isn't this slightly inside-out thinking though - saying that the under-25s are most at risk, so we should target them by finding out what interests them...
perhaps instead the logic should flow:
- what does IAM offer (safer driver?)
- who does that benefit (gov. / insurance companies / parents / under-25s / the public)
- which of those groups cares about reducing the stats in that age group (gov. / insurance / poss. parents)
- how do you incentivise them to incentivise the under-25s?
e.g. if you can show a 25% - 50% reduction in accidents and the consequential saving of life / injury and on-costs - then gov. could make it compulsory / insurance companies could reduce premiums substantially / etc.
but I suspect the issue is that while we know that AD can make someone a safer driver, we also understand that there needs to be a desire on the behalf of the driver to actually practice AD in real life all the time for this to be the case...
it is not in the passing of the IAM test that you become safer, it is driving at a more advanced level that makes you safer...
so I suspect that you could put a million young drivers through the IAM course and without the desire to drive in an AD way, it will not make a substantial difference - if it did then the basic test they go through would be enough to ensure that the accident stats were lower than they are...
so it is not about joining the IAM / or passing the test - either of which would allow the IAM to make a solid case to the insurers / gov. - it is in choosing how to drive afterwards and if the under 25s are not interested then the IAM / AD is irrelevant - and that age group feels invincible and lacks the maturity to understand the impact of their driving - a bad combination and certainly not one conducive to an interest in AD
so in reality it probably won't happen
Alasdair