Separation of braking and gear changing - WHY?
Discussion
norasport said:
On a road I frequent there is a very tight, blind, hedge all round the inside, left hand 90deg.corner. I can't help thinking that, having slowed to be able to stop in the distance I can see,it is still too fast, when another car or worse lorry cutting the corner, causes me to want to stop suddenly, particularly so if the space I have left is compromised by the other vehicle.
My point is I really prefer to come into the corner just on, or at least covering, the brake until I can see it to be clear. This I know does not tally with the "balanced approach"
What do you think?
My point is I really prefer to come into the corner just on, or at least covering, the brake until I can see it to be clear. This I know does not tally with the "balanced approach"
What do you think?
No reason why you wouldn't cover the brake IMO. All you are doing is anticipating the potential need for a rapid stop - nowt wrong with that.
Remember - being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear has some caveats:
1) On a single track road its half the distance you can see to be clear
2) In an environment as you describe - where its quite possible some (out of sight) loon cutting the corner could compromise your roadspace a lower speed may well be appropriate
My approach to your situation would be to lose all the speed I need to be safe, then take up the appropriate gear for that speed and then, at the right moment, come off the accelerator and cover the brake. If all is well its back on the gas for a quick exit and I'm already in the best gear for acceleration - if not its brake to a rapid halt and commence shi**ing bricks.
norasport said:
On a road I frequent there is a very tight, blind, hedge all round the inside, left hand 90deg.corner. I can't help thinking that, having slowed to be able to stop in the distance I can see,it is still too fast, when another car or worse lorry cutting the corner, causes me to want to stop suddenly, particularly so if the space I have left is compromised by the other vehicle.
My point is I really prefer to come into the corner just on, or at least covering, the brake until I can see it to be clear. This I know does not tally with the "balanced approach"
What do you think?
My point is I really prefer to come into the corner just on, or at least covering, the brake until I can see it to be clear. This I know does not tally with the "balanced approach"
What do you think?
Does the corner allow a wider slower approach?
I've been caught out by busses on a back road into work, they cover 50% of the opposing lane at places, on blind bends etc.
Only real solution is to slow down more, and go wider (if appropriate).
Dave
I have read vonhosen's excellent post on brake/gear separation elsewhere and have noted there are several situations where he would use overlap instead. In the south-east and other areas of heavy traffic this must surely mean that the opportunities for separation are very rare, so the argument to use separation to prevent too high an entry speed is lost.
Were he to be pursuing a car with the same power as his, and that driver using overlap, and he braking to the correct speed an "artic's length" from each hazard and then changing gear would he be able to keep up with it?
Since reading one of the first copies (1955) of Roadcraft some forty years ago I have been observing the traffic cars around my area (i'm driving professionally so I've seen a lot) and to a man their brake lights stay on until they turn.
Driving a commercial, or any vehicle with a crash box, needs separation (although some of the best drivers I've known changed mid-turn)but with a modern synchromesh the only reason I can see for it is to prevent clutch-drag, and this can be accomplished with partial overlap which is more in keeping with what other drivers expect.
Were he to be pursuing a car with the same power as his, and that driver using overlap, and he braking to the correct speed an "artic's length" from each hazard and then changing gear would he be able to keep up with it?
Since reading one of the first copies (1955) of Roadcraft some forty years ago I have been observing the traffic cars around my area (i'm driving professionally so I've seen a lot) and to a man their brake lights stay on until they turn.
Driving a commercial, or any vehicle with a crash box, needs separation (although some of the best drivers I've known changed mid-turn)but with a modern synchromesh the only reason I can see for it is to prevent clutch-drag, and this can be accomplished with partial overlap which is more in keeping with what other drivers expect.
st2 said:
I have read vonhosen's excellent post on brake/gear separation elsewhere and have noted there are several situations where he would use overlap instead. In the south-east and other areas of heavy traffic this must surely mean that the opportunities for separation are very rare, so the argument to use separation to prevent too high an entry speed is lost.
Were he to be pursuing a car with the same power as his, and that driver using overlap, and he braking to the correct speed an "artic's length" from each hazard and then changing gear would he be able to keep up with it?
Since reading one of the first copies (1955) of Roadcraft some forty years ago I have been observing the traffic cars around my area (i'm driving professionally so I've seen a lot) and to a man their brake lights stay on until they turn.
Driving a commercial, or any vehicle with a crash box, needs separation (although some of the best drivers I've known changed mid-turn)but with a modern synchromesh the only reason I can see for it is to prevent clutch-drag, and this can be accomplished with partial overlap which is more in keeping with what other drivers expect.
Were he to be pursuing a car with the same power as his, and that driver using overlap, and he braking to the correct speed an "artic's length" from each hazard and then changing gear would he be able to keep up with it?
Since reading one of the first copies (1955) of Roadcraft some forty years ago I have been observing the traffic cars around my area (i'm driving professionally so I've seen a lot) and to a man their brake lights stay on until they turn.
Driving a commercial, or any vehicle with a crash box, needs separation (although some of the best drivers I've known changed mid-turn)but with a modern synchromesh the only reason I can see for it is to prevent clutch-drag, and this can be accomplished with partial overlap which is more in keeping with what other drivers expect.
Where driving to the system, the situations where I would be looking to overlap (compromise system for safety) would be low speed situations anyway.
As for pursuing, yes the seperation can still be maintained without compromise.
I do so at work all the time
st2 said:
Were he to be pursuing a car with the same power as his, and that driver using overlap, and he braking to the correct speed an "artic's length" from each hazard and then changing gear would he be able to keep up with it?
I am surprised that VH suggests this would not be a problem. Other things being equal, braking up to the turn in point (perhaps with downchange overlapping using H & T) has to be quicker than completing the braking with time for a gear-change before turn in. However, the bigger problem in keeping up with the scrote is that the pursuing policeman wants to be able to stop in the distance he can see - the scrote probably does not care. The policeman has to have superior skills to overcome these factors.
To the man who suggests being on or covering the brakes into the corner - I completely understand your argument that being on or near the brakes into the corner will help in the event of the unexpected. The counter argument is that the point at which vision is shortest is before entry to the corner, and from this point you want to be on the gas to maintain speed. Going back onto the gas just before the corner also has the benefits of balance and passenger comfort. And you have set your speed at a level at which you can cope with the unlikely need to slow or stop even if you have to move from gas to brakes.
To the man who suggests moving backwards and forwards between gas and brakes, that does not sound very smooth.
waremark said:
I am surprised that VH suggests this would not be a problem. Other things being equal, braking up to the turn in point (perhaps with downchange overlapping using H & T) has to be quicker than completing the braking with time for a gear-change before turn in. However, the bigger problem in keeping up with the scrote is that the pursuing policeman wants to be able to stop in the distance he can see - the scrote probably does not care. The policeman has to have superior skills to overcome these factors.
I'm sure that makes the comparision very uneven. Even in a car with a huge performance advantage over most other vehicles on the road, it's very common to see other cars making better progress because their drivers are prepared to take risks that I'm not. And that's drivers who are on the whole competent and sensible. I'm sure that somebody with a lot to lose if they're caught would take risks that a BiB could never countenance.
Other things being equal, trail braking and brake/gear overlap can make you faster. But I suspect in the case of a typical police chase it's more likely that the calm and collected BiB will be faster than somebody out-braking themselves into a corner, rushing the gear change and trying to pick a line with however much attention they have left.
If you're wondering why system is recommeded for pursuit driving, it's because the best thing a Police driver can do during a pursuit is concentrate on their own driving above everything else. You should never blindly follow a fleeing driver into a situation, but instead, you should weigh each hazard up individually and deal with it at your own speed. It's very easy to get sucked into a pursuit and start mirroring the mistakes that the subject is making. It's also very easy to personalise a pursuit and make it a competition between you and the other driver.
The very best pursuit drivers concentrate mainly on their own driving, and driving systematically makes this easier. System can still be applied even at very high speeds, and the fact that pursuit driving is more clog and anchor doesn't mean that it shouldn't be systematic.
The very best pursuit drivers concentrate mainly on their own driving, and driving systematically makes this easier. System can still be applied even at very high speeds, and the fact that pursuit driving is more clog and anchor doesn't mean that it shouldn't be systematic.
Still, a driver who is capable of combining braking and changing gear reliably without effort, and who is capable of using the other techniques that eke out the last few percent of performance (trail braking etc) will be slower without them.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
GreenV8S said:
Still, a driver who is capable of combining braking and changing gear reliably without effort, and who is capable of using the other techniques that eke out the last few percent of performance (trail braking etc) will be slower without them.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
Still, a driver who is capable of combining braking and changing gear reliably without effort, and who is capable of using the other techniques that eke out the last few percent of performance (trail braking etc) will be slower without them.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
Let's imagine an open road scene where I'm approaching a bend, and I'm in one of my more enthusiastic moods.
Assuming I'm applying 'the system' with full separation, I ought to be completing the braking, then making the gear change, before entering the bend with some power (such as it is!) re-applied, but quite often I don't do that. What I often do is make a DDC gear change, then apply the braking (if needed) before opening up again to take the bend. This of course contravenes 'the system' but I think it is quicker, and I don't see the problem with it.
Incidentally, I don't heel and toe so there would be no overlap in this case. To me overlap is for certain low speed situations only.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
runs away to hide for a while
TripleS said:
Let's imagine an open road scene where I'm approaching a bend, and I'm in one of my more enthusiastic moods. Assuming I'm applying 'the system' with full separation, I ought to be completing the braking, then making the gear change, before entering the bend with some power (such as it is!) re-applied, but quite often I don't do that.
What I often do is make a DDC gear change, then apply the braking (if needed) before opening up again to take the bend. This of course contravenes 'the system' but I think it is quicker, and I don't see the problem with it.
Incidentally, I don't heel and toe so there would be no overlap in this case. To me overlap is for certain low speed situations only.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
runs away to hide for a while
Assuming I'm applying 'the system' with full separation, I ought to be completing the braking, then making the gear change, before entering the bend with some power (such as it is!) re-applied, but quite often I don't do that. What I often do is make a DDC gear change, then apply the braking (if needed) before opening up again to take the bend. This of course contravenes 'the system' but I think it is quicker, and I don't see the problem with it.
Incidentally, I don't heel and toe so there would be no overlap in this case. To me overlap is for certain low speed situations only.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
runs away to hide for a while
Come on Dave, this is Pistonheads, there's no hiding here...
There is nothing 'wrong' with what you're doing, other than the fact that it doesn't conform to the System. It's only 'quicker' if your choice of gear is correct for the bend (and no doubt it is more often than not) but, more importantly, after many, many
years of practice it works perfectly well for you. Why on Earth should you want to change? It's important to separate dogma out from the equation. OTOH, people like von and Reg have to get Police officers of varying abilities and experience up to a certain level of competency in two to four weeks. Under those circumstances, the only option is to insist on a proven system of driving which guarantees a degree of competence when they're finished.
R_U_LOCAL said:
If you're wondering why system is recommeded for pursuit driving, it's because the best thing a Police driver can do during a pursuit is concentrate on their own driving above everything else. You should never blindly follow a fleeing driver into a situation, but instead, you should weigh each hazard up individually and deal with it at your own speed. It's very easy to get sucked into a pursuit and start mirroring the mistakes that the subject is making. It's also very easy to personalise a pursuit and make it a competition between you and the other driver.
The very best pursuit drivers concentrate mainly on their own driving, and driving systematically makes this easier. System can still be applied even at very high speeds, and the fact that pursuit driving is more clog and anchor doesn't mean that it shouldn't be systematic.
The very best pursuit drivers concentrate mainly on their own driving, and driving systematically makes this easier. System can still be applied even at very high speeds, and the fact that pursuit driving is more clog and anchor doesn't mean that it shouldn't be systematic.
There are a lot of clips of pursuits available to download.
As is the way of the world, many of the clips seem to have been specifically selected to embarrass the service...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQWyAWSApzg
Why was that ever allowed to air!
But, while I accept that it's hard to interpret what is seen from video, I've never seen a single clip that showed an officer driving beyond reasonable reproach.
Can you point us at any?
WilliBetz
TripleS said:
What I often do is make a DDC gear change, then apply the braking (if needed) before opening up again to take the bend. This of course contravenes 'the system' but I think it is quicker, and I don't see the problem with it.
In my car in the circmstances I'm visualising from your description, changing down before braking would typically over-rev the engine unless I had been in too high a gear beforehand. Also, in a powerful rwd car the extra engine braking provided by the lower gear tends to reduce stability.
I find it's easier to change gear late in the braking, the rev difference is lower so there's less engine inertia to deal with and the car is more stable under braking. There are also a few low speed situations where understeer on turn-in can be an issue and having the extra engine braking available, with the option of a little clutch braking if necessary, can ensure this is overcome.
I'm also finding as I get old and boring that I tend to hold onto higher gears more. I used to be in the habit of changing down to be nicely in the power band on the way out, this often meant that I had to change up again before I'd even completed the corner, and I'd have to feather the throttle anyway. Staying in a higher gear feels slower and far less exciting but exit speeds tend to be the same or even slightly higher. Staying in the higher gear of course removes a lot of the work on the approach to the corner which makes it easier to fine-tune course and speed.
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
Still, a driver who is capable of combining braking and changing gear reliably without effort, and who is capable of using the other techniques that eke out the last few percent of performance (trail braking etc) will be slower without them.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
Let's imagine an open road scene where I'm approaching a bend, and I'm in one of my more enthusiastic moods.
Assuming I'm applying 'the system' with full separation, I ought to be completing the braking, then making the gear change, before entering the bend with some power (such as it is!) re-applied, but quite often I don't do that. What I often do is make a DDC gear change, then apply the braking (if needed) before opening up again to take the bend. This of course contravenes 'the system' but I think it is quicker, and I don't see the problem with it.
Incidentally, I don't heel and toe so there would be no overlap in this case. To me overlap is for certain low speed situations only.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
runs away to hide for a while
Dave
I honestly don't care that you don't use "the system". What matters is that whatever system you do employ, is reliably safe & doesn't bring you unnecessarily into conflict with others.
I only care that Police drivers display that they can drive to the Police system, not anyone else. And that's because they have to if they are going to drive Police vehicles.
If other people want to drive to the Police system of their own volition, then that is up to them. I just think that if you are going to join a club that insists on competencies being attained in a prescribed manner, there is little point complaining if they don't accept your way. If you are going to want a club to change their ways though, that is best done by showing them that you can do it their way first, then promote change from within by displaying that there are benefits in your less prescribed system. Be prepared though to
a lot first. Clubs have rules & some clubs (some candidates too) like prescribed systems, because they are easy to assess & mark objectively. You are either doing it "the way" or you are not.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 24th March 16:31
My driving instructor used to occasionally take me in my mums Astra with fairly poor brakes and the best way to slow it down was to change down through the gears using the engine braking to help slow it.
When I took my test in a brand new Peugeot 206 Quiksilver I still changed through the gears on braking, as I was doing this the instructor asked why I was changing through the gears and I gave the full explanation about the other car and engine braking, I think to be honest she was quite impressed how much I understood of this.
Within a few weeks of passing my test I had got the hang of matching the revs on downchanges by blipping the throttle and after a couple of years and a bit of experience got the hang of heel and toeing, something I try to do wherever practical to help the engine out.
None of this is difficult to do, but the learning stage isn't easy and is worth doing on very quiet roads with lots of space incase it does go wrong.
Hopefully at some point when I have some money i'll have a go at the IAM but i'm not sure how keen they will be on what I have picked up from rallying over the years i've been competing.
When I took my test in a brand new Peugeot 206 Quiksilver I still changed through the gears on braking, as I was doing this the instructor asked why I was changing through the gears and I gave the full explanation about the other car and engine braking, I think to be honest she was quite impressed how much I understood of this.
Within a few weeks of passing my test I had got the hang of matching the revs on downchanges by blipping the throttle and after a couple of years and a bit of experience got the hang of heel and toeing, something I try to do wherever practical to help the engine out.
None of this is difficult to do, but the learning stage isn't easy and is worth doing on very quiet roads with lots of space incase it does go wrong.
Hopefully at some point when I have some money i'll have a go at the IAM but i'm not sure how keen they will be on what I have picked up from rallying over the years i've been competing.
nic jones said:
My driving instructor used to occasionally take me in my mums Astra with fairly poor brakes and the best way to slow it down was to change down through the gears using the engine braking to help slow it.
This is the classic IAM mantra that going down the gears was for the time when brakes were not up to it. Now I don't know about your Astra, but I started driving on cars of about 1967 era (Vauxhall viva) and that had plenty of brakes, my 80's Astra had great brakes so I don't buy that really.
Bert
PS I mean the mantra about brakes for slowing, gears for going, not doubting the validity of how poor the brakes were on your astra!
Edited by bertbert on Saturday 24th March 23:04
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
Still, a driver who is capable of combining braking and changing gear reliably without effort, and who is capable of using the other techniques that eke out the last few percent of performance (trail braking etc) will be slower without them.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
Let's imagine an open road scene where I'm approaching a bend, and I'm in one of my more enthusiastic moods.
Assuming I'm applying 'the system' with full separation, I ought to be completing the braking, then making the gear change, before entering the bend with some power (such as it is!) re-applied, but quite often I don't do that. What I often do is make a DDC gear change, then apply the braking (if needed) before opening up again to take the bend. This of course contravenes 'the system' but I think it is quicker, and I don't see the problem with it.
Incidentally, I don't heel and toe so there would be no overlap in this case. To me overlap is for certain low speed situations only.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
runs away to hide for a while
Dave
I honestly don't care that you don't use "the system". What matters is that whatever system you do employ, is reliably safe & doesn't bring you unnecessarily into conflict with others.
I only care that Police drivers display that they can drive to the Police system, not anyone else. And that's because they have to if they are going to drive Police vehicles.
If other people want to drive to the Police system of their own volition, then that is up to them. I just think that if you are going to join a club that insists on competencies being attained in a prescribed manner, there is little point complaining if they don't accept your way. If you are going to want a club to change their ways though, that is best done by showing them that you can do it their way first, then promote change from within by displaying that there are benefits in your less prescribed system. Be prepared though to
a lot first. Clubs have rules & some clubs (some candidates too) like prescribed systems, because they are easy to assess & mark objectively. You are either doing it "the way" or you are not.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 24th March 16:31
Another way of looking at this is that Roadcraft is for the lowest common denominator of "Police advanced drivers". A system that works in three ways...(i) it is a very good failsafe driving methodology that (ii) is repeatably teachable and (iii) easily and consistently testable. That's not to demean it as I doubt I would be up to it.
However, it is not necc the system that is actually best. I know drivers that have superb judgement, superb observation, superb planning, superb car control and it wouldn't matter a bit whether they overlapped or not. So for the best drivers, they may not need the restrictions placed by Roadcraft.
However, for "Advanced Driving" as we know it (IAM, Rospa, Roadcraft/Police) it presents a system of highest overall benefit.
Bert
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
Still, a driver who is capable of combining braking and changing gear reliably without effort, and who is capable of using the other techniques that eke out the last few percent of performance (trail braking etc) will be slower without them.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
It seems to me that the main reason not to recommend techniques like this is one of consistency, in the sense that most drivers can (presumably) be taught to drive safely and fast without them, but fewer can be taught to drive safely and fast with them - within the amount of training that is available to the police. If you were teaching race drivers you would definitely want to teach them to use these techniques because for the ones that manage it, that last few percent matters a great deal. The fact that many *can't* manage it is largely irrelevant in that case.
Let's imagine an open road scene where I'm approaching a bend, and I'm in one of my more enthusiastic moods.
Assuming I'm applying 'the system' with full separation, I ought to be completing the braking, then making the gear change, before entering the bend with some power (such as it is!) re-applied, but quite often I don't do that. What I often do is make a DDC gear change, then apply the braking (if needed) before opening up again to take the bend. This of course contravenes 'the system' but I think it is quicker, and I don't see the problem with it.
Incidentally, I don't heel and toe so there would be no overlap in this case. To me overlap is for certain low speed situations only.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
runs away to hide for a while
Dave
I honestly don't care that you don't use "the system". What matters is that whatever system you do employ, is reliably safe & doesn't bring you unnecessarily into conflict with others.
I only care that Police drivers display that they can drive to the Police system, not anyone else. And that's because they have to if they are going to drive Police vehicles.
If other people want to drive to the Police system of their own volition, then that is up to them. I just think that if you are going to join a club that insists on competencies being attained in a prescribed manner, there is little point complaining if they don't accept your way. If you are going to want a club to change their ways though, that is best done by showing them that you can do it their way first, then promote change from within by displaying that there are benefits in your less prescribed system. Be prepared though to
a lot first. Clubs have rules & some clubs (some candidates too) like prescribed systems, because they are easy to assess & mark objectively. You are either doing it "the way" or you are not.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 24th March 16:31
Another way of looking at this is that Roadcraft is for the lowest common denominator of "Police advanced drivers". A system that works in three ways...(i) it is a very good failsafe driving methodology that (ii) is repeatably teachable and (iii) easily and consistently testable. That's not to demean it as I doubt I would be up to it.
However, it is not necc the system that is actually best. I know drivers that have superb judgement, superb observation, superb planning, superb car control and it wouldn't matter a bit whether they overlapped or not. So for the best drivers, they may not need the restrictions placed by Roadcraft.
However, for "Advanced Driving" as we know it (IAM, Rospa, Roadcraft/Police) it presents a system of highest overall benefit.
Bert
It's not the only way to skin a cat & in some circumstances rigid adherance to it may be limiting (ie not the best of all options, although still a safe option), but the Police use it because of the benefits that it offers them.
It is a proven system that if you strictly adhere to, you won't have fault collisions & you'll be able to avoid the vast majority of non fault ones too.
If an officer is involved in a collision, their actions will be judged against the system and as they have been instructed that the system is the manner in which they are expected to drive, they can be held accountable where their standards displayed in regard to it have fallen short.
In other words they could receive sanction following what would be a non fault collision in the eyes of others, because more was expected of them (in roadcraft) in relation to the circumstances they were involved.
It's not about being a system that only the naturally gifted can use, it has to be a workman like system that 'normal' not just gifted drivers can use, in order that they be able to perform a role safely. It will naturally have different levels of competence & flair amongst those using it, but there is a minimum competency that all are taught to & will be judged against.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 25th March 11:48
vonhosen said:
It's not the only way to skin a cat & in some circumstances rigid adherance to it may be limiting (ie not the best of all options, although still a safe option), but the Police use it because of the benefits that it offers them.
It is a proven system that if you strictly adhere to, you won't have fault collisions & you'll be able to avoid the vast majority of non fault ones too.
The roadcraft methodology clearly has a lot going for it, but I still feel that it's being over-sold in some respects. It won't stop you having accidents, it won't stop you having avoidable accidents, it will just stop you from being blamed for causing / failing to avoid them since it represents an established standard of best practice driving techniques.
There are various techniques that are not recommended - trail braking and brake gear overlap for example - because (as I understand it) they are judged to do more harm than good when applied by the masses. It may still be that the performance of an individual driver may be improved by applying them, in which case imo they should be encouraged to do so. Similarly, some drivers may find that other techniques work better or worse for them. If the system was promoted on the basis that it is the set of methods and techniques that are generally found to be the best, I'd be very happy. It seems to me though that it is promoted by many as the One True Way that all drivers should adhere to, deviating from it at their peril. That doesn't sit at all well with me. I want to improve my driving every time I drive, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly follow a prescriptive technique.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff