ADVISING WORK COLLEAGUES

[Gareth]

Is it that there is a vacancy for a senior observer and someone volunteers?

No - and that's a bit rude! The IAM is more structured than that (at least in recent years).

Sorry for the slight slur, but that is exactly how it used to be. Can you tell me, have grandfather rights run out yet?

[vonhosen]

The DSA structure is still based on MSM basics and not IPSGA and until this is addressed I cannot see a way forward - CAN YOU

It doesn't take a huge change for you to qualify though.

If you want to earn money from instruction you simply have to be an ADI.

There is nothing to stop you instructing without, you just can't earn from it.

Doing the ADI doesn't mean that you have to instruct learners. It doesn't mean that you have to teach MSMPSL after you've done it. It just means that you have obtained a minimum instructional competency so that you can earn a living from it. Plus of course that the DSA can get their moeny from you every time you have to re-register as well.

[Gareth]

The advanced test is DSA approved, the examiners have been approved by the DSA to test

I'm sure that's not the case at all.

I believe that there should be seperate legislation in regarde to teaching current license holders - WHAT DO YOU THINK

I think there already is proper legislation.

Currently the ADI test has two prongs. The first, in Parts 1 & 2, are where the candidate demonstrates fitness to drive on the roads, and does so by meeting slightly more stringent requirements than are necessary to pass the standard DSA test. A pre-qualifier, if you like.

Although this is generally a right royal pain for anyone who has advanced driver training, it would be a pretty poor advanced driver who can't learn to pass the DSA test is short order given a bit of practice.

The second prong is demonstrating the ability to teach, and perhaps that's where you are at odds with the DSA's approach to the ADI examination. Surely if a person is able to demonstrate the skills necessary to teach a learner driver, both when they start out learning and when they are close to taking the DSA test, then that is a pretty good demonstration of teaching.

I understand that check tests, which have to be taken every three years, do not have to be with a learner driver, but instead can be carried out in your normal teaching environment. So if you only teach advanced driving techniques to people who have passed the DSA exam, then you can do this as part of your check test.

[vonhosen]

If somebody wants to purely teach advanced skills, why should they be obliged to sit an exam based on teaching people for the L-Test?

Surely these are 2 completely different disciplines.

They haven't got to.................unless they want to be paid for it.
It's that which means you have to be an ADI, not what level you are instructing at.

[MGF]

If somebody wants to purely teach advanced skills, why should they be obliged to sit an exam based on teaching people for the L-Test?

Surely these are 2 completely different disciplines.

They haven't got to.................unless they want to be paid for it.
It's that which menas you have to be an ADI, not what level you are instructing at.

I think the point is if you want to make money from advanced driving instruction why sit an exam. based on teaching for the L-test?

It is worth mentioning that if you wish to teach PCV or LGV you also need to be an ADI. These instructors could make the same argument as advanced drivers, ie they don't need to show they can teach for the L-test.

So I don't think advanced drivers are any more hard done by than any other non-standard car driver who wishes to teach for money.

I suppose the only difference is it is more difficult to get funding as organisations don't employ advanced driving instructors (although fleet driver training is similar).

[vonhosen]

I understand that check tests, which have to be taken every three years, do not have to be with a learner driver, but instead can be carried out in your normal teaching environment. So if you only teach advanced driving techniques to people who have passed the DSA exam, then you can do this as part of your check test.

Depends what grade you are as to the length of period between check tests.

Yes, you can be tested within your working environment with a "live" candidate (with a few constraints), or you can have the examiner "stooge" for you in the same way as your original part 3 is conducted.

[vonhosen]

It is worth mentioning that if you wish to teach PCV or LGV you also need to be an ADI. These instructors could make the same argument as advanced drivers, ie they don't need to show they can teach for the L-test.

The LGV & PCV registers are voluntary only at this stage.

[crr003]

Does the government not want capable people to improve this countrys drivers

Not really. That would reduce the speed camera revenue stream. I think the plan is to dumb down driving by the introduction of technology which will control and penalize the populace. The DSA test is enough for the Government.

[vonhosen]

You can expect the DSA to extend the net of their control further, not reduce it.

[crr003]

You can expect the DSA to extend the net of their control further, not reduce it.

But they can barely cope with proper learners!
I can't wait till they try and take over "advanced driving". The number of ADIs should be set to fall with non-compliance with the HPT requirement. Maybe ROG will get his chance if the DSA take over IAM/RoADA.

[vonhosen]

You can expect the DSA to extend the net of their control further, not reduce it.

But they can barely cope with proper learners!
I can't wait till they try and take over "advanced driving". The number of ADIs should be set to fall with non-compliance with the HPT requirement. Maybe ROG will get his chance if the DSA take over IAM/RoADA.

It's not taking over in the way I think you are conisdering, as in them physically doing all the testing. It's having registers that you as an instructor have to pay to be on. The testing would be effectively subcontracted to approved bodies & they manage the overview. They are the "Driving Standards Agency" after all & have overall responsibility for all driving standards.

It appears to be going the way that you'll need to be an ADI for any paid instruction, for any purpose, in any motor vehicle, anywhere.

Rather interestingly under the new Road Safety Act it amends bits of Sec 123 RTA 1988 (Requirement of registration for ADI's) such as

(3) In this Part of this Act "driving instruction" means instruction in relation to the driving of a motor vehicle.

In RTA 1988 currently it's in relation to a motor car

also

(6) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which instruction provided free of charge shall be deemed to be given for payment of money by or in respect of the person to whom the instruction is given or provided.

Very open ended & easy for them to change what "they" may decide amounts to paid instruction don't you think ?


I can see it coming that if you want to instruct on a variety of vehicles for a variety of purposes you are going to have to pay to be on each of the individual registers that the DSA may set up for each. Lots of money for them.

[Susie]

...and both RoSPA and the IAM are actively 'helping' the DSA to flex their muscles even more!

Back to ROG's concerns...

As has already been hinted, general consensus is that the DSA isn't in the game of improving anything in particular. It's out to be 'the' authoritative body. It is slowly encroaching into all areas. 4x4 training - done and dusted. Fleet - voluntary atm as is LGV and PCV - don't hold your breath though. They are also looking at ARDS iinstructors. Their aim? One could make the assumption that it's POWER and CASH. On the one hand they constantly state that the driving test is a skill for life and all that you need to prove you're a careful and competent driver. Then they start meddling with 'advanced' or post-test training. Why do they need to control this at all if the novice test is all it's cracked up to be?

The DIA (Driving Instructors' Association) has been battling with Rosemary Thew of DSA for ages over the HPT. She absolutely refuses to accept that the system is flawed. It was designed by a beardy non-driving professor ffs and the DIA have evidence of 12 year olds passing the computer game. If you time your clicks to the reaction times of a new driver, you can pass with your back to the screen. Maybe this is all Rog needs to do to get past his problem.

S

[MGF]

Why do they need to control this at all if the novice test is all it's cracked up to be?

My understanding is the DSA regulate the conditions under which people can accept money in return for driving instruction.

The State regulates most, if not all areas of commerce to ensure 'minimum' standards are met.

The fact that they don't promote advanced driving (which I agree is not good) doesn't mean they shouldn't regulate the commercial activity surrounding it.

That is one of the functions of State.

[ROG]

OK, the general concensus is that one cannot be specifically paid to train drivers unless they are an ADI.
If I was on a salary and paid to be on standby 24/7 as a relief driver, could I then choose to do unpaid driver training for my workmates?

[ROG]

Answer to acid test is yes. I would be on a 24/7 retainer and that would not increase if I was to VOLUNTEER to do some training whilst still on the retainer.
Does that make it LEGAL?