Better Driving Please

[James]

As much as I admire your intentions Gareth, the problem lies where an incident, be it a camera, an accident or something else occurs that places you alongside a driver exceeding the speed limit. As a professional representative be it an IAM observer or other business interest, you could be deemed to be acting as a "passive coercer". Offences can be committed by acts or omissions, so even if it was not your intention, some may argue it was your responsibility to try and put a stop to the excess speed, and that by not doing so you are passively partaking a role in it by allowing the driver to continue...

[Gareth]

do the hpc claim to be a road safety organisation ?

From the website http://www.hpc.org.uk/, "The Club is for advanced drivers who have successfully completed a suitable qualifying course". See also http://www.hpc.org.uk/guests/mission.html. Essentially a social club for people who have passed a qualifying course and who want to be better drivers.

Isn't part of being a good driver being able to obey the traffic laws ?

Part is being able. Part is to drive smoothly. Part is to have vehicle sympathy. Most important is to drive safely. Part is to be able to do so in any car.

[manilva15b]

This seems to be turning into what I would term a theoretical (or even theologial) arguement.

I've read a number of messages on other threads that which indicate that exceeding the speed limit by perhaps one or two mph was allowable (probably not very often) if not condoned.

So where does one draw the line. 1, 2, 5 or more mph. It all comes down to what is appropriate speed for the conditions.

Add to this the formulaic setting of limits by the authorities and we arrive at the present situation - no confidence in authority and increasing reliance on what we ourselves judge to be an appropriate speed.

The reaction to this is ever-tightening controls of speed limits.

The future looks like ever-decreasing circles.

I am not advocating excessive speed, but on the other hand the authorities need to start putting some (publicly demonstrable) common sense into their decisions. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.

BTW, if you want to see some mad applications of formulaic applications of speed limits, come to (currently rainy) Spain. Example: CA34 from San Roque to La Linea; leave A7 (100 kph) onto slip road at 80, 50m to 60 limit, 200m to 100 limit, 1km to roundabout with advance 80, 60, 40 limits, back to 100, then 200m to 80 limit, another rounadbout with advance 60, then 40 limits, another 50m to 70 limit, then 100m to 50 (urban) limit. No wonder the locals get confused! In the other direction we get a 100 limit immediately followed by an end of 80 limit

[Gareth]

some may argue it was your responsibility to try and put a stop to the excess speed

When I sit next to someone who is driving, my primary concern is that they drive safely. Above all else. Speed is of less importance.

When you try to change someone's driving, it is important to focus on only one thing at a time, because otherwise they may become confused and apt to do something dangerous.

Sometime excess speed causes the danger. Other times it is something else. Sometimes it is the person in the passenger seat because they are talking.

Coming up with different suggestions every few minutes distracts concentration from primary safety. Better is to identify whatever single factor is causing most danger and focus solely on improving and perhaps correcting that.

Examples might be driving too close to the vehicle in front, or going into static hazards too quickly, or not keeping to lanes. Inappropriate speed might also be the most important factor.

One problem at a time. Only one.

When driving is safe, then can concentrate on making it legal. Not before.

What are 4 S's? Which is highest priority? Safety.

[vonhosen]

some may argue it was your responsibility to try and put a stop to the excess speed

When I sit next to someone who is driving, my primary concern is that they drive safely. Above all else. Speed is of less importance.

When you try to change someone's driving, it is important to focus on only one thing at a time, because otherwise they may become confused and apt to do something dangerous.

Sometime excess speed causes the danger. Other times it is something else. Sometimes it is the person in the passenger seat because they are talking.

Coming up with different suggestions every few minutes distracts concentration from primary safety. Better is to identify whatever single factor is causing most danger and focus solely on improving and perhaps correcting that.

Examples might be driving too close to the vehicle in front, or going into static hazards too quickly, or not keeping to lanes. Inappropriate speed might also be the most important factor.

One problem at a time. Only one.

When driving is safe, then can concentrate on making it legal. Not before.

What are 4 S's? Which is highest priority? Safety.

Are you supposed to be giving *hot* instruction as an observer for the IAM ?

Or are you supposed to be giving observational advice prior to & after the drive ?

Is it not at those points that you should be ensuring that you don't condone any law breaking in line with IAM policy (to avoid the "blind eye" offence) ?

I don't think the one problem at a time argument is valid in those conditions.

It is the responsibilty of the driver at all times (including learners under instruction) to ensure that they don't exceed limits because they can be prosecuted where they do.

It is the responsibility of any instructor observer to ensure that they don't aid, abet, counsel or procure any speeding offence.

[Gareth]

Are you supposed to be giving *hot* instruction as an observer for the IAM ?

If someone is driving unsafely, do I say nothing? No, I try to encourage them to fix the thing that is most unsafe. Or I get out.

But better to make someone's driving safer than to give up and walk away. And walk home

More to the point, if I say at the time, it is fresh and gives an opportunity to practice the avoidance.

[vonhosen]

Are you supposed to be giving *hot* instruction as an observer for the IAM ?

If someone is driving unsafely, do I say nothing? No, I try to encourage them to fix the thing that is most unsafe. Or I get out.

But better to make someone's driving safer than to give up and walk away. And walk home

More to the point, if I say at the time, it is fresh and gives an opportunity to practice the avoidance.

So you do instruct not observe ?

[Gareth]

Are you supposed to be giving *hot* instruction as an observer for the IAM ?

If someone is driving unsafely, do I say nothing? No, I try to encourage them to fix the thing that is most unsafe. Or I get out.

But better to make someone's driving safer than to give up and walk away. And walk home

More to the point, if I say at the time, it is fresh and gives an opportunity to practice the avoidance.

So you do instruct not observe ?

I observe, make comments, and hope the driver takes them on board. Since no-one is paying me, and the driver doesn't have to listen to what I say, and is in sole charge of the vehicle, (previously agreed before setting off), I would be hard pressed to say I instruct. Hopefully the only people who drive when I sit in a passenger seat want to become better drivers, so will be disposed to consider my comments.

[Porker]

Ultimately I expect that all IAM and RoADAR observers/tutors do give "hot" tuition.

For example, it is the case, IMO, that any observer can say "No" to an overtake but will never say "Yes".

[James]

Gareth, your answers are based on your teaching methods and intentions, which is fine. However what some of us are saying is that if you did find yourself on the receiving end of some motoring conviction based on the actions of an observee, there are no defences available to you as a result of these methods, or any belief in the 4 S's e.t.c. (other than those general ones i.e Duress / Automatism / Self Defence / Prevent Crime e.t.c. e.t.c. which will not apply).

All it would take, if a ticket was issued by whatever means, would be the driver to say "My observer did not say anything so I thought it was OK". This will be no defence for the driver, but it will then include you, the observer, and your actions/omissions into the equation.

The argument is not about your ethics, or intentions, it is solely pointing out that in some cases, the question might arise as to how "involved" you are in the procuring of excess speed. Procuring does not mean you have to sit there and say" go on, faster faster" (although that is included), it can be simply a failure to act accordingly in a position where you have some control over the car (as an observer there is an element).

I know it is a grey area, but that greyness is enough to cause concern for us (your internet friends ) as we could not want to see you in trouble.

[James]

These are the points to prove for exceeding the NSL on a DC:

-Date and location
-Drove
-A motor vehicle
-On a dual carriageway
-At a speed exceeding 70 mph

Section 44 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 provides that it is an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure any offence which is triable summarily, including either way offences (unless specifically excluded by statute).

44(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him.

44(2) Any offence consisting in aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence triable either way (other than an offence listed in Schedule 1 to this Act) shall by virtue of this subsection be triable either way.

To be convicted as an 'aider or abettor' a person must have knowledge of all the circumstances which constitute the offence. Whether the 'aider' realises that the particular circumstances constitute an offence is immaterial.

AID
means to provide help or assistance to a principal offender, whether before or at the time of commission of the offence.

ABET
is somewhat difficult to describe, but such an activity could include where an individual incites, instigates or encourages the principal to commit the offence.

COUNSEL
means to advise or solicit the commission of an offence.

PROCURE
A course of action is procured by setting out to see that it happens and taking the appropriate steps to produce that happening. A causal link must be established between what the procurer did and what the principal did.

[PeteG]

Is an example of the aiding, abetting etc if I was to sit in the passenger seat of a vehicle, being driven by someone well over the drink-drive limit and knowing fine well that he is - and taking no steps to prevent him?

[7db]

Or what about all the passengers on the 328 bus yesterday -- he stopped a bit sharpish, alarming a passenger, thus passing the threshold for a S3 offence.

We were all aiding and abetting by not rising up and mutinying?

Does aiding, abetting etc really apply to sins of omission?

[Advanced Roadcraft]

So you do instruct not observe ?

Time for me to join in; I've been lurking, agonising and biting my tongue long enough!

I 'instruct'...I don't monitor/coach/observe/mentor/train...or any other of the weasel words.

I am a qualified Advanced Instructor; that's what it says on my ROADA Diploma for cars, my ROADA Diploma for bikes, my BTec Diploma for cars, my BTec Diploma for bikes and the BMF Blue Riband ('Qualified Instructor') Certificate. (My HPC Gold is neither an instructional nor a driving 'qualification', I know.)

But I don't instruct for the BMF or RoSPA (or for any other organisation). I am not an ADI. But I am a member of the DIA. I have millions of pounds of Public Liability insurance and Professional Indemnity insurance.

My new trainees sign a waiver before receiving any instruction from me as to their being licensed/insured/MOT'd/taxed etc and as to the roadworthiness of their vehicle. They also acknowledge, in a form of words drawn up my solicitor, that they are in control of the vehicle, responsible for all of their own actions and that they indemnify me against the results of their actions.

Newbies are advised by me before the first session (and reminded again if it becomes neccessary) that if they exceed speed limits or the speed that I consider appropriate at the time they will see me 'disappearing backwards' in their mirrors. (I do mostly bke training these days.)

I do advise them that exceeding 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s will be a test fail and that exceeding an NSL 'might' cause them to fail a test; I tell them not to do it when they are with me and I am in Instructor mode.

BUT (head above parapet time!)...if they are at (for the sake of an easily understood baseline definition) a RoSPA Gold standard - and I have developed my own confidence in them from my own observation of their riding/driving then I'm not going to bang on about their exceeding arbitrary NSLs by a 'reasonable' amount, taking into account all the circumstances...just like I would myself! There are more important lessons to learn in terms of safety, smooth progress and (not least) value for the money they are paying me than blind adherence to NSLs.

To sum up: I instruct; I exceed NSL's. But I don't do both at the same time. And my experience suggests that there may be others whose position is not dissimilar.

[MGF]

I lose internet access for a few weeks and miss all the good discussions.

My understanding of advanced driving as postulated by the organisations that promote it (perhaps excluding hpc) is that it is about driving safely at all times, and unobtrusively making optimum progress.

However there is a caveat that all of this is done within the context of obeying the law.

So, as I leave a hazard I am expected to continue to accelerate until one of three things happen.

1) It would be unsafe to do so (huge category)

2) I am restricted by the legal limit. (an increasingly large category)

3) I cannot physically go any faster.(unlikely to happen very often)

Unfortunately it appears that point 2 is reached before point 1 more and more over the years, hence the debate.

I think enough has been said about the law. Suffice to say that all organisations that have an agenda decide whether they will pursue their aims lawfully or unlawfully.

The IAM and RoSPA have chosen which way they want to go. That is a politcal choice.

If I may I would just like to comment on this:-

When you try to change someone's driving, it is important to focus on only one thing at a time, because otherwise they may become confused and apt to do something dangerous.

If someone you are observing is driving too quickly to be safe you would advise him to slow down. If he drives too quickly for the limit why not do the same?

In any event if you only want to concentrate on one thing at a time why not concentrate on speed limits first?

Concentrating on the limit can be a distraction but in my view it helps to sharpen one's overall driving skill.

Ensuring I can safely and smoothly reduce my speed from 60 to 30 so that I am doing 30 at a specific point in the distance is a useful skill.

Maybe when I can get it right every time I will then know that if I don't, it will be a matter of choice and not because I am not capable.