IAM to drop requirement for 'progress'

[zadocbrown]

Maybe it would simply be helpful to clarify that it is about 'appropriate' progress - which I always considered to be implicit, but I can see how it could be overlooked...

i.e. you should make maximum progress appropriate to your skills / the car / the weather / the road conditions / the legal limits / etc. - then I can't see how there could be an issue with the word...

Alasdair

Appropriate yes. Maximum no.

[akirk]

Maybe it would simply be helpful to clarify that it is about 'appropriate' progress - which I always considered to be implicit, but I can see how it could be overlooked...

i.e. you should make maximum progress appropriate to your skills / the car / the weather / the road conditions / the legal limits / etc. - then I can't see how there could be an issue with the word...

Alasdair

Appropriate yes. Maximum no.

Maximum within what is appropriate - yes - maximum in absolute terms - no
I think we agree, but I may have used the words badly!

i.e. NSL at 60 on a country road:
- 'making progress' might imply aiming to be at 60
- 'making appropriate progress' might take into account car / weather etc. and decide that in your M3 on a wet day - 45-50 is the maximum that is appropriate...

i.e. making progress within the context of the situation... will often mean qualifying the maximum and bringing it lower... however it is a balance against the implied change in the IAM which suggests that pootling along looking at the view is okay whereas that would be making less than maximum progress within the conditions and I would have thought is not the right approach...

a better wordsmith than I might make sense of what I am saying!

Alasdair

[zadocbrown]

Alasdair, I'm not sure we do exactly mean the same thing. Firstly I think you are jumping to conclusions re IAM - I don't think there is any move to endorse 45 in a clear 60 limit. Even the L test wouldn't allow that. The issue I think concerns how much emphasis is on the subjective feeling of progress and the rhetoric surrounding it. The word is that, for example, some observers are a bit too insistent on full bore acceleration when it's not really mandated by the situation and is more a matter of individual style - which can be off-putting for some candidates. Yes I enjoy a brisk, even fast drive, but I don't think it has to be fast to be advanced.

[triquet]

Sorry, but there is a huge section of the Great British Public who are quite happy to trundle along at 45 in a 60NSL. It is reality of life. These people are not necessarily driving badly: it is just that they don't have any sense of urgency. They are not being obstructive, they are just going about their business going from A to B in their Transport Modules.

Today I had need to get to Newbury from Wantage. The A34 had, as usual, gone completely tits up, so I came over the downs on the B-whatever. It was a really pleasant drive with bits of 50 and quite a bit of 60NSL, and I could open up and enjoy the drive. But for a lot of people this isn't an option: they are just plodding along doing their thing.

Relax and enjoy your driving when you can, and don't get too frustrated by the plodders, horseboxes, agricultural vehicles that occasionally slow you up.

[waremark]

Sorry, but there is a huge section of the Great British Public who are quite happy to trundle along at 45 in a 60NSL. It is reality of life. These people are not necessarily driving badly: it is just that they don't have any sense of urgency. They are not being obstructive, they are just going about their business going from A to B in their Transport Modules.

Would you want them to be able to pass an advanced driving test driving like that?

[Horse]

Sorry, but there is a huge section of the Great British Public who are quite happy to trundle along at 45 in a 60NSL. It is reality of life. These people are not necessarily driving badly: it is just that they don't have any sense of urgency. They are not being obstructive, they are just going about their business going from A to B in their Transport Modules.

Would you want them to be able to pass an advanced driving test driving like that?

If we accept that those drivers are safe and in control, what does 'advanced' actually add?

[triquet]

The typical speed on many a 60NSL road is 45 mph. These people may be not be advanced but they are still making reasonable progress to their own agenda and priorities and may be quite safe drivers. They just don't subscribe to the "speed limits are really targets but we don't admit it" point of view.

Sorry, being a bit of a devil's advocate this morning

[waremark]

Sorry, but there is a huge section of the Great British Public who are quite happy to trundle along at 45 in a 60NSL. It is reality of life. These people are not necessarily driving badly: it is just that they don't have any sense of urgency. They are not being obstructive, they are just going about their business going from A to B in their Transport Modules.

Would you want them to be able to pass an advanced driving test driving like that?

If we accept that those drivers are safe and in control, what does 'advanced' actually add?

That's the big question.

More progress. More sophisticated positioning. More mechanical sympathy. More smoothness. Perhaps IPSGA and approved steering technique.

[Carbon Based]

...is someone who habitually drives at 15-20mph under the speed limit on an otherwise clear road, causing long tailbacks and frustration in the queue actually "safe"?

And is "safe" keeping the bar high enough?

What about considerate?

If you are going to drive at a constant 40mph under all conditions are you leaving a gap such that another can overtake when safe to do so?

[waremark]

If we accept that those drivers are safe and in control, what does 'advanced' actually add?

That's the big question.

More progress. More sophisticated positioning. More mechanical sympathy. More smoothness. Perhaps IPSGA and approved steering technique.[/quote]

Add: More considerate.

[Horse]

If we accept that those drivers are safe and in control, what does 'advanced' actually add?

But are they safe and in control at a legal maximum? How would you know if they don't demonstrate it on test?

So if they attempt to demonstrate it, but fail - so you have someone travelling faster, unsafe, out of control - is that a test which should have been conducted on a public road?

Safety improvement (reduction in crashes) doesn't come from improved machine control.

If we accept that those drivers are safe and in control, what does 'advanced' actually add?

You could also ask the question, is someone who habitually drives at 15-20mph under the speed limit on an otherwise clear road, causing long tailbacks and frustration in the queue actually "safe"?

You're presuming that the speed limit is an appropriate speed at which to travel, and that other drivers are also driving 'safely'.

Yes, I'm playing DA too - but that doesn't mean that these aren't questions which should be considered . . .

[TripleS]

Sorry, but there is a huge section of the Great British Public who are quite happy to trundle along at 45 in a 60NSL. It is reality of life. These people are not necessarily driving badly: it is just that they don't have any sense of urgency. They are not being obstructive, they are just going about their business going from A to B in their Transport Modules.

Would you want them to be able to pass an advanced driving test driving like that?

If we accept that those drivers are safe and in control, what does 'advanced' actually add?

A feeling of having some kind of status and a degree of superiority? I'm not wishing to be offensive and provocative, but might that lie in the subconscious functioning of some people?


Best wishes all,
Dave - not accustomed to doing grown-up thinking.

PS - I would not expect anyone to be able to pass an advanced test if they consistently fail to reach the speed limit when it is safe to do so, but in general driving I think low speeds are OK if that's what you prefer to do, so long as nobody else is inconveninced by it. That last bit (which amounts to being considerate)is the important part, I think.

[TripleS]

If we accept that those drivers are safe and in control, what does 'advanced' actually add?

That's the big question.

More progress. More sophisticated positioning. More mechanical sympathy. More smoothness. Perhaps IPSGA and approved steering technique.

Add: More considerate.[/quote]

....and tone down the 'approved steering technique' bit?

[Horse]

A feeling of having some kind of status and a degree of superiority? I'm not wishing to be offensive and provocative, but might that lie in the subconscious functioning of some people?

PS - I would not expect anyone to be able to pass an advanced test if they consistently fail to reach the speed limit when it is safe to do so, but in general driving I think low speeds are OK if that's what you prefer to do, so long as nobody else is inconvenienced by it. That last bit (which amounts to being considerate)is the important part, I think.

One of those "I wish I'd kept that" items was a copy of the IAM magazine from about 1990, where one letter write said "I was the advanced driver, I had right of way . . . " when explaining a near miss which was - of course - the other driver's fault

And if 'driving up to the speed limit' is a 'must' and their only USP, then it's no wonder that 'advanced' organisations have trouble selling themselves to the general public. "Come to us for training - we'll force you to do something you don't want to, or we'll brand you a failure!"

[MGF]

IAM Defensive Driver?

What might be required for Advanced, but not be necessary for IAM Defensive Driver?

Higher rate of progress.

Defensive driving could also be sold as a course rather than a test.