waremark wrote:How can you expect to qualify as an ado to teach others to pass the HPT without demonstrating mastery of the test yourself?
waremark wrote: Second, there should be a totally different qualification for coaching qualified drivers to improve their skills than for teaching learners - or no requirement for any particular qualification at all.
MGF wrote:and it is claimed some or all of the requirements for ADI are unnecessary for teaching licence holders.
ROG wrote:Lets face it, testing a police class 1 driver for part 2, their own driving, is totally stupid.
MGF wrote:I think the point is that the fleet qualification is sterile without an ADI qualification (presuming you can do it without being an ADI) and it is claimed some or all of the requirements for ADI are unnecessary for teaching licence holders.
zadocbrown wrote:ROG wrote:Lets face it, testing a police class 1 driver for part 2, their own driving, is totally stupid.
I don't agree.
a) Police qualifications don't make you infallible. Standards can slip, and no doubt some 'class 1s' are better than others.
b) A police advanced drive is not necessarily the best drive to be demonstrating to a learner.
adiNigel wrote:The part 2 test is to show that you can drive according to teh DSA syllabus and that you are capable of all aspects that you will later have to teach to learners.
Nigel
Return to Learner Driver Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests