Separation of braking and gear changing - WHY?
Discussion
GreenV8S said:
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.
Encore! Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
GreenV8S said:
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.
Encore! Best wishes all,
Dave.
Obviously a popular view, but not one that I share.
If you drive to the roadcraft methodology, you won't cause an accident. That's not to say that your drive will be unimprovable, or that you will be immune from harm - a tree could fall on your car, or an oncoming driver stray onto your side of the road. But even then, you will be at an advantage to the driver who doesn't consider prevailing circumstances and respond with a systematic approach. And you should be able to foresee and avoid most accidents - even if an artic pulls into lane three at the end of a motorway in order to turn right at an upcoming roundabout
WilliBetz
vonhosen said:
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.
On this subject VH and I are almost in complete agreement...apart from the above...no system is foolproof or perfect, so I don't think that even if strictly adhered to it can completely cut out fault accidents. Also, even if it were that good (ie perfect), people will not be able to strictly adhere to it all the time.
Bert
willibetz said:
If you drive to the roadcraft methodology, you won't cause an accident.
This is an example of the over-selling I referred to. I simply do not believe that your statement is true. There will always be accidents that could conceivably have been avoided if a driver was slightly more defensive, no technique can reduce the risk to zero, all we can ask is that drivers meet the standard that is required of them. This doesn't imply that you have to be perfect, or that following any system can make you perfect, or that you have to follow any particular system in order to meet the standard (except for police, who have to comply with stricter requirements than the general public). I'm quite sure that following the roadcraft methodology would improve the vast majority of drivers on the road (including me) but that doesn't mean that it would stop them from ever having / causing accidents or that it is necessary in order for them to meet the standard that is required of them.
willibetz said:
TripleS said:
GreenV8S said:
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.
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.
Encore! Best wishes all,
Dave.
Obviously a popular view, but not one that I share.
If you drive to the roadcraft methodology, you won't cause an accident.
It may or may not be a popular view, but it is an approach that has my support, for what that's worth.
....and your confidence that driving to the Roadcraft methodology will prevent you from causing an accident is, I would suggest, being overplayed a little. You still have to do it right, without fail, every time.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Edited by TripleS on Sunday 25th March 16:56
GreenV8S said:
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.
I said it won't stop you having collisions, but where you do have fault collisions, it will inevitably lead to the criticism that you have made a misjudgement in applying the system. That's not a fault in the system itself, but an operator error. It can only be a fault of the system where adherance to the system itself is to blame for the collision.
There are other techniques that are perfectly serviceable but not part of roadcraft. You allege that brake/gear overlap is not part of Roadcraft, but it is, just in limited circumstances. Infact in reality as far as Roadcraft is concerned, no techniques are completely outlawed, because safety always has priority over system. It's just the case that if it can be done safely whilst remaining systematic first, then it should be. That leads to the better you are at the system, the less you'd have to compromise it for safety & within Roadcraft's teachings safety is the only thing you should be compromising it for.
Of course others no doubt would be willing to sacrifice the system to aid progress, but within Roadcraft's teachings that's a
If others wish to do that fine, but for the Police officer
As I have explained, Police driver training is limited in time. In that time frame a certain product standard has to be reliably achieved & not just by the naturally gifted or driving enthuasiasts. The product as taught is not an all encompassing product, it is a product that serves a purpose for the Police service, who it was designed for.
I don't promote it as being best for everyone, where have I ever said it's the one true way ? What it does is suit the Police & their needs.
Other advanced driving groups have adopted it, but their application of it is different than what is taught in Police schools, because it is being used in different circumstances. The groups themselves decide on their own membership criteria & qualification standards, because it's their club.
Outside of the Police if you want to adopt it in it's entirety, then fine.
If you want to cherry pick from it, then fine.
If you want to ignore it, then fine.
Like I said, I honestly don't care whether the masses adopt 'the system' or not.
No driver is going to possess & be at the pinnacle of all driving disciplines at the same time.
Best to have as diverse a knowledge as you can & be as competent in all disciplnes as you can be (at least in the disciplines that you are likely to use).
But if you are a Police driver & you are involved in a collision, the criteria you will be judged against are those with Roadcraft, because that is the way you were instructed to do it.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 25th March 17:41
TripleS said:
willibetz said:
TripleS said:
GreenV8S said:
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.
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.
Encore! Best wishes all,
Dave.
Obviously a popular view, but not one that I share.
If you drive to the roadcraft methodology, you won't cause an accident.
It may or may not not be a popular view, but it is an approach that has my support, for what that's worth.
....and your confidence that driving to the Roadcraft methodology will prevent you from causing an accident is, I would suggest, being overplayed a little. You still have to do it right, without fail, every time.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I accept the point you make - for the Roadcraft methodology to work, you have to follow it. I also accept that most people find it neither intuitive or comfortable. And that to apply it well still requires thought and relevant experience, critically in relation to "what you can reasonably expect to occur".
That said, I think the Police are best placed to comment on the effectiveness of the methodology. They train to it, assess by it and reference it when reviewing in-house accidents. I trust them when they say it works, when correctly applied. And my own attempts at driving to it reinforce my position.
Once again, though, I don't think it will protect you in all circumstances (eg. the falling tree) or that drivers who drive their own way are necessarily unsafe. I leave that sort of blinkered thinking to BFF.
WilliBetz
vonhosen said:
I said it won't stop you having collisions, but where you do have fault collisions, it will inevitably lead to the criticism that you have made a misjudgement in applying the system. That's not a fault in the system itself, but an operator error. It can only be a fault of the system where adherance to the system itself is to blame for the collision.
Unfortunately, that sounds too self-referential to me. That if you have a fault collision, it cannot be the system that is at fault, but the application of it. How can the system be perfect in this way? What is there about it that makes it perfect? Is there some academic proof? Maybe mathematical or philosophical?
Who said these threads degenerate into pedancy (pedantry hehe)? I admit, I am a culprit!
Bert
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff