Horse wrote: ancient wrote:
Plus, he said that there was no point whatsoever in developing observation. All he needed to look at was the distance he could stop in at his speed. so travelling at 30mph, he only needed to know what was happening 75 feet away.
Now that explains a lot ... an awful lot!
It's an interesting viewpoint (sic), because the things that are going to get you are, by and large, those closer to you (by definition, really, because if they're not close then they are unlikely to be in collision with you). So if someone drives in such a manner that they can stop if necessary, then shouldn't that be applauded? It's all well and having great observation skills and seeing a hazard approaching from space
, but that's a 'nice' rather than a 'necessary'.
No, it's a necessary, not a nice.
Those things that are going to get you are close, but at one point were not close. So by spotting/anticipating them early enough, you can plan to deal with them before they get close enough to get you.
I know that you know that, and I know that you know that I know that you know it, but this idiot of an ADI didnt know it. He genuinely thought that reactive driving was the best, safest way to drive.
To be fair, the driving instructors near me don't drive the same as learners. Missing speed limits, not signalling when required, signalling when not required, failing to make progress when appropriate, a lack of observation, anticipation and planning, poor road positioning, no knowledge of rev matching etc etc etc. The learners however are much better.
To me, the difference between ADIs and learner drivers is about attitude. Many learner drivers accept that they have something to learn.