ADUK Archive

Horse wrote:

Gareth wrote:

Horse wrote: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.

My opinion is based on two points. First is that my impression has been that pass rates vary considerably between observers, which is also what I'd expect from a group of volunteers. Second is that uniformity of standards can be improved with a certain amount of cross-checking, and I know that the IAM has been doing this to some degree in recent times, although it's hard to know how well it's working.

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

From the information you quoted 3/10 fail. I've heard examiners mention faults that would be enough to fail the DSA test - is that cringe-worthy enough?

ROG wrote: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

When I attended one, it cost each attendee £15 - presumably refunded by the Group.

Gareth wrote:

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

From the information you quoted 3/10 fail. I've heard examiners mention faults that would be enough to fail the DSA test - is that cringe-worthy enough?

That's not answered the question, though.

Were those faults displayed on test due to poor observers/training? Often 'exam nerves' can get in the way and people make 'stupid' mistakes. However, if they are due to poor training standards, then it's an indictment of the IAM group concerned . . .

Gareth wrote: my impression has been that pass rates vary considerably between observers, which is also what I'd expect from a group of volunteers.

Hmmm . . . from now on, my recommendation for anyone going to an IAM group will be to ask for an observer with a good pass % rate!!!

Horse wrote:they're 'marking' the pubic against a set of laws and rules

Now is that a fact?

zadocbrown wrote:

Horse wrote:they're 'marking' the pubic against a set of laws and rules

Now is that a fact?

Well, since the advent of too many black & grey cars, 'speeding snooker' has got boring

crr003 wrote:

ROG wrote: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

When I attended one, it cost each attendee £15 - presumably refunded by the Group.

My group paid direct

Horse wrote:Hmmm . . . from now on, my recommendation for anyone going to an IAM group will be to ask for an observer with a good pass % rate!!!

First time pass rate or pass rate - there is a difference

I can only recall one associate out of more than 100 who failed the first test and never tried again which was surprising as he only made one silly error - the green traffic lights in the left lane are not yours - yours for the right turn are still on red - examiner yelled STOP!! - oops

I think I've had about 6 out of 100 who took it twice

I can claim a 99+% pass rate but only a 96+% first time pass rate

Horse wrote:You say their [observers'] comments varied - but how many examiners have you 'experienced' within the same short timespan as those cross-check drives?

As you would expect I submit myself to many more observors than examiners and as you rightly percieve in a shorter time scale. In all the time I have been a member of RoADAR I have had three different examiners, and each one has tested me more than once so I guess my sample for consistency may be a trifle small . But I have also been examined by one IAM examiner . Can I count the DSA based examiners in my sample?

Horse wrote: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'?

Ok so it was 'nit picking' - well once I had got back into things (had a bit of a layoff from 'peer' driving)

Horse wrote: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.

Agreed and this is one reason why I'd like to do the IAM Special Assessment - get a fresh assessment.

I am still unsure about the concept of observors examining - but wobbling.

Regards
Brian Haddon

Horse wrote:...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...

Observers are trained and examined by the local group. Senior Observers are trained by the local group but examined 'externally' by their Region's Staff Examiner...I guess that must help consistency.

Seniors have to requalify every 3 years with the group and every 6 years with the Staff Examiner.

I think if you give a good drive it won't matter who the examiner is. It only matters if your drive is borderline - which is not what we should be aiming for.

DSA examiners also vary in the way they mark (I state that with confidence ). Having sat in on many tests I would often have marked differently. However, I can only recall one occasion when the outcome would have been affected... She passed

I expect a similar situation prevails among IAM examiners.

brianhaddon wrote: I am still unsure about the concept of observors examining - but wobbling.

Regards
Brian Haddon

Don't get me wrong - I'm not intending to provike a change in the IAM methods to remove the 'police advanced' requirement. There's no need for me to, such discussions or thoughts have been underway for several years in recognition of reducing numbers of police etc. The latest budget reduction ructions aren't going to help . . .

As I said, for our purposes we had no real choice!

IAM Fast Track is now priced at £249. I'd argue that is excellent value. Fast Track is perhaps better value than Skills for Life, because of the benefit of having a professional coach. I'd rather learn from someone who does Fleet Training day-in and day-out (i.e. not someone who hasn't had professional training in how to instruct and only coaches in their spare time). This isn't a pop against Observers/Tutors, because I've been one myself.

waremark wrote: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.

Yes. Exactly!

I also agree that £249 is excellent value for 2 half days 1 to 1 with a professional instructor, a book, the test and membership.

Looking at the IAM website for the details of the current Fast Track offer, I was surprised not to be able to find comparable details of what is included in Skill for Life. Fairly recently I did find details of the Skill for Life offer on the website - is it still there somewhere that I have missed? Personally,if I was shopping cold for advanced driver training, and I could not easily find what it was for which I was being asked £139, I would very quickly go and look elsewhere.