Steering - again, what should be taught

[sussex2]

Many moons ago when I took my IAM test the examiner made an interesting remark.
I dropped into the conversation Roadcraft and Rospa and his answer spoke reams in my opinion. It went something along the lines of 'Oh they are only interested in making progress or taking advantage'.
My interest in the IAM waned at that point.

[Zebedee]

Edited to add... my understanding is that neither of the gentlemen you name were on the advanced wing at Hendon. Maybe, therefore, they were not fully, properly, adequately indoctrinated.

Not so. Hugh Noblett was on the advanced wing at Hendon, as you'd hope after twenty years there.

John Lyon was neither on the advanced wing nor did he work there long. However, John's all round driving experience is astonishingly broad (Hendon, a race championship win, Le Mans, test driver, instructor in limit handling and rally driving, race school chief instructor).

Either way, it's odd that both Hugh and John promoted starting the pull beyond 12 o'clock when using pull-push.

[hir]

Edited to add... my understanding is that neither of the gentlemen you name were on the advanced wing at Hendon. Maybe, therefore, they were not fully, properly, adequately indoctrinated.

Not so. Hugh Noblett was on the advanced wing at Hendon, as you'd hope after twenty years there.

I think your hope may be a false hope. But, as Hugh has now retired to New Zealand the question so far as his coaching is concerned is academic.

My information is that, as of the year 2003 [ie. after John and Hugh's time at Hendon] no civilian had ever been on the advanced wing at Hendon.

[WhoseGeneration]

Well, although a long time ago now, when I was an IAM Observer, I never discussed steering technique with any of my Associates.
They all reached the required standard on test.
It might be that the Examiners are able to judge whether any driver is up to the required standard?
Or, maybe, those Examiners, way back, had preceeded vonhosen's approach?

[Horse]

Edited to add... my understanding is that neither of the gentlemen you name were on the advanced wing at Hendon. Maybe, therefore, they were not fully, properly, adequately indoctrinated.

Not so. Hugh Noblett was on the advanced wing at Hendon, as you'd hope after twenty years there.

John Lyon was neither on the advanced wing nor did he work there long. However, John's all round driving experience is astonishingly broad (Hendon, a race championship win, Le Mans, test driver, instructor in limit handling and rally driving, race school chief instructor).

Either way, it's odd that both Hugh and John promoted starting the pull beyond 12 o'clock when using pull-push.

I was, for a short time, an examiner at Hendon. I do not solely use PP and I do go past 12.*

* That is so lacking in information It was one day, examining bike trainees **

** That is so etc.

[vonhosen]

Edited to add... my understanding is that neither of the gentlemen you name were on the advanced wing at Hendon. Maybe, therefore, they were not fully, properly, adequately indoctrinated.

Not so. Hugh Noblett was on the advanced wing at Hendon, as you'd hope after twenty years there.

I think your hope may be a false hope. But, as Hugh has now retired to New Zealand the question so far as his coaching is concerned is academic.

I don't believe Hugh was, but that's not important for the question of which approach is best for the individual.

My information is that, as of the year 2003 [ie. after John and Hugh's time at Hendon] no civilian had ever been on the advanced wing at Hendon.

There have been Police staff (civilian) instructors on the advanced wing & there were before 2003, but I don't know of any direct entrants, they were retired officers who had worked previously at the school & then re-employed post retirement.

[hir]

There have been Police staff (civilian) instructors on the advanced wing & there were before 2003, but I don't know of any direct entrants, they were retired officers who had worked previously at the school & then re-employed post retirement.

Agreed - no "direct entrants" was what I was referring to.

[hir]

Well, although a long time ago now, when I was an IAM Observer, I never discussed steering technique with any of my Associates.
They all reached the required standard on test.
It might be that the Examiners are able to judge whether any driver is up to the required standard?
Or, maybe, those Examiners, way back, had preceeded vonhosen's approach?

This is still the approach with many/most observers and examiners at present. And, as you say, it works just fine.

My complaint, and that of many others, is that the powers that be at IAM HQ don't/won't acknowledge the reality of the situation and they continue to make pronouncements that are of little or no relevance to observers/associates/examiners; pronouncements that may seem innocuous to some IAM members but which may have the effect of making advanced driving appear irrelevant to the public at large. ... "pull-push steering, I can't be bothered with all that shuffling. Is that what you teach? I can't be faffed with all that. Why would I want to do that?".

[TripleS]

Wow, 22 pages and (unless I've missed it) nobody seems to have mentioned "giving it the finger" as a steering technique.

I thought at least one of the more open minded and versatile advanced drivers here might have inserted a reference to it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Silk]

Well, although a long time ago now, when I was an IAM Observer, I never discussed steering technique with any of my Associates.
They all reached the required standard on test.
It might be that the Examiners are able to judge whether any driver is up to the required standard?
Or, maybe, those Examiners, way back, had preceeded vonhosen's approach?

This is still the approach with many/most observers and examiners at present. And, as you say, it works just fine.

My complaint, and that of many others, is that the powers that be at IAM HQ don't/won't acknowledge the reality of the situation and they continue to make pronouncements that are of little or no relevance to observers/associates/examiners; pronouncements that may seem innocuous to some IAM members but which may have the effect of making advanced driving appear irrelevant to the public at large. ... "pull-push steering, I can't be bothered with all that shuffling. Is that what you teach? I can't be faffed with all that. Why would I want to do that?".

You have to be careful not to confuse people who've mastered pull-push and decided, for whatever reason, it's not for them and those who dismiss it because it's easier than putting the effort in.

The analogy is with typing. Most people are happy to "hunt and peck" because it takes effort to learn to touch-type, even though it makes things far quicker and easier in the long run. You also have to take a leap of faith and trust that the effort will be worthwhile.

If you think you know best, then perhaps learning isn't for you.

[vonhosen]

Well, although a long time ago now, when I was an IAM Observer, I never discussed steering technique with any of my Associates.
They all reached the required standard on test.
It might be that the Examiners are able to judge whether any driver is up to the required standard?
Or, maybe, those Examiners, way back, had preceeded vonhosen's approach?

This is still the approach with many/most observers and examiners at present. And, as you say, it works just fine.

My complaint, and that of many others, is that the powers that be at IAM HQ don't/won't acknowledge the reality of the situation and they continue to make pronouncements that are of little or no relevance to observers/associates/examiners; pronouncements that may seem innocuous to some IAM members but which may have the effect of making advanced driving appear irrelevant to the public at large. ... "pull-push steering, I can't be bothered with all that shuffling. Is that what you teach? I can't be faffed with all that. Why would I want to do that?".

You have to be careful not to confuse people who've mastered pull-push and decided, for whatever reason, it's not for them and those who dismiss it because it's easier than putting the effort in.

The analogy is with typing. Most people are happy to "hunt and peck" because it takes effort to learn to touch-type, even though it makes things far quicker and easier in the long run. You also have to take a leap of faith and trust that the effort will be worthwhile.

If you think you know best, then perhaps learning isn't for you.

The output between touch typing & hunt/peck are obvious to the observer.
Your analogy suggests you think pull/push will always give you better results in the long run.
Limiting yourself to one method isn't synonymous with learning, quite the opposite.

[GJD]

You have to be careful not to confuse people who've mastered pull-push and decided, for whatever reason, it's not for them and those who dismiss it because it's easier than putting the effort in.

That is a good point, but you also have to be careful not to confuse people whose steering works fine as it is and people whose steering doesn't work well.

You also have to take a leap of faith and trust that the effort will be worthwhile.

It's true that you can't know whether P-P will be useful to you before you've practised enough to be able to play with it and find out. But that implies a necessary precursor - that you feel there is sufficient potential for benefit to make the effort worthwhile.

For an IAM associate to put the effort into learning a new steering technique they would need to believe there was some potential benefit - a problem that needed fixing. If their steering was, in fact, dire but they were unaware of that, their observer would have the opportunity to raise the associate's awareness of the problem, and then the associate might be motivated to change something. If the steering was basically fine but the technique happened not to look like a textbook, trying to instil any motivation to change strikes me as a basically impossible challenge for an observer. Not because the associate knows best and learning isn't for them, but because there simply isn't a problem that needs fixing so where on earth could the motivation come from? Trying to convince the associate to change without being able to show them where there is potential for improvement would just make the observer look foolish.

[waremark]

For an IAM associate to put the effort into learning a new steering technique they would need to believe there was some potential benefit - a problem that needed fixing. If their steering was, in fact, dire but they were unaware of that, their observer would have the opportunity to raise the associate's awareness of the problem, and then the associate might be motivated to change something. If the steering was basically fine but the technique happened not to look like a textbook, trying to instil any motivation to change strikes me as a basically impossible challenge for an observer. Not because the associate knows best and learning isn't for them, but because there simply isn't a problem that needs fixing so where on earth could the motivation come from? Trying to convince the associate to change without being able to show them where there is potential for improvement would just make the observer look foolish.

I am not part of the 'PP is the only way school' - nor do I pretend that steering technique is anything like as important as Observation Anticipation and Planning. However, I have regualarly encouraged associates to try PP - and indeed to steer pretty much in line with the current Roadcraft. I have not encountered resistance.

[GJD]

I am not part of the 'PP is the only way school' - nor do I pretend that steering technique is anything like as important as Observation Anticipation and Planning. However, I have regualarly encouraged associates to try PP - and indeed to steer pretty much in line with the current Roadcraft. I have not encountered resistance.

What leads you to suggest they change?

[Gareth]

If you think you know best, then perhaps learning isn't for you.

How do you think this can be differentiated?

If, in your terms, people are capable of using PP well beyond the minimum requirements of the IAM, and have been doing so for many, many years but have then decided to widen their steering repertoire because of the benefits they perceive, would you be claiming that perhaps learning isn't for them?