Police Response Driving - My experience
Discussion
DocSteve said:
vonhosen said:
waremark said:
Dizeee said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The minimum standard for passing 3 weeks emergency service training is certainly far far higher than IAM. But there are drivers who have gone through the IAM/ROSPA route and had coaching with people like Reg Local who are comparable with standard trained police drivers and in some cases the same ballpark as advanced trained drivers, apart from the blue light specific aspects of course.
That really is a nonsensical statement and it reminds me of the sort of thing I would have posted on ADUK around 10 years agoYou can't campare the two as the driving experience between then varies so vastly - one of them is permanantly harnessed by the restrictions of the road traffic act and the other has exemptions. Over a period of time, the difference in application of technique and consequent experience gained seperates them hugely. Blue lights afford you no exemptions, just a means to assist progress through traffic. Do you really think you would see the same abilty from a well rounded IAM/ROSPA driver and compared to a well rounded police driver on the same drive?
I've known people who excel whatever driving discipline they move to from the last.
I've known people bomb whatever driving discipline they move to from the last.
I've known people be mediocre whatever driving discipline they move to from the last.
I've known people who excel in one discipline completely bomb or perform with mediocrity when they move onto another.
I've known others who perform with mediocrity (at what might be considered a lower discipline) find themselves & excel at the next level discipline.
In short prior performance in one discipline is not a good indicator of future performance in a different discipline.
Why do people even pose the pie in the sky question about how they might do on a response/pursuit course when they've no interest in being a Police officer & will never do a course?
We have the potential to do well & we all have the potential to bomb.
Whether people succeed or fail is down to the individual & the task on a case by case basis. The proof in effect is in the pudding.
That in no way infers that the Police driver is considered a better driver than somebody who has never done response/pursuit training, it just means that they have demonstrated they can perform those disciplines to a satisfactory standard whilst another has no chance to display whether they can or not. The measure of how good they are as a Police driver is how well they perform in those disciplines, so you can't say how good another is in those disciplines without training/testing them at it. Their experience in other driving disciplines isn't a very good indicator of how well they will do in those disciplines.
If you work hard at a discipline & have been been found to excel when tested against a defined standard at it, then great.
But that's what it is, that discipline & take it as that. If you go on and do another discipline & excel at that as well, then great, but again that's what it is.
Giving any thought about how well you think you'd do at something you are never likely to do is a waste of time & is pure conjecture.
How good you are at a discipline can only be determined by observing you performing that discipline measured against the objectives/criteria of that discipline.
People would be better served concentrating on doing well & improving at the disciplines they actually do, rather than a pointless discussion about disciplines they are never actually going to do. They aren't lesser drivers in any way because they don't do them, they are just different drivers. And we are all individuals as drivers anyway.
Pursuit training is clearly not something that a highly trained civilian should have any experience in but as I mentioned above, the use of speed without regard to the posted limit is something that civilian "advanced drivers" may have considerable training and experience in despite not being entitled to any exemption.
I'm not making any judgement as to whether that is right or wrong, just the reality of the situation which comes back to your last point about the disciplines that the driver will actually do.
There is exceeding a limit & then there is exceeding a limit.
They don't do it routinely to the degree that the emergency response training does, in the places where the response trainer does, using the criteria that response does.
I'm not in any way suggesting that people don't exceed speed limits outside those that legally can, that would be absurd.
I'm talking about trying to make pointless comparisons between different disciplines (disciplines aren't only about speed).
What point is there in trying to make such a comparison? What is it supposed to serve?
Do what you do well without this 'I'd do better than others at Y because I've done Z' nonsense.
I've, for instance (but obviously this hasn't always been the case), seen IAM members who are in the emergency services come to response courses confident they were going to find it easy because of their IAM past & they were the only driver on the car to fail & not even make it to the end of the course (having to be removed early). At the end of the day it comes down to the individual & how they take to the task.
It's not better, it's just different.
It looks like a bloody school ground argument about my dad's bigger than your dad.
To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.
I've been involved in Police driving/training for decades (but I've also got quite a bit of experience in a variety of outside disciplines),But I'm not trying to sell to you that Police/Emergency services is an ultimate, in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'.
Too often I see people who have been trained that way, dogmatically stick to that way (whether they are doing emergency response/pursuit or not) & proclaim it as an ultimate because they were told it was. That & because they have invested a lot of themselves in trying to perfect doing it that way & nobody wants to admit they've worked hard at perfecting what isn't actually perhaps the best way to do it. Instead they should look at why they were being told to do it that way for that purpose & how for other purposes that reasoning doesn't necessary hold true. They should consider all the alternatives & make an informed choice on a piece by piece basis as oppose to swallowing one whole pie & believing that's the ultimate.
I'm far more outcome driven than process driven & a lot of training out there is too process driven (some of that perhaps for ease of transmission/delivery of the teaching than because it's what's actual best for the individual &/or circumstance).
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 10:57
VH sajd:
"in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'. "
Very interesting, please share specifics. Many thanks.
I agree with most of your general message. I have argued against the use of the expression 'police advanced without the speed' used by some former police instructors to describe IAM Masters. However, there is an overlap between civilian and police driving in one area - that of quick minor rural road driving. And in that area skills can be comparable.
By the way, the IAM has moved slightly towards an outcomes rather than process driven approach.
"in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'. "
Very interesting, please share specifics. Many thanks.
I agree with most of your general message. I have argued against the use of the expression 'police advanced without the speed' used by some former police instructors to describe IAM Masters. However, there is an overlap between civilian and police driving in one area - that of quick minor rural road driving. And in that area skills can be comparable.
By the way, the IAM has moved slightly towards an outcomes rather than process driven approach.
vonhosen said:
They don't replicate though.
There is exceeding a limit & then there is exceeding a limit.
They don't do it routinely to the degree that the emergency response training does, in the places where the response trainer does, using the criteria that response does.
I'm not in any way suggesting that people don't exceed speed limits outside those that legally can, that would be absurd.
I'm talking about trying to make pointless comparisons between different disciplines (disciplines aren't only about speed).
What point is there in trying to make such a comparison? What is it supposed to serve?
Do what you do well without this 'I'd do better than others at Y because I've done Z' nonsense.
I've, for instance (but obviously this hasn't always been the case), seen IAM members who are in the emergency services come to response courses confident they were going to find it easy because of their IAM past & they were the only driver on the car to fail & not even make it to the end of the course (having to be removed early). At the end of the day it comes down to the individual & how they take to the task.
It's not better, it's just different.
It looks like a bloody school ground argument about my dad's bigger than your dad.
To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.
I've been involved in Police driving/training for decades (but I've also got quite a bit of experience in a variety of outside disciplines),But I'm not trying to sell to you that Police/Emergency services is an ultimate, in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'.
Too often I see people who have been trained that way, dogmatically stick to that way (whether they are doing emergency response/pursuit or not) & proclaim it as an ultimate because they were told it was. That & because they have invested a lot of themselves in trying to perfect doing it that way & nobody wants to admit they've worked hard at perfecting what isn't actually perhaps the best way to do it. Instead they should look at why they were being told to do it that way for that purpose & how for other purposes that reasoning doesn't necessary hold true. They should consider all the alternatives & make an informed choice on a piece by piece basis as oppose to swallowing one whole pie & believing that's the ultimate.
I'm far more outcome driven than process driven & a lot of training out there is too process driven (some of that perhaps for ease of transmission/delivery of the teaching than because it's what's actual best for the individual &/or circumstance).
Hi VH,There is exceeding a limit & then there is exceeding a limit.
They don't do it routinely to the degree that the emergency response training does, in the places where the response trainer does, using the criteria that response does.
I'm not in any way suggesting that people don't exceed speed limits outside those that legally can, that would be absurd.
I'm talking about trying to make pointless comparisons between different disciplines (disciplines aren't only about speed).
What point is there in trying to make such a comparison? What is it supposed to serve?
Do what you do well without this 'I'd do better than others at Y because I've done Z' nonsense.
I've, for instance (but obviously this hasn't always been the case), seen IAM members who are in the emergency services come to response courses confident they were going to find it easy because of their IAM past & they were the only driver on the car to fail & not even make it to the end of the course (having to be removed early). At the end of the day it comes down to the individual & how they take to the task.
It's not better, it's just different.
It looks like a bloody school ground argument about my dad's bigger than your dad.
To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.
I've been involved in Police driving/training for decades (but I've also got quite a bit of experience in a variety of outside disciplines),But I'm not trying to sell to you that Police/Emergency services is an ultimate, in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'.
Too often I see people who have been trained that way, dogmatically stick to that way (whether they are doing emergency response/pursuit or not) & proclaim it as an ultimate because they were told it was. That & because they have invested a lot of themselves in trying to perfect doing it that way & nobody wants to admit they've worked hard at perfecting what isn't actually perhaps the best way to do it. Instead they should look at why they were being told to do it that way for that purpose & how for other purposes that reasoning doesn't necessary hold true. They should consider all the alternatives & make an informed choice on a piece by piece basis as oppose to swallowing one whole pie & believing that's the ultimate.
I'm far more outcome driven than process driven & a lot of training out there is too process driven (some of that perhaps for ease of transmission/delivery of the teaching than because it's what's actual best for the individual &/or circumstance).
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 10:57
I don't want to get into an argument with you, mainly because I agree with you - in particular about trying to draw pointless parallels, even if there are some inevitable overlaps.
I guess moving away from the "playground" banter that could as you say put people off driver training, the more mature question is around what is best for the individual given what they are intending to do (including if that is, err, intending to break the speed limit regularly in certain scenarios) and how their mind works. Some will respond well to an extremely rigid approach and others will prefer to be flexible as it seems you are. As an example, I had the benefit of learning initially from an ex-Hendon instructor who was absolutely nailed to a particular type of steering technique. He was very good at it and is probably one of a few who can power slide and drive a racing car using that technique. Fixed position steering to him was absolutely not on in any scenario. But I could could not get on with that whether on a track or when driving quickly on certain types of road. It took a different instructor to guide me towards something I could do and that worked effectively and safely for me.
The police training experience reported is nonetheless interesting, especially as some say that police driver training is not what it used to be. I think professional instruction coupled with motivation and some inherent ability is going to be good for anyone; the length of that training and its bespoke nature for the individual undertaking it are going to be key to its value
Steve
ETA: Completely agree with waremark about the rural road skills overlap
Edited by DocSteve on Sunday 19th November 17:46
DocSteve said:
vonhosen said:
They don't replicate though.
There is exceeding a limit & then there is exceeding a limit.
They don't do it routinely to the degree that the emergency response training does, in the places where the response trainer does, using the criteria that response does.
I'm not in any way suggesting that people don't exceed speed limits outside those that legally can, that would be absurd.
I'm talking about trying to make pointless comparisons between different disciplines (disciplines aren't only about speed).
What point is there in trying to make such a comparison? What is it supposed to serve?
Do what you do well without this 'I'd do better than others at Y because I've done Z' nonsense.
I've, for instance (but obviously this hasn't always been the case), seen IAM members who are in the emergency services come to response courses confident they were going to find it easy because of their IAM past & they were the only driver on the car to fail & not even make it to the end of the course (having to be removed early). At the end of the day it comes down to the individual & how they take to the task.
It's not better, it's just different.
It looks like a bloody school ground argument about my dad's bigger than your dad.
To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.
I've been involved in Police driving/training for decades (but I've also got quite a bit of experience in a variety of outside disciplines),But I'm not trying to sell to you that Police/Emergency services is an ultimate, in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'.
Too often I see people who have been trained that way, dogmatically stick to that way (whether they are doing emergency response/pursuit or not) & proclaim it as an ultimate because they were told it was. That & because they have invested a lot of themselves in trying to perfect doing it that way & nobody wants to admit they've worked hard at perfecting what isn't actually perhaps the best way to do it. Instead they should look at why they were being told to do it that way for that purpose & how for other purposes that reasoning doesn't necessary hold true. They should consider all the alternatives & make an informed choice on a piece by piece basis as oppose to swallowing one whole pie & believing that's the ultimate.
I'm far more outcome driven than process driven & a lot of training out there is too process driven (some of that perhaps for ease of transmission/delivery of the teaching than because it's what's actual best for the individual &/or circumstance).
Hi VH,There is exceeding a limit & then there is exceeding a limit.
They don't do it routinely to the degree that the emergency response training does, in the places where the response trainer does, using the criteria that response does.
I'm not in any way suggesting that people don't exceed speed limits outside those that legally can, that would be absurd.
I'm talking about trying to make pointless comparisons between different disciplines (disciplines aren't only about speed).
What point is there in trying to make such a comparison? What is it supposed to serve?
Do what you do well without this 'I'd do better than others at Y because I've done Z' nonsense.
I've, for instance (but obviously this hasn't always been the case), seen IAM members who are in the emergency services come to response courses confident they were going to find it easy because of their IAM past & they were the only driver on the car to fail & not even make it to the end of the course (having to be removed early). At the end of the day it comes down to the individual & how they take to the task.
It's not better, it's just different.
It looks like a bloody school ground argument about my dad's bigger than your dad.
To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.
I've been involved in Police driving/training for decades (but I've also got quite a bit of experience in a variety of outside disciplines),But I'm not trying to sell to you that Police/Emergency services is an ultimate, in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'.
Too often I see people who have been trained that way, dogmatically stick to that way (whether they are doing emergency response/pursuit or not) & proclaim it as an ultimate because they were told it was. That & because they have invested a lot of themselves in trying to perfect doing it that way & nobody wants to admit they've worked hard at perfecting what isn't actually perhaps the best way to do it. Instead they should look at why they were being told to do it that way for that purpose & how for other purposes that reasoning doesn't necessary hold true. They should consider all the alternatives & make an informed choice on a piece by piece basis as oppose to swallowing one whole pie & believing that's the ultimate.
I'm far more outcome driven than process driven & a lot of training out there is too process driven (some of that perhaps for ease of transmission/delivery of the teaching than because it's what's actual best for the individual &/or circumstance).
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 10:57
I don't want to get into an argument with you, mainly because I agree with you - in particular about trying to draw pointless parallels, even if there are some inevitable overlaps.
I guess moving away from the "playground" banter that could as you say put people off driver training, the more mature question is around what is best for the individual given what they are intending to do (including if that is, err, intending to break the speed limit regularly in certain scenarios) and how their mind works. Some will respond well to an extremely rigid approach and others will prefer to be flexible as it seems you are. As an example, I had the benefit of learning initially from an ex-Hendon instructor who was absolutely nailed to a particular type of steering technique. He was very good at it and is probably one of a few who can power slide and drive a racing car using that technique. Fixed position steering to him was absolutely not on in any scenario. But I could could not get on with that whether on a track or when driving quickly on certain types of road. It took a different instructor to guide me towards something I could do and that worked effectively and safely for me.
The police training experience reported is nonetheless interesting, especially as some say that police driver training is not what it used to be. I think professional instruction coupled with motivation and some inherent ability is going to be good for anyone; the length of that training and its bespoke nature for the individual undertaking it are going to be key to its value
Steve
ETA: Completely agree with watermark about the rural road skills overlap
I've said elsewhere that what I've observed over decades is it getting an ever more refined product (not necessarily in a good way as far as I'm concerned). What I mean by that is the process gets ever more refined in such a way that what is desirable or considered excellence gets narrower & narrower. It's a bit like driving down an ever narrowing funnel where choices get removed until there is only one acceptable way to do it in order to be successful. What that often results in is those who say 'it isn't what it used to be' find they can't now be successful under the new order because it's so practiced, refined & demanding in a way that they aren't accustomed to.
Having been involved for decades I can also say with confidence a lot of 'what it used to be' (& by inference a lot of what I used to do) was, with honest critical reflection, completely unacceptable.
It's actually harder to pass now than back in the day because they have to learn more competencies in less time to a narrower standard of acceptability.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 18:44
vonhosen said:
DocSteve said:
vonhosen said:
They don't replicate though.
There is exceeding a limit & then there is exceeding a limit.
They don't do it routinely to the degree that the emergency response training does, in the places where the response trainer does, using the criteria that response does.
I'm not in any way suggesting that people don't exceed speed limits outside those that legally can, that would be absurd.
I'm talking about trying to make pointless comparisons between different disciplines (disciplines aren't only about speed).
What point is there in trying to make such a comparison? What is it supposed to serve?
Do what you do well without this 'I'd do better than others at Y because I've done Z' nonsense.
I've, for instance (but obviously this hasn't always been the case), seen IAM members who are in the emergency services come to response courses confident they were going to find it easy because of their IAM past & they were the only driver on the car to fail & not even make it to the end of the course (having to be removed early). At the end of the day it comes down to the individual & how they take to the task.
It's not better, it's just different.
It looks like a bloody school ground argument about my dad's bigger than your dad.
To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.
I've been involved in Police driving/training for decades (but I've also got quite a bit of experience in a variety of outside disciplines),But I'm not trying to sell to you that Police/Emergency services is an ultimate, in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'.
Too often I see people who have been trained that way, dogmatically stick to that way (whether they are doing emergency response/pursuit or not) & proclaim it as an ultimate because they were told it was. That & because they have invested a lot of themselves in trying to perfect doing it that way & nobody wants to admit they've worked hard at perfecting what isn't actually perhaps the best way to do it. Instead they should look at why they were being told to do it that way for that purpose & how for other purposes that reasoning doesn't necessary hold true. They should consider all the alternatives & make an informed choice on a piece by piece basis as oppose to swallowing one whole pie & believing that's the ultimate.
I'm far more outcome driven than process driven & a lot of training out there is too process driven (some of that perhaps for ease of transmission/delivery of the teaching than because it's what's actual best for the individual &/or circumstance).
Hi VH,There is exceeding a limit & then there is exceeding a limit.
They don't do it routinely to the degree that the emergency response training does, in the places where the response trainer does, using the criteria that response does.
I'm not in any way suggesting that people don't exceed speed limits outside those that legally can, that would be absurd.
I'm talking about trying to make pointless comparisons between different disciplines (disciplines aren't only about speed).
What point is there in trying to make such a comparison? What is it supposed to serve?
Do what you do well without this 'I'd do better than others at Y because I've done Z' nonsense.
I've, for instance (but obviously this hasn't always been the case), seen IAM members who are in the emergency services come to response courses confident they were going to find it easy because of their IAM past & they were the only driver on the car to fail & not even make it to the end of the course (having to be removed early). At the end of the day it comes down to the individual & how they take to the task.
It's not better, it's just different.
It looks like a bloody school ground argument about my dad's bigger than your dad.
To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.
I've been involved in Police driving/training for decades (but I've also got quite a bit of experience in a variety of outside disciplines),But I'm not trying to sell to you that Police/Emergency services is an ultimate, in fact in my everyday life I go against some of the teachings/competencies that are required to be displayed because I don't find them a best fit for the driving/riding I'm doing outside that 'arena'.
Too often I see people who have been trained that way, dogmatically stick to that way (whether they are doing emergency response/pursuit or not) & proclaim it as an ultimate because they were told it was. That & because they have invested a lot of themselves in trying to perfect doing it that way & nobody wants to admit they've worked hard at perfecting what isn't actually perhaps the best way to do it. Instead they should look at why they were being told to do it that way for that purpose & how for other purposes that reasoning doesn't necessary hold true. They should consider all the alternatives & make an informed choice on a piece by piece basis as oppose to swallowing one whole pie & believing that's the ultimate.
I'm far more outcome driven than process driven & a lot of training out there is too process driven (some of that perhaps for ease of transmission/delivery of the teaching than because it's what's actual best for the individual &/or circumstance).
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 10:57
I don't want to get into an argument with you, mainly because I agree with you - in particular about trying to draw pointless parallels, even if there are some inevitable overlaps.
I guess moving away from the "playground" banter that could as you say put people off driver training, the more mature question is around what is best for the individual given what they are intending to do (including if that is, err, intending to break the speed limit regularly in certain scenarios) and how their mind works. Some will respond well to an extremely rigid approach and others will prefer to be flexible as it seems you are. As an example, I had the benefit of learning initially from an ex-Hendon instructor who was absolutely nailed to a particular type of steering technique. He was very good at it and is probably one of a few who can power slide and drive a racing car using that technique. Fixed position steering to him was absolutely not on in any scenario. But I could could not get on with that whether on a track or when driving quickly on certain types of road. It took a different instructor to guide me towards something I could do and that worked effectively and safely for me.
The police training experience reported is nonetheless interesting, especially as some say that police driver training is not what it used to be. I think professional instruction coupled with motivation and some inherent ability is going to be good for anyone; the length of that training and its bespoke nature for the individual undertaking it are going to be key to its value
Steve
ETA: Completely agree with watermark about the rural road skills overlap
I've said elsewhere that what I've observed over decades is it getting an ever more refined product (not necessarily in a good way as far as I'm concerned). What I mean by that is the process gets ever more refined in such a way that what is desirable or considered excellence gets narrower & narrower. It's a bit like driving down an ever narrowing funnel where choices get removed until there is only one acceptable way to do it in order to be successful. What that often results in is those who say 'it isn't what it used to be' find they can't now be successful under the new order because it's so practiced, refined & demanding in a way that they aren't accustomed to.
Having been involved for decades I can also say with confidence a lot of 'what it used to be' (& by inference a lot of what I used to do) was, with honest critical reflection, completely unacceptable.
It's actually harder to pass now than back in the day because they have to learn more competencies in less time to a narrower standard of acceptability.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th November 18:44
This is rather tangential to the thread but given I mostly hear the sort of comments I mentioned about police training from those who are ex-police or have never actually worked in the police it's interesting to hear your views on it in the present day.
Well done Op for the course. Theory is always difficult but you scored well there, when I did the "Roadcraft" questions at the end of each chapter I found that I didn't understand them, or had not read the chapter properly!
are you going to do IAM or ROSPA tests as well? using your roadcraft skills will make it a piece of P for each.
I did my IAM test some 13/14 years ago without any IAM training, I just used my ADI skills, and read roadcraft. For the ROSPA test I went out with a very nice retired lady, who moaned at my "eco" style of driving and told me to "get on with it!".....loved that feed back and after 2 x 2 hours with her took the test, I got only a "silver" and was gutted, so did it again about 2 months later and got a "gold"
For me the ROSPA test was the more challenging, especially as they required commentary driving. But, I am comfortable with that.
I have been "Plod" myself but not to "standard" driving, but sat next to the "area" car drivers on many occasions .....some were bloody hairy and clearly required a retest, the "traffic" blokes I sat next to were another few steps up, and i never felt at risk with them, but then traffic plods are about the best there is
You have done yourself no harm in doing the course, and wish you luck in getting in the force for proper ( I take it it's "Dorset")
For insurance discounts....forget it....never have I had one being and ADi, Rospa, IAM.....but strangely enough if I'd had "pass plus" some insurance companies offer discounts WTF! MY wife got her IAM certificate for having a"standard" ticket with Hants police, but again never helped with a insurance discount. I don't know if IAM will give you a certificate with proof of your standard course but worth the call
good luck
are you going to do IAM or ROSPA tests as well? using your roadcraft skills will make it a piece of P for each.
I did my IAM test some 13/14 years ago without any IAM training, I just used my ADI skills, and read roadcraft. For the ROSPA test I went out with a very nice retired lady, who moaned at my "eco" style of driving and told me to "get on with it!".....loved that feed back and after 2 x 2 hours with her took the test, I got only a "silver" and was gutted, so did it again about 2 months later and got a "gold"
For me the ROSPA test was the more challenging, especially as they required commentary driving. But, I am comfortable with that.
I have been "Plod" myself but not to "standard" driving, but sat next to the "area" car drivers on many occasions .....some were bloody hairy and clearly required a retest, the "traffic" blokes I sat next to were another few steps up, and i never felt at risk with them, but then traffic plods are about the best there is
You have done yourself no harm in doing the course, and wish you luck in getting in the force for proper ( I take it it's "Dorset")
For insurance discounts....forget it....never have I had one being and ADi, Rospa, IAM.....but strangely enough if I'd had "pass plus" some insurance companies offer discounts WTF! MY wife got her IAM certificate for having a"standard" ticket with Hants police, but again never helped with a insurance discount. I don't know if IAM will give you a certificate with proof of your standard course but worth the call
good luck
So am I right in thinking there is nothing on regaining control when its gone a bit wrong? As in you get out of shape at high speed and you need to calmly gather it back together without a half mile fish tail.
I know the stock response will be 'a well trained driver would never get into that situation' but lets be realistic - it can happen.
The reason I ask is that I know a ARV officer who also does a Task Force work including Royal Protection and he is useless at karting. Now I'm not trying to say the skills are the same (I completely accept that it is far far more complex than that) but I was surprised about how little intuition he had for a effectively controlling vehicle at speed that was sliding around on the standard slightly polished concrete factory floor.
I know the stock response will be 'a well trained driver would never get into that situation' but lets be realistic - it can happen.
The reason I ask is that I know a ARV officer who also does a Task Force work including Royal Protection and he is useless at karting. Now I'm not trying to say the skills are the same (I completely accept that it is far far more complex than that) but I was surprised about how little intuition he had for a effectively controlling vehicle at speed that was sliding around on the standard slightly polished concrete factory floor.
northwick said:
So am I right in thinking there is nothing on regaining control when its gone a bit wrong? As in you get out of shape at high speed and you need to calmly gather it back together without a half mile fish tail.
I know the stock response will be 'a well trained driver would never get into that situation' but lets be realistic - it can happen.
The reason I ask is that I know a ARV officer who also does a Task Force work including Royal Protection and he is useless at karting. Now I'm not trying to say the skills are the same (I completely accept that it is far far more complex than that) but I was surprised about how little intuition he had for a effectively controlling vehicle at speed that was sliding around on the standard slightly polished concrete factory floor.
The view is probably that with all modern vehicles being fitted with ESP (which is never turned off) all you need to do is to steer where you want the car to go - and activate the ABS if that is still not keeping you on the black stuff.I know the stock response will be 'a well trained driver would never get into that situation' but lets be realistic - it can happen.
The reason I ask is that I know a ARV officer who also does a Task Force work including Royal Protection and he is useless at karting. Now I'm not trying to say the skills are the same (I completely accept that it is far far more complex than that) but I was surprised about how little intuition he had for a effectively controlling vehicle at speed that was sliding around on the standard slightly polished concrete factory floor.
Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.
waremark said:
The view is probably that with all modern vehicles being fitted with ESP (which is never turned off) all you need to do is to steer where you want the car to go - and activate the ABS if that is still not keeping you on the black stuff.
Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.
Likewise - my force had its own skidpan - honed my skills on the local swimming pool car park during the winter on nights thoughActually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.
waremark said:
The view is probably that with all modern vehicles being fitted with ESP (which is never turned off) all you need to do is to steer where you want the car to go - and activate the ABS if that is still not keeping you on the black stuff.
Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.
From my experience the benefit of a skid pan was learning how to drive around on a very slippery surface without skidding. Learning to detect the signs of incipient skid and the kind of control movements that would overcome the available grip.Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.
northwick said:
So am I right in thinking there is nothing on regaining control when its gone a bit wrong? As in you get out of shape at high speed and you need to calmly gather it back together without a half mile fish tail.
I know the stock response will be 'a well trained driver would never get into that situation' but lets be realistic - it can happen.
The reason I ask is that I know a ARV officer who also does a Task Force work including Royal Protection and he is useless at karting. Now I'm not trying to say the skills are the same (I completely accept that it is far far more complex than that) but I was surprised about how little intuition he had for a effectively controlling vehicle at speed that was sliding around on the standard slightly polished concrete factory floor.
I was taught on a skidpan and with a specially adapted Ford Mondeo which would understeer/ oversteer using a control box linked to the front and rear wheels, operated by the instructor.I know the stock response will be 'a well trained driver would never get into that situation' but lets be realistic - it can happen.
The reason I ask is that I know a ARV officer who also does a Task Force work including Royal Protection and he is useless at karting. Now I'm not trying to say the skills are the same (I completely accept that it is far far more complex than that) but I was surprised about how little intuition he had for a effectively controlling vehicle at speed that was sliding around on the standard slightly polished concrete factory floor.
Did both standard and advanced courses using the same set-up.
Red 4 said:
I was taught on a skidpan and with a specially adapted Ford Mondeo which would understeer/ oversteer using a control box linked to the front and rear wheels, operated by the instructor.
Did both standard and advanced courses using the same set-up.
Do you consider that it has been useful to you on the road (particularly since you have been driving modern cars with stability control systems)?Did both standard and advanced courses using the same set-up.
I have been lucky enough to have many opportunities to practice limit handling - several visits to frozen lakes in Sweden, wet grip facilities at MIRA, Porsche Silverstone, and Prodrive, in addition to more traditional cradle car (such as you describe) and skid pan experiences. It is all tremendous fun, and I can collect a little anticipated power oversteer. However I am not sure that all this experience and training actually reads across into safer driving on the public road. One benefit is that in modern cars it teaches you to take full advantage of the electronic systems and shows you what they can and cannot achieve.
waremark said:
The view is probably that with all modern vehicles being fitted with ESP (which is never turned off) all you need to do is to steer where you want the car to go - and activate the ABS if that is still not keeping you on the black stuff.
Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.
That is a good point. I can't really comment on if that is sufficient in terms of training as (so far) I've been lucky enough to have never had the ESP 'save' me but from what people say it is incredibly good at doing so. One thing that must be pretty certain is that the systems installed in cars the police routinely use are very conservative and therefore will kick in way before you can get too out of shape.Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.
northwick said:
waremark said:
The view is probably that with all modern vehicles being fitted with ESP (which is never turned off) all you need to do is to steer where you want the car to go - and activate the ABS if that is still not keeping you on the black stuff.
Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.
That is a good point. I can't really comment on if that is sufficient in terms of training as (so far) I've been lucky enough to have never had the ESP 'save' me but from what people say it is incredibly good at doing so. One thing that must be pretty certain is that the systems installed in cars the police routinely use are very conservative and therefore will kick in way before you can get too out of shape.Actually, I am dubious as to whether the time spent in earlier years doing low speed work on skid pans was much help in a higher speed loss of control on a narrow public road.
2) They tend to be much better at stopping oversteer, you'll end pointing in the right direction rather than spinning out but you will get a sensation of skipping sideways even though you are pointing in the direction you desire (you'll still need the room available for skipping sideways).
3) They can't defy the laws of physics, they just have some means at their disposal that you don't (ie braking individual wheels to help control yaw).
You pretty much don't want to be doing what you learn on a skid pan without the systems, when your vehicle has the systems.
And if you haven't got the systems a few hours years ago isn't really good preparation for driving beyond the limits of grip on public roads.
Also a little bit of training on a skid pan can cause more problems than it solves.
It can create a feeling of you know what you're doing & create confidence that provokes greater risk taking (there is study evidence to back this up). Think about it, you go around the same bit of low grip surface again & again at pretty low speeds & get a feel for where it might let go. To that end you can pretty confidently predict what's going to happen & dial in the response you've been taught. It's all also happening at low speeds in a sanitised area.
Then out in the real world with your new found confidence you go from good grip to little grip at much higher speeds with far more hazards around & because you hadn't been over that bit 50 times today it catches you out. Now with much larger forces in on the act you're up the swanny without a paddle.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 21st November 20:45
waremark said:
Red 4 said:
I was taught on a skidpan and with a specially adapted Ford Mondeo which would understeer/ oversteer using a control box linked to the front and rear wheels, operated by the instructor.
Did both standard and advanced courses using the same set-up.
Do you consider that it has been useful to you on the road (particularly since you have been driving modern cars with stability control systems)?Did both standard and advanced courses using the same set-up.
I have been lucky enough to have many opportunities to practice limit handling - several visits to frozen lakes in Sweden, wet grip facilities at MIRA, Porsche Silverstone, and Prodrive, in addition to more traditional cradle car (such as you describe) and skid pan experiences. It is all tremendous fun, and I can collect a little anticipated power oversteer. However I am not sure that all this experience and training actually reads across into safer driving on the public road. One benefit is that in modern cars it teaches you to take full advantage of the electronic systems and shows you what they can and cannot achieve.
Contrary to what Vonhosen says I don't believe skidpan training causes more problems than it solves - some people have never experienced understeer or oversteer prior to attending a course and it is a learning experience.
I accept that the training is done at relatively slow speeds and in a controlled environment but this type of training does have its benefits imo.
As for driving cars with modern safety aids - they won't always save you. The driver is the biggest factor.
Passing the courses doesn't make everyone a driving God - some Advanced drivers are better than others (and some Standard drivers are better than some Advanced drivers).
The courses are quite intensive though (especially the Advanced Course). Not everyone passes.
DocSteve said:
I think this makes a lot of sense and is well articulated. The point I would take an issue with is the use of exemptions; yes, of course any advanced driver training for those who are not and will not be able to make use of exemptions shouldn't aim to train a driver in any sort of driving that involves breaking a law. However, I think it would be naive to think that the speed limit "exemption" isn't replicated in some of these types of training.
Pursuit training is clearly not something that a highly trained civilian should have any experience in but as I mentioned above, the use of speed without regard to the posted limit is something that civilian "advanced drivers" may have considerable training and experience in despite not being entitled to any exemption.
I'm not making any judgement as to whether that is right or wrong, just the reality of the situation which comes back to your last point about the disciplines that the driver will actually do.
Whlst I accept that civilians will creep over and some may well exceed the limit either on their own or during civvy driver training, that differs hugely from regular and sustained high speed that police drivers will be accustomed to. There is no way that the thought processes are the same between a driver doing 90 in a 70 on a Sunday morning compared to the traffic officer doing in excess of 130mph more than once a day. Pursuit training is clearly not something that a highly trained civilian should have any experience in but as I mentioned above, the use of speed without regard to the posted limit is something that civilian "advanced drivers" may have considerable training and experience in despite not being entitled to any exemption.
I'm not making any judgement as to whether that is right or wrong, just the reality of the situation which comes back to your last point about the disciplines that the driver will actually do.
You could take it further, during training you can be sat at speeds of up to 150, or a fast as a car full of cops will go, for a pro longed period of time. Plus, your at that speed with not a jot of your brain function focussed on the risk of prosecution.
As Von says the two are different disciplines, however, the dynamacy of regular and sustained speed work as well as making proper progress filters down and has a huge effect on your day to day driving. You can't gain that experience / exposure in every day driving. I have no doubt that there are hugely talented drivers present in Rospa and IAM, but the two are totally seperate entities.
vonhosen said:
It looks like a bloody school ground argument about my dad's bigger than your dad.
To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.
It does exactly that. I often ponder why those involved in civilian advanced driving members / organisiations don't wonder why there are so few serving police officers participating. To an outside observer it makes all those who are involved in further driver training (whatever discipline) look like a lot of childish nerds.
It's unattractive & off putting.
Examiners get paid for examining and police retiree's interested in driving may enjoy the ability to continue dipping their toe in the worlf of advanced driving, but the two worlds are vastly different, and having done both I know they simply cannot be compared.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff