ADUK Archive

Was my IAM training a waste of time? If what Martin posted (below) is true, then why did I bother with all that training?

martine wrote:The IAM insurer confirmed the following a few years ago...

• IAM Car drivers have a similar number of claims but the claim value is smaller
• IAM Bikers have an increased number and value of claims but their mileage is higher than the average

That makes very disappointing reading. Shouldn't the IAM Standards project being aiming to improve this?

Forget the endless debates about pull-push and BGOL. I want to know the main causes of accidents for advanced motorists and, consequently, what I can do to improve the odds of remaining accident-free.

Zebedee wrote:Was my IAM training a waste of time? If what Martin posted (below) is true, then why did I bother with all that training?

That makes very disappointing reading. Shouldn't the IAM Standards project being aiming to improve this?

Forget the endless debates about pull-push and BGOL. I want to know the main causes of accidents for advanced motorists and, consequently, what I can do to improve the odds of remaining accident-free.

Perhaps not as disappointing as you may think...the car drivers had less, serious claims but more low-speed, car-park type crunches. This may reflect the age profile!

The bikers were having less claims per mile travelled.

martine wrote:more low-speed, car-park type crunches. This may reflect the age profile!

Chriskay - kill!

Zebedee wrote:Was my IAM training a waste of time? If what Martin posted (below) is true, then why did I bother with all that training?

martine wrote:The IAM insurer confirmed the following a few years ago...

• IAM Car drivers have a similar number of claims but the claim value is smaller
• IAM Bikers have an increased number and value of claims but their mileage is higher than the average

That makes very disappointing reading. Shouldn't the IAM Standards project being aiming to improve this?

Forget the endless debates about pull-push and BGOL. I want to know the main causes of accidents for advanced motorists and, consequently, what I can do to improve the odds of remaining accident-free.

I think the insurance policies' composition may also have changed with IAM insurance.

I used to be with IAM insurance for my Mondeos (rep. mobile), Mazda6 MPS (quick, limited edition sedan) and just about squeeze in a S-Class. IAM insurance were getting uncomfortable with the S-Class due to my geography, age group and car value, but gave me a comparable quote to other insurers anyway. With my current MR2 and 911 Turbo, they point-blank refused to insure them by giving ridiculously high quotes.

If the IAM insurance are changing their policy profiles to bias towards low-value vehicles, they will of course pay less per policy/claim.

Is my thinking correct?

chriskay wrote:

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:

martine wrote:more low-speed, car-park type crunches. This may reflect the age profile!

Chriskay - kill!

No, No, No; if I'm going to crash, it'll be at some considerable speed.

But you are far from typical...a 'statistical outlier' if you will.

chriskay wrote:

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:

martine wrote:more low-speed, car-park type crunches. This may reflect the age profile!

Chriskay - kill!

No, No, No; if I'm going to crash, it'll be at some considerable speed.

If I remember the incident anything like accurately:
Many moons ago at Mallory Park, Innes Ireland was doing a few demonstration laps in a newly introduced Mercedes model, a large saloon car then being run as personal transport by the Managing Director of Mercedes-Benz UK, or somesuch very senior person.

Anyhow, Innes Ireland being Innes Ireland, he lost it very comprehensively at Devil's Elbow, a fast downhill left hand bend leading onto the pits straight, and pranged the car in a highly spectacular fashion. After the dust had settled he was reported to have said: "When I have 'em, I have 'em big!"

Best wishes all,
Dave.

TripleS wrote:The system used around schools in Scotland seems to me to be far more sensible: the 20 mph limit only applies when the lights flash, which is probably for two fairly brief periods each weekday during term time.

Agree, same as in Melbourne. 30 kph zone around schools at prescribed times.

The thing is that I can avoid those areas in Melbourne at certain times in the day due to high hazards rate from school run traffic and lower 30 kph limits.

The problem with 20 mph across whole boroughs in London meant even trunk A-roads are down to 20 mph, which of course no one else follows due to lack of enforcement and that makes 20 mph limits useless. I guesstimate 99% of all traffic at 5-ish in the morning in the Camden borough breaks the 20 mph speed limit, based on my observation on my way to work every day.

Mmmm. I do wonder why this road in Crewe has a 20mph limit.!? It's the main A534 running in to/out of Crewe - Wide road, wide pavements, non-residential, no parking...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.0870341,-2.4470094,3a,75y,46.19h,84.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss53gp_-UC8SF22xSB49TKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

...and because drivers see no need for it here they don't comply, which means they don't comply when they see another 20 limit even though they may actually be appropriate at that location - and I don't agree with 20 limits anyway, per se.

Perhaps there are lots of cyclists, pedestrians crossing from one side to other for shops, perhaps the pubs/bars/clubs spill out onto the road at certain times of the day? Don't know...but their in lies the problem with 20s (in fact any speed limit)...it's appropriateness varies depending on time of day, weather etc and loads of other factors yet more and more roads are having restrictive speed limits put into place.

Driver Education: the only sustainable way to improve roads safety (hardly pithy but I feel like putting it on a t-shirt).

martine wrote:Driver Education: the only sustainable way to improve roads safety (hardly pithy but I feel like putting it on a t-shirt).

I don't think this concept will work hear. We are not Germans ...

martine wrote: Driver Education: the only sustainable way to improve roads safety (hardly pithy but I feel like putting it on a t-shirt).

You may be right. But educating them how and with what ideas?

Horse wrote:

martine wrote: Driver Education: the only sustainable way to improve roads safety (hardly pithy but I feel like putting it on a t-shirt).

You may be right. But educating them how and with what ideas?

I'd start by DfT/DVSA actively promoting post-test training...they are somewhat half-hearted at the moment. I'd follow it up by a compulsory driving assessment (not test) with an ADI at the renewal of the driving licence (i.e. 10 years) - after making the photocard compulsory.

Some simple ideas could be pushed (ads, social media, bill boards): keep space in front, give driving 100% of your attention, more care when emerging from junctions etc.

We have to get the message across that passing the L-test is just the start of someone's driving career, not the end.

I'd bring in Graduated Driver Licensing in some form or another with restrictions lessoned if further training/tests are completed. Perhaps a higher-level licence for those who have taken extra training/tests with benefits (to be discussed!) officially recognised.

All ADI's to be advanced trained/tested.

More referrals to the 'National Driver Alertness Course' (NDAC) not just by police but by insurance companies if they identify a skills deficit (increased premium if you don't attend).

Just my thoughts.

martine wrote: I'd start by DfT/DVSA actively promoting post-test training...

Stable door & bolted spring to mind. Why leave the important stuff until they have a licence?

martine wrote: Some simple ideas could be pushed (ads, social media, bill boards): keep space in front, give driving 100% of your attention, more care when emerging from junctions etc.

Sadly, I think there's very little evidence that such things work. 'Think bike' has been going in various forms for, what, 30 years? People still pull out in front of bikes as often as they did then.

martine wrote: We have to get the message across that passing the L-test is just the start of someone's driving career, not the end.

Most people just want a licence to get from A - B.

Not many are A - A drivers.

martine wrote: I'd bring in Graduated Driver Licensing in some form or another with restrictions lessoned if further training/tests are completed. Perhaps a higher-level licence for those who have taken extra training/tests with benefits (to be discussed!) officially recognised.

GDL seems to work - but there's little or no evidence that current 'advanced' training would make any difference.

Horse wrote:Sadly, I think there's very little evidence that such things work. 'Think bike' has been going in various forms for, what, 30 years? People still pull out in front of bikes as often as they did then.

And what have bikers done in the meantime? Have they learnt to "Think car!"? Or do they still rush about in dark clothing presenting a small, non-foreshortening image, at an inappropriate speed differential? People don't deliberately pull out in front of bikes. They do it for one of only two reasons:

1. They didn't see the bike (see above).
2. They didn't appreciate the speed with which the bike was approaching (see above).

Just another point of view, you understand

https://m.facebook.com/SurvivalSkills?r ... 41%2F&_rdr

Riders are too quick to blame drivers.