Teach me to be a safe driver.

[waremark]

.
What matters is how their values/beliefs & emotions have a positive or negative effect on their performance in levels 1 & 2 & their mindfulness around that.

Please will you start a new thread to tell/remind the unenlightened among us more about the higher level stuff, and in practical terms how you address it in a driving course? And about how you manage to inculcate skills as well as attitude?

[hir]

.
What matters is how their values/beliefs & emotions have a positive or negative effect on their performance in levels 1 & 2 & their mindfulness around that.

Please will you start a new thread to tell/remind the unenlightened among us more about the higher level stuff, and in practical terms how you address it in a driving course? And about how you manage to inculcate skills as well as attitude?

Hear, hear.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Number up from the bottom - 1,2,3,4...

[Ralge]

Presumably, before any training, the delegate is to reflect on how the "observer effect" might affect how he/she will drive and is required to explore, perhaps:

How are you feeling today? How well-prepared do you feel?
How will not knowing the test/observed run route affect your driving
How will test-condition nerves affect the drive ... Could it make it slower, faster, smoother, jerkier;
Will the pressure for progress result in narrower safety margins ...
What can we expect by way of road/weather/time of day and year hazards
How will you feel if/when you make a mistake
How will you respond to having goofed

How, as your mentor/coach, can I help in any of this.

Having done that, let's get on with it.

[vonhosen]

The matrix has been posted before. I repeat my request.

It's an enormous topic, that can't really be done justice on a forum.

I'll try to give an example from a Police driving school perspective of where things fall down without it. Of course in the wider context of all driving there are so many variables to what you may encounter in a candidate, but the principles remain the same.

Scenario
Somebody has been trained in response driving. They've been trained in the traditional roadcraft manner focusing on explanation of what is required ('the way' - handling, OAP, the system - which are all at levels 1 & 2), demonstration of what is required & practice of what is required. At the end of the course they can consistently give a perfectly competent demonstration around those criteria & are successful. Throughout the instructor has told them what they needed to do, praised them as they got better at it & picked them up on it where they fell short of what was required.

They are now released to drive out on their own in response mode. A month later they have a crash going too fast into a hazard. Their instructor says they knew what to do, showed they could do it, just didn't do it. They get suspended from driving for a period & have to be retested as a precautionary measure. All is well on retest & they are back driving.

All along it's levels 1&2 that's been looked at. On the course, when looking at the crash & when checking their driving post crash (level 2 - managing their interactions on road with hazards/others).
The likelihood though is that it stems from a higher level, either level 3 their emotions/feelings on blue lights & how that has skewed their behaviours/performance at level 2, or level 4 such as their attitude to risk generally.
I mentioned earlier the three legged stool, it's balanced, one leg is cognition, one is emotion & the other behaviour. They are interdependent. If one fails the stool falls. Cognition & emotions shape/influence behaviours.

In the alternate world scenario
Ideally there would have least been a long discussion, rather than just a check test following suspension. (What family & friends do they have? What interests do they have? What's important to them in their life? What to them is a good Police officer? What is a good Police driver? What is a poor Police driver? How do they see their future career? Why do they think the crash happened? How were they feeling that day when they came to work? What jobs had they done that morning? How did those jobs go? Where were they when the call came out? What was in their mind when they took the call? Why did they choose the route they did? What emotions did they experience on the journey? Maybe going through the details of the crash - noise, smells, feelings, What they tried to do when they realised they had a problem (put them back there mentally), why they made those choices etc? - They survived it & nobody was killed , did they choose to hit what they did rather than something else? Or was it just where they ended up there in trying to avoid something else? What if there had been something else where they ended up - a child in a pram for instance? What would have happened then? How would that affect their future career & life goals?)

You get the idea?
Challenge values/beliefs, personalise consequences, help them make the links that values/beliefs & emotions alter behaviours & that behaviours have consequences (for them & their life goals).
Help them develop coping strategies for themselves so it doesn't happen again (so they realise they are vulnerable to a problem, they recognise the onset of the problem & they have a way to divert themselves from the problem). They'll be personal, individual to them. Things that will make them personally think hard about & influence their choices in future. They lay in who they are & what's important to them. If you don't ask you won't know who they are (Johari's window). When they are at the metaphoric split in the road in future, choose the right path, don't fall prey to the wrong one.

Of course this would have been better still if it was addressed before the crash in the training. Encouraging them to take control of their training, take responsibility for it & the consequences of outcomes following their choices in it. Helping them develop the links mentioned in the three legged stool. Rather than what you thought about their drive, what they thought about it & why (cognitive) or felt about it & why (emotional). Every time you tell them you take responsibility from them to you, every time you ask them you make them take responsibility. You are there to support them not do it for them. You are there to make them challenge their thinking with your questions, not tell them what to think with your answers.

In the initial scenario they'd been told what to do & they did it to pass the test. But you didn't know who they were or what they were about. You didn't know what they'd do given free reign, because you never enquired. You just assumed because they'd been told & shown 'the right way' they'd see it's value & do it. But it wasn't them & it wasn't their way, it was yours & they did it to please you because you had something they wanted, the qualification & the power over whether they could get it or not.

Once they have it & you are out of the way, that control measure is gone, so they'll express who they are & what they are about in their driving (warts and all). Which you haven't explored or helped them develop on the course, despite it underpinning everything. You've built a house that looked good when you walked away, but it could be built on sand because you never paid attention to the foundations.

A rigid structure & test (the way) just makes that harder, & the more defined it is (the one true way) makes it harder still, because it eliminates their choices & it results in you having to tell them what to do. To get around that you need great flexibility in the lower levels by keeping the levels as generic as possible. It should be outcome rather than process based, focusing on what the important outcomes are & not the style in which it's achieved
ie 'steer smoothly & accurately' (outcome) without adding to it 'using pull/push' (style). By giving freedom in the way good outcomes are achieved in the lower levels & that those skills are learnt, you create responsibility in relation to the upper levels by the way the learning has been allowed to take place.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Succinct, to the point, and explains everything you've been saying about focusing on outcomes instead of skills, VH.

How much of this is a philosophy at your school, and how much a one-man campaign?

Conversely - do other schools really only focus on levels 1 and 2? Is there no concept of marking the individual's capacity to perform under job pressure, as well as their ability to demonstrate mechanical skills? One would have thought that at least privately among the instructors there would be some discussion - "PC Pickles - yes, fantastic skill, but you mark my words, Miggins, he'll come a cropper on his first shout" ...

[vonhosen]

Succinct, to the point, and explains everything you've been saying about focusing on outcomes instead of skills, VH.

How much of this is a philosophy at your school, and how much a one-man campaign?

Conversely - do other schools really only focus on levels 1 and 2? Is there no concept of marking the individual's capacity to perform under job pressure, as well as their ability to demonstrate mechanical skills? One would have thought that at least privately among the instructors there would be some discussion - "PC Pickles - yes, fantastic skill, but you mark my words, Miggins, he'll come a cropper on his first shout" ...

I'm not alone, but let's say it's a strong wilful tide & movement is slow.

Schools vary, there are more progressive & there are more traditional.

There's lots of pressure for candidates, but with those that are successful their response might not be one that accurately reflects what they'll do with their own choices when the control measure is gone. There are lots unsuccessful (high failure rates) & a lot of that stems from them not being able to cope under the pressure they are put under. Telling somebody not to worry & relax doesn't help them relax that often (we are back to telling). Helping them to be more emotionally aware & explore coping strategies is more effective (we are back to coaching).
It's not there are no gains & it's all a waste of time (instructing) either. It's that a rigid approach means people are unsuccessful who needn't have been & that people slip through the net (as you haven't checked the foundations & some will be naturally better than others. But if you don't look you won't know which are which). In short you aren't getting from it what you could because you aren't looking at, developing & measuring the most important things.

[brianhaddon]

This is indeed an interesting thread.

Conversely - do other schools really only focus on levels 1 and 2? Is there no concept of marking the individual's capacity to perform under job pressure, as well as their ability to demonstrate mechanical skills? One would have thought that at least privately among the instructors there would be some discussion - "PC Pickles - yes, fantastic skill, but you mark my words, Miggins, he'll come a cropper on his first shout" ...

I would ask this even about IAM and RoADAR groups.

I would suspect the core of RoADAR and IAM guidance to be focussed on levels 1 and 2 and maybe it is higher up the ladder that I think drivers move to 3 and 4. However I wonder if we drift into levels 3 and 4 even some without consciously doing so. Certainly from my point of view the first thing I look at with a new associate is what their attitude and approach to driving is - and how they conduct themselves on the road. Naturally you ensure they are generally safe. But there are times when these things need looking at and so it comes up in conversation.

Interest comments on commentary. Personally I am a fan but agree that it often has a detrimental effect. I used to introduce commentary in what I consider to be the traditional way, i.e. 'tell me when you see a road sign and what it is'..... I have changed that to, 'what are you thinking about?' I ask them to tell me even if is unrelated to the driving task. I get some interesting responses!

Regards
Brian Haddon

[daz6215]

Driving schools syllabus is very much designed with a behaviourist connotation, i.e. Pavlov's Dog theory, Stimulus, response and reward. Strongly linked to behaviourism is the 'Product Model' , this model relies upon a strong structure of learning focussing on the end product i.e. do it this way to achieve this.

Cognitivism- is linked to the process model, it is about what takes place within the learning i.e. the journey rather than the end product. It is about learning the student how to 'think' for themselves using ideas and concepts rather than simply doing as you are told. It is concerned with their broader mental development rather than meeting objectives. (Tummons, 2009)

If things are to change within the organisation the management need to value how important these concepts are, they need to value the importance of developing training material and they need to employ people who are trainers and not just someone out of rpu with a licence. They need to up their game and invest in driver training, after all, if the public are likely to come into conflict with the police, it will most likely be in a vehicle not with a gun!

[waremark]

VH, I appreciate your effort in writing that long post.

If it is true that you drive how you are, and that you are how you drive, do the 3 & 4 aspects not become apparent through a candidate's driving? Don't the 3 & 4 aspects change in the traditional environment as a result of learning to implement by rote a methodical procedure for driving?

[WhoseGeneration]

Following on from martine's suggestion in the now locked thread. Pity, because I had some further questions for vonhosen, especially in light of his revelations about his personality, revelations I can sympathise with.

Ok, how do or would those here approach the above simple question?

Just to put a caveat in here, one vonhosen might appreciate, way back when I was being "trained" to be a teacher, one lecturer said to us, "Remember, there will be, in your classes, some more intelligent than you".

Those "some" might turn out to be such as those who declared the world not flat or that the atom was not the smallest particle. The questioners of current belief.

Or. is driving just a bit of motor skills allied to following the rules?

[7db]

As I understand it we start by understanding why being a safe driver is important to you and how your values and beliefs affect your desire to drive safely.

Also: hold the gear lever like this.

[vonhosen]

You say you want to be a safer driver, what does being a safer driver mean to you ?

[hir]

You say you want to be a safer driver, what does being a safer driver mean to you ?

The usual response to this question is... "avoiding/reducing the risk of having an accident."

And... in answer to the obvious question... "no, I haven't recently had an accident. I just want you to teach me how to be a safer driver".

"So", I say, "what does being a safer driver mean to you?"... And so we go round and round in ever decreasing GDE matrix multiplication circles... [And don't even think of suggesting to me that I ask them how they would like me to teach them to be a safer driver, please]

So, to cut through all this, I tell them to read HTBABD, hold the gear-knob thus and do pull-push all the time everywhere... easy innit!

Works every time!

[vonhosen]

You say you want to be a safer driver, what does being a safer driver mean to you ?

The usual response to this question is... "avoiding/reducing the risk of having an accident."

And... in answer to the obvious question... "no, I haven't recently had an accident. I just want you to teach me how to be a safer driver".

"So", I say, "what does being a safer driver mean to you?"... And so we go round and round in ever decreasing GDE matrix multiplication circles... [And don't even think of suggesting to me that I ask them how they would like me to teach them to be a safer driver, please]

So, to cut through all this, I tell them to read HTBABD, hold the gear-knob thus and do pull-push all the time everywhere... easy innit!

Works every time!

What do you think about you causes greatest risk?