driving slow : your views ?

sh0597

Is there any point to doing advanced driving courses? Or is it just so you can feel smug about your super driving ability?

IanMSpencer

almillar wrote: »

I'm still not convinced that commentary is part of the test, seems to be a lot of inconsistency across the country, which is a bad thing.


This gets argued about till the cows come home. I see you say that it works for you, and that's great, stick with it. I've done it and I prefer to indicate anyway, there's a chance, however small, that someone could appear and catch you out. It's people who try to make it absolute that's the problem and try to tell you you're not ALLOWED to indicate because no-one's there! It's not an excuse to be lazy, but the opposite, having to decide whether to indicate or not makes you look around you.

I could dig out my bit of paper with the tick boxes on if you'd like:)

The bit I struggled with was the absolutist "don't overlap gears and brakes" until I wore them down with the various local scenarios where it was clearly impractical. Later I watched the Chris Thingy driving DVD and he explicitly showed where he deliberately overlapped gears and braking (turning into minor side roads, hills). However, again, it is one of those techniques where after a while you feel the benefit of being organised, and then can make conscious decisions of when to not follow the rule. It's also the case that large modern roundabouts make not changing gear on a corner impractical, but they do have an out for that one at least (constant steering).

veryoldbear

sh0597 wrote: »

Is there any point to doing advanced driving courses? Or is it just so you can feel smug about your super driving ability?

I am beginning to wonder. There is so much contradictory advice and a rather didactic attitude to approved methods of driving.

brat

sh0597 wrote: »

Is there any point to doing advanced driving courses? Or is it just so you can feel smug about your super driving ability?

Nope, that's about it!

I'm sure there'll be a stat out there somewhere to show that drivers with extra training are somewhere between 5% and 95% less likely to die in a collision. So if you don't want to take every chance to increase your longevity, or, perhaps more straightforwardly, if you don't enjoy driving very much, don't bother doing a course.

sh0597

I just thought if it really did help, then insurers would encourage them.

Richard53

For bike insurance, the insurers usually ask, and I get something like 10% off as a result.


As to the worth of advanced training ... well I would say that any training for drivers and riders beyond the basic test standard has to be a good thing, absolutely. But I part company with the 'advanced' mob over several issues. Yes, someone with an 'advanced' qualification can be smug and self-satisfied. Yes, they can be far too rigid about methods and techniques, and get all religious about the 'right' way to do things. And yes, the IAM test itself is what I would regard as basic post-test competence. Drive smoothly and within the law, position, observe and anticipate fairly well, and you're in. The IAM bike test is more demanding than the car test IMO, but neither are rocket surgery.


I said in answer to another question that I would not bother with doing a refresher with IAM - the standard just isn't that much of a challenge. RoSPA do graded tests up to gold standard, but the standard there is very high (close to Police class 1, I have been told) and I'm not sure I can spare the time or the considerable effort to do it.


I suppose the main point is that anyone who bothers with any kind of additional training and testing clearly cares about their driving and wants to improve. Put that against the many who simply couldn't give a stuff - texters, phone users, middle-lane hoggers and the like - and I am very clearly on the side of the 'advanced' contingent.

brat

As with many skills that benefit from experiential learning, you really only start to learn to drive once you pass your test. Your attitude to driving beyond that determines how good a driver you will be.

There is no demand that we become better drivers after our test. The law only demands that we drive legally, and do not drive below that which would be expected of a careful competent driver. In respect of cyclists and pedestrians there is no training required whatsoever.

This is why all drivers should exercise a huge degree of tolerance over other road users; whether they're slower than you would like them to be, or quicker than you would like them to be, whether they adopt a different road position, or drive without anticipation or any real degree of road sense, we should accommodate their driving to the best of our ability, and not get frustrated by them, or feel the need to scold, or get our own back.

I do think that any form of advanced driving instruction assists in the improvement of that personal 'attitude' to others, because it teaches you (or it should) to accept that there is a huge range of driving abilities that are acceptable on the road.

veryoldbear

But just going back to the beginning of the thread (now lost in the mists of time), it does seem to me that the IAM philosphy of speed is at odds with what they actually put down in writing. The reality seems to be " always drive at prevailing speed limit: any more and it's illegal, and any less (even 1-2 mph less) and you're not making proper "progress" (whatever that may mean) ... mutter mutter

IanMSpencer

veryoldbear wrote: »

But just going back to the beginning of the thread (now lost in the mists of time), it does seem to me that the IAM philosphy of speed is at odds with what they actually put down in writing. The reality seems to be " always drive at prevailing speed limit: any more and it's illegal, and any less (even 1-2 mph less) and you're not making proper "progress" (whatever that may mean) ... mutter mutter

That's wrong. The point is to make appropriate progress. If you want to drive down a mediocre NSL road at 40 because you don't want to be trying, that is fine, as long as it is clear you are in control and taking notice. You won't get marked down for slotting in with the lorries a mile before the exit of the motorway - there is little gain trying to get the last one or two places. So it is about appropriately making progress, not wringing the last opportunity.

So overtaking, if you are grinding past at 1mph, you are not making progress so you shouldn't be holding other people up, if you are passing at a reasonable pace, then you don't need to be too concerned about the impatient person behind (but you would get out of their way for your own safety).

I'd say the basic IAM targets where any driver should be - being observant, planning ahead and in control. It says a lot about the standard of driving that this is far above the standard of driving of the majority.

IAM was fun to do - driving for the sake of it isn't something we do much of these days - and basically gets you to tidy up scruffy driving. Perhaps the most difficult lesson is getting your head in the right place - most people are a bit too self-righteous on the road - and I got a lot out of thinking about attitudes to other road users (and their incompetence).

matttye

IanMSpencer wrote: »

That's wrong. The point is to make appropriate progress. If you want to drive down a mediocre NSL road at 40 because you don't want to be trying, that is fine, as long as it is clear you are in control and taking notice. You won't get marked down for slotting in with the lorries a mile before the exit of the motorway - there is little gain trying to get the last one or two places. So it is about appropriately making progress, not wringing the last opportunity.

So overtaking, if you are grinding past at 1mph, you are not making progress so you shouldn't be holding other people up, if you are passing at a reasonable pace, then you don't need to be too concerned about the impatient person behind (but you would get out of their way for your own safety).

I'd say the basic IAM targets where any driver should be - being observant, planning ahead and in control. It says a lot about the standard of driving that this is far above the standard of driving of the majority.

IAM was fun to do - driving for the sake of it isn't something we do much of these days - and basically gets you to tidy up scruffy driving. Perhaps the most difficult lesson is getting your head in the right place - most people are a bit too self-righteous on the road - and I got a lot out of thinking about attitudes to other road users (and their incompetence).

Some driving instructors take their students around the test routes in the run up to the test.

Is there any finer example of teaching people how to pass the test rather than how to drive?

Mine didn't do that. I mean we did go on roads that were in some of the test routes, but he never specifically took me along test routes.

The other thing I liked about my instructor was that he taught me things that didn't come up in the test; namely how to drive in multi-storey car parks and how to stop/start on a hill using only the clutch and accelerator.