BGOL

[jont]

As far as I'm concerned, what you have described is proper separation. It's completely pointless, in my opinion, to come off the brakes and go into a kind of "limbo" phase before going anywhere near any of the other controls.

I think that insisting on "full" separation at all times is down to misinterpretation as much as anything else.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're off the brakes and back on the power when the clutch is released, you've separated.

To be honest, I'm not sure much is made of the distinction between full and partial separation (yes, I know I introduced it in this thread ). I don't remember my RoSPA tutor talking about the distinction at all.

That said, I do try and fully separate sometimes as I find that rev matching the gear change can be easier if I start the process with my right foot on the accelerator so I don't have to pick the revs all the way up from idle.

There are still come "conservatives" out there who insist that the braking phase must be over before a hand goes on the gearstick and a foot goes on the clutch, although they're very few and far between.

You mean like those that insist pull-push is the only method of steering necessary? /couldn't resist

[trashbat]

As far as I'm concerned, what you have described is proper separation. It's completely pointless, in my opinion, to come off the brakes and go into a kind of "limbo" phase before going anywhere near any of the other controls.

...

There are still come "conservatives" out there who insist that the braking phase must be over before a hand goes on the gearstick and a foot goes on the clutch, although they're very few and far between.

I'd like to think so, but I felt that the IAM does insist on this (e.g. observer training), although I might well be misdiagnosing/misrepresenting what I actually do. I don't think so though - I've only got two feet, don't know how to H&T, and try to rev match on gear selection.

[fungus]

To be honest, and I know the reasons have been thrashed out on here before, but I think that there's too much emphasis on the avoidance of BGOL. Surely the most important factor is that the driver arrives at the hazard at the correct speed, in the correct gear for the hazard, in the correct position, and with the vehicle under full control. Whether this is achieved by complete separation, partial separation, or full overlap is immaterial. Non other than Chris Gilbert in his DVD Ultimate Driving Craft, mentioned that overlapping braking and changing gear can produce a very smooth result. In other words it comes down to the driver being disciplined enough to meet the above criteria by whatever method.

Doesn't the origin of separation go back to the days of non synchromesh gear boxes where the driver could not overlap unless they could heel and toe?

[Porker]

Doesn't the origin of separation go back to the days of non synchromesh gear boxes where the driver could not overlap unless they could heel and toe?

More specifically, where a double-declutch was required for a non-crunchy down-change. The problem of perfecting mechanically (cable and/or rod) operated brakes also meant that braking was liable to make the car pull to one side or the other due to small imbalances in the braking forces generated.

Along with Jont, I was also amused to see Silk's description of those who question a technique he favours as "conservatives" while simultaneously rounding vigorously on anyone who fails to embrace to the letter the IAM's word on the subject of pull-push steering.

Porker

[waremark]

Are you still in doubt about the benefits of separation after looking at the linked threads?

Yes! I understand "what" and "how" and "when" but I can't find "why".

Decelerating for a turn, braking and engaging the appropriate gear for exit from the turn, would seem to save time without any obvious dangers and maintain progress.

Still haven't found "why"!

Cannot resist any longer. Advantages of avoiding BGOL:

Do one thing at a time - simpler, less likely to get it wrong
Keep both hands on the wheel until going slowly
Fail safe - if you plan to brake with time to spare for changing gear at the end of braking, you still have time for continuing to brake if you have judged it wrong
Can use right foot on the accelerator to raise revs to the level required by the road speed in the new gear, without need for H & T
Economy of movement and effort - the later you leave the gearchange, the less likely you are to need a second change.
Quite satisfying!

I could give you a list of disadvantages, but I won't.

[trashbat]

Personally I don't agree that many of those make for tangible benefits, at least in a tame FWD car in ordinary conditions.

However I think you miss the biggest one, hinted at in 'fail safe'. That is, having to separate takes more time, so you have to brake earlier to accommodate it, so you have to plan earlier to accommodate that. We can all benefit from that, but especially associates, which is why I think it's an excellent teaching doctrine. Whether it's required so much beyond that, I'm less sure, but it's open to debate.

[Graham Wright]

Cannot resist any longer. Advantages of avoiding BGOL:

Do one thing at a time - simpler, less likely to get it wrong
Keep both hands on the wheel until going slowly
Fail safe - if you plan to brake with time to spare for changing gear at the end of braking, you still have time for continuing to brake if you have judged it wrong
Can use right foot on the accelerator to raise revs to the level required by the road speed in the new gear, without need for H & T
Economy of movement and effort - the later you leave the gearchange, the less likely you are to need a second change.
Quite satisfying!

I could give you a list of disadvantages, but I won't.

I have just done a 30 mile drive round country lanes requiring frequent braking and gear changing. Without consciously trying, I observed myself performing total separation nearly all of the time and partial infrequently.

I am grateful for all the responses and it would seem that I am almost perfect now!

[zadocbrown]

....... having to separate takes more time, so you have to brake earlier to accommodate it, so you have to plan earlier to accommodate that..

I don't think that's really the case. On the road seperation can be done as quickly as any sensible driver would progress with overlap. Overall it should take about the same time as correctly executed overlap. Seperation may feel slower, because extra time is created in the crucial moments before entering the hazard, but that's a psychological effect.

It will slow down an associate at first - but that's just because it is an alien technique and they can't do it very well!

[trashbat]

I don't think that's really the case. On the road seperation can be done as quickly as any sensible driver would progress with overlap. Overall it should take about the same time as correctly executed overlap. Seperation may feel slower, because extra time is created in the crucial moments before entering the hazard, but that's a psychological effect.

I can't quite understand this; again, maybe our idea of separation differs.

The IAM were very keen on me getting off the brake before even putting the clutch down, so I regard that as separation. Silk suggests that this is unusual, which is news to me.

So, consider a major road, NSL, and I want to turn right, for which I'll want to be at 20mph in second. In this scenario therefore I will still be moving once off the brake. At the point of coming off the brake, the following can happen:

-- overlapped: gear is already selected, clutch already depressed; I have to rev match and get off the clutch,

or

-- separated: still in 4th or 5th, clutch up. I have to complete the whole gear change.

I do this daily, and I have to be off the brake further back up the road to allow further time to achieve the above. We're talking maybe 1 second, but you can go a fair distance in that time.

[zadocbrown]

.

I do this daily, and I have to be off the brake further back up the road to allow further time to achieve the above. We're talking maybe 1 second, but you can go a fair distance in that time.

Yes, but it's where you "start" to brake that matters in terms of overall time. If you know the last few seconds before the hazard will consist of a nice easy gearchange then it is easy to compress the braking phase as needed, so that running through the system overall takes no longer.

[trashbat]

Yes, but it's where you "start" to brake that matters in terms of overall time. If you know the last few seconds before the hazard will consist of a nice easy gearchange then it is easy to compress the braking phase as needed, so that running through the system overall takes no longer.

I did consider this - I'd say that this inherently requires you to plan better, and also that you can only comfortably compress it so far. Maybe you're right and the reality is you just change your driving style, but I think there's more to it than that.

[GJD]

The IAM were very keen on me getting off the brake before even putting the clutch down, so I regard that as separation. Silk suggests that this is unusual, which is news to me.

I think my impression is similar to Silk's. I don't think I even came across the distinction between full and partial separation until after I'd passed my RoSPA test. I find there are very many occasions where the speed reduction is too great to allow full separation so even in terms of strict Roadcraft style rules I'd find it difficult to justify making too much of a fuss over the distinction or viewing partial as a sort of necessary evil cousin of 'proper' separation.

[Silk]

You mean like those that insist pull-push is the only method of steering necessary?

No, I don't. If I wanted to be really pedantic and drift off-topic, I'd say that it's a simple statement of fact that pull-push is the only method of steering necessary, otherwise it would be impossible to use it exclusively; there are some who do - it's whether or not there are better ways that is the subject of much debate.

Steering, braking and changing gear are quite different and it's entirely possible to agree with one organisation for one process and a different one for another.

[trashbat]

I think my impression is similar to Silk's. I don't think I even came across the distinction between full and partial separation until after I'd passed my RoSPA test. I find there are very many occasions where the speed reduction is too great to allow full separation so even in terms of strict Roadcraft style rules I'd find it difficult to justify making too much of a fuss over the distinction or viewing partial as a sort of necessary evil cousin of 'proper' separation.

My failure to integrate full fat separation into my driving is the reason I didn't become an IAM observer - at least I think so, anyway. That's why I'm surprised that others don't care so much about it.

I should add that separately, in my associate experience, the IAM examiner didn't really care about it. Again, I think so, as I gave a natural drive, and I'm sure I hadn't perfected it back then either.

[zadocbrown]

I'd say that it's a simple statement of fact that pull-push is the only method of steering necessary, otherwise it would be impossible to use it exclusively;.

Your logic is faulty. You can't say it is the only method necessary because it isn't necessary at all - some people drive without it....