IAM Experiences/What put me/you off?

[25NAD90TUL]

So, to begin with I'd like to point out that I admire the IAM's standpoint as a road safety organisation, and I appreciate the input from the volunteers, although they tend to come not from a road safety angle but from a back-slapping 'aren't we so, so good!' perspective!

So on the day of first observed drive I decide my tyres aren't up to scratch, 750 quidish later, I meet up with my observer for the first time. He begins by looking round my 17 year old 4x4...Ok, so as a time served mechanic with over 30 years experience I look round his 8 year old 'rep's car' a Mondeo estate (clearly an enthusiast)...Oh dear N/S and O/S front tyres, just about legal, the writing scrubbed off completely from the sidewalls, the rims smashed to hell and the panel fit clearly it's been bashed a few times, 'Oh I tried to get ******** (a local tyre company) to weld those rims (I know the guy, he must've thought omg at this idea)...Still though he doesn't find fault with my vehicle and away we go with his pre-amble, he's one of the 'advanced' let's not forget...

Now I'm not going to bang on about the IAM here, but it's time they took stock. For 140 ish quid they should be providing a professional service here, to me the voluntary side is irrelevant because when you part with 140 quid it isn't voluntary to you!

From my experience of 3 years of membership, the observers aren't in it for contributing to road safety, it's so they can get further qualifications (meaningless outside of IAM)...As far as I can see the only difference between passed member and observer is in the instructional side rather than the driving side, and in the 'one-upmanship' side of which they are very fond as it contributes to the back-slapping congratulatory pit that they just can't help falling into (see PH thread 'your IAM history')...

Now for 130 odd quid a consumer has the right to expect a professional service delivered by professionals, you would think.

On the flip side the local group gets nothing of your 139 quid, that pays the fat-cats at the top, while the training is done as we know by volunteers, the quality of which is a variable.

So with my attitude of 'I've paid 139 quid for this, I'm going to get it' I passed, have the certificate and badge (although I wouldn't display it or tell anyone)and that was the end of it, I let my membership lapse and I won't go into the forum side of it, god help you if you try to air a view like this there, although to be fair to IAM you have members there flying the IAM flag while pushing another club that if you don't agree with you're f****d at IAM forum frankly! Yes I have had the phone call at home!

I think the 1950's was the IAM's time, in the present age I think there should be a DoT standard for 'advanced' and again I loathe that term, with rewards regarding insurance and perhaps a category on your license.

Driver further training should not be in the hands of voluntary charities, but should be in the hands of the DoT, and should be recognised properly for what it is.

To avoid confusion, I would recommend that keen drivers with a responsible attitude should do the 'advanced' in any form available, the 'Roadcraft' system is good enough for me, and as I drive always within the law I have no problem with that aspect of it, but I do wish that a more recognised 'proper' alternative to the IAM be introduced...

Verbatim quote from IAM observer 'I'm better in the passenger seat than the driver's'...my response? 'that's clear by the condition of your wheels!'

and from an examiner 'it's very rare to see a GOOD driver come through the IAM'...

Always check their car over while they're checking yours, even the chief observer had a bald tyre almost down to the cords, and when pointed out simply said 'oh well it's a company motor!'

To summarise, having your driving assessed by a class 1 police, well worth doing! Roadcraft, yep good system to use when driving. Assessing the condition of an observer's car might be a good indication of their level of driving skill. Trying to get IAM to look in the mirror, just don't bother, get out of it what YOU require and expect nothing more. You may want to consider your political loyalties and whether your current golf club is the right one to be a member of, if that is, you want to stay a contributing member.

Further details of my appraisal of IAM will no doubt be put forward in response to replies.

[SVS]

All of which provides a good reason to do IAM Fast Track: a little more money, but a lot more professional instruction.

Or else do an OCN-accredited course with RideDrive.

[AnotherGareth]

25NAD90TUL said:

Now for 130 odd quid a consumer has the right to expect a professional service delivered by professionals, you would think.

How much professional time are you expecting for that amount? Bear in mind that the price includes a book, a test that lasts about an hour and a quarter, and membership of the charity for a year.

If you don't want the book or to have help from volunteers to improve your driving then the IAM used to and may still charge £95 for the test and membership of the charity for a year.

Edited by AnotherGareth on Sunday 19th May 08:17

[e46acs]

I went out with an IAM instructor (who is a PH'er) for no cost. i was curious to get an opinion on my driving.

I'd always wondered about the IAM, so was curious to get a view see what it was all about.

We met up and I drove for about 20-30 mins, including some "spirited driving" as I was in the CSL at the time. He gave me his opinion and told me I'd have no problem passing the IAM test.

That was enough for me. He gave the leaflet butter never felt the need to take it any further.

(obviously I already knew I was a driving god, but its nice to get it get confirmed!).

[vonhosen]

I personally don't think you can expect much time from a good professional for £130, unless they are giving it away.

[mph1977]

SVS said:

All of which provides a good reason to do IAM Fast Track: a little more money, but a lot more professional instruction.

Or else do an OCN-accredited course with RideDrive.

or an organisation with regular requalifications for all...

[R0G]

Dunno which group your experience is with but it certainly does not describe our group in any way

[vonhosen]

R0G said:

Dunno which group your experience is with but it certainly does not describe our group in any way

Is it a regular enough experience to suggest a problem though?

[SVS]

mph1977 said:

or an organisation with regular requalifications for all...

I'd argue that it's the training that counts, not the testing. And that it's well worth paying for professional instruction, if you can afford it, because it generally means you'll have a miles better experience. £250 strikes me as outstanding value for IAM Fast Track.

I agree that RoSPA's triennial test supports a higher standard. However, this still puts the emphasis on testing more than the quality of training. Passing an advanced test feels great. It's a very satisfying achievement. And passing the test is can be a good motivational goal. Nevertheless, what truly counts is what I've learnt from good quality instructors, not some test.

Edited by SVS on Sunday 19th May 11:11

[AnotherGareth]

vonhosen said:

Is it a regular enough experience to suggest a problem though?

It's hard to say as many of those who complain on fora seem to have forgotten the truism that if you want to join a particular club you need to play by their rules. At the very least some seem to want validation of what they currently do rather than trying to achieve the syllabus of the club they're joining, prejudging the value of doing so before they are in a position to make a reasonably objective assessment.

[vonhosen]

AnotherGareth said:

vonhosen said:

Is it a regular enough experience to suggest a problem though?

It's hard to say as many of those who complain on fora seem to have forgotten the truism that if you want to join a particular club you need to play by their rules. At the very least some seem to want validation of what they currently do rather than trying to achieve the syllabus of the club they're joining, prejudging the value of doing so before they are in a position to make a reasonably objective assessment.

In this case, as is often the case, it's somebody who can do what is required to join the club & questions it's values.

[mph1977]

SVS said:

mph1977 said:

or an organisation with regular requalifications for all...

I'd argue that it's the training that counts, not the testing. And that it's well worth paying for professional instruction, if you can afford it, because it generally means you'll have a miles better experience. £250 strikes me as outstanding value for IAM Fast Track.

I agree that RoSPA's triennial test supports a higher standard. However, this still puts the emphasis on testing more than the quality of training. Passing an advanced test feels great. It's a very satisfying achievement. And passing the test is can be a good motivational goal. Nevertheless, what truly counts is what I've learnt from good quality instructors, not some test.

Edited by SVS on Sunday 19th May 11:11

in any scenario where regular revalidations are required you are only as good as your last revalidation ...

it's a fundamental and underpinning difference in attitude between RoADA and IAM - RoADA is all about maintaining the standard where the IAM is a Skill Badge for life

[7mike]

25NAD90TUL said:

I think the 1950's was the IAM's time, in the present age I think there should be a DoT standard for 'advanced' and again I loathe that term, with rewards regarding insurance and perhaps a category on your license.

Hate to be pedantic but it's been DfT for quite a few years now.

There is an agreed definition of advanced driving (or DfT standard if you wish):

The official definition of Advanced Driving, as agreed between the IAM, RoSPA, DSA etc., is:

"Advanced Driving is the ability to control the position and speed of the vehicle safely, systematically and smoothly, using road and traffic conditions to make reasonable progress unobtrusively, with skill and responsibility. This skill requires a positive but courteous attitude and a high standard of driving competence based on concentration, effective all round observation, anticipation and planning. This must be co-ordinated with good handling skills. The vehicle will always be in the right place on the road at the right time, travelling at the right speed with the correct gear engaged and can always be stopped safely in the distance that can be seen to be clear."

[vonhosen]

7mike said:

25NAD90TUL said:

I think the 1950's was the IAM's time, in the present age I think there should be a DoT standard for 'advanced' and again I loathe that term, with rewards regarding insurance and perhaps a category on your license.

Hate to be pedantic but it's been DfT for quite a few years now.

There is an agreed definition of advanced driving (or DfT standard if you wish):

The official definition of Advanced Driving, as agreed between the IAM, RoSPA, DSA etc., is:

"Advanced Driving is the ability to control the position and speed of the vehicle safely, systematically and smoothly, using road and traffic conditions to make reasonable progress unobtrusively, with skill and responsibility. This skill requires a positive but courteous attitude and a high standard of driving competence based on concentration, effective all round observation, anticipation and planning. This must be co-ordinated with good handling skills. The vehicle will always be in the right place on the road at the right time, travelling at the right speed with the correct gear engaged and can always be stopped safely in the distance that can be seen to be clear."

Only that leaves it open to any system (& that's not a bad thing).

[7mike]

vonhosen said:

Only that leaves it open to any system (& that's not a bad thing).

agreed

[AnotherGareth]

vonhosen said:

that leaves it open to any system (& that's not a bad thing).

It's completely fine, but when people claim to have their own system I'm curious whether their system can readily be taught to others, and I challenge them to describe their system so that others can appreciate exactly what they are talking about.

[vonhosen]

AnotherGareth said:

vonhosen said:

that leaves it open to any system (& that's not a bad thing).

It's completely fine, but when people claim to have their own system I'm curious whether their system can readily be taught to others, and I challenge them to describe their system so that others can appreciate exactly what they are talking about.

Whether it can be taught to others isn't a requirement is it?
If it works repeatedly well for them that's what matters isn't it?
Do they 'have' to be able to articulate it in order to do it?

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th May 19:38

[AnotherGareth]

vonhosen said:

Do they 'have' to be able to articulate it in order to do it?

If they can't say what they do how can they claim it is a system?

[vonhosen]

AnotherGareth said:

vonhosen said:

Do they 'have' to be able to articulate it in order to do it?

If they can't say what they do how can they claim it is a system?

They may not be able to describe it directly to you in cold light of day, but through observation & careful questioning over a significant period you may be able to draw it from them. They may actually employ what they regard as separate systems for different types of hazards, rather than one system across all hazards. The main thing of course should be that they get good results consistently. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Even where you supposedly have one system 'Roadcraft', different people/organisations will have quite different ideas about what amounts to good interpretation/implementation of it or not.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th May 20:56

[R0G]

At one point our group had 3 examiners and they often commented that those coming to them from nearby groups were somewhat lacking

Only once can I remember the examiners asking our group to tighten up on a recurring issue

Feedback from the examiners is crucial to keep a group on track with its observers