Test criteria IAM.

[MGF]

If the required standard can be assessed in an hour then people might question the need for a mandatory 2 day course for all. It appears unlikely that the final analysis will be based solely on the driver's final hour of driving. For example, can an assessor, even one with instructor experience, confidently assess a driver's overtaking ability without them completing an overtake?

[ExadiNigel]

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.

When I took my IAM test it was simply pass or fail! How long have they been putting a grade on the pass for?

[jont]

If the required standard can be assessed in an hour then people might question the need for a mandatory 2 day course for all. It appears unlikely that the final analysis will be based solely on the driver's final hour of driving. For example, can an assessor, even one with instructor experience, confidently assess a driver's overtaking ability without them completing an overtake?

The gatekeepers have publicly stated that they've yet to have a mainstream candidate who is at the required standard 'out-of-the-box' - there have been a few Police-trained who are but they tend to arrive at the Club by means other than the 2½ day course. However, from my experience working with an ex-gatekeeper, an hour is sufficient to be able to determine a) what work may be required to bring them up to the standard and b) whether the remaining 2 days is sufficient time to do so. Often potential candidates are recommended to go away for a few months and work on things before re-presenting themselves.

Even in the theoretical case of someone being "good enough", HPC is about getting better. If you want to join a bunch of people like that (where there's also an expectation of regular additional training), you shouldn't have a problem paying for a couple of days training initially. It's not as if the gatekeepers are going to twiddle their thumbs and leave you in peace because you're already at entry level

[gannet]

the only negativity I've detected towards HPC and the gatekeepers is from those that haven't made the effort to go and see them themselves.

My own experience tallies with what StressedDave and Stefan are saying. Within the first 30 minutes of my 1/2 days initial assessment Clive had already highlighted many areas which needed improvement and many also which were good. He then proceeded to work on the areas that needed it. By the end of the 1/2 day we booked the 2 day course for a couple of months later - and gave me plenty to work on!

At the end of the 2 day course I still had stuff (who doesn't?) to work on -this process never ends. Those that think it does needn't apply

I consider the cost of the 2.5 day course money incredibly well spent and a relative bargain

[Kimosabe]

thanks guys, following these comments my interest in spending time with an HPC gatekeeper is growing faster than my ability to afford it but it's on my agenda, that's for sure!

[MGF]

... However, from my experience working with an ex-gatekeeper, an hour is sufficient to be able to determine a) what work may be required to bring them up to the standard and b) whether the remaining 2 days is sufficient time to do so. Often potential candidates are recommended to go away for a few months and work on things before re-presenting themselves.

If the driver, having done the 1/2 day assessment/coaching, is assessed as needing another half day of coaching what is the purpose of binding him to the gatekeepers' courses?

Reading some comments from HPC candidates it appears to me that people confuse wanting to improve their driving with wanting to be 'accepted' into the Club.

I agree with you that to improve one's driving there is only so far the syllabus of the IAM and RoSPA can take you and at some point engaging the services of a professional driving coach will be necessary. It just isn't necessary to do the HPC course to achieve that objective. Indeed I am sure Club members have been coached by people other than the gatekeepers. The course is simply there to get you into the Club notwithstanding the coaching is beneficial in itself.

[Gareth]

The course is simply there to get you into the Club notwithstanding the coaching is beneficial in itself.

The course I took didn't get me into the club - I plain wasn't good enough. I only found out about the club near the end of the course, and even then not at the instigation of the course-giver.

I accept that it would be vanishingly rare these days for it to be like that, however much I wish it to be so. But that doesn't mean the course doesn't serve its own purpose for others, as it did for me.

[jcochrane]

Reading some comments from HPC candidates it appears to me that people confuse wanting to improve their driving with wanting to be 'accepted' into the Club.

The course is simply there to get you into the Club notwithstanding the coaching is beneficial in itself.

You state this as a fact, which completely amazes me.

When I took the course the Club did not exist. You see my problem? How can you take a "course that is simply there to get you into the Club" when the Club does not exist?

My truth is at variance to yours. So which of us is telling the truth?

Your "statement of fact" implies that those meetings I had with two others who had completed the course to share our dreams as to how we could bring about the creation of a real active club (HPC) are no more than the figment of imagination of an old man. This is insulting and a retraction and apology are due.

To be strictly accurate The High Performance Course has not existed for a number of years.
Using the term 'course' today is perhaps slightly misleading and a hang up from the days of The High Performance Course. The position today is that should you choose to go to one of the appointed Gatekeepers for training to improve your driving they will, like any other instructor, discuss with you what you what to get out of the training. If you say that your goal is to get to the standard of HPC entry (and that does not have to be what you want to achieve) then the instructor will structure the training and assess your performance against that standard.

[stefan einz]

Reading some comments from HPC candidates it appears to me that people confuse wanting to improve their driving with wanting to be 'accepted' into the Club.

The course is simply there to get you into the Club notwithstanding the coaching is beneficial in itself.

You state this as a fact, which completely amazes me.

When I took the course the Club did not exist. You see my problem? How can you take a "course that is simply there to get you into the Club" when the Club does not exist?

My truth is at variance to yours. So which of us is telling the truth?

Your "statement of fact" implies that those meetings I had with two others who had completed the course to share our dreams as to how we could bring about the creation of a real active club (HPC) are no more than the figment of imagination of an old man. This is insulting and a retraction and apology are due.

To be strictly accurate The High Performance Course has not existed for a number of years.
Using the term 'course' today is perhaps slightly misleading and a hang up from the days of The High Performance Course. The position today is that should you choose to go to one of the appointed Gatekeepers for training to improve your driving they will, like any other instructor, discuss with you what you what to get out of the training. If you say that your goal is to get to the standard of HPC entry (and that does not have to be what you want to achieve) then the instructor will structure the training and assess your performance against that standard.

John

Thank you. You saved me from having to reply.

I do wish people would stop talking about stuff they have no idea about. It's pretty tiresome.

Cheers

Steve

[Zebedee]

Dave, I liked very much your description about improvement. It would be great if all the advanced driving organisations could live by this:

much ... improvement ... comes from ... driving where there is perhaps less pressure to do things the way you believe they should be done and more they way you feel they could be done.

(Please excuse my cannibalisation of Dave's persuasive post.)

[Kimosabe]

Dave, I liked very much your description about improvement. It would be great if all the advanced driving organisations could live by this:

much ... improvement ... comes from ... driving where there is perhaps less pressure to do things the way you believe they should be done and more they way you feel they could be done.

(Please excuse my cannibalisation of Dave's persuasive post.)

That about sums it up for me too. Thanks!

I'm still considering life after RoSPA and there are some pretty alluring further training courses out there which live up to Dave (and Zebedee's) sentiments. Just gotta work out the logistics.

Kimosabe doesn't do self-limiting beliefs.

(Message may contain humour)

[MGF]

Reading some comments from HPC candidates it appears to me that people confuse wanting to improve their driving with wanting to be 'accepted' into the Club.

The course is simply there to get you into the Club notwithstanding the coaching is beneficial in itself.

You state this as a fact, which completely amazes me.

It is a current reality.

When I took the course the Club did not exist. You see my problem? How can you take a "course that is simply there to get you into the Club" when the Club does not exist?

My truth is at variance to yours. So which of us is telling the truth?

Your "statement of fact" implies that those meetings I had with two others who had completed the course to share our dreams as to how we could bring about the creation of a real active club (HPC) are no more than the figment of imagination of an old man. This is insulting and a retraction and apology are due.

To be strictly accurate The High Performance Course has not existed for a number of years.
Using the term 'course' today is perhaps slightly misleading and a hang up from the days of The High Performance Course. The position today is that should you choose to go to one of the appointed Gatekeepers for training to improve your driving they will, like any other instructor, discuss with you what you what to get out of the training. If you say that your goal is to get to the standard of HPC entry (and that does not have to be what you want to achieve) then the instructor will structure the training and assess your performance against that standard.

Ignoring the predictable (although not from you) arrogant demand for an apology, now we are back onto the relevant point. That is the current 2.5 day course.


If you wish to simply improve your driving your options are not limited to professional coaching from Clive Jones or Andy Morrison. There are plenty of others to choose from and personally my first choice would not be either of these two.

If one simply wants to be a better driver why choose these two coaches?

HPC is often touted as the 'next step' after IAM/RoSPA and I think this is misleading. I think the next step is professional coaching (presuming that is necessary to improve one's driving). That coaching can result in a standard below, at, or above the HPC entry standard depending one's budget, time, effort and perhaps natural ability.

If the 2.5 day course is not an assessment then there is no need for it to be done with the gatekeepers.

If you want to improve your driving, book some time with a few professional coaches and maybe stick with the one you think works best for you. But don't limit yourself to the two HPC gatekeepers unless your goal is membership of the Club. That appears to me to be axiomatic.

[zadocbrown]

MDF, at the risk of prolonging this, I'm not sure what your point is?

If you don't aspire to HPC membership then there is no need to go to the gatekeepers. And no need to criticise those who have different aspirations.

If you do aspire to membership you have to do what is required by the club, which is to be recommended by the gatekeepers having had the benefit of top quality coaching along the way. What is the problem with that?

Given that the activities of the club involve driving expensive cars belonging to people the driver doesn't necessarily know personally (and in an enthusiastic manner, I believe) I think it is entirely reasonable that the existing membership would want to be very clear about the training new members have had and the standard they have reached...

It may be that the first hour of driving gives the assessor a good idea of a clients standard. But even so, turning up and doing it for an hour isn't the same thing as having to maintain the standard for 2 days, is it?

Likewise there may other coaches who could do the job, but would the quality control work if there were dozens of coaches involved?

I am not a member - so like you I have an outsider's view...

[MGF]

...

If you don't aspire to HPC membership then there is no need to go to the gatekeepers. And no need to criticise those who have different aspirations.

If you do aspire to membership you have to do what is required by the club, which is to be recommended by the gatekeepers having had the benefit of top quality coaching along the way. What is the problem with that?

None. My point is, if it isn't yet clear, that the reason for going to the gatekeepers is because you aspire to join the Club and the residual benefit of the coaching is not, in itself sufficient, to choose the gatekeepers. The assertion is that candidates are choosing the gatekeepers for the coaching and that being recommended for membership is a bonus. It may be that posts on here are not representative of candidates but they show a real determination to be 'accepted' into the Club rather than simply improving their driving.

It may be that the first hour of driving gives the assessor a good idea of a clients standard. But even so, turning up and doing it for an hour isn't the same thing as having to maintain the standard for 2 days, is it?

That was my point but stefan einz claims the driving is not being assessed over two days. If that is the case then the course would have value in itself. Maintaining a standard over two days, or even one day is significantly more challenging than 90 minutes.

Likewise there may other coaches who could do the job, but would the quality control work if there were dozens of coaches involved?

I might humbly suggest there are not dozens of coaches who would have sufficient ability to prepare a candidate to a sufficient standard but if the assessment only takes an hour, as alleged, then that should be restricted to the gatekeepers rather than the coaching.

[zadocbrown]

The assertion is that candidates are choosing the gatekeepers for the coaching and that being recommended for membership is a bonus. It may be that posts on here are not representative of candidates but they show a real determination to be 'accepted' into the Club rather than simply improving their driving.

Is this not really a false dichotomy? Surely the point of joining the club is to improve one's driving?

I might humbly suggest there are not dozens of coaches who would have sufficient ability to prepare a candidate to a sufficient standard but if the assessment only takes an hour, as alleged, then that should be restricted to the gatekeepers rather than the coaching.

Why?