Starting with IAM
Discussion
Cue the usual slating of the system, and everything you'll be taught.
OP you're going to get a hell of a lot of conflicting 'advice' here. Take most of it with a pinch of salt, I personally can't wait to see the reaction when you open the separation can of worms.
I'm the most hated exponent of AD in these circles, you can do what you want with my advice.
My advice is:
Take on board what your observer says, it isn't all bs as some will have you believe.
Develop your own version of the cockpit drill, if you know anything about mechanics slip in some mechanical detail. When the observer/examiner walks over to the car open his door, snatch at the seatbelt, confirm the inertia reel works, show him the controls for window and door and then shut them in firmly. Examiners like that.
Develop your commentary to a high standard, do not use the stock-phrases from Chris Gilberts' DVDs, examiners are bored with that. Commentary is very useful and done properly with flow can be very impressive, if you can manage to do the full 90 minutes you will do much better, this must flow though, if you 'dry up' or it's affecting concentration say 'I'll refrain from commentary for the moment' if hazards dry up temporarily talk about the system a little, the driving plan, road markings, signs etc should also be included throughout, know your signage, and illustate this.
Study the system and learn to use it always.
Don't panic when you learn what the 'B-word' (bgol) and the 'S-word' (separation) are, these are useful techniques that illustrate your planning and anticipation when gear-changing and braking for hazards.
Enjoy the experience, observers aren't there to put you down as a rule, and once you've passed the test, use the observation and planning techniques always.
OP folks will slate this post to death as being conformist, be as conformist as you like, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a textbook drive, this should be obvious.
Best of luck with it, IMHO it is a great way to drive, and should be compulsory every 5 years for every road user.
OP you're going to get a hell of a lot of conflicting 'advice' here. Take most of it with a pinch of salt, I personally can't wait to see the reaction when you open the separation can of worms.
I'm the most hated exponent of AD in these circles, you can do what you want with my advice.
My advice is:
Take on board what your observer says, it isn't all bs as some will have you believe.
Develop your own version of the cockpit drill, if you know anything about mechanics slip in some mechanical detail. When the observer/examiner walks over to the car open his door, snatch at the seatbelt, confirm the inertia reel works, show him the controls for window and door and then shut them in firmly. Examiners like that.
Develop your commentary to a high standard, do not use the stock-phrases from Chris Gilberts' DVDs, examiners are bored with that. Commentary is very useful and done properly with flow can be very impressive, if you can manage to do the full 90 minutes you will do much better, this must flow though, if you 'dry up' or it's affecting concentration say 'I'll refrain from commentary for the moment' if hazards dry up temporarily talk about the system a little, the driving plan, road markings, signs etc should also be included throughout, know your signage, and illustate this.
Study the system and learn to use it always.
Don't panic when you learn what the 'B-word' (bgol) and the 'S-word' (separation) are, these are useful techniques that illustrate your planning and anticipation when gear-changing and braking for hazards.
Enjoy the experience, observers aren't there to put you down as a rule, and once you've passed the test, use the observation and planning techniques always.
OP folks will slate this post to death as being conformist, be as conformist as you like, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a textbook drive, this should be obvious.
Best of luck with it, IMHO it is a great way to drive, and should be compulsory every 5 years for every road user.
The actual test is something to go for if you want to but you can get a £50 rebate if not interested in doing it
The test is not the main point of AD
The main idea of AD is to improve the driving options available to the driver by getting them to think more about what they are doing in every aspect
The test is not the main point of AD
The main idea of AD is to improve the driving options available to the driver by getting them to think more about what they are doing in every aspect
25NAD90TUL said:
Cue the usual slating of the system, and everything you'll be taught.
More the problem that if sufficient things are considered by the Associate to be pointless, then much of the more useful teaching is lost in the testicular filter and no useful learning takes place.'By the book' is fine if you're capable of the changes necessary to do it by the book. For many, the benefits of some of the changes are minimal at best, if not damaging overall. To take your example of separation (or not), it truly doesn't matter whether you do or don't provided there is sufficient planning and observation going on. For the vast majority of people, you aren't going to make them any safer by insisting on things being done a certain way.
StressedDave said:
More the problem that if sufficient things are considered by the Associate to be pointless, then much of the more useful teaching is lost in the testicular filter and no useful learning takes place.
'By the book' is fine if you're capable of the changes necessary to do it by the book. For many, the benefits of some of the changes are minimal at best, if not damaging overall. To take your example of separation (or not), it truly doesn't matter whether you do or don't provided there is sufficient planning and observation going on. For the vast majority of people, you aren't going to make them any safer by insisting on things being done a certain way.
Wholeheartedly agree mostly, especially your first point.'By the book' is fine if you're capable of the changes necessary to do it by the book. For many, the benefits of some of the changes are minimal at best, if not damaging overall. To take your example of separation (or not), it truly doesn't matter whether you do or don't provided there is sufficient planning and observation going on. For the vast majority of people, you aren't going to make them any safer by insisting on things being done a certain way.
Do you think though that 'by the book' might be a good place to start for someone in the OPs' posisition as a newcomer to advanced driving?
Looks very much like the OP is going to end up confused then as usual in these forums. His observer telling him one thing, people here telling him another.
Anyway I'm altering my posting style and not getting into squabbles about it, I did say the OP could do what he wanted with my post.
Best of luck to the OP is all, I hope you get out of it what you're looking for, it has the potential to be very rewarding imo.
Anyway I'm altering my posting style and not getting into squabbles about it, I did say the OP could do what he wanted with my post.
Best of luck to the OP is all, I hope you get out of it what you're looking for, it has the potential to be very rewarding imo.
R0G said:
The actual test is something to go for if you want to but you can get a £50 rebate if not interested in doing it
The test is not the main point of AD
The main idea of AD is to improve the driving options available to the driver by getting them to think more about what they are doing in every aspect
Are you sure that a £50 refund is available if the test is declined? The last time I enquired on behalf of an associate (I am group membership secretary) I was told "the IAM no longer gives any refunds". Isn't the test fee now £35?The test is not the main point of AD
The main idea of AD is to improve the driving options available to the driver by getting them to think more about what they are doing in every aspect
Glosphil said:
Are you sure that a £50 refund is available if the test is declined? The last time I enquired on behalf of an associate (I am group membership secretary) I was told "the IAM no longer gives any refunds". Isn't the test fee now £35?
Test fee is now about £57 so take off admin charge and refund is about £50Our group has had one recently get this refund
StressedDave said:
No... 
I would suggest that the more experienced the driver, the more you want to work with how they are already driving rather than trying to throw their current style out wholesale.
There are a lot of 'experienced' I would suggest that the more experienced the driver, the more you want to work with how they are already driving rather than trying to throw their current style out wholesale.
t at driving and are frankly dangerously complacent. walk round checks and cockpit brills detray the organisational basis of The System , as walk round checks are mandated on vehicles used for work , epsecially when the vehicle may be used by a number of drivers and moved within the confines of a base / garage. station by countlessd others without puttign their names on the work ticket
mph1977 said:
StressedDave said:
No...
I would suggest that the more experienced the driver, the more you want to work with how they are already driving rather than trying to throw their current style out wholesale.
There are a lot of 'experienced' I would suggest that the more experienced the driver, the more you want to work with how they are already driving rather than trying to throw their current style out wholesale.
t at driving and are frankly dangerously complacent.mph1977 said:
walk round checks and cockpit brills detray the organisational basis of The System , as walk round checks are mandated on vehicles used for work , epsecially when the vehicle may be used by a number of drivers and moved within the confines of a base / garage. station by countlessd others without puttign their names on the work ticket
I don't have a problem with suitable driver's checks. I do, however, question the obsessive-compulsive need for a 97 point DC on a daily driver that has just been driven by the owner to a place where they are meeting an observer/examiner. Again it's a case of doing what the book says rather than doing what is appropriate. Since when was a cockpit drill required on an IAM test? Like commentary, I thought a cockpit drill was optional at IAM entry level.
In any case, to cover the need if it arises, what's wrong with simply saying to the Observer/Examiner something like this?
"I'm satisfied with the position and function of all the controls. Everything is adjusted to my satisfaction. Having driven here, I'm satisfied that the brakes work as they should."
Even with a pernickety Observer, surely wording like this should shut them up?
As for Examiners, I'd expect them to be far more interested in your driving than a cockpit drill!
In any case, to cover the need if it arises, what's wrong with simply saying to the Observer/Examiner something like this?
"I'm satisfied with the position and function of all the controls. Everything is adjusted to my satisfaction. Having driven here, I'm satisfied that the brakes work as they should."
Even with a pernickety Observer, surely wording like this should shut them up?
As for Examiners, I'd expect them to be far more interested in your driving than a cockpit drill!
SVS said:
As for Examiners, I'd expect them to be far more interested in your driving than a cockpit drill!
They are.As I mentioned previously, a starting drill is far more about settling the drivers nerves before setting off on test than being an actual requirement of the test.
Unfortunately, it is an area wide open to both criticism and pedantry in equal measure.
As others have already stated, the order in which starting drills are carried out is relatively unimportant, and examiners will be well aware that your seat and mirror positions should already be perfect because its your car, and that, really, it's their sole responsibility to make sure their own seatbelt is fastened.
As with all other aspects of so called "advanced" driving, everyone is welcome to take and keep the bits they like and to discard the bits they don't like. Disagreement over small details is fine, but should not lead to the dismissal of all AD principles on the basis of not liking the starting drill or the steering technique.
R_U_LOCAL said:
As with all other aspects of so called "advanced" driving, everyone is welcome to take and keep the bits they like and to discard the bits they don't like. Disagreement over small details is fine, but should not lead to the dismissal of all AD principles on the basis of not liking the starting drill or the steering technique.
Never has a truer word been spoken. 
I personally think some kind of cockpit drill and walk-round inspection isn't a bad thing.
We all must know lot of drivers who don't know the condition of the tyres, lights, oil, water and similar things from one month to the next, I know many don't inspect anything ever and the only time anything is inspected is yearly, at MoT time.
So I think, for that type of driver a little bit of education along those lines is a good thing.
As for doing the walk-round inspection and extended cockpit drill on an AD test, what's the big deal? It's one day out of life, is it so bad to demonstrate that you know that stuff? Just once, for the purpose of the test?
I personally do a once-weekly check of axle oil levels, hub oil levels, gearbox, transfer box, I don't check brake and clutch fluid on a daily basis, but do a little walk round at the start of each driving day if just to check for nails in the tyres, while I wouldn't expect most drivers to go to those lengths or know that much, I think some education along those lines may be very useful to some drivers.
What frustrates me in these discussions, and it's cost me dearly with potential friendships in these circles, I like a lot of posters and really rate them, but there seems to be a lot of 'big-deal making' about things, I mean what exactly is the big-deal about wanting to pull-push or use the system, even the pedantic parts? For me if you/I want to do them then what is the problem?
To me the cockpit drill and general inspection is a good thing to teach to folks who maybe haven't paid much attention to the vehicle in the past, not everyone has the mechanical knowledge that some of us may have and may need some help understanding that stuff, after all the training is meant to produce a better driver with a safe vehicle as well as the actual driving technique and observation.
We all must know lot of drivers who don't know the condition of the tyres, lights, oil, water and similar things from one month to the next, I know many don't inspect anything ever and the only time anything is inspected is yearly, at MoT time.
So I think, for that type of driver a little bit of education along those lines is a good thing.
As for doing the walk-round inspection and extended cockpit drill on an AD test, what's the big deal? It's one day out of life, is it so bad to demonstrate that you know that stuff? Just once, for the purpose of the test?
I personally do a once-weekly check of axle oil levels, hub oil levels, gearbox, transfer box, I don't check brake and clutch fluid on a daily basis, but do a little walk round at the start of each driving day if just to check for nails in the tyres, while I wouldn't expect most drivers to go to those lengths or know that much, I think some education along those lines may be very useful to some drivers.
What frustrates me in these discussions, and it's cost me dearly with potential friendships in these circles, I like a lot of posters and really rate them, but there seems to be a lot of 'big-deal making' about things, I mean what exactly is the big-deal about wanting to pull-push or use the system, even the pedantic parts? For me if you/I want to do them then what is the problem?
To me the cockpit drill and general inspection is a good thing to teach to folks who maybe haven't paid much attention to the vehicle in the past, not everyone has the mechanical knowledge that some of us may have and may need some help understanding that stuff, after all the training is meant to produce a better driver with a safe vehicle as well as the actual driving technique and observation.
25NAD90TUL said:
What frustrates me in these discussions, and it's cost me dearly with potential friendships in these circles, I like a lot of posters and really rate them, but there seems to be a lot of 'big-deal making' about things, I mean what exactly is the big-deal about wanting to pull-push or use the system, even the pedantic parts? For me if you/I want to do them then what is the problem?
There is no problem if you want to do that stuff. There is a problem when you are forced to do that stuff when what you're doing is more than acceptable...StressedDave said:
There is no problem if you want to do that stuff. There is a problem when you are forced to do that stuff when what you're doing is more than acceptable...
Agreed.I think there may be a difference between being 'forced' to do it and being taught about it as one option.
After all in order to make informed choices, the candidate has to know what those choices are.
From what I remember nothing was 'forced' as you put it, I had the choice whether to take training, whether or not to take the advice or use the techniques, my own choice whether to pass or fail, really.
There seems to be a big fear of being 'forced' into these things, nothing was compulsory IIRC, it isn't compulsory to pass. On the force thing, I think some observers might struggle to force a fart out, never mind anything else
Personally I think further training should be compulsory in some form, but that is another matter.
In a way I see the point though, a 'you must do it this way or fail' when it comes to a minor point is misleading. However with something as subjective as AD the candidate is always going to be subjected to the observers' pet techniques and ideas. From what I recall the observers' ideas may differ dramatically from the examiners'.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff