The brake gear overlap

[TripleS]

Roadcraft suggests overlapping when turning at junctions, if you've got a vehicle close behind, because this avoids holding up or confusing traffic behind you.

Indeed, but I don't think it is particularly difficult to avoid holding up or confusing traffic behind you.

This may, to some extent, be stating the obvious, but what's needed from the leading driver is:

1. A suitably timed signal of his intentions, which mainly means giving the signal early enough, but not too early.
2. Starting the braking at a suitable point.
3. Producing an appropriate speed profile, i.e. taking care over how much intensity and variation of braking you use at different points during the slowing down process.
4. Adopting tidy positioning as you near the point at which you plan to make your turn.

If you do that sort of thing, most following drivers will hold back sufficiently to avoid delaying themselves too much. Having said that, you do get the occasional one that insists on being glued to your tail right up to the point at which you make the turn, but if that's what they choose to do, any delay to them is entirely of their own making. Even then, there is no need for this to present much of a safety problem.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[zadocbrown]

I have to say I'm less and less convinced by the argument that separation is good because it is good for timing or safety margins. I just don't think it's true. If we want to shed speed sooner, which is essentially what we are meaning, there are simpler ways to do that without buggering about with re-sequencing driver inputs.

The only reasons for separation that really stand intellectual scrutiny are to allow rev matching without heel n toe, and because "it were aye thus, laddy." Sadly it seems mostly the latter, and the rest is just confirmation bias.

By the way, I do advocate separation, for the first reason above. But I think we delude ourselves as an AD community about how fundamental it really is or isn't, and then come up with a lot of feeble excuses to support our prejudice.

There - I said it.....

[WhoseGeneration]

whereas a properly planned H&T should be almost imperceptible to the passenger.

As should any gearchange and perhaps there lies the problem for some.
In that an Examiner will be happy with smooth "almost imperceptible" gearchanges by whichever method, with the car stable and under control.
Draw attention to the gearchanges and the Examiner might have comment.

[Gareth]

I have to say I'm less and less convinced by the argument that separation is good because it is good for timing or safety margins. I just don't think it's true. If we want to shed speed sooner, which is essentially what we are meaning, there are simpler ways to do that without buggering about with re-sequencing driver inputs.

The only reasons for separation that really stand intellectual scrutiny are to allow rev matching without heel n toe, and because "it were aye thus, laddy." Sadly it seems mostly the latter, and the rest is just confirmation bias.

If we were to develop a method of driving, an approach that should pretty much always be safe and is suitable for those who have no interest in driving, then we might want to make a sequence of control actions that is as simple as possible and which can be used on approach to all hazards.

Simplicity would suggest carrying out the minimum number of control actions, and doing only one control action at a time. I think you might guess where I am going with this ...

[zadocbrown]

I have to say I'm less and less convinced by the argument that separation is good because it is good for timing or safety margins. I just don't think it's true. If we want to shed speed sooner, which is essentially what we are meaning, there are simpler ways to do that without buggering about with re-sequencing driver inputs.

The only reasons for separation that really stand intellectual scrutiny are to allow rev matching without heel n toe, and because "it were aye thus, laddy." Sadly it seems mostly the latter, and the rest is just confirmation bias.

If we were to develop a method of driving, an approach that should pretty much always be safe and is suitable for those who have no interest in driving, then we might want to make a sequence of control actions that is as simple as possible and which can be used on approach to all hazards.

Simplicity would suggest carrying out the minimum number of control actions, and doing only one control action at a time. I think you might guess where I am going with this ...

Yes, but there are some serious problems with it....

If someone has no interest in driving they are not going to embrace your 'Way' when their own way seems good enough to them.

Control actions are rarely the limiting factor in a person's driving, so it's Not necessarily worth the hassle of changing this, when the effort could be better deployed.

Although 'one thing at a time's has intuitive appeal, in fact driving is not like that. In many respects multitasking cannot be avoided. Certainly most people are quite capable of braking and changing gear at the same time. It's when they are told they can't do that any more they find it difficult. So are we really making the task simpler for them?

Finally, separation does not work all the time. So we still need the ability to do it another way when required. So having told old Sam that separation is so much better we spend the next few sessions dealing with all the caveats.

I do wonder if we should limit this kind of remodelling to people who are actually up for it. For those who don't want to separate all the time we should be flexible enough to show them a different way.

[jcochrane]

I have to say I'm less and less convinced by the argument that separation is good because it is good for timing or safety margins. I just don't think it's true. If we want to shed speed sooner, which is essentially what we are meaning, there are simpler ways to do that without buggering about with re-sequencing driver inputs.

The only reasons for separation that really stand intellectual scrutiny are to allow rev matching without heel n toe, and because "it were aye thus, laddy." Sadly it seems mostly the latter, and the rest is just confirmation bias.

If we were to develop a method of driving, an approach that should pretty much always be safe and is suitable for those who have no interest in driving, then we might want to make a sequence of control actions that is as simple as possible and which can be used on approach to all hazards.

Simplicity would suggest carrying out the minimum number of control actions, and doing only one control action at a time. I think you might guess where I am going with this ...

There are two compelling reasons that have helped me to understand why Police schools have traditionally taught the way they do.

1. If there is one thing that is always done wrong it is entry speeds into bends (hazards) being too high and/or getting to the correct speed too late. By constantly insisting on separation, during training, ensures this major problem is resolved with speeds well down before gear and steering.
2. In the past very few people had received training or held a licence to drive when they joined the police. The same was true for the Army. So the first training was what they received from the job. This would be training of learners from scratch. What was taught had to be simple, rigid, easy and quick to teach, that if blindly followed would ensure no accidents of the driver's own making.

This approach has worked well for nearly 80 years with each succession of instructors being drilled into teaching the same. Little wonder there has been resistance to change or new ideas.

Times have changed significantly and Police Driving Schools are now beginning to recognise those changes and trying to make the transition into the modern world but there will be resistance, for some time, from many trained in the old ways. In time the old brigades voice will become a whisper.

Although I speak out for the virtues of techniques like heel n toe I have concerns that there may be less driver discipline taught which is necessary to provide a sound base to develop from. BGOL, in any form, should never be a substitute for not getting the speed down. Surprisingly I don't often see the discipline in a drive to slow sufficiently for bends (hazards) whether with BGOL or separation. I do believe that driver discipline is of major importance.

[TR4ffic]

Roadcraft suggests overlapping when turning at junctions, if you've got a vehicle close behind, because this avoids holding up or confusing traffic behind you.

Whilst close traffic behind may be a consideration when deciding to overlap, I was under the impression that it was primarily to avoid confusing or giving a false signal to traffic ahead of you - waiting to pull out of the junction you are turning in to or whose approaching from the opposite direction wanting to turn in to the same junction as you.

...If there is one thing that is always done wrong it is entry speeds into bends (hazards) being too high and/or getting to the correct speed too late. By constantly insisting on separation, during training, ensures this major problem is resolved with speeds well down before gear and steering.

+1

...Although I speak out for the virtues of techniques like heel n toe I have concerns that there may be less driver discipline taught which is necessary to provide a sound base to develop from. BGOL, in any form, should never be a substitute for not getting the speed down...

+2

[Silk]

Hi,

Hoping someone can give me some wisdom on brake gear overlap.

I don't understand why people struggle with this.

The object of the exercise is simply to avoid using the clutch friction surfaces to slow the car. No more, no less.

As long as this is achieved, you're not overlapping.

As with any driving technique, it's all about understanding why something is done, rather than getting bogged down with the interpretation of something written in a book.

[vonhosen]

Hi,

Hoping someone can give me some wisdom on brake gear overlap.

I don't understand why people struggle with this.

The object of the exercise is simply to avoid using the clutch friction surfaces to slow the car. No more, no less.

As long as this is achieved, you're not overlapping.

That doesn't define whether you're overlapping or not, after all you can avoid using the clutch friction surfaces to slow the car whether you are overlapping or separating.

Overlapping is depressing the clutch whilst you are still on the brake.

Why it has to be done is because it's the one true way (in the eyes of those who espouse it).

[hir]

I do wonder if we should limit this kind of remodelling to people who are actually up for it. For those who don't want to separate all the time we should be flexible enough to show them a different way.

I agree. IAM/RoSPA should offer both options. The "One True way" for those who wish to treat Roadcraft/HTBABD as gospel and "BGOL" for those who are perfectly happy and safe to continue using their age-old, tried and tested, methodology.

I actually believe that the IAM will have to go this route as it strives to be relevant to the wider public. Wider that is than the 90,000 membership.

[fungus]

Surely separating braking and gear changing comes from the days of the old crash gearboxes when it was neccessary to double de clutch, although it was possible to partially separate.
I fail to see the issues with overlapping. The important thing is that the driver is entering the hazard at the correct speed, in the correct position with the correct gear engaged.

I agree that with many modern turbo diesels it is not possible to reduce speed sufficiently to take a low enough gear without heel and toe, but many modern petrol engines are flexible enough for the speed to be brought down enough to block change to a lower gear, eg 5th to 2nd.

[hir]

Overlapping is depressing the clutch whilst you are still on the brake.

I beg to differ. Overlapping is when you raise the clutch whilst still on the brake. Your definition would classify dipping the clutch just before coming to a stop as overlapping.

[vonhosen]

Overlapping is depressing the clutch whilst you are still on the brake.

I beg to differ. Overlapping is when you raise the clutch whilst still on the brake. Your definition would classify dipping the clutch just before coming to a stop as overlapping.

That is overlapping.

That's the farce about it all. Overlapping is decreed as being OK some of the time & not others.
OK when the observer/examiner decrees overlapping couldn't reasonably be avoided but not OK where in their view depressing the clutch whilst on the brake could reasonably be avoided. The quality of the outcome itself is irrelevant outside of (in relation to) that fact.

[WhoseGeneration]

Original HPC book wherein the co authors disagreed about when to declutch coming to a stop.
They though respected each other's view, it was, if you like, a nuanced disagreement.
That's the point, good drivers use different means to reach the same conclusion.
Safe, without compromising others, should be the only consideration.

[titian]

The object of the exercise is simply to avoid using the clutch friction surfaces to slow the car. No more, no less.

So, if I am driving an automatic and choose to select a lower gear manually before I have achieved a sufficiently slow(er) speed by braking, that is OK?