ADUK Archive

Based in Lancashire, near Burnley

Hi Rowley010,

It may help clear a number of issues that you have raised if you were to contact the East Lancs Group of the IAM who are based in the Burnley area, and arrange for a run out with one of their excellent observers.

Smooth braking, acceleration and gear changing are part of the skills set for every advanced driver - and lots more...

Rowley010 wrote:Based in Lancashire, near Burnley

I'm in Liverpool, and I'd be very happy to meet up to talk about all the options you're considering. A conversation and a drive will probably be of more value than simply reading websites - not that there's anything wrong with any of the websites, but they can't answer questions or give demonstrations.

It's no trouble for me to come an meet you half-way - at the Preston end of the M65, say?

David

Rowley010 wrote: but in particularly she said you COULD NOT notice a gear change they were all that smooth. Will doing the IAM teach me to change gear and drive smooth like this? This is something, among other things that I would really like to get out of it

DIY

Find a quiet straight road, practise going up and down the gears while keeping the car at a constant speed: 3 - 4 - 5 - 4 - 3 etc.

Beforehand, notice from the rev counter (if you have one) and the engine's noise and vibration, how the revs are higher for the lower gear at the same speed. You'll need to match those rev changes as you re-engage the clutch.

Give yourself a 'mark' out of 10 for each gear change, and try to feel where any 'jolts' are and what causes them, then work to eliminate them.

Horse wrote:

Rowley010 wrote: but in particularly she said you COULD NOT notice a gear change they were all that smooth. Will doing the IAM teach me to change gear and drive smooth like this? This is something, among other things that I would really like to get out of it

DIY

Find a quiet straight road, practise going up and down the gears while keeping the car at a constant speed: 3 - 4 - 5 - 4 - 3 etc.

Beforehand, notice from the rev counter (if you have one) and the engine's noise and vibration, how the revs are higher for the lower gear at the same speed. You'll need to match those rev changes as you re-engage the clutch.

Give yourself a 'mark' out of 10 for each gear change, and try to feel where any 'jolts' are and what causes them, then work to eliminate them.

perfect - and then move on to other cars to do the same - notice how different cars behave differently, so learning how it works for specific cars is a part of it...

Alasdair

Have some more

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.co.uk/p/d ... ining.html

StressedDave wrote:

petes wrote:Having done both at different times, my advice with the benefit of hindsight would be to get in contact with a regular driving instructor, and ask him/her to provide you with a series of lessons, geared up towards an advanced level of driving.

I'd be inclined to select one who actually works in the field of advanced driving myself. As many here will attest, many instructors do RoSPA/IAM in order to get their skills up to an acceptable level. DVSA Part II is the same as the standard test, with the only changes being motorway (if they can find one), doing all the manoeuvres and having a more stringent pass regime.

I agree with petes, I would choose an ADI preferably fleet qualified who will be a full time professional with far greater experience and qualification than just a part time IAM or Rospa observer with no other qualifications and fairly limited part time experience. Most driving instructors who do IAM or Rospa do so as part of CPD and not to bring their skill up to standard. Of the two Rospa is more valued as it requires retest every couple of years to retain the qualification.

The system of qualification for driving instructors difficult and carried out by professionals. DVSA part 2 is not the same as the standard learner test, it is of an advanced level. Before DVSA Pt2 can be taken a stringent theory test must be taken where you could fail with less than 94%. There is no theory requirement to pass IAM except a couple of questions asked by the examiner as was the case when I passed my learner test in 1975.

I was also disappointed that the IAM test and examiner I had was concerned with progress and was very scathing about ecodriving, which is what companies require in the real world of training full licence holders and would be one of my main priorites rather than Police style driving.

martine wrote:

petes wrote:

StressedDave wrote:DVSA Part II is the same as the standard test, with the only changes being motorway (if they can find one), doing all the manoeuvres and having a more stringent pass regime.

That's a fair point. My suggestion would perhaps work well for someone wishing to just sharpen up their driving, to counteract any bad habits that creep in since passing the basic test, rather than develop a new driving style based on IPSGA, etc...

Quite agree with Stressed Dave - the ADI Part 2 test is not what I would call advanced.

Martin, Id be interested to know why you don't consider DVSA Pt 2 to be an advanced test. The DVSA call it an advanced test, it requires a difficult theory test to be taken before it can be taken which 50% of candidates fail and the Pt 2 test has a 50% pass rate. The same cannot be said of IAM where there is a minimal theory requirement and a high pass rate of 90%.

StressedDave wrote:DVSA Part II is the same as the standard test, with the only changes being motorway (if they can find one), doing all the manoeuvres and having a more stringent pass regime.

RobC wrote:

martine wrote:

petes wrote:
That's a fair point. My suggestion would perhaps work well for someone wishing to just sharpen up their driving, to counteract any bad habits that creep in since passing the basic test, rather than develop a new driving style based on IPSGA, etc...

Quite agree with Stressed Dave - the ADI Part 2 test is not what I would call advanced.

Martin, Id be interested to know why you don't consider DVSA Pt 2 to be an advanced test. The DVSA call it an advanced test, it requires a difficult theory test to be taken before it can be taken which 50% of candidates fail and the Pt 2 test has a 50% pass rate. The same cannot be said of IAM where there is a minimal theory requirement and a high pass rate of 90%.

those statistics aren't necessarily valid unless you first qualify the pool of people taking the tests / the process of training

those stats could mean:
- PT2 test is harder / IAM is easier
- PT2 test training is worse / IAM training is better
- PT2 testees are worse / IAM testees are better
etc ...

Alasdair

Being able to drive at an advanced level is different from being able to teach at an advanced level.

I do not know anything about DVSA part 1 or 2 for an Advanced Driving Instructor. However, given the percentage of time an ADI will sit in the passenger seat vs. the driver seat ( maybe 90% vs. 10% with the student in the car ), my logic leads me to think that the emphasis should be placed on teaching/instructing rather than being able to demonstrate an advanced drive.

Is that correct?

StressedDave wrote:

Garrison wrote:Being able to drive at an advanced level is different from being able to teach at an advanced level.

I do not know anything about DVSA part 1 or 2 for an Advanced Driving Instructor. However, given the percentage of time an ADI will sit in the passenger seat vs. the driver seat ( maybe 90% vs. 10% with the student in the car ), my logic leads me to think that the emphasis should be placed on teaching/instructing rather than being able to demonstrate an advanced drive.

Is that correct?

DVSA parts 1 & 2 use exactly the same syllabus as the standard driving test. There is no part 1/2 for an Advanced Driving Instructor, only an Approved Driving Instructor. The only differences between the parts 1 & 2 and their novice equivalent is:

a) a more vigorous pass mark
b) a longer practical test duration with all the possible manoeuvres built in.

As an analogy, gaining parts 1 & 2 mean the equivalent of an A* GCSE; it's not the same as having an A-level in the subject.

I see, thanks for clarifying Dave.

RobC wrote:Martin, Id be interested to know why you don't consider DVSA Pt 2 to be an advanced test. The DVSA call it an advanced test, it requires a difficult theory test to be taken before it can be taken which 50% of candidates fail and the Pt 2 test has a 50% pass rate. The same cannot be said of IAM where there is a minimal theory requirement and a high pass rate of 90%.

You make a fair point about the theory test but P2 doesn't demand any different skills or techniques to what an excellent learner would do. Advanced driving to me is about greatly extended observation, anticipation, super-smoothness, positioning differently and maximum safe progress.

I think you need to be careful in generalising all ADI's as full-time professionals (I'm not) who are great drivers and all IAM/ROSPA observers as being poor counterparts. I've driven with poor ADI's and some outstanding Observers.

Lastly, your reference to 'ROSPA being more valued'...if you are an IAM Observer you get retested every 3 years under the IMI accreditation scheme.

martine wrote:

RobC wrote:Martin, Id be interested to know why you don't consider DVSA Pt 2 to be an advanced test. The DVSA call it an advanced test, it requires a difficult theory test to be taken before it can be taken which 50% of candidates fail and the Pt 2 test has a 50% pass rate. The same cannot be said of IAM where there is a minimal theory requirement and a high pass rate of 90%.

You make a fair point about the theory test but P2 doesn't demand any different skills or techniques to what an excellent learner would do. Advanced driving to me is about greatly extended observation, anticipation, super-smoothness, positioning differently and maximum safe progress.

I think you need to be careful in generalising all ADI's as full-time professionals (I'm not) who are great drivers and all IAM/ROSPA observers as being poor counterparts. I've driven with poor ADI's and some outstanding Observers.

Lastly, your reference to 'ROSPA being more valued'...if you are an IAM Observer you get retested every 3 years under the IMI accreditation scheme.

The other perspective on the theory test though is that there is little value in theory known but not used...
A theory test allows a driver to show a lot of theoretical knowledge
An AD test would expect to see that theory in place through the driving...

the standard driving test (or PT2 test) examine theory at a theoretical level precisely because the driven test is not examining the driver to so high a level... why would an AD test need to ask questions in a theoretical environment when the expectation is to see that same knowledge deployed in the driving?

there is no value in theoretical knowledge without the ability to use it

Alasdair

martine wrote:

RobC wrote:Martin, Id be interested to know why you don't consider DVSA Pt 2 to be an advanced test. The DVSA call it an advanced test, it requires a difficult theory test to be taken before it can be taken which 50% of candidates fail and the Pt 2 test has a 50% pass rate. The same cannot be said of IAM where there is a minimal theory requirement and a high pass rate of 90%.

You make a fair point about the theory test but P2 doesn't demand any different skills or techniques to what an excellent learner would do. Advanced driving to me is about greatly extended observation, anticipation, super-smoothness, positioning differently and maximum safe progress.

I think you need to be careful in generalising all ADI's as full-time professionals (I'm not) who are great drivers and all IAM/ROSPA observers as being poor counterparts. I've driven with poor ADI's and some outstanding Observers.

Lastly, your reference to 'ROSPA being more valued'...if you are an IAM Observer you get retested every 3 years under the IMI accreditation scheme.

Hi Martin

ADI Pt2 is also about greatly extended observation, anticipation and smoothness. If an ADI doesn't have these skills then he/she hasn't a hope of giving the instruction to a learner in time and being safe. Even the eyesight requirement for the Pt2 is 27.5 metres rather than 20 metres!
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 agree I am generalising, and maybe I have experienced some great ADIs and poor observers when the reverse is as you say possible, however 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!

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.

akirk wrote:

martine wrote:

RobC wrote:Martin, Id be interested to know why you don't consider DVSA Pt 2 to be an advanced test. The DVSA call it an advanced test, it requires a difficult theory test to be taken before it can be taken which 50% of candidates fail and the Pt 2 test has a 50% pass rate. The same cannot be said of IAM where there is a minimal theory requirement and a high pass rate of 90%.

You make a fair point about the theory test but P2 doesn't demand any different skills or techniques to what an excellent learner would do. Advanced driving to me is about greatly extended observation, anticipation, super-smoothness, positioning differently and maximum safe progress.

I think you need to be careful in generalising all ADI's as full-time professionals (I'm not) who are great drivers and all IAM/ROSPA observers as being poor counterparts. I've driven with poor ADI's and some outstanding Observers.

Lastly, your reference to 'ROSPA being more valued'...if you are an IAM Observer you get retested every 3 years under the IMI accreditation scheme.

The other perspective on the theory test though is that there is little value in theory known but not used...
A theory test allows a driver to show a lot of theoretical knowledge
An AD test would expect to see that theory in place through the driving...

the standard driving test (or PT2 test) examine theory at a theoretical level precisely because the driven test is not examining the driver to so high a level... why would an AD test need to ask questions in a theoretical environment when the expectation is to see that same knowledge deployed in the driving?

there is no value in theoretical knowledge without the ability to use it

Alasdair

Hi Martin

If you haven't got an excellent knowledge of driving signs and theory then it impossible to use knowledge you don't have.
I assess full licence holders including their theory knowledge on a daily basis and whilst most drive to a reasonable standard, their theory knowledge is poor and to me that would be a major hurdle to them being classed as an advanced driver. Even learner drivers have a theory test, yet other than an hours drive and assuming that the driver does contravene any legal signs etc 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.