RoSPA and IAM Again

[lyndon]

@Lyndon, it sounds as if you had a rather rigid observer who made you "throw away" your existing routines before building IPSGA into your driving.

I don't want to make too much of this. My point is that I can't see a difference either, so why not continue using what every British driver has learnt? I assumed that since I was being asked to switch to another system, the advantage would eventually become apparent. The 'pressure' didn't come from an observer. It came from Roadcraft and the IAM 'How to be a Better Driver'. The clear implication is that the way to approach a hazard if you want to be an advanced driver is to use IPSGA. I didn't question it at the time; I bought into the entire package. I don't have any regrets about doing that. I believe I have achieved all the objectives I set out to achieve. However, looking back over the experience the effort I had to put into IPSGA perhaps could have been better spent on something like improving commentary/observation and anticipation and so on. These are the areas that I believe have contributed most to making me a better driver. Switching to IPSGA didn't itself change the way I drive, so it was a lot of effort for little, if any, gain.

People shouldn't underestimate the effort that may be required by an older mind to make IPSGA become second nature after 50 years of MSM. That would be fine if it improved my driving. But if it doesn't, why do it? To some people, it may be a minor difference. In my younger day, it would have been a trivial adjustment to make. Old dog, new tricks?

As you say, if you are going to take a test set by a particular organisation, you will have to adopt their standards in order to pass. I don't have an issue with that. I took that as a given. I just wondered whether there was an alternative possibility.

But what started as a little musing on my part has grown into a much bigger issue than it probably merits.

[ROG]

I am certain that more than one of our examiners said that IPSGA builds on the basic MSM

[vonhosen]

@Lyndon, it sounds as if you had a rather rigid observer who made you "throw away" your existing routines before building IPSGA into your driving.

I don't want to make too much of this. My point is that I can't see a difference either, so why not continue using what every British driver has learnt? I assumed that since I was being asked to switch to another system, the advantage would eventually become apparent. The 'pressure' didn't come from an observer. It came from Roadcraft and the IAM 'How to be a Better Driver'. The clear implication is that the way to approach a hazard if you want to be an advanced driver is to use IPSGA. I didn't question it at the time; I bought into the entire package. I don't have any regrets about doing that. I believe I have achieved all the objectives I set out to achieve. However, looking back over the experience the effort I had to put into IPSGA perhaps could have been better spent on something like improving commentary/observation and anticipation and so on. These are the areas that I believe have contributed most to making me a better driver. Switching to IPSGA didn't itself change the way I drive, so it was a lot of effort for little, if any, gain.

People shouldn't underestimate the effort that may be required by an older mind to make IPSGA become second nature after 50 years of MSM. That would be fine if it improved my driving. But if it doesn't, why do it? To some people, it may be a minor difference. In my younger day, it would have been a trivial adjustment to make. Old dog, new tricks?

As you say, if you are going to take a test set by a particular organisation, you will have to adopt their standards in order to pass. I don't have an issue with that. I took that as a given. I just wondered whether there was an alternative possibility.

But what started as a little musing on my part has grown into a much bigger issue than it probably merits.

Of course there are alternatives, you don't have to do the IAM test, you choose to.

[TripleS]

The underlying issue here seems to be 'what is the purpose of the IAM - who is it for?'

That wasn't what I intended to ask, though it may have come out sounding that way. I'm wondering whether the effort that I had to put in to abandoning MSM in favour of IPSGA was worth it, and whether I could have achieved the same level of expertise by building on, rather than abandoning, the methods I had been using for so many years.I fully accept that the IAM is based on Roadcraft, and if I want to take the IAM test I accept the entire package. So, my question was probably more to do with whether there is a market for an alternative route to AD alongside, not in place of, IAM that was more of a natural development of DSA.I would expect the standard to be just as high. I get the impression that the general view is that there would be no such market.

I think there could be a market. The IAM and RoSPA seem to have chosen to nail their colours pretty firmly to the Roadcraft and IPSGA mast, but as far as I'm concerned it was not necessary to do that quite as rigidly as they have done. Anyhow, that's the way it is, but not everybody needs to go that way.

It has long been my view that some quite advanced driving performances can be produced without the need to comply with IPSGA in quite such a formal manner, and IAM/RoSPA people can dispute that if they wish, but such a stance would not convince me - not that that matters.

Since I first started reading Roadcraft round about 1960 I have recognised that it contains a lot of stuff that could be of benefit to all drivers, and applying that sort of thinking and, the associated techniques, seems to make sense. I just don't accept the proposition - which seems to be promoted by some IAM and RoSPA people - that their way is the only respectable way of pursuing AD ambitions.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

@Lyndon, it sounds as if you had a rather rigid observer who made you "throw away" your existing routines before building IPSGA into your driving.

@Dave, never an opportunity wasted, eh

You must have t'other fellow in mind. I often waste opportunities.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

@Lyndon, it sounds as if you had a rather rigid observer who made you "throw away" your existing routines before building IPSGA into your driving.

I don't want to make too much of this. My point is that I can't see a difference either, so why not continue using what every British driver has learnt? I assumed that since I was being asked to switch to another system, the advantage would eventually become apparent. The 'pressure' didn't come from an observer. It came from Roadcraft and the IAM 'How to be a Better Driver'. The clear implication is that the way to approach a hazard if you want to be an advanced driver is to use IPSGA. I didn't question it at the time; I bought into the entire package. I don't have any regrets about doing that. I believe I have achieved all the objectives I set out to achieve. However, looking back over the experience the effort I had to put into IPSGA perhaps could have been better spent on something like improving commentary/observation and anticipation and so on. These are the areas that I believe have contributed most to making me a better driver. Switching to IPSGA didn't itself change the way I drive, so it was a lot of effort for little, if any, gain.

People shouldn't underestimate the effort that may be required by an older mind to make IPSGA become second nature after 50 years of MSM. That would be fine if it improved my driving. But if it doesn't, why do it?

Quite right. I'm not very keen on the idea of being shoved through somebody's sausage machine.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[ROG]

IPSGA does not have to be taught in order to pass or be an advanced driver

We have one senior observer who never mentions IPSGA and yet all his associates pass!!


he uses other methods that cover the same bit of IPSGA such as -
What can you see and how do you intend to deal with it
Which bit of the road do you think we should be on to negotiate the hazard
etc etc

I think you may get what I mean.............

[redrobo]

I think the main difference is that MSM implies that once the mirror check is done there is no more need for it. Whilst IPSGA, the I is the base stone of the system and all the other parts fit into it, implying that the information needs to be constantly updated, and mirrors is a big part in the updating process.

[fungus]

IPSGA does not have to be taught in order to pass or be an advanced driver

We have one senior observer who never mentions IPSGA and yet all his associates pass!!


he uses other methods that cover the same bit of IPSGA such as -
What can you see and how do you intend to deal with it
Which bit of the road do you think we should be on to negotiate the hazard
etc etc

I think you may get what I mean.............

Exactly.

I don't recall doing anything different with regards to the way I made observations, used mirrors, approached hazards etc. when I did my IAM test to what I was already doing using MSPSL. I think that as long as there is a systematic controlled approach to hazards, with efficient observation, whether it's IPSGA or MSPSL should make little difference.

What ROG is saying with regads to asking questions about what you can see, and how you intend to deal with it, is an effective method to improve observation. I use this method myself, with both learners, and associates.

[TripleS]

IPSGA does not have to be taught in order to pass or be an advanced driver

We have one senior observer who never mentions IPSGA and yet all his associates pass!!


he uses other methods that cover the same bit of IPSGA such as -
What can you see and how do you intend to deal with it
Which bit of the road do you think we should be on to negotiate the hazard
etc etc

I think you may get what I mean.............

Yes, your colleague sounds to have an appealing approach.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[ROG]

The only slight problem is that the IPSGA system has to be explained prior to test as our examiners often ask what is the system they are driving to

[crr003]

The only slight problem is that the IPSGA system has to be explained prior to test as our examiners often ask what is the system they are driving to

Exactly - "slight" problem? If I'd signed up for an IPSGA course I'd expect to at least have it explained to me. The latest IAM book is riddled with it.

[ExadiNigel]

The only slight problem is that the IPSGA system has to be explained prior to test as our examiners often ask what is the system they are driving to

Does it? Why would you explain the IPSGA system if you're not going to drive to it? If you're planning on driving to MSPSL wouldn't you explain that as teh system you are driving to?

[daz6215]

This really isn't that complicated here is another acronym 'KISS'

[waremark]

Some questions:

I still have not understood what specifically the OP felt he had to unlearn or relearn???

Those of you who use or teach IPSGA, what do you actually do at the P stage?

Those of you who would like to see a different syllabus used, how would you like advanced driving to be recognised, and what body of examiners would be available who could recognise it?

(When I was first taught 'Advanced Driving' I learned the mnemonic 'Can My Safety Be Given Away'.)