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

[Gareth]

- I definitely consume more fuel

I think it can go well beyond satisfaction but fun doesn't sell, does it!

[GTR1400MAN]

The fun factor is why promoting/selling to riders is easier (though still often a struggle) as most are riding because they want to rather than they have to. It's why bike groups thrive more as there is the social side of getting out on their bikes, just for the ride (and a bacon sarnie of hunk of cake). Although social riding is not something HQ recognise (all rides have to have a training/observing element).

[Horse]

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.

so it seems to me that somehow there is a disconnect between the lower and higher echelons of the organisation.

Someone is interviewing them and choosing those up 'higher'. If it's been consistent results and views for some time, is that your disconnect?

[M1ke H]

Someone is interviewing them and choosing those up 'higher'. If it's been consistent results and views for some time, is that your disconnect?

As someone alluded to earlier, if eg the CEO and Director positions are appointments of the Trustees, then the disconnect is between the Trustees and the membership. However, once appointed, senior management should take on board the views of the team below them and also the views of the membership. If it were not a charity, then the CEO/Senior Management team would, one would hope, be taking account of the views of their shareholders/stakeholders!

[Horse]

Blimey! This thread has more twists and whirls than a Spirograph pattern.

we all know that it's difficult to sell "advanced driving".

Is this a case of only knowing about the sausage you have when actually you need to sell the sizzle? If it's not easy to state (clearly and concisely) what benefits someone is likely to gain from the IAM, then selling it to anyone isn't already interested could be challenge.

So, what are those worthwhile benefits?

I see

But:
- if they don't have an accident / injure themselves / die
- if they don't cause anyone else to be in an accident / injured / or die

then is that not sufficient driving level?

Both IAM and RoSPA have an uphill task in persuading the general public to take an interest in improving their driving. It’s not easy,

See above

It's a paradox, isn't it? One of the best sets of road safety stats in the World Vs all this terrible driving.

As above, if there are real benefits from 'advanced' driving, shouldn't they be incorporated into 'L' training so that every driver benefits instead of just the few who voluntarily take further training?

The fun factor is why promoting/selling to riders is easier (though still often a struggle) as most are riding because they want to rather than they have to.

It would be interesting to know how much of a draw (Vs 'safety' or skills training) the social side is. Or is the attraction of yellow waistcoats?

Couple of things: typically, people who voluntarily take training are self-selecting, so it's not easy to do any valid research on the benefits, outcomes, from advanced training. Which is why the research:
https://www.devittinsurance.com/guides/ ... er-riders/
Is worrying.

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.

Advanced riders also have different types of collision. They’re more likely to be in single-vehicle crashes, and those where they drop their own bike. Is that because they often have bigger bikes and dare tackle rougher terrain? The research doesn’t say.

Riders who’ve completed advanced training are also less likely to be involved in right-turn, ‘loss of control’ collisions and rear-end shunts than others. Encouragingly, the ‘difference in miles travelled before a collision’ is statistically significant, says Agilysis.

The research threw up two other interesting points. IAM RoadSmart members tend to ride faster than others. The study says this might be because they are more confident riders, which is ‘not necessarily a bad thing’. They do recommend finding ways of ensuring members don’t get too confident, however.

Is this suggesting that IAM changes the type of crashes that riders have - but doesn't really make riders safer? And that it changes - reduces, even - how they take responsibility for crashes they've been involved in. So, is it the training content, or the riders who self-select? The riding faster aspect has been seen before:

Stradling & Ormston
EVALUATING BIKESAFE SCOTLAND
... Whiel the proportion of participants saying that they would normally ride below the speed limit in built-up area increased after participation in Bikesafe, the proportion saying that they would ride above the speed limit on faster roads in non built up areas also increased. Since there is a high proportion of fatal and serious accidents in non built up areas, this may represent an unintended risk compensation effect of the training scheme.

Another question is, in the 15 months since the Agilysis research was published - and IAM would have known well in advance of publication what the findings would be - has anything been done to further investigate these issues, or alter training content to address the seeming shortfalls?

[Strangely Brown]

Blimey! This thread has more twists and whirls than a Spirograph pattern.

we all know that it's difficult to sell "advanced driving".

Is this a case of only knowing about the sausage you have when actually you need to sell the sizzle? If it's not easy to state (clearly and concisely) what benefits someone is likely to gain from the IAM, then selling it to anyone isn't already interested could be challenge.

So, what are those worthwhile benefits?

From Roadcraft - 1977 edition - "The Blue Book".

... the more confidence and knowledge at a driver's disposal, the greater his capacity for enjoying and taking pride in his driving.

It was true then and it's still true now.

As I said in a previous post:

So, why do people have music lessons/coaching in order to play better. Isn't the tune recognisable already? To varying degrees can you not ask the same question of pretty much any coaching?

Personally, I think Joe Schmoe and John Q. Public are not the right target audience. They will only ever want to get better - and they have to want to first - if, any only if they have been exposed to the "higher" standards and can see for themselves something that they want.

The target audience should be as it always has been. i.e. Those drivers who want to improve already.

Otherwise... you can lead a horse etc etc.

[Horse]

we all know that it's difficult to sell "advanced driving".

Is this a case of only knowing about the sausage you have when actually you need to sell the sizzle? If it's not easy to state (clearly and concisely) what benefits someone is likely to gain from the IAM, then selling it to anyone isn't already interested could be challenge.

So, what are those worthwhile benefits?

From Roadcraft - 1977 edition - "The Blue Book".

... the more confidence and knowledge at a driver's disposal, the greater his capacity for enjoying and taking pride in his driving.

It was true then and it's still true now.

So, why do people have music lessons/coaching in order to play better. Isn't the tune recognisable already? To varying degrees can you not ask the same question of pretty much any coaching?

Personally, I think Joe Schmoe and John Q. Public are not the right target audience. They will only ever want to get better - and they have to want to first - if, any only if they have been exposed to the "higher" standards and can see for themselves something that they want.

The target audience should be as it always has been. i.e. Those drivers who want to improve already.

Otherwise... you can lead a horse etc etc.

Would I be that Horse?

I've been involved in rider training since 1979, 'advanced' training since 1988, have post-test instructor qualifications from the UK and USA. If I didn't think that *good* training 'worked' then I wouldn't have stayed involved.

However, I did move away from 'advanced to test' to focus on problem solving. I enjoyed it more and it gave far more tangible outcomes.

For musicians, those outcomes can be measured: same person before and after with increased abilities and skills. Big difference, though: be able to demonstrate Grade 6 scales and performance pieces might be life improving - but it isn't being identified in the blurb as life saving.

IAM RoadSmart is the UK's leading road safety charity ... we’ve spent more than 60 years making our roads safer by improving driver and rider skills through coaching and education.


So why does IAM's own rider research throw up the results that I quoted?

Also, you have identified the big 'sales' stumbling block:
can see for themselves something that they want.

Can that 'something' not be put into words, then proven?

[Gareth]

if there are real benefits from 'advanced' driving, shouldn't they be incorporated into 'L' training so that every driver benefits instead of just the few who voluntarily take further training?

Learners learn how to do legal then, apparently, promptly forget. They're sometimes taught less than helpful rules of thumb ... 1 second in 1st, 2 seconds in 2nd, 3 seconds in 3rd, ...

If we were to assume that advanced <anything> is about learning (to do) something at a higher skill level, how well equipped are most novices to do this, how much extra training might it take, and how well will it stick?

[Strangely Brown]

Otherwise... you can lead a horse etc etc.

Would I be that Horse?

I was aware as I typed that the connection may be made, but no. It is simply "a" horse. Lowercase "h". Not "the" Horse. Uppercase "H".

The point being that it doesn't matter how much demonstration or teaching someone receives, if they don't make the connection and see something that they want then it will never stick.

Also, you have identified the big 'sales' stumbling block:
can see for themselves something that they want.

Can that 'something' not be put into words, then proven?

I really don't know the answer to that. Everyone is going to be different and what clicks with one person is not necessarily the same thing that will click with another. It may be that for some there is nothing that any conventional approach will do for them. I know of one person who has, for as long as I have known them, had the attitude that they have passed their test and that is all they need. They are almost openly hostile to the very idea that they could learn something new and/or of benefit. Yes, I am aware that could well speak to a deeper problem that is unrelated to driving. I am also quite certain that they are not alone in that view and that it may even be quite commonplace.

It doesn't help when Top Gear [used to] refer to the IAM as "wheel shufflers" with the associated double coffe-beans hand action. Some of the very people that could probably benefit the most from the education are the very people that make up their core audience.

I see nothing to change my belief that the only people who will ever benefit from AD are those that "find it" for themselves, however that may happen.

[Strangely Brown]

For musicians, those outcomes can be measured: same person before and after with increased abilities and skills. Big difference, though: be able to demonstrate Grade 6 scales and performance pieces might be life improving - but it isn't being identified in the blurb as life saving.

Do you believe that driving skills and performance cannot be measured pre and post training. If it is not measurable then how does testing work?

You say that the blurb does not mention it being identified as life saving? If you have a copy of Roadcraft - 1977 Blue Book then read the introduction. Specifically the sentence immediately after the one I quoted earlier.