IAM/ROSPA test

[akirk]

interesting document...

11. Definition clarification: ‘Off siding’ = the crossing of the centre line/hazard
line, (or in the absence of such lines, the centre of the carriageway) in order to extend a view.
... ...
Off-siding (to extend view) – two-way carriageway clarification:
Experience is showing that this is causing Candidates to put themselves in danger. The IAM actively discourages this practice and it is therefore not acceptable on test.

12. Set of open bends – straight-lining/trimming clarification:
Trimming or straight-lining a set of open bends whilst acceptable on test must not be carried out if there is a risk of conflict with other road users or where it will inconvenience, confuse or cause alarm or distress, to others.

... ...

unless I am mis-reading this...
how do you straight-line a set of open bends (which is acceptable)
while not being allowed to off-side a two-way carriageway (which is prohibited)
unless you can only straight-line country roads which are single-carriageway

also - how do you overtake without being able to off-side to extend view?

I assumed that they don't want you off-siding on entry to a bend to extend view - which wouldn't conflict with overtaking generally - but does conflict with straight-lining open bends... unless the argument is that as they are open you aren't extending your view!

so you can off-side if it doesn't extend view (help you) but not if it does!

?!

Alasdair

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I'm not sure if that's a serious question but I'm going to treat it like one

- Straight-lining / trimming - is usually done through a right-hand bend where it goes into a left-hand bend afterwards
- Straight-lining to extend a view - is usually taken to mean off-siding on a straight before a left-hand bend, thus potentially coming into conflict with fast moving traffic coming the other way out of an area of invisibility
- Neither of these are about overtaking, where off-siding is done (cautiously) to obtain a view, perhaps starting with a "half step", as it was explained on Saturday before moving to a "full step" when you have the initial view. That doesn't involve "straight-lining" anything. It's just a lateral move.

Now if you knew all that anyway, I have to assume you were being deliberately obtuse

[akirk]

totally agree with what you write...
except that is not what the document says...

it clearly says that off-siding to gain a clearer view is not acceptable...
seeing that you need to do that to overtake it is badly written...

it clearly allows straight-lining, but not off-siding...

perhaps if they simply said:
- don't cross the white line when approaching a hidden bend
- it is okay when you already have a clear view through open bends and are straightlining them...
- off-siding to overtake is okay

then it would be a lot clearer!

Alasdair

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I'm sure it's possible to find an obscure interpretation of any piece of written English that the writer didn't anticipate, but to me, the meaning is reasonably clear. It doesn't mention overtaking; you chose to introduce that.

[fungus]

In the case of the narrow (single track) railway bridge in Lake Road in the link below, when travelling NNE there is no view beyond the bridge. The only way to get a view beyond the bridge is to offside. Would you consider it acceptable to offside, or would you keep left and then creep out in the final few yards?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.71453 ... a=!3m1!1e3

[Gareth]

Either offside very early, say, before the left turn, and be prepared to return left, or keep left and creep with a horn warning.

I ignore the rubbish that some spout about not using all the road ...

[sussex2]

Either offside very early, say, before the left turn, and be prepared to return left, or keep left and creep with a horn warning.

I ignore the rubbish that some spout about not using all the road ...

I tend to agree - visibility and space are the key factors.

[hir]

I ignore the rubbish that some spout about not using all the road ...

We have to remember that the "advice" given about off-siding by the IAM in their common confusions document is not "advice" at all. It's a prohibition and is there purely to cover their backs in case an observer gives wrong/incomplete advice about going off-side with the result that an accident occurs.

We shouldn't read too much into this "advice". It's not intended as a universal statement of best driving practice intended for everyone who has a driving licence; only observers in their dealings with associates.

[TripleS]

I'm inclined to feel that any advice that discourages offsiding, even if the offsiding is applied carefully and responsibly, is detracting from the 'advancedness' of a drive.

[IcedKiwi]

Also surprised about, according to the document, it being OK to cut the corner on a right hand junction onto minor road providing it's clear and part of an early plan. Checked the highway code and it's a "do not" rather than a MUST NOT, but thought the IAM would probably still advise against it.

[Horse]

I'm inclined to feel that any advice that discourages offsiding, even if the offsiding is applied carefully and responsibly, is detracting from the 'advancedness' of a drive.

Going back to the late 1980s / early 1990s, a Class 1 (car and bike) trafpol I knew said, when we were talking about view for cornering, that on one of his courses they never crossed the centre line.

IIRC he was trained at Maidstone and Essex.

[Horse]

Oh - regarding the 'confusions' documents, the bike one says:

30. Standing on the footrests clarification:
Where a rider is approaching the brow of a hill whilst at the same time gaining on a vehicle and in circumstances that would otherwise certainly be an overtake if it were on a flat or concave road with visibility stretched far enough to provide security and there was no other adverse factor. The rider may stand up momentarily on the pegs to extend their view in order to confirm that it either is, or is not, safe to overtake. Is this an acceptable technique?

No, such actions would likely result in an IAM test failure. Should the car unexpectedly brake hard the rider would not be able to do the same without first having to sit back down, which would then delay any corresponding braking actions. If the rider’s view was sufficiently marginal to feel the need for such actions then it would be unlikely to be a viable overtaking situation in the first place.

Uh-oh. I'd have failed an advanced instructor assessment on that one

[sussex2]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84602 ... 56!6m1!1e1

I've been crossing the bridge above for 30 years or more and it can be an advantage to offside as you approach the bend at the far side; especially given there are driveways there and visibility is not good.
In those years I have offsided many times as it improves the view and makes you more obvious to oncoming vehicles.
I cannot say that I have always offsided the decision is based on what others may be doing. It is however something that is considered and done, if the proper conditions are met.
It's obvious to me that the IAM (and organisation I am not great fan of) is simply trying to cover their own back.

[Horse]

Riding one of the lardy BMW tourers like what I have, and was doing, make stoppies less likely than on sports bikes

In the particular instance where I did it, the situation was the start of a dual-c, where the lane opened to two just before the hill crest. I'd already moved 'right' - so not following in-line with the car ahead - and standing up allowed me a view over the crest before deciding to accelerate past the car.

Here, heading NW:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.48820 ... 6656?hl=en

This:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.48802 ... 6656?hl=en
Shows the dead ground (albeit I wasn't overtaking towards the blue HGV )

[Horse]

Riding one of the lardy BMW tourers like what I have, and was doing, make stoppies less likely than on sports bikes

Perhaps - a long while back, we did some braking tests on various bikes. Seeing Leon Haslam do a rolling stoppie from 150mph was a particular highlight...

Many years back, Bike magazine had a photo of a rider on a wet test track, bike vertical on the front wheel, rider grinning at the camera. Remember, kiddies, 50% front and 50% rear brake in the wet . . . .

However, was this you?