European Goals for Driver Education

[waremark]

(in another thread):

You can see the GDE matrix in the back of the latest editions of roadcraft.

It's basically a hierarcichal framework for driver education which emphasises the importance of dealing with such issues as physical well being, motivation & intent as well as the physical handling of the vehicle.

At the lowest level we have the physical skills of driving, at the next those to manage that within the traffic environment, then the goals & context of the driving (intent etc fot the journey) & lastly the goals/skills for life (the influences of lifestyle & personal values etc). Those higher up the matrix have an effect on those lower in it & traditional instruction only ever really dealt in any depth with the first two levels of the matrix, when what is desirable for drivers is knowledge in relation to all four levels, an awareness of the risks associated with all four & honest self reflection into their performance in relation to them.

Vonhosen's reply illustrates what I am on about in my first point. Although the Goals for Driver Education are dealt with in Roadcraft, upon which much of which 'advanced' driving is based, they do not seem to be common knowledge to members of this forum. Indicating that even those that are interested in improving their driving skills are unlikely to be up to date in their knowledge.

How would you reflect the GDE in either novice or advanced driver training?

[vonhosen]

(in another thread):

You can see the GDE matrix in the back of the latest editions of roadcraft.

It's basically a hierarcichal framework for driver education which emphasises the importance of dealing with such issues as physical well being, motivation & intent as well as the physical handling of the vehicle.

At the lowest level we have the physical skills of driving, at the next those to manage that within the traffic environment, then the goals & context of the driving (intent etc fot the journey) & lastly the goals/skills for life (the influences of lifestyle & personal values etc). Those higher up the matrix have an effect on those lower in it & traditional instruction only ever really dealt in any depth with the first two levels of the matrix, when what is desirable for drivers is knowledge in relation to all four levels, an awareness of the risks associated with all four & honest self reflection into their performance in relation to them.

Vonhosen's reply illustrates what I am on about in my first point. Although the Goals for Driver Education are dealt with in Roadcraft, upon which much of which 'advanced' driving is based, they do not seem to be common knowledge to members of this forum. Indicating that even those that are interested in improving their driving skills are unlikely to be up to date in their knowledge.

How would you reflect the GDE in either novice or advanced driver training?

Well coaching (rather than instruction) lends itself to it. It's all about the questions you pose that make them think about what they believe, think & feel. After all it's that which drives their actions.

[Horse]

How would you reflect the GDE in either novice or advanced driver training?

I use it in two ways: First, to analyse current training (or training planning) to see how high up it 'reaches'. Then, from that determine where I need to bolster the content to move it up, whether by changing the emphasis, the instructions or 'coaching' (as in the 'comments given' rather than true coaching) given.

Worse case is that I ask myself whether the training intended is actually a short-term 'fix' or long-term gain for the trainee. e.g. teaching cornering skills by teaching 'lines' to improve view and safety margins, whereas the trainee takes a different message so rides faster to use up that margin . . .

Instead,I would work on building-in awareness of, and planning for, likely problems to be encountered.

"But," I hear, "We already do that!"

Perhaps you do, but look back at some recent threads on here re: 'limit' training, and 'advanced' skills in on-road driving. It's wasy for those higher levels of the matrix to get little more than lip service.

In UK 'advanced' driving and tests there is the progress imperative. If the 'goal for life' is 'Get there as fast as you can, safely', then perhaps the 'advanced' test crieria fits the bill for high up the matrix

If the goal for life is to 'Get there safely, but don't worry about speed, get there in you own time', then perhaps UK advanced tests don't do so well . . .



[H dons flak jacket and body armour and heads off back to the far end of the paddock . . . ]

[Gareth]

If the goal for life is to 'Get there safely, but don't worry about speed, get there in you own time', then perhaps UK advanced tests don't do so well . . .

Then it could hardly be called advanced, just safe. I wonder, is there much interest in slow and steady driving in the UK? And what would the syllabus be over and above the basic DSA test?

[jont]

I wonder, is there much interest in slow and steady driving in the UK?

Isn't that going under the banner of "eco" driving these days?

[Horse]

If the goal for life is to 'Get there safely, but don't worry about speed, get there in you own time', then perhaps UK advanced tests don't do so well . . .

Then it could hardly be called advanced, just safe. I wonder, is there much interest in slow and steady driving in the UK? And what would the syllabus be over and above the basic DSA test?

So are you saying that the GDE Matrix doesn't apply to advanced driving?

FWIW, you may not know that an 'L' test candidate will fail if they don't maintain progress.

Maintain Progress:
You should show the examiner you are capable of driving at a speed appropriate to conditions. You should also be able to pass hazards at a safe, controlled speed. At junctions, you should be prepared to move out as soon as it is safe to do so
http://www.drivingschoolsblackpool.co.uk/test-form.html


However, perhaps you should put the case for or against using the matrix as part of training.

[GJD]

If the goal for life is to 'Get there safely, but don't worry about speed, get there in you own time', then perhaps UK advanced tests don't do so well . . .

Then it could hardly be called advanced, just safe. I wonder, is there much interest in slow and steady driving in the UK? And what would the syllabus be over and above the basic DSA test?

So are you saying that the GDE Matrix doesn't apply to advanced driving?

I'm not in the driver education business so I don't really know how the GDE matrix is used in anger, but isn't the goal for life a personal thing though? So one person's goal for life might be 'Get there safely, but don't worry about speed, get there in you own time' whereas another person's might be 'Get there as fast as you can, safely'. All that would mean is that advanced driving would probably interest the second person more than the first.

The matrix wouldn't be any more or less use for training either of them would it?

Or have I got it completely wrong?

Gavin

[GJD]

I wonder, is there much interest in slow and steady driving in the UK?

Plenty, outside built up areas, in my experience .

Gavin

[Russ_H]

If the goal for life is to 'Get there safely, but don't worry about speed, get there in you own time', then perhaps UK advanced tests don't do so well . . .

Then it could hardly be called advanced, just safe. I wonder, is there much interest in slow and steady driving in the UK? And what would the syllabus be over and above the basic DSA test?

There is considerable potential for opening a can of worms here, but I feel that I should comment.

In my time with DSA, it was accepted that test candidates should make reasonable progress. When I first started as an examiner (1988), test routes tended to be quite short, and, as test centres were often in urban areas, there was not not much chance of getting onto open roads. Candidates were still expected to make reasonable progress, though. It might not be possible in town to drive at a high speed, but it's usually possible to accelerate briskly up to a suitable speed. Lots of candidates failed for lack of progress.

When the number of tests was reduced from nine a day to eight a day, and subsequently to seven a day, it was
possible to extend test routes to take in a wider vatriety of hazards, including NSL single and dual carriageways.
Even more candidates failed for lack of progress on the more open test routes.

It is probably fair to say that many ADIs were uncomfortable with the idea of teaching good progress. I do not recall any connection between the age of the ADI and the slowness of candidates. Many candidates brought by young ADIs were painfully slow.

On ADI Part Two driving tests, the advice to examiners was to expect a "brisk and businesslike drive". Many Part Two routes had a section of open NSL single carriageway. Many candidates failed for not making progress.

When conducting ADI Part Three instructional tests, one of the second phase lessons was known to examiners as "progress and positioning". If I chose to display slowness as a fault, it was often not picked up at all by the candidate.

In summary, DSA did not, during my time with them, require slow, steady driving.

So, as a point for discussion, what does advanced driving introduce, over and above the DSA syllabus?

Regards,

Russ

[Gareth]

what does advanced driving introduce, over and above the DSA syllabus?

In these increasingly dumbed down times, I've previously answered 'not a lot'. However, in an ideal world, my answer would be 'greater mechanical sympathy, better observation and a better link between speed and vision'.

[vonhosen]

The purpose of training with the matrix is to increase awareness within the candidate that their life goals & journey specific goals will affect their driving. It's also about getting them to think about what they are, reflect on their appropriateness & challenge where appropriate. Choices of course will remain theirs.

[Gareth]

So are you saying that the GDE Matrix doesn't apply to advanced driving?

However, perhaps you should put the case for or against using the matrix as part of training.

The matrix is only a tool to conceptualise a way of thinking about driving that fits in with the way people think about life in general but, for instance, it doesn't clarify whether or not some risk taking is a natural part of human existence, and therefore whether working towards elimination of all risk is a good or achievable goal.

A risk increasing aspect may also be a risk decreasing aspect, such as driving faster and as a result being more engaged in the activity and as a consequence more aware of potential and actual hazards. The GDE Matrix doesn't answer this, nor should it, and apart from providing a philosophical perspective I doubt it has much to offer to advanced driving per se.

[Martin A]

Hi All

The idea of the GDE is to get drivers to understand that there is more to driving than car control, observation/planning or even safety. The idea is to get a driver to understand how they interact with all parts of society and the environment and vice versa before teaching them how to drive.

Part of the problem with delivering it is that on the whole those that are most likely to drive in a manner that indicates a likelihood of a crash resulting in injury .i.e. law breaking and firm acceleration and braking, are those that are least likely to engage in self awareness and self assessment training. Not least of all because they see it as a waste of money.

It's an excellent idea but ideally needs to start way before people are allowed to drive by themselves.

'Advanced' driving is really just one part of it. It seems however that many of those that label themselves 'advanced' drivers use it as justification to break speed limits and operate outside the Highway Code. The ambiguity that exists between the head office line and individual practice is the reason that I always describe it as 'advanced'. To me it has no worthy meaning.

See here for more info http://erso.swov.nl/knowledge/content/0 ... actice.htm

Hope this helps

Best regards

Martin A

[Gareth]

The ambiguity that exists between the head office line and individual practice is the reason that I always describe it as 'advanced'. To me it has no worthy meaning.

I prefer use the word 'advanced' solely as part of the phrase 'passing an advanced driving test' as the tests themselves are so named and are defined, but for me also, 'advanced' has no other common and useful meaning relating to driving.

[waremark]

The purpose of training with the matrix is to increase awareness within the candidate that their life goals & journey specific goals will affect their driving. It's also about getting them to think about what they are, reflect on their appropriateness & challenge where appropriate. Choices of course will remain theirs.

Is it the case that the more driver training students have the less the level 1 and 2 factors will affect their driving? One of the purposes of commentary, for example, is to help focus the driver on nothing but the driving task, to the exclusion of emotions or considerations of the journey specific goal.