Teach me to be a safe driver.

[TripleS]

I think you are overstating the utility of a particular type of coaching/teaching.

I'm not an observer and to date haven't done coaching. I'm interested in exploring the issue because I feel there is merit in it from an associate PoV. As a result, I think that:

(a) you're overlooking the failure rate of IAM tuition because of how it is performed; that includes those who drop out, those who fail the exam, and those who jump through the test hoop successfully but do not adopt any significant proportion of what they're taught long term.

Apologies to Nick (Mr C-W) but that strikes a chord with me.

I dropped out of the IAM almost immediately I joined, because I couldn't go along with the approach being deployed at that time.

The other point I'm conscious of is being advised by numerous people to 'do the course, pass the IAM test, and then just drive to suit yourself afterwards', and that just didn't seem right to me.

[trashbat]

Every single person I've talked to that has passed IAM tells me two things: one, that they had to get past some dogma at some point, and especially two, that there was a depression in the middle where they doubted what they were doing (usually trying to apply separation) and made them wonder about continuing. Every single one of them, and this is only ever people that did persevere.

Taking the second of those things, maybe the better observers or mentors pre-warn associates of that, but noone did for me. Without even going into GDE, that's a simple but very important example of discussing attitudes to learning, rather than the nitty gritty of what the associate is getting right/wrong that session.

MGF, what do you think about that? Is it a problem, and if so, who has a stake/responsibility in solving it?

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I think you are overstating the utility of a particular type of coaching/teaching.

I'm not an observer and to date haven't done coaching. I'm interested in exploring the issue because I feel there is merit in it from an associate PoV. As a result, I think that:

(a) you're overlooking the failure rate of IAM tuition because of how it is performed; that includes those who drop out, those who fail the exam, and those who jump through the test hoop successfully but do not adopt any significant proportion of what they're taught long term.

Apologies to Nick (Mr C-W) but that strikes a chord with me.

I don't know why I deserve any apology? a) I have nothing to do with the IAM, and b) I hope I've already made it as clear as I possibly can that I fully endorse the coaching style of tuition, endeavour to use it, and am exploring many avenues to improve at it - books, online tutorials and research, thinking about a course ...

Have I misunderstood something?

Yes there is some dogma in both IAM and RoADAR, to the extent that we expect people to drive to the System of Car Control, if they want to pass the test of either organisation. If they just want to improve their driving, fair enough, but our mission is to swell the numbers of members of our relevant organisation, so we prefer people who have the same aim.

[TripleS]

I don't know why I deserve any apology? a) I have nothing to do with the IAM, and b) I hope I've already made it as clear as I possibly can that I fully endorse the coaching style of tuition, endeavour to use it, and am exploring many avenues to improve at it - books, online tutorials and research, thinking about a course ...

Have I misunderstood something?

Yes there is some dogma in both IAM and RoADAR, to the extent that we expect people to drive to the System of Car Control, if they want to pass the test of either organisation. If they just want to improve their driving, fair enough, but our mission is to swell the numbers of members of our relevant organisation, so we prefer people who have the same aim.

OK, Nick; it's just that I have seemingly offended you in the past by making periodic (and possiblt tiresome) references to my difficulties with the IAM, some of which, I have always admitted, were because I'm a tricky blighter, quite apart from the possible shortcomings of others.

There you go, we're still pals.

[trashbat]

Yes there is some dogma in both IAM and RoADAR, to the extent that we expect people to drive to the System of Car Control, if they want to pass the test of either organisation. If they just want to improve their driving, fair enough

What I really mean by dogma is 'this is how you must do it', which is bad enough but often also lacks a compelling why, sometimes even when pushed for one. That's a mentoring turn off.

but our mission is to swell the numbers of members of our relevant organisation

Do you hold this to be part of your objectives? Naturally it will be the case somewhere in the organisation but I'm surprised to see it plainly stated. Does it matter whether someone goes on to have long term involvement in the IAM etc, as long as they're safer?

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

but our mission is to swell the numbers of members of our relevant organisation

Do you hold this to be part of your objectives? Naturally it will be the case somewhere in the organisation but I'm surprised to see it plainly stated. Does it matter whether someone goes on to have long term involvement in the IAM etc, as long as they're safer?

Well I'm probably the least hard-core of my committee on this, but there is inevitable disappointment when people join the group, have sessions with a tutor, and then don't take a test. With my committee hat on, we've had their joining fee, and they've benefited to some extent from the tutoring, so something has been achieved, but as a tutor, it's always disappointing when an associate drifts away before taking a test. In RoADAR, of course, passing the test makes them a member of RoADAR nationally.

And of course it's an objective - local groups are the incarnation of the national organisation at a local level. One does not exist without the other. Otherwise we may as well call ourselves by some other name - the Swindon League of Safe Drivers perhaps - has a ring to it ...

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I have seemingly offended you in the past

Nope. Frustrated sometimes, perhaps. Never offended.

[revian]

Do you hold this to be part of your objectives? Naturally it will be the case somewhere in the organisation but I'm surprised to see it plainly stated. Does it matter whether someone goes on to have long term involvement in the IAM etc, as long as they're safer?

But isn't 'belonging to a group' more likely to keep a member on the safer learning curve than someone who leaves? More likely...not certainly!

[trashbat]

Well I'm probably the least hard-core of my committee on this, but there is inevitable disappointment when people join the group, have sessions with a tutor, and then don't take a test.

Ah - I took what you were saying to mean staying in the group after successfully passing the test.

[Horse]

Yes there is some dogma in both IAM and RoADAR, to the extent that we expect people to drive to the System of Car Control, if they want to pass the test of either organisation.

And that could be seen as both a good target for improvement and a terrible restriction on development.

But isn't 'belonging to a group' more likely to keep a member on the safer learning curve than someone who leaves?

If that person is taught, along the way, how to be self-aware and to constantly re-evaluate their driving, then they may not need the Group

There is also a 'danger' that a 'this is the best, the only, way' attitude within a Group could hinder (if not stifle) development beyond the 'test' target level.


But as I've said before, young learner drivers will be experiencing a more 'coaching' style as time goes on, what will they think and how will they respond if that isn't reflected by organisations offering post-test training?

One more thought: when I started with 'advanced' riding, the claim was always that it was based on 'police' methods. If Von's style is spreading through the UK's police driving schools, but isn't refelcted in a matched change within 'advanced' organisations and Groups, then that claim will be very difficult to justify any longer.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Well I'm probably the least hard-core of my committee on this, but there is inevitable disappointment when people join the group, have sessions with a tutor, and then don't take a test.

Ah - I took what you were saying to mean staying in the group after successfully passing the test.

That is an aim too, but we have to be realistic about it. Most people join because they want to improve their driving, of those a good proportion go on and take a test, but then 50% of them don't renew their local group membership after the first year. The Group has to try and maintain a stable (or growing) membership, and attract new blood, or it will wither and die. There's a critical mass below which it's hard to actually run, because it's difficult to get people to volunteer for the admin roles that are necessary to keep momentum and recruitment going.

[waremark]

So you have someone come on a course who is impatient and competitive. You can make him safer by teaching him to judge a safe speed and a safe following distance, and to anticipate hazards. You can encourage him to take satisfaction from driving smoothly and accurately. Or you can attempt to get him to recognise how his impatience and competitiveness affect his driving, and help him work out how to control that.

Of course you will attempt both. Which will be more productive in making him safer?

[GJD]

So you have someone come on a course who is impatient and competitive. You can make him safer by teaching him to judge a safe speed and a safe following distance, and to anticipate hazards. You can encourage him to take satisfaction from driving smoothly and accurately. Or you can attempt to get him to recognise how his impatience and competitiveness affect his driving, and help him work out how to control that.

Of course you will attempt both. Which will be more productive in making him safer?

In answering your question, are we supposed (or allowed) to assume that the driver in question wants to control their impatience and competitiveness?

If I've understood all this coaching and GDE matrix stuff - and I probably haven't - isn't the whole point that if you want to turn an impatient driver into a patient driver, you need to go beyond just identifying how impatience affects their driving into the reasons why they, personally, bring impatience to their driving in the first place? On the grounds that you, in fact, can't turn them from an impatient driver into a patient one, only they can - and that would only happen if they themselves were to decide to change their mind about whatever reasons it was that lead them incorporate impatience in their driving in the first place.

I presume simply telling them not to be impatient is no more approved of than simply telling them not to BGOL?

[Horse]

Of course you will attempt both. Which will be more productive in making him safer?

Will both 'make him safer'? Please explain how you think that will happen?

[Ancient]

Of course you will attempt both. Which will be more productive in making him safer?

Will both 'make him safer'? Please explain how you think that will happen?

Well, you could be highly successful in helping him to control his impatience and take pride in driving smoothly and accurately, but leave him to guess a safe following distance and not show him how he can better anticipate hazards.

Then he would be a smooth, patient driver with no anticipation, who accurately drives too close for the speed and conditions.

I think 'both' might be better than 'either/or'. One will potentially involve an explorative coaching style, whilst the other may benefit from explanation of the laws of physics.