DVSA examiners

[Rowley010]

Are DVSA examiners that conduct the learner driver tests for cars and larger vehicle advanced drivers? Ie I know they won't be IAM or rospa but as part of their own training do they do a test that is of similar standard to one of the groups?

[RobC]

Are DVSA examiners that conduct the learner driver tests for cars and larger vehicle advanced drivers? Ie I know they won't be IAM or rospa but as part of their own training do they do a test that is of similar standard to one of the groups?

Some are, one of my local DVSA examiners has an IAM badge on the grille of his car. DVSA examiners are also exempt from having to take the IAM test and take a special driving test at Cardington. There's no reason not to be in the IAM as there isn't a big difference between DVSA driving and IAM/Rospa driving.

[Rowley010]

This brings me on to my next question then. If they are advanced, then why do they give minor or sometimes major faults on a driving test for not signalling if there's no benefit to another road user?

Your taught to ALWAYS signal at junctions and ALWAYS signal at roundabouts whether there is someone there or not. Yet if they've done advanced driving, they are being a bit hypocritical for giving faults to a leaner for not signalling IF there is no benefit to another person on the road.


Reason I'm asking this is because I recently passed my HGV test and got a minor fault for no signal....I knew exactly when the examiner meant, and I remember I observed all around me and decided a signal would have been no benefit to anyone else!

[GS]

This brings me on to my next question then. If they are advanced, then why do they give minor or sometimes major faults on a driving test for not signalling if there's no benefit to another road user?

Your taught to ALWAYS signal at junctions and ALWAYS signal at roundabouts whether there is someone there or not. Yet if they've done advanced driving, they are being a bit hypocritical for giving faults to a leaner for not signalling IF there is no benefit to another person on the road.


Reason I'm asking this is because I recently passed my HGV test and got a minor fault for no signal....I knew exactly when the examiner meant, and I remember I observed all around me and decided a signal would have been no benefit to anyone else!

It depends on what you mean by 'advanced'.

One person's idea of advanced is not always the same as another's.

Some people use the term to describe someone who has passed their IAM, RoSPA or police test. There are other driving tests available such as the Diamond test and the Carding Special test which are not usually described as 'advanced' but are nevertheless tests which you have to drive to a high standard to pass. Possibly to a higher standard than either the IAM or RoSPA tests. (I speak as a current RoSPA examiner and ex-IAM examiner) Different organisations see things differently. I certainly do not remember having to ALWAYS indicate as you describe when I took DSA tests. Just because a different organisation wants to see slightly different things on their tests does not necessarily mean that they are wrong or 'less advanced' than another, they are just slightly different.

If 'advanced' means harder, then I would certainly rather take an IAM or RoSPA test than a Cardington test if I was looking for a high mark. To me the Cardington test would be harder, does this mean it is more advanced? I don't know.

I do not think that giving unnecessary indication in itself is wrong, unnecessary perhaps, but not wrong. However I do think that not indicating when it is or may be helpful is wrong. That's just my opinion.

I also think that when discussing different standards required for different driving tests, if the differences just come down to use of signals, they can't be THAT different.

[RobC]

I do not think that giving unnecessary indication in itself is wrong, unnecessary perhaps, but not wrong. However I do think that not indicating when it is or may be helpful is wrong. That's just my opinion.

I also think that when discussing different standards required for different driving tests, if the differences just come down to use of signals, they can't be THAT different.

Arghh I find myself in complete agreement with GS again!

The DVSA also consider if signals are necessary or misleading in test marking.
If a person failed to signal at a junction on a learner test when no one was there to benefit at the time of considering a signal but someone might have benefitted, for example approaching a junction with restricted sightlines., you couldn't say for certain that there wouldn't be someone to benefit when you got to the junction and you could still be marked for a fault.
My general advice to a learners therefore would be to signal at all junctions on test as in practice there are very few junctions with open sightlines and no other road users on the road. You are more likely to be faulted for omitting a signal where someone could have benefitted than an unnecessary signal.

Signals on HGV tests are different then on a car test because HGVs are slower moving, larger and may have to position later or differently at junctions. Divers behind can't see through your back window or past your sides as easily.
HGV drivers are therefore expected by the DVSA to signal more than car drivers. This is only common sense.

When I took my IAM test I signalled as I would for DVSA Pt2 and did not receive any faults for signalling.

[Horse]

When I took the Star Rider Gold test, it was in two sections. First was 'until told otherwise, do full system', then do what was necessary. The marking scheme was on a 'marks away' basis from the examiner's decision of what was required but not done.

[vonhosen]

This brings me on to my next question then. If they are advanced, then why do they give minor or sometimes major faults on a driving test for not signalling if there's no benefit to another road user?

That isn't as per their guidance.

By the way there are many flavours of 'advanced' & they don't all follow the same style.

Your taught to ALWAYS signal at junctions and ALWAYS signal at roundabouts whether there is someone there or not. Yet if they've done advanced driving, they are being a bit hypocritical for giving faults to a leaner for not signalling IF there is no benefit to another person on the road.


Reason I'm asking this is because I recently passed my HGV test and got a minor fault for no signal....I knew exactly when the examiner meant, and I remember I observed all around me and decided a signal would have been no benefit to anyone else!

With who & what he could see he may not have agreed with you that it was of no benefit.

[RobC]

Reason I'm asking this is because I recently passed my HGV test and got a minor fault for no signal....I knew exactly when the examiner meant, and I remember I observed all around me and decided a signal would have been no benefit to anyone else!

With who & what he could see he may not have agreed with you that it was of no benefit.

It could be no one was around when you considered a signal, but there were restricted sightlines and someone 'could' have been there and benefitted even though it turned out no one was there. As I said earlier examiners expect a lot more signals on HGV tests

Then again I've sat in on many tests and examiners aren't always right and make mistakes like the rest of us.

[vonhosen]

Are DVSA examiners that conduct the learner driver tests for cars and larger vehicle advanced drivers? Ie I know they won't be IAM or rospa but as part of their own training do they do a test that is of similar standard to one of the groups?

Some are, one of my local DVSA examiners has an IAM badge on the grille of his car. DVSA examiners are also exempt from having to take the IAM test and take a special driving test at Cardington. There's no reason not to be in the IAM as there isn't a big difference between DVSA driving and IAM/Rospa driving.

There's no reason to be IAM either then.

[vonhosen]

Reason I'm asking this is because I recently passed my HGV test and got a minor fault for no signal....I knew exactly when the examiner meant, and I remember I observed all around me and decided a signal would have been no benefit to anyone else!

With who & what he could see he may not have agreed with you that it was of no benefit.

It could be no one was around when you considered a signal, but there were restricted sightlines and someone 'could' have been there and benefitted even though it turned out no one was there. As I said earlier examiners expect a lot more signals on HGV tests

Then again I've sat in on many tests and examiners aren't always right and make mistakes like the rest of us.

That's covered in the circumstances of who or what he could see at the time, I know exactly what LGV/PCV etc examiners expect of candidates in those tests & the tools of assessment that should be used by the examiners.

[RobC]

Are DVSA examiners that conduct the learner driver tests for cars and larger vehicle advanced drivers? Ie I know they won't be IAM or rospa but as part of their own training do they do a test that is of similar standard to one of the groups?

Some are, one of my local DVSA examiners has an IAM badge on the grille of his car. DVSA examiners are also exempt from having to take the IAM test and take a special driving test at Cardington. There's no reason not to be in the IAM as there isn't a big difference between DVSA driving and IAM/Rospa driving.

There's no reason to be IAM either then.

I think all examiners whether DVSA, IAM, Rospa etc should be aware of how other tests are marked. Signalling for HGVs is different for the reasons I've given, however if there wasn't any other road user there AND 'could' possibly have been there, then the examiner could be wrong.

[vonhosen]

Some are, one of my local DVSA examiners has an IAM badge on the grille of his car. DVSA examiners are also exempt from having to take the IAM test and take a special driving test at Cardington. There's no reason not to be in the IAM as there isn't a big difference between DVSA driving and IAM/Rospa driving.

There's no reason to be IAM either then.

I think all examiners whether DVSA, IAM, Rospa etc should be aware of how other tests are marked

Why?
How far do you go, every test there is?
If a pre-requisite is knowing other test criteria & tools of assessment then you'd have to know them all, or how/who decides which are not relevant?

What they need is to be well versed with the type of test they are conducting & it's criteria/rules of assessment, not every type of test.

You've highlighted the dangers of it with IAM examiners bringing experience of what they were tested on in the Police to the IAM tests they conduct.

[RobC]

Why?
How far do you go, every test there is?
If a pre-requisite is knowing other test criteria & tools of assessment then you'd have to know them all, or how/who decides which are not relevant?

What they need is to be well versed with the type of test they are conducting & it's criteria/rules of assessment, not every type of test.

You've highlighted the dangers of it with IAM examiners bringing experience of what they were tested on in the Police to the IAM tests they conduct.

To broaden the examiners understanding and possibly to see things from another perspective, but not as a pre requisite and not every test.

I agree that the examiner need to be well versed in the test they are conducting but the reason that some ex Police IAM examiners consider advanced driving to be examining to police class 1 standard is that that is all they know.

[martine]

My understanding of DVSA examiners and signals is:

• if the don't benefit and you're sure no one will appear - i.e. an open roundabout or junction where all approaches can be clearly seen, then no, they wouldn't mark lack of signals.
  
• Similarly, if when pulling away from stationery, there is no one around, they wouldn't expect a signal.

[vonhosen]

Why?
How far do you go, every test there is?
If a pre-requisite is knowing other test criteria & tools of assessment then you'd have to know them all, or how/who decides which are not relevant?

What they need is to be well versed with the type of test they are conducting & it's criteria/rules of assessment, not every type of test.

You've highlighted the dangers of it with IAM examiners bringing experience of what they were tested on in the Police to the IAM tests they conduct.

To broaden the examiners understanding and possibly to see things from another perspective, but not every test.

You said there is no reason to not do the IAM because it is similar, I'm saying it also stands then that there is no reason to do it either as they are similar.

A broader understanding than that of what is required on the DVSA test is not necessary for effective DVSA testing. If anything it may pollute as per the Police example. The examiner should be looking for the DVSA defined outcome & applying the DVSA tools of assessment against that, not using other organisations defined outcomes or rules/tools.

I agree that the examiner need to be well versed in the test they are conducting but the reason that some ex Police IAM examiners consider advanced driving to be examining to police class 1 standard is that that is all they know.

They've been given no IAM input/guidance on what they should be doing when conducting tests for the IAM?