ADUK Archive

My mistake!

Link now works - 14 pages - I thought some of our threads were long

I got the rough jist of the discussion and it comes down to the DSA not recognising skills by others - yet again
They have a closed shop and they are not going to relinquish it

Lets face it, testing a police class 1 driver for part 2, their own driving, is totally stupid.
Also hazard perception - what a joke - are the DSA saying that these expert drivers cannot recognise hazards

When will the government impliment a 'levelling' of these driving skills andstop this

Lets take one issue, hazard perception -
DSA HPT would be an NVQ level 2
Police traffic would be NVQ level 4
Civilian advanced and perhaps police response/ambulance/fire would be NVQ level 3

Anyone with a higher level would not need to sit a lower level - simple and sorted.

How can you expect to qualify as an ado to teach others to pass the HPT without demonstrating mastery of the test yourself?

I consider that there are two key issues here. First, the HPT itself is fatally flawed. Second, there should be a totally different qualification for coaching qualified drivers to improve their skills than for teaching learners - or no requirement for any particular qualification at all.

waremark wrote:How can you expect to qualify as an ado to teach others to pass the HPT without demonstrating mastery of the test yourself?

How many ADIs actually sit in front of a computer screen and teach the HPT to a learner

I think I have only ever needed to about twice!

Nigel

its like any computer game practice makes perfect.

Is there anything in the adi training that covers hpt teaching ?

In my mind you have to tell people what you might consider is a hazard the dsa do not so don't click when you a see a pedestrian or other roaduser do something that could potentially make you change direction or speed. (Thats what I call a hazard) As the dsa don't want you clicing to much!

Wait until the start to do something silly and then click and teh again when you would basically need to take swerve or stand on the brake, or take any evasive action. This technique seemed to do the trick when I was using a hpt test on my computer. Within a 5 or 6 goes I got the jist and coul pass with a high score as did my partner on her actual.

I didnt do hpt it was theory only on good old paper when I did mine.

Hello Sedgwick, would you mind e-mailing me at mvhorncliff@hotmail.com? Would appreciate it very much. I would like to ask you a couple of things about my experiences of the Examiner application. Thanks.

waremark wrote: Second, there should be a totally different qualification for coaching qualified drivers to improve their skills than for teaching learners - or no requirement for any particular qualification at all.

There is, it's the fleet register qualifications.

I think the point is that the fleet qualification is sterile without an ADI qualification (presuming you can do it without being an ADI) and it is claimed some or all of the requirements for ADI are unnecessary for teaching licence holders.

MGF wrote:and it is claimed some or all of the requirements for ADI are unnecessary for teaching licence holders.

To be fair to the opposing view, the tricky part of becoming an ADI is about demonstrating the ability to teach.

ROG wrote:Lets face it, testing a police class 1 driver for part 2, their own driving, is totally stupid.

I don't agree.

a) Police qualifications don't make you infallible. Standards can slip, and no doubt some 'class 1s' are better than others.
b) A police advanced drive is not necessarily the best drive to be demonstrating to a learner.

MGF wrote:I think the point is that the fleet qualification is sterile without an ADI qualification (presuming you can do it without being an ADI) and it is claimed some or all of the requirements for ADI are unnecessary for teaching licence holders.

The Fleet badge cannot be held without the ADI badge.

and what is so daft, is if we hold both registrations, if we elect to have a check test for our fleet badge we don't have to do one for the ADI badge!

Since there are many fleet trainers out there who openly admit they would struggle to train a learner I do think both badges should be attainable independent of each other and anyone who holds both should be check tested for both ie 2 check tests.

Nigel

zadocbrown wrote:

ROG wrote:Lets face it, testing a police class 1 driver for part 2, their own driving, is totally stupid.

I don't agree.

a) Police qualifications don't make you infallible. Standards can slip, and no doubt some 'class 1s' are better than others.
b) A police advanced drive is not necessarily the best drive to be demonstrating to a learner.

So am I to assume that the part 2 drive is not just a test of ones own driving but a test of being able to demonstrate basic driving to a learner

The part 2 test is to show that you can drive according to teh DSA syllabus and that you are capable of all aspects that you will later have to teach to learners.

Nigel

adiNigel wrote:The part 2 test is to show that you can drive according to teh DSA syllabus and that you are capable of all aspects that you will later have to teach to learners.

Nigel

So I therefore assume that the roadcraft style of driving would not be, how shall I say this, appropriate