ADUK Archive

chosulman wrote:

triquet wrote:But the emphasis on "progress" has certainly put off SWMBO from doing SFL ... which is a great shame.

+1

It is indeed a shame that anybody should be deterred from seeking to improve their driving, however they choose to do it.

The 'making progress' element of AD has clearly been open to some misinterpretation, so it would surely be sensible to have this aspect considered, and maybe adjusted, but definitely clarified.

My feeling is that 'progress' has sometimes had too much of an 'imperative' feel to it, thus putting undue pressure on those who are not being trained in a manner such that they can cope with it safely, and that can't be a good thing.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

triquet wrote:the emphasis on "progress" has certainly put off SWMBO from doing SFL ... which is a great shame.

Would you say her perception of the progress requirement is the same as or different to my earlier description?

If her perception aligns with my description, what aspect puts her off?

mefoster wrote:If a candidate is incapable (or unwilling) to demonstrate that they can drive up to a legal maximum, when safe, then perhaps they should not be allowed to pass an "advanced" test. I would probably even question whether they should pass a DSA test.

They would fail the DVSA test if they drove at 20mph below the speed limit and it was safe to drive up to the limit, especially if they were holding up following traffic by doing so.

fungus wrote:

mefoster wrote:If a candidate is incapable (or unwilling) to demonstrate that they can drive up to a legal maximum, when safe, then perhaps they should not be allowed to pass an "advanced" test. I would probably even question whether they should pass a DSA test.

They would fail the DVSA test if they drove at 20mph below the speed limit and it was safe to drive up to the limit, especially if they were holding up following traffic by doing so.

Worth noting, though, that 'making safe progress' has been a euphemism since the GLF days, when it wouldn't have applied in the L test.

fungus wrote:

mefoster wrote:If a candidate is incapable (or unwilling) to demonstrate that they can drive up to a legal maximum, when safe, then perhaps they should not be allowed to pass an "advanced" test. I would probably even question whether they should pass a DSA test.

They would fail the DVSA test if they drove at 20mph below the speed limit and it was safe to drive up to the limit, especially if they were holding up following traffic by doing so.

It would depend what vehicle, where, how long for, level of hold up etc etc as to how any fault would be assessed & marked.

mefoster wrote:I have always understood the requirement to "make progress" to mean that the candidate must be capable (and willing) to drive up to the legal maximum speed, where it is safe to do so, regardless of road type. I have always understood "lack of progress" to mean things like driving at 40mph in a NSL on a single carriageway when 60mph would be perfectly appropriate.

If a candidate is incapable (or unwilling) to demonstrate that they can drive up to a legal maximum, when safe, then perhaps they should not be allowed to pass an "advanced" test. I would probably even question whether they should pass a DSA test.

A successful advanced driving course would help the driver see the opportunities to make safe smooth progress and also to feel more relaxed about taking advantage of them - whether thinking of lines of least resistance through traffic or single carriageways roads where the good view and low hazard density invite driving at the NSL.

If the thought of a requirement to make good progress puts some drivers off taking further training, and has relatively little value in making drivers safer, should a road safety charity such as the IAM find a way to help and encourage drivers to become safer, without their having to become 'advanced'? Would it work for the IAM to train drivers to a 'Safer Driver' standard, at a lower level than 'Advanced'?

waremark wrote:Would it work for the IAM to train drivers to a 'Safer Driver' standard, at a lower level than 'Advanced'?

You mean like helping drivers ensure they can still meet the requirements of the L-test?

Gareth wrote:

waremark wrote:Would it work for the IAM to train drivers to a 'Safer Driver' standard, at a lower level than 'Advanced'?

You mean like helping drivers ensure they can still meet the requirements of the L-test?

Not a bad idea really; sorry about the source but it was the first one the search engine gave me:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-2814440/One-five-50s-believe-fail-driving-test-retake-research-shows.html
Of course as the article notes
"In 2011, those over 70 made up nine per cent of drivers, but only six per cent of driver casualties.

Drivers under 30 made up 20 per cent, but were responsible 35 per cent of casualties"* - so it is not just older drivers who need help meeting the basic standards!

*Noted that this appears to be by number of drivers, not driver mileage or hours driving.

The problem that I see with a lot of groups within the IAM is that they associate the word PROGRESS with faster than speed limit driving and attribute it to Police driving.
All the IAM ask on Progress is that the associate drives up to or at the speed limit for the road that they are driving on providing that the weather, traffic and road conditions allow for it safely.
As others have said if you drive at 20mph below the posted speed limit because they don't know the road then this in my mind is not acceptable especially when we are causing frustration in following vehicle's or worst being over taken within the speed limit by lets assume none AD drivers then for me they do not demonstrate that they are worthy of holding an AD certificate.
In most cases someone who comes for test and drives well below the speed limit usually has other faults which add to the end result of not being recommended, I don't think I have ever failed anyone for failing to make progress on that alone.
I do say to them you are demonstrating that you are at a better standard than the average joe public driver and if you can't drive at the speed limits for 90 minutes on one occassion to show you can control the vehicle,even though you dont have to drive like that ever again then whats the point of taking your test, you have to show a consistant competancy in all 27 competancies to even get that basic pass of all 3s.
What other word could replace PROGRESS that would get the point across of driving at the speed limit when safe to do so.

Gareth wrote:

waremark wrote:Would it work for the IAM to train drivers to a 'Safer Driver' standard, at a lower level than 'Advanced'?

You mean like helping drivers ensure they can still meet the requirements of the L-test?

Maybe. Or maybe something a little higher than DSA, but not as high as Advanced.

Defensive driving?

Is there a category 'speed limits'. If so use that to require driving to the limit if appropriate rather than simply 'don't exceed the limit'.

IAM Defensive Driver?

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

It's as Stephen says. I think it is groups who are confused not examiners, and observers make it more an issue than it needs to be.

I'm not in favour of letting people drive as slowly as they please. But within the definition of reasonable progress should be space for individual interpretation on the part of the candidate. If they go for a smooth economical style with good planning and no undue delay that's fine. Equally if they want a more business like style while maintaining safety and smoothness that's also fine. What's not ok is when they fail to optimize the drive in either direction -

there's an easily observed difference between a drive which builds a leisurely pace into a well executed plan, and a reactive or tentative drive where slowness is basically compensating for, or resulting from more fundamental inadequacy, and the lack of any effective plan.

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