IAM/ROSPA test

[Gareth]

I don't think anyone reasonably is local to me else I'd be asking for a 'look at my driving' for more focussed advice.

crr003, kfae8959

[Garrison]

I usually play 'no brakes' when driving my 4x4, because trying to stop it without a little nose dip at the end, is often impossible. But that doesn't fit well with 'making good progress', because doing this often causes me to hang back (crawling doesn't sit well with me unless i'm not impeding someone else behind), while using good timing to be at a safe following distance once the traffic starts moving again. Still, it is just a little game after all.

Just an idea, have you tried using both feet on the brake and accelerator pedals to aid transition?

When I drove my S-Class which is also a very heavy car (over 2.2 tonne) and dipped on braking, I use left foot on the brake pedal during transition. You increase/sustain the throttle as you reduce braking force but it does imply you have to BAOL. Personally, I still use by right foot for all of the braking, and it is only when I need to come off the brakes then I use my left foot.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

crr003, kfae8959

Also I believe now - theyoungen

[Horse]

OK, to clarify, I may drive slightly differently with passengers in the car (depending on who they are), but the general principle applies. Get moving, don't hold people up, take opportunities if they arise, above all, keep the wheels moving. It's part of a philosophy now, and just "natural".

Subsequent posts have reminded me of a couple more:
- Looking as far ahead as possible in stop-start m-way queues to keep rolling
- GLF to pass an advanced test

[sussex2]

It is up to you how you drive in any set of circumstances ( so long as it is legal ) however of you want to pass the IAM or ROSPA Advanced Test, you need to demonstrate that drive up to the legal posted limit if traffic, weather and road conditions allow. I am afraid if you do not do that you will be unsuccessful. I had to fail a driver a few weeks ago who announced during "Commentary" whilst driving on M25... " I am comfortable at 60mph, so I am going to stay in this lane" It was a rare occasion when the M25 was flowing freely..... progress was hampered and we became 'boxed in' by Goods Vehicles with speed limiters fitted!

Good luck with your test in the summer!

You should tell them of the old military maxim (drummed into me by an instructor) - 'Wider field of vision, clearer field of fire'.
Not allowing yourself to be boxed in is one of the prime requirements of safer driving.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

You should tell them of the old military maxim (drummed into me by an instructor) - 'Wider field of vision, clearer field of fire'.
Not allowing yourself to be boxed in is one of the prime requirements of safer driving.

He's examining them, not tutoring them. He doesn't care, he just makes a note on his pad and alters the grade accordingly. This is why groups invite examiners to present to them on a regular basis, so they know what the examiner (and they're all different) wants to see.

[Horse]

He's examining them, not tutoring them. He doesn't care, he just makes a note on his pad and alters the grade accordingly. This is why groups invite examiners to present to them on a regular basis, so they know what the examiner (and they're all different) wants to see.

See my comment about the review of the IAM test, suggesting that checking the self-awareness and 'calibration' of the candidate's perception of their drive could be beneficial.

No point marking someone down if they don't understand what they should have been doing instead, and can recognise to what standard they should have been doing it.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

That's what the test guidelines are for.

As much as you touchy-feely blokes would like it, I can't see any kind of discussion with examiners happening any time soon. Sure, you can ask why you got a particular grade, and the examiner will tell you. What you won't get is a discussion about why you thought you deserved something different. You're being marked by someone who is given the authority to mark you. End of ...

[Horse]

That's what the test guidelines are for.

As much as you touchy-feely blokes would like it, I can't see any kind of discussion with examiners happening any time soon. Sure, you can ask why you got a particular grade, and the examiner will tell you. What you won't get is a discussion about why you thought you deserved something different. You're being marked by someone who is given the authority to mark you. End of ...

That may well be a true and accurate description of what happens. Don't make it a good system though

If those test guidelines were clear enough, there wouldn't be any need to invite examiners along to meetings to explain what and why . . . Also, we're talking here about people who ave been through the training, sat through assessed sessions. If they're on test but still failing (while doing what they *think* is right) and don't know why, or have pointers to improve, then asking them how they thought they did, how they thought they performed against the standard, etc., has to be an improvement.

Remember the challenge I set during my 'Sacred Cows' session: let the candidates mark themselves, then verify it.

Now, if IAM & RoSPa *can't* improve because of their examiners, doesn't that hint at a different, bigger problem . . . ?

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I'm sorry, I don't necessarily see a lengthy discussion about what the candidate feels they scored, versus the examiner's opinion, as an "improvement", nor do I believe IAM or RoSPA "can't improve", rather that they are an examining body, they've set a standard that they understand, and they mark accordingly. The guidelines may be brief, and they may not be transparent enough in terms of exact prescriptions as to the methods and style used, but they are understood by most people. We know that some examiners have personal preferences - Oscarmark and my first examiner are progress oriented, others may be more economy oriented. None of them is going to listen to a candidate saying "I'm comfortable at 60" and tucking into lane 1 between the HGVs, without a raised eyebrow and at least expecting some slightly more positive behaviour on the remainder of the DC / motorway section. I as a tutor know that, and so do my associates. That revian's, regrettably, didn't, is a failing of the system, sure, but it's not endemic, it's an isolated occurrence (or at least it's a symptom of some groups' tutoring approach) rather than a national trend.

IAM and RoSPA are both trying to standardise their guidelines and methods, perhaps IAM are being slightly more successful due to greater resources, but it is coming. Interestingly, one of the hurdles to be overcome* is examiners who don't like the idea of national standards, but have their own individual standards that they've used for years ... I'm glad I don't have that problem.

* from the horse's mouth (now bolted)

[Oscarmark]

The IAM Examiners Manual provides guidance for De-Briefs..

"At the conclusion of the test, give the candidate the result before de-briefing. Do not keep the candidate in suspense and do not invite a reply by asking questions like, "How do you think the drive went?"

The de-brief itself should include positives and negatives and this will generally spark conversation around those points.

It is an excellent point made about the role of the examiner being there to 'examine" the candidate and not tutor them, however if unsuccessful they need to be aware of their shortcomings and encouraged to try again.

There is another document that you may be aware of called IAM - COMMON CONFUSIONS and can be viewed on the website. It provides corporate central guidance for Observing and Examining and was produced in consultation with Staff Examiners.

It covers areas like, Briefings / De-Briefs, 'straight lining bends' and overtaking speed clarification amongst many other regular confusions / misconceptions.

Examiners themselves undergo Quality Assurance Testing by Staff Examiners every 2 years where their performance and adherence to national standards are complied with.

[Horse]

I'm sorry, I don't necessarily see a lengthy discussion

Neither do I It shouldn't take much longer than a reasonable debrief would any - presuming candidates get one?

[Ever since my IAM bike test (1988?), when there wasn't a debrief, I've wondered what 'thoughtful' against 'gears' meant . . . ]

what the candidate feels they scored, versus the examiner's opinion . . . but they are understood by most people.

It depends on how the test is perceived. And, to be fair, http://iam.org.uk/about/the-advanced-te ... iding-test says nothing about learning from the experience

None of them is going to listen to a candidate saying "I'm comfortable at 60" and tucking into lane 1 between the HGVs, without a raised eyebrow and at least expecting some slightly more positive behaviour on the remainder of the DC / motorway section.

So here's an example of how the discussion might go:

"Now, 'progress', how do you think you did in that?"
. . . "Well, not too bad, I was fairly brisk out of the lower speed limits and took all the overtaking opportunities available."
"What about on the motorway?"
. . . "Hmm . . . I sat in between some trucks, I didn't really need to go any faster."
"As you weren't keeping up to the speed limit although it was safe to do so, how do you think that should be marked?"
. . . "Oh, well, not good enough . . . ?"

Didn't take long, did it? Candidates fail themselves and know what to do differently. Win win.

However, as I said, it depends on whether it's intended to offer the opportunity - even with a pass - to improve.


Edit before posting! [Since OM's just posted:
"At the conclusion of the test, give the candidate the result before de-briefing. Do not keep the candidate in suspense and do not invite a reply by asking questions like, "How do you think the drive went?"]

Remember, I posted this originally in the context of the IAM asking how the test might be improved - not how it is now.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

There is another document that you may be aware of called IAM - COMMON CONFUSIONS and can be viewed on the website. It provides corporate central guidance for Observing and Examining and was produced in consultation with Staff Examiners.

It covers areas like, Briefings / De-Briefs, 'straight lining bends' and overtaking speed clarification amongst many other regular confusions / misconceptions.

That's a very handy document and I can't find anything in it that wouldn't apply equally to RoSPA candidates. Thanks.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

It shouldn't take much longer than a reasonable debrief would any - presuming candidates get one?

[Ever since my IAM bike test (1988?), when there wasn't a debrief, I've wondered what 'thoughtful' against 'gears' meant . . . ]

That's a shame. However the central guidance is now clear that the associate should get a debrief which includes "reinforc[ing] the better aspects of the candidate’s performance and illuminat[ing] the areas of weakness" - paragraph 3 in the document mentioned by Mark a moment ago.

So here's an example of how the discussion might go:

"Now, 'progress', how do you think you did in that?"
. . . "Well, not too bad, I was fairly brisk out of the lower speed limits and took all the overtaking opportunities available."
"What about on the motorway?"
. . . "Hmm . . . I sat in between some trucks, I didn't really need to go any faster."
"As you weren't keeping up to the speed limit although it was safe to do so, how do you think that should be marked?"
. . . "Oh, well, not good enough . . . ?"

Didn't take long, did it? Candidates fail themselves and know what to do differently. Win win.

That didn't, but there are 30-something competencies to cover. At that rate the debrief would take longer than the test. If the Observers are doing their job properly, the candidate will never get into that situation, unless they believe their definition of "advanced" to be better than their Observer's, in which case they're not going to do well on test

I take the point that the IAM wish to improve the test, as per the thread's original post (why RoSPA is mentioned, I have no idea) but I doubt if this kind of discussion is going to enter into it. I think the debriefing guidelines as hinted at in the document above, and clearly reinforced in much more detail in the Examiner's manual (shame that can't be "lost on a train" ) show that the intention is to help the candidate understand areas where they didn't do as well as they could have.

[Stephen]

I think that what might get Examiners a few more points in their favour on standards if when they get QA checked is to have their own driving checked just to make sure that they are still up to standard themselves.
As there are Examiners who have been retired for more than 10 years and have lost a bit of their edge. I doubt that this will happen but it would be nice