ROSPA GOLD "you need a police background to get gold"
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:02 pm
Good morning,
Hello - fairly new to the forum (first post i think).
So, I decided I wanted to be an 'advanced driver'.....
Having researched IAM and ROSPA I opted for the latter, rightly or wrongly. I've enjoyed the training and get on well with my instructor. The examiner for my are (through which my instructor has had six gold passes and one silver pass this year) is a retired Police driving Instructor. He is off sick and another examiner from another county has stepped in. He won't come to my area I must go to him,and whilst I totally accept that if you're "good enough" then you're good enough, regardless of the fact that you are being tested on roads that you are familiar with, I'm finding it unsettling to be forced into this - I took instruction in my area, drive in my area every day and expected , not unreasonably in my opinion, to be tested in my area.
However that is just a little background to the situation and not the main thrust of my post.
My instructor spoke with the new examiner to discuss when I'd be ready for test. My instructor (IAM, ROSPA Gold, etc etc himself) was a little thrown off when the examiner asked 'What my expectations were of the level of pass I may get". Now to be clear I have no expectations, even given my instructors track record. In my book, you practise, you learn, you read up, you hone your skills and present yourself for the test and hopefully you don't have abad day at the office and give it your best shot,a d they award you what they award you 'based on your driving on the day'.
But...... the examiner's reason for asking was "As far as he was concerned, you couldn't get a gold unless you had a police background". I can find no reference to this 'criteria' in the ROSPA/ROADAR paperwork. But i also note n the paperwork that the examiners decision is final. And if it is based on performance on the day, i have no issue with that (but I do have an issue with prejudice).
I feel like the goalposts have been moved somewhat after joining ROSPA, paying my membership, and paying my test fee. I feel like this examiner is prejudging someone he has never met. i now feel like I can't get ' a fair trial' so to speak. if I get a silver it was because he marked me down because he is prejudiced, when in actual fact it may well be because I only deserve a silver. If I don't get a gold then why was that ....... None of my instructors six gold and one silver students had a police background, so this guy's approach is somewhat critical and demeaning of the current examiner's position.
The ROSPA/ROADA test guidelines paperwork state that you can apply for a re-test (with a fee payable) if you get a silver (or bronze). The implication from this examiner is you'll never get the gold therefore the money (and time and effort ) is wasted.I guess he is happy to take the money though (?)
I feel that I'd rather have different examiner and no know his prejudices and take what I get, so as to get my fair trial.
I'd appreciate and thoughts or feedback the forum collective may have.
Smee
Hello - fairly new to the forum (first post i think).
So, I decided I wanted to be an 'advanced driver'.....
Having researched IAM and ROSPA I opted for the latter, rightly or wrongly. I've enjoyed the training and get on well with my instructor. The examiner for my are (through which my instructor has had six gold passes and one silver pass this year) is a retired Police driving Instructor. He is off sick and another examiner from another county has stepped in. He won't come to my area I must go to him,and whilst I totally accept that if you're "good enough" then you're good enough, regardless of the fact that you are being tested on roads that you are familiar with, I'm finding it unsettling to be forced into this - I took instruction in my area, drive in my area every day and expected , not unreasonably in my opinion, to be tested in my area.
However that is just a little background to the situation and not the main thrust of my post.
My instructor spoke with the new examiner to discuss when I'd be ready for test. My instructor (IAM, ROSPA Gold, etc etc himself) was a little thrown off when the examiner asked 'What my expectations were of the level of pass I may get". Now to be clear I have no expectations, even given my instructors track record. In my book, you practise, you learn, you read up, you hone your skills and present yourself for the test and hopefully you don't have abad day at the office and give it your best shot,a d they award you what they award you 'based on your driving on the day'.
But...... the examiner's reason for asking was "As far as he was concerned, you couldn't get a gold unless you had a police background". I can find no reference to this 'criteria' in the ROSPA/ROADAR paperwork. But i also note n the paperwork that the examiners decision is final. And if it is based on performance on the day, i have no issue with that (but I do have an issue with prejudice).
I feel like the goalposts have been moved somewhat after joining ROSPA, paying my membership, and paying my test fee. I feel like this examiner is prejudging someone he has never met. i now feel like I can't get ' a fair trial' so to speak. if I get a silver it was because he marked me down because he is prejudiced, when in actual fact it may well be because I only deserve a silver. If I don't get a gold then why was that ....... None of my instructors six gold and one silver students had a police background, so this guy's approach is somewhat critical and demeaning of the current examiner's position.
The ROSPA/ROADA test guidelines paperwork state that you can apply for a re-test (with a fee payable) if you get a silver (or bronze). The implication from this examiner is you'll never get the gold therefore the money (and time and effort ) is wasted.I guess he is happy to take the money though (?)
I feel that I'd rather have different examiner and no know his prejudices and take what I get, so as to get my fair trial.
I'd appreciate and thoughts or feedback the forum collective may have.
Smee