Advanced driving misconceptions

[Observer2]

I find that even some advanced drivers nurture what I regard as severe misconceptions about driving techniques, most notably:

1. Limit point analysis tells you whether you are approaching (or negotiating) a bend "too quickly", at about the "right speed" or "could go faster".

2. The 'following gap' between you and the vehicle ahead represents your available stopping distance.

3. In order to drive safely you must apply 100% concentration at all times.

None of the above are unconditionally true, at least I don't think so They all require substantial qualification.

Any disagreement?

[WhoseGeneration]

Observer2 said:

I find that even some advanced drivers nurture what I regard as severe misconceptions about driving techniques, most notably:

1. Limit point analysis tells you whether you are approaching (or negotiating) a bend "too quickly", at about the "right speed" or "could go faster".

2. The 'following gap' between you and the vehicle ahead represents your available stopping distance.

3. In order to drive safely you must apply 100% concentration at all times.

None of the above are unconditionally true, at least I don't think so They all require substantial qualification.

Any disagreement?

Your 1 and 2, I agree with in terms of needing qualification.
3 is an absolute.

[Observer2]

WhoseGeneration said:

Your 1 and 2, I agree with in terms of needing qualification.
3 is an absolute.

Pleased you agree with the first two (I regularly read posts that suggest not all drivers do, including some who appear to be 'advanced') but why not the last?

Does driving in congested traffic and poor visibility require the same degree of concentration as on an open road with no hazards in perfect visibility?

If 100% concentration is needed how can a driver cope with unavoidable distractions, such as route finding?

[WhoseGeneration]

Observer2 said:

Pleased you agree with the first two (I regularly read posts that suggest not all drivers do, including some who appear to be 'advanced') but why not the last?

Does driving in congested traffic and poor visibility require the same degree of concentration as on an open road with no hazards in perfect visibility?

If 100% concentration is needed how can a driver cope with unavoidable distractions, such as route finding?

There are never no hazards, because, potentially, your vehicle could provide them, with little or no warning.
"Route finding", well, the capable driver will have prepared by research.
Or, as in my case, have a navigator.
I do see your point of view but, from my experience, any failings on my part have been from a lapse in concentration, such that I admonish myself and try to learn from that experience.
Anyway, from what I observe, most drivers are far from applying 100% concentration.

[Benbay001]

I agree with all your points.
Maybe im just a very agreeable person.
Edit: i will happily admit that when im on a road i know i dont concentrate 100%
I am distracted very little, but id be lying if i said 100%.

Edited by Benbay001 on Friday 2nd December 00:10

[Observer2]

WhoseGeneration said:

There are never no hazards, because, potentially, your vehicle could provide them, with little or no warning.
"Route finding", well, the capable driver will have prepared by research.
Or, as in my case, have a navigator.
I do see your point of view but, from my experience, any failings on my part have been from a lapse in concentration, such that I admonish myself and try to learn from that experience.

There are never no hazards but there can be huge range in hazed density, I'm sure you will agree, and it is surely unarguable that more concentration is needed as hazard density increases.

WhoseGeneration said:

Anyway, from what I observe, most drivers are far from applying 100% concentration.

I'm sure that's right but I don't see it as an issue in itself. The problem arises when drivers don't give enough concentration and "enough" varies - constantly according to external factors traffic, weather, hazard density and so on - and from a driver specific base level according to internal factors such as driver's state of mind, experience and ability. 100% concentration is rarely necessary - good job too because intense concentration is unsustainable for extended periods.

Is this semantics? Does it matter if we call for 100% concentration when what we really mean is 100% of whatever level of concentration is actually necessary? Possibly not but I'm uncomfortable with false messages. If the real message needs more sophisticated presentation then don't shrink from that. Take the trouble to explain properly. Anything less is dumbing down and that, I think, is a greater danger.

[7db]

What qualification are you looking to put on 1?

[Pontoneer]

The biggest misconception I used to find with associates who had perhaps read about the system in Roadcraft or elsewhere before receiving any tuition was , when negotiating bends , to apply excessive acceleration at feature six rather than just sufficient to balance the car through the bend .

[R0G]

100% concentration all the time is not possible for the human brain but a driver can be switched on all the time

[Mr Grayson]

I'm interested in number 1. I find limit point analysis works pretty well. How does it not work for you?

[Observer2]

7db said:

What qualification are you looking to put on 1?

Good question. I haven't had to articulate that before but my first take on it would be something like this.

Limit point analysis:

does not provide any reliable measurement of the physical ability of any given driver/car combination to successfully (safely?) negotiate any given bend.

does provide a gauge to assess whether the driver's limit of forward vision [of the road ahead] is increasing, remaining constant or reducing; and this knowledge, depending on actual speed and actual distance to the limit point for the time being, allows the driver to test adherence (adjusting speed if necessary) to the 'golden rule'.

(The 'golden rule' being that one should drive at a speed that allows one to stop safely in the distance ahead that can be seen to be clear.) (This statement of the 'golden rule' is not complete but that's a separate subject.)

That's a rather complex 'qualification' that I'm sure can be improved, but I think it captures the necessary elements. The "does" and does not" elements may be better the other way round but the reference to the 'golden rule' seems necessary and gets in the way a bit.

[Observer2]

Mr Grayson said:

I'm interested in number 1. I find limit point analysis works pretty well. How does it not work for you?

Consider the case of approaching at (say) 100mph a bend that can be safely negotiated (based on the physical properties of the vehicle and the road, assuming driver skill is a constant) at maximum 50mph. As you approach, the limit point is necessarily stationary. If you haven't reduced speed to 50mph or less by the time you enter the bend and see the limt point moving (which could be moving away or moving towards), you will hit the scenery.

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

I have three issues with Limit Point Analysis as it's conventionally taught:

• As mentioned, it takes no account of whether or not the car will stay on the road when the cornering forces are applied.

• The wording doesn't mention other hazards that might threaten or compromise the stopping distance available - concealed entrances, poor surfaces etc.

• By encouraging people to drive at the highest speed they can get away with, you remove the option of adding power / increasing speed in the bend - this can be very useful for adjusting / maintaining stability, and the benefits of having this available probably outweigh the slight loss of progress it requires.

[Dr Jekyll]

Observer2 said:

As you approach, the limit point is necessarily stationary.

Not necessarily. Unless you count it staying in one spot while you catch up with it stationary, which most people would interpret as a sign they were running out of space and needed to slow down.

[Phisp]

If the bend radius is constant then I'm pretty sure that once the limit point starts moving, i.e. you are now traversing the bend, the limit point will always stay at the same distance from you no matter what your speed (until it moves away from you as the exit becomes visible).

I always thought that LPA was essentially an aid for setting your speed before you entered the bend (as well as informing you that the radius is changing mid bend).

[Observer2]

Dr Jekyll said:

Not necessarily. Unless you count it staying in one spot while you catch up with it stationary, which most people would interpret as a sign they were running out of space and needed to slow down.

Surely you would be "catching up with it" in the way you describe at 1mph, 100mph and any speed in between.

[Dr Jekyll]

Observer2 said:

Surely you would be "catching up with it" in the way you describe at 1mph, 100mph and any speed in between.

Yes, the difference is that at 1MPH (in this example) you wouldn't get so close to the limit point as to run out of stopping distance.

[Observer2]

Dr Jekyll said:

Observer2 said:

Surely you would be "catching up with it" in the way you describe at 1mph, 100mph and any speed in between.

Yes, the difference is that at 1MPH (in this example) you wouldn't get so close to the limit point as to run out of stopping distance.

Yes agreed. But speed of approach to a stationary (or almost stationary) limit point is not limit point analysis (as I understand it).

[R0G]

Observer2 said:

But speed of approach to a stationary (or almost stationary) limit point is not limit point analysis (as I understand it).

It is

That is a limit point which is not moving and is the start of the process to negotiate a bend etc
The distance from that limit point will determine what speed the driver should be doing now

[Observer2]

Phisp said:

I always thought that LPA was essentially an aid for setting your speed before you entered the bend (as well as informing you that the radius is changing mid bend).

How does that work then (first bit, not the second)?