Advanced driver qualifications

[andy_s]

I still think it is strange that all the insurance companies will up your premium based on what car you drive (a GTi in the 80's? fergedaboutit!) and whether you keep it in a garage etc etc rather than how qualified a driver you are or at least how much recurrent training you've had.


If drivers were offered a cash-saving incentive in relation to insurance premiums I think more people (esp those hit hardest by premiums - younger fellahs) would go down an IAM/RoSPA route. More advanced drivers means fewer accidents in theory, surely good for everyone and maybe cheaper than rigid enforcement of arbitary limits? (Yes, that old chestnut....couldn't resist).

Bearing this in mind, do AIM/RoSPA lobby insurance co.'s or govt. to achieve this I wonder?

[vonhosen]

Relaxitscool said:

vonhosen said:

ipsg.glf said:

SVS said:

Not so. This is a prime example of why the "qualifications" chart isn't meaningful. In some areas, an HPC Gold driver will be considerably ahead of a police "standard" course graduate. However, the police "standard" driver will be trained in a number of skills that the HPC driver won't know. Although there's substantial overlap, you aren't comparing like with like.

I imagine that the key difference between a HPC gold driver and a standard response is that the former places much more emphasis on smoothness than perhaps the latter.

I believe that both Andy Morrison and Clive Jones put forward the view that HPC gold is equivalent to a standard response pass. Who are we to argue?

I'd imagine that the key difference between HPC Gold & Standard Response is the blues & twos (which requires a very different approach to normal driving).

As it's also primarily the reason behind the training for Standard Response, I don't personally see the point in trying to do comparisons.
But then I've also got no idea what the competency standard for an IAM pass is, let alone HPC Gold.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 30th May 06:43

When I passed my police standard driver (allows you drive Panda car's) test the instructor said the skills taught were those equivalent to a civilian advanced driver. When I passed my Police Advanced (allows to drive high powered vehicles etc)I was told it was the equivalent of being able to teach / instruct civilian advance drivers with add on of Pursuit Management etc. So really its no different to the process you go through as a civilian with a few add on's specific for the job.

Regards

Rob

The advanced course doesn't qualify you to teach at all. Any Police driving certificate (at whatever level) that I've seen, has a qualifier on the bottom stating that the certificate does not entitle the holder to instruct unless it specifically says so.

[Relaxitscool]

vonhosen said:

Relaxitscool said:

vonhosen said:

ipsg.glf said:

SVS said:

Not so. This is a prime example of why the "qualifications" chart isn't meaningful. In some areas, an HPC Gold driver will be considerably ahead of a police "standard" course graduate. However, the police "standard" driver will be trained in a number of skills that the HPC driver won't know. Although there's substantial overlap, you aren't comparing like with like.

I imagine that the key difference between a HPC gold driver and a standard response is that the former places much more emphasis on smoothness than perhaps the latter.

I believe that both Andy Morrison and Clive Jones put forward the view that HPC gold is equivalent to a standard response pass. Who are we to argue?

I'd imagine that the key difference between HPC Gold & Standard Response is the blues & twos (which requires a very different approach to normal driving).

As it's also primarily the reason behind the training for Standard Response, I don't personally see the point in trying to do comparisons.
But then I've also got no idea what the competency standard for an IAM pass is, let alone HPC Gold.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 30th May 06:43

When I passed my police standard driver (allows you drive Panda car's) test the instructor said the skills taught were those equivalent to a civilian advanced driver. When I passed my Police Advanced (allows to drive high powered vehicles etc)I was told it was the equivalent of being able to teach / instruct civilian advance drivers with add on of Pursuit Management etc. So really its no different to the process you go through as a civilian with a few add on's specific for the job.

Regards

Rob

The advanced course doesn't qualify you to teach at all. Any Police driving certificate (at whatever level) that I've seen, has a qualifier on the bottom stating that the certificate does not entitle the holder to instruct unless it specifically says so.

I didn't say I was qualified to teach, I was just quoting what had been said to me, and I gather he meant that the training given took the driving skills to the same level.

[Relaxitscool]

Relaxitscool said:

vonhosen said:

Relaxitscool said:

vonhosen said:

ipsg.glf said:

SVS said:

Not so. This is a prime example of why the "qualifications" chart isn't meaningful. In some areas, an HPC Gold driver will be considerably ahead of a police "standard" course graduate. However, the police "standard" driver will be trained in a number of skills that the HPC driver won't know. Although there's substantial overlap, you aren't comparing like with like.

I imagine that the key difference between a HPC gold driver and a standard response is that the former places much more emphasis on smoothness than perhaps the latter.

I believe that both Andy Morrison and Clive Jones put forward the view that HPC gold is equivalent to a standard response pass. Who are we to argue?

I'd imagine that the key difference between HPC Gold & Standard Response is the blues & twos (which requires a very different approach to normal driving).

As it's also primarily the reason behind the training for Standard Response, I don't personally see the point in trying to do comparisons.
But then I've also got no idea what the competency standard for an IAM pass is, let alone HPC Gold.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 30th May 06:43

When I passed my police standard driver (allows you drive Panda car's) test the instructor said the skills taught were those equivalent to a civilian advanced driver. When I passed my Police Advanced (allows to drive high powered vehicles etc)I was told it was the equivalent of being able to teach / instruct civilian advance drivers with add on of Pursuit Management etc. So really its no different to the process you go through as a civilian with a few add on's specific for the job.

Regards

Rob

The advanced course doesn't qualify you to teach at all. Any Police driving certificate (at whatever level) that I've seen, has a qualifier on the bottom stating that the certificate does not entitle the holder to instruct unless it specifically says so.

I didn't say I was qualified to teach, I said equivalent. I was just quoting what had been said to me, and I gather he meant that the training given took the driving skills to the same level.

[Chris71]

andy_s said:

I still think it is strange that all the insurance companies will up your premium based on what car you drive (a GTi in the 80's? fergedaboutit!) and whether you keep it in a garage etc etc rather than how qualified a driver you are or at least how much recurrent training you've had.


If drivers were offered a cash-saving incentive in relation to insurance premiums I think more people (esp those hit hardest by premiums - younger fellahs) would go down an IAM/RoSPA route. More advanced drivers means fewer accidents in theory, surely good for everyone and maybe cheaper than rigid enforcement of arbitary limits? (Yes, that old chestnut....couldn't resist).

Bearing this in mind, do AIM/RoSPA lobby insurance co.'s or govt. to achieve this I wonder?

I think as well as education and competency, driver attitude has a lot to do with it and if someone has spent time and money trying to improve their driving that's got to count for something.