Teach me to be a safe driver.

[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?

I think 'both' might be better than 'either/or'.

Sorry, I didn't explain clearly; I meant 'how would each contribute, individually?'

After all, if someone can rein in their impatience etc. and drive within their current capabilities, wouldn't that on its own substantially improve their safety? [Assuming they don't have any potentially dangerous control 'skills']

So, to that end, would simple skills training actually achieve a safety benefit?

[revian]

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 .

Accepted a bit... such perfection would find it hard to tolerate us imperfects....

....also except that the group may need them.If everybody was a one way street there wouldn't be any coaches... critical mass relates not only to the fatigue of office holders (I've closed such groups in 'other realms) but ultimately to the very point of the organisation.

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.

Accepted a bit more is it inevitable that an IAM/RosPA group might not manage a mission aim above its fundamental target... which seems to be bound up with passing a test? Is it oxymoronic?

[vonhosen]

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?

If impatience & competitiveness isn't addressed it's not likely to change. It is at a higher level than judging a safe speed & a safe following distance. Even if you show him a safe speed & a safe following distance he will not adhere to them because the higher order failings will dominate. He might do it whilst you are there to demonstrate he can, but he won't be able to do it all the time because impatience & competitiveness will still be there & will take over.
The brain leads the body & impatience & competitiveness are part of his make up. If he realises that is stopping him being who or what he wants to be, then that can be the motivation for change.

[vonhosen]

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?

Indeed.

Learning a physical skill will not on it's own mean that physical skill will always be used. It has to be valued (& not obstructed ) at a higher level in order to not be compromised.

[waremark]

Sorry, I didn't explain clearly; I meant 'how would each contribute, individually?'

After all, if someone can rein in their impatience etc. and drive within their current capabilities, wouldn't that on its own substantially improve their safety? [Assuming they don't have any potentially dangerous control 'skills']

So, to that end, would simple skills training actually achieve a safety benefit?

But are they any good at judging where their current capabilities are, at assessing where it is safe to drive fast, and at anticipating where hazards will come from?

My belief is that it is easier to give them better skills than to change their character, and that it makes more difference to their safety. I recognize that this belief is controversial in this thread - and I would not suggest ignoring the beliefs and values aspect.

[Horse]

Sorry, I didn't explain clearly; I meant 'how would each contribute, individually?'

After all, if someone can rein in their impatience etc. and drive within their current capabilities, wouldn't that on its own substantially improve their safety? [Assuming they don't have any potentially dangerous control 'skills']

So, to that end, would simple skills training actually achieve a safety benefit?

My belief is that it is easier to give them better skills than to change their character, and that it makes more difference to their safety. I recognize that this belief is controversial in this thread - and I would not suggest ignoring the beliefs and values aspect.

I'm not going to argue with your beliefs.

What I would like is for you to explain what you base that belief on.

[trashbat]

My belief is that it is easier to give them better skills than to change their character, and that it makes more difference to their safety. I recognize that this belief is controversial in this thread - and I would not suggest ignoring the beliefs and values aspect.

Is your view coloured by seeing their improved compliance inside the session, and not the potential regression outside of it? That is, it's easier to 'teach' someone how to behave for an hour but harder to make them do it for the rest of their life.

There are many enablers and factors that might mean you're well positioned to influence them. For one, by merely being the teacher, you are in a position of authority and/or seniority, and they might be automatically inclined to take your views seriously once alone - depending on what else you do, of course.

They might be a reflective person who can already identify some flaws in their behaviour, but just as easily rationalise them away as unwarranted when no-one is pulling them up on it.

They might be coming to you and the IAM for a motivation you haven't mutually explored, meaning their character is ready to accept some of it, but you don't know it yet. I don't know if this impatient and competitive person is real, but drivers don't generally come to the IAM through a primary goal of going faster, nor without their own good reasons.

If you forget about the GDE for a moment, what would a good teacher look like? If you think of a teacher that had a positive effect on your own life, what did they do? Much will be unrelated to the techniques discussed in this thread - e.g. enthusiasm for the subject - but perhaps there's something in there.

[MGF]

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?

What you describe doesn't appear to me to be perculiar to advanced driving. The dogma as you describe it is a manageable way of passing on useful skills. I suspect people will be just as frustrated by amateur psychology being imposed on them as they are with having to master avoiding BGOL.

[MGF]

I'm not going to argue with your beliefs.

What I would like is for you to explain what you base that belief on.

Experience.

[vonhosen]

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?

What you describe doesn't appear to me to be perculiar to advanced driving. The dogma as you describe it is a manageable way of passing on useful skills. I suspect people will be just as frustrated by amateur psychology being imposed on them as they are with having to master avoiding BGOL.

If the skills aren't valued by the recipient they won't be retained/used. If the psychology isn't dealt with likewise &/or it will interfere with the skill being used.

How many people on test under perform?
Why?
It's the psychology.
They've been taught the skill, but not addressed the psychological side & then it interferes with using the skill.

[MGF]

If the skills aren't valued by the recipient they won't be retained/used. If the psychology isn't dealt with likewise &/or it will interfere with the skill being used.

I agree with this completely. But dealing with the psychology effectively requires a lot of skill. Incompetent attempts may well do more harm than good.

[daz6215]

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.

Its certainly not reflected where I work, I feel like Im wasting my time, they have the attitude of you cant develop something thats holier than thou! They will get left behind if they dont recognise things are changing and for the best I think!

[daz6215]

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.

Sums up where I work unfortunately!

[vonhosen]

If the skills aren't valued by the recipient they won't be retained/used. If the psychology isn't dealt with likewise &/or it will interfere with the skill being used.

I agree with this completely. But dealing with the psychology effectively requires a lot of skill. Incompetent attempts may well do more harm than good.

That rather depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you are going to go.
The layman isn't likely to be going down there. We are in the main talking about simply a more holistic humanistic approach to the learning environment for an everyday task.

[Horse]

If the skills aren't valued by the recipient they won't be retained/used. If the psychology isn't dealt with likewise &/or it will interfere with the skill being used.

I agree with this completely. But dealing with the psychology effectively requires a lot of skill. Incompetent attempts may well do more harm than good.

A non-argument; incompetent transfer of skills could just make your candidate a smoother/faster etc. crasher. How would you prevent that?