It’s chilling that people drive at 81 mph on the motorway – says IAM Roadsmart

[hir]

Those of us who are IAM members do so at the grass roots level and are involved with local groups where generally the 'old school' views/ideals are still in place.

All we can do is carry on voicing our disapproval where possible. I really enjoy the Observer role and don't want to give it up. resigning form the IAM would mean I'd have to.

Hear, hear.

We’re grown up enough to be able to ignore the vacuous nonsense and get on with the job of helping others to improve their driving/riding.

[hir]

Does that not simply make you enablers? Surely without people like you people like them could not exist.
Other avenues to "spread the word" are available.

Observers don’t “do it for the IAM”. They do it for the associates. They do it to help other drivers gain in confidence and to improve their driving; for which, in my experience, they are always more than grateful.

To my mind, this altruistic attitude completely overrides any nonsense emanating from the Ministry of Truth.

[hir]

Did I misread? "It’s chilling people that drive at 81 mph on the motorway" – says IAM Roadsmart. Good show!

No. It was the percentage of drivers in an earlier survey that was described as “chilling “. Not the speed.

[hir]

Speeding is responsible for around 12 deaths each day on UK roads

Serious Q, is that actually a fact? Presumably by analysis of STATS19 data?

Gov.uk says:
"There were an estimated 1,390 reported road deaths in the year ending June 2021"

12 x 365 = 4,380.

Hmmm ...

I agree, complete nonsense. I note that Rebecca has now corrected this.

It’s symptomatic of the IAM’s lackadaisical attitude towards numerical and factual accuracy. This month’s “Roadsmart” magazine on page 43, “The knowledge”, boldly states that in “300BC the Romans built what will become the Great North Road”.

300BC was about 250 years before the Romans arrived in Britain. Presumably they sub-contracted it to some Iron Age construction company.

[hir]

Speeding is responsible for around 12 deaths each day on UK roads

Serious Q, is that actually a fact? Presumably by analysis of STATS19 data?

Gov.uk says:
"There were an estimated 1,390 reported road deaths in the year ending June 2021"

12 x 365 = 4,380.

Hmmm ...

I agree, complete nonsense. I note that Rebecca has now corrected this.

It’s symptomatic of the IAM’s lackadaisical attitude towards numerical and factual accuracy. This month’s “Roadsmart” magazine on page 43, “The knowledge”, boldly states that in “300BC the Romans built what will become the Great North Road”.

300BC was about 250 years before the Romans arrived in Britain. Presumably they sub-contracted it to some Iron Age construction company.

[Horse]

Speeding is responsible for around 12 deaths each day on UK roads

Serious Q, is that actually a fact? Presumably by analysis of STATS19 data?

Gov.uk says:
"There were an estimated 1,390 reported road deaths in the year ending June 2021"

I agree, complete nonsense. I note that Rebecca has now corrected this.

It’s symptomatic of the IAM’s lackadaisical attitude towards numerical accuracy.

It's not just the simple numeric mistake, it's terminology too. That's why I mentioned STATS19, which will use the 'contributory factors' rather than 'responsible for'. And that leads to the next point that should have been clarified: whether those 12 had it as a factor or the
sole contributory factor. Then ... is it:

Exceeding speed limit
Or
Travelling too fast for conditions
Or
Driver/Rider careless, reckless or in a hurry?

Similar, but very different, factors. And important, too, because - as we appreciate, even if HQ can't express it for public consumption - someone can be within the speed limit but still too fast.

[hir]

Hello Rebecca,

Firstly, many thanks indeed for participating in this forum and correcting the press release. While this forum is small, it represents many people who have a high level of active involvement with IAM Roadsmart.

As you can see from the posts on this thread, many of us have considerable disquiet with the tone of recent communications. It would be helpful to relate this disquiet to all the relevant colleagues at head office (e.g. the Comms team). The tone of some communications is losing members.

Hi Rebecca, and hello from me. An observer for more than 20 years.

It might be helpful to you if I put Ohlins very pertinent observations into context. Many years ago, long before you joined the top team at IAM, there was a member’s forum on the IAM’s website. The forum increasingly contained criticism of senior management and the direction in which they were leading the IAM. The management at the time didn’t like it, didn’t want to listen, and didn’t want to know. So, at the first opportunity the IAM senior management ditched the member’s forum in the hope that the issues would no longer have the “oxygen of publicity”. The forum members quickly re-convened here at ADhub and have continued to express their disquiet out of earshot of the IAM.

Which only goes to prove that the membership’s perceived issues with the IAM won’t go away just because senior management is not listening to them.

I am delighted that you have now found this forum and trust that you will become a regular contributor.

Kind regards.

[exportmanuk]

Not only did the close the forum in the years since they have also stopped the annual conference and all the regional forums. Divide and conquer seems to be their tactics. Like many other observers I don't do it for the IAM I do it to help other riders, but also to keep my own skills up to a reasonable level, I take the regular tests required to remain a NO and LOA that allow me to continue observing, but increasingly find the output from HQ to be empty sound bites. The quarterly magazine is getting to be very much the same. The organisation promotes itself as having spent more than 60 years making our roads safer by improving driver and rider skills through coaching and education. I would suggest the last 10 of that has been progressively passive dumbing down and issuing second hand statements from the likes of Brake and similar organisations.

[waremark]

Most of the IAM Roadsmart personnel we come into contact with share our views on matters like these.

[jcochrane]

Hello Rebecca,

Firstly, many thanks indeed for participating in this forum and correcting the press release. While this forum is small, it represents many people who have a high level of active involvement with IAM Roadsmart.

As you can see from the posts on this thread, many of us have considerable disquiet with the tone of recent communications. It would be helpful to relate this disquiet to all the relevant colleagues at head office (e.g. the Comms team). The tone of some communications is losing members.

Hi Rebecca, and hello from me. An observer for more than 20 years.

It might be helpful to you if I put Ohlins very pertinent observations into context. Many years ago, long before you joined the top team at IAM, there was a member’s forum on the IAM’s website. The forum increasingly contained criticism of senior management and the direction in which they were leading the IAM. The management at the time didn’t like it, didn’t want to listen, and didn’t want to know. So, at the first opportunity the IAM senior management ditched the member’s forum in the hope that the issues would no longer have the “oxygen of publicity”. The forum members quickly re-convened here at ADhub and have continued to express their disquiet out of earshot of the IAM.

Which only goes to prove that the membership’s perceived issues with the IAM won’t go away just because senior management is not listening to them.

I am delighted that you have now found this forum and trust that you will become a regular contributor.

Kind regards.

hir, I agree with your various posts on this thread particularly the response as to why some of us are still Observers. I have been an Observer for more than 40 years and the changes I've seen from HQ in more recent years is terrible. For the time being I continue to observe for the reasons you mention. Most Observers in our group are disgusted by the attitude eminating from HQ and are very close to walking away. Like yourself we try to ignore HQ and continue to uphold the original values and objectives of IAM which the present management have forgotten/discarded.

The most noticeable change was when the IAM changed direction to market an advanced driving course, Roadsmart. The IAM was originally created to provide an advanced driving test and promote better driving. It was not to sell a driving course. Shortly after it was set up some people who had passed the test banded together to help others reach the standard to pass the IAM test. This was the formation of groups. It would be better if the IAM HQ got back to what they were formed to do and leave the training to the groups who have the knowledge and experience to do this which the present management do not have.

A hello from me to Rebecca and I echo hir's thanks for posting on here. I hope you will continue to post and not just as an IAM person. The forum members have a wide and very knowledgeable background of both riding/driving.