My brother and my dad both took the IAM course at the same time but in different towns and the difference in what they were told was staggering. My brother was informed that one driving practice (which, unfortunately I cannot recall) was dangerous and yet my dad was told that this was perfectly acceptable. Also, my brother found that the person conducting his test was rude, arrogant and totally inflexible. He very nearly ordered him out of his car mid-test but held back as the examiner was a serving traffic sergeant!
My uncle worked for years as an ADI and once said to me "Why do you need a piece of paper to prove that you're a good driver? Surely the fact that you drive 50k+ miles a year without incident or ticket prove that you are?". Had to admit, he'd got a point...
In another thread - tinyurl.com/2b7sa5 - I've been asking for advice regarding a new job and mentioned that I was considering becoming a driving instructor. I am doing so no longer...!
Cheers
Edited by Badwolf on 30/03/2008 at 14:49
|
I can only cite my own experience of the IAM, which was very good. I did the test about 4 years ago and had several different observers. They had different personalities, but the advice was consistent, very sensible and useful.
The examiner was a police traffic officer, rather abrupt, but fair and made some useful comments after the test.
I don't accept that high-mileage drivers are necessarily good drivers. I know someone who clocks up 30k a year, but most of that is spent sitting on motorways and visiting industrial estates around the country. He seldom drives in towns and frightens me if I travel as a passenger. There can be more hazards and 'decision points' on a 10 mile run through town than on a 200 mile motorway run.
The only problem I have with the IAM is the sneering reaction many people have to the organisation itself. I have seen it referred to as 'the great I-AM' and so on. Being British we prefer the amateur/self-taught.
|
|
Where do the IAM stand on crossing arms when turning the wheel? Or do they insist on the 1930's style shuffling?
|
Where do the IAM stand on crossing arms when turning the wheel? Or do they insist on the 1930's style shuffling?
Mustn't cross arms. If you did it once or twice during a test it probably (I'm not certain) wouldn't be an instant failure, but could certainly contribute to a failure. Aslo if the airbag goes off when you've got your arms cross then you're going to be punching yourself in the face at something like 200mph lol.
'Pull-Push' (shuffle) is what they recommend. It's been around for ages, and people still think it is the best technique for road driving. The same as what the police still use.
|
Daytime Sat TV is overrun with adverts for "Be a Driving Instructor" - these probably fit in well with the other day time stuff about re-structuring your debts! I used to be a driving instructor (aircraft) and there is a lot more to it than knowing how to drive/fly and then being able to pass that information on, trust me!
|
|
|
Mustn't cross arms. If you did it once or twice during a test it probably (I'm not certain) wouldn't be an instant failure but could certainly contribute to a failure. Aslo if the airbag goes off when you've got your arms cross then you're going to be punching yourself in the face at something like 200mph lol. 'Pull-Push' (shuffle) is what they recommend. It's been around for ages and people still think
it is the best technique for road driving.
You are quite right that crossing the arms on the steering is considered bad practice. But if you maintain control of the car it is not viewed as a serious issue on a driving test.
If you use 'push pull' (or pull push) properly you are not 'shuffling' the steering wheel. If you use the full circumference of the wheel you do not shuffle at all. I suspect you have not seen the technique being applied properly.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do I need to do an advanced test jmaccyd. According to you I know the highway code and have passed the test. What more do I need in your book.
As for the advert, it definitely said a year. Or I would not have started the thread.
Edited by Ben10 on 30/03/2008 at 16:49
|
Well then the advert is wrong then! Not too suprised seem to be lots of companies advertising to train Driving Instructors with a less than honest approach.
Where did I say knowing the HC and passing the test was all you need to know then? I said passing the test was achieving a basic competence to be on the road. Your reply proves the point really, I have passed why should I do more to improve my skills.
I am sure your a good or very good driver - well isn't everyone?
|
Taken from the DSA website,
Legal requirements
When applying to become a driving instructor, you must fulfill the following legal requirements:
? hold a full UK or European Union (EU/European Economic Area (EEA) unrestricted car driving licence
? have held it for a total of at least four out of the past six years prior to entering the Register after qualifying
? not have been disqualified from driving at any time in the four years prior to being entered in the Register
? be a ?fit and proper? person to have your name entered in the Register. All convictions, motoring and non-motoring, will be taken into account when we assess your suitability to be entered on the Register. You will be required to have an enhanced level criminal record check. The information from this check will be used by us to assess the suitability of persons applying for inclusion on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. To help you decide if any conviction you may have could affect any application you might make, you can find the link to our statement on the suitability of ex-offenders in the related items box.
? Pass the two qualifying practical examinations within two years of passing the theory examination
? Apply for registration within 12 months of passing the final part of the examination.
|
Your losing the thread then!
Its about the drop in standards!
The advert is obviously wrong, you might get a pat on the back from the advertising standards authority if you whinge to them with the gumph you list!
And they might take it off!
Seeing as you know it all!
|
Well what I know was taken from the Driving Standards Agency website, the people who run the testing and checking of ADIs, and took fifteen seconds to check the er.. 'facts' of what you argued.
So are you then saying that perhaps four years is not enougth experience and the current minimum ADI standards need to be higher, and that would lead to higher driving standards among drivers generally? Or do you think that the test itself is the problem and should be changed/removed from the process and maybe some sort of continual driving assessment could be used to judge someones readyness to drive on the public roads. Or can't you actually engage in a reasoned debate without using lots of short sentances heavily punctuated with exclamation marks :-)
Edited by jmaccyd on 30/03/2008 at 18:57
|
It looks to me as if he is responding to the tone of your previous post where you appear to be condescending and IMHO rude. He was just conducting a debate on the standards of driver instruction, and the obviously incorrect advert he heard on the radio. Yet you seem to castigate him for not knowing the ADI standards, to which the advert he highlights is wrong in telling.
All in all standards HAVE dropped by ADI instructors. I stopped at a set of lights the other day and watched a learner with ADI stickers sail through after the lights changed red. And other mistakes too many to list that I have witnessed, as I am close to a test centre, and we are plagued by learners and their incompetent instructors.
Edited by scribe on 30/03/2008 at 21:02
|
|
Fine, and that is your opionion of some of what you have seen. Probable living near a test center you face not only learners taking their tests, but also instructors taking pupils to that area to practise, something that is discouraged. Its not a question of not knowing the ADI standards, I couldn't remember them either, but I took the fifteen seconds to find them out! The requirements for becoming an ADI have become progessively tougher over the last 20 years or so, so have standards dropped in that regard most certainly not. Have standards in British society in general dropped in the last decade I would agree and since DI are drawn from that society...
|
|
|
All in all standards HAVE dropped by ADI instructors. I stopped at a set of lights the other day and watched a learner with ADI stickers sail through after the lights changed red. And other mistakes too many to list that I have witnessed as
>>
Might have been on test, not under an instructors control.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do I need to do an advanced test jmaccyd. According to you I know the highway code and have passed the test. What more do I need in your book.
Your correct. any tom dick or harry can teach someone to drive providing they have a full uk driving licence , i dont know about testing tho or advanced driving instruction suppose you have to be trained up
|
Why do I need to do an advanced test jmaccyd. According to you I knowthe highway code and have passed the test. What more do I need in your book.
Your correct. any tom dick or harry can teach someone to drive providing they have a full uk driving licence , i dont know about testing tho or advanced driving instruction suppose you have to be trained up
To supervise a learner driver you have to be at least 21 and have held the appropriate licenece for the vehicle for three years. After that anyone with a full licence can teach someone to drive. However, this cannot be done for reward as this would require the person to be an ADI
Edited by jmaccyd on 30/03/2008 at 20:21
|
|
|
|
|
Surely the point is that you need to have held the licence for four years at the date you enter the register as an ADI.
There is nothing to stop you start training once you have held your full licence for a year.
|
|
Indeed, and that could be the 'con' here. So in effect you could train, pass the tests, but not actally be able to teach for financail gain until the 'magic' four years.
Edited by jmaccyd on 30/03/2008 at 19:09
|
As someone who spent nearly 20 years as an ADI, I would be interested if it could be explained how you teach somebody to pass the test without teaching them to drive. If there is a way, I never found it.
As for the lenght of time a licence needs to be held, you cannot take any of the tests involved until you have held your licence for the full four years. I feel sure the OP is mistaken as to what the advert actually said.
Edited by Robin Reliant on 30/03/2008 at 19:19
|
Anybody who thinks that passing the test makes them a good driver is way off the mark.
I agree, people are taught to pass the test and hope that society allows them to learn to drive.
More traffic police might actually hekp there of course.
Personally I think after passing the test, a more advanced test should be mandatory after 2 years (3 max) before being forced off the road if the test isnt passed.
|
People are taught to drive when they are learning, if they haven't been they will not pass the test which is actually quite demanding these days. What they are not taught is to drive like an experienced driver because that is impossible, which is rather obvious if you think about it.
We all tend to forget what nervous little rookies we were when we first shed our L plates, those rose tinted glasses fooling us into thinking we drove as competantly then as we do now.
A great many experienced drivers would suffer a great shock to the system if they took the current test, and I am not talking about feeding the steering wheel either. That method of steering is not compulsory on the test and never has been, although it is taught as the recommended method.
|
|
|
Personally I think after passing the test a more advanced test should be mandatory after 2 years (3 max) before being forced off the road if the test isnt passed
you can test people until the cows come home but experience comes with time, i dont agree with cash cow revenue grabbing so called advanced mandatory testing we have enough to fork out as it is just to drive on the roads
|
Sorry if you misread my statements then.
if you think that pass the test and learn experience is good, then thats your opinion and I wont change it.
My first 2 years after passsing the test I was indestructible! If I had been made to pass another test at that stage I might have learned more, quicker!
However if testing doesnt work (why do doctors and lawyers and engineers and nurses etc have to pas tests I wonder then?) then putting more traffic police on the road and allow them to supervise the driving standards. Then the standards may improve.
And another point that weakens our driving ability as a nation is all the immigrants (sorry, i meant cheap labour ) that drive over here without a care and in many cases without a licence or tax or insurance. But its important to make sure we all do that (shop people if need be etc).
I personally think our standards have lowered over the last few years (accelerating downwards actually)!
|
|
|
you can test people until the cows come home but experience comes with time
I don't think experience is the issue, I think it's learning/education. Learning can be done through experience or through training/teaching. If you watch a young advanced driver you'll soon reallise that expereince isn't everything. Expereince is often not all good either, the majority of drivers pick up bad habits.
I personally think the current driving test is adequate. To become a good driver it does take more practice/expereince though. It takes quite a few miles to build up the confidence IMHO.
|
|
To clarify; I am not knocking the current test. I do actually think its quite good!
|
|
|
It takes quite a few miles to build up the confidence IMHO.
And then, one earnestly hopes, to lose that part of it that isn't really justified... Only after that can the pilgrim embark on the stony, endless slope to becoming a halfway decent pilot...
Edited by Lud on 30/03/2008 at 20:56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
