Disregard of Speed Limits

[Ralge]

So who is suggesting that the commentary follows the Police mould?
I am suggesting anything but.
There is no need for full-blown Police commentary. It's a circus act like eating fire and juggling.
Something more homely, bullet-points maybe, works very well.

[vonhosen]

VH -- I like the idea that doing more of 3 and 4 and doing more of it more quickly is a Good Thing (tm).

How do you focus on improving 3 and 4? What does a 3 & 4 school / institution look like? Is it the case that it's something that you learn to develop whilst your front of mind is busy doing 1 and 2? Kind of like a meditation -- the mind and body focus on a task so that your soul may achieve liberty?

Does that school fall foul of the same human nature that creates the silos in the existing organisations? Or does the thing that makes us form these self-perpetuating silos in fact make the organisations stronger? (By way of example of what I mean -- if I am stupidly invested in some Way that makes me proud and defend it, do I become a more evangelical advocate of it? If I am not proud, do I fail to tell others about the Way so it lives in me, but dies out in the population?)

3 & 4 gets supported by the way learning in 1 & 2 takes place.

3 & 4 is examined through questioning (they reflect on who they are & who they want to be as a driver) & that can be tied in to cognitive behavioural models (eg three legged stool).

By encouraging the learner to take responsibility for their learning & choices in levels 1 & 2 it develops responsibility for choices & consequences as a way of life (instead of the instructor taking responsibility for how it will be done by dictating thereby removing choice) & that feeds into levels 3 & 4. They learn that all are linked & the choices in levels 3 & 4 will affect the behaviours in levels 1 & 2.

They don't become part of a silo, they are individuals responsible for their own learning, their own values, their own beliefs, their own choices & the effects & consequences of all of those on their behaviours.

If it goes well it's down to them, if it doesn't it's down to them. (They'll get support to help them make sense of what happened & why)

As opposed to with the instructor, if it goes well it's down to the instructor, if it doesn't it's down to them. (They'll get - 'you should be getting this it's pretty simple.')

[vonhosen]

So who is suggesting that the commentary follows the Police mould?
I am suggesting anything but.
There is no need for full-blown Police commentary. It's a circus act like eating fire and juggling.
Something more homely, bullet-points maybe, works very well.

I said earlier I was talking about other clubs & organisations primarily, but there can be a lot of similarities in IAM etc.

Nobody is saying that commentary can't be a tool. It's a tool that can help with some in some areas, it's a tool that can hinder others. Whether somebody commentates or not should carry no weight or judgement on how good they are as a driver. It is personal choice, their personal choice. They might like to try, they might like to persevere, they might like to not try, or they might like to drop it.

It's not an essential element of good driving.

[TripleS]

A depressing view, and one that can certainly be levelled at almost all institutions.

Isn't the proof of the pudding in the eating? "Performance" with driving is a little less clear than with -- say -- the high jump. When Dick Fosbury comes along, everyone gradually abandons their ivory towers as it is clearly better as you jump higher. I can't measure a "good drive" like I can a high jump, but if we have a common understanding of what a good drive looks like, won't that shine through any institutional silo formation?

I don't believe that all members of an institution think like the institution pronounces -- you don't need full marks to be a member. Furthermore some will fake-it to get full marks.

Disregarding whether it is it a self-reinforcing group with its head rectally located: the AD community represents a target-rich environment for good driving and techniques which one might choose to adopt, copy or adapt.

The proof for me is how the learners are treated & feel about their experience. Of course those that take to the way are rewarded & feel good about it (potential converts for movement up the ladder), but how many are turned away who needn't have been?

One?

[7db]

It's not an essential element of good driving.

What about full compliance with the speed limits?

[7db]

They don't become part of a silo, they are individuals responsible for their own learning, their own values, their own beliefs, their own choices & the effects & consequences of all of those on their behaviours.

Does this only work where the drive to learn isn't recreational? I can see that Police drivers have to learn stuff and then it's a case of figuring out how best to do it. Others might choose to learn stuff, or might abandon that quest if it gets hard / shows slow or little progress etc etc.

I recall my first drive with Don. We sat over breakfast and discussed who we were, who we admired, how we thought about ourselves. I found it annoying: I wanted out on the airfield to learn some leet skilz. I realise now that Don's "you are how you drive" philosophy is at the core of most of my faults as a driver, and removing those dissonances is the key to improving. But I couldn't access it at that stage -- I needed to fail at 1 and 2 to realise 3 and 4 were important.

[vonhosen]

It's not an essential element of good driving.

What about full compliance with the speed limits?

It's your choice as are the consequences of that choice.
Compliance with the speed limit is regarded an essential element by the organisation as they are a requirement of the test. That is the message to those taking the test & the examiners.

[TripleS]

It's not an essential element of good driving.

What about full compliance with the speed limits?

That definitely isn't an essential element of good driving.

Legal driving ? Yes. Safe driving? No. Good driving? No.

My driving? I decline to answer for fear of self-incrimination.

Interesting topic this, BTW. Thanks to one and all.

[vonhosen]

They don't become part of a silo, they are individuals responsible for their own learning, their own values, their own beliefs, their own choices & the effects & consequences of all of those on their behaviours.

Does this only work where the drive to learn isn't recreational? I can see that Police drivers have to learn stuff and then it's a case of figuring out how best to do it. Others might choose to learn stuff, or might abandon that quest if it gets hard / shows slow or little progress etc etc.

I recall my first drive with Don. We sat over breakfast and discussed who we were, who we admired, how we thought about ourselves. I found it annoying: I wanted out on the airfield to learn some leet skilz. I realise now that Don's "you are how you drive" philosophy is at the core of most of my faults as a driver, and removing those dissonances is the key to improving. But I couldn't access it at that stage -- I needed to fail at 1 and 2 to realise 3 and 4 were important.

I take it this was over a bacon roll in the cafe at Brunters?
Then perhaps Don misread you, or perhaps he is too set in a format, or perhaps he had to control the risk he saw in you jumping straight into 1 & 2.
Did you tell him how you felt?
Did you bring this up with him at a later stage?
Did you question him why?
Do you feel able to?
How do you see the conversation going?
How would you feel giving him that feedback?

[Ralge]

So who is suggesting that the commentary follows the Police mould?
I am suggesting anything but.
There is no need for full-blown Police commentary. It's a circus act like eating fire and juggling.
Something more homely, bullet-points maybe, works very well.

I said earlier I was talking about other clubs & organisations primarily, but there can be a lot of similarities in IAM etc.

Nobody is saying that commentary can't be a tool. It's a tool that can help with some in some areas, it's a tool that can hinder others. Whether somebody commentates or not should carry no weight or judgement on how good they are as a driver. It is personal choice, their personal choice. They might like to try, they might like to persevere, they might like to not try, or they might like to drop it.

It's not an essential element of good driving.

I can't say it doesn't carry weight in an AD test but in normal, everyday training of whatever hue, I offer it as something the driver can embrace and benefit from. Whether they adopt it in the medium to long term is up to them.
It isn't an essential element of driving but it works better than anything else I know to develop the COA of COAST so I treat my introduction of commentary and an opportunity for the driver to understand the benefits it can bring to the driving task as an essential element of my training.

[7db]

They don't become part of a silo, they are individuals responsible for their own learning, their own values, their own beliefs, their own choices & the effects & consequences of all of those on their behaviours.

Does this only work where the drive to learn isn't recreational? I can see that Police drivers have to learn stuff and then it's a case of figuring out how best to do it. Others might choose to learn stuff, or might abandon that quest if it gets hard / shows slow or little progress etc etc.

I recall my first drive with Don. We sat over breakfast and discussed who we were, who we admired, how we thought about ourselves. I found it annoying: I wanted out on the airfield to learn some leet skilz. I realise now that Don's "you are how you drive" philosophy is at the core of most of my faults as a driver, and removing those dissonances is the key to improving. But I couldn't access it at that stage -- I needed to fail at 1 and 2 to realise 3 and 4 were important.

I take it this was over a bacon roll in the cafe at Brunters?
Then perhaps Don misread you, or perhaps he is too set in a format, or perhaps he had to control the risk he saw in you jumping straight into 1 & 2.
Did you tell him how you felt?
Did you bring this up with him at a later stage?
Did you question him why?
Do you feel able to?
How do you see the conversation going?
How would you feel giving him that feedback?

All excellent questions, but in a public place and out of respect for a coach I admire greatly, one for confession with my driving priests in the sanctity of the cockpit!

I recall vividly how I felt driving home after that day. And for the 6 months or so afterwards that I took to reassemble my driving. I think I put it back together in the right order, but still no leet skilz, I'm afraid.

[vonhosen]

All excellent questions, but in a public place and out of respect for a coach I admire greatly, one for confession with my driving priests in the sanctity of the cockpit!

I recall vividly how I felt driving home after that day. And for the 6 months or so afterwards that I took to reassemble my driving. I think I put it back together in the right order, but still no leet skilz, I'm afraid.

I expected that would be the case.

[Gareth]

It's not an essential element of good driving.

This is something with which I strongly agree. I've met a number of people steeped in IAM or RoADAR who think that commentary is important, and I inevitably tell them to STFU and get on with the driving.

In the police context, though, isn't commentary necessary in order to paint a word-picture for the control room? In this it's like learning the short-hand words and phrases that are rife in any other specialised field, where uniformity of content leads to improved common understanding.

[vonhosen]

It's not an essential element of good driving.

This is something with which I strongly agree. I've met a number of people steeped in IAM or RoADAR who think that commentary is important, and I inevitably tell them to STFU and get on with the driving.

In the police context, though, isn't commentary necessary in order to paint a word-picture for the control room? In this it's like learning the short-hand words and phrases that are rife in any other specialised field, where uniformity of content leads to improved common understanding.

It is, but the commentary expected for the test goes way way beyond what is required in a pursuit.

[trashbat]

An insightful thread, this. Thanks to the contributors.

IAM are caught in a triangular trap. They could be less dogmatic and more driven by individual needs, which sometimes might be preaching the usual and sometimes not. Some in this thread underestimate the turn-off factor and damage to retention that the inflexibility causes.

However these are the qualities of a very good teacher or mentor. Attracting those people or indeed training them up costs money that the IAM don't have. If you try and do it on the cheap anyway, you get straight inconsistency, which is what their current initiatives are trying to combat.

That's not to say I think they have it right at present. From my recent experiences I felt the observer training was remiss. I also think the IAM are somewhat insular and only open to criticism by weight of popular opinion once something is wrong, rather than any one incisive critique. Sometimes that's fair; the target audience is much broader than us ADUKers, including people who are much less competent and care a lot less about improving.