Did my mock IAM test last night

[Boris]

And the observer says I would have passed had it been the real deal

But

I did get picked up on a few things

1. Indicated twice when no one there to benefit
2. Speed could have been higher on NSL roads
3. Didn't accelerate fast enough moving up limits
4. Didn't move up to the following position even when no chance of an overtake

Now 1 and 2 I have no problem with I thought I was running at 60 but the chief observer felt differently Clearly his speedo was at fault

No 3. He reconed I should have given it a bit more welly to get to up to speed. I was accelerating at the rate a pillion could comfortably stay on without having to hold on but he reconed we should make progress by pretty much zipping up to speed (no wheelies mind) which seemed a bit odd, but I'll go with it.

However No 4 did piss me off a little. We came up behind an ambulance which was following close behind a car doing 55 in a NSL and as I knew the roads (tight twisty single carriageway with a mix of solid and broken lines) and I knew there was no opportunity to pass both vehicles at once in the section we were on without breaking the speed limit so I hung well back. His view was I was not making progress and while we both knew I would never be able to overtake I should have moved up to the following position anyway and considered (and declined) the overtake. This made no sense at all. Why would I possibly want to decrease my margin of error and compromise my forward observation (and others view of me) just to prove something we all knew already? To me this action would give an impression of lack of forward planning as it was clear the overtake was never on in the first place.

So what do you IAM types think. During a real test should you move into a less safe zone when you know there is no possible advantage to be gained simply to show the examiner that you have considered an overtake and declined it?

[AlanH]

I was accelerating at the rate a pillion could comfortably stay on without having to hold on

Did you have a pillion?

You could also argue that you were accelerating at a rate that wouldn't cause issues if you were riding in the snow and that would be equally relevant

His view was I was not making progress and while we both knew I would never be able to overtake I should have moved up to the following position anyway and considered (and declined) the overtake. This made no sense at all. Why would I possibly want to decrease my margin of error and compromise my forward observation (and others view of me) just to prove something we all knew already? To me this action would give an impression of lack of forward planning as it was clear the overtake was never on in the first place.

You can communicate with other road users with the position of your bike. Make your intentions clear. By hanging back you're saying you're happy to dawdle at their pace. If you move up to a following position, it will make it obvious to the skilled professional driving the ambulance that you intend to overtake and he should respond by ensuring there is sufficient room for you to overtake and pull in front. Of course, if he's a knob and just driving too close then he won't do that but it's worth a try. That would be my take on it.

[Paul-S]

Hi Gordon

I'm with you on point 3 & 4

Point 1: I would indicate out of autopilot habit so you would not have to decide whether anyone would benefit or not and therefore not distract your mental attention from what's actually happening ahead

However, I have not done IAM yet and intend doing it probably next year now

I will have to learn what the brake lever is for though!! But can't see the point of showing your brake light to a following vehicle when you are likely to take the corner a lot quicker. Showing them a light so they don't run into you when you're accelerating away from them? What's all that about then?

[Boris]

Did you have a pillion?

You could also argue that you were accelerating at a rate that wouldn't cause issues if you were riding in the snow and that would be equally relevant

Good point Alan I hadn't considered this. It just seems a bit aggressive to accelerate everywhere as if my arse was on fire and then stop accelerating at 50 or 60. If I was on my own and using my own interpretation of the speed limit laws [1] then I would have accelerated faster and for longer. I was probably still accelerating faster than 90% of cars would.

You can communicate with other road users with the position of your bike. Make your intentions clear. By hanging back you're saying you're happy to dawdle at their pace. If you move up to a following position, it will make it obvious to the skilled professional driving the ambulance that you intend to overtake and he should respond by ensuring there is sufficient room for you to overtake and pull in front. Of course, if he's a knob and just driving too close then he won't do that but it's worth a try. That would be my take on it.

Again point taken but to be honest even passing the ambulance on its own would have been tricky on that road with < 5mph speed differential. Were I applying Boris' law on speeding [1] then not a problem but I was told in no uncertain terms not to speed.


[1] I'm not saying but those that have ridden with me will know

[Steve T]

Point 1 - fair point - the "autopilot" way of indicating everytime indicated to the observer that the associate has not fully viewed and assessed whats going on around them - yes, they have dropped into the autopilot mirror-signal-manoeuvre.

Point 2 - nearly no one except Police have calibrated speedo's on public roads, so more descretion from the observer me thinks.

Point 3 - mechanical sympathy, fuel conservation etc etc etc. Unless an associate was crawling towards the NSL, I'd never ask them to "zip" up to it. Smooth & progressive is a sign of an advanced rider, not "zippy" & smooth!

Point 4 - If you provided the explanation for your actions when questioned by the observer, then there is, to my mind, no argument - you were correct in your actions.

Seems to me like the observe is putting too much of his own riding habits into what he expects from an associate (don't we all ). Next time you see him, tell him Steve T thinks he should have a ride with the staff examiner (who is a Fifer)

I would not expect any examiner to find fault with 2,3 or 4. Number 1 - maybe

Best of luck with the test - enjoy yerself

Steve T

[Steve T]

I will have to learn what the brake lever is for though!! But can't see the point of showing your brake light to a following vehicle when you are likely to take the corner a lot quicker. Showing them a light so they don't run into you when you're accelerating away from them? What's all that about then?

Paul,

Stating the obvious here I know, but it gives those behind you an indication that you are slowing, for what ever reason, which they may not be aware of. Using what known as "acceleration sense", an advanced rider will ease off the throttle in good time for a hazard, due to better observational skills, thus leading to a slowing machine which may, again, not be evident to a following vehicle driver / rider. The brief use of either brake, to illuminate the brake light, gives those behand a more obvious visual clue that your slowing down.
I only use this technique if I see that the following vehicle has not noticed my change in speed i.e. the closure rate between me and them is increasing.
Of course, none of this helps if the tube driving the car behind you has got their head burried in the stereo controls / mobile phone, and they've never heard of the 2 second rule

Just my ramblings.

Steve T

[winxp-master]

This is why i think these IAM thingys are bollox... different examiners saying different things all the time.

How many threads have we seen with people saying one examiner says this and another says that, some like you to speed when overtaking for a fast safe overtake, some don't allow speeding at all...pure bollox.

If i'm out for a jolly i would have been on the back of that ambulance waiting to overtake at the first opportunity (thats riding on my own, and i know it's not the safest approach) but if i were under the watchfull eye of some sort of examiner and i knew i could not speed then i'd have done exactly what you did Gordon.

Whats all this indicator rubbish?... i remember my sister doing her driving test (car) and her examiner told her not to indicate if there was nothing there... my response... how do you know nothings there? ALWAYS indicate when performing a change of direction, get into the habbit and keep it, it might just save your life.

IAM... ive sh!t em

[Farky]

Varying opinions on what you should or shouldnt do where part of why I was never going to take the IAM test - but I did...and Im glad I did as it has tought me more.

So what do you IAM types think. During a real test should you move into a less safe zone when you know there is no possible advantage to be gained simply to show the examiner that you have considered an overtake and declined it?

The moving into the overtake zone is done to show you are 'looking' to make progress...its a test and you have to show you could do things...like not indicating...shows you are actually looking and accessing the options not just falling asleep and leaving it on...also, everytime you use it, you have to remember to knock it off...weve all had that person flashing lights at us from behind..we eventually realise weve left our indicator on...so NOT using it if there is no one to benefit, means we dont have to remember to knock it off again.

That eejit that nearly pulled out on you might have thought you where pulling in because you left your indicator on!

Accellerating to speed is again to show your making progress...interpretation is another thing as has been said.

I prayed for RAIN on my test as it meant, accellerating, high speeds and overtaking would all be reduced...im a bit more relaxed in my riding but I do still make progress..thats why I bought a TA!

The examiner had a right laugh when I told him afterwards that I wanted it to rain and why...he reckoned I wouldnt have had any issues from what he seen...some observers maybe over compensate.

[StumpyFingers]

I always thought that Road safety was the number one priority.
If you are further back you are more visible but also have a better view of the road ahead, this gives you a better chance of seeing and responding to the changing conditions safely.

[Paul-S]

Paul,

Stating the obvious here I know, but it gives those behind you an indication that you are slowing, for what ever reason, which they may not be aware of. Using what known as "acceleration sense", an advanced rider will ease off the throttle in good time for a hazard, due to better observational skills, thus leading to a slowing machine which may, again, not be evident to a following vehicle driver / rider. The brief use of either brake, to illuminate the brake light, gives those behand a more obvious visual clue that your slowing down.
I only use this technique if I see that the following vehicle has not noticed my change in speed i.e. the closure rate between me and them is increasing.
Of course, none of this helps if the tube driving the car behind you has got their head burried in the stereo controls / mobile phone, and they've never heard of the 2 second rule

Just my ramblings.

Steve T

Thanks Steve

I see your point about point 1, just not how I would prioitise or process that information or want to use up observation time deciding who or who would not benefit - I'm already looking way in the distance. But if that's what's needed to pass a test then so be it

As far as above, I found from training experience that good riders / drivers will still be accelerating towards a corner while the less trained or confident have already started to slow down long before any turning in point

I can see how showing the brake light would work when in a straight line