jcochrane wrote:
Again +1
When I've enquired as to why RoSPA and now the IAM require a commentary the only reply I get is "so that the examiner can understand what you are seeing, thinking, what you are planning etc. Personally I find this an unsatisfactory reply. If an examiner can not work this out without a commentary then I would question their ability to do the job.
I disagree. Yes, I know, I'm in an argumentative mood this afternoon
It often happens that we can identify a hazard that we're going to have to deal with long before we arrive in the immediate vicinity of said hazard. Commentary is about articulating hazard management. The only way in which we are going to be able to convey to the examiner that we have identified a hazard at its earliest opportunity is if we include it in our commentary, however far away it happens to be, and then prioritise it within the context of other hazards that are presenting themselves. I would argue that the examiner has no other way of knowing how
early we identify a hazard and how we build that knowledge in to our driving plan. The only thing he can be certain of is that eventually when negotiating the hazard we seemed to have got it right [or wrong]. Nor can he tell how
early we are constructing our driving plan based upon
"what can be seen, what can't be seen and what might reasonably be expected to happen".
"What might reasonably be expected to happen" often doesn't happen and the only way that the examiner can be certain that we are thinking about
"what can't be seen and might reasonably be expected to happen", and building that anticipation in to our driving plan, is if we tell him.
Sure, an examiner can observe our driving when we're not giving a commentary and say to himself "that was good". But, until he sees it repeated a number of times, ie consistency, he's not going to be sure whether it was deliberate or a fluke. In my view it's better that the candidate tells the examiner what he's thinking and how he's planning his hazard management through commentary than not. I do, of course, accept that at the higher levels that you and StressedDave operate at it is pretty obvious as to whether it's deliberate or a fluke, but at IAM and RoASPA test levels I would argue that it isn't always so obvious.