ADUK Archive

I would have to double check but I think the 'drive check' is a set price of £25

TripleS wrote:In my case the option of a 'drive check' would very likely have been helpful. It seems like a good idea to me, and I don't see why it would cost the IAM much, as I imagine it would be covered by a bit of extra (unpaid) time by an Observer.

And it works both ways Dave - we've avoided some nightmare associates.

ROG wrote:I would have to double check but I think the 'drive check' is a set price of £25

Yes ROG, £25 is what I was quoted last night. If you decide to become a member within 30 days that is then deducted from the membership fee, which sounds very fair to me

crr003 wrote:

TripleS wrote:In my case the option of a 'drive check' would very likely have been helpful. It seems like a good idea to me, and I don't see why it would cost the IAM much, as I imagine it would be covered by a bit of extra (unpaid) time by an Observer.

And it works both ways Dave - we've avoided some nightmare associates.

....as it would have done in my case.

'Twould have saved a load of grief all round.

Best wishes all,
Dave - the Associate from hell.

TripleS wrote:

crr003 wrote:

TripleS wrote:In my case the option of a 'drive check' would very likely have been helpful. It seems like a good idea to me, and I don't see why it would cost the IAM much, as I imagine it would be covered by a bit of extra (unpaid) time by an Observer.

And it works both ways Dave - we've avoided some nightmare associates.

....as it would have done in my case.

'Twould have saved a load of grief all round.

Best wishes all,
Dave - the Associate from hell.

Now of course I didn't mean that!
Some people who sign up just shouldn't be driving.

crr003 wrote:Some people who sign up just shouldn't be driving.

Just out of curiosity if someone is that bad do you actually tell them AND do you see improvement

x-Sonia-x wrote:

crr003 wrote:Some people who sign up just shouldn't be driving.

Just out of curiosity if someone is that bad do you actually tell them AND do you see improvement

I think most Observers would try to be encouraging - so they will probably make their assessment sound a little better than what they actually see, while trying to encourage the candidate to move on to a full Skill for Life course - many groups are short of Associates, and they exist to make the roads safer by helping people improve. I don't think an Observer would ever conclude on an initial assessment that the candidate had no hope of improving!

waremark wrote:

x-Sonia-x wrote:

crr003 wrote:Some people who sign up just shouldn't be driving.

Just out of curiosity if someone is that bad do you actually tell them AND do you see improvement

I think most Observers would try to be encouraging - so they will probably make their assessment sound a little better than what they actually see, while trying to encourage the candidate to move on to a full Skill for Life course - many groups are short of Associates, and they exist to make the roads safer by helping people improve. I don't think an Observer would ever conclude on an initial assessment that the candidate had no hope of improving!

Yes - we've had people sign up for a drivecheck who were sufficiently poor for us to recommend some time with an ADI before they consider taking a 'Skill for Life' course. I think in the cases I know of, they were elderly people who wanted reassurance their driving was safe and had no intention of progressing to 'advanced'. It's not something I am comfortable with drivecheck being used for - I really think someone who is perhaps doubtful should have some sort of 'official' check on their driving not using unpaid, non-approved (in DSA terms) observers to perhaps explain to someone the time has come for them to hand in their keys...

martine wrote:we've had people sign up for a drivecheck who were sufficiently poor for us to recommend some time with an ADI before they consider taking a 'Skill for Life' course. I think in the cases I know of, they were elderly people who wanted reassurance their driving was safe and had no intention of progressing to 'advanced'.

SNAP !!

One chap was so old that he had never had to take a basic test !!

ROG wrote:

martine wrote:we've had people sign up for a drivecheck who were sufficiently poor for us to recommend some time with an ADI before they consider taking a 'Skill for Life' course. I think in the cases I know of, they were elderly people who wanted reassurance their driving was safe and had no intention of progressing to 'advanced'.

SNAP !!

One chap was so old that he had never had to take a basic test !!

This goes back to the same question, why oh why does this country give you one 40 minute driving test that allows you drive for the rest of your life!! It also proves that people are worried about their driving and in the case of the older people who come for help, they come to advanced because there just isnt anything else out there for them to do.

I would also like to add that I hold my hat off to anyone on here who is an observer, to give your time up voluntarily to give people the confidence and ability to drive safely is amazing! And one day.....once ive passed advanced I will give back the same

ROG wrote:

martine wrote:we've had people sign up for a drivecheck who were sufficiently poor for us to recommend some time with an ADI before they consider taking a 'Skill for Life' course. I think in the cases I know of, they were elderly people who wanted reassurance their driving was safe and had no intention of progressing to 'advanced'.

SNAP !!

One chap was so old that he had never had to take a basic test !!

I expect there are still quite a number in that category; but it doesn't matter so long as they remain able to produce a satisfactory standard of driving.

It would be helpful to have some means of more readily identifying those who do not produce an acceptable standard, and then seeing what can be done to help them remedy the situation, but I don't believe there is a case for testing (or re-testing) all old drivers as a complete group.

Best wishes all,
Dave - 69, going on 23 (approx.)

x-Sonia-x wrote:....why oh why does this country give you one 40 minute driving test that allows you drive for the rest of your life!! It also proves that people are worried about their driving and in the case of the older people who come for help, they come to advanced because there just isnt anything else out there for them to do.

I would also like to add that I hold my hat off to anyone on here who is an observer, to give your time up voluntarily to give people the confidence and ability to drive safely is amazing! And one day.....once ive passed advanced I will give back the same

I totally agree with your second paragraph, and I wish you every success in your future Observing.

Regarding your first paragraph, nobody needs to go to the advanced driving sector to receive assistance in improving their driving. They can always avail themselves of a few refresher lessons with an ADI. That should bring them up to a satisfactory standard, and if it doesn't then they need to think again and explore other options.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I also do not agree with re-testing but would like to see periodic assessments.
Assessments to determine is someone is driving safely - nothing more than that.
System in place to refer elsewhere if not driving safely.

ROG wrote:I also do not agree with re-testing but would like to see periodic assessments.
Assessments to determine is someone is driving safely - nothing more than that.
System in place to refer elsewhere if not driving safely.

Exactly.

A formal test is an ordeal for most people, especially people of advanced years, who would be fearful of suddenly finding their licence withdrawn from them. This is likely to create such tension and anxiety in the driver that I imagine they'd be quite likely to fail due to that factor alone, so we should guard against that.

Alternatively a low key assessment presented as a genuine attempt to help them - and protect everyone's safety - ought to achieve pretty much what we need out of this and be much easier to sell to the driving community.

I do not like the application of overly rigid procedures and heavy handed tactics where they are not needed. You can often get a better result by other means, and that's what we should trying to do first.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

TripleS wrote:A formal test is an ordeal for most people, especially people of advanced years, who would be fearful of suddenly finding their licence withdrawn from them. This is likely to create such tension and anxiety in the driver that I imagine they'd be quite likely to fail due to that factor alone, so we should guard against that.

Smoke, fire....old farts off the road

<--- going over there to try to get my tongue out of my cheek