Safe Speed Forums

The first issue that I had to tackle when I took my associate out for his initial drive was "progress".

The IAM Examiner will expect a test candidate to make reasonable progress by which we mean driving up to the speed limit where it is safe to do so but at the same time maintaining a smooth, comfortable drive. A good example is doing 60 mph on a wide, fairly straight A-road, where traffic and road conditions permit.

Well, I took my associate down a country road which was wide enough to take two lanes of traffic but with a lot of bends, some 90-degree. He didn't exceed the 60-limit but I was sufficiently alarmed to stop the drive within 20 minutes of setting off. Delicately I explained that he would have been unable to stop in the distance he could see to be clear in some places. He looked a bit pained but then told me that he had been criticised in his initial assessment drive for "not making progress". These drives are advertised locally for interested drivers to start from supermarket car parks and the like on selected Sunday mornings. So I asked my associate to explain the circumstances of his assessment drive. He had been driving along a road (unfamiliar to him) with a 60-limit which I know well. The view along this road is restricted in places with brows and hidden dips and a blind bend. I was in a difficult position as I said 50 mph was a reasonable speed on this road and I wouldn't dream of overtaking on it. His assessor, one of our Senior Observers, expected him to do 60 mph and be ready to overtake.
The associate told me he hadn't been happy driving at the speed he had just been doing on the country road but thought that was what the IAM expected. I assured him that his advice on the assessment drive had been incorrect as I knew that the Examiner would agree with me (confirmed at a training session with our associates this week). When we set off again (at the associate's usual pace) it was clear that actually he was a very good driver and not far off the standard required for the test.
When we got to the review of the drive and the marks I decided to ignore the hair-raising ride section and start afresh after our chat in the supermarket car park.
I subsequently took up the issue with our Group Chairman who agreed whole-heartedly with my view on the issue.
Subsequently the Senior Observer involved, who is managing my training, came out with us to assess my progress (not the associate's). Apart from suggesting that the associate hadn't taken sufficient opportunity to overtake someone whose driving was rather suspect (speeding up and slowing down inappropriately), the Senior Observer said that the associate was ready for his test.
So the upshot is that different observers have differing views on what progress means - the Senior Observer is obviously of the "press-on" type of driver but seems to hold a minority viewpoint.
We are all volunteers and we do attempt to standardise our advice as much as possible but intepretations are bound to differ (as I found out last year during training for my own advanced driving test!).

If a self-selected IAM associate received the WRONG message about the speed limit, what hope for Mr sub-average?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

What "Mr. Sub-Average" needs to appreciate is that IAM is just the first rung on the ladder of Advanced Driving. IAM examiners and observers do tend to differ slightly, but always adhere to RoadCraft. However, IAM alumni are never re-tested to keep their driving skills "sharp".

RoADA members are re-tested every three years. That is why (along with HPC members) they are the most highly trained civilian drivers on the road.

I'm not even IAM yet.

But I am building up to it through the advice and help of the postees on Darren Tipton's web-site.

As I see it, I have a duty to both myself and other road users to be as good a driver that my limitations will allow.

Sy

_________________
Safe yet Swift.

Would that enough felt that way, accidents and casualties would be cut down dramatically - and average journey times actually reduced.

Funny I was taught that the safe speed was one in which you could stop in a controlled manner on your side of the road in the distance you could see to be clear, making progress was expected but not at the expense of the above rule.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Qualified Observers are re-tested every 3 years via a Practical Test with a Senior Observer.
Senior Observers are re-tested every 3 years via a Practical re-test by another Senior Observer and every 6 years by an IAM Examiner.
Group Observers who attained their status via "grandfather rights" don't have to be tested although they are encouraged to become Qualified Observers.

A very good point, Paul, and one we might wish to ponder on.

Of course it's something that we have been hypothesizing for years, and this is another snippet of evidence to support the hypothesis. Mostly I've expected to find the effect in the worst 20% of drivers - but most IAM associates will be in the top 10% anyway.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

"Well, I took my associate down a country road which was wide enough to take two lanes of traffic but with a lot of bends, some 90-degree. He didn't exceed the 60-limit but I was sufficiently alarmed to stop the drive within 20 minutes of setting off. Delicately I explained that he would have been unable to stop in the distance he could see to be clear in some places."

Does this not question the sanity of the those who set speed limits on roads? Surely, if this road has that many hazards, then the speed limit should be reduced to 50 or even 40mph. Likewise, there are some stretches of road that are limited to 40 or 50mph that are more or less straight, with few if any 'blind spots' and are plenty wide enough to be NSL roads.

Is it any wonder drivers are going round the bend?

As far as making normal progress is concerned, I failed my first driving test, around 30 years ago, for 'failing to make normal progress' which, the examiner elaborated, meant not maintaining the speed limit of the road - this despite the fact that we were stuck in a traffic jam for more than half of the test!

I do get extremely frustrated at the drivers who seem to think that NSL is 50mph, or otherwise drive at somewhere between 35 and 40mph on a perfectly good stretch of NSL road and then maintain this speed through a 30mph zone and/or speed up to 45mph when they get to a 40mph zone.

The annoying thing is, I am trying to abide by the speed limits, I want to be able to drive at 60mph on the open stretches of road, conditions permitting, and I slow down for the 40 and 30 mph areas, often to have people who were a way behind, holding up other traffic, catch me up and sit up my exhaust pipe because I am driving at the legal speed!

I often wonder where the police with their speed guns are on the occasions when I am following one of these one speed wonders through a 30/40mph stretch of road. I bet, the day I err and drive a mile or 2 over the limit, the blighters will be there and catch me!

Lyn

so we should all be forced to drive at 40mph on all the straight bits because a few muppets can't work out what the middle pedal is for when they get to the twisty stuff?

But you can't set specific speed limits for isolated hazards. Virtually every NSL road has some sections where doing anywhere near 60 mph would not be safe, but that does not mean the speed limit should be reduced. It annoys me no end when you get long lengths of rural road that are reduced to 50 because of one or two bad bends.

I would suggest there are very few two-lane single carriageway rural A or B roads where 60 mph isn't reasonably safe for at least some of their distance.

On the initial point of the thread, I have several times seen it said that at first you have to get IAM associates driving a bit more slowly and deliberately, to pick up the basics of the System correctly, before you can get them to go faster.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

And much more than that - Appropriate speed varies with daylight / darkness, width of road, behaviour of other road users, weather, vehicle characteristics, driver characteristics (I could go on and on...) as well as 'fixed' hazards.

We MUST have drivers who adjust their speed to the conditions and we DO have drivers who adjust their speed according to the conditions. We need much more emphasis on this essential behaviour and much less on the speed limit.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

But you can't set specific speed limits for isolated hazards...[/quote]

I agree you can't set speed limits for isolated hazards, but the way this road was described it did not sound like these were isolated hazards. If the driver was keeping, more or less, to 60mph and it was 20 minutes before he was asked to stop, he had travelled quite a way!

Obviously, changing hazards, such as light, weather, etc cannot be legislated for in a speed limit and drivers need to drive according to the conditions at the time. This does however beg the question that when people drive below 30mph at night, should they be driving at all at night or in anything less than full daylight?

Before my father in law decided to stop driving, he was only permitted to drive during the day as his eyesight, even with glasses, was not good enough for him to drive safely at night.

Then IMO he should not have been allowed to drive at all. If someone holds a driving licence then they should be able to drive in any and all conditions.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

That's difficult. On the one hand someone might have a specific condition that allows perfect driving in good daylight but not at night.

On the other hand, they might find themselves delayed and stranded 50 miles from home with darkness falling fast. Then what? Many folk would battle on unsafely and also be very hard to detect until it was too late.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety