New IAM standards

[RobC]

AD is always going to be niche and I expect the age profile to remain pretty much as it is unless they can engage the majority of young drivers.

It's kind of depressing that even on an enthusiasts site (Lotus owners), road based AD comes a long way behind "limit handling" training, and the usual response when somebody falls off is to suggest a Car limits session, rather than learn how not to end up in that situation in the first place.

Hi Jont

Perhaps the various car clubs are a different type of enthusiast. I have a friend who races a Ginetta and who is self taught with an over favourable opinion of his own road driving. I couldn't see him ever being an IAM member though he is the sort of person who has read all the books and knows it all without having had any training.

I think younger drivers who have had less driving experience are more likely to see the benefits of training than someone like my friend who has been driving 30 odd years.

Rob

[RobC]

[maybe we need to ask those within the AD community (IAM / RoSPA / others) why they are involved - what satisfaction it gives them / what they enjoy / etc. - see what could apply to the younger driver...

Alasdair

Hi Alasdair

I think the appeal od IAM needs to be broadened. The reasons why mature drivers get involved in AD may not be the same reasons that young drivers would want to be involved.
With younger drivers, image and what's seen as 'cool' go a long way. If it was proven that younger IAM members were a lower insurance risk with lower premiums then that would be a big incentive for younger members to join.

Rob

[RobC]

I think the appeal od IAM needs to be broadened. The reasons why mature drivers get involved in AD may not be the same reasons that young drivers would want to be involved.
With younger drivers, image and what's seen as 'cool' go a long way. If it was proven that younger IAM members were a lower insurance risk with lower premiums then that would be a big incentive for younger members to join.

I'd argue that's exactly the wrong approach. Anyone looking at AD "because the insurance is cheaper" is doing it for the wrong reason and anything that they may pick up will not stick. Let's be honest here; the IAM test is not hard to pass. As soon as those looking for the "cheap insurance" have gained membership they will revert to type. What is the re-testing requirement again?

If it can be shown (and I'm not sure that it can) that members are a lower risk now, then it is because the people that make up that lower risk group are at least reasonably interested in driving appropriately. If you encourage new members based on the promise of an insurance benefit earned by people who joined for different reasons then you will pollute the demographic and the risk profile will change.

Anyway, why would you want members who are not really interested? Why is "massive scope for increasing membership" necessarily desirable?

[RobC]

I think the appeal od IAM needs to be broadened. The reasons why mature drivers get involved in AD may not be the same reasons that young drivers would want to be involved.
With younger drivers, image and what's seen as 'cool' go a long way. If it was proven that younger IAM members were a lower insurance risk with lower premiums then that would be a big incentive for younger members to join.

I'd argue that's exactly the wrong approach. Anyone looking at AD "because the insurance is cheaper" is doing it for the wrong reason and anything that they may pick up will not stick. Let's be honest here; the IAM test is not hard to pass. As soon as those looking for the "cheap insurance" have gained membership they will revert to type. What is the re-testing requirement again?

If it can be shown (and I'm not sure that it can) that members are a lower risk now, then it is because the people that make up that lower risk group are at least reasonably interested in driving appropriately. If you encourage new members based on the promise of an insurance benefit earned by people who joined for different reasons then you will pollute the demographic and the risk profile will change.

Anyway, why would you want members who are not really interested? Why is "massive scope for increasing membership" necessarily desirable?

Agree, cheaper insurance isn't a good reason for joining the IAM, It wasn't the reason I or probably anyone else on here joined. It may however be an incentive and one that is only valid if training has proved they are a safer driver which can only be a good thing.
I also agree the IAM test isn't difficult and may possibly be even easier for newer drives who haven't had time to develop their own driving habits. I wouldn't suggest recruiting members who aren't interested as they will not remain members. It is up to the IAM to make it interesting so that members wish to join.

From my own point of view any increase in driver training has to be a good thing from a road safety point of view.
I would have thought that it would also be an aim of the IAM ,however agree that there may be an optimum size for any organisation.

Rob

[waremark]

Interesting that some within advanced driving think it has a poor image, I would have thought the reverse would have been true.

Sadly the general public seem to link 'advanced driving' with the image of the IAM being all old farts in string back driving gloves and pedantic viewpoints on how a car's controls should be operated.

I disagree. I think the general public has no awareness of the IAM or of what we call advanced driving whatsoever. When I mention my activity as an IAM Observer to acquaintances I don't get scepticism about 'milking the cow'(hostile reference to PP steerti). I rarely find people who have any awareness or impressions of Advanced Driving whatsoever.

When I talk about driver training to car enthusiasts I rarely find any interest.

[waremark]

From my own point of view any increase in driver training has to be a good thing from a road safety point of view.
I would have thought that it would also be an aim of the IAM ,however agree that there may be an optimum size for any organisation.

Rob

If IAM training makes a driver safer (and it is an if) then the aim of IAM should be to put as many people as possible through the training. Why should it matter whether they remain members of the organisation thereafter?

[akirk]

From my own point of view any increase in driver training has to be a good thing from a road safety point of view.
I would have thought that it would also be an aim of the IAM ,however agree that there may be an optimum size for any organisation.

Rob

If IAM training makes a driver safer (and it is an if) then the aim of IAM should be to put as many people as possible through the training. Why should it matter whether they remain members of the organisation thereafter?

agreed - and getting people into the organisation / approach / AD scene / etc. is a start point - how you retain them is another

for example - if a major insurance company offered a substantial discount to young drivers - and continued the discount only with continued membership and 3 yearly re-testing...

it could create an interesting dynamic

Alasdair

[RobC]

From my own point of view any increase in driver training has to be a good thing from a road safety point of view.
I would have thought that it would also be an aim of the IAM ,however agree that there may be an optimum size for any organisation.

Rob

If IAM training makes a driver safer (and it is an if) then the aim of IAM should be to put as many people as possible through the training. Why should it matter whether they remain members of the organisation thereafter?

Hi Mark

From a drivers point of view , many driving courses, Rospa, Midas etc require refresher training every 3 to 4 years to keep skills current or to achieve or improve upon a certain level of skill.

I'm aware that the IAM doesn't have this requirement, however most organisations depend on membership subscriptions and whilst there will always be some loss of membership, it is better to retain members than to continually recruit and then loose membership and therefore income.
If an organisation constantly looses more members than it recruits then there the organisation will eventually cease to exist.

Rob

[akirk]

From my own point of view any increase in driver training has to be a good thing from a road safety point of view.
I would have thought that it would also be an aim of the IAM ,however agree that there may be an optimum size for any organisation.

Rob

If IAM training makes a driver safer (and it is an if) then the aim of IAM should be to put as many people as possible through the training. Why should it matter whether they remain members of the organisation thereafter?

Hi Mark

From a drivers point of view , many driving courses, Rospa, Midas etc require refresher training every 3 to 4 years to keep skills current or to achieve or improve upon a certain level of skill.

I'm aware that the IAM doesn't have this requirement, however most organisations depend on membership subscriptions and whilst there will always be some loss of membership, it is better to retain members than to continually recruit and then loose membership and therefore income.
If an organisation constantly looses more members than it recruits then there the organisation will eventually cease to exist.

Rob

yes, but if you make it more appealing and vastly increase the incoming members you could afford to lose far more

Alasdair

[hir]

Sadly the general public seem to link 'advanced driving' with the image of the IAM being all old farts in string back driving gloves and pedantic viewpoints on how a car's controls should be operated. A few trendier members would help.

I disagree. I don't think the general public hold any image at all of what advanced driving entails and, in my experience, something like 95% have never even heard of the IAM, let alone hold any preconceived view of it's membership. It's merely the other 5% who will be either enthusiastic IAM members on the one hand or individuals holding the sort of views that you have expressed above.

IAM bashing/IAM praising is a somewhat minuscule minority sport of which the vast majority of drivers are totally unaware.

[waremark]

If an organisation constantly looses more members than it recruits then there the organisation will eventually cease to exist.

Rob

In a way it is slightly strange that the IAM should be a membership organisation. The vast majority who take the SFL course have set out to buy themselves a course. There is nothing else that they want from participation in the organisation. If anything, it is surprising that such a large number go on to pay annual subscriptions after their course.

As to the possibility of beneficial insurance for young drivers, yes, that would be Nirvana, and would persuade really substantial numbers to take IAM training. However, I think it is fairly obvious that no-one has been able to produce convincing evidence that young IAM drivers would make a better insurance risk than drivers who otherwise have the same risk profile but who have not taken advanced training. As I have understood it, IAM Select do not offer insurance to those under 19, and are not competitive at the younger end even above that age. I should love to be told that I am wrong about this. Does anyone know to the contrary?

The insurance companies seem to have decided that giving young drivers black boxes is the way forward. I am fairly convinced that these do not assess the quality of driving. I assume however that they do reduce risk, because their presence makes drivers make more effort to drive sensibly.

[jcochrane]

I agree with hir that few people have heard of IAM. It's more likely they would of heard of BRAKE though. maybe a lesson there to learn.

[RobC]

Sadly the general public seem to link 'advanced driving' with the image of the IAM being all old farts in string back driving gloves and pedantic viewpoints on how a car's controls should be operated. A few trendier members would help.

I disagree. I don't think the general public hold any image at all of what advanced driving entails and, in my experience, something like 95% have never even heard of the IAM, let alone hold any preconceived view of it's membership. It's merely the other 5% who will be either enthusiastic IAM members on the one hand or individuals holding the sort of views that you have expressed above.

Hi Hir

I would be surprised if 95% of the general public hadn't heard of the IAM as their spokesmen are often on the TV giving their opinions on driving related matters. If it were true, then that would be the first thing the IAM should address if it wanted to increase membership.

Rob

[RobC]

The insurance companies seem to have decided that giving young drivers black boxes is the way forward. I am fairly convinced that these do not assess the quality of driving. I assume however that they do reduce risk, because their presence makes drivers make more effort to drive sensibly.

Hi Mark

One study showed that telematics gave a 20% reduction in crashes in 18 to 23 year olds. The use of telematics is likely to spread and not just for younger drivers. Formula One, emergency services and the Fleet industry widely uses telematics which can assess any number of things including speed, braking and acceleration force, cornering force and location.
I have a fleet customer who uses telematics and drivers receive a monthly report giving a percentage based upon those parameters. There has been a 25% reduction in collisions and a reduction in fuel used and drivers compete to get the best scores. The driver who has consistently the worst percentage score however is a former class 1 police driver!

Rob

[Gareth]

I have a fleet customer who uses telematics and drivers receive a monthly report giving a percentage based upon those parameters. There has been a 25% reduction in collisions and a reduction in fuel used and drivers compete to get the best scores.

The driver who has consistently the worst percentage score however is a former class 1 police driver!

Does this say anything about the lack of correlation between advanced driving and type of driving that the boxes promote?