My 2nd vid - FULL COMMENTARY

[somewhatfoolish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8oM56YNQVQ& <== This is URL for the unstabalised verstion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31jqEdDjygA <== This is the URL for the stabalised version.

I am hoping to stablise it using youtube tools shortly. But this should work for most people

Anyway... please give me brutal feedback!

Roads were super empty, so would especially be interested in hearing feedback from 21 min - 23 min and the "despatching" of the silly 4x4

[waremark]

Only watched a little, and you are braver than me in being prepared to put such a video up for all to criticise. Well done you.

No problems with the overtake of the 4x4.

It looks to me as though you don't worry enough about nearside hazards such as blind entrances which perhaps deserve either or both of lower speeds or more seperation.

So far as the commentary is concerned, I would rather hear more about the immediate hazards and matters affecting your speed or position now or within the next 30 seconds, and less about the process of giving a commentary and things which are less immediately relevant.

[IVORTHE DRIVER]

No problems with the overtake of the 4x4. .

Watched the bit above.....towards a crossroads with the left exit totally blind and on a bend and you have no problem with the overtake now I understand why I have never and never will go down the "advanced " route.

God help us all if thats what is considered safe driving.

My last post guys, I really thought some of you actually knew what you were talking about, but how the hell can that be considerd safe driving.

I really hope you do not all condone this

Ivor

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

(I think you're) Still struggling a bit with the concept of a commentary. That's not an issue, unless there is someone with you either in the car or listening after the fact. The commentary needs to say:

What you can see
What hazards you see or infer from what you can see
What you intend to do about it

Anything in the past tense is superfluous.

Nobody will ever tell you this is easy. It's hard to hone the commentary so it excludes things in the past. Once done, however, it's a very useful tool - in certain circumstances.

Will try and watch the whole video when time permits.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

No problems with the overtake of the 4x4. .

Watched the bit above.....towards a crossroads with the left exit totally blind and on a bend and you have no problem with the overtake now I understand why I have never and never will go down the "advanced " route.

God help us all if thats what is considered safe driving.

My last post guys, I really thought some of you actually knew what you were talking about, but how the hell can that be considerd safe driving.

I really hope you do not all condone this

Ivor

I think you'll find the camera foreshortens the view considerably, Ivor. The OP was back to his own side of the road well before the crossroads.

OTOH, I'm not sure how the adjective "silly" really applies to the 4x4. If we accept the foreshortening referred to above, they didn't pull out particularly closely in front, nor did they appear to be going particularly slowly. Probably another illustration of how the camera plays tricks with us.

[Gareth]

Since the overtake appears to be the main point of contention -- I think the main points from the period before are that I would probably go slower at times in the urban areas where the hazard density is high -- I've looked closely at the video and the road on Google Maps Streetview.

My initial impression was that was a bit tight, by which I mean there wasn't sufficient clearance before the crossroads. I'd suggest that an overtake ought to be completed in less than half the distance to the hazard, so in this case we're interested in the distance between where the view opened up and somewhere in the area of the crossroads.

We should also think whether the side turnings of the crossroads are the major hazard, or whether it is the blind bend on the main road. I'd suggest the bind bend is the greater hazard, since traffic turning onto the main road would be much slower.

In terms of time I see the view opening at 22:07 and SWF beginning to move out fractionally before the view is fully open -- there might have been a walker on the right, but SWF could have braked and aborted if necessary. At 22:08 he is moving out, and at 22:09 he is fully offside but still behind the 4x4. At 22:13 he is returning to the left, mostly there, and he passes through the junction at 22:16.

Here is a link to Google Maps Streetview to show where the view has developed. It's difficult to compare the view from the Google camera car since it will be much higher up that SWF in his car, so the best we can do is count hazard lines. I think SWF is in the same position as he starts to move out, although the rightmost part of the tarmac further down the road is temporarily obscured due to the lower viewpoint.

I'm thinking that SWF is adjacent to the hedge that ends on the right at this point. I count either 22 or 24 hazards lines to the junction, depending on whether you count the curve at the start of the junction or the centre point of the crossing.

These taller bushes on the right appear to mark where SWF has cleared the 4x4 and is beginning to return to the left. Counting the hazard lines after the tall bushes I make it 12 or 14, depending where you think the junction is, as above.

I still think my impression is correct; that it was a little too tight for comfort. The point, I think, is that SWF could have stopped before the junction, probably somewhat untidily, if it had been necessary. He might have had to stop partly or fully on the wrong side of the road, though, to reduce the chances of being hit from behind. Certainly the overtake meant his safety margins were temporarily compromised.

[GJD]

My initial impression was that was a bit tight, by which I mean there wasn't sufficient clearance before the crossroads. I'd suggest that an overtake ought to be completed in less than half the distance to the hazard, so in this case we're interested in the distance between where the view opened up and somewhere in the area of the crossroads.

I note that later in your post you say you think the blind bend is a greater hazard than the crossroads, but thinking in general for a moment, shouldn't an overtake be completed in a manner such that you can stop (before, during and after) in the distance you can reasonably expect to remain clear (cognisant of the vehicle behind that you've just overtaken)? Isn't the 'half the distance' rule just a special case of that when the hazard you're planning for is something approaching you at the same speed you are approaching it? In applying the 'distance you can reasonably expect to remain clear' rule when the hazard is a crossroads ahead, I'm not sure if you'd necessarily conclude that the overtake needed to be completed as early as half the distance to the crossroads.

That's all general comment on overtaking. Looking at the OP's video, one thing I'm not sure of is whether they returned to their side of the road as early as possible, or stayed offside a little longer. I haven't watched it with the sound on - perhaps that question's answered in the commentary.

[MrToad]

Can't watch much because of the constant camera movement, so just had a look at the overtake as suggested.

IMHO it was absolutely fine - plenty of time to get it done, and an acceptable view into the nearside entrance on the left hand bend.

I would have started from a further left position though - it looked a bit like the OP was not positioning sufficiently left on the way into the bend, leading to a delay in getting a clear view down the offside verge.

The oncoming car is clearly visible at 22:06, and this 'blind bend' has about five seconds of vision at the post-overtake speed.

[somewhatfoolish]

Can't watch much because of the constant camera movement, so just had a look at the overtake as suggested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8oM56YNQVQ <== I have removed the stabalisation in the original link, so it's a bit bumpy but not as "woosy"-inducing, if you see what I mean.

Might take a few minutes before that's reflected due to youtube delays.

[somewhatfoolish]

Gareth, in hindsight I agree it was borderline - I would say in my "defence" though (and didn't mention it in the commentary, cause as the vid shows, I'm crap at commentary ) that I hung out longer than "necessary", for smoothness and for visibility of the coming left hander. I can't put an exact number on it, but I can comfortably say I was actually past the 4x4 by the 22:11 mark.

[somewhatfoolish]

(I think you're) Still struggling a bit with the concept of a commentary. That's not an issue, unless there is someone with you either in the car or listening after the fact. The commentary needs to say:

What you can see
What hazards you see or infer from what you can see
What you intend to do about it

Anything in the past tense is superfluous.

Nobody will ever tell you this is easy. It's hard to hone the commentary so it excludes things in the past. Once done, however, it's a very useful tool - in certain circumstances.

Will try and watch the whole video when time permits.

A good test commentary would indeed adhere to your standards, and my commentary is rubbish

However, as I work to improve it, I'm not sure why it is particularly important that it be about events before they happen. On a test it is important because the examiner needs to know that the subject actually is planning, and not just making things up in hindsight. But in vids posted for improvement, I have no incentive to lie, and therefore I don't really think the timing is that important so long as the viewer can still follow what's going on

Nevertheless, I'm going to try your framework for the next vid. Actually, I may do a "proper" system drive, going verbally through IPSGA for every manouever/hazard, or as many as I can anyway, and slowed down considerably so I can get more verbiage out. Will be an interesting exercise.

[somewhatfoolish]

OTOH, I'm not sure how the adjective "silly" really applies to the 4x4. If we accept the foreshortening referred to above, they didn't pull out particularly closely in front, nor did they appear to be going particularly slowly. Probably another illustration of how the camera plays tricks with us.

No problem with them pulling out or their speed. Drifting into my lane during the overtake wasn't very sporting though!

[somewhatfoolish]

(Another point that just occurred- the bend was not really blind as such - the proverbial snake on a skateboard I of course couldn't see, but I was able to see any fast approaching vehicles from around 22:03, i.e. before rounding the bend. This is something you can't really get from the video)

[waremark]

No problems with the overtake of the 4x4. .

Watched the bit above.....towards a crossroads with the left exit totally blind and on a bend and you have no problem with the overtake now I understand why I have never and never will go down the "advanced " route.

God help us all if thats what is considered safe driving.

So, supposing that a vehicle peeped out of the left crossroads junction at 22.09 (about the point of commitment) where do you think it would have reached by the time the OP was able to safely recover his own side of the road? I certainly find it difficult to judge distances on the screen, but it still looks ok to me.

I must admit I had not seen the drift to the right of the 4x4 when I first watched the vid - must have been concerning. I didn't notice anything in its earlier driving to suggest that it would move across the centre line, but this emphasises the danger of overtaking on a narrow road without time and space to give a warning and wait for time for a reaction.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

(I think you're) Still struggling a bit with the concept of a commentary. That's not an issue, unless there is someone with you either in the car or listening after the fact. The commentary needs to say:

What you can see
What hazards you see or infer from what you can see
What you intend to do about it

Anything in the past tense is superfluous.

Nobody will ever tell you this is easy. It's hard to hone the commentary so it excludes things in the past. Once done, however, it's a very useful tool - in certain circumstances.

Will try and watch the whole video when time permits.

A good test commentary would indeed adhere to your standards, and my commentary is rubbish

However, as I work to improve it, I'm not sure why it is particularly important that it be about events before they happen. On a test it is important because the examiner needs to know that the subject actually is planning, and not just making things up in hindsight. But in vids posted for improvement, I have no incentive to lie, and therefore I don't really think the timing is that important so long as the viewer can still follow what's going on

Nevertheless, I'm going to try your framework for the next vid. Actually, I may do a "proper" system drive, going verbally through IPSGA for every manouever/hazard, or as many as I can anyway, and slowed down considerably so I can get more verbiage out. Will be an interesting exercise.

Actually working through IPSGA on the approach to a hazard is a great technique and was drummed into me on my HPC entrance course. I now make my RoADAR associates do it for me, even those for whom commentary is awkward in other circumstances . I talk them through it on a series of bends (omitting information as we assume that's being processed all the time), but just so they get into the habit of thinking about all the phases in order, so as we go through a set of bends I will start "position ... speed ... gear ... acceleration ... position ... speed ... gear" and so on, until they're sick of it, but beginning to match the actions to the words. Then I get them to start doing the talking too. Then we move on to scenarios where a gear change is required, so we might have "position ... speed ... selecting 2nd gear ... acceleration ... selecting 4th or whatever", or "position towards the centre of the road, speed - is correct, gear - is correct ... accelerate". Endless variations but helps to ingrain the system.

As to why it's important that commentary be about the things in front rather than behind, it has two benefits. One is to force you to plan, and to talk about what you're planning. The other is that in order to do that and produce a successful commentary, you have to remove superfluous flannel, and a quick win is to remove anything that's no longer relevant. The examiner (or other casual listener) is less interested in, for example, "people who look like a throwback to the 1970s" than they are in the vehicle turning out of a junction in front, or seen in a cross-view approaching the junction and possibly about to turn out in front.