Instructors test

[Dr Jekyll]

How does the driving instructors driving test, the pt2, compare with IAM or ROSPA tests?



Or with the basic test come to that?(obviously it's far harder but what specifically are the examiners looking for?)

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

How does the driving instructors driving test, the pt2, compare with IAM or ROSPA tests?



Or with the basic test come to that?(obviously it's far harder but what specifically are the examiners looking for?)

Compare in what way?
It's a DVSA test allowing fewer driving faults in order to pass.
It's not looking for the Roadcraft 'System', but MSMPSL.
The examiner uses the DVSA 'Tools for assessment' in observing the actions of the driver & applies them to what is observed.
It has a number of 'set pieces' that are required for it to be a lawful test.

[R0G]

Plenty of ADIs about who might be great at teaching basic learners but their own driving is no where near advanced standard

The A in ADI stands for Approved not Advanced as some people think

[Dr Jekyll]

R0G said:

Plenty of ADIs about who might be great at teaching basic learners but their own driving is no where near advanced standard

The A in ADI stands for Approved not Advanced as some people think

But does the reverse also apply? Are there drivers who satisfy IAM/ROSPA but not the examiners for ADI pt2?

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

R0G said:

Plenty of ADIs about who might be great at teaching basic learners but their own driving is no where near advanced standard

The A in ADI stands for Approved not Advanced as some people think

But does the reverse also apply? Are there drivers who satisfy IAM/ROSPA but not the examiners for ADI pt2?

There will be drivers who hold IAM/ROSPA who have failed a DVSA test, just as there are people who hold a DVSA licence but fail a further DVSA test.

[7mike]

DVSA testing is far more objective than anything offered by the mainstream AD organisations.

[vonhosen]

7mike said:

DVSA testing is far more objective than anything offered by the mainstream AD organisations.

Indeed, it's far less about inputs & more about outcomes.

[watchnut]

When I did my part 2 test, we were allowed upto "5" minor faults, some of the drive was on a motorway, and we had to execute the reversing manoeuvres as well, i can't remember if we had to do all 4 or just 2 of the 4.

They are looking for a nice smooth safe forward planning drive, driving defensively, showing confidence in your ability to getting on with it really

A minor fault could be as simple as not doing a correctly timed mirrors check, to a road position, anything really.

You can only take the test 3 times, if you fail it a third time you then can not continue trying to be an ADI for a year, ad then have to do part 1 again.

I think it is harder than Rospa/IAM because it is a means to earning a living and very important, where as the rospa/IAM are for personal standards/fun

A basic driving test is allowed up to 15 minor faults, but no more than 4/5 in one area or it becomes a "serious" fault. 1 dangerous fault and you are also binned.

A decent result for me,for a learner is 5 or less minors. 2 or less minors is very good. in 13.5 years I have had 2 pass with no faults, 4 pass with one fault, and countless with 2. If someone passes a test with more than 8/9 faults i would worry that they would become an accident statistic shortly afterwards

I suspect if you drove the rospa way for a part 2....you would fail, I can't say for the IAM test, as I did the IAM such a long time ago, but felt it was close to the part 2. I did no training for the IAM test, and just went and did it using my ADI driving skills, where as I had 6 hours training for the rospa test, and swallowed the "Roadcraft" manual.

When in everyday driving I drive the Rospa way for fun!....but can't teach that way for learners/novice drivers as it would not pass a driving test. If pupils once passed a test wish to have further "advanced" skills i am happy to pass them onto IAM/ROSPA, but as most know once the majority have passed a driving test they think they know it all, and can't be bothered to take their skills further and make progress being safer....shame really, but it keeps the garage repair teams in work, along with the NHS and undertakers....maybe I'm getting old and cynical....

Edited by watchnut on Tuesday 7th February 18:47

Edited by watchnut on Tuesday 7th February 18:51

[Dr Jekyll]

watchnut said:

Lots of interesting stuff

Thanks for that, have you any examples of things that might be a minor fault on an instructors pt2 but not count against the candidate in an ordinary driving test?

[caiss4]

Dr Jekyll said:

Thanks for that, have you any examples of things that might be a minor fault on an instructors pt2 but not count against the candidate in an ordinary driving test?

The Pt2 test for ADI's is the same as the learner test; same mark sheet. The difference is the test lasts for an hour (versus 42 mins for a learner) and you have to have fewer than 5 minors to pass.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

watchnut said:

Lots of interesting stuff

Thanks for that, have you any examples of things that might be a minor fault on an instructors pt2 but not count against the candidate in an ordinary driving test?

What amounts to a driving fault will be the same in both tests, just you are allowed to make fewer of them in ADI/Examiner tests if you still want to pass.

[JGJC]

I have recently retired as an LGV advanced driving instructor of some 39 years. the most stringent practical driving / classroom test (5 days duration) with a high fail rate was with the RTITB (Road Transport Industry Training Board). However, when the DSA ( Driving Standards Agency) brought out their register i decided to join, and found their test standards a joke in comparison, a short mornings drive, (with an examiner who only held a group C,rigid licence NOT a group C+E, artic of which he was testing me in, what practical skills / experience did he have?) including both practical and instructional techniques.

[martine]

The ADI P2 test is driving how the DVSA would like learners to but with few errors. They also expect a more confident drive and hesitation would be picked up on more readily.

Having done both P2 and AD tests (both IAM and ROSPA) I would say the P2 is a lower overall level of driving but tougher on the marking - if that makes sense. I think the score sheet encourages faults to be marked but has no space for 'brownie points' if a tricky situation is handled well. AD examiners in my experience tend to look at the overall drive and will ignore minor transgressions.

I don't like people describing the P2 as an 'advanced test'...to me, 'advanced' needs greatly extended observation, silky smoothness and leading to increased safety margins - whilst still making excellent progress. None of that is necessary to pass the P2.

[vonhosen]

JGJC said:

I have recently retired as an LGV advanced driving instructor of some 39 years. the most stringent practical driving / classroom test (5 days duration) with a high fail rate was with the RTITB (Road Transport Industry Training Board). However, when the DSA ( Driving Standards Agency) brought out their register i decided to join, and found their test standards a joke in comparison, a short mornings drive, (with an examiner who only held a group C,rigid licence NOT a group C+E, artic of which he was testing me in, what practical skills / experience did he have?) including both practical and instructional techniques.

DVSA are dropping the LGV register, the industry itself are to self regulate the trainer register.