virtue in going unnecessarily slowly. The original meaning of 'making progress' was the DVLA sense, that of not wasting any time. But too often it's used as euphemism for the kind of driving that's just about acceptable for a highly trained emergency driver with a flashing blue light if they've got a very good reason.

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

As I mentioned above, the crossover area is minor rural road driving, where speeds below three figures can be challenging. The sort of civilian drivers I know who have raised their driving to high levels generally keep quite close to 70 mph limits, but may have some exposure to high speeds through track driving.

Close to 70mph limits?
Are you talking about challenging dual carriageways?
What dual carriageway do you have in mind?

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

vonhosen said:

What dual carriageway do you have in mind?

I suspect it was a typo, but challenging dual carriageways do exist.

[waremark]

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

vonhosen said:

What dual carriageway do you have in mind?

I suspect it was a typo, but challenging dual carriageways do exist.

Why do you think it was a typo? My use of challenging related to 'minor rural roads'; my point was that civilian enthusiasts tend not to drive fast on motorways and dual carriageways where speeds which would be challenging would also get you locked up. They keep three figure speeds for tracks, and keep close to 70 on motorways and dual carriageways, where the main challenge becomes to stay awake.

As for whether high speeds on tracks are equivalent to high speeds where police drivers use them, if you travel at significant three figure speeds be it at Bruntingthorpe, Spa or the Nurburgring, you have to develop judgement of how far it takes to slow for the next bend or slower vehicle, even if you don't expect anyone to be coming the other way. However, I agree that there are extremely few civilian advanced drivers who have high speed experience comparable to police drivers.