ADUK Archive

martine wrote:There's also the IAM Special Assessment which is not a test but is meant to use similar criteria to a police advanced assessment - although how you go about training for this is not clear...ask Mr. Toad!

I suspect that similar criteria are used but that the standards required are lower in as much as the speeds are typically rather less.

That would be interesting to have confirmed though. For example, would an IAM SA candidate who achieves a 90% pass on the exam be demonstrating the same level of roadcraft, commentary, finesse and so on as someone who passes a Police Advanced Course with the same mark?

Even then I expect it's something of a moot point, since demonstrating skills at higher speeds would I presume be proportionately much more difficult than doing so within the speed limits.

regards
P.

Porker wrote:

martine wrote:There's also the IAM Special Assessment which is not a test but is meant to use similar criteria to a police advanced assessment - although how you go about training for this is not clear...ask Mr. Toad!

I suspect that similar criteria are used but that the standards required are lower in as much as the speeds are typically rather less.

That would be interesting to have confirmed though. For example, would an IAM SA candidate who achieves a 90% pass on the exam be demonstrating the same level of roadcraft, commentary, finesse and so on as someone who passes a Police Advanced Course with the same mark?

Even then I expect it's something of a moot point, since demonstrating skills at higher speeds would I presume be proportionately much more difficult than doing so within the speed limits.

regards
P.

Yes I quite agree - the IAM SA can't possibly be equal to a Police Advanced assessment as you rightly say the speeds are going to be quite different in some cases. That aside though I think "roadcraft, commentary, finesse" should be the same for the same mark. Remember the SA is conducted by an IAM staff examiner which in most cases would have lots of experience of assessing police drivers - certainly for Region 1 he's an ex-Devizes training school instructor.

My special assessment mark is in the region Porker described. I'm completely confident I wouldn't get 90% on a police final drive. To paraphrase Andrew Lloyd Webber, pace changes everything.

James

Maybe a staff examiner will come along and give us a take on this.... I'm sure one visits here occasionally

jbsportstech wrote:

jasonh wrote:Just my two penn'orth:

I've found that IAM attracted a significant insurance discount and other discounts which Rospa don't currently match. I think IAM membership, although more expensive, has greater benefits such as the magazine and discounts.

In Derby the RoADAR group are, based on my experience and a number of others', somewhat more perfectionist than the IAM group and this can make them seem a little unfriendly at times. They aim for you to be at gold standard before they put you through to test. On a personal level though I prefer the three-yearly retest system as it is demonstrably more consistent.

Interesting you like the triannual retest but don't like the strive for perfection and the highest grade possible. Do your favour retesting as it would assure you that your maintaining a certain level rather than striving to give your best drive possible?

Whatever flag the groups fly the are only as good as the people they have onboard, don't be suprised that a lot of members are of the older generation.

Oh the RoADAR group is not old people - they're generally quite young middle-aged guys, but it's definitely more blokey than the IAM. I do think aiming for the best drive is good but if we are to expand advanced driving then we also need to be open and welcoming and not too critical. I'd rather 90% of drivers did IAM than 50% did RoADAR for example - I'm more concerned about improving driving standards en masse than having a smaller number of elite drivers.

I think it does very much vary between groups and for example when I take out IAM associates I try to get them to a level beyond the IAM test, particularly as many of them are First Responders doing the first stage of their driving training with us.

ROG wrote:Maybe a staff examiner will come along and give us a take on this.... I'm sure one visits here occasionally

Is it me or is the search function on here faulty? Anyway, this question was asked on IAM forum (which I can't find either - so much for technology) and I erroneously said you start with 100% and loose points.....
A well known SE (TD) came on to say it wasn't done like that.
I think they use the same test report sheet used for the ordinary test (there's a box on there to choose test type and SA is one choice). Then there are 27 competencies, marked from 1-5. If you get all 1s you get 100%. I think!

jasonh wrote:

Oh the RoADAR group is not old people - they're generally quite young middle-aged guys, but it's definitely more blokey than the IAM. I do think aiming for the best drive is good but if we are to expand advanced driving then we also need to be open and welcoming and not too critical. I'd rather 90% of drivers did IAM than 50% did RoADAR for example - I'm more concerned about improving driving standards en masse than having a smaller number of elite drivers.

Oh I agree a higher proportion of good skilled drivers is better than a small percent of elite but if your roadar group don't have masses of associates needing getting to at least test standard, then would a passionate tutor be forgiven for wanting their associate to achieve their best possible drive.

jasonh wrote:
I think it does very much vary between groups and for example when I take out IAM associates I try to get them to a level beyond the IAM test, particularly as many of them are First Responders doing the first stage of their driving training with us.

Whats the difference between you training associates to above IAM PASS (Considered BRONZE/SILVER ROSPA LEVEL) and a RoADAR Tutor training his or her associates to aim for a GOLD??? Seems to be the same thing?

The RoADAR annual fee pays for the tri-annual retest. In effect the cost to be a member once the initial test has been done is nil.

ROG wrote:Maybe a staff examiner will come along and give us a take on this.... I'm sure one visits here occasionally

crr003 wrote:Is it me or is the search function on here faulty? Anyway, this question was asked on IAM forum (which I can't find either - so much for technology) and I erroneously said you start with 100% and loose points.....
A well known SE (TD) came on to say it wasn't done like that.
I think they use the same test report sheet used for the ordinary test (there's a box on there to choose test type and SA is one choice). Then there are 27 competencies, marked from 1-5. If you get all 1s you get 100%. I think!

I put that post on here.

My quote at the top of this post was to find out what the difference was, if any, between a traffic officer taking the SA test, or equivalent, and a civilian.

jbsportstech wrote:Whats the difference between you training associates to above IAM PASS (Considered BRONZE/SILVER ROSPA LEVEL) and a RoADAR Tutor training his or her associates to aim for a GOLD??? Seems to be the same thing?

I think it's more about what you'll accept before you put someone in for test - the RoADAR group hold off until they think people are Golding it, whereas IAM will put people through when they are at a pass standard.

jasonh wrote:

jbsportstech wrote:Whats the difference between you training associates to above IAM PASS (Considered BRONZE/SILVER ROSPA LEVEL) and a RoADAR Tutor training his or her associates to aim for a GOLD??? Seems to be the same thing?

I think it's more about what you'll accept before you put someone in for test - the RoADAR group hold off until they think people are Golding it, whereas IAM will put people through when they are at a pass standard.

When you hold off what do you mean? as its down to the associate to book their test when they want to. Its not like their tutor has any control over that. Indeed there was an adi who started training with are group with his test booked already and had two long training drives and achieved Silver.

Is what your saying that you tell your ass when they are up test standard and offer them the option of further training? Is this what you would like roadar to do?

I think most associates would be guided by their observers, and indeed it is normally the observers that decide when the associates should have a check test with a senior observer. This is how I've seen it done in my local IAM and RoADAR groups.

That's certainly how it works in our group. After all, the Tutor is more likely to know when the Associate is ready than they are themselves. Send for a check drive when just about ready, then recommend they put in for test. Of course the Associate could decline, but then they'd need to negotiate with the Tutor as to how many more drives were required. Having assessed the Associate as test-ready, the Tutor would be thinking about moving on to a new Associate, to keep the waiting lists down.

Reference the marking of IAM Special Assessments, I saved what 'Fenland Flyer' posted in October 2008, and I paste it here. It only tells you the method of calculating the percentage awarded, not how the result would relate to other qualifications, such as Rospa Gold or Police Advanced. Although the term 'Police Advanced without the speed' has often been used for the Special Assessment, it is pretty obvious that Police Advanced without the Speed or the Pursuit is not Police Advanced.

It should also be recognised that the Special Assessment is peripheral to the mainstream of IAM activities, which focus as mentioned earlier on giving a sound grounding in Advanced Driving to a large intake. (The Bristol course for further instruction which Martin wrote about is an honourable exception to this.) Fenland Flyer's post on marking the SA was as follows:

"crr003 asked "Out of interest, how do you come up with the percentage? You use the IAM Test Report with the 27 things to look at?"

Yes, we use the same form and the marking scheme is:- if, in the particular category, your technique is as good as the average IAM pass you get a 3, if it is better than average you will get a 2 and if you hardly put a foot wrong you will get a 1. Obviously if it is worse than average you get a 4 and a 5 speaks for itself!!

All the marks are added up and then divided into the total number of categories marked (not all the boxes are filled) and, just like that, the percentage mark appears. Therefore, if you get all 3's you get 33%, 2's give you 50% and 1's 100%. Simple really, it must be 'cause I can do it."

That's

waremark wrote:"crr003 asked "Out of interest, how do you come up with the percentage? You use the IAM Test Report with the 27 things to look at?"

Thanks Mark. I can't search anything these days and it appears my memory's going too!