crr003 wrote:Given the constraint of only having a vehicle for a limited time or having the requirement of a quick pass, yes of course the fast track method appeals.
I think part of the attraction of the IAM (or RoADAR) is the journey from Associate to Member. The chance to take on board, digest, mull over, question the philosophy being shared. This is more successful/satisfying over several weeks than two half day sessions?
For your normal driver, I think part of the appeal of IAM/RoADAR is the symbiotic relationship between Associate and Observer - both exist to satisfy the other's needs.
zadocbrown wrote:Is it the case that 'fast track' is popular with people who are being sent by employers worried about corporate manslaughter legislation, and given time off work to do it?
waremark wrote:I agree in principle that it works well to spread training over time. But if you are comparing Fast Track with SFL, you are ignoring the considerable upside in having a professional coach instead of an amateur observer/tutor. The amateur observer/tutor may be superb, but we all know that the standard is very variable both within some groups and particularly across the country. (I am impressed by IAM initiatives to run observer training days at a regional level, but this is a relatively minor improvement).
crr003 wrote:ROG wrote:Fast track would make more sense if it included a compulsory assessment after a time period - perhaps 3 or 6 months
Do you mean a re-test?
They don't re-test "normal" IAM members, so why pick on fast trackers?
ROG wrote:Suggested this as most take time for it to be their normal driving whereas those on fastrack may not have this so perhaps a check that it has been instilled would be a good idea after some time has passed?
ScoobyChris wrote:One suggestion might be for people to maintain membership they have to have a compulsory retest every, say, 3 years that's paid for out of annual membership subscriptions?
martine wrote: I suppose the retest could be with a group Observer - at least it would be better than nothing.
Horse wrote:martine wrote: I suppose the retest could be with a group Observer - at least it would be better than nothing.
If any Observer - let alone a Sen Obs - doesn't know what's required for either safe driving or test standard, then that ought to be sorted!
Seriously, for an associate to be trained to test standard, the person doing the training must know what that standard is, and if the associate is to maintain the standard after the test they must be aware of the standard too and also be able to conduct realistic self-assessment too.
martine wrote:Horse wrote:Seriously, for an associate to be trained to test standard, the person doing the training must know what that standard is, and if the associate is to maintain the standard after the test they must be aware of the standard too and also be able to conduct realistic self-assessment too.martine wrote: I suppose the retest could be with a group Observer - at least it would be better than nothing.
...otherwise we might as well let Observers do the initial test as well...and that doesn't seem right to me.
Horse wrote:Seriously, for an associate to be trained to test standard, the person doing the training must know what that standard is, and if the associate is to maintain the standard after the test they must be aware of the standard too and also be able to conduct realistic self-assessment too.
waremark wrote: but that it was bad value to pay more for a (probably) mid-ranking professional (an ADI with a fleet qualification) than for a top rank professional (an ADI with a police instructing background). The £400 apparently charged by the IAM for a short day's training (£460 less test fee etc) would pay for two days' training booked direct with many an ADI fleet trainer.
Return to Advanced Driving Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests