I agree matt2801 however the HC 159 states: Before moving off you should:
use all mirrors to check the road is clear
look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)
signal if necessary before moving out
look round for a final check. Therefore I cannot see how an examiner could fault a pupil for doing a full check and I have never witnessed one to do so.
I think there may be some confusion as to what the HWC is saying.
Although the wording appears to relate to that d**ned stupid 6 point check of BSM and Instructor College training books, it doesn't.
" Use all mirrors to check the road is clear" Should be read as , use all RELEVENT mirrors.
If my car is parked up inches from a wall on the left, do I need to look in the left mirror?
" look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors) "
Should be read as "Look round to check the RELEVENT blind spots"
When moving away from the kerb, those are usually the right shoulder and door pillar blind spots. Do I need to check the left shoulder blind spot every time if I intend to be moving AWAY from that area?
Anyone beside my vehicle or who may be in conflict with my vehicle in the event of me moving off would have been picked up when I did the left mirror check, so surely I'd only need to check the blind spot if there were activity to the left at the time of checking the mirrors?
When moving off, my Core requirements from my clients are what I call
"Kevins' Rainbow and the pot of gold".
The rainbow is the arc the eyes make when checking the mirrors....left mirror, up and over to the centre mirror, over and down to the right mirror. At the end of every rainbow, there's a pot of Gold.... The pot of gold is the right blind spots. The Gold winning life saver.
I only look into the left blind spots if something suggests to me that I could come into conflict with something or someone in that space if I moved off. Rare.....VERY rare. (Bearing in mind, I'm intending to move away from that area anyway).
Re: emerging left question « Result #4 Today at 2:28pm »
Actually after thinking about this some more it's perhaps not allways the answer we give but how we present it.
Chris gives us a good example of his own personall experience finding different answers on different day's with different examiners producing different results....quite a few different's there i know
So if we present an answer or solution to a problem in the wrong way...we will likely have to cover EVERY single possible scenario imaginable to the examiner to get through the difficulty...not good!
So 2 examples....using Chris's experience.
Us: your driving too close the kerb...it's horribly bumpy here and we might get punctures and it wouldn't be good if we caught the kerb....i'd like you to position the car further to the right. using XY and Z as a reference point.
Examiner: i don't know...the road feels quite smooth to me...they do sweep the roads around here often so punctures are not a concern and i'm too good a driver to catch the kerb by accident.
Now we're in trouble...Examiner wants more and has spotted we don't know why they are positioning where they are....at this point we will have to give every reason under the sun to get out of this.
Us: well ok that last section of road wasn't that bumpy i'll admit...but some are really bumpy would you agree?....ok they sweep the roads around here often as you say...but can you be sure all roads will be the same?....and i can see your a good driver BUT is there a possibility of making a small mistake and catching the kerb at some point in your driving career?
Examiner: if i spot anything different about the particular road i'm driving on i may position differently for the reasons you give...however i'm happy where i am on this road...and no i won't catch the kerb by mistake.
Now we need extra reasons to get them to do what we want....even though all reasons given were/are excellent and arguably any 1 of the reasons should have given us a result.
Or we could present it something like:
Us: ok you've been driving close to the kerb...too close in my opinion, can i ask how close you think you are so i can just check your judgement on this?
From here the examiner will either be accurate or inaccurate (obviously) If they are accurate there is an mis-understanding of why we need to poition differently....work on that....like:
Us: well there's lots of reasons....how about it's bumpy by the edge...or maybe we could get some punctures...can you think of any more reasons?
Examiner: erm....no i can't.
Us: ok what about the possibility of catching the kerb by accident?...or maybe were just too close to where pedestrians might be walking...les time to react and so on?
Examiner: i see....ok how far out should i be?
Us: no problem i'll help with a reference point (for example)
Or if they reply with an inaccurate distance from kerb we might:
Us: ok wow your much closer than you think....you mentioned you had driven a car similar to this at the start of the lesson, can i just ask how your making the judgment today in this car with me?
Examiner: yes i'm using the clip on the wiper (or whatever) and i'm lining that up with the kerb.
Us: Right i've recently had to change the wipers on this car, perhaps the clip is placed differently and that could be what's affecting your positioning...let's get underway again and pick up a new reference once i've guided you into the correct position....and perhaps we will look for a reference that can't change so easily....or perhaps is better suited to car's in general as opposed to just this make/model (using the view in the wing mirrors for example)
From here you can help with whatever reference point does the job. And as a fault has been comited it is obviously important to also check they understand the reasons why we shouldn't be that close to the kerb...and the fault will likey just go away because we've shown some flexability.
I've used Chris's example....because he sighted it himself....NOT because i believe Chris had done anything wrong or left anything out on his particular part 3 experience.
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 1,782 Location: York
Re: Passed Part 3 « Result #5 Today at 1:11pm »
Check out facebook. Nicola Gaffney, I think you will find her school is already using that name and it appears she has the domain name on a .co.uk too.
I got PST 8 (Phase 2 - Meeting, Clearance, Anticipation)
Result 4-4 (realised I wasn't quite prepared enough, but luckily I passed 1st time)
I'm not joining a franchise so am busy now setting up my business, Spot On Driving School. I recently closed my pottery painting business, Spotty Pots!!)
Re: emerging left question « Result #7 Today at 12:32pm »
Worthingian makes a valid point about the SE not accepting a particular way of doing something today, so dig into the tool box and try something else.
This was one reason why I felt Part 3 is not fit for purpose (seems to be a view shared on another thread).
On one of my Part 3 attempts, PST 5 Progress, Hesitancy and Normal Road Position, the SE was too close to the kerb. Went through the motions and came to consequences of travelling too close. I told him a) bumpy ride over grates, b) damage tyres on debris or glass in the gutter, c) could hit the kerb which could spin the steering wheel to the left and travel up the pavement. He marked this as unsatisfactory as what he wanted was d) the risk of hitting pedestrians with a door mirror who may be close to the pavement edge.
Fast forward to my 3rd attempt (different test centre, different SE), but same PST, same fault, driving too close to the kerb.
Went through the motions, and thought Bingo, reason a) a risk of hitting pedestrians (as above), b) damage tyres due to debris / glass in gutter and c) danger of hitting the kerb causing the steering to spin (as above). Got marked as unsatisfactory because this SE wanted d) an uncomfortable ride over grates.
Strangely enough, on my 4th attempt ( which I passed ), different SE again so gave him all four consequences. Not an issue.
However, when he drove too close to the kerb I asked him if he had a reference point. He said yes and described it. I then got him in the normal road position, stopped him, and asked where the kerb came into the bottom of the windscreen. I asked if this was the same reference point he had previously used and he said no. I pointed out the correct one and asked him to use this in future. Sorted the problem out but got marked as unsatisfactory, as I should have got him to drive along the road using his incorrect ref point, so I could have identified it that way.
I agree it's good to have different tools in your tool box, just don't think it should be necessary to have the whole "Snap-On" wagon following you.
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,689 Location: Salisbury - Wiltshire
Re: emerging left question « Result #8 Today at 12:12pm »
Well, if the PDI focuses on the "caricature" rather than the debrief, and the trainer has already failed him by not sitting in on the test itself, how is that the examiners fault?
In my experience, examiners do not go over the top when introducing a fault. I just have never witnessed it.
I've seen them repeat a fault, and repeat a fault and repeat a fault, and then go on to make it so obvious that a martian with no road knowledge at all could see it, and still the PDI fails to actually address the fault. The PDI often knows it's happening, but simply fails to carry out what he is actually being tested on.....The Core Comps.
He fails to make it known that he has spotted the fault..... Identified. He fails to get to the cause of the fault....... Analysed He fails to give the appropriate on going guidance to the correct methods to avoid the fault in the future....... Rectification.
If my cats are eyeing up my flower bed, I'll turn the hose on. If they start to move towards the flower bed, I'll move the spray closer to them. If they still move towards the flower bed, I'll spray the water in front of their noses. If they reach the flower bed, they get a wet head. If they squat, they better be wearing a ife jacket, because they'll be drenched.
Is that a caricature? or is it me attempting to make the consequences of them failing to address the issue (stay on the grass and don't stray into the flower bed) more and more obvious to them. ?
Although the PDI needs to know the subject of the test, that is not the purpose of the test. It is merely the vehicle in which the test can be administered.
The purpose of the test is basically:
Can the candidate carry out the Core Comps to an acceptable (reasonable !!) standard. If he can, then he will qualify.
Anything else on the test sheet is of lesser relevence to qualification. Although they may effect the final qualifying grade, it is the Core Comps that will effect the decision as to fail or pass.
If a candidate really understands that, and really appreciates what each of the 3 core comps actually are, then they can be applied to ANY situation.
It is they (The Core Comps) that An Instructor Doth Make.
. It is not the depth of his knowledge of driving, nor his experience of driving.
Examiners know this. And they want to give the candidate the oppotunities to demonstrate all 3 steps to the core comps.
they'll exhibit a fault. If it's not identified, he'll try to repeat it in ever increasingly obvious ways.
If it's identified, but not correctly analysed (either the candidate doesn't understand how the fault occurred or doesn't impart the consequences, and the appropriate methods of avoiding the fault in the future), then the SEADI will continue to make the fault, even though he may verbally agree with you that the fault is happening.
If the candidate fails to go through the appropriate levels of instruction for rectification, then the SEADI will still demonstrate an unwillingness to fully comply.
The SEADI is not being obstinate. He's continuing to give plenty of oppotunities for you to step up to the plate and help him learn the correct way to carry out the action.
Many of the things I read on here about how the examiners doesnt act like real students or "takes the mickey" with his actions or apparent attitude is all too often a complete misrepresentation of what actually occurs on tests.
I've NEVER seen an examiner do something that 1 or more of my own clients have not done. Indeed, real clients can, and do, demonstrate far worse than I've ever seen an examiner do.
If a PDI REALLY thinks that the examiner was performing in a way that a MILDY competant instructor could not deal with, then I honestly and sincerely hope to God that the candidate is not allowed in a car with a real pupil. If the candidate hasn't been able to control things with the examiner driving, he will come across many a real client that will simply put both their lives, and other road users in extreme danger.
Finally, on wether the test is a fair assesment on a candidates abilities........
Anything I teach for part 3 success, works with real clients. Anything I do with real clients to help them acheive their goals, works on PART 3 and check tests.
If you read anything differently on any forum, i.e.
"I wouldn't do what I did on part 3 with real pupils" or "I wouldnt do on part 3, what I do with real pupils" then either the instructor is misguided or you are not understanding the circumstances surrounding his statement.
Re: emerging left question « Result #10 Today at 11:30am »
Mazzer wrote....but please i'm just using his well worded paragraph...not actually replying or disagreeing with him.
"My understanding of the way the SE does their job (pt3 wise) comes from what I read on forums. I am sure you, like most of us, have read countless failed pt3 write ups on this and other forums, where the PDI for whatever reason has failed to get the message across and the examiner has pushed and pushed to the point where the PDI’s control is long lost and the examiner has gone way OTT to the point of caricature to make a point. It would seem that the OTT antics are long remembered far after the official feedback, and this sends PDI’s and their trainers scurrying off back to the drawing board to concoct these highly detailed remedies to thwart future antics."
Yes i agree with the above....and of course it's not what the examiner is looking for. They have heard and understood the What/Why and How's of the situation.....BUT want to hear a different way of explaining it sometimes, they are just pretending to be 1 of those pupils who needs a slightly different approach....further detail to a microscopic level just takes more time to explain...and the examiner has already made it clear he's not taking that reason today.
So if you're a PDI and the examiner is ignoring your "prefered" or "habitually first" What/Why and How wording....you need to identify that and either ask more questions...to get an answer....or just give a different answer and see where that leads to.
You fail the part 3 by only having 1 plan in place....which might be the 1 plan the examiner is not looking for today. Further....i believe the examiners easily spot well scripted...obviously rehearsed performances....and sometimes just decide to see if that's ALL you know....ie: taught to pass a test....rather than a rounded system which includes the knowledge and flexabilty to change and try something else.
At the end of the day there's only so much they can do wrong in 30 mins....and oddly the better you are at curing faults the more you will get....so if they won't use the brake (for example) get them to stop and just ask What part of that don't you understand?... which of course seems the daftest question in the world bearing in mind they would have just stopped the car so you could ask the question .....BUT the topic may not be moving of and stoping (which they can do fine) but something else they clearly can't do.....there's no time for shyness or confusion on the part 3....just ask the daft questions, get some answers and move on.....just like you'd do with a real learner ....and hey...that's got to be the point of the test.
OK well, whatever those formaly known as SEADI's are called presently.
Maz.
So you don't want to elaborate on the "Mickey Taking" part? Fair enough...
The SEADI is not looking for one particular way of getting across information. Some ways of explaining how to do something are better than others but there are numerous options. Now if someone uses a very complicated system with numerous flaws there is not a lot the SEADI can do if learning is actually taking place... Those are the rules. It is not a case of the SEADI wishing to see a drive by numbers approach across the driving curriculum.
My understanding of the way the SE does their job (pt3 wise) comes from what I read on forums. I am sure you, like most of us, have read countless failed pt3 write ups on this and other forums, where the PDI for whatever reason has failed to get the message across and the examiner has pushed and pushed to the point where the PDI’s control is long lost and the examiner has gone way OTT to the point of caricature to make a point. It would seem that the OTT antics are long remembered far after the official feedback, and this sends PDI’s and their trainers scurrying off back to the drawing board to concoct these highly detailed remedies to thwart future antics. These write ups are also read by prospective PDI’s who may get the wrong impression of what pt3 is about. Although this may not be the intended message the SE is trying to give, it may be how it comes across. In my mind there is a serious system flaw were there is a gulf between “what the test is looking for” and “what trainers are providing”, and the only means of communicating this is by inference, which is retrospective and ambiguous at best, and leaves trainers guessing and reading between the lines.
It is a travesty when those in a position to make a difference are gagged.
This all sounds like “driving by numbers” to me. What happens if there is a stop line, just one single give way line or even no line at all? Do we want drivers approaching potentially dangerous situations concentrating on the floor counting the paint dashes?
Is this what Mickey taking SE’s have brought this profession to, is this the type of driving instruction they are aiming to produce?
No wonder we are struggling to get a decent lesson price these days.
Maz.
Morning Maz
For what it's worth, my feeling on this are (in repsonse to your first question), no! As for your second question, (and without taking sides!), in this sitauation, regarding the ways Sammy is choosing to teach his learners, I'm thinking that the SE's are not to blame for the way an ADI chooses to teach?
I'm thinking that personalities, and one's own personal preferences and teaching styles, are bound to affect the way we, as ADI's, choose to teach our learners? So, in the beginning, when we are taught by our trainers, we do it their way, because we know no different? And then, once we have our green badge, we go on to develop our own ideas? This is usually based on our own further development, and seeing what helps our learners to learn best? And of course, at times, we have to adapt our teaching to suit each individual?
another part 3 question « Result #17 Today at 8:37am »
I am currently reading the book called an inside view to the adi part 3 examination written by a former adi examiner.
In the book it says for moving off (pst 2) p.o.m routine is acceptable but on its own is not enough and at the (o) stage we should be using the msm routine.
So should we be saying we are going to use the routine p.o.m for moving off so the first part of pom is is (P) prepare so lets prepare the car to move, we will now move onto the 2nd part of pom (o) observation we will do that by using the (msm routine) etc
I was taught to teach (p) msm but i preferred to teach pom and that's what i did on my part 3 funny enough msm was marked as unsatisfactory
I should state from the outset that I am in no way trying to offer any kind of defence to the standard of training for PDI’s that is going on out there – it is largely pitiful; so your point regarding ‘unprepared’ is not in any dispute in my eyes.
However, I also think there is enough evidence out there to suggest that the test is being failed for more reasons that simply the lack of applying the core comps in the manner you describe in your first post – and it is that statement alone that I have difficulty coming to terms with.
Where is that evidence? Well, there are the write-ups on this forum to begin with. Secondly, there is the vast and varied training resources out there. Thirdly, there are the recollection of experiences provided by ADI’s.
If anyone is willing and prepared to take a step back from things for a second and neutrally review what is actually going on out there on these tests, then I think it would go some way to attempting to properly understand the problem.
I have already previously acknowledged the skill levels of the examiners on Part 3, and I appreciate from your post the amount of training that is undertaken in an effort to standardise the part 3 test for all. However, the outcomes of the test results can’t solely be put down to the natural variations that you speak of. I accept that there will be variation regionally, (just as there is for the L test results), for the reasons you mention; but the degree of variation on the Part 3 tests is far too large to claim any similarity between them. Admittedly the numbers are fewer, but discounting the results of Test Centres with very low numbers, the results are still too diverse.
I suppose I should state I’m not questioning integrity here, or hinting at any kind of discrimination, I am simply saying that for some, there is too much for one person to physically and mentally do, in a fluid situation, and that will mean that the goal you speak of, of making the test the same standard for all, nationally, is unachievable.
I wont bore everyone with my experience, but just in my experience alone, I had 2 wildly contrasting styles by 2 examiners in my Part 3’s – and there were behaviours from both that I think perfectly demonstrate, precisely, my point. I don’t think my experience is in any way unique, I think you will find it is pretty common. Humans are naturally diverse, their judgement and ability to assess are affected by many things, and I don’t buy the case being put forward that you can ‘train’ that out – not in the forever changing situation of the Part 3 test anyway. I think there are many variables to the test that can create the situation where it is definitely NOT in any way standardised.
I’d be genuinely interested to hear Blaine’s view on this. My understanding is that he has observed several hundred Part 3 tests, all over the UK.
To finish, let me ‘show my hand’ so to speak so that you can be in no doubt where I’m coming from Xenomorph. Variables that affect how ‘standard’ the Part 3 test:
The amount of experience the examiner has The role playing ‘style’ the examiner tends to use The ability of the examiner to independently assess the test The knowledge of the area – where they take the PDI on test The ability of the examiner to pitch the same standard of test regardless of the presented driving conditions (volume, road design, traffic sign, white paint)
I do acknowledge your point re being an ‘insider’ and it’s a point well made. However, your counter regarding training providing standardised outcomes on Part 3 tests across the UK cannot be independently corroborated.... not to my knowledge anyway.
OK well, whatever those formaly known as SEADI's are called presently.
Maz.
So you don't want to elaborate on the "Mickey Taking" part? Fair enough...
The SEADI is not looking for one particular way of getting across information. Some ways of explaining how to do something are better than others but there are numerous options. Now if someone uses a very complicated system with numerous flaws there is not a lot the SEADI can do if learning is actually taking place... Those are the rules. It is not a case of the SEADI wishing to see a drive by numbers approach across the driving curriculum.
Thanks everyone for your comments, as a newbie to the profession and I was trained to teach the 6 point check was surprised when told by the examiner not to let them do the 6 point check they don't need to do it, but he has passed other students of mine that have all done the full check.
The examiner had no good reason to fail your pupils for doing the 6 point check,
but the one who failed did not check the right blind spot or did not act on what they saw when checking the right blind spot,
as far as i am aware the DSA never asked Instructors to teach the 6 point check to move to the right from a left hand kerb where it came from i do not know.
Re: Pupil Leads from facebook & twitter « Result #24 Yesterday at 11:31pm »
The best part about joining a proper driver school is that you can actually learn the most crucial aspects of driving that have been improvised in accordance to the present standards. The fine part is that this can even lower your auto insurance premiums as a good driver will always have the least possible chance of falling into an uneventful situation.
This all sounds like “driving by numbers” to me. What happens if there is a stop line, just one single give way line or even no line at all? Do we want drivers approaching potentially dangerous situations concentrating on the floor counting the paint dashes?
Is this what Mickey taking SE’s have brought this profession to, is this the type of driving instruction they are aiming to produce?
No wonder we are struggling to get a decent lesson price these days.
Maz.
Mazzer
I have already answered how to judge if there is no give way lines, this is what i call adding structure to the drive.
At the end of the day it is a very simple way to position correctly at an emerge.
Joined: Mar 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 216 Location: DSA
Re: Part 3... « Result #28 Yesterday at 10:25pm »
Hi Tucker
It’s a shame you are finding this thread insulting and I don’t know what to say about that but I should imagine I speak for all posters when I say no one has set out to make anyone feel personally aggrieved, it’s just a bunch of opinions; some of which happen to agree with me in parts, but not all.
I’m going to answer some of your points from the post above:
Lack of preparedness is similar to what we all experience with our customers for the Learners test - there is no means to prevent people from taking tests too soon .... and as such, there will be some who always will (one way or another).
This is a common reason for a good portion of failures, as evidenced by the candidate’s who state they were unprepared in the debriefing after the test.
The lack of ability point is slightly contentious I feel. If the test really were as easy as is being suggested here, then judging by the calibre of posters on just this forum alone, I'd expect them all to have passed with fewer attempts. The picture being portrayed by Xenomorph is not a true reflection imho. For sure, there are some who are paying and participating in training that are not suited for being an ADI, but as hard as it is to quantify, my gut feel is that the quantity does not nearly begin to explain the low pass rate.
It may be contentious but something to consider is how varied the abilities of your L test pupils are. Imagine trying to give each and every one of your pupils exactly the same structured learning program, at the same time frame through their time with you, to ensure that each candidate was presented for test after the same amount of lessons. That is how some ADI training systems work. I know they encourage people to study in their own time but... Some people need a lot more training than other people yet seem to be put off paying for it after paying up front a huge amount only to find out that any extra training would be charged for.
If the situation were as simple as Xenomorph is portraying, then why is there such a regional difference in the pass rates? For the two reasons he has given, then ON AVERAGE, the pass rate would be similar..... but not only is it not similar, it differs an incredible amount.
I don’t see why on average the pass rate has to be similar. You have to consider the regional and cultural variation in people seeking out this line of work; consider funds available in certain areas of the country compared with elsewhere; the amount of people taking the test in one part compared to another and so on and so forth. The L test is a good example where you see higher pass rates in affluent areas when contrasted with poorer areas. I’m not saying there isn’t something in what you are saying but you have to be careful of drawing conclusions based on one statistical observation.
And it's for that reason that I personally think there's an added flaw to the Part 3 test, and that is the ability of the DSA to accurately, consistently carry it out, and assess it. It is simply too difficult for one person to accurately execute the faults, respond to what the PDI says/does, and assess it at the same time - this is a moving situation, where the examiner is not entirely in control of what is going on around them..... as such the testing conditions differ (the parameters of the test if you like), and that brings with it an added complication for the tester.
It is interesting that you say that. Other posters worry about the test being too unrealistic i.e. you identify and correct a seen mistake and the SEADI miraculously never makes that mistake again (if correctly properly of course...)! The Pt3 is set up to be as similar as possible for each person taking it. That is why the SEADI only gives faults relevant to the PST (unless they make an honest real mistake which happens and you pick up on it – it would not affect the result even if you didn’t) and listens to what you say, acting on it immediately. Yes it isn’t realistic but if you want realistic sometimes the SEADI would learn immediately other times they would not listen to you at all, or get very confused or get angry at you for making them stressed etc.
SEADIs are highly trained to do what they do. Not all DEs are capable and to even get onto the training program requires us to meet quite a high initial standard and have a good standing in our then current roles. SEADIs are more than capable of doing all that you refer to above and more. If a lot is happening at once that is taken into consideration. Remember it is not the examiner that is under pressure in this test environment; we are just going through the motions and just like the L test, if we are not 100% sure of something we cannot just assume against you; we have to go in your favour.
My intention with that remark is not to take a broad brush swipe at the DSA, I think many of their staff are highly skilled and make the v best of a bad situation, but if you were analysing why the pass rates are so low, this is one element..... and goes some way to explaining the reason for such vast regional differences in pass rates.
I don’t want to take a position of authority (i.e. you should assume I am right because I am an examiner, not of what I say or the evidences I offer) but sometimes it is worth pointing out that I am forming this opinion of mine based on “insider” information. I see how things are done, I see what the DSA is trying to achieve (not just in words, but actions also) and I see the affect it has on our customers. Some things I say might not sit well with your or other readers opinions but at some point a reflection needs to be made of where it is I am coming from. That doesn’t mean to say I am right of course...
I like this forum (and other forums I have been on in the past) because I get to hear opinions on the DSA I would not normally have the time to listen to (that is assuming I would hear them anyway...) or respond to in my official capacity as a DSA employee. It often changes my perspective on how people perceive what we do and helps make me a better person in my job because of it. I responded to this thread because I have a strong opinion on this topic and not because I wanted to annoy any one reading it.
*I refer to the ADI examiner as the SEADI which is the old way of referring to them. However as we all know what I mean by that I tend to still use that description...
Re: emerging left question « Result #29 Yesterday at 10:11pm »
Samuel:
This all sounds like “driving by numbers” to me. What happens if there is a stop line, just one single give way line or even no line at all? Do we want drivers approaching potentially dangerous situations concentrating on the floor counting the paint dashes?
Is this what Mickey taking SE’s have brought this profession to, is this the type of driving instruction they are aiming to produce?
No wonder we are struggling to get a decent lesson price these days.
Joined: Feb 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 34 Location: Bedford
Re: Part 3... « Result #31 Yesterday at 9:59pm »
Here's my two pence worth - having qualified both as an ADI and a classroom teacher.
To put it in perspective, to train as a school teacher is seriously more in depth than as an ADI. You spend time at the start of your full time (5 days a week, year long) course in classrooms observing other teachers teach. I quickly lost count of the amount of experienced teachers I watched and the tips and tricks I picked up, together with the "hmm, this isn't really very good - I could do better" moments.
I then started teaching bits of lessons - the beginning 10 minutes, to practice my class control and the the way you speak. Kids are very quick to act up if you are in the slightest bit ambiguous in your instructions. Quickly, within a few weeks, I was onto planning and delivering full lessons. My portfolio of planned lessons runs to over 200 three-page written lesson plans. Each one run by my mentor before teaching, and each one discussed afterwards with a written evaluation, identifying points for self-improvement.
During the year, there were 3 assignments to write, each one involving reading around a topic, identifying a particular area of my teaching which could improve, developing a strategy to improve it, testing it on my classes, and providing a full written report. I had to complete a reflective journal based upon provocative questions provided weekly by my tutor, and attend lectures by visiting and internal teaching staff, discussing aspects of their teaching and new strategies.
All in all, it was a hellish year, 70-80 hour weeks of "school at 7:30am, work all day, home for dinner, work until bedtime"... All to teach teenagers about music.
Yet to become a driving instructor, in which I'm in charge of developing the skills necessary to ensure young people can actually stay alive on the roads, other than the first two tests in which you have to pass a relatively simple multiple choice theory test, and then drive well and safely for an hour, the Part 3 training and test is your only experience of driving teaching.
My training took about 30ish hours with a trainer, in which (quite rightly) he stuck to looking at the PSTs, making only the obvious and deliberate mistakes within the sphere of the topic at hand, and developing artificial questioning techniques necessary to suit the time limits of the Part 3. I then took the test, again a highly artificial situation in which the examiner makes only the mistakes necessitated by the PST and quickly "solves" them when questioned in the correct way.
All of a sudden, I was a qualified ADI!! In sole charge of providing a real life teenager with the skills necessary to safely control a car and not kill themselves...
...yet I'd not ever watched a single "real" driving lesson with a real learner, never taught a real learner with a trainer in the back to deliver a single ounce of feedback, never forced to self-evaluate my effectiveness as an instructor after lessons under the guidance of an experienced ADI... It was only due to my own self-conscientiousness that I asked my trainer if I could sit in the back over the course of a few days to watch a "real ADI" at work, to take notes of strategies, tips, tricks and ideas I could borrow, and likewise - at the request of my trainer, to provide my feedback on HIS teaching.
It seems to me that the most "important" (in terms of human life) teaching qualification was by far the easiest to obtain - and training courses based on collaboration, observation, evaluation and constant feedback from working ADIs would be a far more fit for purpose qualification.
I can envisage a separate "instructor trainer" qualification, which comes with the necessary authority to "sign off" trainees into full ADI-hood. Trainees would need to complete a set number of logged "in the back" hours with other ADIs, providing written (and marked!) evaluations of the teaching they observe. Again, a set number of hours teaching real learners (with written lesson plans - to get the thought processes of teaching working), observed by the instructor trainer who will provide evaluation and feedback - setting targets for improvement week by week...
This thread is going in a direction I certainly do not relate to in the slightest. We appear to have Trainers backing up the statement from a DSA Examiner that the Part 3 is easy!
Am I alone in finding that statement rather insulting?
Joined: Feb 2013 Gender: Male Posts: 11 Location: Bolton
Re: Part 3... « Result #34 Yesterday at 9:14pm »
Hmmm,
Well as you know I'm coming from a different angle on this. The law says I have to be an ADI, because I receive money (a wage) for instructing people in vehicles up to 3.5tons max gross weight. Currently I instruct and assess people in this category and also C1 (up to 7.5tons).
So part 3 is not really fit for purpose for what I do and the check test likewise without going 'Fleet'. I appreciate that probably 95+% of potential ADI's are doing it to teach learners and the whole DSA ADI qualification system is based on this 95%, but its highly inflexible.
Mention has been made of not being prepared or having the right qualifications or experience to do the job. There will be few people on here who can say they have spent over 6 months of their life on driving courses as a student/pupil and thats not including being a learner. Then spent 13 years instructing prior to passing part 3.
I've teaching and assessing qualifications, spent days and weeks on diversity etc training, used an ADI who is a limited DSA D1 examiner (they attended Cardington etc, but wont elaborate here) for my first part three attempt and failed miserably. Admittedly I wasn't prepared for how the SE would act, it all seemed very false and if I had students who drove like that on the courses I instruct on, then there would be a lot more serious if not fatal collisions on the road.
Xenomorph mentions the 3 things on part 3, but to me the 'Why' is missing, i.e. “why did you do that, i.e. why did you drive close to the car” Its basically the 5WH question routine adapted to fit the situation.
On my 1st part 3 phase 2, I told the SE to brake numerous times as he/she was going to quickly approaching junctions and in the debrief I got “you should have told me to 'Use the Brake'” I mean what part of Brake did they not understand!
I was better prepared the 2nd time, but its a test of doing it the DSA way, I don't really think its an adequate test of teaching learners and certainly not qualified drivers. I could then go on about motorways etc, surely if we are teaching people to drive then every scenario should be involved if possible and certainly roads which they might drive on such as motorways.
I didn't find part 3 easy, quite the opposite, the SE the 2nd time gave excellent feedback and was a complete contrast to the 1st SE, likewise their manner was far more amenable.
In my past and present job there is continuous assessment not just for me but for the drivers who qualify. We are also subject to regular media scrutiny, when it goes wrong.
I'm not anti DSA, but it took me over a year before I contemplated taking part 3 for the 2nd time and the new job meant I had to take it. I wrote a 7 page reflection on my initial part 3, mainly as a complaint but decided not to send it off. So if it affected me that bad, then I feel sorry for many of the other people failing out there.
It may be easy, but its only easy if you do what the DSA want you to do and thats what I did to pass the 2nd time. It bears little or no resemblance to what I do everyday.
Hmmm better not mention, positive and negative attitude, red mist, canteen culture etc, because they don't seem to come on the ADI test agenda, maybe they should!
Helen, you should be able to write a book now, and this is only the tip of the iceberg from me and might I add my own views not those of my employer (though i've a sneaking feeling they might agree)
Helen I think we are clutching at straws here, i never made the image but the car is slightly off but i think you can see the point i was trying to make?
Nope, I am unable to see the point you are trying to make Sammy! Must be okay for you though as you teach it like this...glad I'm not one of your pupils!!
Maybe I'm old fashioned...but I've always got them to judge the distance from the kerb for themselves and their position behind the white lines...if they do need help from me, I help them into position, and then they get their own reference points...
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 1,782 Location: York
Re: Moving Off - Observations « Result #36 Yesterday at 9:07pm »
I think the examiner was just giving you a heads up, saying teach them to think for themselves rather than cover it with a one size fits all routine. The fault was the lack of right shoulder blind spot check.
Hmmm...just tried that on my roadboard...the left wheel/tyre is not OVER the give way line nearest us...and if it was the right wheel/tyre would def be OVER the white line furthest away!!
And...even in the diagram you supply, the left tyre/wheel is quite clearly NOT over the white line!
Helen
Helen
I think we are clutching at straws here, i never made the image but the car is slightly off but i think you can see the point i was trying to make?
Hmmm...just tried that on my roadboard...the left wheel/tyre is not OVER the give way line nearest us...and if it was the right wheel/tyre would def be OVER the white line furthest away!!
Helen
I believe that the original post may have been misread and misunderstood.
If you consider the give way lines as a series of dashes going from left to right, the second give way "line" would be the second "dash" from the left. Hence a large step from the kerb.
Joined: Nov 2012 Gender: Female Posts: 372 Location: Bognor Regis, West Sussex
Re: emerging left question « Result #40 Yesterday at 8:50pm »
Hmmm...just tried that on my roadboard...the left wheel/tyre is not OVER the give way line nearest us...and if it was the right wheel/tyre would def be OVER the white line furthest away!!
And...even in the diagram you supply, the left tyre/wheel is quite clearly NOT over the white line!
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 1,782 Location: York
Re: Part 3... « Result #41 Yesterday at 8:42pm »
Hell of a random thought Helen! I understand what people are saying up to now but I think that these statements and thoughts have been very influenced by what has been happening to the industry as a whole over many years.
Regardless of what we think of the part three, who is at fault. Is it the DSA testing system? or is it the training system? Do they actually run together well, or has the training become centred on ticking boxes to gain the qualification as soon and as cheaply as possible? Is it possible that maybe some time ago the training was centred on instructing, (which if taught and learned correctly would ensure a part three pass) but has gradually moved from instructing to passing the test as if to say, “get the qualification first then learn how to cope with the job?
I wonder if some of the longer standing ADI’s would comment on that, could any of the well-established trainers now turn round and say “that wouldn’t have achieved a pass 10 years ago”?
Newer or better developed approaches to teaching have entered the frame, coaching and client centred learning (not the same) are now high on the list; the check test is changing to a more CCL based system next year. (If it happens) How though, can the testing criteria be altered without the training being altered first? Let’s be honest here, you don’t learn German to sit a French exam do you? And will the same thing happen again, will we get the “this is what you do or say to tick that box?” How far do we take the training? How much does the individual want to pay to become an ADI? Should there be additional qualification requirements? Looking at other teacher training, should our industry insist on better and lengthier training or maybe a graduated system where certain additional subjects must be attained within certain time periods. With such an industry as ours, having many avenues to explore, there will always be variation in the amount of training (or should I say additional training) an ADI decides to take. Obviously we develop further as we educate ourselves further and become better. I have certainly found that training myself for ORDIT has improved my instruction and made me better. Having said that, does that mean I wasn’t good enough when I passed? Which brings us to the question, are we suitably trained and qualified initially?
I think personally, as has been said, that the part three test can be quite easy if it has been understood, It is however very unrealistic in that the examiner will learn instantly given the correct instruction. Why is this so? Because the test has to be carried out within a confined space of time. How on earth can we be tested to encompass everything we are going to encounter as new ADI’s? Here, on such forums as ours we continually see questions asking how we would deal with certain problems someone has experienced. There will be a variation of answers. All the answers could be correct for one pupil but wrong for another, which of these pupils should be portrayed on test by the examiner?
For example, and I think we have all had these on numerous occasions, the pupil that can’t steer to save their lives (literally), The controls lesson has gone well, the recap has gone really well, the move off and stop goes really well and we think we are on a flyer here, then when we get to the first left turn they can’t let go of the wheel, we have a couple of goes trying to help them, we aren’t getting anywhere. We need to establish where it’s coming from, is it concentration, co-ordination, are they scared, etc. We take it further and take over the pedals allowing them to concentrate more on steering, no joy. We decide to swap seats and pop down the road to a nice big empty car park and let them practice away from danger. They relax, they learn.
So should or could the part three examination encompass all such problems we are going to encounter….. No way, there must be a line somewhere.
So let’s now go back to training, if we are saying that the part three isn’t fit for purpose, how does it change to become adequate? Can it ever cover every single thing we are going to come up against, I think not. Can the trainer help? Yes of course but it will take time and of course time will cost money which nobody wants to part with. And to a great extent the trainer can only prepare the PDI mentally explaining that the testing process doesn’t cover all real life situations. The individual instructor will always need to think outside the box which isn’t taught if only training to pass the test is being conducted. So where has this training to pass the test come from? And when did the register start to become flooded with thousands of instructors? I don’t really know the answer but I would have a little wager on the fact that it started to happen when the industry began being glamourized with all the adverts for… be your own boss, work when you want, earn thirty grand a year etc. etc. Demand increased, training deteriorated. And quite possibly (probably) we get the same scenario as with some learners….I just want to pass the test! And could this be because the ticket to earn sounded or looked so inviting? Are there way too many instructors doing this job for the wrong reasons?
Going back to the original question Helen… I would prefer to see a graduated system, comprising of the initial training to qualify followed by further training within certain time criteria. Compulsory development if you like. Yes it will cost the individual more but it will weed out those who are doing it for the wrong reasons and those who have decided that the future of road safety in the UK has a price limit. I also think that some form of extra training should be introduced covering the topics of how to deal with certain pupil scenarios which I gave an example of earlier. Dealing with individuals is a very big eye opener.
Why are changes being introduced? The decline in observing road safety and the increasing number of young drivers having accidents? Is this our fault or is it down to attitude and the increasing speed at which life is traveling? Should there be some form of compulsory early training before being able to apply for a driving license? Should road safety become part of school education? Should it go as far as people being profiled before being given a license? The questions are endless.
Is this new check test system a cunning plan? Are ADI’s going to look at this and think they had better get some training on client centred learning and coaching? Instead of altering the training, move the goalposts slightly for the check test so that people take the initiative and get more training. Resulting in better qualified instructors.
Ken (some of my random thoughts don’t blame me ….blame Helen!)
Been thinking about this left wheel thing over the second white line when emerging left...do you mean right wheel? It's just that if you get the left wheel in this position, the right wheel will be sticking over the white line?!
Helen
Hi helen
no positon left tyre over the 2nd give way line nearest us heres a pic showing you what i mean, i think you may have been thinking 2nd give line from the centre / hazard warning line
Joined: Nov 2012 Gender: Female Posts: 372 Location: Bognor Regis, West Sussex
Re: emerging left question « Result #46 Yesterday at 8:08pm »
Hi Sammy
Been thinking about this left wheel thing over the second white line when emerging left...do you mean right wheel? It's just that if you get the left wheel in this position, the right wheel will be sticking over the white line?!
wow for a random thought this sure set off a box of explosives. Don't feel I can answer without reading it all, and there's wayyyy too much info here to read in the 2 mins i gve myself to catch up on here...If you have time on your hands Helen there's lots of housework to do here, only if you're bored tho!
I look forward to reading all the details when I find some spare time. In terms of part 3 I have just one word: roundabouts
Re: Moving Off - Observations « Result #50 Yesterday at 7:38pm »
Thanks everyone for your comments, as a newbie to the profession and I was trained to teach the 6 point check was surprised when told by the examiner not to let them do the 6 point check they don't need to do it, but he has passed other students of mine that have all done the full check.
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 1,782 Location: York
Re: Moving Off - Observations « Result #53 Yesterday at 6:46pm »
Hi all, Six point check not always required, if there is only a footpath to your left then the left mirror check to see if anything is approaching along the footpath is enough. If there was a danger such as a pedestrian access or lane/alley or maybe a busy shop on the left a left blind spot check would be justified. Thinking in a logical way, I teach middle mirror first, is there a gap to move into or is the road clear, If there is traffic then wait, watching the middle mirror until we see a gap we can use. Start observations timing them to end with the right blind spot check as the last car is passing and follow.
I teach 6 point check initially to get them really looking around, when they become more proficient with observations I introduce the options and explain the differences. Some will continue a six point check some will not but even if they prefer to do a complete check they are capable of timing the observations as mentioned above causing no delay.
I think a lot of pupils don't understand they are checking the blind spot when looking over the right shoulder, some of them seem to think they are trying to see the road behind. This could be the cause of the lazy look and of course the examiner knows that all they get is an eye full of door post!
IHCD Ambulance Driving Tutor Part 1 Feb 12 Passed 1st Attempt. Part 2 July12 Passed Ist Attempt. Part 3 Feb13 Passed 1st Attempt PST 9 4-5 Thank God for U Tube Videos
Hi - I only teach interior, right door then finally right shoulder as the last check. Examiners are fine with it. The whole left blind spot to right blind spot check can take too long sometimes.
I agree matt2801 however the
HC 159 states: Before moving off you should:
use all mirrors to check the road is clear
look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)
signal if necessary before moving out
look round for a final check. Therefore I cannot see how an examiner could fault a pupil for doing a full check and I have never witnessed one to do so.
What they will fault the pupil for is if they take so long doing the observations they miss oppurtunities to go.
I initially teach my pupils to start obs with a glance out of front passenger door (peripheral vision will cover left blind spot) and then all mirrors etc.
Some pupils in time minimise this to as you describe matt2801.
However others will convert naturally to a full check. Whether this comes from confusion with obs after an ES etc I am not sure but I am loathe to discourage any observations so I just point out it should not delay the procedure.
So I have a mixture of pupils using different methods. We are not robots after all. As is usually stated as long as the obs are EFFECTIVE!
Joined: Dec 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 364 Location: Chippenham, Wilts
Re: Moving Off - Observations « Result #57 Yesterday at 5:55pm »
Another risk with a six point check is that they get ready to go, then start over their left shoulder, before they get around to the right bs, the car is on the move. This is often where the safety fault,comes from.
Re: Moving Off - Observations « Result #58 Yesterday at 5:12pm »
Hi
A six point check for a normal move off is unrealistic and in most circumstances unnecessary, for moving off i teach middle mirror road ahead right mirror the over the right shoulder.
By doing a six point check gaps could be missed and your pupil could get very frustrated.
I am reading a book at the moment that is written by an adi examier that mentions this is a common fault on part 3 and only time you should do a left blind spot check is if the circumstances warrant it i.e near a school etc.
Joined: Jun 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 304 Location: Sutton, Surrey
Re: Moving Off - Observations « Result #59 Yesterday at 5:08pm »
Hi - I only teach interior, right door then finally right shoulder as the last check. Examiners are fine with it. The whole left blind spot to right blind spot check can take too long sometimes.
Moving Off - Observations « Result #60 Yesterday at 4:46pm »
Hi Just had a student get a minor because she did a 6 point check before moving off from the side of the road. When I asked the examiner the reason for the minor he said she did not look over her right shoulder. She does her observations really well and looking over her right shoulder is one of them. He then said that he did not understand why she did the 6 point check, she only needed to look Interior, right mirror and over right shoulder. I'm really confused now. What is the correct way to teach moving off pls? Confused. com Thanks Liz
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/linux.gif "[avatar]")
Logged
Author
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/boyandpc.gif "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/www_sm.png "[homepage]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s181/KENNYBEAR_TRIKE/jaffa.jpg "[avatar]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/new/msn.png "[msn]")
![[avatar]](http://totalseeker.co.uk/uploads/tx_multishop/images/products/300/hon/honda-st1300-pan-european-2005-55.jpeg "[avatar]")
.....BUT the topic may not be moving of and stoping (which they can do fine) but something else they clearly can't do.....there's no time for shyness or confusion on the part 3....just ask the daft questions, get some answers and move on.....just like you'd do with a real learner ![[image]](http://dundeedrivinglessons.co.uk/siteimages/kiltsmilie.gif "[image]")
![[image]](http://dundeedrivinglessons.co.uk/siteimages/thumb.gif "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://www.forumsextreme.com/images2/aFu_ElmoDance.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.shrinkpictures.com/processed/phpk4T30T_c2PM.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8140/avatar3806148oj.gif "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/dog.gif "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://dundeedrivinglessons.co.uk/siteimages/yourock.gif "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8186/8083093868_5e8a890648_m.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://homewardboundintheheartland.org/images/CarCat.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://dundeedrivinglessons.co.uk/siteimages/scared.gif "[image]")
![[image]](http://dundeedrivinglessons.co.uk/siteimages/bang.gif "[image]")
![[image]](http://dundeedrivinglessons.co.uk/siteimages/jumping0045.gif "[image]")