Assessment drive experience

[ericonabike]

First post [other than in the intro section].
In my last job the majority of the workforce, including me, drove company cars. There was a policy whereby any driver with a poor accident record had to have their driving assessed by 'an advanced driver' [not sure exactly what their qualifications were, but we paid them to do it]. I successfully argued that this could be of benefit to all, and went out for my session hoping to get some insights into what I was doing well or badly.

It didn't start too well. As we approached my car I was chastised for having tinted windows. I pointed out that only the rear windows were tinted, not the front. 'Well it looked like they were' he replied, somewhat ungraciously. But it got better. I changed one aspect of my driving as a result [distance between cars in stationary traffic], but refused to change one other [gear to use in 30 limits].

He told me I was not leaving enough of a gap between me and car in front when stopped. My first introduction to the 'rubber and road' principle. I protested that I'd always been taught that if I could read the number plate of the car in front, that would leave sufficient gap. It then dawned on me that 30 odd years ago, cars used to have their number plates below the rear bumper. Since then they've been positioned higher up the car, luring me ever closer! A useful reminder not to follow a 'rule' too slavishly?

He wanted me always to use 4th in 30 limits. I argued against, saying that 3rd gave me much more control, that 30 equated to 2,000 rpm and that it gave an audible warning [over-revving] if I went over the limit. The only argument in favour of 4th appeared to be that of fuel economy - in that case why not use 5th! We agreed to differ - and I do not believe that using 4th would have made me a 'better driver'.

Any thoughts on these two 'rules'? And on the general principle of assessment drives - are they intended to impart rules or to see if the assessee is driving safely or not?

[jont]

Any thoughts on ... the general principle of assessment drives - are they intended to impart rules or to see if the assessee is driving safely or not?

they're designed to raise revenue for the instructing company and allow the employer to tick the H&S box in case their employees kill themselves while driving for work /cynic

[hir]

Any thoughts on these two 'rules'? And on the general principle of assessment drives - are they intended to impart rules or to see if the assessee is driving safely or not?

The "tyres on tarmac" rule is a good one. But, did he tell you why it's a good idea to leave a gap? An instruction without an explanation is of limited use.

As for always using 4th in a 30mph limit, I'm afraid words fail me. If that's all he could come up with he must have been scraping the barrel for something to say. But, again, did he tell you why he thought it was a good idea? If not, then I suspect he didn't know the reason.

Whenever anyone tells you to do something, always, always ask why.

[driverpete]

The Tyres and Tarmac rule is useful for beginners who might not be able to work out how far back they need to be to get round the car in front if he has an issue, but I wouldn't have thought it necessary for an experienced driver who knows their own car and its capabilities..

I'm with you on the "3rd for flexibility" thought especially where speed is variable such as in traffic. I have been known to use 4th for economy where the road is clear and I can see that I'm not going to vary my speed.

As others have said, a rule without a reason is not a lot of use.

[martine]

they're designed to raise revenue for the instructing company and allow the employer to tick the H&S box in case their employees kill themselves while driving for work /cynic

That's a bit harsh! Having done assessments for 3 different companies so far the tick box mentality is there to a certain extent but the other reasons are: moral responsibility to employees and good ol' hard cash - better drivers save the company money (fuel, maintenance, less RTCs, better resale value etc).

[gannet]

The Tyres and Tarmac rule is useful for beginners who might not be able to work out how far back they need to be to get round the car in front if he has an issue, but I wouldn't have thought it necessary for an experienced driver who knows their own car and its capabilities..

That isn't the only reason... if you are too close and the car in front rolls back they wont have far to go before hitting you, wheras if you are farther back it gives them time to realise and you time to hit the horn to alert them!

as for 4th for 30mph... I'm very rarely up that high in the gearbox at that speed 3rd is far far more flexible and barely any more fuel efficient IMO

[bbllr87]

as for 4th for 30mph... I'm very rarely up that high in the gearbox at that speed 3rd is far far more flexible and barely any more fuel efficient IMO

Nor am I, though Dad complained at puffin for exactly that yesterday.
My car seems to think that it would be more fuel efficient by displaying its little "Change up a gear" arrow whenever I am in 3rd at 30. I have learnt to ignore it!

[gannet]

as for 4th for 30mph... I'm very rarely up that high in the gearbox at that speed 3rd is far far more flexible and barely any more fuel efficient IMO

Nor am I, though Dad complained at puffin for exactly that yesterday.
My car seems to think that it would be more fuel efficient by displaying its little "Change up a gear" arrow whenever I am in 3rd at 30. I have learnt to ignore it!

Dad has his views...

I ignore my change up light constantly... wish I could turn the damn thing off as I wouldn't call it little... I did actually once while in a 50 mph using cruise control compare the reported consumption in 5th gear with 6th gear, I can't remember the figures but despite the car flashing the change up light constantly at me, the figure for 5th gear was always higher than for 6th

[TripleS]

they're designed to raise revenue for the instructing company and allow the employer to tick the H&S box in case their employees kill themselves while driving for work /cynic

That's a bit harsh! Having done assessments for 3 different companies so far the tick box mentality is there to a certain extent but the other reasons are: moral responsibility to employees and good ol' hard cash - better drivers save the company money (fuel, maintenance, less RTCs, better resale value etc).

Do I see 'eco-driving' gaining a bit of respectability there?

Maybe I should try a bit of that, and not be a tearaway quite so much of the time.

[TripleS]

First post [other than in the intro section].
In my last job the majority of the workforce, including me, drove company cars. There was a policy whereby any driver with a poor accident record had to have their driving assessed by 'an advanced driver' [not sure exactly what their qualifications were, but we paid them to do it]. I successfully argued that this could be of benefit to all, and went out for my session hoping to get some insights into what I was doing well or badly.

It didn't start too well. As we approached my car I was chastised for having tinted windows. I pointed out that only the rear windows were tinted, not the front. 'Well it looked like they were' he replied, somewhat ungraciously. But it got better. I changed one aspect of my driving as a result [distance between cars in stationary traffic], but refused to change one other [gear to use in 30 limits].

He told me I was not leaving enough of a gap between me and car in front when stopped. My first introduction to the 'rubber and road' principle. I protested that I'd always been taught that if I could read the number plate of the car in front, that would leave sufficient gap. It then dawned on me that 30 odd years ago, cars used to have their number plates below the rear bumper. Since then they've been positioned higher up the car, luring me ever closer! A useful reminder not to follow a 'rule' too slavishly?

He wanted me always to use 4th in 30 limits. I argued against, saying that 3rd gave me much more control, that 30 equated to 2,000 rpm and that it gave an audible warning [over-revving] if I went over the limit. The only argument in favour of 4th appeared to be that of fuel economy - in that case why not use 5th! We agreed to differ - and I do not believe that using 4th would have made me a 'better driver'.

Any thoughts on these two 'rules'? And on the general principle of assessment drives - are they intended to impart rules or to see if the assessee is driving safely or not?

Rather than basing the gap on being able to see the rear number plate on the stationary vehicle in front, I would rather work on the basis of being able to see the rear tyres and the bit of tarmac on which they stand. That will give a more consistently decent result.

It sounds as if your 'instructor' is being too dogmatic about gear choice for 30 mph limits. It rather depends on the car and the particular circumstances. Some cars are not happy at low revs in high gears whereas other models might be more accommodating. Do some experimenting and see what works best.

As for assessment drives, I'd say they ought first to allow a decent amount of time to evaluate the driving, and then discuss any difficulties and weaknesses that seem to emerge. Then it's a matter of finding remedies that will best help the assessee to overcome the difficulties, but speaking for myself I wouldn't get on well with anybody that sought to impose rules. It seems to me preferable that one should be seeking to introduce better ways of thinking about the problems and finding good answers. This approach can then be applied to a wide range of driving situations, but it's not likely to be a quick process, particularly with a driver of long experience and entrenched bad habits.

[Ralge]

To answer your questions:

The qualifications for such an assessor/trainer vary from "no more than an ADI" to "one of the most experienced driver trainers in the business". Most, though, will be DSA fleet-registered ADI's (this is a 5-day course with a test of theory, driving, training and presentation).
Another leading national training provider requires their trainers to have a RoSPA Gold in addition.
Another, RoSPA, requires a RoSPA Diploma (another 5-day course and testing along the same lines as the fleet badge but, from memory, much tougher).
So these company driver assessors/trainers are likely to be AD's but not necessarily.
All trainers in this field should sell benefits and allow consequences to be realised AS A MINIMUM. They should not come across as imposing rules, therefore.
What was the background of this sub-standard trainer? (I can guess).

"3rd for 30" works for me so I'm with you on that one. It provides flexibility and responsiveness AND greater ease of keeping at the 30 limit in many cars.

"Tyres and tarmac" works:
- to be able to move around a broken-down vehicle
- to avoid getting involved in someone else's roll-back or stall
- with the discipline of "only go where your eyes have gone" to avoid getting involved in stop-start "I thought you'd gone moments"
- to avoid breathing exhaust fumes,
- to act as a buffer when the car ahead moves off (frequently there is an unexpected differential between speeds of moving off from a standstill. If anyone starts off from a position closer than TNT the result can be a sudden, unnoticed loss of space and a crump),
- to encourage the driver behind to stay away from you (drivers on autopilot copy space ahead like sheep)
- to have somewhere to go and make space for a blue light user.

Of more use, though, is the fuller technique for avoiding getting involved in a rear-end shunt (at your front OR rear):
- TNT = is the finishing position
- prior to that, avoid joining the back end of a static queue (particularly around a corner, over a hill, on a fast, large motorway junction roundabout, at the end of an off-ramp ...). Make those behind you form the back end and
- use your brake lights to wake up and control those behind whilst you still have somewhere to go, an escape route
- once those behind you have braked convincingly and stopped, move forward that last bit to TNT.

[Gareth]

Dad complained at puffin for exactly that yesterday.

Dad has his views...

You may not remember when it was common for petrol-engined cars to be happy at 30 mph in 4th, providing the road was only a slight incline or less. Since then cars have become heavier, petrol engines have become higher rev'ing, and turbo-diesel engines have become fairly prevalent.

[Ralge]

Any thoughts on ... the general principle of assessment drives - are they intended to impart rules or to see if the assessee is driving safely or not?

they're designed to raise revenue for the instructing company and allow the employer to tick the H&S box in case their employees kill themselves while driving for work /cynic

This is, indeed, harsh and cynical.
There may be a 'tick box' element in some of this but between the trainer and trainee such training can only sensibly be seen as an opportunity to learn and develop. Presumably as an AD you'd approve of this opportunity being offered to employees who drive for work whether proactively or reactively?
More than a few companies recognise that their engineers', managers', consultants', drivers' main risks at work revolve on their driving.
There's also a desire to control fleet costs that are incurred vey much earlier and more frequently than a death at work.

[gannet]

Dad complained at puffin for exactly that yesterday.

Dad has his views...

You may not remember when it was common for petrol-engined cars to be happy at 30 mph in 4th, providing the road was only a slight incline or less. Since then cars have become heavier, petrol engines have become higher rev'ing, and turbo-diesel engines have become fairly prevalent.

I could understand this if our dad drove a car with those characteristics, but dad doesn't.

I won't say anymore, he's still my dad after all

[ericonabike]

Thanks for the replies, all appreciated. FWIW I think the HR people that provided the driver assessments were doing it from a desire to protect both drivers and company - not necessarily mutually exclusive! The guy they used was not universally appreciated - after other colleagues had a similar experience to me, it was agreed he would no longer be used. The experience showed, I think, that you need excellent social and communication skills if you are going to take on that role, and not just driving expertise. I was perfectly willing to accept I had faults, but I needed a clear explanation of what I was doing wrong and why it mattered before habits and practice would change. I felt I was being patronised, which acted as a barrier to improvement. Especially as I'd volunteered to put my driving under the microscope, rather than having it imposed on me!