ADUK Archive

For those not active within the IAM you may be interested to see their latest thinking on new driving and riding standards. This is a wide-ranging review of what the IAM should be coaching and testing and will result in new guidance and documentation to Observers and Associates and Examiners. Nothing is finalised yet but the bits that caught my eye were (their writing not mine):

Less emphasis on inputs and more on outputs
•Steering (if its not broken don’t fix it)
•Gear Changes (overlap allowed at low speed)
•Move from ‘Police Commentary’ to ‘Spoken Thoughts’
•Inclusion of ‘Human Factors Competency

Interesting huh?

how on earth do they quanticise 'broken' for steering... might have well as said dont bother looking at their steering.

gannet wrote:how on earth do they quanticise 'broken' for steering... might have well as said dont bother looking at their steering.

Not smooth or accurate I'd have thought?

It's been a criticism of insistence on pull/push that it doesn't matter what method is used if the 'output' is consistently good.

oh Im aware of the arguments for ditching the pull-push and back it entirely - I rarely do it myself now...

Conversely I've seen variously methods used in people's driving without much consistancy - but all done in a good manner and accurately.

I can see lack of accuracy and don't want another multi-page thread on steering so I'll leave it there

martine wrote:•Inclusion of ‘Human Factors Competency[/i]

How do you interpret this one?

Do you think the intention is to cover the topic in general or to encourage feedback on personality?

I wish they would write in English. It would help.

Carbon Based wrote:

martine wrote:•Inclusion of ‘Human Factors Competency[/i]

How do you interpret this one?

Do you think the intention is to cover the topic in general or to encourage feedback on personality?

I don't think this will be tested but it's a topic as part of the 'Skill for Life' course - and quite an important one I'd have thought. It's in the GDE matrix and drivers should be aware of how it impacts their and others driving.

triquet wrote:I wish they would write in English. It would help.

The bit I quoted is from a PowerPoint presentation given to the NRG and posted along with draft minutes on the IAM website.

martine wrote:

gannet wrote:how on earth do they quanticise 'broken' for steering... might have well as said dont bother looking at their steering.

Not smooth or accurate I'd have thought?

It's been a criticism of insistence on pull/push that it doesn't matter what method is used if the 'output' is consistently good.

It's a bit like the church that, in the face of falling numbers, decides to make worship of God optional (after all, most people seem to get along just fine without God). In the end, you just end up with a church full of non-believers until everyone gets fed up and leaves because there's no longer any point in going to church.

It seems to me, although I could be wrong, that the IAM has allowed itself to be dictated to by a few loud-mouths and self-proclaimed driving "experts".

Silk wrote:

martine wrote:

gannet wrote:how on earth do they quanticise 'broken' for steering... might have well as said dont bother looking at their steering.

Not smooth or accurate I'd have thought?

It's been a criticism of insistence on pull/push that it doesn't matter what method is used if the 'output' is consistently good.

It's a bit like the church that, in the face of falling numbers, decides to make worship of God optional (after all, most people seem to get along just fine without God). In the end, you just end up with a church full of non-believers until everyone gets fed up and leaves because there's no longer any point in going to church.

It seems to me, although I could be wrong, that the IAM has allowed itself to be dictated to by a few loud-mouths and self-proclaimed driving "experts".

Whilst others might say, although they could be wrong, that it's no longer going to allow itself to be dictated to by a few loud-mouths and self-proclaimed driving 'experts'.

I can only applaud their efforts and congratulate them for this.

Where is that damn popcorn wallah when you need him?

Silk wrote:It seems to me, although I could be wrong, that the IAM has allowed itself to be dictated to by a few loud-mouths and self-proclaimed driving "experts".

I think you probably are wrong in this case, but you can't be right all the time, Steve.

It is a bit tough for the IAM though: when they stick to their traditional line they're considered to be wrong, and now that they've seemingly taken on board a changed climate of opinion, they're still wrong - according to you.

If I may say so, I think they've done the right thing.

Silk wrote:It seems to me, although I could be wrong, that the IAM has allowed itself to be dictated to by a few loud-mouths and self-proclaimed driving "experts".

And about time too!

gannet wrote:how on earth do they quanticise 'broken' for steering... might have well as said dont bother looking at their steering.

This concerns me too.

We have an examiner who is unbelievably hung-up on the need for PP steering. He tells anyone who'll listen, which is hardly anyone nowadays, that... "it's the preferred method". He quotes chapter and verse of HTBABD on PP steering. And yet, he appears never to have read Roadcraft as he insists on referring to "fixed grip" steering as "rotational" in all his associate debrief notes.

So, for someone of his mindset the steering will be "broken" if it's not PP and will need to be fixed!

hir wrote:

Silk wrote:It seems to me, although I could be wrong, that the IAM has allowed itself to be dictated to by a few loud-mouths and self-proclaimed driving "experts".

And about time too!

So the upshot of this is, there are no standards and people can do what they like as long as they don't crash (or should crashing be allowed as well now?)