IAM/RoSPA are currently struggling to attract young(er) people to their organisations and have so far failed to pinpoint why. I have my own thoughts on why this is, but I'm wondering if people could post things which would stop them joining an organisation to improve their driving.... I wanted it to be free-form so I've not added a poll, but here are a few questions.

- is it the word "advanced"?

- do you think the standard is unobtainable?

- is it the "wheel shuffler", leather string back driving glove image?

- cost?

- time?

- nothing wrong with my current driving!

- all road based and no track?

- very poor marketing/advertising of the benefits?

Chris

A lot of youngsters fail to admit there is any way they can improve their driving!

Its uncool.

Young people generally aren't aware of such organisations and what they have to offer.

And personally, I attended my first meeting over 2 years ago now, and remember being very intimidated, primarily because of the age of other members!

I think Tom hit the nail on the head with his first line. Its because youngsters fail to see anything wrong with the way they drive.

The IAM has a reputation for teaching people to drive by shuffling the steering wheel around etc. Perhaps they shoul dtry and get a feature in Max Power etc. ?

When I had breakdown cover with GEM, I used to receive their magazine "Good Motoring"...amongst the adverts for mono-slippers and stair lifts, there were many articles and letters from IAM members.

Reading these...well, very soporific. IAM members seem to be passionate about one thing, and that's rules rather than driving. Methods tend to be accepted and followed in a dogmatic manner, and this becomes apparent if you question an IAM member's techniques - it's usually because that's "The System", rather than being able to explain a provable benefit.

Getting up early on a Sunday morning and paying to be indoctrinated rather than enthused/educated isn't an attractive proposition...

Rob.

I joined the IAM a few months ago and have learnt a few things, but mainly its to hone the skills i already have. I found it intimidating at first as most members are in their 50's only 3 were my age (guess which group i headed over too).

There are somethings i dont agree with in the IAM, one being sticking to 30mph on a deserted road whilst some c--- is stuck up your **** flashing you, i think they should look at moving along with the pace as all drivers do on that one.

The IAM im a member at do occassionly organise skid pan days and other track events, but its not much benefit to most when they wont drive it like its stolen to get the skids etc that the instructors there are trying to get them to do.

There is also not much call for the advance test by insurers, perhaps if they organised more discount on insurers people would be more interested, but with splashing out £80 ish you need an insurer to give you at least 25% discount to make it viable.

Ive also recently down a SAFED course which goes against some of the things that IAM teach, SAFED try to keep you in 5th gear going up a hill, where as IAM tell you to select the right gear before going up the hill so this is something else that puts drivers off as one course says one thing to another.

IAM members seem to be passionate about one thing, and that's rules rather than driving.

This is one of my pet hates, especially when people wrap them in silly phrases "when in town, windows down". It's cold and it's raining ... I think I'll actually keep the windows closed if that's ok?

The better observers tend to get their candidates to think about their driving and why they do things, rather than telling them what they should be doing in that particular situation (after all the observer isn't going to be there all the time). Sadly the quality of observers is very variable and bad observers create more bad observers ad infinitum.

Chris

This is one of my pet hates, especially when people wrap them in silly phrases "when in town, windows down".

Those always reminds me of the driving instructor from Lee and Herring's show "Fist of Fun"...for example "Peter Dibdin's Order and Meaning Of The Traffic Lights Sign" song...

Peter Dibdin's Driving Instructors Page

Rob.

This thread is actually putting me off :eek:

When I learnt to drive back in the olden days it seemed to be the in thing to do after passing your test because of the insurance benefits mainly. I remember my driving instructor going through the benefits of gaining some advanced lessons the day I passed my test, but I couln't afford to do it at the time. Then our driving centre got closed down I think.

I have absolutely no idea what the course entails apart from someone sitting in the car with you and teaching you better awareness etc. So from my point of view the problem seems to be poor advertising/marketing aswell as younger people probably feeling they don't want some old wrinkly sat in the car telling them what they are doing wrong.

There are somethings i dont agree with in the IAM, one being sticking to 30mph on a deserted road whilst some c--- is stuck up your **** flashing you, i think they should look at moving along with the pace as all drivers do on that one.

You think an advanced motoring organisation should encourage people to break the law systematically, then?

There is also not much call for the advance test by insurers, perhaps if they organised more discount on insurers people would be more interested, but with splashing out £80 ish you need an insurer to give you at least 25% discount to make it viable.

So your insurance is a mere £320 a year? Please tell me your insurer

Ive also recently down a SAFED course which goes against some of the things that IAM teach, SAFED try to keep you in 5th gear going up a hill, where as IAM tell you to select the right gear before going up the hill so this is something else that puts drivers off as one course says one thing to another.

I think it may be worthwhile testing to see which is more economical. 5th gear up hill either indicates a very shallow slope, or a car which is being made to struggle at low revs which while possibly economical, is far from mechanically sympathetic. Engaging the gear in plenty of time allows you to concentrate on driving up the hill rather than trying to eke a few more yards out of a high gear before being forced into a hurried change just as your car's about to stall.

This makes me sound like a typical IAM driver, maybe, but I do think you've picked out a selection of items that happen to show just how people tend to react to the advanced motoring organisations, without really thinking about what's behind the things they teach.

There is also not much call for the advance test by insurers, perhaps if they organised more discount on insurers people would be more interested, but with splashing out £80 ish you need an insurer to give you at least 25% discount to make it viable.

I know of 2 brokers who offer discounts for IAM/RoSPA (25%) and also Admiral do as well, although I can't remember the amount for them.

My insurance is currently £388 so the discount more than paid for the cost of the test

Chris

I have absolutely no idea what the course entails apart from someone sitting in the car with you and teaching you better awareness etc. So from my point of view the problem seems to be poor advertising/marketing

I 100% agree with this. Young people only have the experience of being taught to drive by BSM etc. And no one will willingly go back to that once they've passed and have their freedom.

Unless you can explain to them what the course actually entails and how it will benefit you as a driver a young, broke, new driver will never see any reason to start 'learning' when they've recently got a qualification saying they can drive.

As I said in the 'taster' thread (not that I'm 'young' anymore) I've been looking at RoSPA, even bought the Roadcraft, but to be totally honest I still have no idea what the course is, or how it's organised, or anything. All I've figured out is that I should go to a local meeting (in a pub, it seems) and talk to some people about how I want to drive better. That's rather intimidating considering I'm basically turning up to a place I've never been to get a person I've never met to sit in my car and tell me how badly I drive.

Information will overcome most of the mystery about what IAM/RoSPA actually is and allow these 'young drivers' to make an informed decision as to whether it can help them. You'll never be able to convince them if they don't see the merit. Obviously 25% off insurance would help, but unless that prolific it's not much use.

Thanks for all the replies. My personal feeling is that the IAM/RoSPA are stuck in a very difficult position. They are unable to turn a blind eye to law breaking because the test is examined by police/ex-police drivers, which means that a lot of people "who like to drive fast" are not attracted to it.

I also don't think the words 'safe' or 'safety' in their marketing does them any favours either. Interesting comments about the groups though - I've yet to go to a group meeting for my RoSPA group I think the problem with age is a cyclic one - young people are put off because it's full of old people, but it's full of old people because all the young people don't join!

So the next question ..... what could they do to attract you? Informal taster sessions? Advertising with scantily clad women? Better/more consistent quality of coaches/tutors? More flexibility in their attitude to speed? Better grille badges?

Chris

They could advertise in the local paper for a start. Every now and again in the square of our main town we have a safety awareness day. This is attended by fire brigade, pursuit vehicles, safety camera unit etc etc. This would be a great opportunity for them to have a stand and info leaflets to show what they do. Maybe show a video of someone actually going through the procedure aswell as a questions and answer session.

I would definetely not want to go to a pub and talk about how carp my driving is. I would want one to one tuition in my car and that tutor testing me.

how people tend to react to the advanced motoring organisations, without really thinking about what's behind the things they teach.

But to pick one example to counter...advanced driving (from an "outsiders" point of view, admittedly) seems to mostly cater for driving defensively, eg. it's not how fast you can get round the corner, it's ensuring you can stop in the distance you can see, and things like that. Human fallibility seems to be key, and as such taking steps to minimise the potential impact of a human error is emphasised heavily.

And yet, at the same time, they promote not indicating if you can't see anyone who'd benefit?! Given that, even with the best of observation, human error dictates that a mistake is likely to happen at some point surely it would make more sense to encourage indication "just in case"...at least that would then give someone else the opportunity of helping you out if you haven't seen them but they've seen your signal!

I've asked pretty much all advanced drivers I've come across in the last 6 years or so for a logical counter to this which justifies this teaching, but I've yet to come across anything less dogmatic and unhelpful as "it's the System", "it's so you're not in autopilot" (hmm), "well, such-and-such said it and he's an advanced police driver", etc.

I've found religious followers are more willing than IAM members to question their faith/beliefs...

Rob.

Anyone is at liberty to adopt a policy of always indicating if they wish.

In my experience of RoSPA (can't speak for IAM), the meetings are friendly events where in our case, we drink tea and eat biscuits (OK so we don't meet in a pub), and have talks from motoring-related people (well apart from the one on aromatherapy lol). Any criticism is strictly between the associate and his observer. In my case the criticism consisted of both positive and negative, the negatives being given as very gentle hints by a chap so nice you'd be hard pressed to call him anything other than a good mate, after 2 or 3 drives.

You couldn't be tested by your tutor, for very obvious reasons. The test is a test, and would lose its value if it was not carried out in a fair and methodical manner by an impartial examiner. It's scarier than the observed drives, but again, the examiner in my case was at pains to put me at ease, and my nerves wore off fairly quickly.

I would definetely not want to go to a pub and talk about how carp my driving is. I would want one to one tuition in my car and that tutor testing me.

This was part of the reason behind the taster sessions, especially going out for an informal drive to see what it's all about and also with someone you knew (even if only virtually). I've yet to go out with someone who has been "crap" - ok people may have some annoying habits that need breaking - but a lot of the time it's just trying to make them a bit more systematic in the way they approach things....

Chris

Anyone is at liberty to adopt a policy of always indicating if they wish.

But if I'm just going to drive as I think best, doesn't that rather defeat the point of paying for someone to teach me how to improve my driving?

Rob.

I don't know where you get this idea that you're paying anybody!

IAM and RoSPA observers are all volunteers. The examiner gets paid expenses for attending the test (most are serving Police officers with a day job to do). RoSPA is a registered charity.

I've asked pretty much all advanced drivers I've come across in the last 6 years or so for a logical counter to this which justifies this teaching, but I've yet to come across anything less dogmatic and unhelpful as "it's the System", "it's so you're not in autopilot" (hmm), "well, such-and-such said it and he's an advanced police driver", etc.

This is a very valid point, although you missed out the "I'm an advanced driver therefore I am infallible" quote I think there are certainly cases where a signal is not necessary, and as such, I'll not bother, but I tend to be considering reasons why I should not be giving a signal, rather than reasons why I should give a signal. May well be a waste of processing power (and god knows that is limited enough in my case!) but I find it helps me to look more closely at what I'm seeing. I think it also limits the use of signals which may be misleading/confusing.

Chris

I'd say

- is it the "wheel shuffler", leather string back driving glove image?

Yes as soon as I mentioned the above to my friends their interest they had went out the window. I'd say most people think adavanced driving is how to drive fast.

- nothing wrong with my current driving!

Lets face it I'm the best driver their is. Its everyone else who needs the training.

- very poor marketing/advertising of the benefits?

For people who driving isnt a hobby. How would you know their is such a thing and where would you look even if your knew?

I don't know where you get this idea that you're paying anybody!

It costs £85 to do IAM's "Skills For Life" course...so while I may not be paying an instructor an hourly rate for tutoring, I'm still exchanging money for skills.

If an instructor is teaching me skills which they can't justify in order to pass an exam they set, I tend to become a bit cynical.

£85 would cover the cost of a copy of RoadCraft and the fuel for about 800 miles practicing the techniques...

Rob.

It costs £85 to do IAM's "Skills For Life" course....

I paind £65. Plus I get it back when I pass :P

How do you get it back, John? Are you talking about an insurance discount?

£65 for under 25s Rob.

You're exchanging money for a book and some admin, in the case of IAM. Your observer/tutor gets no money. You get the benefit of their experience and expertise, over (in some cases) many many hours of their free time, either evenings or weekends.

As an incentive to improve their employee's driving, some companies offer to reimburse you the cost of the test on passing. I know IBM do, but they only recognise IAM.....

Chris

I paind £65. Plus I get it back when I pass :P

We're not all "fortunate" enough to be under 25... :P

How does the getting it back when you pass work? Is that just the offset against a reduced insurance policy, or is there some other scheme/scam going?

Rob.