Test criteria IAM.

[Silk]

How would an observer who does not participate in this forum have known about this?

Who thinks it is justified? (There is no culture of or requirement for commentary in HPC).

I think if a commentary is not a required element for a "normal" pass it shouldn't be for a F1rst. There, I've said it.

Although I think commentary can be a good thing and it's pretty much essential if you want to be able to pass on driving skills on to others, driving is all about actions rather than words, which is probably why we have so many disagreements on here. IMO, of course.

[Gareth]

How would an observer who does not participate in this forum have known about this?

As I understand it, I imagine it is reasonably widely known amongst IAM observers that a F1rst may be awarded with '1' marked in all categories, and with the examiner's discretion up to three categories graded '2', (although certain categories must be graded '1').

Who thinks it is justified?

I think it isn't not justified.

[Kimosabe]

Here's what puts a big happy smile on my face when I think about it -
If you take the 3 for commentary out of the marking criteria (because it wasn't taught etc) that leaves 26 possible criteria in which I could have scored anything between 1 and 5 in each criteria. Out of those 26 criteria, I scored twenty three 1's and three 2's. If you add up the twenty-three 1's and three 2's and then divide by 26, I scored an average overall mark of 1.11. That's up there in the high 90% and every reason to be happy with.

Some of you may have already guessed that I have also been considering my next step after RoSPA and this has lead me to discussing the merits of private coaching and/or HPC 2 1/2 day 'entry' course with a 'gatekeeper'. My reason for doing this is somewhat because I am finding reading from the Book of Roadcraft to be somewhat restrictive when compared to what I have come to consider to be 'advanced driving'. No one book can or does have all of the answers so I accept HTBABD's and RC's limitations and also look elsewhere for answers. One thing though, anyone who does argue that HTBABD or Roadcraft does have all of the answers and is in danger of encouraging dogma, is doing AD a great disservice and that is not good for the IAM or RoSPA.

So with that, thanks again for the support and encouragement you have given to me and other members of this forum. A couple of months ago, I was so curious about my driving abilities that I set out for and eventually got an IAM pass. I am now working towards RoSPA Gold and then probably on to something else. I one day hope to be able to help others to do the same

.... and so my AD driving 'journey' continues

See you out there some time.

[Ralge]

How would an observer who does not participate in this forum have known about this?

Who thinks it is justified? (There is no culture of or requirement for commentary in HPC).

I don't think they would. It was news to me. I have never understood why a commentary is part of a test for RoSPA or IAM. The only reason I've been given is so that the candidate can can explain what they see and what they are planning to do and so that the examiner can also get an understanding of what, where the candidate is looking and what they are planning to do etc.

In my view if the examiner does not have the experience to work this out through observing the candidate and requires the commentary to help them then they are not qualified to be examining.

Whilst commentary is not a mandatory element of a RoADTest or a Gold test it gives the candidate the opportunity to demonstrate the ability to seek out information and have a driving plan to deal with actual and potential hazards. This is of value to the examiner since nothing out of the ordinary may happen whilst on test but the candidate will have demonstrated that he/she was ready with a driving plan to deal with whatever.
How else can a candidate fully demonstrate advanced hazard perception skills OVER AND ABOVE giving the examiner sight and feel of a smooth, polished, flair-loaded drive?
Perhaps I am talking about a high-level instructional commentary that has to be taught?
I haven't yet been presented with the problem but I can't imagine awarding Gold without a commentary that is, in addition, more than half-decent.

And I can't understand why commentary wasn't taught - it is a significant element in every defensive, fleet, NDAC, Speed, advanced session I and my colleagues run.

[waremark]

Kimo, how come your sig now says F1rst?

[waremark]

How would an observer who does not participate in this forum have known about this?

As I understand it, I imagine it is reasonably widely known amongst IAM observers that a F1rst may be awarded with '1' marked in all categories, and with the examiner's discretion up to three categories graded '2', (although certain categories must be graded '1').

Who thinks it is justified?

I think it isn't not justified.

I do not remember knowing the specific requirement for inclusion of commentary, although that may have been implicit.

[waremark]

"And I can't understand why commentary wasn't taught - it is a significant element in every defensive, fleet, NDAC, Speed, advanced session I and my colleagues run"

Your colleagues in what organisation, for interest?

When I joined HPC the then Chief Instructor John Lyon used to require practice of commentary, but I don't think that is the case now, and commentary is not required to meet the club's standards. Presumably the 'Gatekeepers' who are current or former police advanced instructors think they can tell enough of what a driver is thinking about from the driving.

[MGF]

It does take them a couple of days though. Most other assessments are less than a couple of hours.

[Ralge]

"And I can't understand why commentary wasn't taught - it is a significant element in every defensive, fleet, NDAC, Speed, advanced session I and my colleagues run"

Your colleagues in what organisation, for interest?

When I joined HPC the then Chief Instructor John Lyon used to require practice of commentary, but I don't think that is the case now, and commentary is not required to meet the club's standards. Presumably the 'Gatekeepers' who are current or former police advanced instructors think they can tell enough of what a driver is thinking about from the driving.

I refer to colleagues, fellow-trainers, course monitors/managers and on fleet, Safed, NDIS/NDAC/Speed courses (Rospa, AA Drivetech, D&S etc.)
I wouldn't know whether the "gate-keepers" can tell what is going on in the driver's head - I guess I can to a degree having sat next to two drivers per day (generally) for most of the last 7 years - but the point about commentary is that it is a hazard awareness and driving plan development tool for any driver. It forms the solid base of a Reflective Competence, a self-awareness and ability for self-evaluation.
I am expected to give demo drives and within them a commentary, so it isn't really an "optional extra", it is at the core of any training I do.
Any training devoid of it is the poorer for it, in my book, and the likes of Chris Gilbert and his DVD's (as one former Met Police Instructor) suggests the same. He is convinced that even a rudimentary commentary (and the mental disciplines it imposes on a driver) would prevent the vast bulk of crashes and that's surely a major part of the motivation for anyone taking up AD and it is clearly the reason for company driver training, Police diversionary training courses ... etc
I'm surprised, therefore, that it appears to be the case (is it?) that a driver can go through an IAM AD course without commentary.

Forgive me, what's HPC?

[Ralge]

Here's what puts a big happy smile on my face when I think about it -
If you take the 3 for commentary out of the marking criteria (because it wasn't taught etc) that leaves 26 possible criteria in which I could have scored anything between 1 and 5 in each criteria. Out of those 26 criteria, I scored twenty three 1's and three 2's. If you add up the twenty-three 1's and three 2's and then divide by 26, I scored an average overall mark of 1.11. That's up there in the high 90% and every reason to be happy with.

Some of you may have already guessed that I have also been considering my next step after RoSPA and this has lead me to discussing the merits of private coaching and/or HPC 2 1/2 day 'entry' course with a 'gatekeeper'. My reason for doing this is somewhat because I am finding reading from the Book of Roadcraft to be somewhat restrictive when compared to what I have come to consider to be 'advanced driving'. No one book can or does have all of the answers so I accept HTBABD's and RC's limitations and also look elsewhere for answers. One thing though, anyone who does argue that HTBABD or Roadcraft does have all of the answers and is in danger of encouraging dogma, is doing AD a great disservice and that is not good for the IAM or RoSPA.

So with that, thanks again for the support and encouragement you have given to me and other members of this forum. A couple of months ago, I was so curious about my driving abilities that I set out for and eventually got an IAM pass. I am now working towards RoSPA Gold and then probably on to something else. I one day hope to be able to help others to do the same

.... and so my AD driving 'journey' continues

See you out there some time.

What's HTBABD referred to above?
(I've been looking at it for a while and still haven't worked it out! )

[jcochrane]

Answering your two questions above.
HPC see the web site at http://www.hpc.org.uk/

HTBABD is the IAM's own book on driving...How To Be A Better Driver.

Picking up on your point on commentary I note you referencre to it for training and would agree that it can be a very useful tool during training particularly for a demonstration by the instructor. Without the verbal explanation during the demonstration the training is likely to be less effective. However when used in this context it is not what is generally recognised as a commentary in the sense being discussed.

I have yet to see a full commentary where all the points are covered. I accept that we can mentally process information more quickly than we can verbalise it. Which in my view is why a full commentary can never be that ie. full, but rather selective.

With extensive practice I have seen some excellent commentaries and those of Chris Gilbert have been mentioned already as an example but also there is, even at this level a slight detectable dip in peek performance by most. Having said that if it helps then of course deffinitely do it and many will feel it does. Simarly there will be those who feel it detracts and therefore perhaps should not do it. We are all different and different appraoches suit better than others. This may be one reason why a commentary is best to be voluntary during a test. For the police I can see justification to learn to talk and drive. If single manned they may find they have to drive and operate the radio simultainiously.

Of course there may be likely value, I believe, if one stops thinking about what one sees to try talking out loud to re focus the mind to actively think. But I have also seen this make matters worse and that is usually a sure sign that a break and some rest is required.

[Silk]

Forgive me, what's HPC?

[TripleS]

Forgive me, what's HPC?

You, in particular, should know: Highly Provocative Comments. HTH.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Kimosabe]

Kimo, how come your sig now says F1rst?

Hey fella,
The IAM decided that my test score, attitude and examiners comments were high enough in all the right places to award me with a F1rst. So my name is on a list, my card and certificate have a F1rst logo on them. I can now move on from this to concentrate on RoSPA Gold while also considering becoming an observer, IAM Masters and/or private tuition from someone eg. an HPC Gatekeeper. Right now, I'm most intrigued by what might happen if I saved up for a 2 1/2 day spell with an HPC gatekeeper. Watch this space.

What began as a matter of curiosity about my driving ability (if you read my earliest posts you'll see that I wanted a standard with which to measure my ability to drive by), has for many reasons become a challenge to find my driving potential. This will obviously take some time and I always give everything I endeavour to do my best shot so its bound to be fairly eventful. I look forward to learning more.

Other thoughts-
I can see the pros and cons in much of what is being discussed here but treating this as a matter of absolutes, is bound to be fraught with conflict. It's inflexibility and fixed patterns that can lead to forced errors, so while some consider eg. Commentary to be a necessary discipline without which it is impossible to drive properly, some say it's of limited value. I fall somewhere in between. In my current career, at various points, I have had to give simultaneous commentary to show my thinking and planning to a panel of observers but this was always considered to be a matter of explanation rather than of demonstrating pure skill and that's how I see giving a commentary while driving. As others have said, it is not possible to state everything perceived, so whatever is verbalised is going to be a fraction of perception anyway. Therefore to base a total value on the outcome of what is verbalised is a mistake. I can't think of anything more to say about commentary driving that I haven't already.

[stefan einz]

It does take them a couple of days though. Most other assessments are less than a couple of hours.

Actually, they (the gatekeepers) usually size up someone's driving in less than hour (I suspect given their experience level, it may even be rather less than that). The rest of the time on the 2 1/2 day course is spent coaching them to get better. If by the end they've shown the standard required, then they get a recommendation to join the Club.