a pre-emptive gear change?

[leosayer]

vonhosen said:

SneakyMcC said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

What a dreadful idea - taking away a drivers ability to make a nice, planned approach to a roundabout.

Too few road users plan what they do, so its only a small percentage that are actually effected! ;-)

How many actually look right early ?

Around 50% from my experience if not less.

In the past my approach to such roundabouts (eg the road running across the dock from City Airport) has been to make a judgement (ie. guess) about whether traffic is likely to be on the roundabout already, preventing me from entering it.

If I think not then I will maintain the speed limit, or thereabouts, and cover the brake getting ready to brake sharply if need be, keeping in mind traffic following behind me. If I think there might be a car, then I will slow down in the normal way for a busy roundabout.

Was this what the designers had in mind?

[waremark]

People normally say 'with respect' when they don't mean it. In this case, I have enormous respect for both VH and RU Local. However, on this particular point I don't think their interpretation in the only interpretation which is consistent with Roadcraft, nor the only approach which would be accepted by ? some IAM or Rospa examiners without criticism.

Approaching this sort of situation your commentary might say: 'still preparing to stop, but taking an early 2nd/3rd gear to be ready to go'. Then either 'and now I can go' or 'stopping and taking first gear'.

Roadcraft does not quote this as a situation where overlapping brakes and gearchange is acceptable, but it does not claim to list every such situation. Roadcraft tells us to 'Plan to stop, Look to go'. Others might change 'Look' to 'Hope' or 'Ready'. Personally, this is a situation where I might overlap using H & T.

A staff examiner on the IAM Forum has recently posted the following, and it has been specifically endorsed on behalf of the Chief Examiner:

"THE DEFINITAVE ADVICE is, as I put in an earlier posting on this thread, there are no must or must not do's within the IAM. IF IT IS SAFE AND NOT ILLEGAL THEN YOU CAN DO IT. However, if it is not the BEST thing to do, given all the attendent circumstances, then you may well be criticised.

We are looking to create a thinking driver/rider not one that acts (drives/rides) by rote."

(Note that this is a far more flexible approach than the official Rospa line, but in practise Rospa examiners seem to have the same sort of flexibility).

I do not think this examiner would criticise you for taking the pre-emptive gear change providing you are still preparing to stop and you do it for a good reason.

Mark from Ware, IAM, Rospa and HPC member but giving my own opinion on this.

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

People normally say 'with respect' when they don't mean it. In this case, I have enormous respect for both VH and RU Local. However, on this particular point I don't think their interpretation in the only interpretation which is consistent with Roadcraft, nor the only approach which would be accepted by ? some IAM or Rospa examiners without criticism.

Approaching this sort of situation your commentary might say: 'still preparing to stop, but taking an early 2nd/3rd gear to be ready to go'. Then either 'and now I can go' or 'stopping and taking first gear'.

Roadcraft does not quote this as a situation where overlapping brakes and gearchange is acceptable, but it does not claim to list every such situation. Roadcraft tells us to 'Plan to stop, Look to go'. Others might change 'Look' to 'Hope' or 'Ready'. Personally, this is a situation where I might overlap using H & T.

A staff examiner on the IAM Forum has recently posted the following, and it has been specifically endorsed on behalf of the Chief Examiner:

"THE DEFINITAVE ADVICE is, as I put in an earlier posting on this thread, there are no must or must not do's within the IAM. IF IT IS SAFE AND NOT ILLEGAL THEN YOU CAN DO IT. However, if it is not the BEST thing to do, given all the attendent circumstances, then you may well be criticised.

We are looking to create a thinking driver/rider not one that acts (drives/rides) by rote."

(Note that this is a far more flexible approach than the official Rospa line, but in practise Rospa examiners seem to have the same sort of flexibility).

I do not think this examiner would criticise you for taking the pre-emptive gear change providing you are still preparing to stop and you do it for a good reason.

Mark from Ware, IAM, Rospa and HPC member but giving my own opinion on this.

I don't mind anyone questioning what I have to say

I've said many times, each club can make their own rules.
The position I am stating is how it will be viewed in the club to which I belong.
One word I never like to hear in commentary though is "Hope".

In my club you can only compromise system (overlap is a compromise) where safety demands it.
That's not strictly true actually because of course you can compromise it at any other time, but you'll be losing marks when you do.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 4th April 19:19

[waremark]

VH as you know all the examiners in the other clubs have at some time been members of your club - though most of them probably did not have the same stature in your club as yourself.

I believe some of these things are interpreted differently by different members of the same club. And in the case of former members of your club, some of them have adapted their ideas to driving in the civilian world.

On this issue we certainly all understand one another, and I agree that each club is entitled to set its own rules.

[SneakyMcC]

vonhosen said:

It's defined within the system. You get the speed right for the hazard & then the gear for that speed. You can compromise that where safety demands it, but not just for convenience.
It can be said that if you are getting a gear to go before the speed for the hazard is correct, that your mindset is not truely "planning to stop, but looking to go". You actions have raised the importance of progress in the equation beyond it's station within the system. With paddle shift I'll still get the speed right, then take the gear. Overlaps should only happen when driving within roadcraft, where they have to be done in order to maintain safety. If it can be done safely without overlapping, then it should be done without overlapping.

Remember though this is advanced driving Roadcraft style, it's not the only style.

Well put, accepted! :-)

Edited by SneakyMcC on Wednesday 4th April 22:07

[bertbert]

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

People normally say 'with respect' when they don't mean it. In this case, I have enormous respect for both VH and RU Local. However, on this particular point I don't think their interpretation in the only interpretation which is consistent with Roadcraft, nor the only approach which would be accepted by ? some IAM or Rospa examiners without criticism.

Approaching this sort of situation your commentary might say: 'still preparing to stop, but taking an early 2nd/3rd gear to be ready to go'. Then either 'and now I can go' or 'stopping and taking first gear'.

Roadcraft does not quote this as a situation where overlapping brakes and gearchange is acceptable, but it does not claim to list every such situation. Roadcraft tells us to 'Plan to stop, Look to go'. Others might change 'Look' to 'Hope' or 'Ready'. Personally, this is a situation where I might overlap using H & T.

A staff examiner on the IAM Forum has recently posted the following, and it has been specifically endorsed on behalf of the Chief Examiner:

"THE DEFINITAVE ADVICE is, as I put in an earlier posting on this thread, there are no must or must not do's within the IAM. IF IT IS SAFE AND NOT ILLEGAL THEN YOU CAN DO IT. However, if it is not the BEST thing to do, given all the attendent circumstances, then you may well be criticised.

We are looking to create a thinking driver/rider not one that acts (drives/rides) by rote."

(Note that this is a far more flexible approach than the official Rospa line, but in practise Rospa examiners seem to have the same sort of flexibility).

I do not think this examiner would criticise you for taking the pre-emptive gear change providing you are still preparing to stop and you do it for a good reason.

Mark from Ware, IAM, Rospa and HPC member but giving my own opinion on this.

I don't mind anyone questioning what I have to say

I've said many times, each club can make their own rules.
The position I am stating is how it will be viewed in the club to which I belong.
One word I never like to hear in commentary though is "Hope".

In my club you can only compromise system (overlap is a compromise) where safety demands it.
That's not strictly true actually because of course you can compromise it at any other time, but you'll be losing marks when you do.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 4th April 19:19

I know that we have moved on from the original post, but a couple of comments re the original situation described...actually I do not overlap, I come off the brakes, block change from 5th to 3rd and am completely prepared to go or stop as the visibility opens up.

Also in fact as it is downhill, one could justify an overlap anyway. I think the point where it breaks the system however is that the gear is taken too early prior to the go/nogo decision.

Although there is another thing that is good about the manoeuvre is that it is a better management of the gears. If I were to slow down to the requisite speed so that the gearchange were not too rushed in the space available when visibility opens up (what a mouthful), then I would have to de-clutch anyway as I would be going too slow for the 5th gear that I approach in.

Great discussion on the subject though!

Bert

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

VH as you know all the examiners in the other clubs have at some time been members of your club - though most of them probably did not have the same stature in your club as yourself.

I believe some of these things are interpreted differently by different members of the same club. And in the case of former members of your club, some of them have adapted their ideas to driving in the civilian world.

On this issue we certainly all understand one another, and I agree that each club is entitled to set its own rules.

What is required in the club to which I belong is consistent in relation to this topic.
What Police (or ex Police) do outside however is of no concern, they are only being assessed against competencies to perform a role within the Police & that assessment is applied consistently.
It is, because of the nature of what is being asked of them in the time frame available, very prescriptive for those who are Police trained.
If they can't perform adequately in all the laid down competency areas, then they don't pass & that means they won't drive Police vehicles.
Obviously there are different ability levels within the Police.
There are for a start different levels of driver & within those levels there are those who are merely competent at applying the system at that required level, whilst others are excellent at it & far exceed the merely competent level. Most will be in the competent bracket.

Whilst Roadcraft is "The Police driver's handbook", yes I think we all agree that other clubs can interpret it however they wish. They are not duty bound to doing things the Police way. They can take as little or as much of it as they like & adapt it however they wish. They can also set their own levels of competence in order to qualify for membership.

I can't offer an opinion on what the IAM/RoADA want, because I have no experience of their testing.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 5th April 06:52

[vonhosen]

bertbert said:

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

People normally say 'with respect' when they don't mean it. In this case, I have enormous respect for both VH and RU Local. However, on this particular point I don't think their interpretation in the only interpretation which is consistent with Roadcraft, nor the only approach which would be accepted by ? some IAM or Rospa examiners without criticism.

Approaching this sort of situation your commentary might say: 'still preparing to stop, but taking an early 2nd/3rd gear to be ready to go'. Then either 'and now I can go' or 'stopping and taking first gear'.

Roadcraft does not quote this as a situation where overlapping brakes and gearchange is acceptable, but it does not claim to list every such situation. Roadcraft tells us to 'Plan to stop, Look to go'. Others might change 'Look' to 'Hope' or 'Ready'. Personally, this is a situation where I might overlap using H & T.

A staff examiner on the IAM Forum has recently posted the following, and it has been specifically endorsed on behalf of the Chief Examiner:

"THE DEFINITAVE ADVICE is, as I put in an earlier posting on this thread, there are no must or must not do's within the IAM. IF IT IS SAFE AND NOT ILLEGAL THEN YOU CAN DO IT. However, if it is not the BEST thing to do, given all the attendent circumstances, then you may well be criticised.

We are looking to create a thinking driver/rider not one that acts (drives/rides) by rote."

(Note that this is a far more flexible approach than the official Rospa line, but in practise Rospa examiners seem to have the same sort of flexibility).

I do not think this examiner would criticise you for taking the pre-emptive gear change providing you are still preparing to stop and you do it for a good reason.

Mark from Ware, IAM, Rospa and HPC member but giving my own opinion on this.

I don't mind anyone questioning what I have to say

I've said many times, each club can make their own rules.
The position I am stating is how it will be viewed in the club to which I belong.
One word I never like to hear in commentary though is "Hope".

In my club you can only compromise system (overlap is a compromise) where safety demands it.
That's not strictly true actually because of course you can compromise it at any other time, but you'll be losing marks when you do.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 4th April 19:19

I know that we have moved on from the original post, but a couple of comments re the original situation described...actually I do not overlap, I come off the brakes, block change from 5th to 3rd and am completely prepared to go or stop as the visibility opens up.

Also in fact as it is downhill, one could justify an overlap anyway. I think the point where it breaks the system however is that the gear is taken too early prior to the go/nogo decision.

Although there is another thing that is good about the manoeuvre is that it is a better management of the gears. If I were to slow down to the requisite speed so that the gearchange were not too rushed in the space available when visibility opens up (what a mouthful), then I would have to de-clutch anyway as I would be going too slow for the 5th gear that I approach in.

Great discussion on the subject though!

Bert

There may well be times that you approach in a very high gear & may have to either dip the clutch some distance from the hazard or take an intermeadiary gear on the approach if you are not to stall. This can be increasingly likely if you are in say a diesel in 6th gear. There is no problem with that if not doing so might cause a stall etc, it's a perfectly valid justification. If for instance you've ever driven an artic, you would have to take intermeadiary gears on approach.


My personal position on a downhill is that I'll do it without an overlap if it's safe to, not seek to do it just because in certain circumstances going downhill it can be justified. I mean there are circumstances that I can justify an overlap taking a junction left, but I don't look to do that everytime because of that. I'll always be treating the default position as looking in the first instance to be seperating.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 5th April 07:16

[bertbert]

vonhosen said:

There may well be times that you approach in a very high gear & may have to either dip the clutch some distance from the hazard or take an intermeadiary gear on the approach if you are not to stall. This can be increasingly likely if you are in say a diesel in 6th gear. There is no problem with that if not doing so might cause a stall etc, it's a perfectly valid justification. If for instance you've ever driven an artic, you would have to take intermeadiary gears on approach.


My personal position on a downhill is that I'll do it without an overlap if it's safe to, not seek to do it just because in certain circumstances going downhill it can be justified. I mean there are circumstances that I can justify an overlap taking a junction left, but I don't look to do that everytime because of that. I'll always be treating the default position as looking in the first instance to be seperating.

We are of one accord!
Bert

[TripleS]

bertbert said:

vonhosen said:

There may well be times that you approach in a very high gear & may have to either dip the clutch some distance from the hazard or take an intermeadiary gear on the approach if you are not to stall. This can be increasingly likely if you are in say a diesel in 6th gear. There is no problem with that if not doing so might cause a stall etc, it's a perfectly valid justification. If for instance you've ever driven an artic, you would have to take intermeadiary gears on approach.


My personal position on a downhill is that I'll do it without an overlap if it's safe to, not seek to do it just because in certain circumstances going downhill it can be justified. I mean there are circumstances that I can justify an overlap taking a junction left, but I don't look to do that everytime because of that. I'll always be treating the default position as looking in the first instance to be seperating.

We are of one accord!
Bert

Be thankful for that, cos he's usually right - except when he talks about the merits of speed limit compliance.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[saxmund]

Going back to the OP's point, what's wrong with 2nd? I know my Alfa hasn't got much torque below 3000rpm so I tend to take roundabouts etc a gear lower than I probably would in another car, but surely the problem with 3rd approaching a limited view junction is that you might have to slow to a point where you would lose too many revs in 3rd. So surely 2nd would be best. This also gives you more engine braking so the opportunity to slow down on the throttle and therefore let another car past in front of you without having to come to a halt or even apply the brakes. If the roundabout's clear you can accelerate into it and change up if necessary.

[gridgway]

saxmund said:

Going back to the OP's point, what's wrong with 2nd? I know my Alfa hasn't got much torque below 3000rpm so I tend to take roundabouts etc a gear lower than I probably would in another car, but surely the problem with 3rd approaching a limited view junction is that you might have to slow to a point where you would lose too many revs in 3rd. So surely 2nd would be best. This also gives you more engine braking so the opportunity to slow down on the throttle and therefore let another car past in front of you without having to come to a halt or even apply the brakes. If the roundabout's clear you can accelerate into it and change up if necessary.

It's a pretty open roundabout and 3rd is the right gear for the speed you can enter it. The point of the original post is that 3rd gear is the right gear for the roundabout when you get a nice clear approach to it and a clear entry. If you don;t take 3rd early, you have little time for the gearchange. So the slowing to 2nd is required for the timne available to change rather than being right for a good speed onto the roundabout. So the change to 2nd is "right" for the system, but "wrong" for the particular junction.

Bert

[RDE]

victormeldrew said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

Syd knee said:

Planners are now actively introducing visibility screens at roundabouts to slow traffic down. This difference between "the real world" and a ROSPA test may perpetuate the wrong image.

I've come across these visibility screens a few times now - at first I thought they were just badly designed road signs which took away your view, but I've come to realise that they're actually designed for that purpose.

What a dreadful idea - taking away a drivers ability to make a nice, planned approach to a roundabout. It will also, in my opinion, cause accidents when the less safety-conscious driver doesn't lose enough speed, and gets a view of a vehicle on the roundabout too late.

I really wonder what's going on sometimes.

Reg, I agree 100% on that. They are an abomination - how can reducing visibility at an accident blackspot possibly contribute to safety, or do they seriously expect everyone to notice that they are there and come to a complete stop at the junction? The people causing accidents are the ones who don't look until they are there (and to whom these obstructions make little difference), not those who plan ahead. A dreadful practice as you say.

A fried yesterday enquired what the wooden boards approaching the roundabout were for, while I was driving. Trying to reply without cursing was a task within itself. I support ideas such as removing railings from town centres or taking white lines away to increase wakefulness in drivers, but to block a view on a fast road is just lunacy.