ADUK Archive

sussex2 wrote:I've never taken IAM Masters but have got a Rospa Diploma and to be honest cannot see the point in having both. It'd be over egging the pudding IMO.

I think there is a difference of emphasis between the Diploma and Masters. The RoSPA Diploma is essentially a diploma in Advanced Driving Instruction [yes, you do have to drive well...to quote: You will also have demonstrated a high driving standard (RoSPA Gold, Silver or equivalent). as per RoSPA website]; whereas IAM Masters is an assessment of the candidate's driving ability only. To attain a pass at Masters requires a standard of driving above that of RoSPA Silver and above the minimum Gold level pass.

hir wrote:

sussex2 wrote:I've never taken IAM Masters but have got a Rospa Diploma and to be honest cannot see the point in having both. It'd be over egging the pudding IMO.

I think there is a difference of emphasis between the Diploma and Masters. The RoSPA Diploma is essentially a diploma in Advanced Driving Instruction [yes, you do have to drive well...to quote: You will also have demonstrated a high driving standard (RoSPA Gold, Silver or equivalent). as per RoSPA website]; whereas IAM Masters is an assessment of the candidate's driving ability only. To attain a pass at Masters requires a standard of driving above that of RoSPA Silver and above the minimum Gold level pass.

I had a Rospa Class1 (as it was then) when I took the Diploma. It was enough for me at the time as a good and solid base.
My experience of the IAM was limited to taking the test as it stood then. I very preferred the ethos of Rospa and found the examiners more on my wave length.

How do examiners differ between RoSPA and the IAM? Do they differ?

Zebedee wrote:How do examiners differ between RoSPA and the IAM? Do they differ?

Yes, they are not robots (despite what some say ...!)
Some are examiners for both IAM and RoSPA and, no doubt, have good days, bad days.
Their individual understanding of the "standard" is well-founded on Roadcraft and on any guidance given by the different organisations but judging a drive can never be totally objective.

Zebedee wrote:How do examiners differ between RoSPA and the IAM? Do they differ?

Not round here they don't - it's the same chap.

martine wrote:

Zebedee wrote:How do examiners differ between RoSPA and the IAM? Do they differ?

Not round here they don't - it's the same chap.

Er.... since a short time ago, ONE of the examiners tests for both organisations. Of course we know this happens in many areas, but there are plenty who work for only one as well. This particular chap, if it's who I think you mean, is well regarded (although old-fashioned in some of his outlook). Any examiner ought to be able to wear multiple hats if necessary though.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:

martine wrote:

Zebedee wrote:How do examiners differ between RoSPA and the IAM? Do they differ?

Not round here they don't - it's the same chap.

Any examiner ought to be able to wear multiple hats if necessary though.

So how then do examiners differentiate between IAM and RoSPA test standards if they examine for both?

The only difference I can see is that IAM grades are regarded by some as being lower than RoSPA. I remain continually perplexed by the notion that everything the IAM do is regarded as always being slightly below RoSPA Gold. IAM F1rst is 'about a RoSPA Gold', IAM Masters is considered as 'about a RoSPA Gold' and unless i'm missing something, both use the same abridged version of Roadcraft (hallowed be it's name), insist on the same steering and braking inputs (Pull-Push be thy name and Heel-Toe be not thy name, not ever) and use the same observation approaches. I have the marking criteria for both and to me it seems that the only differences are in the layout of the marking sheet.

Might have to go and get one of those RoSPA Gold's one of these days but I recognise the 'over egging' sentiment and don't require duplicates, so i'm also choosing between Masters and Diploma courses. I presume it's possible to take the Masters/ Diploma courses without first having taken one of their others first?

The approved text for Masters is Roadcraft not HTBABD.

mefoster wrote:ETA: The diploma course also costs £1100 +VAT. Unless you want to teach for reward then I know where my money and time would be better spent.

£1100+vat ?!! That's over £1100 by my exacting estimations. It's curiosity about these courses that's driving this line of enquiry for me and all signs still point towards 1-1 coaching. I'm not going into teaching people to drive as I quite like this as a hobby. I really think such important matters are best discussed over a bacon sarnie and tea, at a remote rural location that also sells plants, n'est pas?

I can't remember how much the Diploma cost when I did but it was quite a few groats I believe.
Passing it was part of a greater plan but would I have taken it if not? Probably yes is the answer and the cost whatever it was has been lost in mists of time.

Kimosabe wrote:[The only difference I can see is that IAM grades are regarded by some as being lower than RoSPA. I remain continually perplexed by the notion that everything the IAM do is regarded as always being slightly below RoSPA Gold. IAM F1rst is 'about a RoSPA Gold', IAM Masters is considered as 'about a RoSPA Gold' and unless i'm missing something, both use the same abridged version of Roadcraft (hallowed be it's name), insist on the same steering and braking inputs (Pull-Push be thy name and Heel-Toe be not thy name, not ever) and use the same observation approaches. I have the marking criteria for both and to me it seems that the only differences are in the layout of the marking sheet.

If you are keen to progress towards being the best driver you can be, rather than to develop your teaching skills, then the cost of a Diploma course might be better spent with an HPC 'gatekeeper'.

As to comparisons, since neither Rospa nor IAM express their marking in relation to the other, different examiners are likely to come up with slightly different interpretations of the boundaries between the different grades. However, I cannot believe the minimum standard for First would ever be lower than the minimum for Gold. As to texts, at the initial advanced test level, according to the official line IAM only accept their own limited and confusing book whereas Rospa use Roadcraft throughout. And as to methods, again according to the official line IAM is increasingly inflexible in the interests of standardisation and quality control, whereas under its new Chief Examiner Rospa is more inclined to 'if safe smooth planned and controlled then its good'.

Kimosabe wrote:...I remain continually perplexed by the notion that everything the IAM do is regarded as always being slightly below RoSPA Gold. IAM F1rst is 'about a RoSPA Gold', IAM Masters is considered as 'about a RoSPA Gold'

Who said that?

Masters is considered by many to be above Gold...in fact there is one poster (can't remember if it's here or on the IAM forum) that has done both and confirmed that in detail. Masters has been described as being like Police Advanced (by our Staff Examiner who examines both) - with the big exception of speed i.e. the level of detail and accuracy in all areas of the drive expected. The test itself is 90 mins driving and includes detailed Highway Code and Roadcraft questions enroute and/or while stationary.

IAM F1rst is described as equivalent to Gold.

martine wrote:IAM F1rst is described as equivalent to Gold.

By some, not others.

The suggestion that Masters is equivalent to Police Advanced without the speed has never seemed very meaningful to me. Police Advanced without the speed, pursuit, use of warning equipment or exemptions is not police advanced. The absence of those matters changes the course, the test, and indeed the whole drive.

And the way we frequently see police advanced drivers driving on Police Camera Action style programmes would not always score well on Masters!

waremark wrote:

martine wrote:IAM F1rst is described as equivalent to Gold.

By some, not others.

The suggestion that Masters is equivalent to Police Advanced without the speed has never seemed very meaningful to me. Police Advanced without the speed, pursuit, use of warning equipment or exemptions is not police advanced. The absence of those matters changes the course, the test, and indeed the whole drive.

And the way we frequently see police advanced drivers driving on Police Camera Action style programmes would not always score well on Masters!

This reminded me of a debate on here about what an officer is taught and what they actually do. I was discussing driving with an advanced driver from Kent the other day. He said how he would heel n toe, use fixed input and left foot brake, because it adds to safety, but not whilst on a recent retest.

jcochrane wrote:

waremark wrote:

martine wrote:IAM F1rst is described as equivalent to Gold.

By some, not others.

The suggestion that Masters is equivalent to Police Advanced without the speed has never seemed very meaningful to me. Police Advanced without the speed, pursuit, use of warning equipment or exemptions is not police advanced. The absence of those matters changes the course, the test, and indeed the whole drive.

And the way we frequently see police advanced drivers driving on Police Camera Action style programmes would not always score well on Masters!

This reminded me of a debate on here about what an officer is taught and what they actually do. I was discussing driving with an advanced driver from Kent the other day. He said how he would heel n toe, use fixed input and left foot brake, because it adds to safety, but not whilst on a recent retest.

"Going through the motions", probably implicitly understood by the tester and the one under test. Tick box exercise, to protect the organisation concerned.