Discussion
Don't get hooked up in the idea of producing a commentary that sounds just like Chris Gilbert's or indeed anyone elses. It's going to be a personal thing to you - my commentary is different to Hugh Noblett's or indeed anyone else who's given me a commentary. Don't be afraid to abbreviate. You might think it cool to get 200 words per minute out, as some of the Police instructors I've been out with can, but I'd go for quality rather than quantity. I'd also not be too worried about following a specific book of words or indeed using abbreviations - it's easier to get out 'mirrors clear' than 'cheking nearside mirror, centre mirror, offside mirror, all are clear'.
Build it up in stages, start by just driving around talking about what you're looking at. Try and concentrate on the 'in the future' rather than the 'here and now'. I find a useful phrase is 'in the distance', as in 'in the distance I can see a bend to the right'. The problem many people find is that by the time they've seen something, worked out what the hell they're going to say, they're already through what they've seen...
Once you're happy with describing things, go onto what you can't see or what you might anticipate happening, e.g. 'in the distance I can see a junction to the left. I can't see into it' or, on motorways "Car in the left land has veered to the left, I think he might be coming out in front of me"
Then it's but a small trip to adding detail about what you're going to about it... adding to the last sentence 'Mirror check shows nobody close behind, coming off the gas and allowing him room if he does come out'.
Build it up in stages, start by just driving around talking about what you're looking at. Try and concentrate on the 'in the future' rather than the 'here and now'. I find a useful phrase is 'in the distance', as in 'in the distance I can see a bend to the right'. The problem many people find is that by the time they've seen something, worked out what the hell they're going to say, they're already through what they've seen...
Once you're happy with describing things, go onto what you can't see or what you might anticipate happening, e.g. 'in the distance I can see a junction to the left. I can't see into it' or, on motorways "Car in the left land has veered to the left, I think he might be coming out in front of me"
Then it's but a small trip to adding detail about what you're going to about it... adding to the last sentence 'Mirror check shows nobody close behind, coming off the gas and allowing him room if he does come out'.
sir_lurk_alot said:
cheers for the advice Major, unfortunately I already have the dvd and have watched it.
Watch it again then as it starts off with talking about road signs, paint and builds from there.Have a look at
http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/bb/viewtopic.php...
There's loads of advice on there.
I dislike commentary. It suggests that co-driver and driver aren't as one. But it does have its uses. Particularly when they aren't.
As far as I can tell commentary serves three purposes:-
1. to demonstrate what is to be looked at / explain actions / to a novice co-driver by an experienced driver. Thinking out loud in a didactic process
2. to reassure a terrified unfamiliar co-driver that you've seen the side road and - oh yes - it is in your plan to hurtle past it at mach one. (This might form the basis for a discussion later).
3. to stress the other. The nervous co-driver can stress the driver by asking for commentary and resultingly take speed out of the drive. The interrupted driver can commentate to override distracting chattering from the co-driver (or other voices in his head) and refocus on the driving task.
Style then, should serve substance.
For demonstrations, whilst the classic Police style is to start with Observations, then Anticipations and finally Actions. (I can see a numpty nosing...he might pull out...so I'm covering the brake and leaning on the horn) This gets very quickly overly verbose. I can see a stone, driveway left, driveway right, white line, cats eyes argh argh. Fine if you are LoquaciousDave.
I prefer to explain my next action, and that alone. (I am leaning on the horn cos of the numpty). It acts as a wonderful filter, and since I have a pair of testicles I can only do one thing at once, so there's only ever one thing to say.
If I'm not doing something then I might say what I'm looking at to see if I'm going to do something. There's usually only one most important thing, and that's what I try to talk about.
For reassurance, the key is to let them know before anything really scary is going to happen - like not braking, or pirouetting, for example. It's the surprise that most people dislike. (I'm approaching the roundabout, offside, this might be a little hairy, full power and turning-in...)
For cockpit stress games, this is left as an exercise to the reader. I can only suggest that if you're not getting on with your driving companion as you might, then addressing this cause is probably better than resorting to commentary. Of course, if you are married to them, then all skulduggery is legitimate.
As far as I can tell commentary serves three purposes:-
1. to demonstrate what is to be looked at / explain actions / to a novice co-driver by an experienced driver. Thinking out loud in a didactic process
2. to reassure a terrified unfamiliar co-driver that you've seen the side road and - oh yes - it is in your plan to hurtle past it at mach one. (This might form the basis for a discussion later).
3. to stress the other. The nervous co-driver can stress the driver by asking for commentary and resultingly take speed out of the drive. The interrupted driver can commentate to override distracting chattering from the co-driver (or other voices in his head) and refocus on the driving task.
Style then, should serve substance.
For demonstrations, whilst the classic Police style is to start with Observations, then Anticipations and finally Actions. (I can see a numpty nosing...he might pull out...so I'm covering the brake and leaning on the horn) This gets very quickly overly verbose. I can see a stone, driveway left, driveway right, white line, cats eyes argh argh. Fine if you are LoquaciousDave.
I prefer to explain my next action, and that alone. (I am leaning on the horn cos of the numpty). It acts as a wonderful filter, and since I have a pair of testicles I can only do one thing at once, so there's only ever one thing to say.
If I'm not doing something then I might say what I'm looking at to see if I'm going to do something. There's usually only one most important thing, and that's what I try to talk about.
For reassurance, the key is to let them know before anything really scary is going to happen - like not braking, or pirouetting, for example. It's the surprise that most people dislike. (I'm approaching the roundabout, offside, this might be a little hairy, full power and turning-in...)
For cockpit stress games, this is left as an exercise to the reader. I can only suggest that if you're not getting on with your driving companion as you might, then addressing this cause is probably better than resorting to commentary. Of course, if you are married to them, then all skulduggery is legitimate.
the weird thing is that my driving was improving because I was giving a commentary I was thinking more about what was coming.
My observer didnt ask me to do too much all at once, first it was what road signs do you see. Then we moved on to roads markings and what the road itself was doing.
one problem I had with the Chris Gabriel DVD was that he said if you are finding it hard to describe everything you see you should adjust the speed you are driving to help. Would that really be advisable on an IAM test or would it be better to not try to talk about so much?
My observer didnt ask me to do too much all at once, first it was what road signs do you see. Then we moved on to roads markings and what the road itself was doing.
one problem I had with the Chris Gabriel DVD was that he said if you are finding it hard to describe everything you see you should adjust the speed you are driving to help. Would that really be advisable on an IAM test or would it be better to not try to talk about so much?
sir_lurk_alot said:
the weird thing is that my driving was improving because I was giving a commentary I was thinking more about what was coming.
My observer didnt ask me to do too much all at once, first it was what road signs do you see. Then we moved on to roads markings and what the road itself was doing.
one problem I had with the Chris Gabriel DVD was that he said if you are finding it hard to describe everything you see you should adjust the speed you are driving to help. Would that really be advisable on an IAM test or would it be better to not try to talk about so much?
I disagree with that last bit, I'd rather the driver didn't unnecessarily slow down in order to speak, I'd rather they say less & prioritise what it is they want to talk about whilst maintaining the drives natural pace.My observer didnt ask me to do too much all at once, first it was what road signs do you see. Then we moved on to roads markings and what the road itself was doing.
one problem I had with the Chris Gabriel DVD was that he said if you are finding it hard to describe everything you see you should adjust the speed you are driving to help. Would that really be advisable on an IAM test or would it be better to not try to talk about so much?
Can't speak for the IAM though.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th November 16:56
[quote=vonhosen
I disagree with that last bit, I'd rather the driver didn't unnecessarily slow down in order to speak, I'd rather they say less & prioritise what it is they want to talk about whilst maintaining the drives natural pace.
Can't speak for the IAM though.
[/quote]
At your level.
Rather sarky comment for you though?
Then, how many of we civilians, can, legally, maintain our drives natural pace?
I disagree with that last bit, I'd rather the driver didn't unnecessarily slow down in order to speak, I'd rather they say less & prioritise what it is they want to talk about whilst maintaining the drives natural pace.
Can't speak for the IAM though.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th November 16:56
[/quote]
At your level.
Rather sarky comment for you though?
Then, how many of we civilians, can, legally, maintain our drives natural pace?
WhoseGeneration said:
vonhosen said:
I disagree with that last bit, I'd rather the driver didn't unnecessarily slow down in order to speak, I'd rather they say less & prioritise what it is they want to talk about whilst maintaining the drives natural pace.
Can't speak for the IAM though.
At your level.Can't speak for the IAM though.
Rather sarky comment for you though?
Then, how many of we civilians, can, legally, maintain our drives natural pace?
Why ?
By natural I mean what it would be if they weren't talking (if that's what has been detrimental to it).
I agree with Von.
I tell my associates to keep it concise and relevant. I too disagree with Chris Gilbert's advice. You shouldn't have to slow down. If you can't get all your words out you are probably saying more than is necessary. KIS - keep it simple!
The best thing to do is practice doing a commentary. Don't just say what you can see but comment on how you are going to incorporate what you see into your driving plan. For example, "White van ahead, reducing speed, selecting appropriate gear to negotiate hazard." or it could be something as simple as, "Mirrors clear!" instead of, "There is nothing in my rear view or side mirrors."
I tell my associates to keep it concise and relevant. I too disagree with Chris Gilbert's advice. You shouldn't have to slow down. If you can't get all your words out you are probably saying more than is necessary. KIS - keep it simple!
The best thing to do is practice doing a commentary. Don't just say what you can see but comment on how you are going to incorporate what you see into your driving plan. For example, "White van ahead, reducing speed, selecting appropriate gear to negotiate hazard." or it could be something as simple as, "Mirrors clear!" instead of, "There is nothing in my rear view or side mirrors."
Edited by EmmaP on Tuesday 11th November 23:29
I'm in the middle of preparing for the IAM test, and I don't like giving commentary because I feel that it takes up effort that could be better used on driving. But I see why it's necessary for the test.
Although I speak English as fluently (since age 5?), it's not my first language and I think this makes it a bit more difficult for me in the effort/thought that it takes.
Hopefully your IAM group isn't one of the ones that will ask "what was the last sign" randomly one time during the test, and you fail if you miss on the second chance.
This just puts on unnecessary pressure on me. The way I get around it is to provide full commentary for the whole drive and call out every one, which helps me remember the last sign, but is tiring.
Although I speak English as fluently (since age 5?), it's not my first language and I think this makes it a bit more difficult for me in the effort/thought that it takes.
Hopefully your IAM group isn't one of the ones that will ask "what was the last sign" randomly one time during the test, and you fail if you miss on the second chance.
This just puts on unnecessary pressure on me. The way I get around it is to provide full commentary for the whole drive and call out every one, which helps me remember the last sign, but is tiring.
EmmaP said:
That is interesting. I find that a commentary keeps my mind focused. If I find myself getting a bit sloppy I'll do a commentary.
I agree. If a drive is becoming stressed or sloppy, a commentary will bring things back into line, and quickly...I commentate to a simple formula;
1/ What I have seen
2/ What could happen as a result
3/ What I will do to prevent it from happening
There are also some other good Commentary DVD's on the market - Mark Kendrick's (Bespoke Driver Training) and Hugh Noblett's (Cadence) are also well worth a look and both come recomended.
Additionally, try injecting a bit of humour into your commentary - I recall a recent run;
"Scanning to the offside, I can see a Bus Stop to the right, in view of this, I anticipate that there may be a Bus looking to both set down, and collect passangers. Approaching the Bus Stop I can see one individual standing there, he look's like Captain Birdseye, so he'll be waiting for a boat, not a Bus"
Observer cum Passanger - Police Class One Bod, Who breaks into masses of laughter...
Not funny now, but I suppose you had to be there...
robwales said:
I'm in the middle of preparing for the IAM test, and I don't like giving commentary because I feel that it takes up effort that could be better used on driving. But I see why it's necessary for the test.
Although I speak English as fluently (since age 5?), it's not my first language and I think this makes it a bit more difficult for me in the effort/thought that it takes.
Hopefully your IAM group isn't one of the ones that will ask "what was the last sign" randomly one time during the test, and you fail if you miss on the second chance.
This just puts on unnecessary pressure on me. The way I get around it is to provide full commentary for the whole drive and call out every one, which helps me remember the last sign, but is tiring.
If you find it tiring, is it then detrimental to the overall quality of the drive - and therefore better dispensed with?Although I speak English as fluently (since age 5?), it's not my first language and I think this makes it a bit more difficult for me in the effort/thought that it takes.
Hopefully your IAM group isn't one of the ones that will ask "what was the last sign" randomly one time during the test, and you fail if you miss on the second chance.
This just puts on unnecessary pressure on me. The way I get around it is to provide full commentary for the whole drive and call out every one, which helps me remember the last sign, but is tiring.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
It's tiring, but for 1.5 hours or so that the test will last it won't be detrimental to the quality. The sign-remembering does put me under pressure, and I know that if I missed on the first chance the one forgotten sign from failure would increase it and affect the quality.
Both are compulsory, so can't be dispensed with. I see why commentary is required and can deal with it, but I don't agree that I should be able to say what the last sign was when prompted.
Both are compulsory, so can't be dispensed with. I see why commentary is required and can deal with it, but I don't agree that I should be able to say what the last sign was when prompted.
7db said:
EmmaP said:
robwales said:
I don't like giving commentary because I feel that it takes up effort that could be better used on driving.
That is interesting. I find that a commentary keeps my mind focused. If I find myself getting a bit sloppy I'll do a commentary.OT - Hope life is treating you well Sir!
robwales said:
It's tiring, but for 1.5 hours or so that the test will last it won't be detrimental to the quality. The sign-remembering does put me under pressure, and I know that if I missed on the first chance the one forgotten sign from failure would increase it and affect the quality.
Both are compulsory, so can't be dispensed with. I see why commentary is required and can deal with it, but I don't agree that I should be able to say what the last sign was when prompted.
Has something changed recently? Commentary has not been compulsory on an IAM test for quite some time, I thought.Both are compulsory, so can't be dispensed with. I see why commentary is required and can deal with it, but I don't agree that I should be able to say what the last sign was when prompted.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Edited by p1esk on Thursday 13th November 00:10
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff