Kimosabe wrote:What is the IMI standardising? The entirety of Roadcraft or just the bits the IAM like to mention? From my perspective, all this is about is standardising which parts of 'the book' IAM observers impart and not why some of it is omitted altogether from the syllabus and never discussed. IAM observers are bound to/restricted by the contents of 'the book' and not to the potential of or best outcomes for a driver, so will the IMI insist that everything will be taught from now on and not just eg.10-2 PP?. I won't hold my breath...
The IAM/IMI accreditation process is solely intended to introduce a minimum standard of observer skill and knowledge for the delivery of Skill for LIfe to associates. The IAM/IMI Observer accreditation programme includes, inter alia, the following criteria: "Evidence of planned session"; Briefing of the associate"; "Effective communications at all times"; "Praise combined with constructive criticism"; "Effective use made of questions and answers"; "Assistance with problem resolution"; "Judgement as to where to stop for debriefings and questions"; "Procedure for booking an IAM test", etc. etc... you get the picture. Might I suggest that your group is under a misapprehension if it has intimated to you that the IAM/IMI is "standardising"
Roadcraft or
HTBABD by this accreditation process, it is not. As you might have guessed already, I'm having difficulty reconciling your view with what's actually happening...
"From my perspective, all this is about is standardising which parts of 'the book' IAM observers impart and not why some of it is omitted altogether from the syllabus and never discussed." Kimosabe wrote:I felt that my group considered IMI to be a good thing/ mandatory, as it would not only help all concerned to reach acceptance of an attained standard but also that it would help them to support the less able observers to improve ... or reconsider/ be removed pending further testing? Handy as that may be for groups to deal with less capable observers, it was not made explicit that the latter could happen. So the failed observer has to tick some different boxes at their next attempt? Three strikes? I can't recall if there's a practical aspect to the IMI accreditation.
I'm struggling with this. Why would the IAM not wish to set a minimum standard of observing and remove those observers who, after further training, simply aren't capable of delivering a sufficiently high standard of observing? Why would it need to be made explicit that this could happen? If the IAM regard it to be necessary that certain of its observers need to improve their knowledge and ability or be "retired" why be mealy mouthed about it?
Kimosabe wrote:I'm crap at written exams and great at practical demos and imparting knowledge in a way which suits the person asking for it, how will IMI allow for that strength/ weakness? Just my thoughts.
Fear not. If you're...
"crap at written exams" that won't be a problem because there are no IMI written exams. Unless of course you are including in your definition of "written exams" the art of drawing a corner on a piece of paper and then writing "Information zone"; "Positioning point"; "Speed reduction zone"; "Gear changing zone"; "Acceleration point"; "turn-in point". If you do, then that's going to be a problem.
Kimosabe wrote:Related but marginally off topic so ignore at will:
Are the IAM also planning on introducing mandatory retests for all members? I hope so...
No, that's never going to happen, for two reasons.
Firstly, the IAM have no desire to commit commercial/financial suicide by requiring all existing or future members to retake the test inorder to retain membership. Voluntary retests are available for any member should they wish to do so.
Secondly, there aren't enough examiners to go round.
In any case, there is another organisation for those who wish to subject themselves to regular three yearly retests.
Kimosabe wrote:...but i'm ever mindful that IAM observers are volunteers, who are working to a textbook and not necessarily to the full potential of the driver.
The IMI accreditation process will assist those observers who are not currently working to develop the full potential of the associate to do so in future, [see my first paragraph above].
Kimosabe wrote:.Certainly the drivers I observed, during observer training (back seat), didn't need any adjustments to their basic driving and had no intention of going any further at that time, than passing a test. So whether observers are IMI accredited or not, what they're doing is reiterating what a book says and not in practice being examined on how, why or when that information is being presented.
Under the IMI accreditation process observers are...
"being examined on how, why or when that information is being presented", [see my first paragraph above].
Kimosabe wrote:So credit to the IAM for causing these improvements. I hope their members appreciate it and make it work.
The raising of observer standards where necessary will assist a larger proportion of associates, who will go on to become full members, to develop their driving potential beyond the point that would otherwise have pertained. So, that must be a good thing.