Training - Diary Of An ADI

Graduated Driver’s Licence For Teenagers?

19/08/2012

This story from America makes interesting reading. It talks about how Massachusetts introduced a graduated licence system for young drivers back in 2007.

When the new law was introduced, it required that teenage drivers complete a mandatory 12 hours behind the wheel (increased from 6 – you have to remember that America has always had a different approach to learner drivers when compared with the UK, and allows learners to drive unsupervised), and 40 hours of logged accompanied driving with a parent or guardian. The accompanying driver had to complete a 2 hour course before they could supervise, and there were also restrictions placed on driving at night and driving with other teenagers in the car.

In fact, if you look up the full details, the overall requirements are more numerous (this is from Wikipedia):

Learner must complete driver’s education, hold their permit for six months incident free (no accidents, no citations, no warnings), and log 40 practice hours with a licensed driver over 21. Junior operators cannot drive between 12:30 a.m. and 5 a.m. unless accompanied by their parent or legal guardian and Massachusetts law provides no exceptions for employment, education, or medical reasons. Additionally, junior operators cannot drive with passengers under the age of 18 (except immediate family members) unless accompanied by a licensed driver over 21 within the first six months of obtaining a License. The Massachusetts JOL law also takes a zero-tolerance stance towards speeding, drivers under 18 caught speeding are subject to a mandatory 90 day suspension for the first offense accompanied by a mandatory road rage education class and a mandatory retake of the both permit and road tests. A one year revocation is mandatory for the second and each subsequent offense.

Reading the article I mentioned at the start would also seem to suggest that if a teenager violates certain of the conditions, then they basically go back to the start and have to begin the whole process again. So, in other words, it takes an effort to get a full licence (again, bear in mind that in America learners can drive unsupervised, so changes like this involve significant changes to people’s expectations and lifestyles).

However, the real eye opener is this graph, which shows the number of fatalities in the different learner age groups:

Massachusetts Accident Figures The article states that in considering figures covering the period 1986 to 2007, there were 1,348 fewer fatal crashes involving 16-year olds after the new law was introduced, but 1,086 more for 18-year olds.

That might lead you to conclude that the graduated licence hasn’t worked, but the article also points out that older teenagers aren’t completing driver education or gaining sufficient experience as solo drivers. It points out that the number of teens completing the driver education course has fallen by 20% since the law came into force. Some commentators also believe that the stringent requirements – such as the mandatory course that parents have to take – has also had an impact on take-up rates. One person says it is “a pain” to follow, even though it has had a very positive impact on teen deaths.

Mind you, America seems to have the same problem with driving instructors interfering with things that we do over here. You see, the article starts by quoting a learner driver (also a student) who is bemoaning the cost of learning to drive. She had to “get a job” to pay for it, and she wonders how those on low incomes manage.

Perhaps a driving licence is a right in America, not a privilege? I don’t know.

But the owner of the driving school she is learning with chimes in:

…the law’s impact on cost has been a hurdle for many teens and may be part of the reason they’re waiting until they’re 18 to get their license.

“The driving portion of driver education is about 95 percent of our cost,” he said. “The price has gone way up.”

Before the graduated license law, the 30 hours of classroom and six hours of behind-the-wheel training cost about $300 to $400, Mr. Gilmore said. Now, with double the behind-the-wheel time, it’s $600 to more than $900, depending on the auto school.

Mr. Gilmore said that 12 hours of behind-the-wheel time with an instructor may be unnecessarily high. “Most of the kids plateau in skill level at eight to 10 hours,” he said. “More kids would take driver’s ed if it was cheaper.”

I’ll mention again that the American way is different to ours, and their view is obviously going to be based on the premise of unsupervised driving being the norm. But why do instructors have to persistently try to put themselves across as philanthropists?

Just because someone can’t afford something doesn’t mean the price should be cut so they can. That’s only one step removed from allowing them to steal it!

But if the American driving instructors really do fancy their chances of a Carnegie Medal, perhaps they should look at dropping the price of their lessons. Because if increasing driving time from 6 to 12 hours has added over $500 to the overall cost, that must mean they’re charging close to $100 per hour (that’s nearly £65).

It doesn’t take a genius to realise that if something is working well – and the graduated licence system has slashed fatalities among teen drivers in this case – changing it to make it cheaper is going to screw it up.

More importantly, I wonder if such a system would work if it were introduced here? I don’t mean allowing unsupervised driving, but rigorous control of the learning process and restrictions on carrying passengers and night driving.

Theory Test Questions…

18/08/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Training

I noticed on a forum frequented by students (and learner drivers) someone asked the following questions:

Do all motorways have 3 lanes?

No. Two lanes is quite common, and if you’re on the M1, the A1M, or M25 (that I can remember off the top of my head) then four or more lanes is also possible. And slip roads joining the actual motorway still come under motorway regulations, so you could say that one lane motorway sections are also common.

Bear in mind that the number of lanes can change, and you might pass through two, three, and four-lane stretches over a relatively short distance. It depends on how busy the general area and its associated junctions are.

On a motorway, the national speed limit is 70 mph… So all cars in the left hand lane move at this speed.

No. It would be great if they did, but they don’t for all kinds of reasons. To start with, cars towing caravans and trailers are limited to 60mph, as are articulated lorries and goods vehicles above 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight. This alone is sufficient to ensure that the average car driver cannot remain in the left hand lane and maintain a steady speed of 70mph.

On top of all that, people going faster than 70mph and those going much slower for other reasons all result in the left hand lane being a very busy and often slow-moving place.

The centre and right-hand lane are used for overtaking.

Yes – or rather, the left hand lane is for normal driving and the other lanes (there could be more than three in total, remember) are used for overtaking.

So surely if a car (that is in the left hand lane) wants to overtake a car in front (whose driving at 70 mph), they have to travel faster than 70mph (by overtaking to the right) but by doing this they are breaking the law?

Yes. If you exceed 70mph then you are… breaking the Law! Of course, there are people who think they’re clever who will start telling you about how the police won’t prosecute you unless you are clocked at over 90mph, but I wouldn’t rely on that. If you were driving badly, they could prosecute you for being clocked at anything over the limit. It’s up to them, not you whether they do or not – so try not to go there.

Also, what is a contraflow system exactly.. I tried Googling it but its complicated, and what is the difference between contraflow and with flow?

A contraflow system is simply where traffic travelling in opposite directions shares the same carriageway – in other words, the same half of the motorway. Contraflow systems are used where road works are taking place on the motorway and usually a lower speed limit is imposed within them for safety reasons.

Contraflow means “against the flow” and with flow means exactly what it says. I must admit that the only time I’ve come across the term “with flow” is where you have a bus or cycle lane – sometimes these can flow “contra” (i.e. towards) traffic on a one-way street, and other times they are “with” the flow (i.e. same direction).

If in doubt, look things up in the Highway Code – Motorways. All the answers are in there.

Cheap Learner Insurance

11/08/2012

DOAADI

ADI, General, News, Training

This story came through on the newsfeeds. It mentions a new insurance scheme called Red Marmalade (nee Provisional Marmalade), which is taken as an add-on to any existing insurance.

It is a pay-as-you-go system, so learners can use it to get private practice in between lessons. I also suspect it will get a few people hot under the collar, since the “Red” part of the name is… yes, Red Driving School.

In the example given, a typical 17-year old learning in a Nissan Micra could add the equivalent of £500 plus per month to the parent’s insurance (in my experience it is nowhere near as much as this), whereas this separate policy just costs just £85.50.

I’d still advise shopping around – when I was training to be an instructor (it was a long time ago, I have to admit) my own insurance was costing me about £25 a month. Adding a 17-year old female to the policy took it up to £80 a month. It’s quite possible that this kind of mark-up is still obtainable – not everyone lives in Kensington and uses the most expensive insurer on the planet, as many “typical” examples seem to suggest.

Indeed, the so-called “average” premiums being touted by the national press are massively greater than any my pupils get quoted.

Fuzzy Logic… Fuzzy Brain

08/08/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Training

I saw a funny topic on a web forum recently where someone said that they frequently see other ADIs driving badly. I can concur with that – I see it a lot of the time, too. Mostly, exceeding speed limits and stopping in inappropriate places (and don’t get me started on trying to do manoeuvres 10 feet away from where you’re doing one already).

Then, someone else said they’d seen an AA instructor driving badly, and in their infinite wisdom concluded that this is a good reason never to take driving lessons from the AA! Have you ever heard such nonsense, and from an ADI at that?

Oh, wait. What am I saying.? Some ADIs specialise in spouting such nonsense – I go on about it all the time!

Every ADI is self-employed (well, except perhaps for a handful lah-dee-dah types in London, catering for Hooray Henrys and Henriettas). An ADI can choose to work in their own name (referred to as “solo”) or franchised to someone else’s. They can go from franchise to solo, or solo to franchise – and in the current climate many appear to be taking the latter route.

The simple act of taking on a franchise (or of shedding one) does not alter the DNA of the ADI in question. If they’re a prat to begin with, they’ll be a prat whatever name they work under.

You could easily get a bad ADI whoever you go to if you’re unlucky. I might be the local solo fossil whose reputation far exceeds his abilities, the new solo kid on the block selling lessons for a fiver, or yes – even one from BSM, the AA, Red, Bill Plant, and so on.

Since the crap solo instructor struggling for work could join any one of these franchises within hours if he so chose (and many are doing just that at the moment), the problem isn’t with the Name On The Headboard.

The problem is with the Name On The Green Badge.

Hazard Perception Test: 2012

03/08/2012

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, Training

The latest issue of Despatch notes that the Hazard Perception Test is to be updated using computer generated imagery (CGI), and that the contract has been awarded to a London-based company called Jelly (I think this is their site – some superb video clips on there). Early demo videos were released in February 2012.

From the DSA’s standpoint, this change is simply intended to introduce better quality versions of the current clips. After that, additional clips will be produced presenting scenarios which would have been just too difficult or dangerous to film in real life (i.e. children, cyclists, etc.).

The thing you have to note here is that the image quality is superb. You almost have to say that it is better than real life (if that were possible). Of course, there are the usual detractors – mostly the remnants of that group of ADIs who found it difficult to pass the HPT when it was first introduced some years ago.

Any change to or comment about the HPT by DSA is like standing on an ants’ nest, as all the ADIs who don’t like it start running around yelling “HPT is crap” to anyone who will listen. But is it?

Many ADIs seem to hold the unrealistic belief that every single aspect of driving instruction and driving testing should be 100% relevant, 100% discriminating, and 100% accurate – that it should touch every person who is subject to it in exactly the same way, and to the core of their being. They are totally incapable of understanding that the real world does not work like that.

The most frequent (and most childish) accusation is that HPT is merely a “video game”. Comments of this nature usually come from people who don’t understand what they’re saying – like when children learn a rude word and keep repeating it ad nauseam without understanding it to annoy all the grown-ups. Indeed, the people who use this term the most tend to use it as their only name for the HPT – they don’t actually refer to HPT, but to the “video game”.

HPT has never been intended to be an exact duplicate of, or substitute for, the real world anymore than the practical test has ever been intended to test people on every conceivable situation they will ever encounter out on the roads. All it is is a sample – a foundation – which driving lessons and then driving on their own will enhance over a lifetime of practice. It’s like when I got my Bronze Certificate for swimming when I was in primary school – at the time it was a milestone in my development, and a stepping stone to my next challenge. At the time it was totally relevant. Today, I can swim much further than that and that certificate is totally irrelevant. HPT works the same way.

There is a lot of talk about how driving skills should be taught in schools from an early age. How do those who condemn HPT as a “video game” think that such teaching would be carried out? By allowing 7-year olds to drive cars on the roads? Or by computer simulations and other less direct means?

When I was 10 or 11 I got my cycling proficiency badge (incidentally, I’m glad to see that this is becoming popular again). Much of the training was to do with road safety, and it gave me a good grounding for when I started to go out on my own (on my bike or on foot) as I got older, and that in its turn provided more grounding for when I started to drive. You see that’s how life works – you’re not born into the world as a fully-matured human being. You have to attain maturity through experience, and it takes at least 17 years to gain enough experience to be able to pass yourself off as an adult Of course, driving (and learning to drive) is simply a very small part of being an adult, but in its own right it requires experience to be gained before someone can pass themselves off as a competent driver.

Incidentally, today’s politically correct morons would happily teach things to kids who are too young to be engaging in the activity in question. Sex education at 4,so that they can be better parents when they get/make someone pregnant at 12; how to drive – so they won’t kill themselves when they start stealing cars when they’re 8. But I digress.

I’m sure that there are an infinite number of ways people could be taught to drive. In fact, when you think about it, with around 40,000 driving instructors out there you could say there are already around 40,000 different ways being used. But there is an old saying that the end justifies the means, and as long as the end result is acceptable, what happens in the middle is pretty much irrelevant. That’s one reason I find anti-HPT sentiments so childish and irritating.

The HPT test cannot possibly make someone a poorer driver (though at least one rabid anti-HPT instructor has claimed publicly that it does). The absolute worst thing HPT could do is have no effect whatsoever on someone’s learning, and I’m sure that this is true for some people. However, there are definitely many out there – the majority, if fact – for whom HPT has a positive effect at the time they take the test. This then serves as a foundation to be built upon by their driving lessons and their own common sense once they pass their tests.

HPT isn’t perfect. It could be different and it could be better. But it isn’t crap.

Independent Driving Maps

03/08/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, Training

This is a very old article, and they no longer use maps – it was the precursor to using a satnav.

I get a large amount of traffic based around the above search term. It’s so long since the introduction of the Independent Driving (ID) section of the test – more than a year ago – that it confuses me a little that the ID maps are still such a popular search item.

I am in the East Midlands, and 99.9% of those doing the searching are not.

Most ADIs must know by now what the ID section consists of, and even if they’re newly-qualified then they’d have seen the maps (or samples of them)during their training.

The maps used by driving examiners look roughly like the one here – and this is one of those released by the DSA as a sample some time before ID was introduced in October 2010. They’re simple line drawings, not Ordnance Survey maps or anything like you’d find in an atlas. And they only include two or three hazards (the one here has a left turn, a right turn, and a roundabout). They’re not intended to be anything more than schematics of a simple and very short route.

The actual maps – like the actual test routes – are not published, and I’d argue that any ADI who attempted to catalogue them (or even teach them specifically) is a very poor instructor.

From what I’ve seen, some instructors go to incredible lengths to make the diagrams they use on lessons look exactly like the ones the examiners use. They even go so far as to put on hi-vis yellow jackets and make copies of driving test marking sheets fixed to clipboards so they can conduct mock tests as if they were real examiners! Honestly, they do! Is it any wonder pupils get worried about how difficult it is to “read maps” for the ID section when someone is making it seem so dramatic?

My approach is to treat the whole business of ID as a matter-of-fact affair.

To start with, although I know a few of the ID routes from having sat in on a few tests (plus what my other pupils have told me about the routes they went on), I don’t teach those routes specifically. Even if I do happen to cover one on a lesson, I just say that the test could pass through this area.

When I decide to do a session on ID using a map (and it doesn’t have to be a whole lesson, either – it only takes about 10 minutes), I get the pupil to pull over somewhere, and then I sketch a simple line map like the one on the left (I drew this one just now for the purposes of this article).

It absolutely does not need to be an identical copy to those the examiners use.

The directions would go something like “we’re parked here [the dot]. I want you to drive on and turn right, third exit, at the roundabout. Then, turn left on to the main road. Follow the road to the next roundabout, then turn left, first exit”. I will perhaps add “and then follow the signs to…” at the end, because that’s what the examiners can do.

Obviously, and especially if it’s the first time we’ve covered ID, I will explain that if they aren’t sure which way to go, then they should ask. Then I will confirm the route.

I explain that that’s exactly what they should do on their tests, because it isn’t a test of their navigational skills or ability to remember a route. All they have to do is ask “was it left or right here” and the examiner will tell them. Their task is to negotiate the junction or hazard correctly (mirrors, signal, etc.), because that’s what they’ll have to be doing the following day if they pass!

The candidate could be asked just to follow road signs.

It would appear that examiners are not routinely using the maps anymore – though pupils can ask to see them. ( EDIT: I’ve sat in on two tests in late-2012 and I can assure you examiners ARE using them).

ID has made the driving test much, much easier, and my only complaint is that candidates do just one manoeuvre now. The vast majority of candidates have absolutely no trouble with ID. Indeed, the latest statistics from the DSA (see the link above) would indicate that pass rates have gone up as a result of it.

Those going to test should recognise that being nervous is not a sign that you can’t drive or that ID is a bad thing. Nerves are completely natural.when no one is telling you what to do (i.e. on the ID part of the test), and it’s not a sign that ID is difficult or unfair. Far too many people (including ADIs) think it is, though.

DSA Advice: Use Of Mobile Phones, Etc. When Driving

02/08/2012

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, Training

Highly appropriate advice from the DSA, this time about using mobile devices and in-car technology whilst moving:

Rule 149

You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, when driving or when supervising a learner driver, except to call 999 or 112 in a genuine emergency when it is unsafe or impractical to stop. Never use a hand-held microphone when driving. Using hands-free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding – find a safe place to stop first or use the voice mail facility and listen to messages later.

Rule 150

There is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Do not rely on driver assistance systems such as cruise control or lane departure warnings. They are available to assist but you should not reduce your concentration levels. Do not be distracted by maps or screen-based information (such as navigation or vehicle management systems) while driving or riding. If necessary find a safe place to stop.

Remember that MUST and MUST NOT mean you are breaking the Law if you do the opposite. That’s something the woman driving the blue Skoda Fabia (reg. no. S13 XYK ) in West Bridgford the other day ought to bear in mind. She was clearly using her mobile to text whilst waiting at traffic lights and – unbelievably – as she drove off through them and turned left on to Trevor Road towards West Bridgford town centre.

DSA Advice: Vehicle Maintenance

02/08/2012

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, Training

Another useful reminder from the DSA, this time about vehicle maintenance.

Tyres MUST be correctly inflated to the vehicle manufacturer’s specification for the load being carried. Always refer to the vehicle’s handbook or data. Tyres should also be free from certain cuts and other defects.

Tread depth

Cars, light vans and light trailers MUST have a tread depth of at least 1.6 mm across the central three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and around the entire circumference.

Motorcycles, large vehicles and passenger-carrying vehicles MUST have a tread depth of at least 1 mm across three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and in a continuous band around the entire circumference.

Mopeds should have visible tread.

Burst tyre

If a tyre bursts while you are driving, try to keep control of your vehicle. Grip the steering wheel firmly and allow the vehicle to roll to a stop at the side of the road.

Flat tyre

If you have a flat tyre, stop as soon as it is safe to do so. Only change the tyre if you can do so without putting yourself or others at risk – otherwise call a breakdown service.

Tyre pressures

Check weekly. Do this before your journey, when tyres are cold. Warm or hot tyres may give a misleading reading.

Your brakes and steering will be adversely affected by under-inflated or over-inflated tyres. Excessive or uneven tyre wear may be caused by faults in the braking or suspension systems, or wheels which are out of alignment. Have these faults corrected as soon as possible.

Remember that when it says MUST it means that it is against the Law if you don’t.

DSA Advice: Lanes And Line Markings

02/08/2012

DOAADI

ADI, DSA, Training

A recent reminder from the DSA about how to handle lanes and line markings:

Rule 128

Double white lines where the line nearest to you is broken. This means you may cross the lines to overtake if it is safe, provided you can complete the manoeuvre before reaching a solid white line on your side. White direction arrows on the road indicate that you need to get back onto your side of the road.

Rule 129

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

Lane discipline is something many pupils struggle with – and the evidence is that many of them continue to struggle with it when they have passed.

Good News/Bad News Sandwich

30/07/2012

DOAADI

ADI, Education, Training

This is an old post. Some of the examples are out of date, but the message is still the same.

When I was in the rat race, the “good news/bad news sandwich” (GNBN) was much touted. One of the things I learnt about it was that it is only something you were expected to give to other people. No one ever seems to give it to you… or do they?

The GNBN technique is how you’re supposed to impart bad or negative news to someone by starting off with some good stuff, then cover the bad news, then round it off with more good stuff. It’s a pathetic and childish attempt to disguise the bad news, that’s all. And it’s made worse by the ineptness of those trying to do it.

There are a number of problems with the technique. The main one is that most people can see right through it. I said that no one seems to use it on you, but that’s only because it doesn’t work if you have a mind of your own. If you’re being chewed out, you’re being chewed out, and no amount of waffle about inconsequential “good things” can hide that.

You see, the bad news portion is usually hugely significant in terms of the collection of events that make someone’s life go round, whereas the good news parts are ridiculously insignificant when measured on the same scale. A good example would be the results of an interview for a new job within your company. GNBN might deal with it using the following elements:

you gave a really good interview and we were impressed
you didn’t get the job
you have a future with us and shouldn’t be discouraged

If you’re naïve enough to be mollified, even for a short time, the simple fact is you didn’t get the job that you had your heart set on. Your career (and your bank balance) really needed it, but now you’re consigned to at least another year in the same position, with the extra humiliation of knowing you’re not good enough. This will probably be even worse when you find out who did get it (and how bad they are), and you start to realise the extreme social awkwardness that this will create – the new job holder will most likely be gloating or patronising now that they’re senior to you, even without trying.

Do you really feel better about all that because you gave a “good interview”? Have you considered the multiple meanings “a future with us” carries (i.e. you can stay where you are, but you’re likely to get the same result in future because someone senior doesn’t like you)?

GNBN will really have helped you, won’t it?

GNBN is one of those things that is sound as a general principle, but which has been grabbed by successive crops of wishy-washy coachinistas (new word) as being The Answer To Everything. A huge problem with it is that it doesn’t work when the relative magnitude of the bad news is huge compared with the good news parts, or if the bad news and good news are poles apart in terms of relevance and importance.

I remember a while back having a school teacher as a pupil. On one occasion our discussion went like this after we’d pulled over to deal with a mistake she’d made:

“Aren’t you supposed to wrap the bad news with good news?”

“OK. I like what you’ve done with your hair, and those are nice shoes you’re wearing. But I’m more concerned about how you just drove over the edge of that roundabout, swung out to take the wrong exit without looking because you accelerated, and forced all those other cars to slam on their brakes. You ought to be, too.”

“All right, I take your point. I was only joking though”.

And this illustrates the point about magnitudes, relevance, and importance. Even if I’d sandwiched her mistake with how well she’d riven down a quiet road earlier, and how competently she’d dealt with the traffic lights and crossings in the shopping precinct (which I’d have already commented on separately, anyway), these two things were hugely insignificant and irrelevant in terms of what had just gone wrong. The possible consequences both now and if she did it in future when out on her own (not to mention what would happen if she did it on test) were massively more significant.

Bill Gates, in his book Business At The Speed Of Thought, makes it clear how he feels about bad news…

An essential quality of a good manager is a determination to deal with any kind of bad news head on, to seek it out rather than deny it. An effective manager wants to hear about what’s going wrong before he or she hears about what’s going right…

You focus on bad news in order to get cracking on the solution.

He says a lot more, but you get the point. And he’s absolutely right. Many ADIs – who already believe we should be teaching yoga, Buddhism, aromatherapy, and all kinds of other crap – would do well to get a grip and start dealing with things properly. Learners will learn a lot more if we teach them to accept they made a mistake, live with it, and to fix it for next time than they will from all the politically correct New Age claptrap some think we should be peddling.

Think about that: why should trying to teach people to acknowledge their faults and strive to eliminate them be less desirable than pandering to their insecurities and trying to make them look good when they just tried to kill you and themselves in a 1 tonne lump of machinery?

Over the years, of the 99.9% of pupils I’ve taken to test who have been 100% ready (yes, I admit that I have taken a small few who weren’t), on the occasions when they have failed I have often said something like “well, you only got three faults, so you’ve got to look at it positively”. I forget the number of times they have replied:

“But I still failed, didn’t I?”

They’re not as stupid as the current crop of New Age driving instructors think they are.

GNBN has a place… sometimes. If someone has negotiated six crossings perfectly, misses a pedestrian about to walk on to the seventh, and then does the next few properly until you can pull them over, a GNBN sandwich is easily applied – and quite rightly so. But if they pulled away from their house perfectly, tried to drive across a busy junction without checking (and with cars coming both ways) because they didn’t even see it, and then dealt with an empty crossing satisfactorily, trying to contrive a GNBN routine out of it is a waste of their time and money.

Category - Training