Roadcraft - still definitive best practice?

[Big Fat F'er]

Jungles said:

IMHO, Roadcraft does not describe the best practice.

Correct....ish.

There is no such thing as "best practice". There is only "best practice for a specific set of circumstances". So Roadcraft is best practice for doing what it sets out to do under the specified circumstances. As I said earlier, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Jungles said:

Some of the methods contained in Roadcraft are not optimal in terms of physical efficiency or effectiveness

Correct....ish.

The methods contained in Roadcraft (thats Roadcraft the training not Roadcraft the book) are optimal for what it sets out to do. Don't forget, the training is there to put safety for all road users above absolutely everything else.

Jungles said:

It also makes sense that the basic driving skills approved by the DSA is largely identical to the skills described in Roadcraft, because the DSA is also responsible for setting the standard for the lowest common denominator.

Correct....ish.

The skills and knowledge are more 'in-depth', as can be witnessed by drivers who have achieved the basic driving skills approved by the DSA, but who then still need intensive training to meet the Advanced demands.

Jungles said:

Roadcraft is just a text of theoretical concepts of reduced-risk driving. It is the best practice in that frame of reference.

Correct....ish.

It is much more than just a text of theoretical concepts. It is a collection of tested, developed amd eveolving methods, that have all been proven hands on by drivers in the real world.

As most Trainers on the various courses say "we accept that there may be a better way of doing what we teach, but until it is proven we will carry on doing what we are doing....and we are still waiting".

Edited by Big Fat F'er on Thursday 9th November 12:29

[GreenV8S]

Jungles said:

Some of the methods contained in Roadcraft are not optimal in terms of physical efficiency or effectiveness (pull-push, total separation of braking and gearing, it's theory on cornering lines, and other more trivial areas). But they provides the basis for reducing risk to the minimum, in a way that can be performed by a trained person of the least driving talent. In other words, it teaches the safest possible methods for the lowest common denominator of drivers.

I agree wholeheartedly with that, and I'd be far happier to see The System and Roadcraft promoted on those terms than on the basis that it/they render you 'completely 100% safe' or words to that effect (which imo is a nonesensical thing to claim).

[Big Fat F'er]

GreenV8S said:

I'd be far happier to see The System and Roadcraft promoted on those terms than on the basis that it/they render you 'completely 100% safe' or words to that effect (which imo is a nonesensical thing to claim).

I don't think anyone is claiming that, are they.

It's a safe way of driving, in that nothing in it is unsafe.

Unless you know different.

[Big Fat F'er]

willibetz said:

Trail braking...Skid control...Vehicle systems

Willibetz - as a matter of interest, how do you think Roadcraft could be improved.

I think we all know the limitiations of trail braking, not least the fact that it is not as simple to do as some make out. Also, don't forget that skid control (like all things) is much much more than what is published in the book. The book is (in effect) just a brief collection of notes used during the course. For example, the book specifically does not mention or discuss pursuits, but recommends you discuss certain issues with your instructor. I'm sure you appreciate that this doesn't mean that BiB dont do pursuits. Just because EPS isn't mentioned doesn't mean you don't discuss it.

That aside, what are your thoughts on how it could be improved, and in what way would it improve it.

BFF

[cptsideways]

Surely a better argument would be how to bring more drivers into the knowledge fold & how can Roadcraft be taught (or at least the relevent bits) to a larger base of drivers, ie the motoring public at large. The vast majority of who'm have an awful lot to learn!

There are some areas that are outdated, but what is wrong adapting new technology or experience to suit a drivers needs if it works well?

Do we feel more comfortable knowing we are working within a defined set of rules? or do you feel more comfortable adpating the rules to suit? This I think defines different types of drivers, those who stick rigidly to the book & those who adapt using their experience knowledge & understanding.

I certainly believe roadcraft allows you a far safer margin over the ordinary motorist, it defines your limits, teaches exceptional hazard awareness & anticipation, it certainly does'nt make you immune from accidents by any means. Though I would guess that roadcraft trained drivers are some of the safest on the roads - any data on that?

It's always makes me smile when I spot another "Raodcrafter" on the road & no doubt they spot others too? it's like a little secret club that no-one else knows about but to those in the know stick out like a sore thumb

[vonhosen]

cptsideways said:

Do we feel more comfortable knowing we are working within a defined set of rules? or do you feel more comfortable adpating the rules to suit? This I think defines different types of drivers, those who stick rigidly to the book & those who adapt using their experience knowledge & understanding.

There are only rules if you want to do an exam. The rules will differ, depending on the particular governing body. Beyond that it's personal choice.

Some bodies will be very prescriptive (& for good reason), others much less so (again probably for good reason).

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 9th November 19:07

[Goblin]

I'm preparing for my part two ADI exam, so am trying to spend all my time driving as prescribed in Roadcraft. I have to say that if everyone spent all their time driving the way it describes, especially in regard to observation, distances etc, I can't see how there could ever be an accident. Certainly some parts are annoying at times (push/pull is a hard habit to learn when you've spent ten years one handedly taking advantage of power steering) but I would say I am probably a "better" driver, or a least a safer one since I took this approach. Ultimately, safe driving is the best goal I think we should aim for, pity it's not quite as much fun. But that's what track days are for.

[vonhosen]

Goblin said:

I'm preparing for my part two ADI exam, so am trying to spend all my time driving as prescribed in Roadcraft. I have to say that if everyone spent all their time driving the way it describes, especially in regard to observation, distances etc, I can't see how there could ever be an accident. Certainly some parts are annoying at times (push/pull is a hard habit to learn when you've spent ten years one handedly taking advantage of power steering) but I would say I am probably a "better" driver, or a least a safer one since I took this approach. Ultimately, safe driving is the best goal I think we should aim for, pity it's not quite as much fun. But that's what track days are for.

I had to tone down my personal Roadcraft style for my ADI part 2.

[TripleS]

vonhosen said:

Goblin said:

I'm preparing for my part two ADI exam, so am trying to spend all my time driving as prescribed in Roadcraft. I have to say that if everyone spent all their time driving the way it describes, especially in regard to observation, distances etc, I can't see how there could ever be an accident. Certainly some parts are annoying at times (push/pull is a hard habit to learn when you've spent ten years one handedly taking advantage of power steering) but I would say I am probably a "better" driver, or a least a safer one since I took this approach. Ultimately, safe driving is the best goal I think we should aim for, pity it's not quite as much fun. But that's what track days are for.

I had to tone down my personal Roadcraft style for my ADI part 2.

Must have needed to curtail the use of exemptions I expect. Most tiresome.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Big Fat F'er]

cptsideways said:

Surely a better argument would be how to bring more drivers into the knowledge fold & how can Roadcraft be taught (or at least the relevent bits) to a larger base of drivers, ie the motoring public at large. The vast majority of who'm have an awful lot to learn?

Oh yes

cptsideways said:

There are some areas that are outdated, but what is wrong adapting new technology or experience to suit a drivers needs if it works well?

Nothing. Trouble is despite the complaining, no one seems willing (or able) to identify what it is that needs changing (bearing in mind that 'works well' may not be the same as safe).

cptsideways said:

Do we feel more comfortable knowing we are working within a defined set of rules? or do you feel more comfortable adpating the rules to suit? This I think defines different types of drivers, those who stick rigidly to the book & those who adapt using their experience knowledge & understanding.?

Very few in my experience stick rigidly to the book. But they know what it is and what it is for.

cptsideways said:

I certainly believe roadcraft allows you a far safer margin over the ordinary motorist, it defines your limits, teaches exceptional hazard awareness & anticipation, it certainly does'nt make you immune from accidents by any means

Oh yes..and oh yes again.

cptsideways said:

It's always makes me smile when I spot another "Raodcrafter" on the road & no doubt they spot others too? it's like a little secret club that no-one else knows about but to those in the know stick out like a sore thumb

With you there captain.

BFF

[WilliBetz]

Big Fat F'er said:

willibetz said:

Trail braking...Skid control...Vehicle systems

Willibetz - as a matter of interest, how do you think Roadcraft could be improved.

I think we all know the limitiations of trail braking, not least the fact that it is not as simple to do as some make out. Also, don't forget that skid control (like all things) is much much more than what is published in the book. The book is (in effect) just a brief collection of notes used during the course. For example, the book specifically does not mention or discuss pursuits, but recommends you discuss certain issues with your instructor. I'm sure you appreciate that this doesn't mean that BiB dont do pursuits. Just because EPS isn't mentioned doesn't mean you don't discuss it.

That aside, what are your thoughts on how it could be improved, and in what way would it improve it.

BFF

BFF,

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, as I've been away.

To answer your question, I'm not sure that Roadcraft can be improved. As Vonhosen points out, it suits the requirements of its intended audience. But I did want to start a debate that might illicit some points that I consider important:

- Roadcraft is prescriptive and therefore limiting
- it doesn't define the totality of advanced driving
- nor can it keep up with advances in vehicle systems

With regard to your specific questions about trail braking and skid control...

Thinking about trail braking, a skilled driver might consider their car's weight distribution, tendency and sensitivity to pitch, transmission and braking systems. Roadcraft could never define a method to do this, but that doesn't make trail braking bad practice (imho).

Skid control is difficult - once again, I don't think Roadcraft can offer a method for all situations and contexts. Increasingly, the problem is whether the skilled driver should attempt to correct a loss of grip, or rely on the vehicle to do so. Engaging in a battle of wits with a CPU, both trying to assess the situation and correct it, doesn't seem the best way forward. Clearly, this is an area where relevant experience of the vehicle is useful.

WilliBetz

[Big Fat F'er]

WilliBetz said:

BFF,

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, as I've been away.

Nay problem me old cocker. It happens to all of us.

WilliBetz said:

To answer your question, I'm not sure that Roadcraft can be improved. As Vonhosen points out, it suits the requirements of its intended audience. But I did want to start a debate that might illicit some points that I consider important:

- Roadcraft is prescriptive and therefore limiting
- it doesn't define the totality of advanced driving
- nor can it keep up with advances in vehicle systems

I know what you mean. Only thing I would point out though is that if you look beyond the book, and consider Roadcraft the as the intensive training course, then some of the negative effects described above are limited or removed. But yes, still there to some degree, although that applies to every single driving technique going.

WilliBetz said:

Thinking about trail braking, a skilled driver might consider their car's weight distribution, tendency and sensitivity to pitch, transmission and braking systems. Roadcraft could never define a method to do this, but that doesn't make trail braking bad practice (imho).

Don't forget, I ain't saying trail braking is necessarily bad practice per se. I would point out that it is not as easy to learn as some think, and is certainly a damn sight more than 'brake late into the corner' which I'm sure you will have heard some say. As a matter of interest, Roadcraft certainly teaches the drivers to consider and take account of and use all the above points (weight distribution, etc).

WilliBetz said:

Skid control is difficult - once again, I don't think Roadcraft can offer a method for all situations and contexts. Increasingly, the problem is whether the skilled driver should attempt to correct a loss of grip, or rely on the vehicle to do so. Engaging in a battle of wits with a CPU, both trying to assess the situation and correct it, doesn't seem the best way forward. Clearly, this is an area where relevant experience of the vehicle is useful.

It most certainly is, I wouldn't disagree. Again, don't forget that the roadcraft training doesn't stop at the publication date of the book. All new approved learning, techniques and methods are introduced if appropriate (I say approved because if you consider why and who it is primarily intended for, you can see why drivers are clearly told "Yes you will do it this way" or "No, you wont' do it that way".

We are not as far apart as you think in our ideas. There are many safe techniques that are not specifically found in Roadcraft. BUT (and it is a fikkin massive BUT) there does seem to be this movement against Raodcraft by some, as if there is something wrong with it. It's almost as if some drivers can't accept it, in case it brings criticism of their own technique. Nothing could be further from the truth. If someone's technique is unsafe, it's because it is unsafe, not because it is different.

Someone said the other day "I've been driving my way for 10 years without an accident, so that must prove something". We told him that yes, it proves there must be a God looking after him 'cause his driving was sh!te (the words were more Anglo Saxon, because of the nature of the circumstances!!!). The problem wasn't that he wanted to drive differently, it's that what he was doing was fundamentally unsafe.

Good swapping ideas, and I promise you that Roadcraft IS flexible, DOES change where necessary and WILL allow improved methods.

Right, I'm gonna shoot the ZZZZZZs in an LUP.

BFF

Edited by Big Fat F'er on Tuesday 14th November 12:41

[willibetz]

Interesting thoughts, BFF.

Big Fat F'er said:

There are many safe techniques that are not specifically found in Roadcraft. BUT (and it is a fikkin massive BUT) there does seem to be this movement against Raodcraft by some, as if there is something wrong with it. It's almost as if some drivers can't accept it, in case it brings criticism of their own technique.

I agree. To be meaningful, criticism has to wait until you've made the effort to understand and master a skill. Anything less leaves the taste of sour grapes. But, on the flip side, I worry that some people present Roadcraft as a panacea and an encyclopaedia of advanced driving. Which isn't exactly helpful, either. The true value of Roadcraft is derived by way of intelligent interpretation, allied to a recognition of its intended audience and purpose and its consequent style and limitations.

Big Fat F'er said:

Right, I'm gonna shoot the ZZZZZZs in an LUP.

Fair enough. Just remember, drugs and driving don't mix.

WilliBetz

Edited by willibetz on Tuesday 14th November 16:42

[vonhosen]

WilliBetz said:

- Roadcraft is prescriptive and therefore limiting

The book shouldn't be viewed in isolation as a totality. You'd have to see the teachings beyond the book.
For the Police there certainly is a large degree of prescriptiveness. It's you will do it this way & if anything ever goes wrong you will be judged on "Were you doing it the way you were instructed to". It makes people accountable.

WilliBetz said:

- it doesn't define the totality of advanced driving

Correct it certainly doesn't. The Police only have a limited time to ingrain a complete driving ethos. There are a lot of skills/techniques that won't be covered due to those time limitations. If they stick to what they are instructed to do though, they will be well equipped for the role they are being trained for. It's about producing drivers competent for a role. Not masters of all aspects of driving.

Willibetz said:

- nor can it keep up with advances in vehicle systems

It can.
It merely has to be updated & reprinted. Obviously that, because of cost, isn't going to happen as soon as one new technological advance is introduced. Of course those advances can be covered beyond the book in the delivery of training on the shop floor so to speak.

Willibetz said:

With regard to your specific questions about trail braking and skid control...


Thinking about trail braking, a skilled driver might consider their car's weight distribution, tendency and sensitivity to pitch, transmission and braking systems. Roadcraft could never define a method to do this, but that doesn't make trail braking bad practice (imho).

No it doesn't make it a bad thing.
Vehicle dynamics & movement of weight will be discussed in detail throughout courses, again on the shop floor.

Willibetz said:

Skid control is difficult - once again, I don't think Roadcraft can offer a method for all situations and contexts. Increasingly, the problem is whether the skilled driver should attempt to correct a loss of grip, or rely on the vehicle to do so. Engaging in a battle of wits with a CPU, both trying to assess the situation and correct it, doesn't seem the best way forward. Clearly, this is an area where relevant experience of the vehicle is useful.

WilliBetz

Experience is *very* important.


Of course I am only replying to your points from a Police training perspective. Whatever other groups do is a matter for them & their members.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 14th November 18:05

[Big Fat F'er]

willibetz said:

The true value of Roadcraft is derived by way of intelligent interpretation, allied to a recognition of its intended audience and purpose and its consequent style and limitations.

Well said (and very articulately, old chap).

Big Fat F'er said:

Right, I'm gonna shoot the ZZZZZZs in an LUP.

willibetz said:

Just remember, drugs and driving don't mix.

Well said again.

Even if you don't buy into it 100%, it's clear you can see some value in Roadcraft, The System, etc, and thats a start in this day and age. Remember, I believe what I believe, as do you, VH, et al. The value is in knowing it, and defending it, 'cos as drivers who drive for the sheer hell of it (outside of the jobs or career) we are roughly in the same parish.

Although if there is a disagreement, it is because you are wrong, I am right, and VH is just VH.

BFF

[willibetz]

Considered and conciliatory words, BFF.

Those drugs must be working

WilliBetz

[willibetz]

Vonhosen - Thanks for your thoughts, which clearly show that Roadcraft is still fit for purpose when augmented with explanations and coaching.

WilliBetz

[Big Fat F'er]

willibetz said:

Considered and conciliatory words, BFF

Steady on - we'll be having group hugs next.

BFF