DVSA examiners

[RobC]

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?

My view is that we should never stop learning and will always benefit from gaining experience and qualifications. I don't expect everyone to agree and its fine with me if you feel there's no reason to do this.

I would not suggest using other organisations rules. outcomes or tools only that if you are aware of them it broadens your knowledge.

Im sure IAM examiners have been given input and guidance on conducting tests, but if you'd driven and been been assessed to a standard different to that guidance for 30 years its not unlikely that you are going to be influenced by that. I feel that I would but accept you may disagree.

[RobC]

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.

Martin

I agree with you , particularly that you're also sure that no other road user may benefit, including pedestrians, parked cars where someone could be inside etc. In practise there are very few roads without other road users on them within a reasonable distance therefore I would be less likely to omit signals on a test

Rob

[vonhosen]

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?

My view is that we should never stop learning and will always benefit from gaining experience and qualifications. I don't expect everyone to agree and its fine with me if you feel there's no reason to do this.

I would not suggest using other organisations rules. outcomes or tools only that if you are aware of them it broadens your knowledge.

Im sure IAM examiners have been given input and guidance on conducting tests, but if you'd driven and been been assessed to a standard different to that guidance for 30 years its not unlikely that you are going to be influenced by that. I feel that I would but accept you may disagree.

If they've been given guidance by the IAM then it's not 'all' they know then.

I don't accept that it's inevitable that someone who has driven for lengthy periods to one system will be polluted in examining another. If they do then that sounds like a lack of training & QA by the organisation they are doing the examining for. I have plenty of experience of observing people who have driven in one style for an organisation & not cross polluting when applying different performance criteria using different tools of assessment when examining for an alternate organisation. They have been comprehensively trained in that secondary examining role & also have comprehensive QA though. I've also observed examiners who conversely haven't had experience of the former organisation that the first lengthy group have & belong to, but their examining for the secondary organisation isn't deficient because of that fact.

At the same time if you say pollution is happening in the IAM with some examiners then I accept that is the case. But I suggest then that the IAM have some training/QA issues.

Perhaps not heavily relying on ex Police for examiners would help, The vast majority of those ex Police also won't have been trained by the Police to teach or examine, they'll have been given the training & tools to drive that way, not to teach/examine driving that way (let alone alternate ways).

[RobC]

I don't accept that it's inevitable that someone who has driven for lengthy periods to one system will be polluted in examining another. If they do then that sounds like a lack of training & QA by the organisation they are doing the examining for. I have plenty of experience of observing people who have driven in one style for an organisation & not cross polluting when applying different performance criteria using different tools of assessment when examining for an alternate organisation. They have been comprehensively trained in that secondary examining role & also have comprehensive QA though. I've also observed examiners who conversely haven't had experience of the former organisation that the first lengthy group have & belong to, but their examining for the secondary organisation isn't deficient because of that fact.

At the same time if you say pollution is happening in the IAM with some examiners then I accept that is the case. But I suggest then that the IAM have some training/QA issues.

Perhaps not heavily relying on ex Police for examiners would help, The vast majority of those ex Police also won't have been trained by the Police to teach or examine, they'll have been given the training & tools to drive that way, not to teach/examine driving that way (let alone alternate ways).

I didn't say it was 'inevitable', I said it was 'not unlikely' if they had driven to Police standards for 30 years then they would examine to those standards or be influenced by them, and that is the impression that I have from my albeit limited experience of IAM examiners and the system they work to.

In any organisation some examiners will be better than others and whilst I don't think DVSA examiners are perfect, their examiners are at least highly trained full time professional examiners. DVSA examiners also do not all come from the same background and are closely monitored and check tested every month so that personal bias can as far as possible be eliminated.

[vonhosen]

I don't accept that it's inevitable that someone who has driven for lengthy periods to one system will be polluted in examining another. If they do then that sounds like a lack of training & QA by the organisation they are doing the examining for. I have plenty of experience of observing people who have driven in one style for an organisation & not cross polluting when applying different performance criteria using different tools of assessment when examining for an alternate organisation. They have been comprehensively trained in that secondary examining role & also have comprehensive QA though. I've also observed examiners who conversely haven't had experience of the former organisation that the first lengthy group have & belong to, but their examining for the secondary organisation isn't deficient because of that fact.

At the same time if you say pollution is happening in the IAM with some examiners then I accept that is the case. But I suggest then that the IAM have some training/QA issues.

Perhaps not heavily relying on ex Police for examiners would help, The vast majority of those ex Police also won't have been trained by the Police to teach or examine, they'll have been given the training & tools to drive that way, not to teach/examine driving that way (let alone alternate ways).

I didn't say it was 'inevitable', I said it was 'not unlikely' if they had driven to Police standards for 30 years then they would be influenced by that, and It is the impression that I have from my albeit limited experience of IAM examiners and the system they work to.

If they are I suggest it's a lack of training/QA not the fact they've been exposed to other driving performance criteria.

The problem appears to be that the IAM rely heavily on recruiting ex Police as examiners, that those people don't have to sit the test themselves to join the IAM & that they are accepted in on the basis of the training they've had (to different performance criteria). A lot of money & time is spent on getting them to accept that style of driving as their 'norm' by the Police. I suspect rather less time & money is then spent on training & QAing them to examine to a different performance criteria as a norm. In that case there is no wonder you have pollution.

In any organisation some examiners will be better than others and whilst I don't think DVSA examiners are perfect, their examiners are at least highly trained full time professional examiners. DVSA examiners also do not all come from the same background and are closely monitored and check tested every month so that personal bias can as far as possible be eliminated.

Of course & they aren't necessarily any worse for it if they haven't experienced other examining regimes such as Police, IAM, Rospa etc.

Whilst yes great on a personal level if they have a broad knowledge of driving it isn't necessary for them to know anything beyond the subject matter they are testing for the DVSA to examine well on those tests. It's all about applying the performance criteria & rules/tools of assessment for that test not others.

[RobC]

If they are I suggest it's a lack of training/QA not the fact they've been exposed to other driving performance criteria.

The problem appears to be that the IAM rely heavily on recruiting ex Police as examiners, that those people don't have to sit the test themselves to join the IAM & that they are accepted in on the basis of the training they've had (to different performance criteria). A lot of money & time is spent on getting them to accept that style of driving as their 'norm' by the Police. I suspect rather less time & money is then spent on training & QAing them to examine to a different performance criteria as a norm. In that case there is no wonder you have pollution.


Of course & they aren't necessarily any worse for it if they haven't experienced other examining regimes such as Police, IAM, Rospa etc.

Whilst yes great on a personal level if they have a broad knowledge of driving it isn't necessary for them to know anything beyond the subject matter they are testing for the DVSA to examine well on those tests. It's all about applying the performance criteria & rules/tools of assessment for that test not others.

I'm sure you are correct that examiners are taken on and given little training and monitoring. It is cheaper to take on part time ex professional drivers than to train full time professional examiners. I also take your point that knowledge of other examining regimes could actually introduce personal bias.

Any examining system that doesn't train and monitor to eliminate personal bias as much as possible will have variable standards in my view.

[revian]

Having become more flexible in when/if I signal I now wonder whether a habit of almost always signalling is intrinsically safer?

.....Similarly, if when pulling away from stationery, there is no one around, they wouldn't expect a signal.[/list]

The pedant in me wonders if the stationery was a parking ticket...?

Ian

[akirk]

Having become more flexible in when/if I signal I now wonder whether a habit of almost always signalling is intrinsically safer?
Ian

arguably if the choice is between not signalling because there is no-one there / or signalling, then you won't cause issues by signalling, so you might as well...

at a finer level though the distinction is often drawn between signalling whenever you move, and signalling to pass on a specific message - AD would suggest that you don't just dumb down and signal just because you are about to move - but use it more intelligently...

the example I remember from IAM coaching was approaching a skip / parked car and needing to move out past it, while there is a right turning also approaching...
- if you signal right, you might introduce confusion as to whether you are moving out and past the obstruction, or turning right and others might act according to their interpretation...
- alternatively, moving the car into an appropriate position on the road to a) show your intent to pass the obstruction and b) give sight of the obstruction to those behind might be a much clearer option...

just one case where signalling (using indicators) may confuse

Alasdair

[WhoseGeneration]

All these tests and signalling seems to be a lottery as to when and what it means from so many.
Can anyone tell me why so many pass a test and then, soon after, seem to forget the standard required for that test?

[revian]

Having become more flexible in when/if I signal I now wonder whether a habit of almost always signalling is intrinsically safer?
Ian

arguably if the choice is between not signalling because there is no-one there / or signalling, then you won't cause issues by signalling, so you might as well...

at a finer level though the distinction is often drawn between signalling whenever you move, and signalling to pass on a specific message - AD would suggest that you don't just dumb down and signal just because you are about to move - but use it more intelligently...

the example I remember from IAM coaching was approaching a skip / parked car and needing to move out past it, while there is a right turning also approaching...
- if you signal right, you might introduce confusion as to whether you are moving out and past the obstruction, or turning right and others might act according to their interpretation...
- alternatively, moving the car into an appropriate position on the road to a) show your intent to pass the obstruction and b) give sight of the obstruction to those behind might be a much clearer option...

just one case where signalling (using indicators) may confuse

Alasdair

I think you are right FWIW.... I think that still falls into 'signal as default' but asking if 'what you say' is 'what they will hear'...so to speak..

Road positioning... I try to be bold both in the car and on the cycle... Make your intention plain.

Ian

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

if when pulling away from stationery, there is no one around, they wouldn't expect a signal.

Those self-seal envelopes can be so clingy, can't they! (and why should you need to signal, anyway? A man's relationship with his stationery is surely his own affair).

[WhoseGeneration]

Any examining system that doesn't train and monitor to eliminate personal bias as much as possible will have variable standards in my view.

Good luck with eliminating the Human element.
If we're talking any sort of advanced performance, in any area, it is better to consider it as peer review or using an acknowledged coach.

[akirk]

Any examining system that doesn't train and monitor to eliminate personal bias as much as possible will have variable standards in my view.

Good luck with eliminating the Human element.
If we're talking any sort of advanced performance, in any area, it is better to consider it as peer review or using an acknowledged coach.

not just that, but it will lower ability to judge standards... it is sad that we live in a world where it is only acceptable if the majority / lowest common denominator understands it - we should celebrate the quality of those who have the ability to examine / judge at a high level, even if we can't analyse it to the nth degree and remove any personality / 'bias' I am happy to see bias where it is a sign of greatness...

Alasdair

[RobC]

Any examining system that doesn't train and monitor to eliminate personal bias as much as possible will have variable standards in my view.

Good luck with eliminating the Human element.
If we're talking any sort of advanced performance, in any area, it is better to consider it as peer review or using an acknowledged coach.

not just that, but it will lower ability to judge standards... it is sad that we live in a world where it is only acceptable if the majority / lowest common denominator understands it - we should celebrate the quality of those who have the ability to examine / judge at a high level, even if we can't analyse it to the nth degree and remove any personality / 'bias' I am happy to see bias where it is a sign of greatness...

Alasdair

You can set an examination standard at any level, not just for the lowest common denominator. We just have to ensure that all examiners are marking to the same standard. Not easy but impossible without appropriate training and monitoring.

[Horse]

Any examining system that doesn't train and monitor to eliminate personal bias as much as possible will have variable standards in my view.

Good luck with eliminating the Human element.
If we're talking any sort of advanced performance, in any area, it is better to consider it as peer review or using an acknowledged coach.

it is sad that we live in a world where it is only acceptable if the majority / lowest common denominator understands it

When it comes to AD, the majority aren't interested, and if you can't explain to the few that might be 'what' you're actually on about, then how will you get and maintain their interest?

I am happy to see bias where it is a sign of greatness...

One of the things I've tried hard to do is share knowledge. I'm certainly not claiming greatness (and it's not been by luck either that I have gained knowledge, because I made it happen) but I've had a wide range of training-related experience so have tried to spread that to as wide an audience as possible.

To take a stance that 'greatness' cannot, ever, be explained or understood is . . . odd, surely? It almost suggests that there's an element of some type of 'secret society' about it - "you can't talk outside of the fraternity"

After all, the great had to learn somehow, somewhere. If that knowledge isn't passed on, then it will die (or be retired) with them. It's also odd if a highly-skilled practitioner and tutor can't try to explain something like a difference between two standards!

OK, I'm being harsh but talk of it being unacceptable to explain it to the hoi polloi - come on!