IAM Masters v RoSPA

[Horse]

Pedantry seems to be being used as an insult. Surely if it is being used as measuring again a standard then that standard will be explicit?

[Ralge]

I would suggest that the vast proportion of IAM members have no interest in improving their driving beyond where they reached for the IAM test.

Why did they join the IAM?
If it was to be a better driver, what has discouraged them from continuing that task?
If it was to collect badges, what is discouraging them from continuing that task?

Few like tests. Good job, then, for IAM members since there has never been a stipulation for re-testing within the IAM fold (unlike RoSPA).
How about IAM masters, DIAmond, Cardington or any one of the others. Are they subject to a mandatory retest?
It's a mindset issue. Allow anyone to think it's a once and for all time test and that sticks.

Note for myself: I have had my Diploma retest paper to fill in for a week, must send it off!

[vonhosen]

I would suggest that the vast proportion of IAM members have no interest in improving their driving beyond where they reached for the IAM test.

Why did they join the IAM?
If it was to be a better driver, what has discouraged them from continuing that task?
If it was to collect badges, what is discouraging them from continuing that task?

Few like tests. Good job, then, for IAM members since there has never been a stipulation for re-testing within the IAM fold (unlike RoSPA).
How about IAM masters, DIAmond, Cardington or any one of the others. Are they subject to a mandatory retest?
It's a mindset issue. Allow anyone to think it's a once and for all time test and that sticks.

Note for myself: I have had my Diploma retest paper to fill in for a week, must send it off!

Why can't they do the training for a masters but not take the test?

[zadocbrown]

Why can't they do the training for a masters but not take the test?

Well there's nothing stopping them from taking the training then declining the test is there? I guess you mean why isn't the training packaged seperately. Well there are plenty of 'no test' driver training options within and without the IAM. But how many people take them up? I think on balance including a test attracts more people than it repells. Whether it attracts the right demographic is another matter, but any suggestion that masters training without the test would be immediately more popular is not credible IMO and never will be unless attitudes to driving/education change radically in the general population.

[vonhosen]

Why can't they do the training for a masters but not take the test?

Well there's nothing stopping them from taking the training then declining the test is there? I guess you mean why isn't the training packaged seperately. Well there are plenty of 'no test' driver training options within and without the IAM. But how many people take them up? I think on balance including a test attracts more people than it repells. Whether it attracts the right demographic is another matter, but any suggestion that masters training without the test would be immediately more popular is not credible IMO and never will be unless attitudes to driving/education change radically in the general population.

That goes against what Ralge has just said though. Ralge said it was tests, so the natural thing to ask is 'is the masters training offered to those who don't want to test?'

If there are 'no test' training options & there seems to be confusion amongst the membership about that, what is discouraging IAM members from doing it?
(Especially as we are talking about people who have already signed up to either a) improving their driving &/OR b) want to pass tests, rather than talking about the general driving population.)

[Gareth]

Why can't they do the training for a masters but not take the test?

I don't know if there is a fixed maximum amount of training provided for the fixed fee, to help with preparing for the test.

My feeling is that it would be selfish to pay for the IAM Masters training with the intention of not taking the test since the number of mentors for this process is necessarily limited, and there are a multitude of training options available from commercial providers.

[vonhosen]

Why can't they do the training for a masters but not take the test?

I don't know if there is a fixed maximum amount of training provided for the fixed fee, to help with preparing for the test.

My feeling is that it would be selfish to pay for the IAM Masters training with the intention of not taking the test since the number of mentors for this process is necessarily limited, and there are a multitude of training options available from commercial providers.

Which begs the question is the IAM 'primarily' about increasing the standards of driving within it's membership or getting a smaller number of members a higher level certificate?

Your first sentence suggests it's all about a test preparation rather than training to be a better driver.

Wouldn't it be better to get those who want the certificate (as some argue the test provides motivation for them to do the training) to be those paying for commercial training?

With limited resources isn't it best to improve the standards of as many as possible rather than just those who want to do the test?

[Gareth]

Which begs the question is the IAM 'primarily' about increasing the standards of driving within it's membership or getting a smaller number of members a higher level certificate?

I think the IAM aims to provide a target to help keep a fairly small proportion of its membership enthusiastic and within the organisation.

Your first sentence suggests it's all about a test preparation rather than training to be a better driver.

That's pretty much the impression I've gained, although using the vehicle of preparing for the test to achieve the aim of helping members become better drivers. That they would choose this approach is not surprising since that's the mechanism the IAM are using and selling to potential new members.

Wouldn't it be better to get those who want the certificate (as some argue the test provides motivation for them to do the training) to be those paying for commercial training?

Possibly, but I think the IAM will be seen within its membership as a trusted provider, (in relative terms), and in addition the Masters fee (combining coaching + test) would pay for about a day of commercial training, so it's a much cheaper option for someone who wants to learn through a short series of short intense sessions interspersed with lots of time for practice.

With limited resources isn't it best to improve the standards of as many as possible rather than just those who want to do the test?

Are you talking here about the Masters test, or the other one?

Anyway, and in either case, how would they measure the success of their endeavour?

[vonhosen]

Which begs the question is the IAM 'primarily' about increasing the standards of driving within it's membership or getting a smaller number of members a higher level certificate?

I think the IAM aims to provide a target to help keep a fairly small proportion of its membership enthusiastic and within the organisation.

Why not aim higher than just those who want to take a test?

Your first sentence suggests it's all about a test preparation rather than training to be a better driver.

That's pretty much the impression I've gained, although using the vehicle of preparing for the test to achieve the aim of helping members become better drivers. That they would choose this approach is not surprising since that's the mechanism the IAM are using and selling to potential new members.

Perhaps having an alternate mechanism there too would be helpful (especially if Ralge's view is true).

Wouldn't it be better to get those who want the certificate (as some argue the test provides motivation for them to do the training) to be those paying for commercial training?

Possibly, but I think the IAM will be seen within its membership as a trusted provider, (in relative terms), and in addition the Masters fee (combining coaching + test) would pay for about a day of commercial training, so it's a much cheaper option for someone who wants to learn through a short series of short intense sessions interspersed with lots of time for practice.

Possibly, but keeping it cheap for the most committed (& most likely to pay) could be a false economy if overall standards is the aim.

With limited resources isn't it best to improve the standards of as many as possible rather than just those who want to do the test?

Are you talking here about the Masters test, or the other one?

Anyway, and in either case, how would they measure the success of their endeavour?

I'm talking about masters (as we are talking about those already members). A start would be the number of those looking to train to a higher level following entry.

[Gareth]

A start would be the number of those looking to train to a higher level following entry.

Therein lies the problem. Previously the IAM didn't provide any clear path for this. Yes, there was the Special Assessment (SA) but support for it from the providing & testing side seemed spotty at best. A number here can relate how they enquired only to be rebuffed by local examiners.

This, then is a new direction for the IAM, and they've publicised and attempted to provide mentoring and testing across the country. Since the plan is that future mentors are drawn from those who achieve a certain score in the test, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

If it turns out to be reasonably popular it should gather pace and become more widely known.

[martine]

How about IAM masters, DIAmond, Cardington or any one of the others. Are they subject to a mandatory retest?

If you want to keep your 'Masters' you have to retake and pass the test every 5 years. Failure doesn't mean you are ceremonially thrown out of the IAM though - you just revert to being an 'ordinary' member.

[Ralge]

How about IAM masters, DIAmond, Cardington or any one of the others. Are they subject to a mandatory retest?

If you want to keep your 'Masters' you have to retake and pass the test every 5 years. Failure doesn't mean you are ceremonially thrown out of the IAM though - you just revert to being an 'ordinary' member.

Some time ago I thought " I'll go and learn something from the IAM" but I was turned off 'ordinary' membership by the apparent rigid inflexibility of a 12-week course and fee (no recognition of prior experience or qualifications).
Were I to put myself through IAM Masters, what would be involved?
An initial assessment and development plan that is tailored to what is seen OR a one-size-fits plan?

[Gareth]

Some time ago I thought " I'll go and learn something from the IAM" but I was turned off 'ordinary' membership by the apparent rigid inflexibility of a 12-week course and fee (no recognition of prior experience or qualifications).

Why didn't you just pay the test fee and do the test instead?

What form did you think recognition of prior experience and qualifications should take? Would taking the test directly without getting involved with a local group have satisfied you in this regard?

Course delivery is in the hands of the volunteer local group; different groups have tended to have different arrangements.

[waremark]

Were I to put myself through IAM Masters, what would be involved?
An initial assessment and development plan that is tailored to what is seen OR a one-size-fits plan?

It is stated to be the former - initial assessment and development plan tailored to what is seen. However, you have to be aware that both the development plan and assessment would be aligned with a traditional Roadcraft interpretation of excellent driving. If that is not the style of driving towards whch you wish to develop then the programme will not be for you.

The Masters documentation includes the following:

"Prior to commencing this programme you are likely to have undertaken one or more of (I abbreviate) IAM or Rospa test, Observer training or other similar course. You will need to be already an accomplished advanced driver .... Should you have any doubts about this, a couple of refresher runs with an IAM Senior Observer may be beneficial...."

VH, I would have thought you would have been delighted that the development programme involves a process of 'Mentoring' - you get a Mentor, not a trainer or even an Observer. You might regard that as a cynical ploy to get round the law against selling driver training which is not given by an ADI, but in many cases the terminology will be appropriate - at this level it is not so much training as a process of encouragement to work on what you already know.

As to getting numbers to work on developing already good driving to a higher level, as I commented earlier, opportunities have previously existed and been promoted, but not been taken up in significant numbers. It is against that background that I regard Masters as a success. I have no doubt that the challenge of the Masters Test is a major factor in getting folk to take part. As to the objective of the IAM in introducing this programme, there are probably many reasons including Gareth's suggestion that it is to keep a handful of obsessive enthusiasts (like us) happy within the club. It will result in upgrading the driving of key members of the Observer body. I also cynically suspect a commercial motive - it may well be a profitable 'product'.

[waremark]

Why can't they do the training for a masters but not take the test?

Well there's nothing stopping them from taking the training then declining the test is there? I guess you mean why isn't the training packaged seperately. Well there are plenty of 'no test' driver training options within and without the IAM. But how many people take them up? I think on balance including a test attracts more people than it repells. Whether it attracts the right demographic is another matter, but any suggestion that masters training without the test would be immediately more popular is not credible IMO and never will be unless attitudes to driving/education change radically in the general population.

What is 'the right demographic'? If (and I think this is the case) the charitable objective of the IAM is to make the roads safer, encouraging a tiny minority to develop their driving to an elite level, measured against a (words of VH) stylised assessment, plays very little part in that. If anything, a more basic level of training than that required for the 'normal' IAM Test would do the job of making the roads safer and what the IAM should be trying to do (and is) is to get greater numbers involved in a lower level of training. So I don't think Masters is closely aligned with making the roads safer, and I don't think there is a right demographic for it.