Thinking of IAM

[hir]

Hi Martin

... however the original topic was that the ADI Pt2 wasn't [an] advanced test yet in many ways it is more advanced ...

How are you defining the word "advanced" in this context, please?

[martine]

ADI Pt2 is also about greatly extended observation, anticipation and smoothness.

I disagree - my understanding of how the P2 is marked is you need to do everything the DVSA would like a learner to do but with fewer faults. I would expect an IAM associate and even more so, an IAM Observer, to be showing me more.

For many, 'advanced' means following roadcraft - this is not something ADI's are expected to be familiar with. I don't hold 'roadcraft' as the only example but just to highlight the difference between the DVSA view of driving and higher, more skilful levels.

I assess many ex Police drivers as part of a contract I have and in my experience some 'advanced' drivers position inappropriately and maximum safe progress may be fine for Police pursuit driving but its not an everyday driving style or the most economical way of driving.

I'm sure there are relatively poor police drivers around as well but positioning is one definitive area where the DVSA diverges with most 'advanced' tests. i.e. For left-hand bends the DVSA would like you to remain centrally in your lane, whereas advanced would suggest moving towards or sometimes beyond the centre line, if safe. And no one said progressive advanced driving is 'everyday' or 'economical'.

...If for example I wanted a doctor, I would prefer one who earned his living as a doctor and practiced on a daily basis rather than an enthusiastic amateur who treated the occasional patient in his spare time!

I don't think that's the same at all...an enthusiastic amateur Observer will most likely be practising every day in their normal driving. If you're 'advanced' then every journey is a time to learn and perfect your skills.

As far as Rospa being more valued, what I meant was within the fleet driver training industry where a gold standard is required by many companies and has to be kept current and not necessarily the general publics perception.

Agreed but for instance, the 'amateur' IAM Masters test is more demanding in my experience than the similarly 'amateur' ROSPA Gold. (by amateur I mean they are open to all)

[jcochrane]

Hi Martin

... however the original topic was that the ADI Pt2 wasn't [an] advanced test yet in many ways it is more advanced ...

How are you defining the word "advanced" in this context, please?

I was wondering this as well. It does seem that there is a difference in opinion as to what level/standard a drive is to be defined as "advanced". For example, within the ADI world, what may be classed as advanced is very different from what may be termed advanced in police driving terms or the IAM's Masters.

[RobC]

ADI Pt2 is also about greatly extended observation, anticipation and smoothness.

I disagree - my understanding of how the P2 is marked is you need to do everything the DVSA would like a learner to do but with fewer faults. I would expect an IAM associate and even more so, an IAM Observer, to be showing me more.

For many, 'advanced' means following roadcraft - this is not something ADI's are expected to be familiar with. I don't hold 'roadcraft' as the only example but just to highlight the difference between the DVSA view of driving and higher, more skilful levels.

I assess many ex Police drivers as part of a contract I have and in my experience some 'advanced' drivers position inappropriately and maximum safe progress may be fine for Police pursuit driving but its not an everyday driving style or the most economical way of driving.

I'm sure there are relatively poor police drivers around as well but positioning is one definitive area where the DVSA diverges with most 'advanced' tests. i.e. For left-hand bends the DVSA would like you to remain centrally in your lane, whereas advanced would suggest moving towards or sometimes beyond the centre line, if safe. And no one said progressive advanced driving is 'everyday' or 'economical'.

...If for example I wanted a doctor, I would prefer one who earned his living as a doctor and practiced on a daily basis rather than an enthusiastic amateur who treated the occasional patient in his spare time!

I don't think that's the same at all...an enthusiastic amateur Observer will most likely be practising every day in their normal driving. If you're 'advanced' then every journey is a time to learn and perfect your skills.

As far as Rospa being more valued, what I meant was within the fleet driver training industry where a gold standard is required by many companies and has to be kept current and not necessarily the general publics perception.

Agreed but for instance, the 'amateur' IAM Masters test is more demanding in my experience than the similarly 'amateur' ROSPA Gold. (by amateur I mean they are open to all)

Hi Martin

The DVSA call pt2 an advanced test and I agree. They obviously expect a far higher standard of driving than just an extended learner test with fewer faults. In fact many if not most experienced drivers who have passed their learner test many years ago would probably fail even the learner test.

Most ADIs these days have many other qualifications other than their ADI badge. Many are familiar with Roadcraft, however IPSGA and MSPSGL are not that dissimilar and certainly not completely different way of driving as many familiar with only Roadcraft seem to think.
In any form of driving common sense should prevail and the DVSA wouldn't have a problem with positioning to the centre line on a left hand bend for better visibility. I do however assess a number of 'advanced' drivers who omit signals where they would benefit others or position towards the centre line even on straight dual carriageways because they have been taught this is advanced rather than to think for themselves and use common sense.
I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush and agree there are the good and bad drivers advanced or otherwise just like there are good and bad in any walk of life.

We do agree that progressive advanced driving is not 'everyday' or 'economical'. I completely agree it is necessary for Police pursuit driving, however I train full licence holders on a full time basis and no company has ever asked me or would want their drivers to drive at the maximum safe speed for road conditions or are willing to pay driver trainers for this style of driving. Though I bring in elements of both Roadcraft and the DVSA standard of driving which is the standard the government has set as safe driving for life.

Maybe going to a full time practising doctor isn't the same as going to a doctor who practises in his spare time however I don't think that an enthusiastic amateur observer practising his driving skills every day is anything like the same as coaching other full licence holders every day. Driving and Coaching/teaching are not the same skills.

[Garrison]

OK, I think I get this.

If I use the doctor's example, I would rather not visit A&E over the Easter weekend nights, on the basis that it is likely to be the most generalist and / or junior doctors who will be manning the A&E. And if I required emergency surgery, I might not get the best surgeons. (My sister is a plastic surgeon and she said that she and her colleague would not schedule non-emergency plastic works near that weekend. And while she might be on call, the registrar tends to avoid "waking" the consultants to get in for do work that the staff generalist surgeon can get away with do). Is this thinking correct?


On a separate note, regarding off-side positioning. Let say I am driving a straight country road at the NSL. If there are openings / junctions on the nearside and free of hazards on the offside, I would position my vehicle to the offside when driving through the nearside hazards. This forms part of my risk management (as much safety margin as I can safely do so away from hazards).

Is this kind of positioning encourage or allow in DVSA Part 1 or 2 please? Thanks in advance.

[RobC]

Hi Martin

... however the original topic was that the ADI Pt2 wasn't [an] advanced test yet in many ways it is more advanced ...

How are you defining the word "advanced" in this context, please?

I was wondering this as well. It does seem that there is a difference in opinion as to what level/standard a drive is to be defined as "advanced". For example, within the ADI world, what may be classed as advanced is very different from what may be termed advanced in police driving terms or the IAM's Masters.

An advanced test could be any qualification taken following taking the learner driving test (which is a lot ore difficult than those who took their test years ago think) What we class as advanced is based on our own experiences.

Most qualification we take are graded, a learner test pass could be with 15 faults or no faults, the same applies to ADI Pt2, could be 5 faults or none, the IAM and Rospa are also graded and then there is the IAM Masters and so on.

It is generally accepted that some advanced qualifications are more difficult than others, however we are not all going to agree which is the most difficult/valued and our opinions may not even be valid if we have no personal experience of a particular qualification.

[akirk]

it is possible to become an advanced driver with an average knowledge of theory.

Of course many advanced driver will have an excellent knowledge of theory, however the original topic was that the ADI Pt2 wasn't advanced test yet in many ways it is more advanced and not being able to take the test without a theory test and excellent knowledge of theory and signs is just one aspect.

Sorry - this is absolutely wrong

it is not possible to become an advanced driver with an average knowledge of theory - theory is the pure concept of driving taken away from the reality - without it, the reality never happens - an advanced driver must by definition be driving at a more advanced / higher level, therefore they must have amongst other things as good / better a knowledge of the theory than the normal driver - otherwise they would be unable to put it into practice...

in reality they should have a better knowledge of signs - and a higher level of observation, so they will spot the signs - they may even spot signs on cross-views from the side / behind, and deduce other traffic's likely behaviour as a result = theory > knowledge > better driving

they will understand road markings mroe accurately - and how to use them, how others will use them, what options are available

they will understand the clues within the highway code, and additional clues to give an earlier warning of hazards from farm traffic to schools, bad road conditions to the mile on mile change of road - all allowing them to drive better...

I think that there are two fundamental misconceptions here:

1) - a belief that theory knowledge on its own - as tested in a theory test is something additional to the driving test (standard / AD) - of course not, it is simply a shortcut to understanding head knowledge a driver may have - AD goes a step further and looks at how that knowledge is put into practice...

which would you prefer a highly regarded academic brain surgeon who spends all day in a laboratory and writing papers, reowned world wide, nobel prize winner, honorary degrees from all around the world...
or the brain surgeon in a London Hospital who has operated day in, day out with years of experience, and 1,000s of patients cured?
I think I would prefer to have the latter who shows how the theory actually works in practice, rather than the former who may score highly on an examination of the theory of brain surgeon, but would be hard-pushed to find the brain-end of an elephant in reality...

2) secondly, there seems to be a belief that advanced driving is somehow driving without knowledge / theory - perhaps a belief that it is all about the physical / car-control... yes, of course car-control is a big part of it - but the biggest part is in the brain - observation / anticipation / pre-empting situations / planning / analysis / etc...

the advanced driver takes all that theory - brings it together with advanced handling of the car / an understanding of the context / awareness of the environment / observation of other road users / etc. - and then as an amalgam of all that - drives better (more smoothly, with more progress, safer, more relaxed, etc.)


To be honest, a qualification which doesn't push forward (from its previous level) the actual driving, but tightens up the theory seems a little flawed...

At the standard driving test level, it makes sense to have a theory test:
- as a starter before the learner kills the examiner taking the practical
- as a way of forcing people to learn rules of the road / the law
- as a way of expanding the richness of what is examined
- as a way of taking a shortcut to understanding more about the learner / their knowledge / etc.

but as you move into advanced driving it makes less and less sense to examine at a theoretical level - parrots could pass that element, advanced driving is about bringing it all together, so the theory is examined as put into practice - where it should be tested...

so the PT2 test is not more advanced - it wanders off down a random path of assuming that doing, and being tested in 'a' makes you good at 'b' - flawed logic...

and excellent knowledge of theory and signs will be there with an advanced driver as well - just that they will also show how to use that knowledge, something lacking in the more basic tests - therefore, simply, logically, the AD tests are clearly more advanced - they test more, and they test at a higher level

Alasdair

[RobC]

OK, I think I get this.

If I use the doctor's example, I would rather not visit A&E over the Easter weekend nights, on the basis that it is likely to be the most generalist and / or junior doctors who will be manning the A&E. And if I required emergency surgery, I might not get the best surgeons. (My sister is a plastic surgeon and she said that she and her colleague would not schedule non-emergency plastic works near that weekend. And while she might be on call, the registrar tends to avoid "waking" the consultants to get in for do work that the staff generalist surgeon can get away with do). Is this thinking correct?


On a separate note, regarding off-side positioning. Let say I am driving a straight country road at the NSL. If there are openings / junctions on the nearside and free of hazards on the offside, I would position my vehicle to the offside when driving through the nearside hazards. This forms part of my risk management (as much safety margin as I can safely do so away from hazards).

Is this kind of positioning encourage or allow in DVSA Part 1 or 2 please? Thanks in advance.

Hi Garrison

Personally I would want the best plastic surgeon

As far as I'm concerned there is only one standard of driving and that is good driving.

The offsiding situation you describe is not just a matter of positioning but also whether you could stop in the distance you could see clear and whether travelling at NSL is appropriate.

If you have a broken centre line or no centre line and the road is clear/straight there is no reason not to cross it on a DVSA test given the above provisos. It is common sense after all and part of your risk management plan.
The only problem arises when drivers take an offsiding rule for example and apply it in every occasion regardless rather than use common sense, which apparently often isn't that common.

[RobC]

it is possible to become an advanced driver with an average knowledge of theory.

Of course many advanced driver will have an excellent knowledge of theory, however the original topic was that the ADI Pt2 wasn't advanced test yet in many ways it is more advanced and not being able to take the test without a theory test and excellent knowledge of theory and signs is just one aspect.

Sorry - this is absolutely wrong

it is not possible to become an advanced driver with an average knowledge of theory - theory is the pure concept of driving taken away from the reality - without it, the reality never happens - an advanced driver must by definition be driving at a more advanced / higher level, therefore they must have amongst other things as good / better a knowledge of the theory than the normal driver - otherwise they would be unable to put it into practice...

in reality they should have a better knowledge of signs - and a higher level of observation, so they will spot the signs - they may even spot signs on cross-views from the side / behind, and deduce other traffic's likely behaviour as a result = theory > knowledge > better driving

they will understand road markings mroe accurately - and how to use them, how others will use them, what options are available

they will understand the clues within the highway code, and additional clues to give an earlier warning of hazards from farm traffic to schools, bad road conditions to the mile on mile change of road - all allowing them to drive better...

I think that there are two fundamental misconceptions here:

1) - a belief that theory knowledge on its own - as tested in a theory test is something additional to the driving test (standard / AD) - of course not, it is simply a shortcut to understanding head knowledge a driver may have - AD goes a step further and looks at how that knowledge is put into practice...

which would you prefer a highly regarded academic brain surgeon who spends all day in a laboratory and writing papers, reowned world wide, nobel prize winner, honorary degrees from all around the world...
or the brain surgeon in a London Hospital who has operated day in, day out with years of experience, and 1,000s of patients cured?
I think I would prefer to have the latter who shows how the theory actually works in practice, rather than the former who may score highly on an examination of the theory of brain surgeon, but would be hard-pushed to find the brain-end of an elephant in reality...

2) secondly, there seems to be a belief that advanced driving is somehow driving without knowledge / theory - perhaps a belief that it is all about the physical / car-control... yes, of course car-control is a big part of it - but the biggest part is in the brain - observation / anticipation / pre-empting situations / planning / analysis / etc...

the advanced driver takes all that theory - brings it together with advanced handling of the car / an understanding of the context / awareness of the environment / observation of other road users / etc. - and then as an amalgam of all that - drives better (more smoothly, with more progress, safer, more relaxed, etc.)


To be honest, a qualification which doesn't push forward (from its previous level) the actual driving, but tightens up the theory seems a little flawed...

At the standard driving test level, it makes sense to have a theory test:
- as a starter before the learner kills the examiner taking the practical
- as a way of forcing people to learn rules of the road / the law
- as a way of expanding the richness of what is examined
- as a way of taking a shortcut to understanding more about the learner / their knowledge / etc.

but as you move into advanced driving it makes less and less sense to examine at a theoretical level - parrots could pass that element, advanced driving is about bringing it all together, so the theory is examined as put into practice - where it should be tested...

so the PT2 test is not more advanced - it wanders off down a random path of assuming that doing, and being tested in 'a' makes you good at 'b' - flawed logic...

and excellent knowledge of theory and signs will be there with an advanced driver as well - just that they will also show how to use that knowledge, something lacking in the more basic tests - therefore, simply, logically, the AD tests are clearly more advanced - they test more, and they test at a higher level

Alasdair

Hi Alisdair

My neighbour is a consultant brain surgeon. He was presumably an excellent brain surgeon before he became a comsultant but to become a consultant he sat up studying theory night after night for months.

Without passing the theory and passing his consultants exams he could not have become a consultant, if he hadn't passed the exams he would still be an excellent brain surgeon albeilt with a less knowledge and he could call himself a consultant .

[hir]

It is generally accepted that some advanced qualifications are more difficult than others, however we are not all going to agree which is the most difficult/valued and our opinions may not even be valid if we have no personal experience of a particular qualification.[my emphasis]

Hi RobC

I note that you are a member of the IAM and will no doubt have done IAM Masters. So, my question is this... in your opinion, which is the more difficult [in the sense that you use the word in the above quote] to achieve, a Masters Distinction or DVSA Pt 2?

Many thanks

[RobC]

It is generally accepted that some advanced qualifications are more difficult than others, however we are not all going to agree which is the most difficult/valued and our opinions may not even be valid if we have no personal experience of a particular qualification.[my emphasis]

Hi RobC

I note that you are a member of the IAM and will no doubt have done IAM Masters. So, my question is this... in your opinion, which is the more difficult [in the sense that you use the word in the above quote] to achieve, a Masters Distinction or DVSA Pt 2?

Many thanks

Hi Hir

I haven't done IAM Masters, any qualification is worth doing and Im sure it is more advanced than DVSA Pt2, however at the moment Im studying for education and training qualifications

[jcochrane]

An advanced test could be any qualification taken following taking the learner driving test

This is clearly where we differ in our understanding of advanced. Tests offered by the IAM and RoADA in my view represent a relatively basic standard. By that I mean a standard that most people ought to be able achieve, with a little help if needed, after they have had a year or twos driving experience since their learner test.
To me F1RST (IAM) and Gold (RoADA) are very good /excellent basic standards but not advanced as might be said of an advanced police standard or even IAM Masters Distinction.

[akirk]

Hi Alisdair

My neighbour is a consultant brain surgeon. He was presumably an excellent brain surgeon before he became a comsultant but to become a consultant he sat up studying theory night after night for months.

Without passing the theory and passing his consultants exams he could not have become a consultant, if he hadn't passed the exams he would still be an excellent brain surgeon albeilt with a less knowledge and he could call himself a consultant .

Precisely
the theory is not what made him a brain surgeon - it is to pass a test to gain a piece of paper to call yourself by a new title to make more money - it is not what made him a a good brain surgeon...

also - you can't say with empirical accuracy that he would have had less knowledge - passing an exam proves what you know on that day, it doesn't prove or imply that you knew less before starting...

vocational qualifications are by their nature a good demonstrator of this - take an NVQ in warehousing - you have run a warehouse for 20 years, yet the new young lad who has worked for 1 year has an NVQ - on paper he might be considered more qualified than you, however I know who I would prefer to employ running my warehouse...

so you do an NVQ, purely so that you don't look worse on paper - you spend xxx months gathering evidence to show what you already know / to prove what you can already do - you now appear to be better qualified, but in fact as an exercise in assembling data you have possibly learned nothing new... you have simply proved through a bureaucratic process what was already evident to anyone who knew you...

it is a common fallacy in education that a qualification is evidence of superior knowledge / experience / ability - it isn't it is simply that one person has taken a test and another hasn't - evidence of theoretical knowledge is meaningless.

I would accept that a lack of theoretical knowledge is worse / less advanced than its presence - but you can not assume that from the lack of a piece of paper... My qualifications are in education, yet I don't now practice it in my day to day job - I have no qualifications in what I do in my business - yet my clients around the world are very happy that we provide a unique, powerful and appropriate service for them - my spending 3 years to gain a bit of paper would make no difference to anyone - I prove my theoretical knowledge on a daily basis by actually doing it in reality...

Alasdair

[RobC]

Hi Alisdair

My neighbour is a consultant brain surgeon. He was presumably an excellent brain surgeon before he became a comsultant but to become a consultant he sat up studying theory night after night for months.

Without passing the theory and passing his consultants exams he could not have become a consultant, if he hadn't passed the exams he would still be an excellent brain surgeon albeilt with a less knowledge and he could call himself a consultant .

Precisely

also - you can't say with empirical accuracy that he would have had less knowledge - passing an exam proves what you know on that day, it doesn't prove or imply that you knew less before starting...

Hi Alidair

I could ask him if I wanted empirical accuracy but I can guess what his answer would be. I cannot imagine that my neighbour sat up night after night for months studying to be a consultant brain surgeon and learned nothing other that what he had already known or should have known.

[RobC]

An advanced test could be any qualification taken following taking the learner driving test

This is clearly where we differ in our understanding of advanced. Tests offered by the IAM and RoADA in my view represent a relatively basic standard. By that I mean a standard that most people ought to be able achieve, with a little help if needed, after they have had a year or twos driving experience since their learner test.
To me F1RST (IAM) and Gold (RoADA) are very good /excellent basic standards but not advanced as might be said of an advanced police standard or even IAM Masters Distinction.

No, I agree with you fully, there are different levels of 'advamced' and we do not stop learning, we become more advanced. I never said that basic IAM, DVSA Pt2 or Rospa was the pinnacle of achievement.
My local IAM examiner gave a a F1RST to a 19 year old with just over 12 months experience and who had previously failed his IAM. Obviously a good drive, but he would still have had a lot to learn experience wise.