Car IAM - will I hate it?

[balls-out]

I'm looking for some feedback here.
I have been a petrol head all my life and have 25 years of car driving under my belt including various skid pan, track days, drift school and a few years low level motorsport. I also have passed IAM on a motorcycle.
However I have never done IAM for a car and am deeply suspicious.
I don't accept that I can't change gear whilst braking when slowing down and equally I can't face shuffling the wheel through my hands and/or not crossing them. I am not going into a big justification, although I'm satisfied that both these are entirely defendable.

So
- if I stick to the above could I still do an IAM test etc
- is there anybody who felt like me and was converted?

As a separate question - currently I have a left hand drive car. Could I take an IAM test in it?

[Don]

balls-out said:

- if I stick to the above could I still do an IAM test etc

No. You have to demonstrate you can use the system of car control as defined in Roadcraft. If you don't want to drive using it you can't pass the test. You CAN use rotational steering (Roadcraft even covers it) but if you do you'd best make sure you can do it to the highest standard and mention in commentary WHY you have chosen to use it for the particular manouevre you are doing.

For example - I use hand over hand when parking as I can apply a lot of lock more smoothly and quickly that way but generally on a road drive I use pull-push.

balls-out said:

- is there anybody who felt like me and was converted?

OK. Here's the deal. Every last person who does the IAM test has a different take on what is important out of Roadcraft and what isn't. For example - I can and do heel and toe because I track drive and when I want to on the road I can and do use it. But I would not use it on an IAM/ROSPA test because it is not part of the System. So that's the thing - are you willing to drive completely to Roadcraft on test day? If not - you can't pass, sorry. If you are willing and able - you can do the course, pass the test, get the benefits (whatever they are for you, personally) and then build your own driving style that works best for you.

The bottom line is, though, that if you want an IAM pass you have to drive the IAM way. Same for Rospa. Same for GEM.

If you'd hate that. Don't do it.

balls-out said:

As a separate question - currently I have a left hand drive car. Could I take an IAM test in it?

Yes. No problem.

[Jules2477]

With all that experience do you need to take AIM ? The bible, alias, Roadcraft teaches a systematic approach for driving and it is very good for developing ordinary drivers into good safe drivers. However, it does not make or equal competition drivers who arguably, have better developed skills in terms of car control, nor was it intended to. In fact heel and toe is a very useful technique for ordinary road driving with crash gear boxes but in strictly road craft parlance, it fails outside of the system.

If a technique is out side the box but clearly well executed and for good reason, i do not see why it should be seen as fail. I was taught a number of techniques in class one driving that are not in road craft (or the lower levels of driver training) such as 'Roll off' which is in fact safer in some circumstances than sticking to the book ('Roll off' gets you off a fast road into a side road quicker so less chance of a rear end shunt. Another was a different type of bend approach if looking for an overtake on the exit. This was all viewed as applying the rules flexibly according to the circumstances. In reality, the system is not a 'Fit all' for every single situation a driver encounters.

Whilst Roadcraft is an excellent reference and foundation for a high road based driving standard, the fundamental principle is to keep things neat tidy and simple. I.E. managable. But it is certainly not the only way to drive a car. The failing with most of us is that we make a complete hash of things if we start braking, changing gear, steering or whatever all at the same time but we have to recognise there are talented drivers who can do this and do it very well. Used appropriately alongside the Roadcraft system, a good IAM examiner should spot the difference between a really talented driver and someone who is safest sticking to the proven techniques. Many things people do exceptional well are usually outside the rules or teachings that mere mortals follow - that is what makes them special.

Edited by Jules2477 on Wednesday 16th July 20:13

[Strangely Brown]

Jules2477 said:

In reality, the system is not a 'Fit all' for every single situation a driver encounters.

Sorry, but I think you're wrong there. The System is a "fit all" for every situation. The skill comes from from which features are applied and how. By definition, every feature is considered, they are just not necessarily applied. It tells you what to do, and in which order. It does not necessarily tell you how to do it. The system is as flexible or as rigid as you want it to be dependant entirely on the circumstances. And therein lies its beauty.

To the OP. I have used rotational steering on a RoSPA test and I have used Brake/Gear overlap and it has never been a problem. Each has its place. That said, as others have pointed out, if you habitually change down through the box whilst braking or use rotational steering continuously then you will be unlikely to pass. The examiner will be looking for Safety, System, Smoothness, Speed and finally Sparkle in that order.

I have actually heard an IAM examiner state that he passed (as in a test pass, not overtake) an elderly gentleman who drove his Rolls Royce entirely safely, largely systematically and very smoothly but used rotational steering throughout. His view was that the gentleman's steering was extremely consistent, very accurate and therefore perfectly safe. The rest of the drive was of above test standard so he didn't feel that he could fail him for a difference in "style".

So, you see, it can be done. It depends entirely on how good you are, how picky the examiner is and most importantly, how SAFE and consistent in your approach to hazards you are. IMHO the IAM test has a lower pass standard and is a bit more flexible. The RoSPA test will require a MUCH tighter adherence to the tenets of Roadcraft.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Wednesday 16th July 20:37

[brisel]

What do you want to achieve? By thinking about doing the IAM car test you clearly want to be a better and safer road driver.

Why not buy the Skill For Life package anyway and do plenty of observed runs? If you just can't get along with the Roadcraft system then don't sit your test. At least you will have learnt plenty of other positive road skills along the way.

If all you want to do is rubber stamp your (impressive) personal driving cv with the car IAM then I wouldn't bother.

[SVS]

The challenge with the IAM route is that it depends on your Observer and Observers can vary considerably in quality.

Instead of the IAM, how about investing in a day with the likes of Cadence, RideDrive or similar? Then you would get truly professional roadcraft instrucion, instead of amateur IAM guidance.

RideDrive offer their own accredited courses for cars and bikes, which are superb (not to mention giving you a 25% insurance reduction). I've done the bike one. Highly recommended.

www.ridedrive.co.uk
www.cadence.co.uk

Stressedave here on PH is a Cadence instructor. Cadence are first class too

Having said that, given your background, wouldn't you be interested in the High Performance Club (www.hpc.org.uk) or Club Driving?

Edited by SVS on Wednesday 16th July 23:09

[balls-out]

Thanks for the suggestions - I apprecaite them.

What am I trying to achieve? Good question.

I guess I was thinking that I really ought to get some tuition - I sure that it would help, but I am suspicious that the IAM isn't the best route forwards for me. I sort of assumed that if I did Skills for life (which I may already have - is the bike and car separate), I would end up not really enjoying the runs as there would be constant friction on style.
I suspect that the best answer may well be a quality independant school.

Cheers,
jim

[havoc]

SVS said:

The challenge with the IAM route is that it depends on your Observer and Observers can vary considerably in quality.

Instead of the IAM, how about investing in a day with the likes of Cadence, RideDrive or similar? Then you would get truly professional roadcraft instrucion, instead of amateur IAM guidance.

RideDrive offer their own accredited courses for cars and bikes, which are superb (not to mention giving you a 25% insurance reduction). I've done the bike one. Highly recommended.

www.ridedrive.co.uk
www.cadence.co.uk

Stressedave here on PH is a Cadence instructor. Cadence are first class too

I feel exactly the same as the OP, refuse to be bound by an inflexible Institute and 'test', and am currently trying to decide between those two AND trying to rustle up a spare £300 for one of their courses...

I can also recommend buying Roadcraft, reading it (or even dipping in-and-out of it following specific events on the road that day), and making sure you're happy with your own driving first. I'm trying to polish my own driving a bit first so I can get the most out of the coaching - i.e. they won't be telling me obvious stuff...

[Jules2477]

Strangely Brown said:

Jules2477 said:

In reality, the system is not a 'Fit all' for every single situation a driver encounters.

Sorry, but I think you're wrong there. The System is a "fit all" for every situation. The skill comes from from which features are applied and how. By definition, every feature is considered, they are just not necessarily applied. It tells you what to do, and in which order. It does not necessarily tell you how to do it. The system is as flexible or as rigid as you want it to be dependant entirely on the circumstances. And therein lies its beauty.

• **************************************************************************************************************************************

Why I am wrong when you have merely confirmed in different words exactly the point I was making about flexibility !

Edited by Jules2477 on Thursday 17th July 18:37

[havoc]

Jules, the system IS a fit-all. It is rigid in that it assumes there is only ONE right way for going about things safely. In reality, MOST circumstances will have more than one right way, more than one safe way.


Roadcraft was intended to train the Police. It was set-up in a systematic manner such that the police would have consistent, predictable actions from all their drivers - much like Armed Forces training.

Now for a large organisation recruiting all levels and abilities, that makes a lot of sense. But back in the real-world, where everybody learns differently, and some people are able to make their own judgements ACCURATELY, the 'system's inflexibility works against it as regards attracting new adherents...some will be happy to be taught one 'right' way, some won't like their well-established and thought-through methods being thrown out of the window without any explanation but "it's not part of the system".

[BOF]

""I feel exactly the same as the OP, refuse to be bound by an inflexible Institute and 'test'""

This is a basic misunderstanding of the IAM...the Observers are volunteers, the people who train the Observers are volunteers, the Police who test the Observers do it on a voluntary basis, the Police who do the Test are not in it for the money...they do it in off duty time and could get more money stacking shelves in Tesco?

While we are trained and tested to Roadcraft standards, the diversity of Group training, Observers, Trafpol Examiners, means that the LAST thing we can be accused of is inflexibility...in some ways I wish it WAS more strict.

But, for less than £100 for unlimited drives (we are not allowed to say tuition)...best we can do.

BOF.

[Jules2477]

havoc said:

Jules, the system IS a fit-all. It is rigid in that it assumes there is only ONE right way for going about things safely. In reality, MOST circumstances will have more than one right way, more than one safe way.


Roadcraft was intended to train the Police. It was set-up in a systematic manner such that the police would have consistent, predictable actions from all their drivers - much like Armed Forces training.

Now for a large organisation recruiting all levels and abilities, that makes a lot of sense. But back in the real-world, where everybody learns differently, and some people are able to make their own judgements ACCURATELY, the 'system's inflexibility works against it as regards attracting new adherents...some will be happy to be taught one 'right' way, some won't like their well-established and thought-through methods being thrown out of the window without any explanation but "it's not part of the system".

• ***************************************************************************************************************************************

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one and again the whole statement about system is self contradictory. I do not and have not for one moment suggested that road craft is not a good system for driving. If you are talking only about applying system as per the book then I agree that it is intended as a fit all. I am merely taking a more flexible viewpoint in the interests of attracting drivers, expecially experienced ones, not put them off.

I trust that were not trying to teach me to suck eggs withh all the blub about the police etc !

[Strangely Brown]

Jules2477 said:

Strangely Brown said:

Jules2477 said:

In reality, the system is not a 'Fit all' for every single situation a driver encounters.

Sorry, but I think you're wrong there. The System is a "fit all" for every situation. The skill comes from from which features are applied and how. By definition, every feature is considered, they are just not necessarily applied. It tells you what to do, and in which order. It does not necessarily tell you how to do it. The system is as flexible or as rigid as you want it to be dependant entirely on the circumstances. And therein lies its beauty.

Why I am wrong when you have merely confirmed in different words exactly the point I was making about flexibility !

Because you said that it's not a fit all for every situation when it actually is. I have merely explained that it is how you apply it that makes the difference. The system being inflexible is an age old criticism that has always been unjustified.


From memory:

Roadcraft said:

The system of car control is a system or drill, each feature of which is considered in sequence by the driver on the approach to any hazard.

The key word in there is "considered"; not necessarily applied. The System states that speed should be adjusted. It doesn't say how, nor does it say which way. It says that information should be taken and given. Again, it doesn't say how. Those finer details are covered in the remainder of Roadcraft.

And that brings me to the point that Roadcraft is NOT The System and The System is NOT Roadcraft. The System is but a small part of Roadcraft, the whole of which covers the majority of techniques and procedures required to enable a smooth, systematic and above all safe drive. There are many techniques that a skilled driver can employ that are not covered in Roadcraft. Whether they have any place or provide any advantage when driving on a public road is debatable and will depend on too many variables for a meaningful discussion here.

My point is, people often complain about the IAM or RoSPA being inflexible and, as organisations, they may well be. However, those same people also see that the organisations teach according to the ideals defined in Roadcraft, and in particular The System of Car Control and go on to make the connection, wrongly, that it must therefore be inflexible. It isn't. It is anything but.

The System is a "fit all" for every situation when driving on a public road. To say that it isn't is doing it an disservice.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Thursday 17th July 19:59

[havoc]

BOF - I use "inflexible" because of a comment earlier that states that you are likely to fail the test if you do not adhere to the 'system', with the stated examples being failing to feed the wheel and overlapping braking and gear-changing. Individual observers MAY turn a blind-eye to such behaviour if they felt it was appropriate and well-executed, but to do so would also be to do a disservice to their driver, as if the driver wishes to pass the test, they must stick to the system...therefore the Institute itself must become inflexible.

...and that's before we get into the realms of 'making progress'!


Jules - apologies, not at all - didn't know how much you knew, just trying to explain why it is what it is. And I agree with you.

[vonhosen]

havoc said:

BOF - I use "inflexible" because of a comment earlier that states that you are likely to fail the test if you do not adhere to the 'system', with the stated examples being failing to feed the wheel and overlapping braking and gear-changing. Individual observers MAY turn a blind-eye to such behaviour if they felt it was appropriate and well-executed, but to do so would also be to do a disservice to their driver, as if the driver wishes to pass the test, they must stick to the system...therefore the Institute itself must become inflexible.

...and that's before we get into the realms of 'making progress'!


Jules - apologies, not at all - didn't know how much you knew, just trying to explain why it is what it is. And I agree with you.

The 'SYSTEM' doesn't dictate a steering method, it does allow for brake gear overlap (heel/toe too if you like) where necessary for safety. It just doesn't encourage it as the de facto method, because separation promotes larger safety margins, a by product of it's application is limiting entry speeds into hazards.

The system is a part of roadcraft, not the whole & the system can be shelved at any time where safety demands it.
That's the ultimate goal of roadcraft, safety.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 17th July 20:08

[havoc]

vonhosen said:

The system is a part of roadcraft, not the whole & the system can be shelved at any time where safety demands it.
That's the ultimate goal of roadcraft, safety.

Thanks Von. That's pretty much my view as well.

But in which case why, above, did someone IAM state that you were unlikely to pass the IAM test unless you followed the system? I realise you can't answer for them precisely, but given your statement do you (like me) see a slight flaw in the IAM approach if their statement is true?

[vonhosen]

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

The system is a part of roadcraft, not the whole & the system can be shelved at any time where safety demands it.
That's the ultimate goal of roadcraft, safety.

Thanks Von. That's pretty much my view as well.

But in which case why, above, did someone IAM state that you were unlikely to pass the IAM test unless you followed the system? I realise you can't answer for them precisely, but given your statement do you (like me) see a slight flaw in the IAM approach if their statement is true?

That may be because they view the system as more than IPSGA when they talk of it.
You should (if you want to drive to the system) attempt to follow that 'systematic order' for hazards. Unless your drive displays an attempt to approach hazards in a systematic fashion I can't see you passing, because a systematic approach is a requirement. If you can follow that order & separate the features of the system then you should. If doing so would compromise safety, then you shouldn't follow that strict ordering at that time & should sacrifice the system at that moment (that's wider roadcraft trumping the system).

Overlapping is sacrificing pure system, but it may be necessary on a number of occasions in a single short drive to do so & if it's justifiable there's nothing wrong in that. A breach of system shouldn't automatically be seen as a mistake, you should contemplate as to whether it was an avoidable breach, it may be unavoidable through no fault of your own. Alternatively it may also be an outcome, whilst not being the cause.

Some people may have to sacrifice system more often than others during a drive, it doesn't mean they are wrong to do so in the circumstances they find themselves, it may just illustrate that their planning for a systematic approach isn't as good as others & their system has to be compromised more often as a result. In other words their application of the four S's (including system) is good, but their OAP is weaker.
That doesn't mean that they fail, because their system may have been displayed to a high standard whilst their OAP was displayed to a lower standard (resulting in more calls to compromise the system), but still to a level that meets the minimum competency level to pass.


Roadcraft's priority is safety & what it's system really encourages you to do is concentrate & reflect on your driving. That's a good thing.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 17th July 22:05

[waremark]

vonhosen said:

Some people may have to sacrifice system more often than others during a drive, it doesn't mean they are wrong to do so in the circumstances they find themselves, it may just illustrate that their planning for a systematic approach isn't as good as others & their system has to be compromised more often as a result. In other words their application of the four S's (including system) is good, but their OAP is weaker.

VH, you are thinking about breaches of the system as the result of poor OAP. I don't think that is necessarily the case.

Some expert and if I dare say it beyond advanced drivers drive 'small s' systematically rather than according to The System. For example, many experts consistently and accurately change down under braking using H & T to rev match, and then trail brake into bends. This is a valid system of driving. To carry it out consistently, safely, accurately and smoothly requires a very high standard of OAP.

However, for good reasons which VH has explained previously, this is not what is taught in the police driving schools. IAM and Rospa both get their expertise in advanced driving from the police, and the majority of their observers and examiners may well not be equipped to assess driving which is to a system other than The System. You will only find out the attitude of your local team by discussing these issues with them.

Personally, I think it is a great discipline to learn to drive to the System. If you are interested in driving, however much you like your alternative system, I don't see how you can lose anything from giving it a go.

So far as the choice between a professional coach and IAM/Rospa is concerned, however lucky you are in your observer you will undoubtedly receive a higher standard of coaching from the professionals mentioned here - but you will pay much more for it (still good value, but not such astonishing value as the volunteer resourced IAM and Rospa). Interestingly, both Hugh Noblett of Cadence and the RideDrive team come from a police background, and are likely to teach The System ..... But they will have a deeper knowledge of alternative systems, and be able to make a better assessment of the aspects of your driving which are worth changing.

Whatever route you decide to take, by all means take some route to developing your driving, and do report back. Enjoy.

Mark from Ware, IAM Obs, member of Rospa and HPC

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

vonhosen said:

Some people may have to sacrifice system more often than others during a drive, it doesn't mean they are wrong to do so in the circumstances they find themselves, it may just illustrate that their planning for a systematic approach isn't as good as others & their system has to be compromised more often as a result. In other words their application of the four S's (including system) is good, but their OAP is weaker.

VH, you are thinking about breaches of the system as the result of poor OAP. I don't think that is necessarily the case.

Some expert and if I dare say it beyond advanced drivers drive 'small s' systematically rather than according to The System. For example, many experts consistently and accurately change down under braking using H & T to rev match, and then trail brake into bends. This is a valid system of driving. To carry it out consistently, safely, accurately and smoothly requires a very high standard of OAP.

But they aren't driving strictly to the Roadcraft system, they've adapted their own. That doesn't make them a worse driver though, they may well be better. That's measured on outcome, rather than against roadcraft. I'm talking about people who are genuinely trying to drive to the roadcraft system who are breaching it, rather than those making a conscious decision to breach it.
You've got to be prepared to be marked down (where you are being tested against roadcraft) for conscious breaches, because it's set competencies you are going against (even if you are convinced there's a better way). As I say that doesn't mean that your way wasn't better, but roadcraft isn't about judging what's providing the best performance outcome, it's about providing a level of consistency for a much broader range of people. It will mean that the most gifted are possibly under-performing by adhering to it at times, but it's about raising the average performance.

waremark said:

However, for good reasons which VH has explained previously, this is not what is taught in the police driving schools. IAM and Rospa both get their expertise in advanced driving from the police, and the majority of their observers and examiners may well not be equipped to assess driving which is to a system other than The System. You will only find out the attitude of your local team by discussing these issues with them.

Indeed.
Some people who drive to roadcraft have difficulty accepting there's other ways of doing certain aspects, ways that can offer results just as good or better. If you are going to trail brake regularly & heel toe expertly, you are operating to tighter margins requiring greater accuracy than is required within roadcraft.
Roadcraft isn't about making master drivers, it's about taking very ordinary drivers & helping them perform consistently above their natural plane in a relatively short time. But there are tools outside & above the roadcraft box.
There are tools that I try not to use as a matter of course in driving to the system, but possess in order to call on should safety require it.

Roadcraft doesn't give much focus for instance on handling skills, it tries to limit it for circumstances within which you should find yourself if you are driving to the system, rather than outside it. It's real focus is on driver attitude, concentration, observation, anticipation & planning.

waremark said:

Personally, I think it is a great discipline to learn to drive to the System. If you are interested in driving, however much you like your alternative system, I don't see how you can lose anything from giving it a go.

I agree.
Show you can do it that way.
You can always develop after that & integrate all of the styles/systems you've experienced to what offers the best for you. Roadcraft is limited, the possibilities aren't.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 18th July 07:33

[Don]

Notwithstanding the perfectly valid discussion above you cannot pass an IAM/ROSPA advanced test without being able to demonstrate that you can drive according to the System.

Information-Position-Speed-Gear-Acceleration

An Associate must show, preferably with commentary, that at each and every hazard they have considered the five phases, decided which ones apply, and executed them in the proper order.

On TOP of that they must demonstrate that have done so well and that the result is SAFE.

Safe, Smooth, Systematic and at the right Speed. At any stage it is right thing to do to sacrifice Speed, System or even Smoothness for Safety as a first priority.

The mark of an Advanced driver is that this sacrifice is seldom necessary - if ever.

There is just no point misleading someone into doing an IAM test if they don't want to drive using the System of Car Control as specified in Roadcraft.

Of course Roadcraft is so much more than a five phase philosophy. But the test *will* require IPSGA.