ADUK Archive

Yeah, yeah, we can read between the lines ...

"We're bigger than you" - yup, not in question
"We've got externally verified standards" - well yes, in the last 2 years you have
"We've got the Masters that's better than your Gold" - well maybe, but again, only in the last couple of years
"Rospa being better is an outdated idea" - well maybe, but there's actually no need for a willy-waving contest.

My comment was purely tongue-in-cheek, as you very well know. Your signature advertises both standards, yet for some reason despite your protestations you still want to keep saying the IAM is better. Better organised, more profitable maybe. Better at producing high quality drivers, moot. As Rob says, the accepted gold standard was, at least, Rospa Gold. Things may be changing, but there's no reason for us not to try and sing from the same hymn sheet.

I just looked at the Master's Standard, and it appears a worthy document, although, as you implied, it doesn't actually define much of a standard in anything. Perhaps that's why such widely differing results are being achieved, by people we know to be all of a very high standard to start with?

Why do I keep thinking...

"Odyous of olde been comparisonis, And of comparisonis engendyrd is haterede."

Oh, yes. I've just realised.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:...you still want to keep saying the IAM is better.

No just trying to explain why ROSPA isn't better

Better organised,

Yes I think it is actually - but partly because of sheer size.

more profitable maybe.

Not interested - as long as it's financially stable enough to survive.

Better at producing high quality drivers, moot.

Never said that.

...there's no reason for us not to try and sing from the same hymn sheet.

Absolutely agree and in the past we've worked together with Avon ROSPA (sadly now defunct ) and we continue to have a few joint events with local ROSPA members.

I just looked at the Master's Standard, and it appears a worthy document, although, as you implied, it doesn't actually define much of a standard in anything. Perhaps that's why such widely differing results are being achieved, by people we know to be all of a very high standard to start with?

Yes that person's experience has highlighted particular issues which in no small part have continued the impetus for 'standards' in the IAM at the highest level.

Come over to the dark side Nick...I know you really want to...

RobC wrote:Rospa Gold has historically been called the highest grade of civilian driving because of its requirement for retest to retain the grade.

Just out of curiosity, is the HPC a higher or lower grade than the ROPSA Gold? I have never done ROSPA so I don't know.

I gave up doing the qualifications in between doing the IAM course and the HPC, except becoming an IAM senior observer, for 2 reasons -
1) I cannot be bother to collect the certifications in between and
2) I cannot be bother to do my IAM National Observer test because the IAM cannot be bother to test me (due to their poor organisational management in 2013).
* I have ranted!

Garrison wrote:

RobC wrote:Rospa Gold has historically been called the highest grade of civilian driving because of its requirement for retest to retain the grade.

Just out of curiosity, is the HPC a higher or lower grade than the ROPSA Gold? I have never done ROSPA so I don't know.

I would suggest HPC is waaaay higher than anything the IAM or ROSPA do.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:"We've got the Masters that's better than your Gold" - well maybe, but again, only in the last couple of years

Before Masters there was the less formalised Special Assessment.

Garrison wrote:Just out of curiosity, is the HPC a higher or lower grade than the ROPSA Gold?

FWIW Hugh told at least a few people to go away and get a RoADAR Gold before booking any further sessions with him.

martine wrote:

RobC wrote: I'm not knocking ROSPA - it's a fine organisation and of course we are on the same-side - but I believe the old view of ROSPA being somehow 'better' than the IAM is outdated.

I too would like to see ordinary IAM members be subject to retesting but you can understand IAM HQ's reticence in implementing it:

• with 91,000 members the current examiner base right across the UK would be woefully inadequate*
• losing a significant chunk of membership (through test failure) would be financial suicide!

Hi Martin

I'm sure IAM masters is an excellent qualification and subject to retest, but only a minority of IAM members have it.

Im not an expert on Rospa but the retest is a bronze, silver and gold grading not a pass or fail, and your owm IAM group currently has a 92% pass rate for the entry IAM test so if Rospa aren't loosing members due to retest then why should the IAM.
My own feeling is that if there was a pass or fail situation and the member failed, then further training is required. Rospas grading system gives an incentive to keep members driving skills current or improve their grade of driving and any possible loss of membership would be offset by a gain in professionalism.
I know an 'advanced' driver who passed the IAM van test in the 1970's and has considered himself an advanced driver for all those years despite having collisions and speeding convictions!

Also whilst IAM observers are now subject to retesting, the standard of the test nationally is more dependent on individual examiner which is why DVSA examiners are check tested every month. How often are IAM examiners check tested?

Rob

Gareth wrote:

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:"We've got the Masters that's better than your Gold" - well maybe, but again, only in the last couple of years

Before Masters there was the less formalised Special Assessment.

Yes, and herein lies a fundamental difference between the two. A RoADAR candidate knows they will have to be re-examined if they want to keep their qualification. An IAM member only has to take a test and keep paying their subs. Yes , the IAM offers a higher qualification, but only a few will even know of it, let alone apply.

Martine wrote:Come over to the dark side Nick ... I know you really want to

No, I don't. Why would I pay more money to join something that would only serve to tell me stuff I already know. I prefer to keep trying to improve RoADAR's obvious failings, most of which are down to lack of money and personnel, and produce better drivers in Wiltshire. Like Garrison, I've got enough intermediate qualifications. If I want more standards to aim for, I have a couple that offer a far higher degree of difficulty than anything in IAM or RoADAR.

RobC wrote:I'm sure IAM masters is an excellent qualification and subject to retest, but only a minority of IAM members have it.

Indeed - I believe there are < 400 'Masters' in the UK - but all I'm saying is the option is there if people want a higher-level test and compulsory retesting.

Im not an expert on Rospa but the retest is a bronze, silver and gold grading not a pass or fail, and your owm IAM group currently has a 92% pass rate for the entry IAM test so if Rospa aren't loosing members due to retest then why should the IAM.

After an initial clear out of poor IAM members, then yes in there is no reason why the IAM numbers wouldn't stabilise. I think of the current 91,000 membership, a significant number would either decline to take any retest, or take it, fail and lose interest.

Rospas grading system gives an incentive to keep members driving skills current or improve their grade of driving and any possible loss of membership would be offset by a gain in professionalism.

You sound like you're unaware the IAM has a grading for the entry advanced test now and has done for several years: fail, pass or F1rst grade - less than 10% nationally get the higher level.

I know an 'advanced' driver who passed the IAM van test in the 1970's and has considered himself an advanced driver for all those years despite having collisions and speeding convictions!

Yes I've come across similar . In the Bristol group we run our own 'Advanced Driver Refresher' course for existing group members. There is also the option for any IAM member to take a reassessment with an examiner - but it's rarely taken up .

Also whilst IAM observers are now subject to retesting, the standard of the test nationally is more dependent on individual examiner...

Of course - the same is true in ROSPA I guess.

...which is why DVSA examiners are check tested every month. How often are IAM examiners check tested?

No idea but I do know the DVSA sit-in IAM examiners on test on a regular (not monthly) basis to maintain the IAM's DVSA accreditation. They don't, as yet, sit-in with Observers - I suppose the IMI accreditation may be keeping that at bay.

chriskay wrote:That's exactly what he told me, saying that RoSPA Gold was was a good basis from which to start HPC.

Yes - a bit like someone turning up at Uni without the respective A levels I guess.

martine wrote:

Im not an expert on Rospa but the retest is a bronze, silver and gold grading not a pass or fail, and your owm IAM group currently has a 92% pass rate for the entry IAM test so if Rospa aren't loosing members due to retest then why should the IAM.

After an initial clear out of poor IAM members, then yes in there is no reason why the IAM numbers wouldn't stabilise. I think of the current 91,000 membership, a significant number would either decline to take any retest, or take it, fail and lose interest.

Rospas grading system gives an incentive to keep members driving skills current or improve their grade of driving and any possible loss of membership would be offset by a gain in professionalism.

You sound like you're unaware the IAM has a grading for the entry advanced test now and has done for several years: fail, pass or F1rst grade - less than 10% nationally get the higher level.

Hi Martin

I was forgetting the more recent introduction of an IAM F1RST, but this isn't a grading like Rospa and once you have your IAM or F1RST status you are then an 'advanced' driver for life with no requirement for retest.

If a significant number of IAM membership would either decline to take any retest, or take it, fail and lose interest then surely they don't deserve to retain their advanced status.

I'm sure that many IAM members pay the skill for life fee, do the qualification and then leave as they have achieved what they wanted and perhaps do not find the meetings etc to their liking. If the IAM retested then surely more members would continue to subscribe if they wanted to keep their advanced status and to improve or retain their grade.

Rob

RobC wrote:...If a significant number of IAM membership would either decline to take any retest, or take it, fail and lose interest then surely they don't deserve to retain their advanced status.

Agreed but if you were IAM CEO what would you do?

I'm sure that many IAM members pay the skill for life fee, do the qualification and then leave as they have achieved what they wanted and perhaps do not find the meetings etc to their liking. If the IAM retested then surely more members would continue to subscribe if they wanted to keep their advanced status and to improve or retain their grade.

True - that may be the case but the initial clearout could be fatal for the IAM.

There is an argument to say the more 'sleeping' members the IAM has, the more subs coming in and at least they are engaged in road safety, probably promoting it to their relatives, friends, colleagues etc and in contact with the IAM. Some do come back into the fold and do a refresher course with us after many years - some even train to be observers when it better fits in with their lifestyle , so it's not all bad.

I wonder who loses more members after the initial advanced test: IAM or ROSPA?

mefoster wrote:Make retesting compulsory. If people decline and leave then that's fine. If people are retested and fail then that's fine too. Why would any AD organisation want people who are not up to standard as members?
And commit financial suicide? Seriously, if the IAM say lost 1/3 of it's membership I doubt if it would survive - why would you do that?

It'll never happen though. Too much money to be lost.

Exactly.

You could have another membership category for those that support the organisation's aims but have lost their 'advanced' status?

We still haven't addressed the problem of actually retesting a significant proportion of 91,000 members every 3 or 5 years. There just aren't enough examiners inside the IAM or ROSPA. If full time professionals were employed the costs might put a lot of people off. Ideas please on postcard...

RobC wrote:If a significant number of IAM membership would either decline to take any retest, or take it, fail and lose interest then surely they don't deserve to retain their advanced status.

There is an assumption in that statement - that a driver reverts to pre-IAM standards / techniques over time
If that is the case, does the learner having passed their test also revert to pre-test over time?
Yet insurance stats would suggest that drivers having passed the learner test continue to improve post test, does an IAM member therefore Improve / decline?

In educational terms, and very simplified, a course of instruction can influence an individual for the short term or long term. if for the short term, then yes their standard would then decline over time - if long term, perhaps not?

If the IAM / RoSPA courses / training are only affecting the short term then perhaps the training is not optimum?
IAM describe their course as skill for life - if it really is, then that would suggest that the skills will remain with the driver long term and why would retesting be needed?

I don't think that declining to be retested / believing it is not needed means that someone is no longer driving at an advanced level... I accept that regular retesting confirms maintenance of a standard, but the absence of testing doesn't confirm loss of that standard - that is illogical.

RobC wrote:I'm sure that many IAM members pay the skill for life fee, do the qualification and then leave as they have achieved what they wanted and perhaps do not find the meetings etc to their liking. If the IAM retested then surely more members would continue to subscribe if they wanted to keep their advanced status and to improve or retain their grade.

I am not sure - I know that for me I did the IAM course back in 98 partly from a desire to learn / improve; and partly from a desire to prove that I could drive to a certain level.
- if proving you can achieve is your desire, then it is a one-shot deal why would you need to do it again?
- if wanting to learn / improve - then doing the same level of training every three years is a little pointless...
When my interest reawakened last year I couldn't see any point in continuing with the IAM - I had already met the 'proving myself' goal, and I didn't feel that re-doing the IAM would move me forwards / the Masters was interesting - but other much more advanced options really caught my interest beyond the IAM / RoSPA options...

So I think that we have to understand the value that IAM / RoSPA offers:
- initial advanced training - both offer this
- it certainly transformed my driving, opened my eyes to what advanced driving was about and showed me that there was a future way beyond the learner test
- the skills remained with me over a 17 year period - I am sure that there was probably some fall-off in certain areas, but I only needed a half day refresher before then going into a more advanced course, certainly no indication that I had dropped back to pre-IAM levels
- it gets people into a new way of thinking

ultimately both approaches have their logic - but fundamentally we have to ask why a course needs to be re-tested every three years other than as a method of proving a level / skill-set - and we mustn't forget that not taking the re-test / 'proving' every three years doesn't mean that you have declined in standards - it just means that you don't know whether you have stayed the same / declined, or even advanced...

Alasdair