Offsiding and straightlining - cut from 'Tailgating' thread

[revian]

The powers that be at the IAM obviously don't consider that it is easy - that is why they have issued an unequivocal statement that crossing a centre line 'to obtain a better view' is not acceptable on an IAM test (I say it is unequivocal, but there is in fact some uncertaintly about whether crossing a centre line to maintain an existing view is also not acceptable - I do not think the person at the IAM who wrote the unequivocal rule intended to make a distinction between obtaining a view and maintaining a view, but this aspect is open to debate).

Edit as premature submit...

Does anyone know what the RoSPA take might be? Would it be 'say what you are doing and why?' or verboten?

As per earlier thread the single malt is now activated but will stay this side of the line... happy new year all...

Ian

[waremark]

The powers that be at the IAM obviously don't consider that it is easy - that is why they have issued an unequivocal statement that crossing a centre line 'to obtain a better view' is not acceptable on an IAM test (I say it is unequivocal, but there is in fact some uncertaintly about whether crossing a centre line to maintain an existing view is also not acceptable - I do not think the person at the IAM who wrote the unequivocal rule intended to make a distinction between obtaining a view and maintaining a view, but this aspect is open to debate).

Edit as premature submit...

Does anyone know what the RoSPA take might be? Would it be 'say what you are doing and why?' or verboten?

As per earlier thread the single malt is now activated but will stay this side of the line... happy new year all...

Ian

My local Rospa examiners are quite happy with crossing a centre line providing done to potential advantage and safely etc ... I suspect that there has not been any national edict on the subject.

[jont]

The powers that be at the IAM obviously don't consider that it is easy - that is why they have issued an unequivocal statement that crossing a centre line 'to obtain a better view' is not acceptable on an IAM test (I say it is unequivocal, but there is in fact some uncertaintly about whether crossing a centre line to maintain an existing view is also not acceptable - I do not think the person at the IAM who wrote the unequivocal rule intended to make a distinction between obtaining a view and maintaining a view, but this aspect is open to debate).

Edit as premature submit...

Does anyone know what the RoSPA take might be? Would it be 'say what you are doing and why?' or verboten?

As per earlier thread the single malt is now activated but will stay this side of the line... happy new year all...

Ian

My local Rospa examiners are quite happy with crossing a centre line providing done to potential advantage and safely etc ... I suspect that there has not been any national edict on the subject.

At an ask the examiner evening (a couple of years ago), the response was that you certainly wouldn't be penalised if you didn't use the technique. If you did use it, they would prefer you only do so when no other roads users are around to observe the behaviour. As waremark suggests, I've used it on at least 2 tests with different examiners and not had any negative feedback, although one did question me afterwards about my thoughts (I'd stopped providing commentary by that point in the test as we were in the Elise which was a bit loud )

[Ralge]

The view from RoSPA HQ, I believe, is that RoSPA-paid fleet trainers should not demo' full off-siding ("P5") and should be very wary of advocating its use to Joe Fleetdriver.
The logic behind this is very simple. The civilian driver should be encouraged to drive well within his/her and the vehicle's capabilities. If that means keeping mostly well to the left and not making absolute full use of the road width, sobeit. Use of "P4" (astride the centre hazard line) can however be advocated as an intelligent, well thought-out and justifiable option for any combination of safety, clearance, vision/visibility, communication and stability. But safety must never be compromised and the driver must be comfortable with the notion of moving away from a more average/normal sweeping-the-road lateral position ("P2") and not be pressured outside his/her comfort zone.
Whether the anti-P5 message got through to all of the troops or to the volunteer-led local groups is in doubt - I have met fleet drivers who, on a previous training session, had been "scared to death" by the trainer's demo' of P5 positioning at a pace more in keeping with a blue-light shout than with getting to a client's on time.

[TripleS]

....I have met fleet drivers who, on a previous training session, had been "scared to death" by the trainer's demo' of P5 positioning at a pace more in keeping with a blue-light shout than with getting to a client's on time.

It's a minor point, but I'm a bit surprised by the notion of fleet drivers receiving that kind of demonstration drive. I had the impression that fleet training was more geared towards ensuring that the 'pupils' are given sufficient 'advanced' training to ensure that they are fully up to good safety standards, and thus not an undue burden on their employers' insurance costs.

The demonstration drive referred to there sounds more like the sort of thing that might be unveiled for driving enthusiasts, rather than the normal fleet driver, who may not be enthusiastic about driving generally, let alone aspiring towards 'advanced' standards. Perhaps I was mistaken, again.

Happy New Year, each.
Dave.

[Horse]

....I have met fleet drivers who, on a previous training session, had been "scared to death" by the trainer's demo' of P5 positioning at a pace more in keeping with a blue-light shout than with getting to a client's on time.

It's a minor point, fleet drivers receiving that kind of demonstration drive. I had the impression that fleet training was more geared towards ensuring that the 'pupils' are given sufficient 'advanced' training to ensure that they are fully up to good safety standards

Nonsense.

I'd say it's a fairly major point of concern!

[Ralge]

....I have met fleet drivers who, on a previous training session, had been "scared to death" by the trainer's demo' of P5 positioning at a pace more in keeping with a blue-light shout than with getting to a client's on time.

It's a minor point, but I'm a bit surprised by the notion of fleet drivers receiving that kind of demonstration drive. I had the impression that fleet training was more geared towards ensuring that the 'pupils' are given sufficient 'advanced' training to ensure that they are fully up to good safety standards, and thus not an undue burden on their employers' insurance costs.

The demonstration drive referred to there sounds more like the sort of thing that might be unveiled for driving enthusiasts, rather than the normal fleet driver, who may not be enthusiastic about driving generally, let alone aspiring towards 'advanced' standards. Perhaps I was mistaken, again.

Happy New Year, each.
Dave.

You are right about what fleet training is broadly geared towards but some trainers let themselves down with inappropriate (look what I used to do/can do) training inputs. This particular trainer lost himself/his training company the contract as a result of the delegates' negative feedback.

[Horse]

As I may have mentioned once or many times . . . I'm not anti- - but have reservations.

We all agree (including yourself Horse) that any offsiding has to be done with great care and caution for all the reasons/hazards discussed previously.

Yes, and probably more.

Would you say that your approach to offsiding differs from this?

See ^ above

I'm sorry to ask you to clarify your position yet again, but some of the language you use when discussing it ('not keen'/'have reservations') is negative and therefore confusing when you have stated to me that you do use it when it is safe to.

No problem; I find that being challenged on a viewpoint means I have to clarify my own thoughts before being able to present them. Much of my training content, theory and practical, has been developed this way.

If I can't justify something to a trainee when they ask "Why?" then I have a major re-think!

Would it be more accurate to describe it (like myself) as a valuable technique, but one that has to be taught and used with full awareness of the potential dangers (and implications if incorrectly done), much like overtaking? The word 'reservations' suggests that there is something objectively dangerous about the action of offsiding itself (which doesn't involve causing alarm, danger or harm to other road users, to state the obvious!).

See today's posts regarding 'P5' on fleet training in the 'progress' thread - that sounds totally inappropriate and exactly what concenrs me, my 'reservations'!

While nothing involved with driving can ever be 'safe', there are degrees of risk involved. Crossing the centre line, whether to overtake of offside for cornering, raises risk. It sounds, in that example, as if it was exactly how I believe it can 'go wrong' in training - offsiding for higher speed, rather than enhanced or maintained safety at the same or similar (there's always the option to offside and slow!).

It's the way risks are identified acknowledged by the trainee, and that process is managed and led by the instructor, that was behind the question I asked, which remain unanswered:

Fip that around: would you, with a clear conscience, train - encourage even - someone to use a technique without being certain that they had a full understanding of it?

So what would that involve? That's success criteria.

So how do you set the 'ground rules'? What knowledge and skill must the trainee have previously demonstrated? How would you be sure they were secure with that?
How would you introduce the concept - and what caveats and warnings would you have in place?
What benefits do you expect the trainee to understand from its use? How will you ensure that risk is managed?

I know my answers - but that's irrelevant here! And any training must be appropriate to the individual trainee. If it's being taught on a 'fleet' course, then that's potentially a car-load of trainees.

Regarding drivers' expectations, search for paper (I think it was presented at a Rospa conference) called 'what do drivers do at junctions'.

'Look for offside vehicles' isn't.

No-one's commented on this, so have a read of:
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/confere ... abbett.pdf
In particular the diagram on PP8 of where an experienced driver looks . . .

The data may indicate that experienced driver fixate in areas of the road environment that ‘experience’ has taught them where hazards can be found. The novice driver here actually detected the moving motorcyclists more rapidly than did the experienced participant.

[GJD]

See today's posts regarding 'P5' on fleet training in the 'progress' thread - that sounds totally inappropriate and exactly what concenrs me, my 'reservations'!

But what Ralge described was not a reason to be concerned about the idea that a driver should not impose on themselves an arbitrary limit on how much of the road width they consider to be available to them. It was a reason to be concerned that trainers focus on training, not on showing off.

[Horse]

See today's posts regarding 'P5' on fleet training in the 'progress' thread - that sounds totally inappropriate and exactly what concenrs me, my 'reservations'!

But what Ralge described was not a reason to be concerned about the idea that a driver should not impose on themselves an arbitrary limit on how much of the road width they consider to be available to them. It was a reason to be concerned that trainers focus on training, not on showing off.

I presume you mean a trainer had been showing off, and the trainees had copied that driving style? If it happened with the trainer in the vehicle - and particularly when driving - then it was part of the training, surely?

And the way it was demonstrated must have been with the background of the instructor's understanding of the technique and its 'benefits'? How else did that background - and associated attitude - get put across in his/their sessions . . . ? You can't separate 'showing off' from 'training'.

Hence why I asked:

So how do you set the 'ground rules'? What knowledge and skill must the trainee have previously demonstrated? How would you be sure they were secure with that?
How would you introduce the concept - and what caveats and warnings would you have in place?
What benefits do you expect the trainee to understand from its use? How will you ensure that risk is managed?

Ralge, see below, has covered some of it, but it can't be beyond anyone to answer these questions, can it?

The civilian driver should be encouraged to drive well within his/her and the vehicle's capabilities. If that means keeping mostly well to the left and not making absolute full use of the road width, so be it. Use of "P4" can however be advocated as an intelligent, well thought-out and justifiable option for any combination of safety, clearance, vision/visibility, communication and stability. But safety must never be compromised . . . and not be pressured outside his/her comfort zone.

I have met fleet drivers who, on a previous training session, had been "scared to death" by the trainer's demo' of P5 positioning at a pace more in keeping with a blue-light shout than with getting to a client's on time.

What message did those trainees take with them at the end of their previous training? Certainly they either continued to drive using that 'skill' or understood that driving that way would impress the latest instructor during their subsequent sessions.

[Ralge]

From the previous training, the delegates commented that they had been left with feelings of "what did he hope to achieve training-wise with us by driving so scarily?" and "I won't be doing that myself, I'll stick to my normal driving lines".

[zadocbrown]

Hence why I asked:

So how do you set the 'ground rules'? What knowledge and skill must the trainee have previously demonstrated? How would you be sure they were secure with that?
How would you introduce the concept - and what caveats and warnings would you have in place?
What benefits do you expect the trainee to understand from its use? How will you ensure that risk is managed?

Prior learning is the ability to explain and demonstrate consistently the principle of positioning for safety, then view, then stability. It is also having a sufficient level (in both my opinion and that of the tutee) of observation, judgment, car control, confidence and self control so that extending the technique in this way is likely to enhance rather than detract from the drive.

In practice they will have already have experienced crossing the centre line for safety, and this is only an extension of previously covered material. We will have discussed what others may think of offsiding, whether it be executed well or otherwise.

I will start with a questioning approach - what do you think about this? Why? How would you decide? What is ultimately agreed depends very much on the tutee's thoughts. It may be that we agree they will do this only in rare occassions when it would seem contrary not to. Or it may go a little further. In practice I can't remember going further than maintaining an existing view because I've never had anyone suitable! Discussion will be followed by plenty of practice, particularly focussing on situations where the decision (for them) may be marginal.

[Horse]

From the previous training, the delegates commented that they had been left with feelings of "what did he hope to achieve training-wise with us by driving so scarily?" and "I won't be doing that myself, I'll stick to my normal driving lines".

Shame they didn't ask . . . I wonder what feedback they gave to their employer and whether that company was invited back.

[Horse]

Ta for that.

In practice I can't remember going further than maintaining an existing view because I've never had anyone suitable! Discussion will be followed by plenty of practice, particularly focussing on situations where the decision (for them) may be marginal.

That 'marginal' may be a key point; there are many, far more regularly-used, ways of maintaining safety, and offsiding may come under 'diminishing returns' as something rarely used - but that, when actually done, has to be done very well.

[Ralge]

From the previous training, the delegates commented that they had been left with feelings of "what did he hope to achieve training-wise with us by driving so scarily?" and "I won't be doing that myself, I'll stick to my normal driving lines".

Shame they didn't ask . . . I wonder what feedback they gave to their employer and whether that company was invited back.

Neither the MD nor the delegates were impressed by the trainer's demo having scared them. The company was not invited back, we were.