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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Kimosabe wrote:So credit to the IAM for causing these improvements. I hope their members appreciate it and make it work.
trashbat wrote:However, my personal experience has been that the process through which they (my local group, anyway) have tried to achieve this has been both opaque and arbitrary - something of an irony. Maybe they need to standardise the standardising?
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:some extra flannel written around the "customer centred" part of the competencies, which is puzzling, since you'd expect any Observer to have good customer skills
ROG wrote:Gareth wrote:ROG wrote:I have looked at the IMI thing and to be honest it will not prevent individuals or groups from still putting their own spin on issues so what is the use of it ?
It's an attempt to move in the right direction, to work towards a more consistent experience for associates, a step on the way to helping the worst observers get closer to the best, in terms of content delivery and results.
Perfect is the enemy of better ...
I have no problem with addressing any issues after that issue has been assessed as needing to be fixed but why fix something that is not broken ........
mefoster wrote:It is suggested that the IAM and RoSPA are "OK" because the payment is for membership, not instruction. Whereas that may have been the case some time ago, I am not so sure now. The IAM SfL package/product is quite specifically a course of "instruction".
Return to Advanced Driving Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests