Grahar wrote: Horse wrote:As I may
have mentioned once or many times . . . I'm not anti- - but have reservations.
We all agree (including yourself Horse) that any offsiding has to be done with great care and caution for all the reasons/hazards discussed previously.
Yes, and probably more.
Grahar wrote:Would you say that your approach to offsiding differs from this?
See ^ above
Grahar wrote: I'm sorry to ask you to clarify your position yet again, but some of the language you use when discussing it ('not keen'/'have reservations') is negative and therefore confusing when you have stated to me that you do use it when it is safe to.
No problem; I find that being challenged on a viewpoint means I have to clarify my own thoughts before being able to present them. Much of my training content, theory and practical, has been developed this way.
If I can't justify something to a trainee when they ask "Why?" then I have a major re-think!
Grahar wrote: Would it be more accurate to describe it (like myself) as a valuable technique, but one that has to be taught and used with full awareness of the potential dangers (and implications if incorrectly done), much like overtaking? The word 'reservations' suggests that there is something objectively dangerous about the action of offsiding itself (which doesn't involve causing alarm, danger or harm to other road users, to state the obvious!).
See today's posts regarding 'P5' on fleet training in the 'progress' thread - that sounds totally inappropriate and exactly what concenrs me, my 'reservations'!
While nothing involved with driving can ever be 'safe', there are degrees of risk involved. Crossing the centre line, whether to overtake of offside for cornering, raises risk. It sounds, in that example, as if it was exactly how I believe it can 'go wrong' in training - offsiding for higher speed, rather than enhanced or maintained safety at the same or similar (there's always the option to offside and slow!).
It's the way risks are identified acknowledged by the trainee, and that process is managed and led by the instructor, that was behind the question I asked, which remain unanswered:
Horse wrote:Fip that around: would you, with a clear conscience, train - encourage even - someone to use a technique without being certain that they had a full understanding of it?
So what would that involve? That's success criteria.
So how do you set the 'ground rules'? What knowledge and skill must the trainee have previously demonstrated? How would you be sure they were secure with that?
How would you introduce the concept - and what caveats and warnings would you have in place?
What benefits do you expect the trainee to understand from its use? How will you ensure that risk is managed?
I know my answers - but that's irrelevant here! And any training must be appropriate to the individual trainee. If it's being taught on a 'fleet' course, then that's potentially a car-load of trainees.
Horse wrote: Regarding drivers' expectations, search for paper (I think it was presented at a Rospa conference) called 'what do drivers do at junctions'.
'Look for offside vehicles' isn't.
No-one's commented on this, so have a read of:
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/confere ... abbett.pdfIn particular the diagram on PP8 of where an experienced driver looks . . .
The data may indicate that experienced driver fixate in areas of the road environment that ‘experience’ has taught them where hazards can be found. The novice driver here actually detected the moving motorcyclists more rapidly than did the experienced participant.
Anything posted by 'Horse' may be (C) Malcolm Palmer. Please ask for permission before considering any copying or re-use outside of forum posting.