Roadcraft - still definitive best practice?
Discussion
This forum has recently seen a lot of interesting debate on aspects of road driving as diverse as signalling and gear selection.
Each discussion has enjoyed contributions from people interested in advanced driving. Some of them have extolled the approach set out in the relevant passages of Roadcraft. Others have shared their experiences and how, having considered the approach suggested by Roadcraft, they have settled on a different way of doing things.
All of which made me think (especially as the current edition of Roadcraft is no longer in its first flush of youth)... what bits of Roadcraft could be improved or updated?
Indeed, do you think that Roadcraft could be improved or updated?
Do you subscribe to the view that "if you drive to the 'System' you ARE safe. Always. All the time. Without any exception"? If you do, presumably you are happy with Roadcraft as it stands...
Or do you identify more with the statement that it is "impossible to assert that you'll never have a collision if you adhere to Roadcraft"? If so, then presumably you are open to the thought that there is scope for improvement...
Has best practice moved on since Roadcraft was last published and, if so, how?
What do you think?
WilliBetz
Each discussion has enjoyed contributions from people interested in advanced driving. Some of them have extolled the approach set out in the relevant passages of Roadcraft. Others have shared their experiences and how, having considered the approach suggested by Roadcraft, they have settled on a different way of doing things.
All of which made me think (especially as the current edition of Roadcraft is no longer in its first flush of youth)... what bits of Roadcraft could be improved or updated?
Indeed, do you think that Roadcraft could be improved or updated?
Do you subscribe to the view that "if you drive to the 'System' you ARE safe. Always. All the time. Without any exception"? If you do, presumably you are happy with Roadcraft as it stands...
Or do you identify more with the statement that it is "impossible to assert that you'll never have a collision if you adhere to Roadcraft"? If so, then presumably you are open to the thought that there is scope for improvement...
Has best practice moved on since Roadcraft was last published and, if so, how?
What do you think?
WilliBetz
Roadcraft is constantly being moved on. If it didn't it would become outdated in short order.
One of the key pressures is changing technology - and old example is the advent of ultra-efficient disk brakes totally removing the need to slow with the engine. Sure - I still like to use engine braking on long downhills as I can relax my feet - but the car won't suffer brake fade like they used to.
A modern example is the advent of flappy paddle semi-automatic gearboxes. Roadcraft doesn't quite deal with these explicitly yet. The main reasons for seperation of braking and gearchanging in The System is to keep both hands on the wheel whilst braking (for better control) and to avoid "clutch drag" braking (also avoidable using heel and toe) which can destabilise the grip of the drive wheels. Paddles accessible from the wheel take care of the former and a fancy computer that raises engine revs to match road speed when you do pull the paddle takes care of the latter.
Similarly these boxes can achieve smoothness to the point where avoiding gearchanging whilst cornering is unnecessary - despite being good practice. Or, like some Audi auto-boxes, have sensors in them that prevent gear change when cornering under acceleration anyway.
When (and if) these boxes become all pervading Roadcraft will almost certainly be updated with chapters on how to take advantage of their capabilities. Although, I expect, by then the computer will be so good that they'll remove the paddles anyway and let the machine do it.
However. Other aspects of Roadcraft will not change - after all the fundamental laws of physics don't change so chapters about weight transfer and skidding are likely to remain very similar pretty much forever.
I can't see any reason why Roadcraft's advice about Observation techniques would change much either. Perhaps discoveries in psychology will lead to techniques changing to take advantage. Don't know...
The fundamental premise of a System is, however, a good one and unlikely to change. Tweaks around the edges, possibly.
One of the key pressures is changing technology - and old example is the advent of ultra-efficient disk brakes totally removing the need to slow with the engine. Sure - I still like to use engine braking on long downhills as I can relax my feet - but the car won't suffer brake fade like they used to.
A modern example is the advent of flappy paddle semi-automatic gearboxes. Roadcraft doesn't quite deal with these explicitly yet. The main reasons for seperation of braking and gearchanging in The System is to keep both hands on the wheel whilst braking (for better control) and to avoid "clutch drag" braking (also avoidable using heel and toe) which can destabilise the grip of the drive wheels. Paddles accessible from the wheel take care of the former and a fancy computer that raises engine revs to match road speed when you do pull the paddle takes care of the latter.
Similarly these boxes can achieve smoothness to the point where avoiding gearchanging whilst cornering is unnecessary - despite being good practice. Or, like some Audi auto-boxes, have sensors in them that prevent gear change when cornering under acceleration anyway.
When (and if) these boxes become all pervading Roadcraft will almost certainly be updated with chapters on how to take advantage of their capabilities. Although, I expect, by then the computer will be so good that they'll remove the paddles anyway and let the machine do it.
However. Other aspects of Roadcraft will not change - after all the fundamental laws of physics don't change so chapters about weight transfer and skidding are likely to remain very similar pretty much forever.
I can't see any reason why Roadcraft's advice about Observation techniques would change much either. Perhaps discoveries in psychology will lead to techniques changing to take advantage. Don't know...
The fundamental premise of a System is, however, a good one and unlikely to change. Tweaks around the edges, possibly.
A wise man once said:-
Roadcraft is fine as far as it goes, but it's not a book to be used in the absence of all other inputs to define safe and progressive driving. I don't even think it's a good reference work. It introduces a concept which can then be taken further by experience. Like my first year calculus book, very important when you first need it, and not that good afterwards.
I can't honestly remember the last time I referred to it (whilst I know I looked in the HighwayCode this morning).
wiseman said:
...using The System in the way that a drunk uses a lamppost - more for support than illumination...
Roadcraft is fine as far as it goes, but it's not a book to be used in the absence of all other inputs to define safe and progressive driving. I don't even think it's a good reference work. It introduces a concept which can then be taken further by experience. Like my first year calculus book, very important when you first need it, and not that good afterwards.
I can't honestly remember the last time I referred to it (whilst I know I looked in the HighwayCode this morning).
Roadcraft can mean different things to different people, who will apply it in different ways.
It is the Police driver's manual (that's who it was written for), starting life as a series of course notes that were brought together in a book. If changes are made they are made for the Police driver, not with others in mind.
It has been adopted by other external groups & they have placed their own interpretation on it.
There will be different interpretations on some aspects between Police schools, let alone between Police & other groups such as the IAM etc.
7db's point is valid, it should be viewed as a base foundation, pre-course reading & is the basis of a pre-course exam for Police officers.
The real learning takes place beyond the book & will be shaped by those who deliver the training.
That training will differ depending where you do it, but is likely to be (should be) consistent & corporate within the group you do it with.
That's only natural because different groups have different aims & objectives for their candidates.
It is the Police driver's manual (that's who it was written for), starting life as a series of course notes that were brought together in a book. If changes are made they are made for the Police driver, not with others in mind.
It has been adopted by other external groups & they have placed their own interpretation on it.
There will be different interpretations on some aspects between Police schools, let alone between Police & other groups such as the IAM etc.
7db's point is valid, it should be viewed as a base foundation, pre-course reading & is the basis of a pre-course exam for Police officers.
The real learning takes place beyond the book & will be shaped by those who deliver the training.
That training will differ depending where you do it, but is likely to be (should be) consistent & corporate within the group you do it with.
That's only natural because different groups have different aims & objectives for their candidates.
I think Roadcraft is a definitive, authorative text book on the fundementals of advanced driving. Much of it is as relevent today as yesterday - observation, physics etc won't change.
Following Roadcraft as is will make you a better driver, (better = safer), it allows you to be progressive in an organised, constructed way instead of 'flooring it and hoping for the best'.
However, yes, I think it needs bringing up to date to include the changes in car technology which are, too be honest, more commonplace than not in todays markets, perhaps when the police more commonly have cars with paddle gear shifts etc then it may be revised.
As a basis it is still 'the only thing on the market' with any authority but if you understand why it says certain things, see that on your car that it doesn't apply or is redundant (cadence braking while you have ABS for example) and keep to the spirit of the system ('to be considered in order but not nec. applied'), then i can't see that you are doing anything 'wrong' or 'against' the rules.
Following Roadcraft as is will make you a better driver, (better = safer), it allows you to be progressive in an organised, constructed way instead of 'flooring it and hoping for the best'.
However, yes, I think it needs bringing up to date to include the changes in car technology which are, too be honest, more commonplace than not in todays markets, perhaps when the police more commonly have cars with paddle gear shifts etc then it may be revised.
As a basis it is still 'the only thing on the market' with any authority but if you understand why it says certain things, see that on your car that it doesn't apply or is redundant (cadence braking while you have ABS for example) and keep to the spirit of the system ('to be considered in order but not nec. applied'), then i can't see that you are doing anything 'wrong' or 'against' the rules.
Everything that vonhosen said. Plus some of what Willibetz said.
Plus the fact that The System is always a safe way to drive. There is nothing bad in it. There is nothing unsafe in it.
It is always horses for courses. It will certainly not suit everyone, but that doesn't mean it can or will be bettered.
It does exactly what it says on the tin.
Willibetz - don't forget, we then identified that this was written to mean that the System is always a safe way to drive. Remember Slowboy's frustration. Remember the example of a plane's prop falling off onto the vehicle. So a 100% safe way to drive
Nothing in life can guarantee that you will not have a collision. But some methods have more chance than others. At least if you drive to the System you are never driving unsafely. Which for some out there is a good start, surely.
BFF
Plus the fact that The System is always a safe way to drive. There is nothing bad in it. There is nothing unsafe in it.
It is always horses for courses. It will certainly not suit everyone, but that doesn't mean it can or will be bettered.
It does exactly what it says on the tin.
willibetz said:
Do you subscribe to the view that "if you drive to the 'System' you ARE safe. Always. All the time. Without any exception"? If you do, presumably you are happy with Roadcraft as it stands...
Willibetz - don't forget, we then identified that this was written to mean that the System is always a safe way to drive. Remember Slowboy's frustration. Remember the example of a plane's prop falling off onto the vehicle. So a 100% safe way to drive
Nothing in life can guarantee that you will not have a collision. But some methods have more chance than others. At least if you drive to the System you are never driving unsafely. Which for some out there is a good start, surely.
BFF
Edited by Big Fat F'er on Tuesday 7th November 18:19
SamHH said:
How can the System be "always a safe way to drive" and "a 100% safe way to drive" when "nothing in life can guarantee that you will not have a collision"?
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Do you mean that if you drive to the System you are 100% safe from causing an accident?
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Do you mean that if you drive to the System you are 100% safe from causing an accident?
Not even THE SYSTEM will provide 100% assurance of freedom from trouble, and I think it is unwise to suggest that it will. What you need is a system that you can apply consistently to the widest possible range of situations that you can reasonably envisage.
Apply the COAST principle, keep looking at how things happen, thinking about it all, making the little adjustments to your style as appropriate, and you'll probably get a very good result.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
SamHH said:
How can the System be "always a safe way to drive" and "a 100% safe way to drive" when "nothing in life can guarantee that you will not have a collision"?
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Do you mean that if you drive to the System you are 100% safe from causing an accident?
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Do you mean that if you drive to the System you are 100% safe from causing an accident?
The System is a safe way to drive, in that nothing in it is unsafe. It recommends, and instructs how, to approach and negotiate a hazard safely. If you are taught correctly to adhere to the System a la Roadcraft, and you do it correctly, then every adjustment or change you make to the vehicles position/direction and speed is done safely (i.e. in an approved and agreed safe way).
So every thing you do is done in a safe way, but that does not mean that nothing can go wrong in life. Yes, you may get hit by fallout from a from an explosion. Yes, the road could collapse underneath you. Yes, a branch could fall on you. But no, you shouldn't run into the back of the car in front. No, you shouldn't be going faster than you should around a corner. No, you shouldn't fail to steer correctly because your grip was wrong.
So what is it about the System that you think is unsafe?
Edited by Big Fat F'er on Wednesday 8th November 12:25
TripleS said:
Not even THE SYSTEM will provide 100% assurance of freedom from trouble
Correct. 'cos that's life.
TripleS said:
What you need is a system that you can apply consistently to the widest possible range of situations that you can reasonably envisage.
Correct. There is one. It's called the System of Car Control, fully described in Roadcraft and used successfully by hundreds of thousands of drivers. So if what you want is "a system that you can apply consistently to the widest possible range of situations that you can reasonably envisage" then good news - it is available. If you don't want to use it for your own reasons, whatever they are, then super.
TripleS said:
Apply the COAST principle, keep looking at how things happen, thinking about it all, making the little adjustments to your style as appropriate, and you'll probably get a very good result.
Correct. You'll be driving exactly as recommended and taught.
Edited by Big Fat F'er on Wednesday 8th November 12:26
SamHH said:
How can the System be "always a safe way to drive" and "a 100% safe way to drive" when "nothing in life can guarantee that you will not have a collision"?
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Do you mean that if you drive to the System you are 100% safe from causing an accident?
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Do you mean that if you drive to the System you are 100% safe from causing an accident?
I'm an advocate of the intelligent application of the System, but would still compare it to ISO 9000. The process may be considered, documented and consistently applied. But that doesn't guarantee the quality of the end product.
With regard to areas where Roadcraft might be improvable, what do we think about:
- Trail braking. Of the planned variety, not because of poor observation or assessment!
- Skid control. Do the prescribed methods still suit a diverse cross section of modern cars, ranging from basic fwd Vauxhall, through powerful rwd Senator to technology laden 4WD Volvo?
- Vehicle systems. Some cars cut the throttle if the brake is applied. Should the cockpit drill now try to determine this, as it may not get a mention in the handbook?
WilliBetz
Big Fat F'er said:
TripleS said:
Not even THE SYSTEM will provide 100% assurance of freedom from trouble
Correct. 'cos that's life.
TripleS said:
What you need is a system that you can apply consistently to the widest possible range of situations that you can reasonably envisage.
Correct. There is one. It's called the System of Car Control, fully described in Roadcraft and used successfully by hundreds of thousands of drivers. So if what you want is "a system that you can apply consistently to the widest possible range of situations that you can reasonably envisage" then good news - it is available. If you don't want to use it for your own reasons, whatever they are, then super.
TripleS said:
Apply the COAST principle, keep looking at how things happen, thinking about it all, making the little adjustments to your style as appropriate, and you'll probably get a very good result.
Correct. You'll be driving exactly as recommended and taught.
Not necessarily exactly, but in a style that gives an equivalent result.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Big Fat F'er said:
The System is a safe way to drive, in that nothing in it is unsafe. It recommends, and instructs how, to approach and negotiate a hazard safely.
We've been here before, and I don't have any reason to suppose we'll get any further this time than we did last time, but perhaps you could clarify what you mean by The System and what you mean by the terms 'safe' and 'unsafe'. These may sound like silly questions, but we've had confusion in the past about the distinction between The System and the driving schemes based on it, and I think you must be using 'safe' in a sense that is very different to the way I use it.
For example, given the recommended push/pull steering techniques, it is clear that there are some situations where this is not optimal. Is this part of The System? Presumably not. Similarly for many other techniques which are generally recommended, but not optimal for every driver in every situation.
You statement above implies to me that complying with The System will prevent any and all harm, which is clearly absurd (and I don't think this is what you are trying to say) so I can only think that we are interpreting some of these terms differently.
The most accurate way I can think to describe Roadcraft and The System is that they represent current best practice (evolving over time) and that if you follow them diligently you are unlikely to be held to blame for any accidents that occur. This doesn't mean that you won't have accidents, or that the accidents you *do* have couldn't have been avoided if you had applied different techniques, but if you follow best practice you are unlikely to be held to blame. (In much the same sense that nobody lost their job by buying from IBM.)
Edited by GreenV8S on Wednesday 8th November 14:14
Green – we are probably a lot closer than you think in what we believe.
We've been here before, and I don't have any reason to suppose we'll get any further this time than we did last time, but perhaps you could clarify what you mean by The System and what you mean by the terms 'safe' and 'unsafe'
The System is the System of Car Control. It is the specific, documented, laid down method of negotiating any hazard, often defined as IPSGA. The System is what you do, Roadcraft tells you how to do it, but NOT only by just reading the book. By safe, I mean that the actual technique, or method, or whatever, is a safe way of doing something. In other words, it is inherently safe as a described and taught technique. It is not to say that nothing ‘bad’ will happen in life, and it obviously does not guard against someone doing it wrong, intentionally or otherwise.
For example, the cornering technique is a safe way to corner. It gives a safe position and speed and gear to corner giving full control of all operations with maximum possible vision, understanding all the forces acting on the car, being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Go through it in detail, and see if you can identify where it is unsafe (I mean that as a genuine question, I would be interested to see what you thought). Whereas other cornering techniques MAY be safe, but not necessarily in every single circumstance.
Amazingly, different people have different definitions of optimal. That aside, Push/Pull is taught as a recommended steering technique, and is certainly regarded as a safe technique for ‘normal civilian driving’. It is regarded as always being a safe technique. It is very rare for those involved to start claiming safest, best, etc. But safe technique, yes. It’s regarded as the Swiss Army Knife, i.e applicable to every situation. However, other steering techniques are also taught, including rotational steering. This is specifically mentioned in Roadcraft.
Yep, I think we are. The System will not prevent any and all harm. I know that as much (if not more) than some others. I wouldn’t claim that. But I would claim that the System is always a safe way to drive, and that as such it has the highest chance of keeping you safe. Some drivers systems are not always safe, so therefore they are not have the same high chance.
Also, when I say that the System is a safe way to drive, I do not mean that everyone who says they are driving to it is safe. That is a totally different thing. The System is a safe way, but someone may not use it correctly. However, it is still good to aim for it, as someone may do their own way correctly, but it may still be inherently unsafe for that particular circumstance.
Yes, it all evolves. That is how it should be.
Don’t forget, all I believe is that the System (captured within Roadcraft) is a 100% safe way to drive. That’s not just my view, it is one that I share with thousands of others. We are confident enough to say that if you think there is something unsafe in the System or what Roadcraft is teaching, then identify it (hence the massive discussion on signalling…don’t go there).
If I’ve explained what I mean correctly, I think you would agree as well. Possibly. Perhaps. Hopefully.
BFF
GreenV8S said:
Big Fat F'er said:
The System is a safe way to drive, in that nothing in it is unsafe. It recommends, and instructs how, to approach and negotiate a hazard safely.
We've been here before, and I don't have any reason to suppose we'll get any further this time than we did last time, but perhaps you could clarify what you mean by The System and what you mean by the terms 'safe' and 'unsafe'
The System is the System of Car Control. It is the specific, documented, laid down method of negotiating any hazard, often defined as IPSGA. The System is what you do, Roadcraft tells you how to do it, but NOT only by just reading the book. By safe, I mean that the actual technique, or method, or whatever, is a safe way of doing something. In other words, it is inherently safe as a described and taught technique. It is not to say that nothing ‘bad’ will happen in life, and it obviously does not guard against someone doing it wrong, intentionally or otherwise.
For example, the cornering technique is a safe way to corner. It gives a safe position and speed and gear to corner giving full control of all operations with maximum possible vision, understanding all the forces acting on the car, being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Go through it in detail, and see if you can identify where it is unsafe (I mean that as a genuine question, I would be interested to see what you thought). Whereas other cornering techniques MAY be safe, but not necessarily in every single circumstance.
GreenV8S said:
For example, given the recommended push/pull steering techniques, it is clear that there are some situations where this is not optimal. Is this part of The System? Presumably not. Similarly for many other techniques which are generally recommended, but not optimal for every driver in every situation.
Amazingly, different people have different definitions of optimal. That aside, Push/Pull is taught as a recommended steering technique, and is certainly regarded as a safe technique for ‘normal civilian driving’. It is regarded as always being a safe technique. It is very rare for those involved to start claiming safest, best, etc. But safe technique, yes. It’s regarded as the Swiss Army Knife, i.e applicable to every situation. However, other steering techniques are also taught, including rotational steering. This is specifically mentioned in Roadcraft.
GreenV8S said:
You statement above implies to me that complying with The System will prevent any and all harm, which is clearly absurd (and I don't think this is what you are trying to say) so I can only think that we are interpreting some of these terms differently.
Yep, I think we are. The System will not prevent any and all harm. I know that as much (if not more) than some others. I wouldn’t claim that. But I would claim that the System is always a safe way to drive, and that as such it has the highest chance of keeping you safe. Some drivers systems are not always safe, so therefore they are not have the same high chance.
Also, when I say that the System is a safe way to drive, I do not mean that everyone who says they are driving to it is safe. That is a totally different thing. The System is a safe way, but someone may not use it correctly. However, it is still good to aim for it, as someone may do their own way correctly, but it may still be inherently unsafe for that particular circumstance.
GreenV8S said:
The most accurate way I can think to describe Roadcraft and The System is that they represent current best practice (evolving over time)
Yes, it all evolves. That is how it should be.
Don’t forget, all I believe is that the System (captured within Roadcraft) is a 100% safe way to drive. That’s not just my view, it is one that I share with thousands of others. We are confident enough to say that if you think there is something unsafe in the System or what Roadcraft is teaching, then identify it (hence the massive discussion on signalling…don’t go there).
If I’ve explained what I mean correctly, I think you would agree as well. Possibly. Perhaps. Hopefully.
BFF
Big Fat F'er said:
So what is it about the System that you think is unsafe?
The fact that it does not make the activity for which it prescribes - driving - free from danger. In my opinion, anything that is not free from danger is by definition unsafe.
I do however think we are arguing about pedantics here. I agree that if you exchange the correct information, are in the correct position at the correct speed in the correct gear, accelerate correctly and do all of this with the correct timing, then the danger will be will be as little as it can be for any given circumstance. Some danger will still remain however, and this is why I believe that the System is not 'safe'.
Edited by SamHH on Wednesday 8th November 15:20
To clarify I've replaced the work 'risk' with the word 'danger'. This more accurately describes my opinion.
Edited by SamHH on Wednesday 8th November 15:27
SamHH said:
Big Fat F'er said:
So what is it about the System that you think is unsafe?
The fact that it does not make the activity for which it prescribes - driving - free from danger. In my opinion, anything that is not free from danger is by definition unsafe.
Ah ha. But I wasn't meaning that (and herein lies the confusion possibly).
The System is a safe method of driving. Every bit of the process as defined is a safe bit.
Thats what I mean by safe. So under that definition, what is it about the System of Car Control that you think is unsafe.
BFF
gotta dash - nice swapping ideas as usual.
Edited by Big Fat F'er on Wednesday 8th November 17:22
willibetz said:
SamHH said:
How can the System be "always a safe way to drive" and "a 100% safe way to drive" when "nothing in life can guarantee that you will not have a collision"?
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Do you mean that if you drive to the System you are 100% safe from causing an accident?
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Do you mean that if you drive to the System you are 100% safe from causing an accident?
I'm an advocate of the intelligent application of the System, but would still compare it to ISO 9000. The process may be considered, documented and consistently applied. But that doesn't guarantee the quality of the end product.
With regard to areas where Roadcraft might be improvable, what do we think about:
- Trail braking. Of the planned variety, not because of poor observation or assessment!
- Skid control. Do the prescribed methods still suit a diverse cross section of modern cars, ranging from basic fwd Vauxhall, through powerful rwd Senator to technology laden 4WD Volvo?
- Vehicle systems. Some cars cut the throttle if the brake is applied. Should the cockpit drill now try to determine this, as it may not get a mention in the handbook?
WilliBetz
Like I said, the book is just a pre-course read.
The things you are talking about here are things that can be covered in the training. Everything you'll learn won't be in the book, it's the starting place & foundation upon which the other things are built.
GreenV8S said:
Big Fat F'er said:
The System is a safe way to drive, in that nothing in it is unsafe. It recommends, and instructs how, to approach and negotiate a hazard safely.
We've been here before, and I don't have any reason to suppose we'll get any further this time than we did last time, but perhaps you could clarify what you mean by The System and what you mean by the terms 'safe' and 'unsafe'. These may sound like silly questions, but we've had confusion in the past about the distinction between The System and the driving schemes based on it, and I think you must be using 'safe' in a sense that is very different to the way I use it.
For example, given the recommended push/pull steering techniques, it is clear that there are some situations where this is not optimal. Is this part of The System? Presumably not. Similarly for many other techniques which are generally recommended, but not optimal for every driver in every situation.
Pull/push steering is primarily taught to police drivers because it fits well with what is required of them. Other steering methods are also taught to some Police drivers, because the tasks they are required to do, may require other steering methods in some circumstances for safe optimal performance. They are not all tied to pull/push, because the system doesn't define what steering method you must use. Roadcraft will advise pull/push because of what I said earlier, it suits most Police training. It's written for the Police after all, not specifically for others. It's written like that because it serves their purpose, not necessarily others.
If other organisations decide that pull/push forms part of their syllabus & exam, that's down to them & their choice. If you don't want to be part of that club, you don't have to go by their rules.
You are never 100% safe from collisions with any system. The best you can hope for & what Roadcraft will give you (if you always drive to it), is no fault collisions & the ability to avoid the majority of collisions that could be down to the errors of others.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 8th November 18:47
IMHO, Roadcraft does not describe the best practice. But what it does describe is what I will call "less dangerous practice", or "one of the least dangerous practices".
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. Since Roadcraft is a police driver's handbook, it only makes sense that it is aimed at the lowest common denominator (as far as I'm aware, the British police services don't recruit on the basis of driving skill). 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.
Roadcraft is just a text of theoretical concepts of reduced-risk driving. It is the best practice in that frame of reference.
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. Since Roadcraft is a police driver's handbook, it only makes sense that it is aimed at the lowest common denominator (as far as I'm aware, the British police services don't recruit on the basis of driving skill). 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.
Roadcraft is just a text of theoretical concepts of reduced-risk driving. It is the best practice in that frame of reference.
Edited by Jungles on Thursday 9th November 05:48
Jungles said:
IMHO, Roadcraft does not describe the best practice. But what it does describe is what I will call "less dangerous practice", or "one of the least dangerous practices".
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. Since Roadcraft is a police driver's handbook, it only makes sense that it is aimed at the lowest common denominator (as far as I'm aware, the British police services don't recruit on the basis of driving skill). 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.
Roadcraft is just a text of theoretical concepts of reduced-risk driving. It is the best practice in that frame of reference.
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. Since Roadcraft is a police driver's handbook, it only makes sense that it is aimed at the lowest common denominator (as far as I'm aware, the British police services don't recruit on the basis of driving skill). 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.
Roadcraft is just a text of theoretical concepts of reduced-risk driving. It is the best practice in that frame of reference.
Edited by Jungles on Thursday 9th November 05:48
You don't have to be a great natural driver or very experienced. The skill levels & experience of those coming to it will be varied & it's the Police's way of taking people from that broad mixture of abilities & within a set relatively short timeframe, providing them with a system that can be used by all. It's done to equip them with what they need to carry out a task safely, a task that means they'll be performing outside of the parameters defined for everyone else.
It doesn't make them great drivers in all circumstances, but it does give them limits (outside that of others) & minimises the risk to them or others, provided they adhere to the teachings.
The Police only give that training to the officers who will have to operate outside the normal parameters by claiming exemptions. Those who don't have to won't be given any Roadcraft training. For them it's a case of making sure they are competent to operate within the normal parameters which is doe by ensuring they have a DSA licence, have a check test & are familiarised with the vehicle types they'll be using.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 9th November 06:55
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff