Fault identification: is it just what’s happening on the outside that counts?
Firstly, what is a fault?
The NDRTS defines a fault as “any area of the learner’s driving or riding that needs development”. Although this is the technical definition, my interpretation is that a fault could be physical, like not checking the blind spot before moving away, or it could also be a feeling or an emotion like the learner’s attitude towards cyclists. Fault identification is important for us as instructors as one of the competencies we are marked against for a part 3 or Standards Check is “was the trainer aware of the surroundings and the pupil’s actions?”.
So, how do we spot a fault?
My preferred method is by using direct observations of the pupil, the same technique examiners use. By watching the pupil at the correct time, most physical faults can be identified, such as mirror/observation faults, signal faults, gear faults and pedal faults. Understanding a “fault” internal to learner, such as their feelings or emotions can be harder to identify, but it is important as these can often be the cause from which physical faults stem as an effect. Here, we may need questioning to determine why the pupil is reacting, or failing to react, in a certain way.
Example # 1:
The instructor asks a pupil to take the next road on the left, and the pupil checks their mirrors and uses effective observations to identify following hazards. The pupil indicates left, keeps their current position and starts to slow down. They choose second gear, but they keep the clutch pedal depressed, so the vehicle approaches the junction faster than anticipated.
In this scenario, the effect was the faster than anticipated approach into the junction. It would make sense to say that the cause was the clutch not being released after the gear change. However, we may need to find out what led to the pupil to keep the clutch down after the gear change. Sometimes the answer may be simple, “I forgot to bring it back up”, in other instances the answer may be more complicated and relate to how the learner feels or their concerns in a particular driving situation.
Example # 2:
A pupil stops at a junction on a slight hill, a vehicle approaches and stops close behind. When it is safe to emerge, the pupil stalls. Here, the effect was the stall but there could be several physical reasons why the stall happened, e.g. the clutch was released too quickly, not enough acceleration was used, the wrong gear was selected, or hand brake wasn’t released. Again, discussion with the pupil may reveal their thought process behind this decision making and give us a deeper cause.
This scenario happened to me recently with a pupil and a quick discussion revealed they were worrying about rolling back into the car behind. So, the true cause of the stall was an emotion which impacted the pupil’s judgment, not just a physical action. After discussing the reason for the stall, I can help the pupil work out how to fix it. If we hadn’t identified the pupil’s thought process, it could have been quite easy to give generic feedback about their physical actions (e.g. “more gas next time”), but not helped the pupil respond appropriately in future if they felt under pressure again in a similar situation.
Using effective questioning really is the key to identifying the cause of a fault, but it is not a magic wand, sometimes learners have not gained the physical mastery of a skill or simply make mistakes: “I have no idea why I did that; I knew exactly what I needed to do, yet my feet did the opposite”. After all, we are only human!
When I was first trained to diagnosed faults, it was under the old system of learning the pre-set tests (PSTs):
Fault identification: I would tell the pupil WHAT happened
Fault analysis: I would tell the pupil WHY it happened
Remedial action: I would tell the pupil HOW to avoid it from happening again
The problem with this was that the pupil had very little involvement in any of the phases and the actual cause was very rarely diagnosed. Although most of my pupils managed to pass their test, they were not encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning. Now that I focus on engaging the pupil and asking more effective questions about their feelings and thought processes, the learning is more centred on the client and the lesson is led by their needs, not mine.
Next time you identify a fault, really think about what caused it and involve the pupil more in order to discover why it happened. Let’s hope that more self-aware learners become safer drivers later on down the line.