Safe Speed Forums

This is not a troll, at least is not intended as such.

My daughter will shortly be 17. So as she'll be practicing with me I thought it worthwhile to get advanced training for myself, maybe take the IAM test. I have so far had one lesson. The instructor pointed out many things which could be improved; in the end he concluded that I drive 'reasonably' safely.

We drove in my Lexus, an automatic. One thing he said went as follows; on stopping at traffic lights (or anywhere) one should (a) place the car in Park (b) apply the handbrake, not leave the car in gear and rest one's foot on the footbrake. The reasoning is that (a) it's the law that the car must be imobilised (b) what if I am rear-ended; the car would be under power still.

Does this make sense to you all? Does anyone do that, every time? Note: this is about auto boxes, not manuals.

99% of my driving is urban, with traffic lights every 400 yards or so. I'm never going to drive like that, so I could never pass an IAM test. So no more lessons at £20+ per hour. Am I wrong? Why?

_________________
I pay tax on all my cars

I'm no expert on automatic driving - indeed the one time I drove an automatic for any distance I was trying to do what you describe and made a fool of myself.

I'm a member of the IAM and I'm sure this has been discussed on their web forum. I think the general consensus was that you should leave an auto in Drive and hold it on the handbrake unless you're going to be stopped for a prolonged period - it's not the same as taking a manual out of gear.

Some groups within the IAM do still take a rather anal box-checking approach but hopefully this is dying out.


Er, you shouldn't have to pay for IAM training, which is done by unpaid observers. You pay a single upfront fee of (I think) £85 which covers the "associate course", the test fee and one year's membership. This will include typically around eight 90-minute observed runs prior to the test. It's not worth paying for "professional" advanced lessons and I would imagine that as a former racing cyclist your general observation and roadcraft will be better than average anyway.

I think it's beneficial whatever type of driving you do - and when you do venture out of town you would feel the benefit even more.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Hello Roy

I am an auto-man. I certainly don't take the car out of gear for traffic lights. However, particularly at night I will use the handbrake and let go of the brake pedal. the principal reason for this is to avoid unnecessary discomfort for the chap behind me caused by brake lights.

As for prospective rearenders, I'd soone be in gear to stand a possible avoidance chance. If in park, no chance of that - at least not quickly. Furthermore, in Park, a rear-end shunt is as likely as not to damage the gearbox (as opposed to just bodywork).

The advice you received sounds at best questionable.

No experience of auto boxes myself, but my understanding of IAM view is if only stopping briefly then no need to put handbrake on. Its the defintion of "briefly" that is open to interpretation. Maybe you should raise it with another observer in group, their view may be more in line with yours.

Recommend you keep with it, unlikely to fail test on this point alone.

Having been hit from behind when stopped at traffic lights myself, i was glad that car in neutral and handbrake on - the impact could well have made my feet slip off pedals and then i would have been in gear and no brakes applied.

"Park" in an auto is locked. Either two gears are selected at the same time or, more commonly, a parking paul engages with a straight-cut gear/sprocket specifically for the purpose. Impart dynamic energy into that and the box is damaged. Neutral is defensible (but still not my choice), Park is not.

Always worthwhile to get some extra training and look at the "improvement areas".

However, agree with Roger over the "advice" re placing in Park etc. Probably being pedantic as probably scratching the barrel for constructive criticism.

Theory is to prevent being shunted forwards into car in front. Admit wahck the car in neutral and do this if in middle of a queue, and ensure can see full rear of the car in front. If first car at the lights - tend to keep in gear and apply handbrake, and watch mirror like hawk in case. In this respect - exactly as Mad Cats and the Swiss brigade.



As Peter says - should not have to pay for lessons, but am aware some branches do offer some tuition to train for the test. But .. think of the broader picture. You may start to use your car for more enjoyable purposes - and the extra training and know-how will be of value to you both on the bicycle and in the car.

Course - am in job where we practise driving, riding bikes and cycling all the time.

Did say i had no experience of autos


My shunt was in a manual car, was commenting more that Roy should stick with it, always useful to have driving assessed.

My pet hate is folk who sit on the footbrake at traffic lights, dazzling the hell out of me with their upper brake lights. In fairness, this is equally endemic in manual cars, so this is really a rant directed at lazy people rather than owners of autos, though I have come across people using the inconvenience of auto boxes as a justification.

The only auto I've ever used had a selector that went P-R-N-D-3-2-1, so if you came to the lights in D it was only one click to knock the lever into N - no harder than in a manual car.

Always amuses me when people go to the other extreme and put the car in Park, as evidenced by the tell tale flash of the reversing lights as the lever passes through R...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Thanks everyone for the helpful advice; looks like I've misunderstood how IAM works, too.

I'm pleased that the attitudes here are mostly like mine, I expected to get told I was way off mark.

Several have said 'no experience' of automatics; I'm told by a senior officer in the Met that autos are now the prefered choice for urban high-speed pursuit driving - was he winding me up?

_________________
I pay tax on all my cars

Some things taught in advanced driving courses are proxies. These rigid procedure things are proxies for discipline. Other course items are slow techniques that promote greater forward planning. Yet more course items are intended to develop positive attitudes.

All this stuff has benefit of one sort or another, but the likes of the IAM can become a bit "anal" about it. The IAM can be patchy too - some groups are much more flexible than others. Some IAM folk are so hung up on fine details that they've forgotten that the real objective is safe and efficient driving.

I'd say it was worth putting up with a bit of "anal" because of the other benefits. On the other hand, I didn't. I paid for my training...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Just found this on ROSPA Advanced Drivers website, article about use of automatic gearboxes.

"Stops in traffic, at junctions and at traffic lights leave the selector in D. There is no need to move into neutral, as no damage will result. You may wish to set the parking brake if the pause becomes a wait but your decision will depend on the circumstances."

It's also important to consult the Vehicle's handbook. I understand some designs of auto transmission "don't like" waiting in neutral with the engine running. (Can't remember why - I'm no slush box fan)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I believe there was a problem with auto's and stopping with just the footbrake on, in that you got "creep", maybe in the more modern boxes, this has been eliminated.
Don't get any problems like "creep" with auto's in trucks, also you tend to use the parking brake more, which is the preferred method anyway, even with manuals.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

PeterE wrote


How not?

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

In a manual, you are very unlikely to have approached the stop in first gear, so you have to change gear anyway, thereby moving the lever through neutral.

Also I believe shifting an auto from D to P puts more strain on the mechanism.

Manuals are designed for constant changes, autos are meant to be left in D unless stationary for a long wait.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Well now, that is exactly what I (and every auto-box user I know) actually does. So my incredulity was in fact correct - fank gawd. Hmm, 99% of my driving is an urban London crawl with 400 yards between traffic lights, so I get it all the time and I've never really noticed. Apart from the odd huge 4x4 with 1,000 watts of red light at exactly eye height; funny how the infinitely more practical but less showy 7-seaters seem to avoid that problem.

_________________
I pay tax on all my cars

When upper brake lights came into fashion (are they now a legal requirement?) I think a nice law to go with them would have been to make them go out once the car is stationary, perhaps after a short delay of 1 or 2 seconds.

After all, brake lights are supposed to indicate that you are slowing down, so when a stationary car displays them it's no longer a correct signal really.

Not sure whether this would extend to the normal brake lights too, but for the upper ones I think it would be a good idea.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

All new cars seem to have high level brake lights, and one of ours failed an MOT on it not working properly, so I'd guess that they are legally required for new vehicles. It's a 97 Rover and some older ones of the same model don't have the high level light, so I imagine it's somewhere in the Construction and Use regs that they became mandatory some time in the mid to late 90s. Maybe one of the plods would like to let us know.

Sitting behind a car at the lights with brake lights blazing away has never bothered me much, except for the fact that it means the driver probably hasn't got the hand brake on . It's far less annoying to me than seeing fog lights on in clear conditions, or not seeing them when it's foggy. And as for the plank I encountered yesterday who was driving round in the middle of the afternoon with full beam on... .

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein