Driving with 'sparkle'

[jont]

Much of my decision making is made towards then end of a straight where vision is best, but available time is shortest, and there simply isn't the time to deliver my thoughts in a coherent fashion beyond "off brakes, power, steer, more power, more power, off steer".

Yes, I never remember you having a problem finding time to say "more power"

[TripleS]

[snip]

@TripleS - boy that's a lot of replies - you don't have to reply to every post, you know!

[more snippage]

I know it's a lot of replies: I'm very concerned to ensure that you have the best possible advice and guidance.

"There is no need to thank me." [/Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau]

[TripleS]

Around every corner lies a new challenge ...

Indeed. Just hope it's not me coming the other way.

Would that be maintaining a view or gaining a view?

It could be either.

Heh, you know that bit about "always being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, and may reasonably expect to remain clear?" Well in my case, also be prepared for what may be unreasonable.

We wouldn't want any unpleasant surprises, even if we do fancy our chances of blaming it on somebody else.

[TripleS]

Firstly, thanks all for a very interesting and thought-provoking discussion.

My biggest concern is not necessarily how 'we' define it, but how the person assessing you at the time does. It seem so incongruous to me to lay out a finite set of objective criteria, then throw in something as subjective and open to interpretation as 'sparkle'.

My local IAM group has organised a taster day for the IAM Masters, and I'm going along as I'd like to attempt the course. By far my biggest concern is that I could deliver a technically sufficient drive, but be failed on something arbitrary like not showing any 'sparkle'. I suspect my lack of confidence won't help, for a nervous-appearing driver, safe as they may be, is not likely to be looked upon favourably. I have asked an IAM regional quality manager about it but they managed to avoid answering my question in the reply.

I must admit to being in a bit of a pickle with all this, because to me it's not something you can learn or practice, seemingly you have it or you don't. I strongly suspect I don't.

Well if I were you I wouldn't worry about the 'sparkle' bit. I'm not at all sure I have it either, but it might be one of those things that emerges naturally when you're acquired more experience and confidence at whatever level you're seeking to reach. In any case, I think of it as merely being the icing on the cake. It's nice if it's there, but other things are more worthy of attention and effort.

What's more important is that you're up to speed (in a manner of speaking ) with the safe, systematic and smooth aspects, all demonstrated in a nice style at a satisfactory rate of progress.

[revian]

I think the latter. Because it takes significantly longer to deliver a thought by means of commentary (even with the 'serious' commentary delivered at a mile a minute by various Police experts) than to have the thought itself, the style of the drive has to change to deliver that extra time. Much of my decision making is made towards then end of a straight where vision is best, but available time is shortest, and there simply isn't the time to deliver my thoughts in a coherent fashion beyond "off brakes, power, steer, more power, more power, off steer".

Can we carry on?..

Should I comment on what I see (and just Drive accordingly) or comment on what I do (not on what I see) or slow down and do both? I think that, if only roughly, sets out my thinking as I try to give a better and more continuous commentary. Is it about what I do or about how I am understood? I'm not setting any traps... Just trying to improve in a RoSPA satisfactory way!

[revian]

Thanks Dave... I suppose I think it's important to me in improving my anticipation of events as well as 'showing' my thoughts to others ( but that secondary to anticipation and it's consequent benefits of safety and smoothness)

I dried up on my RoSPA test partly because there wasn't always really anything very significant to see/say. I find it hard to look busy if it's not really busy! The advice seems to be to find something to say.... Which is a tad tedious or maybe I'm very unobservant!
I feel there is a bit of danger in concentrating on expressing things out loud to the detriment of concentration in the task of driving. I don't always talk much when I'm driving ( I can hold my own elsewhere !) .. There are too many idiots to keep an eye out for

[revian]

Outlier?

As a common or garden driver I take the view of a professional rather more seriously... There's a part of me which needs the approval of my 'betters' in a particular field. There's the reasonable (isn't there?) need to measure oneself against a standard. Surely your shouldn't/can't be an outlier as a professional... Or has the asylum been taken over by the etc etc?

Or are you the black sheep in the professional flock?

I think I might try to work on all three of your points and see if I can work out a summary point commentary... It'll probably dive!

[titian]

revian - be selective, eyes on full beam, then say what you intend to do about what you can see.

Say what your driving PLAN is well before you reach the hazard. Develop the plan (if there is time), including what may change, IPSGA, where "Information" - take, use and give - is repeated continually (as dictated by the drive).

Keep the commentary current, to say what has happened is a waste of time, we are interested in what is ahead and certainly do not slow down, the commentary is to be delivered at the speed of the drive. On a NSL DC road the commentary will be totally different to that on the local school run.

Find the words and phrases that suit the time available e.g. "two towards, showing my position" may be appropriate where 2 vehicles are approaching and you are about to set your position on the road such that you can pass a row of parked cars on your left (obviously assuming that the width of road available is appropriate to the intended manoeuvre).

Practice when you are alone in the car, commentate out loud so that you get used to the pace of delivery. Watch the expert DVD's - there's plenty of examples free on Youtube.

[revian]

Thanks Dave... I'll look at this and may return... Need to go to the office to keep the empire in order..

[jcochrane]

My view is that if you're not doing it right, I can tell without you needing to tell me... As someone who does it professionally, I might be considered an outlier though.

I could be unkind and suggest that someone who likes delivering a commentary (particularly if uncalled for) is a bit like a three-year-old attention-seeking child overdosed on Sunny-D and as many artificial colourings as inhumanly possible.

Or in Pistonhead speak, one does not need to attention-whore to be a well-built company director with a goatee...

Again +1
When I've enquired as to why RoSPA and now the IAM require a commentary the only reply I get is "so that the examiner can understand what you are seeing, thinking, what you are planning etc. Personally I find this an unsatisfactory reply. If an examiner can not work this out without a commentary then I would question their ability to do the job. Same applies to an instructor/observer, professional or not.

One area where a commentary does have some value is if giving an instructional drive to trainees.

[hir]

... and there simply isn't the time to deliver my thoughts in a coherent fashion beyond "off brakes, power, steer, more power, more power, off steer".

If I could be so bold as to disagree

The style and nature of commentary you describe is not one that I recognise or would advocate. I think you may be confusing the "mile-a-minute" police driver commentary that you are used to hearing with what we mere mortals over at IAM and RoADAR practice.

My understanding is that all that is required of a commentary is:
1. Identify the hazard
2. Say what you're doing [or going to do] about dealing with the hazard in terms of the "System" [which of course
may be nothing if it's not developing]
3. Close the hazard down.

Commentary is about articulating hazard management; not the full blown details of vehicle inputs that you describe.

I don't think anyone here is advocating a completely pointless... "off brakes, power, steer, more power, more power, off steer" style of commentary.

[hir]

Again +1
When I've enquired as to why RoSPA and now the IAM require a commentary the only reply I get is "so that the examiner can understand what you are seeing, thinking, what you are planning etc. Personally I find this an unsatisfactory reply. If an examiner can not work this out without a commentary then I would question their ability to do the job.

I disagree. Yes, I know, I'm in an argumentative mood this afternoon

It often happens that we can identify a hazard that we're going to have to deal with long before we arrive in the immediate vicinity of said hazard. Commentary is about articulating hazard management. The only way in which we are going to be able to convey to the examiner that we have identified a hazard at its earliest opportunity is if we include it in our commentary, however far away it happens to be, and then prioritise it within the context of other hazards that are presenting themselves. I would argue that the examiner has no other way of knowing how early we identify a hazard and how we build that knowledge in to our driving plan. The only thing he can be certain of is that eventually when negotiating the hazard we seemed to have got it right [or wrong]. Nor can he tell how early we are constructing our driving plan based upon "what can be seen, what can't be seen and what might reasonably be expected to happen". "What might reasonably be expected to happen" often doesn't happen and the only way that the examiner can be certain that we are thinking about "what can't be seen and might reasonably be expected to happen", and building that anticipation in to our driving plan, is if we tell him.

Sure, an examiner can observe our driving when we're not giving a commentary and say to himself "that was good". But, until he sees it repeated a number of times, ie consistency, he's not going to be sure whether it was deliberate or a fluke. In my view it's better that the candidate tells the examiner what he's thinking and how he's planning his hazard management through commentary than not. I do, of course, accept that at the higher levels that you and StressedDave operate at it is pretty obvious as to whether it's deliberate or a fluke, but at IAM and RoASPA test levels I would argue that it isn't always so obvious.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

To add my tiny point of view, while I accept that commentary is a required element of the IAM Masters test, I don't think it should be confused with sparkle. IMHO sparkle is definitely NOT associated with commentary. It's in the driving, principally, although you could argue the commentary is one aspect of the overall package. So the commentary could be magnificent, but the driving might be stodgy and badly planned. I wouldn't be considering that a sparkling drive. Some people can talk for England (or their own native country) but it doesn't make their driving interesting or sparkly.

[hir]

To add my tiny point of view, while I accept that commentary is a required element of the IAM Masters test, I don't think it should be confused with sparkle. IMHO sparkle is definitely NOT associated with commentary. It's in the driving, principally, although you could argue the commentary is one aspect of the overall package. So the commentary could be magnificent, but the driving might be stodgy and badly planned. I wouldn't be considering that a sparkling drive. Some people can talk for England (or their own native country) but it doesn't make their driving interesting or sparkly.

Agreed. It's got nothing to do with sparkle except to say that when associates first start trying to deliver a commentary it initially has the effect of slowing them down and taking the edge of any sparkle there might have been. But, once the commentary becomes second nature, the sparkle, if there was any in the first place, soon returns.

[revian]

I suspect that sparkle is like happiness. You can't aim at it. It's an outcome of something else.

hir

But, once the commentary becomes second nature, the sparkle, if there was any in the first place, soon returns.

I'll live In hope then