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

[jcochrane]

To expand on this we have been looking into whether to switch to RoADA or alternatively become independent and recommend the RoDA test for those that would like a test.

An interesting thought. What would be the advantage of being independent rather than affiliated to RoSPA? With affiliation you would at least get the benefit of an umbrella organisation, as others have said already. However, it is an umbrella organisation with less presence than the IAM, and that's saying something!

I believe one of the downsides of dis-affiliating from the IAM is that, in accordance with the group's constitution, the group's funds, such as they are, will revert to IAM Head Office. And don't even think about having a Knees-Up and spend all the money before you dis-affiliate. The trustees would likely get a call from the Charity Commissioners telling the trustees to foot the bill themselves.

No, I think the only way to keep one's blood pressure at normal levels and avoid periodic attacks of apoplexy and anger is to put to one side all feelings of angst, anxiety, and apprehension that one might have about the IAM and rise above the confused messaging emanating from HQ, and just get on with the task of helping others to improve their driving. Focus on thinking about the associate, not about the IAM.

Just a thought.

The concern we have with RoADA is that we might find ourselves in the same position we have with IAM.

I do hope you are wrong about the group funds. The money is not theirs but belongs to the members. I thought that if the group were to dissolve then funds had to be returned to the members. Although in our case we would still continue what we are doing but without the interference of the IAM. It would mean a group vote on this.

Your last paragraph sums up what we want and try to do but the ever growing onerous intervention of HQ stifles our enthusiasm.

[M1ke H]

Just as an aside, and I'm sorry to interrupt the flow of the thread and it's particular direction at this point, but just to return briefly to the original point in pages 1 & 2...

I wrote to IAM HQ yesterday morning to express my dismay at the general direction the Publicity/Marketing/Comms team seem to be taking, the fact that nothing seemed to be sanity checked before release and the general public perception this was creating etc etc. I asked how it has come to the point where social media influencers such as Reg Local and Petrol Ped seem to be doing a far better job of promoting the organisation than HQ themselves and why on earth can't we get back to the basic premise of promoting of the the improvement of driver skills, making better drivers and riders through coaching and education leading to the advanced test. Why not 'big up' the 200 strong Group network and the qualified volunteers who are after all the life blood of the organisation and actively promote this side of the business?

I concluded by writing "I’m finding it increasingly difficult to defend the current messaging which is almost BRAKE-like in its seeming obsession with speed. Please can the organisation encourage and stimulate the IAMRS cause and vision ‘to be the best, most recognised provider of coaching and advice for all post-licence drivers and riders, and to help make our roads safer for all’. We’re doing our best at Group level – please can we have some support from HQ!"

I sent that early yesterday morning and (after receiving a non-automated acknowledgement yesterday morning) in less than 24 hours have had a formal reply. I'm not going to quote the detail here, but the thrust is that based on my email and others, along with the content of this thread(!) a meeting was held yesterday morning to restablish the direction and content of the material that should be being sent out. I've been told that 'normal service should resume shortly.'

It has also been confirmed to me that at least two senior members of staff have read this thread with 'some names being recognised'!!! It was also stated that the new CEO and Chair are aware, with the inference that they are on the case already.

I wait in anticipation, ever hopeful of better things, but the proof of the pudding etc...

[GTR1400MAN]

Gareth

Local observers don't have to retest but your local group should be quality checking.

Can you expand on the dissonance of preparing for test and everyday driving? With our Observers we always discourage saying "you need to do this for the test". You should be preparing them for everyday driving/riding and should be able to explain the benefits of any changes you suggest/coach. If they drive/ride that way then the test becomes but a step on their advanced journey.

[hir]

are you folk who are IAM members going to quit in disgust

Probably not.

... I have two associates at the moment, and I certainly don't wish to stop trying to help them while they continue to be interested.

I agree with Gareth.

To quit the IAM "in disgust" would be both selfish and self-indulgent. It would be pointless posturing. Observers are better than that. They are motivated by altruism, not antagonism towards the IAM's idiotic pronouncements.

Anyhow, enough of why observers do what they do. This thread started out as a legitimate criticism of a factually incorrect IAM pronouncement from on high. it's turned into a discourse about guilt by association. Let's get back to the subject.

[hir]

I do hope you are wrong about the group funds. The money is not theirs but belongs to the members. I thought that if the group were to dissolve then funds had to be returned to the members. Although in our case we would still continue what we are doing but without the interference of the IAM. It would mean a group vote on this.

Hi John,

This is an extract from the Group Rules of one of the many IAM group's that I've been associated with. I have always assumed that they were a standard set of rules as laid down by the IAM and automatically adopted by any group wishing to be affiliated with the IAM. But, I'm happy to be disabused of that notion.

Winding-Up
4.29 If the Group Committee by a simple majority decide at any time that on the ground of expense or otherwise it is necessary or advisable to wind up the Group, it shall call a meeting of all Group Full Members , of which meeting not less than 21 days but not more than 60 days notice in writing shall be given. If such decision shall be confirmed by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at such meeting, the Group Committee shall wind up the Group. Any surplus assets remaining after the settlement of all liabilities shall be handed over to the Council of the Institute to be applied for the Institute’s charitable objects. If the Institute is no longer in existence when the Group is wound up, then the surplus assets shall be paid to such charity or charities as the Group Committee shall select; to be applied for similar charitable purposes.
[my emphasis]

I'd be interested to hear if this paragraph is incorporated into other groups' constitutions.

[crr003]

...
Winding-Up
4.29 If the Group Committee by a simple majority decide at any time that on the ground of expense or otherwise it is necessary or advisable to wind up the Group, it shall call a meeting of all Group Full Members , of which meeting not less than 21 days but not more than 60 days notice in writing shall be given. If such decision shall be confirmed by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at such meeting, the Group Committee shall wind up the Group. Any surplus assets remaining after the settlement of all liabilities shall be handed over to the Council of the Institute to be applied for the Institute’s charitable objects. If the Institute is no longer in existence when the Group is wound up, then the surplus assets shall be paid to such charity or charities as the Group Committee shall select; to be applied for similar charitable purposes.
[my emphasis]

I'd be interested to hear if this paragraph is incorporated into other groups' constitutions.

I haven't had my finger on the throbbing pulse of Group politics for a while, but I remember our Group trying to modify something in the Constitution and being told we had signed up to something in 2000 which was a standard constitution for all affiliated Groups.
This paragraph is worded the same as the last one I saw.

[Strangely Brown]

The concern we have with RoADA is that we might find ourselves in the same position we have with IAM.

In what way? And why do you think that?

[Trebor]

The IAM RoadSmart Affiliate Group Handbook states, on page 18, pretty much the same as what hir wrote, i.e.:

Winding-up
If the group committee by a simple majority decides at any time on any grounds it is necessary or advisable to disband or wind
up the group, the Secretary shall convene an EGM as set out in this Handbook with a resolution for the winding up of the group.
A resolution to wind up the group shall require a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to be carried, whereupon the
committee shall instigate the winding up the group.
Any surplus assets remaining after settlement of all liabilities shall be immediately transferred to IAM RoadSmart to be applied in
pursuance of IAM RoadSmart’s charitable objects.
1. For groups in England and Wales, if IAM RoadSmart is no longer in existence when the group is wound up, then the
surplus assets will be paid to such charity or charities as the group committee will select to be applied for similar
charitable purposes.
2. For groups in Scotland, if IAM RoadSmart is no longer in existence, the residuary assets will be paid to such charity
or charities as the group committee will select, which are charitable in accordance with Section 7 of the Charities and
Trustee investment (Scotland) Act 2005.
3. For groups in Northern Ireland, if IAM RoadSmart is no longer in existence, the residuary assets will be paid in
accordance with guidance issued by the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland, as contained in the publication
entitled “Mergers and Closures”, to such charity or charities as the group committee will select, to be applied for similar
charitable purposes.”

I believe this Handbook sets out the conditions that all Groups have to sign up for when they are accepted by IAMRS as an Affiliate Group.

[jcochrane]

I do hope you are wrong about the group funds. The money is not theirs but belongs to the members. I thought that if the group were to dissolve then funds had to be returned to the members. Although in our case we would still continue what we are doing but without the interference of the IAM. It would mean a group vote on this.

Hi John,

This is an extract from the Group Rules of one of the many IAM group's that I've been associated with. I have always assumed that they were a standard set of rules as laid down by the IAM and automatically adopted by any group wishing to be affiliated with the IAM. But, I'm happy to be disabused of that notion.

Winding-Up
4.29 If the Group Committee by a simple majority decide at any time that on the ground of expense or otherwise it is necessary or advisable to wind up the Group, it shall call a meeting of all Group Full Members , of which meeting not less than 21 days but not more than 60 days notice in writing shall be given. If such decision shall be confirmed by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at such meeting, the Group Committee shall wind up the Group. Any surplus assets remaining after the settlement of all liabilities shall be handed over to the Council of the Institute to be applied for the Institute’s charitable objects. If the Institute is no longer in existence when the Group is wound up, then the surplus assets shall be paid to such charity or charities as the Group Committee shall select; to be applied for similar charitable purposes.
[my emphasis]

I'd be interested to hear if this paragraph is incorporated into other groups' constitutions.

Thanks John for this.

We pay an annual subscription to the IAM and a separate subscription to the group for the group. It raises the question in my mind whether it is ethical for the IAM to lay claim to group funds?

[Strangely Brown]

We pay an annual subscription to the IAM and a separate subscription to the group for the group. It raises the question in my mind whether it is ethical for the IAM to lay claim to group funds?

Ethical is irrelevant. Is it legal?