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

[Gareth]

We pay [...] 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?

If it was agreed when the local charity became affiliated with the national charity, as a condition of that affiliation, the only issue that arises is with the funds collected by the local charity prior to making that agreement but, since that was probably years ago, it's a moot point.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Just to add a voice from "the other side", RoSPA is going much the same way but in a slightly more oblique way. Its parent organisation is and always has been Safety motivated, and while in the past the drivers and riders were allowed to carry on in an independent fashion, basing their training etc. on Roadcraft and with strong affiliations to the Police, of late the independence of the RoADAR part (the name is now obsolete by the way) has been curtailed. The Care on the Road publication that comes out once a month and bolsters my own recycling, takes a more and more Brake-like tone with every issue. Apart from the 3 yearly retests (and Gareth is uncommon in finding them a negative point - most members find them to be the positive differentiator that sways them in favour of RoSPA), there's very little to choose, I would argue.

[hir]

We pay [...] 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?

If it was agreed when the local charity became affiliated with the national charity, as a condition of that affiliation, the only issue that arises is with the funds collected by the local charity prior to making that agreement but, since that was probably years ago, it's a moot point.

Agreed. In addition to the group trustee's legal requirement to comply with the group's constitution lodged with the Charity Commissioners, the IAM will no doubt remind any group that is minded to secede that some of their monies originate from IAM HQ. I'm thinking of the £31 per associate that is handed over to the groups.

The only way out of this issue would be to do as someone else has suggested and spend all remaining funds on strictly charitable activities in accordance with the group's constitution - and then, when there's no money left, dis-affiliate.

But then, the group would have no funds. And the money question would then be... would all of the existing group members continue to pay an annual subscription to what is now an unaffiliated group? Maybe not.

[hir]

Just to add a voice from "the other side", RoSPA is going much the same way but in a slightly more oblique way. Its parent organisation is and always has been Safety motivated, and while in the past the drivers and riders were allowed to carry on in an independent fashion, basing their training etc. on Roadcraft and with strong affiliations to the Police, of late the independence of the RoADAR part (the name is now obsolete by the way) has been curtailed. The Care on the Road publication that comes out once a month and bolsters my own recycling, takes a more and more Brake-like tone with every issue. Apart from the 3 yearly retests (and Gareth is uncommon in finding them a negative point - most members find them to be the positive differentiator that sways them in favour of RoSPA), there's very little to choose, I would argue.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner, so good to hear from you again! I trust you are well.

You're quite right about the RoSPA side of things. In addition to being an IAM observer of 20 years standing I'm also a RoADAR, or whatever it's now called, tutor of similar standing (yes, I know, the words masochist and self-mortification immediately spring to mind).

I regard RoADAR in exactly the same way in which I regard the IAM. They send me associates; which makes me happy. And that's it. It enables me to indulge my masochistic and self-mortification tendencies without too much effort or expense.

[Trebor]

Ethical is irrelevant. Is it legal?

Now that is the question. I've often wondered if one charity can insist it has first call on another charities money based on a document of affiliation.

[Horse]

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?

As I suggested earlier: spend it, in a completely justifiable manner, such as improving Observer driving.

Edit: I've now just seen hir's post. To clarify, I'm not suggesting bankrupting the Group

[hir]

How sad - that a person who would be quoted like that should be IAM Roadsmart Policy Director.

I agree. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency over recent years for the IAM to jump feet first into many a road safety debate as the go-to "rent a quote" for the media and journalists, without too much thought as to exactly what the IAM and its members actually believe. And it's often embarrassing.

The cause goes back many years to when a long-gone CEO declared that the IAM would be raising its profile and would seek to be the media's "go-to" organization on all things road safety. At the time BRAKE appeared to have that monopoly, understandably, because a large proportion of its membership had tragically suffered from losing loved ones as a result of bad driving and their self-promotion carried a very emotional message. And still does. The IAM, as an advanced driving organisation, has a much less emotional message to broadcast and one which is generally of little or no interest to the general public. So, what did the IAM do to raise its profile? It attempted to emulate the success of BRAKE by focussing first and foremost on road safety and re-positioned itself as a road-safety organisation. I know at the time that the Charity Commissioners were making noises about the IAM charitable side perhaps not being more inclusive of the wider population, so that may have had some influence.

The problem with this approach, as far as the IAM membership is concerned, is that they believe that safety on the road results from the better training of drivers, not "go-to sound bites" about not speeding everywhere. The membership believes, unlike, it seems, some previous senior IAM managers, that improved road safety emanates from training drivers to adopt a systematic approach to dealing with road hazards; to observe, anticipate, and plan. The problem that all of us have, not just IAM senior management, is how to spread the word to a general public who believe that they're already excellent drivers, and are completely deaf to any suggestion that they should improve further.

I've said this directly to every CEO of the last ten years or more, and I'll say it to the current CEO, if he's reading this, what the IAM is selling is education. And we all know that education is very hard to sell. The desire for education has to come from within the individual. To be receptive to education the individual has to have reached a state of conscious incompetence, ie. I know I could be better and I want to find someone to help me achieve that. I estimate that 95% of drivers are in a state of unconscious incompetence over their driving. They have no idea how bad they are. They are the ones that the IAM have to target; and it's not easy.

So my message to the IAM's senior management is that we all know that it's difficult to sell "advanced driving". But I suspect that none of you were told that when you applied for the job. So, instead of just carrying on where your predecessor left off and simply focus on the IAM being the go-to "rent-a-quote" for all things road safety, I would urge you to address the much more difficult task of promoting "advanced" driving as it has been practised traditionally by the IAM for the last 60+ years. I know it's not easy, it's much easier to spout on about how speed kills and about wicked speeders, but please make the effort to promote what the IAM actually stands for, better-trained drivers.

[martine]

So Hir that's one of the best quotes I've read here - well done Sir and lets hope IAM RoadSmart read and act on it.

[waremark]

Superb post HIR, please request an early meeting with the incoming CEO.

[M1ke H]

Yes I have to agree with the last two posts, particularly waremark's last post. If they are not told, then they won't know.

That said, I also find the previous comment

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

equally correct based on personal experience, so it seems to me that somehow there is a disconnect between the lower and higher echelons of the organisation.

I was (am) ever hopeful that following my email (and others) a couple of days ago and the subsequent reply that, as I said on the previous page, things can (will?) only get better

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...