advanced driving advice

[zadocbrown]

Is it the case that 'fast track' is popular with people who are being sent by employers worried about corporate manslaughter legislation, and given time off work to do it?

[dth]

Given the constraint of only having a vehicle for a limited time or having the requirement of a quick pass, yes of course the fast track method appeals.
I think part of the attraction of the IAM (or RoADAR) is the journey from Associate to Member. The chance to take on board, digest, mull over, question the philosophy being shared. This is more successful/satisfying over several weeks than two half day sessions?
For your normal driver, I think part of the appeal of IAM/RoADAR is the symbiotic relationship between Associate and Observer - both exist to satisfy the other's needs.

Very well put...........and I would add that it is like any skill. It might be quickly learned to safisfy a short term goal but learning over a longer period is going to be more lasting for safety and understanding for the reasons you mention.

This is why I believe that intensive driving courses for learners are ineffective in meeting the goals mentioned.

[dth]

Is it the case that 'fast track' is popular with people who are being sent by employers worried about corporate manslaughter legislation, and given time off work to do it?

Probably........for the reasons I've just posted

[waremark]

I agree in principle that it works well to spread training over time. But if you are comparing Fast Track with SFL, you are ignoring the considerable upside in having a professional coach instead of an amateur observer/tutor. The amateur observer/tutor may be superb, but we all know that the standard is very variable both within some groups and particularly across the country. (I am impressed by IAM initiatives to run observer training days at a regional level, but this is a relatively minor improvement).

Personally, for those who can afford it I think the best overall solution is to take a number of sessions with a professional advanced driving coach - but personally I would not pay the Fast Track price because I know it is higher than the prices charged by a number exceptional coaches whom I could recommend - and some of whom participate in this forum!

[ROG]

Fast track would make more sense if it included a compulsory assessment after a time period - perhaps 3 or 6 months

[crr003]

Fast track would make more sense if it included a compulsory assessment after a time period - perhaps 3 or 6 months

Do you mean a re-test?
They don't re-test "normal" IAM members, so why pick on fast trackers?

[zadocbrown]

I agree in principle that it works well to spread training over time. But if you are comparing Fast Track with SFL, you are ignoring the considerable upside in having a professional coach instead of an amateur observer/tutor. The amateur observer/tutor may be superb, but we all know that the standard is very variable both within some groups and particularly across the country. (I am impressed by IAM initiatives to run observer training days at a regional level, but this is a relatively minor improvement).

The professional coaches may vary in quality too...

[ROG]

Fast track would make more sense if it included a compulsory assessment after a time period - perhaps 3 or 6 months

Do you mean a re-test?
They don't re-test "normal" IAM members, so why pick on fast trackers?

Not a restest - an assessment done by an examiner

Suggested this as most take time for it to be their normal driving whereas those on fastrack may not have this so perhaps a check that it has been instilled would be a good idea after some time has passed?

[ScoobyChris]

Suggested this as most take time for it to be their normal driving whereas those on fastrack may not have this so perhaps a check that it has been instilled would be a good idea after some time has passed?

I think this would be great for all IAM members - I've certainly driven with some colleagues at work who did the full IAM course a few years back but have not managed to maintain the standard as their normal driving. Of course, their IAM memberships have also lapsed and not been renewed so perhaps they are beyond the target demographic...

One suggestion might be for people to maintain membership they have to have a compulsory retest every, say, 3 years that's paid for out of annual membership subscriptions?

Chris

[martine]

One suggestion might be for people to maintain membership they have to have a compulsory retest every, say, 3 years that's paid for out of annual membership subscriptions?

Yes I quite agree - the problem is with c. 100,000 IAM members, potentially doing 30,000 retests per year would stretch examiners somewhat.

I suppose the retest could be with a group Observer - at least it would be better than nothing.

[Horse]

I suppose the retest could be with a group Observer - at least it would be better than nothing.

If any Observer - let alone a Sen Obs - doesn't know what's required for either safe driving or test standard, then that ought to be sorted!

Seriously, for an associate to be trained to test standard, the person doing the training must know what that standard is, and if the associate is to maintain the standard after the test they must be aware of the standard too and also be able to conduct realistic self-assessment too.

[martine]

I suppose the retest could be with a group Observer - at least it would be better than nothing.

If any Observer - let alone a Sen Obs - doesn't know what's required for either safe driving or test standard, then that ought to be sorted!

Seriously, for an associate to be trained to test standard, the person doing the training must know what that standard is, and if the associate is to maintain the standard after the test they must be aware of the standard too and also be able to conduct realistic self-assessment too.

Well yes but I imagine many would expect a retest to be with an examiner...otherwise we might as well let Observers do the initial test as well...and that doesn't seem right to me.

[Horse]

I suppose the retest could be with a group Observer - at least it would be better than nothing.

Seriously, for an associate to be trained to test standard, the person doing the training must know what that standard is, and if the associate is to maintain the standard after the test they must be aware of the standard too and also be able to conduct realistic self-assessment too.

...otherwise we might as well let Observers do the initial test as well...and that doesn't seem right to me.

Is there really a problem with that? Serious Q

Both examiner and observer should be training and testing to the same syllabus and standards, shouldn't they?

Part of my 'history' is setting up a national 'advanced' motorcycle training course, the BMF Blue Riband Award. When we originally piloted, in '88, there were few police riders interested in 'training' who weren't already involved in some way either with training groups (there was practically no full-time 'professional' bike training then- especially at advanced level - and in some police forces it was frowned on for serving officers to get involved as a part-time job) or with IAM or RoSPA by examining.

So the decision was taken that a qualified instructor could examine too (although a trainee would be seen by two different people). The instructors trained against the standard, and then candidates were examined against it. The system worked well; we started with a dozen centres in '89, and it had risen to 45 by '93. At one point we were testing more people than RoSPA (I only had exact figures for our passes, and their figures for just one year).

Also, IIRC, the IAM has (or had) a couple of non-police bike examiners.


Edit: Just noticed you're an ADI. When you get an 'L' driver to test standard, can you tell? Same situation: known syllabus and standard used by both you and the Examiner.

[Gareth]

Seriously, for an associate to be trained to test standard, the person doing the training must know what that standard is, and if the associate is to maintain the standard after the test they must be aware of the standard too and also be able to conduct realistic self-assessment too.

How much uniformity in the standard for a test pass would you reasonably expect?

[daz6215]

but that it was bad value to pay more for a (probably) mid-ranking professional (an ADI with a fleet qualification) than for a top rank professional (an ADI with a police instructing background). The £400 apparently charged by the IAM for a short day's training (£460 less test fee etc) would pay for two days' training booked direct with many an ADI fleet trainer.

Does an excellent tennis coach have to be a superb player to get the best from the trainee? There are all kinds of top class ex-sports people who were top of their game who could not make it in their respective fields as trainers.