New IAM standards

[vonhosen]

+1

I prefer to discuss driving with people who have reached their own conclusions, in their own way, even if they are identical to what is written in a book because it's easier to find out how they reached those conclusions instead of being told that they do it because it's written in a book. It would appear to be the case that the IAM are on their way to adopting this 'way' of looking at associates and I can't thank whoever is responsible for this enough.

I bet you're one of those lefty liberals who doesn't agree with competitive sport in schools. Why bother with any of it? Just give them a certificate for showing up. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

Or alternatively competitive sport is fine, you just aren't restricted to a 4-3-3 formation when playing football.

[hir]

Previously, the standard has been primarily input based (pull-push), with outputs being of secondary concern only (did the pull push steering result in an output that was safe, smooth and with the car under complete at all times?).

You lot keep banging on about outputs but fail miserably when it comes to explaining what it is you mean exactly.

I'm afraid it can't be clearer than... Was the outcome of the (non-specific) steering inputs such that the steering was safe, smooth and with the car under complete control at all times?

Currently, examiners will always look at the outcome (as defined above), but only after having regard to the input (ie. Pull-push). For example an examiner may see PP used all the time (hurrah) but the outcome is not particularly safe or smooth (boo). That'll be a failure notwithstanding the use of PP at all times.

See, it's really quite simple.

[akirk]

It's not dumbing down though, it's freedom to find the way that gives the best & most reliable outcomes for individuals.

+1

I prefer to discuss driving with people who have reached their own conclusions, in their own way, even if they are identical to what is written in a book because it's easier to find out how they reached those conclusions instead of being told that they do it because it's written in a book. It would appear to be the case that the IAM are on their way to adopting this 'way' of looking at associates and I can't thank whoever is responsible for this enough.

I bet you're one of those lefty liberals who doesn't agree with competitive sport in schools. Why bother with any of it? Just give them a certificate for showing up. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

I read that differently...

I think we can distinguish between:
- people who slavishly follow a routine because they are told to - because that is their comfort factor / they have been told to do it, it becomes gospel - no alternatives are entertained as they don't fit 'their mould'
- people who take a more open-minded / intelligent approach, ask why something is being taught / look at alternatives and filter to make an informed decision as to the methodology they use - because of the outcome they desire...

that could be the very opposite of lefty liberalism - or it could be at its heart - that is irrelevant - being outcome focused is about excellence, it can be ultra-inclusive (liberal), or it could be very programmed as long as the discarded options have been removed because they are not outcome focused...

sadly we live in a society where it is seen to be easier to dumb down - to find a set of methods and impose them and call that the right way fo doing things, rather than looking for excellence of outcome and accepting any approach that gets there - even if avant-garde / radical / etc. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about driving or maths, music or politics, health care or business - we live in a society that wishes to codify /regularise / normalise / gain peer acceptance - as a result we have dumbed down our whole society and lost much of what made our country great - it might have been seen as eccentric, or simply genius, but we used to have a reputation for looking for the best in everything - and finding lots of different methods to get there - we are now so focused on standardising methods that we forget that they are irrelevant - it is the outcome or result which is important...

to bring this back to driving - the purpose of steering is to change a car's direction - what is important is the accuracy of that change / the control / the lack of risk / the ability to cope with the need to change it mid-move / etc. - they are all outcomes - what is not important is whether it is predictive / rotational / push-pull /one handed / steering through ESP - as long as it is optimised to the outcome the input doesn't matter - i.e. it only matters in the context of the outcome... the problem is that we forget that during teaching - the instructor sees that for a specific outcome one input is more appropriate - teaches that and it is learned as being the only input - we need those instucting / coaching to do so in the context of output - and that is why such a change at the IAM is not just refreshing in AD circles - but is refreshing in our current society - lets hope that this is one of many returns to a more intelligent understanding of and approach to learning

Alasdair

[MGF]

That which has been quoted appears a bit vague. I wonder if Observers can be convinced to change.

[Kimosabe]

...I can't thank whoever is responsible for this enough.

The IAM realised a while ago it needed to look again at how and what is taught. They created a new position of: 'Director of Standards' and ex-police Mark Lewis was appointed last year.

Mark has been very careful to listen and gather views from across the IAM membership (including some regular posters here) and the new embryonic 'standards' are being refined over the next few months. It will result in new guidance to Observers and Examiners and a rewritten IAM book to replace the current: 'Advanced Driving: the essential skills' aka 'How to be a better driver' - and a formal syllabus issued to associates.

Thank you. I have been aware for some time that the IAM have been changing from the top down and I wish them every success. My experiences of the IAM and RoADAR (fairly well documented on this forum) haven't been encouraging and I refused further observer/ IMI training because I couldn't see how the IAM would change the attitudes of so many of their observers, nationals etc. who were acting more like revenue generators/ book evangelists, than driving coaches. If that changes and the IAM, at group level, become more like the sorts of coaches we've had discussions about here, i'd possibly consider rejoining in order to become a part of their new movement. I look forward to seeing the new book as i'm sure it's authors are second to none among us.

[Kimosabe]

+1

I prefer to discuss driving with people who have reached their own conclusions, in their own way, even if they are identical to what is written in a book because it's easier to find out how they reached those conclusions instead of being told that they do it because it's written in a book. It would appear to be the case that the IAM are on their way to adopting this 'way' of looking at associates and I can't thank whoever is responsible for this enough.

I bet you're one of those lefty liberals who doesn't agree with competitive sport in schools. Why bother with any of it? Just give them a certificate for showing up. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

So what is the problem? The new dawn for the IAM or those who support it?

Just remember Silk, that the authors of the new HTBABD are probably people who you have argued and discussed AD with on this forum. It may even be the case that some of your very own posts have been read by them and that they have cumulatively affected decisions at IAM HQ. Don't you feel any gratitude towards those people or have any respect for their experience? Don't you feel even the tiniest of inklings of wanting to show your relief that the changes we have hoped for, are finally coming to fruition thanks to the efforts of a few enlightened AD folk?

So I'd suggest a little more humility and awareness of who it is you are attacking and what for. Of course, you don't have to take my suggestions to heart and you could always keep banging that drum but that doesn't really achieve very much, unless you perceive secondary gain as gaining attention by having a pop at anyone who changes their opinions when presented with evidence?

If the IAM are to become current, this is precisely what needs to happen and i'll support that as it's highly unlikely to be a bluff. I might even rejoin.

[TripleS]

You're usually the only name on any list you're on.

[Gareth]

You lot keep banging on about outputs but fail miserably when it comes to explaining what it is you mean exactly.

It seems to me that your preference is to help others improve their driving by telling them how they should do something, with what they are trying to achieve being secondary.

Is it so difficult to elevate what they are trying to achieve to primary importance? And let how they do it be secondary?

If, for example, you are concerned that an associate is using a sub-optimal technique to achieve their ends it's up to you, as observer, to find situations where the technique(s) they use don't produce the desired result, as that brings the conversation to the point where you can ask how they could do it differently.

[jont]

You lot keep banging on about outputs but fail miserably when it comes to explaining what it is you mean exactly.

It seems to me that your preference is to help others improve their driving by telling them how they should do something, with what they are trying to achieve being secondary.

Is it so difficult to elevate what they are trying to achieve to primary importance? And let how they do it be secondary?

For someone that doesn't have a good model of what advanced driving looks/feels like, it's much easier to tell someone how to change their inputs than work out how to achieve a better output from what they are doing.

[Gareth]

For someone that doesn't have a good model of what advanced driving looks/feels like, it's much easier to tell someone how to change their inputs than work out how to achieve a better output from what they are doing.

A handy starting point would be to decide whether what they are doing is good enough already. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be too difficult to say why not, and ask them to think about how they could do it better.

This is the same whether it is based on outputs or inputs and, inevitably, even if the focus is on inputs, outputs will be assessed.

[jcochrane]

For someone that doesn't have a good model of what advanced driving looks/feels like, it's much easier to tell someone how to change their inputs than work out how to achieve a better output from what they are doing.

This is the one thing that does concern me that there will be many Observers with this mindset and they are likely to have limited experience of a wider range of how it can be done and have the flexibility of approach to train/coach under the new thinking. In many ways it requires more from the Observer because telling them "this is the way you must do it because I say so" is no longer an option.

An Observer can no longer look at an Associates steering and if it is not PP say you must use PP and train them to do that. The approach will now be to look at the Associates steering output and work them them to make changes or modification to improve steering if necessary.

[RobC]

I think we can distinguish between:
- people who slavishly follow a routine because they are told to - because that is their comfort factor / they have been told to do it, it becomes gospel - no alternatives are entertained as they don't fit 'their mould'

- people who take a more open-minded / intelligent approach, ask why something is being taught / look at alternatives and filter to make an informed decision as to the methodology they use - because of the outcome they desire...

- and that is why such a change at the IAM is not just refreshing in AD circles - but is refreshing in our current society - lets hope that this is one of many returns to a more intelligent understanding of and approach to learning

Alasdair

Agree, The DVSA test and standards for example are evolving all the time.
ADI's embrace CCL where alternatives are considered to reach the same outcome rather than slavishly follow a routine.
Pupils on test for example are not marked down for crossing their hands on the wheel and not using PP at all times, only where control is compromised.
Changes in vehicle technology have been brought into the DVSA test such as hill start assist, electronic handbrakes, cruise control etc and using Sat Nav on test and more relevant manoeuvres are being brought in.

In my experience of assessing drivers, it is those who have followed a set routine for many years that are the ones that are reluctant to change.

We should remember that nothing remains the same and that change is inevitable, and usually for the better.

Rob

[akirk]

For someone that doesn't have a good model of what advanced driving looks/feels like, it's much easier to tell someone how to change their inputs than work out how to achieve a better output from what they are doing.

A handy starting point would be to decide whether what they are doing is good enough already. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be too difficult to say why not, and ask them to think about how they could do it better.

This is the same whether it is based on outputs or inputs and, inevitably, even if the focus is on inputs, outputs will be assessed.

The thing is that the right model is probably between / a mix of these two...

we have an education system that takes a specific model as a compromise based on class size / political expediency /etc. - not on realised educational ideals - and that taints how teaching / coaching etc. happens throughout life...

in any situation with teaching anything including AD it is important to understand a number of things:
- the objectives (output)
- the various options as input
- the nature of the situation (e.g. class teaching v 1:1)
- the learning style of the student
- the teaching style of the tutor
- any number of other factors!

so there will be some drivers for whom the AD journey will simply be do xyz and that will improve them, but they are unwilling / incapable of going further

some where an in depth understanding of the outcome means they will find the inputs they need

some where they need a practical demonstration, others a theoretical understanding

some need to feel how the car reacts when steering around a corner and need to be taken through good and bad models to feel the difference - others need to understand slip angles and how the tyre behaves

for me, I need to first understand the theoretical, and then feel the reality - only when I have both together does it click for me...

so with the variety of people / learning styles / etc. - it is impossible to dictate accurately a best methodology - hence the need to focus on output which can be defined, and not worry about input / teaching styles... It is helpful to have a number of models of input / teaching as they work well at lower levels / as examples / for the right mix of people - but ultimately the assessment should be on the output

Alasdair

[Silk]

You lot keep banging on about outputs but fail miserably when it comes to explaining what it is you mean exactly.

It seems to me that your preference is to help others improve their driving by telling them how they should do something, with what they are trying to achieve being secondary.

Is it so difficult to elevate what they are trying to achieve to primary importance? And let how they do it be secondary?

If, for example, you are concerned that an associate is using a sub-optimal technique to achieve their ends it's up to you, as observer, to find situations where the technique(s) they use don't produce the desired result, as that brings the conversation to the point where you can ask how they could do it differently.

The problem I have with all of this is that people seem to be equating driving with baking a cake. In the cake scenario, it doesn't matter how it's made, it's all about the end result. Driving, IMO, is fundamentally different. On the one hand the car is following a set course and, on the surface, it matters very little how this is achieved but, on the other hand, there are the bits that can't be seen, such as how it the driver going to react to situations. A certain amount of this is going to be down to observation and planning, but there is also an element of how good they are at operating the controls and choosing a method that has an element of safety built in. With regards to steering, few people would argue that choosing a method that defaults to safety as well as being accurate and smooth is not a good idea. What we seem to have is a growing and very vocal sub-group who see to have a problem with pull/push steering for reasons unknown. For me to be convinced it should be dropped, they have to come up with a better alternative. Dropping it because it's hard to teach or Jeremy Clarkson makes fun of it are not good enough reasons.

I'm just glad I joined up when I did.

[akirk]

You lot keep banging on about outputs but fail miserably when it comes to explaining what it is you mean exactly.

It seems to me that your preference is to help others improve their driving by telling them how they should do something, with what they are trying to achieve being secondary.

Is it so difficult to elevate what they are trying to achieve to primary importance? And let how they do it be secondary?

If, for example, you are concerned that an associate is using a sub-optimal technique to achieve their ends it's up to you, as observer, to find situations where the technique(s) they use don't produce the desired result, as that brings the conversation to the point where you can ask how they could do it differently.

The problem I have with all of this is that people seem to be equating driving with baking a cake. In the cake scenario, it doesn't matter how it's made, it's all about the end result. Driving, IMO, is fundamentally different. On the one hand the car is following a set course and, on the surface, it matters very little how this is achieved but, on the other hand, there are the bits that can't be seen, such as how it the driver going to react to situations. A certain amount of this is going to be down to observation and planning, but there is also an element of how good they are at operating the controls and choosing a method that has an element of safety built in. With regards to steering, few people would argue that choosing a method that defaults to safety as well as being accurate and smooth is not a good idea. What we seem to have is a growing and very vocal sub-group who see to have a problem with pull/push steering for reasons unknown. For me to be convinced it should be dropped, they have to come up with a better alternative. Dropping it because it's hard to teach or Jeremy Clarkson makes fun of it are not good enough reasons.

I'm just glad I joined up when I did.

I think that you are saying exactly the same though...

...on the other hand, there are the bits that can't be seen, such as how it the driver going to react to situations.

that is output based thinking

With regards to steering, few people would argue that choosing a method that defaults to safety as well as being accurate and smooth is not a good idea.

Totally agree - and that is again output based thinking - safety / accurate / smooth - all outputs
However it doesn't have to be the exclusive methodology...

For me to be convinced it should be dropped, they have to come up with a better alternative.

better or equivalent - certainly not worse - but you judge better / equivalence on what it produces - that is output based thinking...
and better or equivalent doesn't mean only one method for all uses - it can mean a toolbox of methods to pick from...

What we seem to have is a growing and very vocal sub-group who see to have a problem with pull/push steering for reasons unknown. For me to be convinced it should be dropped, they have to come up with a better alternative. Dropping it because it's hard to teach or Jeremy Clarkson makes fun of it are not good enough reasons.

no - that is not what people are saying - no issues with pull/push steering from an output perspective - simply an acknowledgement that there are lots of inputs which can acheive the output we desire and pull/push is one of them - at times it will be the more appropriate choice - at times, less appropriate - but no-one is saying you should never use it... Quite agree you should never drop something just because it is hard to teach / someone makes fun of it...


The big difference between input / output based teaching and their proponents is:

- input based teaching says there is xyz way of doing it - it works for me, it has always worked, we shouldn't be considering anything else, I am not interested in whether it is outdated / mistakenly taught / good for some people and bad for others / etc. etc. - it is a very closed and stubborn way of thinking

- output based teaching alternatively is open minded and says - okay we know that xyz is one way of teaching - but lets consider other methods, do they have value - could we tweak xyz, could we supplement it, are there times when zyx instead of xyz might be better - lets teach a variety of methods, an understanding of what we are trying to acheive (output) and the flexibility, intelligence and skill to pick from our toolbox of methods to use the best for any scenario

okay, there are some people who in battling the frustrating stubborn nature of the traditionalist suggest throwing the baby out with the bath water as a means of belittling those people - but that is equally wrong...

the problem we have here might be seen by comparing artists & pencil v pen - the input based proponents say that they ahve always used a pencil - it does everything they need, so why change / and to change to a pen makes no sense because I can show you some scenarios where a pencil is better - therefore a pen as the only tool is not a replacement for a pencil... However the output supporters are saying actually we are happy to have a pen and a pencil and use both when they are the best tool for the job - we are not saying always use a pen - but just think how much more exciting your artwork would be if you had access to pens / pencils / crayons / pastels / oils / watercolours / etc. - yes you might as an individual specialise in pencil but that doesn't mean it is the only medium...

so I think that if you look carefully you will find that you are arguing an output based message as well - unless you can prove that only pull-push works and that in every scenario it is the best option, then it can not stand alone as the only tool for steering - and we all know that there are a number of approaches...

Alasdair