I think £65 (or £85 in the case of wrinklies, Rob :haha:) is a pretty reasonable price to pay. Many young people spend far more every week on beer, fags, clothes and other entertainment (doughnuts in Maccy D's carpark perhaps? :P). A little investment in the future won't actually make such a hole in the lifestyle as to be painful for very long.

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.

Oh yes, I'm not disputing where the money goes...it's just that from my point of view it's £85 in exchange for improving my driving. If all I'm going to be taught is "do this even if you don't understand why because the System says so", whether it's £85 or £8.50 IMHO that's not good value.

Would rather put the money towards a decent driving tutorial day if it delivered...

Rob.

Would rather put the money towards a decent driving tutorial day if it delivered...

Have you been out with Jon yet? :P

Chris

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

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

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.

I dont think they should encourage speeding as such, but surely there should be something encouraged here to include some of the ridiculous 30mph limits that the councils are imposing into the middle of nowhere theses days.

My insurance is around 350 quid a year and its with directline.

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!

Rob.

This is something i ended up having a debate about (putting it mildly) as i didnt agree with not indicating if no one is there, i feel this actually causes accidents as by the time the driver has reacted and placed his indicators on thats a few seconds after originally being seen, alot of time and confusion. But they think its showing that you are thinking about your surroundings???

But they think its showing that you are thinking about your surroundings???

There's a good example of this on the Roadcraft video. Imagine you are waiting at a t-junction (signalling right). A car is approaching from your left with his left indicator on. Is that signal of benefit to you? He's slowing down and he's seen you - is it safe to go?

No. As it turns out he's not turning at all and he's signalling to pull up to the kerb just after he's passed you. In that case he was "just signalling" and not thinking about how it is being interpreted and that could have led to an accident.

By all means signal all the time, but the key thinking behind it (and advanced driving is all about "advanced" thinking) is that you are giving information to others around you so you want to make sure you are conveying your intentions unambiguously. Sometimes it is more unambiguous to not signal and allow your vehicle positioning to speak for itself....

Chris

Is that signal of benefit to you? He's slowing down and he's seen you - is it safe to go?

No. As it turns out he's not turning at all and he's signalling to pull up to the kerb just after he's passed you.

But surely this illustrates that ambiguous indicating isn't a good thing (which IIRC is covered at Learner Driver), rather than the IAM mantra of not indicating when you don't think it's necessary?

In the case you've illustrated, at least the presence of the indication would let you know that the driver possibly intends to turn left - you can then start to plan a space to pull into (checking other way, observing in case their are other hazards, etc.). Then if the driver does turn left, you're ready to go. If they don't (and pull up after the junction), you just abandon your plan and repeat the process.

And while the indication may be ambiguous, it would give clear indication to someone following the car that they would be slowing down and moving to the left, whether it's turning at the junction or pulling up at a kerb...

Rob.

its this left indicator thing that failed my first driving test. imho if you indicating to pull up after the junction you do it as you pass the junction. tough luck if it isnt enough time, it will stop misinterpretation of the signal (and an insurance claim).

But also after watching the roadcraft dvd i disagreed with them as if he was slowing down enough to pull up on the left then surely he had enough time to go too ?

Just my 2p worth.

This is something i ended up having a debate about (putting it mildly) as i didnt agree with not indicating if no one is there, i feel this actually causes accidents as by the time the driver has reacted[/b'] and placed his indicators on thats a few seconds after originally being seen, alot of time and confusion. But they think its showing that you are thinking about your surroundings???

Reacted to what? If there was somebody there who would benefit from a signal, by all means give it.

The example was that signalling is all about giving information to others. My take is that if a signal is not going to be beneficial to anyone I can see, or am highly likely to encounter, or worse still, is going to be ambiguous, then the signal is going to do more harm than good and I won't use one.

I'm not sure whether that agrees with what the IAM recommend....

Chris

More than anything else, for me it has to do with:-

1) My personal belief that no single system of "safer" or "performance" driving is applicable in every situation.

2) My uncle (who's the best and safest driver I know) failing his IAM test for "insufficient progress" in a situation where he was driving at the ruling speed limit.

3) Having been chopped or blocked by IAM members on a number of ocasions, mostly because their cars required new headlight bulbs (my car's headlights on dip outranged theirs on full beam).

So each time someone flashes you, you stop them and ask if they're an IAM member?

If your uncle was driving at the speed limit, he should appeal his test failure. Are you sure they meant on the open road, as opposed to roundabouts or junctions?

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.

Its an offer on at the moment. Think you have to pass within the first year. If so IAM refund you your £65 I think. To be honest I've not really looked into. To me £65 isnt alot when you take into account what you get out of it. (not talking about cheaper insurance)

Well, the wheel shuffler remark got me.

I've seen some people doing this sort of wheel-shuffling movement, and it seems counter-intuitive - i thought the whole central theme to the Roadcraft/IAM thing was smoothness........taking a corner with various "steps" doesn't seem smooth and fluid :rubchin:

As for the notion of insurance discounts - I might save £100 for holding an IAM certificate, but then I pay £150 more for various performance enhancing mods......

I also might have misunderstood, but isn't there a yearly few to ensure you have a valid certificate? The DVLA won't require me to do anything like that till I'm 70....

I'm not knocking IAM membership (I'd love to do it, but personal commitments mean I can't make the local group) but it does seem a tad odd on certain levels.

Well, the wheel shuffler remark got me.

I've seen some people doing this sort of wheel-shuffling movement, and it seems counter-intuitive - i thought the whole central theme to the Roadcraft/IAM thing was smoothness........taking a corner with various "steps" doesn't seem smooth and fluid :rubchin:

As with all things, there's many ways of approaching steering. You do get the hard-core who insist on "shuffling". The police tend to use pull/push which is shuffling but using the full length of the wheel between 12 and 6 o'clock. And then there's the rest of us who mix and match. All of them are smooth and fluid in terms of the car, but some can be a bit cringeworthy to watch as a passenger :rofl:

I also might have misunderstood, but isn't there a yearly few to ensure you have a valid certificate? The DVLA won't require me to do anything like that till I'm 70....

IAM is "Skills for life" so it's a one off test. RoSPA has tri-annual retests to force you to keep your skills up-to-date and the cost is swallowed by your annual membership fee.

Chris

:popcorn:

If you apply to take the Advanced Test' date=' or are preparing for it through an IAM ‘Skill For Life’ programme or Fast Track, or if you are a DriveCheck participant, you will be enrolled as an IAM Associate for one year.

If during this period you pass the Test, you will be awarded membership status at no extra charge for the rest of that year, after which you will need to renew your membership annually.

The cost of Membership renewal is currently £18.00.[/quote']

Given that on balance of modification against any insurance discounts (assuming a mythical company that tolerates both) I'd still be out of pocket, it doesn't seem to be a exercise in pure "VFM".

It could be argued that it's a good investment because it will make me a safer driver, but on the other hand, I've gone a decade without an accident....

It almost smacks of the campaign NU are putting out at the moment that show people narrowly missing being crushed by falling debris etc and saying "Buy life insurance now or you could die horribly".........

Maybe, to attract the younger member, the IAM should adopt a similar tactic...

"Buy a certificate saying you're an advanced motorist now or have the Emergency services cut you out of your chavved up Corsa next week"

*Dons personal BBQ Suit and grabs the marshmallows*

Given that on balance of modification against any insurance discounts (assuming a mythical company that tolerates both) I'd still be out of pocket, it doesn't seem to be a exercise in pure "VFM".

If you see it as a cost-saving exercise then you're probably wasting your time looking into doing it. The whole point of the organisations are to make you a better driver. The cost saving is a bonus. If you've been driving for a whole decade accident free, you're almost certainly a fantastic driver and would probably learn nothing from them anyway.

Similarly, I've fitted locks to my windows and doors at home. My home insurance hasn't gone down significantly so I'm out of pocket and I've also never been burgled. I guess my house was safe enough already and it was mis-spent effort.....

Chris

If you see it as a cost-saving exercise then you're probably wasting your time looking into doing it. The whole point of the organisations are to make you a better driver. The cost saving is a bonus. If you've been driving for a whole decade accident free, you're almost certainly a fantastic driver and would probably learn nothing from them anyway.

Clearly tempting fate - i backed into one of the neighbours visitors a moment ago....

But the point i failed to make clearly enough is that, while my car insurance would be the price it is, one of the touted benefits of IAM is that your insurer will give a discount - but any kind of modification pretty much mitigates any such "advantage".

I''ve not for one moment suggestd it's a waste of time/money, just that it seems a bit odd to play the "you could save money/not have an accident" angle as opposed to the "better control/handling" angle (which would sit very hapliy with the playstation generation, btw) with the safety just being an added bonus.

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?

Chris

I was taught that as a Police officers but not for driving more to be able to hear drunks shouting abuse

My 2p's worth.....

All of our drivers are put through the PCV IAM test, and the company renews their membership every year.

It has made a small but significant reduction in the 'at fault' claims on our insurance, ( we have our own insurance company, which insures a signifant proportion of the national register of pcv businesses.)

So I can only say it has proved beneficial to our company.

In my case, when I was on my test I was told I should 'make progress' when entering an NSL area ( a quiet, narrow country road ) I actually stopped and asked him to repeat himself, and he said I should be travelling at the speed limit.

After I chortled, I explained that driving a 36 feet long,9 feet wide vehicle at 50 mph down a narrow country lane would be dangerous and imho stupid, so I refused.

I passed anyway, as I am the best driver in the world, but didn't take up the offer of continued membership ( he had a beard as well, and crashed his motorbike the week after, on a narrow country lane. ho ho.)

Well I went out for a drive with scoobychris tonight, it was rather interesting in the dark and yes ive picked up a few things and also know what i need to improve on (which i did mention at the start). we all got back safely so i must have done something right

It's been on my to-do list for some time.

When I get settled into a job I intend to do the course.

Well I went out for a drive with scoobychris tonight, it was rather interesting in the dark and yes ive picked up a few things and also know what i need to improve on (which i did mention at the start). we all got back safely so i must have done something right

Glad you enjoyed it and hope I dispelled a few myths about advanced driving

Chris

yeap "we will over take no matter what it takes"

The whole point of the organisations are to make you a better driver.

Wether they do or not though is debatable.

As others mention, any organisation that requires you to do something in the way they say no matter what, is ridiculous.

They should be teaching you to make your own mind up about what is the 'best' way to do something rather than blindly follow the rules, it was for this reason I stopped being involved with IAM as I found them too old fashioned and stuck in there ways.

(yes I did pass the test(despite arguing constantly with my observer))