IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
sussex2
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:43 am

Re: IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Postby sussex2 » Wed Apr 27, 2022 3:27 pm

Triquet wrote:I quite like the French 120 dry / 110 wet system. It does seem to be adhered to fairly well. You always get the odd 140 plus who zip past but it's a reasonable compromise. Oh yes, and the M40 is quite a pleasant drive. Except when it's not.


130 dry and 110 wet?

sussex2
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:43 am

Re: IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Postby sussex2 » Wed Apr 27, 2022 3:29 pm

TR4ffic wrote:
jcochrane wrote:Very disillusioned with the direction the IAM is going these days.


That's why I decided not to renew my membership last year... Mainly prompted by the survey at the time about how to reduce accidents/fatalities on rural roads (I think it was) where there was no option for additional training and the majority of respondents thought a mandatory 50mph limit would do the trick.

Not only did it show a lack of understanding and focus on core values by the IAM, but also showed the thinking of the majority of the current membership - both vastly different from mine...

The IAM's days must be numbered..!


I was disillusioned by the IAM 30 years ago and the organisation has done nothing to change that sense.

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Postby Horse » Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:12 pm

GTR1400MAN wrote:Latest Facebook post is to promote this site http://www.eliteriderhub.co.uk

Seems an odd thing to do. Promote your 'competitors' :? :roll:


To be fair, it does include the IAM in the list ;)

As I've mentioned before, one of the reasons that I bailed on the BMF was a promo video which included a clip of Motag, an 'opposition' organisation.
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Postby Horse » Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:06 pm

crr003 wrote:
Horse wrote:And roads of the 1980s are not what they used to be either.

Have people changed? Eyesight and reflexes etc won't have evolved in 40 years.

So what are you saying? Reduce speed limits!
Those europeans have faster motorway limits; you don't hear them complaining.


Blimey, you managed to extrapolate a lot from a few words.

Let's take roads. Vast improvements, particularly in terms of things like the strength of barriers.

However, there's been a massive increase in traffic along with a dramatic increase in development alongside roads and, subsequently, decreased speed limits and far more double white line systems.

My experience is only of central South England. One example of a road I've used regularly over the last 40 years, the A30 from Hook to Basingstoke.

It was 30 to National, 5 or 6 miles, to 30.
Now 30 40 50 60 National 40 National 30.

It doesn't matter how much better cars are (and the drivers' capabilities have effectively remained unchanged, unless you know otherwise), the opportunities to use those improvements is more limited.

For drivers' capabilities, eyesight hasn't improved in 40 years, neither have reactions. Arguably, there are more distractions away from the driving task now, and some argue that lower speed limits can result in reduced concentration on driving. It could also be argued that increased numbers of road users, more signs and markings, etc., etc., mean that drivers have 'busier' more cluttered, environments to drive in.

Since the UK is supposed to have the second safest roads in Europe, what safety lessons can we learn about motorways? Higher speeds might not 'cause' more crashes, but they are likely to affect the outcomes.
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.

User avatar
jont-
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:12 am
Location: Herefordshire

Re: IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Postby jont- » Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:30 am

Horse wrote:However, there's been a massive increase in traffic along with a dramatic increase in development alongside roads and, subsequently, decreased speed limits and far more double white line systems.

Perhaps if we focussed on getting a significant fraction of shit drivers off the roads, we could go back to having nice things (like sensible speed limits and fewer DWLs) :idea: Rather than pandering to an ever lower common denominator.

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Postby Horse » Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:52 am

jont- wrote:Perhaps if we focussed on getting a significant fraction of shit drivers off the roads,


Decided on what basis?

https://www.devittinsurance.com/guides/ ... er-riders/

IAM RoadSmart asked Agilysis – leading transport behaviour and safety consultants – to get to the bottom of this mystery. And the data threw up some welcome, at times surprising, answers.

The good news for advanced riders is that they are indeed involved in fewer collisions per mile than riders who have not completed advanced rider coaching. The survey of around 1,300 riders also revealed that advanced riders are more aware of other drivers and riders’ limitations and more likely to show consideration for other road users.
...
The research exposed curious anomalies however – and they won’t all be welcomed by advanced training advocates. Drill down into the data and it shows that while advanced riders have fewer collisions per mile once their higher mileage is accounted for, IAM RoadSmart members do not report fewer injury and ‘damage-only’ collisions per respondent. In fact they have ‘similar proportions of collision involvement’ to others. They are also less likely to believe they were at fault, although that’s not much consolation if you’ve been knocked off.
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.

User avatar
jont-
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:12 am
Location: Herefordshire

Re: IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Postby jont- » Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:53 am

Horse wrote:Decided on what basis?

Well, you could start by having some trafpol and taking driving licenses away from the significant number of folk who can't drive at a standard expected for an L-test? :lol: Otherwise following your logic if training provides no value, why do we even bother with that as a base standard?

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Postby Horse » Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:37 am

jont- wrote:Well, you could start by having some trafpol and taking driving licenses away from the significant number of folk who can't drive at a standard expected for an L-test? :lol:


The linked article referred to research involving IAM members. What's the relevance of only mentioning the L test if 'advanced' riders don't seem substantially better at staying upright?

jont- wrote: Otherwise following your logic if training provides no value, why do we even bother with that as a base standard?


I've answered this many times.

I think that good training can be effective. But not all training is.

If I didn't believe that, then I wouldn't have continued my involvement.

Now, what I think may not be correct. However, have a look at things like:
- GDE Matrix
- 'Insight' training Vs 'skills'
- Theory of planned behaviour
- Surprise and Startle

If the survey is correct, then either the outcomes from the IAM experience were not fit for purpose, or it had the wrong purpose and achieved it. Which do you think?

jont- wrote: your logic


They night shoot horses, but don't shoot the messenger.
Perhaps, instead, consider whether changes should (must?) be considered?

Edit: this just came up on LinkedIn:

"it wouldn't be the internet if people were just playing the ball and not the person"
- Provan, 2022
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.

vanman
Posts: 402
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:16 pm
Location: Caterham Surrey

Re: IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Postby vanman » Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:31 pm

Horse wrote: ‘similar proportions of collision involvement’ to others. They are also less likely to believe they were at fault,[/b] although that’s not much consolation if you’ve been knocked off.[/i]

Can't really comment on the bikers but the car drivers tend to take the test and I presume think that is it. Our group for many years have offered free assessment drives to all members, a few take up the offer but not many. So no real surprise that the accident rates are similar to non members after a while, the situation could actually be worse as members believe they are still up to snuff having only paid up every year to remain members.

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: IAM Roadsmart’s car crash on social media

Postby Horse » Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:39 pm

vanman wrote:no real surprise that the accident rates are similar to non members after a while


That's the odd thing, though, the type of crash is different.

So the training could have achieved *something*

vanman wrote:could actually be worse as members believe they are still up to snuff having only paid up every year to remain members.


In which case, the difference in acknowledging fault is interesting. Some sort of feeling of superiority and infallibility? Until they run out of talent? ;)
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests