Disregard of Speed Limits

[vonhosen]

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? They have struggled to fit in the end of the funnel because they couldn't (or wouldn't) conform to the ever narrowing highly stylised way, but could have perhaps got to the other side if they had had greater choice than having to try & shape themselves to the one true way.

The focus is also very much on levels 1 & 2 of the GDE matrix to the detriment of levels 3 & 4. The heavily instructional dictat of how & what to do robs the learner of the responsibility for choice & the responsibility for the consequences of those choices (needed to develop levels 3 & 4). It also results in, as you've pointed out, people playing the game to pass without exploring what they actually personally value/believe. As a result you don't know who they are, what they are about & what they are therefore likely to do following any course. People will retain what they value/believe, not what the instructor values/believes. They may however ape it to get what they need from the instructor but once they have what they want they can follow their values/beliefs with the instructor none the wiser (but potentially deluded into thinking they have another little clone of themselves out there).

Of course some members of institutions don't think like the institutions do & will try to create a learning environment that isn't so dictatorial but the institution still makes that incredibly hard because of it's heavily stylised tests. That results in people having to be told, because there is only one acceptable way with regards to marking. That still leaves them potentially wasting time learning to do something they don't believe in just to pass a test.

[daz6215]

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? They have struggled to fit in the end of the funnel because they couldn't (or wouldn't) conform to the ever narrowing highly stylised way, but could have perhaps got to the other side if they had had greater choice than having to try & shape themselves to the one true way.

The focus is also very much on levels 1 & 2 of the GDE matrix to the detriment of levels 3 & 4. The heavily instructional dictat of how & what to do robs the learner of the responsibility for choice & the responsibility for the consequences of those choices (needed to develop levels 3 & 4). It also results in, as you've pointed out, people playing the game to pass without exploring what they actually personally value/believe. As a result you don't know who they are, what they are about & what they are therefore likely to do following any course. People will retain what they value/believe, not what the instructor values/believes. They may however ape it to get what they need from the instructor but once they have what they want they can follow their values/beliefs with the instructor none the wiser (but potentially deluded into thinking they have another little clone of themselves out there).

What steps are you taking Von to change things?

[7db]

I understand your points.

I like to think that the journey is important too. I might "fake orgasm" in order to pass some hurdle, but some of it rubs off. Lord knows I learnt enough rubbish by rote when I passed exams for a living, that despite my best efforts I was given a least a little raw material with which to do my thinking.

I don't think one can sit people in a vacuum and let them develop their driving. It's rough and tumble: there isn't a way as one and true as your imagined instructor might make out, but the process of his teaching it gives the student something to accept or reject, to modify or to build on. Teaching and mindless drilling are excellent foundations for thoughtful coaching.

[vonhosen]

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? They have struggled to fit in the end of the funnel because they couldn't (or wouldn't) conform to the ever narrowing highly stylised way, but could have perhaps got to the other side if they had had greater choice than having to try & shape themselves to the one true way.

The focus is also very much on levels 1 & 2 of the GDE matrix to the detriment of levels 3 & 4. The heavily instructional dictat of how & what to do robs the learner of the responsibility for choice & the responsibility for the consequences of those choices (needed to develop levels 3 & 4). It also results in, as you've pointed out, people playing the game to pass without exploring what they actually personally value/believe. As a result you don't know who they are, what they are about & what they are therefore likely to do following any course. People will retain what they value/believe, not what the instructor values/believes. They may however ape it to get what they need from the instructor but once they have what they want they can follow their values/beliefs with the instructor none the wiser (but potentially deluded into thinking they have another little clone of themselves out there).

What steps are you taking Von to change things?

My influence is limited, but I'll keep talking to those who are inclined to listen/discuss & those who are less so.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

[michael769]

A perhaps more immediately Apt question for Von.

What would you suggest we on this forum could do to change things?

[vonhosen]

I understand your points.

I like to think that the journey is important too. I might "fake orgasm" in order to pass some hurdle, but some of it rubs off. Lord knows I learnt enough rubbish by rote when I passed exams for a living, that despite my best efforts I was given a least a little raw material with which to do my thinking.

I don't think one can sit people in a vacuum and let them develop their driving. It's rough and tumble: there isn't a way as one and true as your imagined instructor might make out, but the process of his teaching it gives the student something to accept or reject, to modify or to build on. Teaching and mindless drilling are excellent foundations for thoughtful coaching.

Yes

It could be said to be better than nothing or where they were before, but it's so far short of providing an opportunity for them to maximise their potential. It's a great opportunity missed.

There can be a lot of rough & tumble in learning, but it's up to the coach to create/provide the safe environment for the learner to experience the rough & tumble, then help them make sense of it through insightful questioning.

[vonhosen]

A perhaps more immediately Apt question for Von.

What would you suggest we on this forum could do to change things?

Think, question & develop.............repeat.

Now involve others in it.

[daz6215]

My influence is limited, but I'll keep talking to those who are inclined to listen/discuss & those who are less so.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

You see Von, that is the difference between a 'trainer' and someone who is simply in the role because they can drive to a certain level who 'think' they are a trainer. The latter uses a one size fits all approach and is unable to differentiate for different learner requirements. They blame the learner for 'not getting it' when in reality it is because of their shortcomings.The former will use a wide range of approaches in order to promote a non-judgemental inclusive environment where the learner feels able to explore their potential together with the trainer.

[waremark]

Given the lack of importance of technique, what does it matter if after the test the student dumps techniques he did not believe in? Hopefully, by the time he gets to the test, he will have developed enhanced observation, anticipation and planning, which are the foundations of good driving. With my Associates, I find that practising the techniques passes the time while I help them develop their O, A & P. I am sure many of my former Associates will have abandoned PP steering (my children have) and some of them will be happily overlapping, but I hope most will still be Observing, Anticipating and Planning better as a result of our time together.

VH, you have a conviction that there are lots of people who reject advanced training because of the inflexibilty of the syllabus. I do not meet these people (except for Triple S). Do you?. When I talk to people about the IAM, hardly anyone has any clue about it. I have only once had an associate who was openly resistant to anything which I offered - he asked why we modelled our driving on a police style rather than on London taxis. I thought I was able to convince him but he gave up after three sessions. Anyway, the vast majority to whom I talk about advanced driving don't pursue it, but I don't think that has ever been due to the rigidity of the IAM syllabus - indeed, I generally recommend going to an HPC gatekeeper, and they are far less dogmatic than the IAM syllabus.

Bottom line - I disagree with the narrowness of The Way, but I don't think it is doing any significant damage.

[vonhosen]

Given the lack of importance of technique, what does it matter if after the test the student dumps techniques he did not believe in? Hopefully, by the time he gets to the test, he will have developed enhanced observation, anticipation and planning, which are the foundations of good driving. With my Associates, I find that practising the techniques passes the time while I help them develop their O, A & P. I am sure many of my former Associates will have abandoned PP steering (my children have) and some of them will be happily overlapping, but I hope most will still be Observing, Anticipating and Planning better as a result of our time together.

Because it's not making the most of the opportunity, the time could have been more productive still (that's not a criticism of you personally, but the direction & restrictions that come from the centre within which you have to operate - & in the other institutions to which I'm referring). It's also meant that some that could have been successful weren't & importantly it has obstructed development of levels 3 & 4 of the GDE matrix, where the causes of the majority of collisions etc are going to be based.

VH, you have a conviction that there are lots of people who reject advanced training because of the inflexibilty of the syllabus. I do not meet these people (except for Triple S). Do you?. When I talk to people about the IAM, hardly anyone has any clue about it. I have only once had an associate who was openly resistant to anything which I offered - he asked why we modelled our driving on a police style rather than on London taxis. I thought I was able to convince him but he gave up after three sessions. Anyway, the vast majority to whom I talk about advanced driving don't pursue it, but I don't think that has ever been due to the rigidity of the IAM syllabus - indeed, I generally recommend going to an HPC gatekeeper, and they are far less dogmatic than the IAM syllabus.

Bottom line - I disagree with the narrowness of The Way, but I don't think it is doing any significant damage.

I accept that millions don't know about it & have no interest in it. I'm talking about those from the captive market who are more interested in driving from which large numbers are lost to the IAM. You' go to any motor enthusiasts site, or meet & you'll get a lot of scoffing, talk of dogma, shuffle steering, superior attitudes etc etc. You'll then get a lot of indignant defence of the way back at them. Two polar camps rather than a coming together in a common interest.

[vonhosen]

It could be said to be better than nothing or where they were before, but it's so far short of providing an opportunity for them to maximise their potential. It's a great opportunity missed.

I can see your point when it is in the context of "civillian" organisations like the IAM and RoSPA. However, I am not convinced that a police driving school is necessarily the right place for a coaching approach for the students to maximise their potential.

Is it not the case that there is a very limited time in which to cover a huge amount of material and to turn out at the end of it a driver of a particular minimum standard? On advanced courses, is this pressure not even more so?

Sure, it would be nice to have all the time in the world in which to coach the students to the peak of their ability but... they are police officers first and need to be policing and then there is the cost of all this time spent "swanning around in cars".

Maybe I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate here but if there are methods that work to bring about a desired result within a particular time frame and, therefore, within a particular budget, what is the reason to change?

On the subject of take-up: Nobody makes the mainline "advanced driving" organisations' job harder than people like Jeremy Clarkson. I don't think he is capable of mentioning them on TV (I don't know about off camera) without calling them "wheel shufflers" <makes wanking gesture... gets bug laugh> and pushing the stereotype. Perhaps that says as much about the typical TG audience member/viewer as it does about his TV persona. Either way, it's a formidable barrier to further investigation.

But that is the problem, there is little time & then so much of it is wasted (along with so much of their mental capacity) in worrying about small little details (that aren't causing them problems in the first place) transforming them into this singular heavily stylised approach (that perceived increase in standards I was talking about earlier).

Steering not causing you problems........... well it isn't the way, so let's spend a lot of time changing that.
Getting the right gear every time you go for it.........well let's change your gear grip then.
Let's use a load of brain power making you do a commentary you'll never use again.

All whilst ignoring the way in which we get that to happen undermines, instead of supporting, development of the most important levels 3 & 4.
Police schools were set up to minimise collisions, collisions happen because of level 3 & 4 issues (poor choices due to values/beliefs & journey specific pressures etc), but let's instead get back to that gear grip.

[Ralge]

Whilst I can accept VH's point about dispensing with the heavily stylised nature of AD (in some quarters, anyway) I strongly disagree with any suggestion that commentary "will never be used again".

And I am not talking about high-level 2000 words per minute Police Class 1 commentary that points out every crisp packet and fold in the road. I advocate a very much more homely style instead and one which any driver can get involved with.

Commentary develops and enhances levels of concentration, depth and width of observation and anticipation skills.
It promotes self-evaluation and a self-awareness which is very much up at the top levels of GDE - a Reflective Competence.
It has a place in every format of training I deliver whether Advanced, Defensive or Eco (and any combination of the three).
Make it a regular and routine part of driving out aloud, say, for just a couple of minutes and the driver can expect it to run internally for ten more minutes. With it, a driving master plan that does not accept any surprises is made more possible.

Chris Gilbert ("Ultimate Driving Craft") and Stephen Haley ("Mind Driving") come to the same conclusion, from memory.

[7db]

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?)

[vonhosen]

Whilst I can accept VH's point about dispensing with the heavily stylised nature of AD (in some quarters, anyway) I strongly disagree with any suggestion that commentary "will never be used again".

And I am not talking about high-level 2000 words per minute Police Class 1 commentary that points out every crisp packet and fold in the road. I advocate a very much more homely style instead and one which any driver can get involved with.

Commentary develops and enhances levels of concentration, depth and width of observation and anticipation skills.
It promotes self-evaluation and a self-awareness which is very much up at the top levels of GDE - a Reflective Competence.
It has a place in every format of training I deliver whether Advanced, Defensive or Eco (and any combination of the three).
Make it a regular and routine part of driving out aloud, say, for just a couple of minutes and the driver can expect it to run internally for ten more minutes. With it, a driving master plan that does not accept any surprises is made more possible.

Chris Gilbert ("Ultimate Driving Craft") and Stephen Haley ("Mind Driving") come to the same conclusion, from memory.

But in Police circles that commentary gets ever more stylised too. It's not a tool to aid learning, it's become a monster all of it's own. They spend a huge effort to get it to the way the instructor wants it (don't use that word, use this) & then it stops when the course finishes. An instructor's commentary from 10 years ago, probably wouldn't be very highly regarded as a student's commentary today (it's getting narrower & narrower down that funnel).

[daz6215]

It could be said to be better than nothing or where they were before, but it's so far short of providing an opportunity for them to maximise their potential. It's a great opportunity missed.

I can see your point when it is in the context of "civillian" organisations like the IAM and RoSPA. However, I am not convinced that a police driving school is necessarily the right place for a coaching approach for the students to maximise their potential.

Your input as a trainer would be like a pick and mix, you might have a student on a course who has barriers about exceeding speed limits, coaching is a much more useful tool than simply saying 'put your foot down' . The coaching approach helps to build trust between trainer and student. This is vital at high speed or police driving schools.

Is it not the case that there is a very limited time in which to cover a huge amount of material and to turn out at the end of it a driver of a particular minimum standard?

Yes, but this can still be achieved using coaching and using the higher levels of the matrix.

On advanced courses, is this pressure not even more so?

You need to remember what motivations most on advanced courses have, pitching at the correct level is important. A lot attending standard courses have barriers to driving.

Sure, it would be nice to have all the time in the world in which to coach the students to the peak of their ability but... they are police officers first and need to be policing and then there is the cost of all this time spent "swanning around in cars".

How much can you put on the price of a life it they get it wrong?

Maybe I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate here but if there are methods that work to bring about a desired result within a particular time frame and, therefore, within a particular budget, what is the reason to change?

It's not change, it's building upon what already exists to make it better!

On the subject of take-up: Nobody makes the mainline "advanced driving" organisations' job harder than people like Jeremy Clarkson. I don't think he is capable of mentioning them on TV (I don't know about off camera) without calling them "wheel shufflers" <makes wanking gesture... gets bug laugh> and pushing the stereotype. Perhaps that says as much about the typical TG audience member/viewer as it does about his TV persona. Either way, it's a formidable barrier to further investigation.