Teach me to be a safe driver.

[waremark]

I base my thoughts on my experience of my own driving development and that of others I know, and on my experience as an IAM Observer.

I was a bad driver in my early driving years, passionately enthusiastic but equating good driving with fast driving. Then I was introduced to 'advanced driving' by John Lyon, almost universally regarded as a brilliant driver and an expert, but also quite famous for a dogmatic and techniques oriented teaching style. Thereafter, I started to get my satisfaction from driving accurately and well, rather than fast.

Many of the best drivers I know were also first taught by him, or by others with a traditional police driving school background. We all now have a passion for appropriate entry speeds, and for going slowly where we cannot see positively that it is safe to go fast.

In teaching my Associates (oh, sorry, that is not allowed, is it) I see people over several months, and if they did not practice the things which I encourage them to try when I am not with them their driving would not change as it does. By the time they take their test I expect that much of what they have been practising has become habitual.

[waremark]

A post on Pistonheads AD forum today -

I've done a lot of advanced training and tests(bikes and cars)over the years; Jon Lyon and his then associate Hugh Noblitt within the "old" HPC were the best by a long way. Their instructions/attitude/style still resonate in my driving head to-day.

If you can get a drive with him grab the chance.

[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.

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

You have missed the point expressed in the post you have quoted.

To clarify.

1) ...dealing with the psychology effectively, requires a lot of skill.

2) by implication, passing on skills learned to pass the IAM/RoADA tests is relatively straightforward.

3) It follows that the chances of an Observer/Tutor competently achieving 2) is much greater than the same competently achieving 1).

4) The above point is not the same as asserting that skills learned to pass the IAM/RoADA tests could be effectively passed on even when done so incompetently. The point is, observers/tutors are more likely to be competent at 2) than 1).

5) Starting your post with the label "non-argument" doesn't make it so, particularly as you appear to have misunderstood the point you are attempting to criticize.

6) A better argument would be to question the premise in 1) and 2).

[vonhosen]

A post on Pistonheads AD forum today -

I've done a lot of advanced training and tests(bikes and cars)over the years; Jon Lyon and his then associate Hugh Noblitt within the "old" HPC were the best by a long way. Their instructions/attitude/style still resonate in my driving head to-day.

If you can get a drive with him grab the chance.

If there is an underlying problem none of that means that a) whoever did the post is consciously aware of it, b) that it doesn't adversely affect any implementation of any skill they've learnt.

Also don't Hugh & John have very very different styles of teaching?
Isn't Hugh's more holistic/humanistic?

I had a lot of training. I didn't think I had a problem. I was very wrong. Looking at the psychology (examining what I was doing, why I was doing it & the values/beliefs I was operating under) is where that was discovered. When I had close margins I believed it was my skill that was stopping me having a collision, but instead it was my psychology that was putting me in those high risk areas. The longer I got away with it just re-enforced to me my false perception of my skill level. I could of course reign it in for a test & let loose with the 'real me' outside of that.

We are talking about a system wide change to individually tailored training.
When I was taught I could do what I was told relatively naturally, I was told it was best & I believed it. I then did what was natural & taught the way I was taught, after all that worked for me & who taught me (& we were really good - he told me, because after all I was like him). But that didn't work for everybody & that was their problem, not mine.

Reflecting though that wasn't all good, but it didn't stop me passionately believing it was for many years & stating the training I'd had was up there with the best in the world. Honest critical reflection now shows it for what it was. Of it's time it may have been amongst the best that was available, within the limitations of what was known at the time etc. But the world has moved on faster than it has, as has awareness of the importance of the psychology etc. Because it's always been done that way & some believed it worked for them is not a reason to not change. The fact that so many can't or won't do it (the way) because they won't buy into the dogma etc & that so many of those that do buy into it are adversely affect by the undermining psychology (even though, they like me, may be unaware of it) is a reason to change.

[Horse]

MGF; if I don't understand the post then that may be because the content was open to misinterpretation, in the same way that skills can be applied for safety - or not. What makes the difference to that application is the person.

[TripleS]

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!

Can we alter "best" to read "better"?

At some point in the future we might devise some other system that is better still. Meanwhile, I like the way this is going. Carry on, Von; I think what you're doing is right.

[Ancient]

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.

Whilst I agree that performance dips whilst training are not the preserve of AD (getting someone to adjust what they are doing/how they perform means they have to practice the new method - whether it is a way of thinking or a muscle memory, a large number of times before it becomes their primary way) and is seen in anything from IT training to Martial Arts; I believe the example of under performing on test is not relevant to what (I think) you are trying to achieve
It's certainly 'the psychology' that prevents many performing well on test, but that is a reacton to a particular stress situation. IMO this is very different to the psychology of what they do the rest of the time, away from a test and that particular stressor.

[trashbat]

Seen and spotted: there's a little snippet in this month's IAM magazine (amongst the letters from supposedly advanced MLMs defending their stupidity) about Masters, which comments on how it is meant to include reflection on attitudes, both in the candidate and other drivers. I'll C&P it tonight if I remember.

[revian]

They've been taught the skill, but not addressed the psychological side & then it interferes with using the skill.

a friend of mine failed his firearms training. He could handle the gun fine... he just hit the wrong people...

It's certainly 'the psychology' that prevents many performing well on test, but that is a reacton to a particular stress situation. IMO this is very different to the psychology of what they do the rest of the time, away from a test and that particular stressor.

Is it 'very different' or different but connected to the 'rest of life'? I've known people handling high pressure jobs well but be totally psychologically wrecked in their home life... in principle it might support this... but I ran into a church tower in the car (not a metaphor!) which had only been there for 100 years and was well known to me .. something wholly other and stressfull on my mind crossed into my driving competancy region.

In real life hasnt somewhere in this go to be a task-specific risk assessment of sorts? what might be a problem in driving? I guess that can only be on an individual basis... none of us are mere clones. Creating the perfect human being and thence the perfect driver isn't a goal easily reached so maybe one has to work out personalised SMART goals?

I did see http://youtu.be/FXj4wSsRUgo as one of many coaching adverts...

I'm fumbling around the topic but the forum is helpful and has spin offs for me (not in the car... hopefully...)

[Ancient]

Well, it's not something I have researched nor even my area, but I gather the impression from what I have read in this area that Test Anxiety (TA) and General Anxiety (GA) are different: For example http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/21/6/485/

""TA scores tended to correlate negatively with measures of academic achievement, although with increase in number of years in college the negative correlation disappeared. GA scores failed to correlate significantly with entrance examination scores, but tended to correlate positively with grade point averages"

So in this test of (academic) achievement, TA correlates with how well someone tends to do on tests (sounds reasonable) but GA does not. GA OTOH correlates with how well they do on more general markings (i.e. monitoring performance away from the test).

If this translates to AD, then addressing TA will assist with them passing the test but not necessarilly with how they drive later. Addressing where any 'poor attitudes' (for want of a better phrase) come from might assist with reducing their risk in a non-test environment. They do seem to me (as a complete amateur in the field) to be separate psychological elements though.

[revian]

...not my main area either but most polymaths are amateurs - are they not

I can buy that TA/GA difference but can't quite believe in a disconnect.

I was puzzled by

"relationships between anxiety and achievement variables depend to an important extent on the nature of the instrument employed to measure anxiety."

which seems to sound quite a lot like the workman blaming the tools. My Mk 8 AVO Multimeter from 1950/60s can't measure quite a lot of things that do exist to a newer model.

[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.

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.

Whilst I agree that performance dips whilst training are not the preserve of AD (getting someone to adjust what they are doing/how they perform means they have to practice the new method - whether it is a way of thinking or a muscle memory, a large number of times before it becomes their primary way) and is seen in anything from IT training to Martial Arts; I believe the example of under performing on test is not relevant to what (I think) you are trying to achieve
It's certainly 'the psychology' that prevents many performing well on test, but that is a reacton to a particular stress situation. IMO this is very different to the psychology of what they do the rest of the time, away from a test and that particular stressor.

It's a typical example of level 3 affecting levels 2 & 1.
Of course there can be other level 4 (values/beliefs) that can affect both test & the rest of the time away from that environment.

[trashbat]

Quote from the IAM mag:

Open to all accomplished advanced drivers and riders, the IAM Masters programme provides true one-to-one mentoring support and guidance that will help you attain the highest level of civilian driving standards in the country.

A Master driver or rider is someone who can apply emotional intelligence to all of their driving decisions. This means being aware of the possible motivations of those around you, as well as your own.

It means you are actively making allowances for your mistakes and those of others. This is modern driving. The Master driver is someone who is wise about how the demand of an increasingly complex roadscape creates a necessity to respect the diverse agendas of other road users.

and if you google a snippet of that, you get one result, this:

http://www.thehappybiker.co.uk/pdf-file ... andard.pdf (PDF)

which talks about GDE levels 3 & 4.

[WhoseGeneration]

Quote from the IAM mag:

Open to all accomplished advanced drivers and riders, the IAM Masters programme provides true one-to-one mentoring support and guidance that will help you attain the highest level of civilian driving standards in the country.

A Master driver or rider is someone who can apply emotional intelligence to all of their driving decisions. This means being aware of the possible motivations of those around you, as well as your own.

It means you are actively making allowances for your mistakes and those of others. This is modern driving. The Master driver is someone who is wise about how the demand of an increasingly complex roadscape creates a necessity to respect the diverse agendas of other road users.

and if you google a snippet of that, you get one result, this:

http://www.thehappybiker.co.uk/pdf-file ... andard.pdf (PDF)

which talks about GDE levels 3 & 4.

That'd be me then today, 30 mph limit, two lanes approaching one because the left one becomes a bus lane, "Ok, Mr. Mercedes driver with foglights on with no need, I'll ease off to let you get ahead".
So, do I reinforce that driver's attitude to "making progress"?
See the problem?
It's a nonsense if those who are thinking have to increasingly bow to and accommodate those who just do what they want.

[vonhosen]

Quote from the IAM mag:

Open to all accomplished advanced drivers and riders, the IAM Masters programme provides true one-to-one mentoring support and guidance that will help you attain the highest level of civilian driving standards in the country.

A Master driver or rider is someone who can apply emotional intelligence to all of their driving decisions. This means being aware of the possible motivations of those around you, as well as your own.

It means you are actively making allowances for your mistakes and those of others. This is modern driving. The Master driver is someone who is wise about how the demand of an increasingly complex roadscape creates a necessity to respect the diverse agendas of other road users.

and if you google a snippet of that, you get one result, this:

http://www.thehappybiker.co.uk/pdf-file ... andard.pdf (PDF)

which talks about GDE levels 3 & 4.

That'd be me then today, 30 mph limit, two lanes approaching one because the left one becomes a bus lane, "Ok, Mr. Mercedes driver with foglights on with no need, I'll ease off to let you get ahead".
So, do I reinforce that driver's attitude to "making progress"?
See the problem?
It's a nonsense if those who are thinking have to increasingly bow to and accommodate those who just do what they want.

How do you hope to make a positive change from within your car & with him in his?
What option would you rather do than 'accommodate'?