IAM/ROSPA test

[martine]

As many will know, the IAM is trialling a new Advanced test in selected groups.

There is debate about what should and shouldn't be included in the test and what emphasis should be put on certain aspects...things like:

• progress
• overtaking
• low-speed manoeuvres
• cockpit drill
• economy

I'd be interested to know others thoughts - both IAM members and not.

[Silk]

As many will know, the IAM is trialling a new Advanced test in selected groups.

There is debate about what should and shouldn't be included in the test and what emphasis should be put on certain aspects...things like:

• progress - I'd go more for 'pace' than progress
• overtaking - difficult to guarantee finding one
• low-speed manoeuvres - pointless
• cockpit drill - It's you're own car, you've driven it to the test and if you don't know how to operate the controls by then you're screwed
• economy - who cares for a particular test. Although getting the pace right will probably give better economy anyway

I'd be interested to know others thoughts - both IAM members and not.

Answers above... If possible try and keep the specifications for the test away from retired Police Officers.

I couldn't agree more. Police driving seems to me to be more about arse covering than anything else. The "cockpit drill" is the best example of this. I'd also stay well clear GDE matrixes and miscellaneous psychobabble - for those who care, that's fine, but we don't need to bore the general driving public with it.

With regards to progress, we shouldn't be afraid to say "go faster" or "go slower". "Progress" is just a politically correct word to please the likes of Brake.

[Horse]

"Progress" is just a politically correct word to please the likes of Brake.

The euphemism 'making safe progress' has been around a lot longer than Brake and possibly well before PC become widely used (1990s?).

It was certainly in general use when I did my first formal advanced training in about 1980 . . .

[Horse]

we shouldn't be afraid to say "go faster"

Under what circumstances?

[jont]

we shouldn't be afraid to say "go faster"

Under what circumstances?

When you're slower than a minimum speed limit?

[Horse]

we shouldn't be afraid to say "go faster"

Under what circumstances?

When you're slower than a minimum speed limit?

And that achieves what?

Wouldn't it be better to ask how the current speed choice was made, and prompt to look around for evidence to guide an alternative?

So, go on, take it seriously I dare you In what circumstances would it be done, and how?

[chrisl]

As many will know, the IAM is trialling a new Advanced test in selected groups.

There is debate about what should and shouldn't be included in the test and what emphasis should be put on certain aspects...things like:

• progress
• overtaking
• low-speed manoeuvres
• cockpit drill
• economy

I'd be interested to know others thoughts - both IAM members and not.

I did the Rospa test a few months ago, and not a member of IAM, but thought I'd contribute anyway.

Progress/Overtaking
Does the requirement to make progress impact on the assessment if potential overtaking opportunities are not taken? I recently took the non-motorway/dual-carriageway route from Essex to North Yorkshire and had only one occasion to overtake, and that was a piece of slow-moving farm machinery. On the occasions when I was in a stream of traffic moving at less than the NSL, I made a policy decision not to be on high alert for overtaking opportunities and felt I had a more relaxed drive because of it. I still kept my eyes on main beam and maintained generous gaps and was as far as I'm able driving as an advanced driver, and I think I'd be a bit aggrieved if I failed an advanced test for driving in that way.

Low speed manouvres
On my (Rospa) test I found low speed manouvres particularly challenging because I've always steered one-handed when reversing with my other arm around the back of the passenger seat. I was very imprecise when steering two-handed in reverse and still am despite practicing! Having said that I feel there is room for low speed manouvres in the test to encourage reverse parking and good practice for three-point turns etc.

Cockpit drill
The cockpit drill may be superfluous in the obvious sense of knowing where controls are in a familiar car, however I find it useful in two ways. Firstly, we have two cars which we both drive and require very different seat and mirror positions. A quick cockpit drill prevents one rushing the departure only to have to adjust mirrors half way down the road. Additionally, a few seconds spent considering the driving task is a good way to concentrate the mind and seems to me to chime with the discussion elsewhere on mindset and attitude.

Economy
On economy, I would expect unnecessary use of low gears, high revs and acceleration to be commented on, but perhaps they would be better covered by the mechanical sympathy category. Perhaps the requirement to make progress could be flexible depending on the presence of traffic behind, with due attention paid to the potential danger of differential speeds on the open road and other road user's anticipated behaviour? (That's not excusing following drivers from correctly observing and adapting for one's speed, but accounting for the likelihood that some won't.)

[Silk]

we shouldn't be afraid to say "go faster"

Under what circumstances?

Duh, when we want to go faster perhaps?

[Silk]

"Progress" is just a politically correct word to please the likes of Brake.

The euphemism 'making safe progress' has been around a lot longer than Brake and possibly well before PC become widely used (1990s?).

Perhaps it's more of a "policism". A bit like appending "if it's safe to do so" at the end of every sentence. no one outside of the Police or AD ever says that in normal conversation.

[Garrison]

we shouldn't be afraid to say "go faster"

Under what circumstances?

When you're slower than a minimum speed limit?

Good, I have associates who do not know what that sign means !!

I use a road which has a minimum speed limit a few times a week

[Horse]

we shouldn't be afraid to say "go faster"

Under what circumstances?

Duh, when we want to go faster perhaps?

If the trainee had wanted to go faster, then they already would have done unless they thought there was a reason not to. Therefore, unless the trainee wants to, and their view of the situation aligns with yours, they won't voluntarily do it on their own - or if they do it won't be with any understanding, potentially leading to problems in situations where they shouldn't have gone faster.

So, 'duh', how about thinking before posting?

[waremark]

The Advanced Driving Test is an assessment of skill, not solely linked to safety. The term Advanced Driver suggests something more than safe driver. I would be happy to see a lower designation of, perhaps, IAM Safe Driver.

To justify the term Advanced, I would like to see a driver demonstrate that they have the skill and judgement to assess and take advantage of what level of progress can be achieved safely, smoothly and legally. I tell Associates that the Examiner will want to see that their driving will still be safe and smooth when they are in a hurry.

By the same token, I think they should demonstrate that they can manoeuvre accurately and confidentally.

Overtaking - in my part of the country can rarely be achieved within the speed limit on SCWs, other than of very slow moving road users. Staying behind a slow mover unnecessarily should cause a low mark for progress, good execution of any overtake a positive mark.

I would like to think of cockpit drill more in terms of preparation for the drive. I would continue to treat it as non essential, but welcome any demonstration that the driver has considered whether car, driver and passenger are all ready to drive away.

[jcochrane]

As many will know, the IAM is trialling a new Advanced test in selected groups.

There is debate about what should and shouldn't be included in the test and what emphasis should be put on certain aspects...things like:

• progress - I'd go more for 'pace' than progress
• overtaking - difficult to guarantee finding one
• low-speed manoeuvres - pointless
• cockpit drill - It's you're own car, you've driven it to the test and if you don't know how to operate the controls by then you're screwed
• economy - who cares for a particular test. Although getting the pace right will probably give better economy anyway

I'd be interested to know others thoughts - both IAM members and not.

Answers above... If possible try and keep the specifications for the test away from retired Police Officers.

I agree with your responses.

[Carbon Based]

How about "Enjoyment?"

Something along the lines of recognising when everything above is going well and that it is OK to gain satisfaction from it?

[jont]

As many will know, the IAM is trialling a new Advanced test in selected groups.

There is debate about what should and shouldn't be included in the test and what emphasis should be put on certain aspects...things like:

• progress
• overtaking
• low-speed manoeuvres
• cockpit drill
• economy

I'd be interested to know others thoughts - both IAM members and not.

Personally I see economy much like progress - it's the outcome of observation being correct, not something that should be strived for in its own right (you could also see it as economy of actions - only braking once for each hazard etc).

Don't the 5S's encapsulate much of what should be aimed for?