advanced driving advice

[Horse]

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?

Not sure I understand your question.

Are you suggesting that there is no conformity between test examiners?

[Gareth]

Not sure I understand your question.

You suggested that observers could do the testing. I reckon that'd rapidly lead to a markedly less uniform standard.

[ROG]

As observers it is our remit to get the associate to what we believe is test standard

It is then up to the examiners who are checked on a regular basis to conduct the test

In the majority of groups it is the observers who concentrate on the 'training' and the examiners who concentrate on the testing

I'm not saying that some observers would not be capable of testing or that examiners are not capable of 'training' but it seems to work very well with each concentrating on what they do best as proven over many years of doing it this way.

The old saying of 'if it aint broke don't fix it' comes to mind

[Horse]

Not sure I understand your question.

You suggested that observers could do the testing. I reckon that'd rapidly lead to a markedly less uniform standard.

So - effectively - you're saying that observers are unable to maintain any standard?

How are they able to consistantly get associates to test standard, then?

[Horse]

As observers it is our remit to get the associate to what we believe is test standard
It is then up to the examiners who are checked on a regular basis to conduct the test

Presumably all your observers - who presumably are X-checked regularly? - have a similar understanding of what 'test standard' actually is?

The old saying of 'if it aint broke don't fix it' comes to mind

Agreed. But on the other hand 'We've always done it this way' isn't a great recommendation

As I explained, we were starting from scratch and a pool of police examiners wasn't available. What we did have was people who were both instructors and high-standard riders, combined with suitable assessments for them and a set standard against which riders were trained and assessed (but not by the same instructor).

Edit: and mandatory three-yearly riding and teaching assessments for instructors, on top of any other (such as DSA observations) they had.

[Gareth]

How are they able to consistantly get associates to test standard, then?

Are you claiming that they're consistent?

[Horse]

How are they able to consistantly get associates to test standard, then?

Are you claiming that they're consistent?

I have no idea, but as a paying member of the public (OK: 'unlikely but potential' ) I'd hope they were.

I've been open and honest about my background to this, so you tell us what you know

[ROG]

Presumably all your observers - who presumably are X-checked regularly? - have a similar understanding of what 'test standard' actually is?

YES - the examiners will point out any issues to the observers if those presented for test are not to a standard they expect

[ROG]

The system for the IAM works like this -

Police traffic advanced drivers have been specially trained for weeks to achieve a super high standard of driving which they must have as they are to stand in the initial judgement of all those driving on our roads

The Staff examiners (and I assume the chief examiner) cross check each other at set intervals

The Staff examiners check the examiners at set intervals

The staff examiners also check the senior observers (obs) at least every 6 years
The senior obs check each other in the middle of those 6 years

The senior obs check the qualified obs every 3 years

The examiners in our group can tell, without asking, which observer has assisted the associate in many cases!!

[Horse]

Police traffic advanced drivers have been specially trained for weeks to achieve a super high standard of driving which they must have as they are to stand in the initial judgement of all those driving on our roads

Actually, they only get to judge the majority of people on the roads after a driving test examiner has had their say. And even then they're 'marking' the pubic against a set of laws and rules which those public drivers know or have access to if they want to check. This country has one of the lowest accident rates in the World, doesn't it?

Even when testing for an advanced test, the standard isn't that unattainable for the public otherwise we'd never pass, so - frankly - the higher standard achieved on a police course is irrelevant to the IAM test standard.

This is quite interesting (from an IAM examiner)
http://www.closeprotectionworld.co.uk/d ... iding.html

Most people who undertake a RoSPA or IAM course are either a member of a local 'training group', or have undergone some sort of training by a professional in readiness for the test.

These have a 7 out of 10 chance of doing well. Those people who consider themselves good drivers/riders, but haven't undergone training usually fail the test.

Now I'm not saying that those who fail in those circumstances are poor drivers, far from it. However, you can only pass a test if you've trained for it, generally speaking. An advanced/defensive driving or riding test is no different.

What I would say is that the 'system of car/bike control' that is required for a RoSPA/IAM test really works. Both in the practical sense and for safety's sake. You can be a 'fast' driver/rider, lets call it, and also be systematic and methodical in your driving plans.

Yes, there are some cloth cap and string back driving gloves types involved in both organisations. However, I'd say any training is better than no training. You get out of something what you put into it. In layman's terms take on board the good stuff and don't swallow the bullsh*t. However, make sure it is bullsh*t that you're discounting, not just something you're unfamiliar with or is 'too difficult to do'..

I would say that RoSPA/IAM courses and test are a very good foundation to further your driving/riding career. Certainly in my case, having done an IAM bike course and test several years ago really stood me in good stead for my current official police advanced riding course.

One of the main differences of riding a police bike on such a course, is that you have exemptions from the speed limits. Further more, you are much more 'visible' and accountable and your riding tends to reflect this, if you know what I mean.

Additionally, I've found there's even more emphasis on safety than in the IAM course, which I thought was intense enough at the time.


The important bit in bold. i.e. you can only pass a test if you've trained for it, generally speaking. An advanced/defensive driving or riding test is no different

In other words, the observers train the public up to a standard, then submit them for test, when they are tested against that same standard. Therefore, if another observer conducts a 'ready for test?' X-check they are acting as an examiner - testing to the same standard as the examiner would!


Passing a police advanced test doesn't mark someone out as superhuman, with powers not avaialable to the normal human bean - just that they've been trained and assessed to a higher standard than must of 'us' ever get the opportunity to. It doesn't make them infallible, or beyond the laws of physics

Within the UK's road laws, the differences between a good civvie rider and a police rider may be difficult to tell. Indeed, that was the 'Gold' pass requirement for one RoSPA examiner I know.

The Staff examiners (and I assume the chief examiner) cross check each other at set intervals
The Staff examiners check the examiners at set intervals

The staff examiners also check the senior observers (obs) at least every 6 years
The senior obs check each other in the middle of those 6 years
The senior obs check the qualified obs every 3 years
The examiners in our group can tell, without asking, which observer has assisted the associate in many cases!!

I presume that's for Gareth's benefit, as he doesn't seem to be aware of it

[Horse]

Presumably all your observers - who presumably are X-checked regularly? - have a similar understanding of what 'test standard' actually is?

YES - the examiners will point out any issues to the observers if those presented for test are not to a standard they expect

AAMOI, how often do cringeworthy faults which are the observer's fault actually get through to test? I'd guess rarely, very very rarely.

[brianhaddon]

I don't know - but I do not feel easy with observors examining for the IAM or RoADAR. I think the issue of consistency does come in. For instance I recently undertook my RoADAR Diploma retest. Before doing so I went out with a few observors. They were all drivers of extremely high standards and the comments they gave consistent to a degree. But here's the crunch, not to the degree that I would have expected from someone examining. I think that for observors to be in a position to examine they would need to take their driving and understanding of driving to a consistently higher level than it is now.
Although having written all that both the IAM and RoADAR are more uniform with observor training than when I started out on the AD road in the eighties.
Regards
Brian Haddon

[Horse]

I think the issue of consistency does come in. For instance I recently undertook my RoADAR Diploma retest. Before doing so I went out with a few observors. They were all drivers of extremely high standards and the comments they gave consistent to a degree. But here's the crunch, not to the degree that I would have expected from someone examining. I think that for observors to be in a position to examine they would need to take their driving and understanding of driving to a consistently higher level than it is now.

I'd guess - from knowing some examiners - that there are variations between them. After all, they're people not robots. The sort of comments you will get from examiners may well depend on which police driving school they attended, and when.

You say their [observers'] comments varied - but how many examiners have you 'experienced' within the same short timespan as those cross-check drives? And did those other observers make points which would have implications on your 'test standard' driving - were they comments that would affect your pass/fail, or were they 'nit picking'?

I understand that within IAM there is a two-level system of observers, 'standard' and senior. Presumably there is a standardised checking system in place for them too - but within reason as you move higher up the pyramid to the narrower zones (ie fewer people at that level) then the emphasis changes from (at observer dealing with associate) 'good, safe driving' through (at examiner level) to 'degree of polish'?

Sometimes it's necessary to mentally step away from your own involvement to gain a true impression of how you are driving compared with a new entrant associate with no prior knowledge.

I'd hazard a guess that - see the quote I posted earlier regarding pass rates - most IAM observers could tell at a glance (albeit perhaps an hour-long glance ) whether or not an associate is at test standard. In fact, it is a decision they must take regularly!

Although having written all that both the IAM and RoADAR are more uniform with observor training than when I started out on the AD road in the eighties.

Indeed. Although I have little first-hand knowledge of standards through the years in both organisations, I've seen enough anecdotal information to suggest that standards in some IAM local groups have improved significantly because they needed to.

[ROG]

both the IAM and RoADAR are more uniform with observor training than when I started out on the AD road in the eighties.

It seemed that in the past the groups were told just to do it as they deemed fit as long as the end results were ok but the recent changes in the structure have made the training and cross checking much more uniformed across all the groups

Regional training days have now been introduced and these days have staff examiners, examiners, senior observers, qualified observers and trainee observers attending from many groups within that region

There is also an open invitation for those from different regions to attend if they wish to

A small attendance allowance is paid to those who attend as well as fuel costs

On the training days I have attended there has been a lunch buffet laid on and lots of hot drinks - I'm not certain who pays for that but I'll guess that all the groups contribute

[Horse]

Regional training days have now been introduced and these days have staff examiners, examiners, senior observers, qualified observers and trainee observers attending from many groups within that region

There is also an open invitation for those from different regions to attend if they wish to

In the 'few police' Blue Riband set-up I described earlier (and, to clarify, we did have several trafpols involved, it was just that we couldn't create a specific police examiner cadre team) one of the ways we ensured consistent standards was by building regional teams where training centres worked together. Another was by running training and assessment days as you suggest.

A later development was mandatory attendance at a national assessment.