Steering - again, what should be taught

[sussex2]

I think we shouldn't attach undue importance to the fine details of marking. It isn't a helpful way to proceed.

I couldn't agree more.

[zadocbrown]

I think we shouldn't attach undue importance to the fine details of marking. It isn't a helpful way to proceed.

Well I'm interested even if you're not.

I am interested. However this thread is about teaching better steering and IMO playing 2nd guess the examiner can have a negative effect when taken too far. It is this more than silly dictats from on high (which are widely ignored) that encourages a myopic approach to technique and leads to people improving their 'grade' at the expense of developing their real world performance.

[waremark]

So, you are suggesting that the IAM has adopted a standard the effect of which may be to reduce the efficacy of an individual's steering, and that makes sense because they are using a bunch of amateurs working at arm's length.

That's just about the daftest suggestion I've heard yet. Not even the highest echelons of the powers that be at Chiswick would be daft enough to make that assertion.

You may think it is daft but it may well have been the case that my steering declined because I adopted PP in accordance with HTBABD, the IAM's chosen technique.

It is a real possibility and not a daft assertion as you claim. It is also obviously acceptable to the IAM. If it were not PP would be a simple advisory in HTBABD to avoid this possibility.

I understood that what hir was calling daft was not that being required to use PP might reduce an individual's steering performance, but that 'that makes sense because they are using a bunch of amateurs'.

[waremark]

So you're not even sure of the scale of the perceived problem, just a possibility that it might exist. If that is the case it hardly calls for a campaign for change.

I suppose I should be gratified to see that you have elevated the status of our somewhat modest lack of willingness to endorse the IAM's stance on pull-push steering to that of a campaign. If only the IAM would take us as seriously.

We must now press on for complete victory at all costs.

It was the Chairman of the HPC who declared "The revolution is coming", not I.

I cannot remember the context of that quote - did it really imply a campaign?

It is certainly true that some of us think that it is misguided for the IAM to be even more restrictive about approved steering methods than the current edition of Roadcraft, would like to see the next edition of HTBABD brought into line with Roadcraft, and explained as much to a group of IAM personnel when we met them recently.

Beyond that, there are many here including VH, Stressed D and hir who would like to see an even more fliexible attitude to steering techniques where it is only the outcome which is assessed, and not the technique. I don't think anyone has made a serious attempt to persuade the powers that be in IAM house of that point of view, but if VH is typical of attitudes being introduced to police driving schools then moves in that direction will come - does that mean the revolution is coming? If so, it is coming from police driving schools, not from HPC.

Meanwhile, IAM Examiners have a range of different personal attitudes, and I am confident that many assess based on a more flexible approach than that officially dictated from on high.

[waremark]

To be honest, I'm confused about the standards and marking full stop, and differences between pass, First and Masters.

How, for example, using hir's outcomes and techniques, would they be marked across the three levels?

I agree it appears complicated but if we analyse it it's fairly simple:

Using the marking system that I described earlier, if you get a 1 in just about everything then you get a F1RST, if you don't, you get a PASS. And if it's really bad you get a FAIL.

Masters is a case of assessing the 27 competencies but at a significantly higher level than when assessing the entry level test.

In other words, the criteria for obtaining a 1 at entry level is lower than that for obtaining a 1 in Masters.

I agree that this is neither relevant nor helpful in relation to the question I posed in the thread title. But anyway ...

To summarise: there is a single marking sheet used for IAM tests, in which a score of 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor) is awarded for each of 27 competences. At the Advanced Driving Test, a mix of 2's and 3's will get you a pass (someone else may quote the precise criterion), and all 1's except up to 3 specific 2's will get you a First. At Masters, the same marking sheet is used, but the calibration is different with a higher standard required to get the same scores. At Masters, you get a Distinction (a score of 80) with all except 6 competences getting 1 and the rest 2, and a Masters (a score of 70) with all except 11 competences getting 1 and the rest 2.

And now if we try to relate that specifically to steering technique, Observers have been instructed that they should not teach or demonstrate any techniques other than PP. However, it has been put in writing that you will not be marked down for steering as a result of using techniques other than PP providing that the steering is safe, smooth, accurate and well controlled - and in theory this should mean that even at Masters you should get a 1 for steering if the outcome is good regardless of technique.

This paragraph has been specifically written in relation to Masters: "Advanced drivers should be working to optimise every element of their drive. Our examiners will expect a drive based upon Roadcraft, additional techniques will not improve the candidate’s test result but, should such techniques be inexpertly or inappropriately delivered, they have the potential to reduce the test score." (At Masters, Roadcraft is the official text, at the Advanced Driving Test the IAM's own, more limited book, How to be a Better Driver, is the only approved text).

Now, examiners are individuals, and interpret this individually. It has become clear that for some examiners, any amount of fixed grip steering even within that advocated by Roadcraft as 'the standard hold' would be considered inappropriate, and therefore result in being given a 2 rather than a 1 at Masters. This would not stop you achieving a Distinction at Masters - because you can get a Distinction with up to 6 2's. For a First you have to get a 1 for steering, but since Masters is supposed to be significantly higher than First, presumably the same steering which got you a 2 at Masters would have got you a 1 at the Advanced Driving Test - all depending of course on your individual examiner.

Horse, has that clarified the marking scheme for you?

[waremark]

So back to the thread title, I don't think we have consensus! Is this the range of opinions on what should be taught?

Teach everyone Pull Push and nothing else - it works in most situations, most people can do it to an acceptable level, it slows people down to a safe speed, it can be taught and assessed.

Teach a range of techniques in line with Roadcraft, ensuring an understanding of the pro's and con's of each.

Teach a slighly wider range of techniques than Roadcraft, for example being flexible about hands passing 12 and 6, introducing the 'predictive/Chelmsford' technique.

Teach rotational steering as the base technique, in line with the Spanish videos. (I am sure other techniques must have been suggested as the base technique).

Explain the objective of safe, smooth, accurate, flexible and under control, and let the pupil work out how to achieve it. (Perhaps point out that having both hands near to the steering wheel is important for some aspects of this).

Don't mention steering unless there is a problem with it. If there is, choose from the above.

[Horse]

How, for example, using hir's outcomes and techniques, would they be marked across the three levels?

I agree it appears complicated but if we analyse it it's fairly simple:

Using the marking system that I described earlier, if you get a 1 in just about everything then you get a F1RST, if you don't, you get a PASS. And if it's really bad you get a FAIL.

Masters is a case of assessing the 27 competencies but at a significantly higher level than when assessing the entry level test.

In other words, the criteria for obtaining a 1 at entry level is lower than that for obtaining a 1 in Masters.

I agree that this is neither relevant nor helpful in relation to the question I posed in the thread title. But anyway ...

To summarise: there is a single marking sheet used for IAM tests . . .

This paragraph has been specifically written in relation to Masters: "Advanced drivers should be working to optimise every element of their drive. Our examiners will expect a drive based upon Roadcraft, additional techniques will not improve the candidate’s test result but, should such techniques be inexpertly or inappropriately delivered, they have the potential to reduce the test score." (At Masters, Roadcraft is the official text, at the Advanced Driving Test the IAM's own, more limited book, How to be a Better Driver, is the only approved text).

It has become clear that for some examiners, any amount of fixed grip steering even within that advocated by Roadcraft as 'the standard hold' would be considered inappropriate, and therefore result in being given a 2 rather than a 1 at Masters. This would not stop you achieving a Distinction at Masters - because you can get a Distinction with up to 6 2's. For a First you have to get a 1 for steering, but since Masters is supposed to be significantly higher than First, presumably the same steering which got you a 2 at Masters would have got you a 1 at the Advanced

Horse, has that clarified the marking scheme for you?

Yes, and has highlighted my concerns which, I feel, do directly relate to the theme of this thread.

'What' should be taught relates (well, should do!) to 'what' is tested. That's not just for steering techniques, but applies to any and every test of anything where a test is preceded by training.

If progression of marking you have explained uses the same marking competences, it seems a bizarre idea (well, to me anyway) that the teaching and assessment should vary at different levels. Is there anything else within the IAM test where this sort of change occurs as driving 'improves'?



And, to answer your subsequent question, I like the 'Spanish' method (I was taught it over the phone by whoever ran the Audi training in the late '80s / early 90s) but use a variety of methods as I think appropriate, with due regard for not having my arms crossed over the wheel on the way into blind bends or other situations where a head-on collision (and so airbag deployment) is potentially likely.

I haven't actively tried the 'predictive' method on a long drive, but wonder whether it is limited by the requirement to either a. be psychic, or b. already 'know' how much prediction to apply So it might be limited to situations where the exit can be seen (or reliably estimated) from the bend's entry.

But . . . it's down to priorities; what are the candidate's main priorities (the ones they are aware of and specify, and those they're unaware of) for work? The 'test' priorities should be overridden by safety. If one of those safety concerns is their steering, then solve those types of problem early in the process. Then work on test-specific requirements because, if you're going to pass you need to know what hoops to drive through. If it's not for a test, then coach candidates to develop a suitable method for themselves. If you can do that, while informing on test requirements too, well that's even better

[Horse]

Edit, but as another post to avoid clouding the previous one

When it comes to higher standards etc., I'm aware of the 'spiral curriculum', where concepts are revisited at higher levels. If you're not aware of this idea, think of looking 'down' on a spiral spring so you see a circle, imagine the competences arranged around like a clock face. Now look at the side of the spring, with each turn passing through each competence - but higher with each turn. Primary school, Junior school, secondary, GCSE, A level, Degree, etc.

So are there any other AD competences where the technique, information and assessment criteria change? Perhaps, in an odd way, limiting Observers to a restricted range actually makes sense, and justifies the existence of Masters etc.!

[7db]

Don't mention steering unless there is a problem with it. If there is, choose from the above.

This.

I don't think I've ever seen a driver where the top thing I've wanted to mention is the steering technique.

[waremark]

Don't mention steering unless there is a problem with it. If there is, choose from the above.

This.

I don't think I've ever seen a driver where the top thing I've wanted to mention is the steering technique.

Interesting. I think that the steering technique is sometimes obviously poor and it is a very concrete thing to deal with. Example - jerky steering at high speed, with left hand on gear stick. Wouldn't you want to mention?

But if you are talking about giving input to fellow HPC members I hope you wouldn't be seeing anything like that!

[waremark]

Edit, but as another post to avoid clouding the previous one

When it comes to higher standards etc., I'm aware of the 'spiral curriculum', where concepts are revisited at higher levels. If you're not aware of this idea, think of looking 'down' on a spiral spring so you see a circle, imagine the competences arranged around like a clock face. Now look at the side of the spring, with each turn passing through each competence - but higher with each turn. Primary school, Junior school, secondary, GCSE, A level, Degree, etc.

So are there any other AD competences where the technique, information and assessment criteria change? Perhaps, in an odd way, limiting Observers to a restricted range actually makes sense, and justifies the existence of Masters etc.!

I like your spiral curriculum concept. It can certainly make sense to develop and explore more and different techniques at higher levels - even if many of us do not agree with the particular restrictions dictated by the IAM, or indeed with the need to dictate restrictions which may not be appropriate for particular observers and/or associates.

I cannot think of any other AD competences where the technique, information and assessment criteria change at different levels within IAM - but if you extend beyond IAM of course positioning across a centre line to maintain and view and BGOL are the other prime examples - which is perhaps partly why we enjoy going round in circles about these three issues.

[Astraist]

I still don't understand the thread!

Steering input should be tested not by "technique" but by the aspects of effective steering inputs: long sub-inputs (i.e. bites of steering), precision with readiness to turn the wheel quickly in either direction at any moment, no excessive effort. The steering output should be judged by smoothness and accuracy.

As long as the above criteria are used for driving, tutoring and examination, than "technique" becomes irrelevant. The driver, tutor and examiner might as well not know what "pull-push", "rotational", "fixed input" or "predictive" steering are!

[MGF]

I subsequently realised that avoiding BGOL helped with reducing my entry speeds to hazards so the blunt instrument is probably not as silly as you think.

Yes and no - so the argument goes - in that yes, avoiding BGOL makes the driver build in sufficient time with the effect of making them slow down before hazards rather than in them, and no, in that once the driver understands slowing before hazards rather than through them avoiding BGOL isn't necessary to do so.

The assumption is that if there is more than one way to skin a cat then it is silly/daft/dogma/(insert other belittling term) to prescribe one way. The premise being that choice is so important that the environment in which the learning occurs is largely irrelevant to whether choice is given. That premise can just as easily be labelled as silly/daft/dogma/etc.

Waremark's question presupposes that there is one best answer to the question.

So back to the thread title, I don't think we have consensus! Is this the range of opinions on what should be taught?

I think the best answer depends on the circumstances.

[MGF]

...
I understood that what hir was calling daft was not that being required to use PP might reduce an individual's steering performance, but that 'that makes sense because they are using a bunch of amateurs'.

That presupposes that the IAM model of teaching is irrelevant to the methods used. I don't think that is realistic.

[MGF]

It was the Chairman of the HPC who declared "The revolution is coming", not I.

I cannot remember the context of that quote - did it really imply a campaign?

The context was his sting operation to expose the intransigence of the Master's examiner with regards to steering technique The preoccupation that some have with this cannot reasonably be described as an interest or a point of view rather than a campaign. Indeed, it would be odd to describe it as a revolution if it wasn't in response to a concerted effort.