Advanced driving -upside down way

[ThomasG]

Originally Posted by MikeGMT

Would that be the same as "the more I agree with it"




Always have a escape route planned



Quick question, have you actually bought the Advanced course, and/or joined your local group?

This may be of interest https://www.iamroadsmart.com free hour long drive worth £49

may give it a go

[MikeGMT]

Originally Posted by ThomasG

No doubt.
But as i stated above- i`m the kind of old difficult git that needs to know "why" before accepting anything.

In other words- it might be one prince or another telling me this, i will not accept it until i know background of it.

And as I see it- i did provide backround for "my way" of holding that wheel (why all of sudden i`m thinking frank sinatra?). I did explain pros and cons AS I SEE THEm for both 10-2 and 8-4 positions.

I`m very interested to see similar level of explanation in defence of that 10-2.

now Mike will tell me that im stuck on topic of holding the wheel

no, I`m not.
I`m stuck on trying to understand where alle these.. rules.. these.. advices.. came from.
and not on basis "a racing driver told us so, so it must be true"
I want to know how did that racer work these out.

quite a task, quite a question.. dont you think?

Don't get too hung up on steering Thomas there I said it.

There are more threads on more forums about steering than I care to mention.

I would say hold the wheel whichever way you are most comfortable with and gives you the most rotation of the wheel immediately in either direction.

It just so happens that the 10 to 2 or 1/4 to 3 position provides that option. Simples.

[I Feel Old]

I am enjoying spectating on tis thread.

From the outset I thought there may be a certain difficulty and so it has turned out to be:

Originally Posted by ThomasG

But as i stated above- i`m the kind of old difficult git that needs to know "why" before accepting anything.

In other words- it might be one prince or another telling me this, i will not accept it until i know background of it.

Don't misunderstand me Thomas, I am exactly the same I like to understand 'stuff', it makes it easier to accept.

However I realise that, whether through lack of intelligence, or maybe a poor grasp on certain subjects, I may not understand everything. As an integral part of that viewpoint is the acceptance that 'things' being so, or correct, do not depend on my understanding.

One of the best analogies I can think of is riding a bicycle, how many people do you see riding one totally incorrectly (Let's define correctly as being efficiently ridden)? Typically insteps (sometimes heels) on the pedals and saddle far too low? Probably more than half of the casual cyclists in my experience. How many club riders do you see riding like that? None in my experience. This is not a coincidence.

Now, the reasons that heels on pedals and seat too low are inefficient are very easily explained with a little basic mechanics, or let's call it maths.

The point I'm making is that this holds true for even those people who do not understand the mechanics/maths. Even kids.

I'm not suggesting there is anything obvious you are not, or are not capable of understating. I am suggesting that starting from a position that you will not accept anything unless you fully understand it is problematic if you want go get to the truth. You are potentially dismissing 'truths/facts' just because you don't 'get it'.

Back to spectating for me.

[ThomasG]

I've been wondering how long it will take you to snap and join in

Its all very valid, about accepting something without understanding it.

So I will agree that I worded my stance a bit less... appropriately than I should have.

I will try to put it differently (will see if I succeed, its not as easy as it seems)

I will ACT as instructed, without understanding it.
I could stretch it in to "I will accept" it without understanding, but this would fall into one of following:
- its a "temporary" acceptance, based on lack of facts, to be reviewed when opportunity arises, more information available.
-its a "imposed" acceptance. I agree, I disagree- doesn't matter. Its the law. Let's takeas example a pelican crossing- pedestrian activated it and crossed without waiting. Im getting red light whilst theres no need for one. Internally i know that its wrong, tgat i shouldnt be stopped as tgeres no need for it. But will i carry on? No. Its red. It means stop. Period.

Now just for a second (sorry, Mike), returning to that "holding the wheel", to use it as example:

I know what's advised.
Set of information's/experiences tells me that there's better way. That's my own, subjective thinking.

This thinking is confronted by opinions, conclusions, experiences of others.
So I'm asking about these, I'm reviewing my approaches to it, or at least trying to.
The way one is to hold the wheel is not a " hard" law. Its an advice. One can do as he pleases.
I can accept that the way I do it may be wrong (don't think black/white, think shades of gray).
So I'm asking- why is that particular (10-2) method preffered? What's the background of it?

I'm improving my knowledge base. That's what I use making decisions. Informed decisions.

Now let's leave the topic of wheel for a while before Mike goes berserk ;p

Braking in turn.

Destabilisation of car.
Poor planning.
Jerky drive style.

That's some of points I heard against it.
I'm not saying they're not valid, far from that.

But I see them as points in favour of braking it turn/curve.

Strange?

Let me explain.

As I stated above- I don't believe in "universal" rules, rules that would be good at any and every place, time, speed.. Rules that would apply in every conceivable circumstances.

Imagine yourself driving on that curve, junction, anything. Per book. You've slowed down well in advance, you maintain safe speed, you're ready to accelerate after this turn.

A wild hog, a child, a cow, stray cat, pink elephant in a green tutu.. Runs in front of you.
Its not a matter of choice. You have to brake.

Its not a matter of "if". Its " when". It will happen. For many it happened already.

Are you ready for it? Are you prepared for it? Do you know how will your car behave? How it will flex, which wheel is most likely to loose grip, which way the car will "wobble"?

Likely not. Because book said you shouldn't, you never did it.

How, may I ask, is it that those mentioned above rally club members would " eat police patrol alive"?

Because they've been practicing things that shouldn't be done on the roads. Because they know limits of tgeir cars.

No- I'm not trying to say that you should speed, drift, generally do things restricted to racing circuits. Far from that. These things are to be dine at racing grounds and skidpans.

What I'm saying is this:
When you have opportunity, when you have clear view in front and behind you, when you know there's no car , when there's no cows/sheep around.. Generally- WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO

Approach that turn. Slow down even more than usual.
And in the middle of that turn, gently apply brake, feel the car, bring it to halt.
And then go on your way the usual way.

Next opportunity like that- do the same (unless you're in a hurry), maybe a bit faster this time. Or maybe applying brakes a bit more. Feel the "tugs" on your steering wheel. Gripping the wheel won't help to feel it, you know (ehh.. again..)

Time after time, when safe to do so, work yourself up to the level when you're confident that no matter what turn, what (safe and legal) speed , no matter what that "crazy mother with pram and mobile to her ear" will do- you will, fully in control, without loosing your cool... stop. Safely.

I think this would be a good time to sound my slight disappointment in advice from that book.

When I was ordering my copy, I half- expected to find things like "how to read traffic", " how to be prepared for unexpected", "how to manage even most demanding traffic failures (wild hog, mum with pram, speeding lorry with driver asleep, you name it), " how not to fight your car, but control it in such a masterly way that it will look like its following your thought pattern, not hands".

Instead I'm being given a kindergarten talk straight from L-test..

I don't know- maybe my first and only driving instructor was exceptionally good.
Or not.

Butvi know that most of things from " advanced driver" I was taught back then. And therefore I do see them as pretty "basic".

[I Feel Old]

Originally Posted by I Feel Old

Back to spectating for me.

Didn't last very long.

I will try to put it differently (will see if I succeed, its not as easy as it seems)

I could respond to this, however in fear of too much thread drift, I won't.

If I may be as bold as to suggest you are possibly not viewing the scenarios as described/intended. I read some of the forumites responses to you as trying to subtly suggest this. I may be wrong?

Originally Posted by Thomas"

As I stated above- I don't believe in "universal" rules, rules that would be good at any and every place, time, speed. Rules that would apply in every conceivable circumstances.

I don't read what you're describing as the 'book' suggesting there is a universal rule for every circumstance.

I read it that under normal circumstances it is, for example, safer not to brake in a corner. I'm sure you get the more control, less likelihood of losing traction (irrespective of how lightly you brake you are still closer than losing it than if you hadn't). That it is much better, safer and more efficient to have your braking done before the corner and enter it at a speed that is not excessive and therefore does not require additional risk, even if only slight.

What the book is not suggesting is that one should not brake if the circumstances change and, for example, a child runs out. Clearly the whole dynamic changes in such circumstances where avoiding the child takes priority over increased risk of skidding (assuming there isn't another child to skid in to etc), or even takes priority over a known skid resulting on you leaving the road. The book's not covering that scenario.

However, let's take the scenario where you enter a corner at a comfortable speed having done all your braking before it and one in which you are a little fast and have to scrub 10mph. Under which scenario do you have more control if a child runs out?

To me it appears as if you are possibly misinterpreting what the book says and trying to apply it's contents to scenarios that it's not written for.

FTAOD I don't know the book you are referring to and have therefore not read the parts you quote from.

[ThomasG]

"The book" being IAMs "advanced driver".

Its slowly dawning on me that maybe I'm expecting too much.

It is true that you won't find " you shall never brake in turn". Well- I can't.

It does say something along the lines of "advanced driver shall never need to brake in turn"

And then it fails to explain how to prepare yourself when such a need arises.

It tells how to hold that dam.ed wheel, but fails to mention what feedback can one expect, how to read such a feedback, how to use it for advantage.

That.. From a book released by organisation which claims to provide "the highest driving qualifications civilian driver can achieve".

I never said that one should approach that turn 10 miles too fast, did I?
That's a very bad planning.

But if you approached it at correct speed, and yet something unpredictable happens.. And happens too close for comfort..

Would you panic?
Because you may not know (or may- its a thing dependant on person) how will the car behave? How far are you from loosing grip?

Yes. This book explains nicely and fully how to drive in " normal circumstances".
And fails to provide even hint of good word relating to circumstances that I'll call, for convention- "abnormal".

Advanced driver who wasn't taught how to behave in those " abnormal" condition?
What kind of advanced driver is that?

[I Feel Old]

Originally Posted by ThomasG

I never said that one should approach that turn 10 miles too fast, did I?
That's a very bad planning.

I'm not suggesting you did, I'm asking whether you have more control braking from a speed that is manageable for the corner, or one which is slightly too fast?

However this quote did give me the impression you defend your right to still be taking speed off as you enter the corner?

It certainly does not give the impression your light braking will be the result of an 'incident'. So it seemed logical to read it as you needed to lose some speed in the corner, otherwise why would you be braking in the corner?

Originally Posted by ThomasG

I will still defend ability to lightly brake in a turn, but I will agree that whilst not wrong, the best idea it may not be. Depends on circumstances really.

[ThomasG]

Originally Posted by I Feel Old

I'm not suggesting you did, I'm asking whether you have more control braking from a speed that is manageable for the corner, or one which is slightly too fast?

Of course more control will be had with correct speed (assumed slower). I never said its a good idea to enter "too fast". What I'm actually saying is " there WILL be time when you have to brake". Prepare.

However this quote did give me the impression you defend your right to still be taking speed off as you enter the corner?

Nothing of the kind. If I ever gave such impression- it wasn't intentional.

Well.. Almost nothing of the kind. I can come up with at least one occasion where it may be needed/useful.

It certainly does not give the impression your light braking will be the result of an 'incident'. So it seemed logical to read it as you needed to lose some speed in the corner, otherwise why would you be braking in the corner?

A)
What I propose are "training brakes" deliberate, in safe conditions. That's when you want to start with braking softly, and as self inflicted training progresses- learn to control your brakes thorough the whole "spectrum" of pressure applied to them. Practice. Feel the car, feel the brakes, feel the steering.

B)
On many occasions when unexpected happened to me, it was much more efgicient , much more preferable, to alter the course with only slight drop in velocity, than complete stop. So another reason to have skill of "soft braking". Soft enough not to destabilise your car, powerful enough to drop some speed. This won't come from any book. Practice. Feel the car, feel the brakes, feel the steering.

Point B may not be of great for town/city driving. There usually isn't enough space to alter course and go around that (example) pram.
But on a motorway? 10 miles difference between you and lorry to your front/left. All of a sudden lorry moves to your lane and you have to do something.
In this example I would start adjusting speed immediately, either accelerating ir braking (most probably but not always) to match it to cars and gap in the lane to my right.
At some point I nay run out of space there.
At some point I may have to move to the right with speed still different from traffic in that labne.

Is it bad to learn how to safely join 2 manoeuvres (change speed+direction) into one smooth operation?

Is it advanced?

[ThomasG]

Just for clarity:

This example with lorry isn't something I just thought up on demand.

It is actually occurrence from roughly midnight of 22nd December last year. A2 motorway, speed limit 87pmh(obviously not UK, so driving on right is the rule), lorry in front and right of me suddenly changes lane. There was 30mph speed difference.
Car approaching from behind of me in third lane. Some 150 metres behind.

200metres or so space- I could stop, but it would mean very harsh braking.

What would you do?

[I Feel Old]

Originally Posted by ThomasG

What would you do?

I wouldn't hazard a guess without being in the situation.

Originally Posted by ThomasG

Is it bad to learn how to safely join 2 manoeuvres (change speed+direction) into one smooth operation?

It's all getting rather confusing.

Standing back and looking at the thread it reads as if you are dismissing the IAM training and methods and advocating people 'self teach' based on their subjective opinions.

I can't support that view Thomas.