IAM Institute of Advanced Motoring

Did the IAM training & test with KAMG 10 yrs ago while off sick, to relieve the boredom really. TBH I didn't learn much at all although the slow speed control part was ok. Went to a couple of evening meets but found them a bit stuffy & 'past it', so let the membership lapse. Spin's course sounds far better by the comments that come after.

 

firstly, if you cant spell analogies, you arent allowed to use them. Secondly, Im older than you and have been using that since I was like 13!

 

I was using it when I was 8 (although wasn't allowed to say f*ck), so before you were. So ner!

 

Unfortunately I had bad experience, similar to Tanyas with the IAM although it was the Essex lot, RoSPA group I joined was better instruction but piss poor organisational skills and bad communications from the people supposed to sort out observer allocation, turned out to be a waste of money for me. Fortunately I then did my Police Course so am happy with that as I have to be re-assessed every year which helps keep me on top of my game.
I would like to point out that Bikesafe is NOT instruction and the guys running it don't pretend to be Instructors, merely some well qualified riders offering a bit of advice based on an assessment so it's wrong to talk about Bikesafe and Rospa, IAM courses in the same context.
I've not been on one of Spin's courses but do work with him on 'Biker Down' and have had many chats on the subject and like what I hear so I would invest my potential, Advanced Group membership money, in one of his courses.
Incidently I too, would offer free assessments!

 

Sorry, I wasnt doing a comparison between BikeSafe and IAM as courses per se, Im just saying that I felt more inclined to trust the cops assessment of my riding than I did the IAMs instructors. We met another IAM instructor on a ride out and they definitely had an "I know it all" attitude.

 

Retake their test? Which test? I was just saying that why is the RoSPA standard not the standard for your DVLA driving test?

OK, as an examiner for both, which would you recommend? Go on, you can tell us

 

To answer your second question first, RoSPA every time.

To answer your first question, the difference between any advanced level and the DSA L test is like chalk and cheese, and so it would not be practical or realistic to implement such a standard.

The DSA are very blinkered when it comes to them being told what is good or bad practices (as I am sure other instructors here will confirm), on the basis that they are the licencing authority for the UK and therefore they are the experts, and as a result they know best

The DSA are looking for a basic level of competence, and my guess is that this is because many of their examiners have difficulty in riding to a higher standard.

A few years ago, I had to examine one of the L test examiners from our local test centre, and within 20 minutes I had to terminate the test as the standard was not only poor, but bordering on dangerous.

As a result of this and a few other tests conducted, DSA sent a few of their senior examiners on the Police advanced course (I believe it was at Devizes) and they left after the second week as they could not hack it.

It would be terrific if everyone could be taught to the highest possible standard (car drivers included) but it won't happen, which is why those who wish to improve standards have to make their own arrangements and find someone suitably qualified and experienced to help them progress.

 

and the rest of us just ride in fear for our lives

 

And as a basic and advanced instructor, I'd take issue with that every time.

The first time pass rate for car instruction is under 50% - in other words, instructors tend to put novice car drivers in for the test when they'll pass if they get lucky.

By contrast, the average pass rate for Mod 2 with a training school for novice bike riders is around 80% first time (worth noting it's about 50% if you do CBT then teach yourself!). We get riders to a much higher standard.

I've been teaching advanced riding since 97 but I honestly believe that basic RIDER training teaches you the core skills you need and that you'll use in 90% of the situations you find yourself in. OK, 10% might be missing, but in the time available, basic training can't possibly cover everything (if we tried, you'd not like the bill!) but if you think about what you do day in, day out, on a bike, you'll be using the skills you learned on your basic training course.

Unless there is a fundamental flaw in your basic skills which slipped through the test (it does happen but not nearly as often as people think) there really is no reason to fundamentally change any of that to ride to a much higher standard, you just bolt new skills and knowledge on top.

 

Well, it's never a bad thing to get two opinions. At very least you get the chance to compare different approaches and to see which one works for you.

 

Tanya I think I was aiming my remark on comparisons between Bike Safe and Advanced Courses at T.C.s comments not yours.

quote 'The DSA are looking for a basic level of competence, and my guess is that this is because many of their examiners have difficulty in riding to a higher standard'

I've worked with and followed on test several Examiners and always found their riding perfectly adequate for the job they were doing, lets face it how 'Advanced' do you need to be to follow a learner. Granted a bit more forward planning is required as well as a cool head in a hairy situation but there is no requirement for what I would term genuine Advanced skills! Again, as T.C. said the L test and Advanced riding are chalk and cheese, so why train your examiners to that level? Their riding is not even required to set a standard to the Learner as the Learner never even see's them ride, spending all their time in front! Hence Examiners can examine using a car!

 

I really don't see it that way.

Riding skills are a continuum. Just because you've passed your test, you don't simply stop using the skills you learned on basic courses.

Even most of the so-called advanced positioning skills are simply an extension of "see and be seen" which is taught on CBT!

The only real reason for trying to suggest there's a huge gulf between 'basic' training and advanced skills is to make 'advanced' riding sound more important IMO.

The test candidates do have mirrors so the examiner does have to ride at a reasonable standard. And to be fair, cars are only used as an exception to the rule, usually when you've got a relief examiner covering for sickness, holidays or heavy bookings, or when the examiner's bike is in for a service.

 

Whilst I can appreciate your point of view, it is fine if you new riders attend a centre where the instrictor goes beyond teaching the minimum required to be able to give them the DL196.

You hear of many centres who cut corners, or who trainees who have completed their course in little more than a couple of hours, and because the DSA do not Police centres as well as they used to IMO, then problems will persist.

I would qualifiy this by saying that there are also some very good training centres out there who do go the extra step, but of course it tends to be the poor ones that we hear more about.

I would not even try to suggest that advanced riding is more important, because as you say the learning process is ongoing, and even if you modify your road position marginally, then it could be argued that the person is riding to a more advanced standard than when they passed ther test.

What is important is that riders stay alive, and therefore anything that helps them achieve this has to be applauded, however, as mentioned elsewhere, there are instructors who would have you believe that the IAM, RoSPA, ERS or whatever is the be all and end all.

The best bit of advice I was ever given, (and I am sure many others have been given the same bit of advice) is the day you stop learning is the day you really need to consider hanging up your keys.

I have come across many riders (as I am sure you have) who are of the opinion that they do not make mistakes, it is everyone else who gets it wrong or are driving or riding to a poor standard, and whilst taking an advanced test is not really a nessesity, it can be usefull to confirm that what has been taught is appropriate, or what they have been taught is sensible, or even just to get a different perspective as everyone has different views, but ultimately it is about giving riders (and drivers) the tools that can help prevent them having the crash in the first place.

 

Tony, I'm definitely not suggesting CBT is adequate preparation for the road - it's not, in any way, shape or form, both for the reasons you mention and also because trainees simply look at the bottom line and go to the cheapest school (which often amounts to the school which cuts most corners) rather than consider what the training entails.

But many of the concepts that are put over on CBT (and 'see and be seen' is an important one) are fundamental ones and don't change in essence however good you get.

It's a fact of life. You very rarely hear about a happy customer, even 100 happy customers. But one unhappy customer can make a lot of noise.

Fully agreed. Improving riding is mostly about making people think "why AM I doing this?" and "what are my choices?". A good basic training instructor (even with all the problems of time-constrained courses and trainees who only want to pass the test for the minimum effort) will start trainees down that route. A good advanced instructor will continue that development.

Agreed on that too. Avoiding making the same mistakes over and over is another key point, as it not blaming other road users for dangerous situations.

Although being human we all make mistakes - it helps to know what mistakes we're likely to make. Whilst trying to avoid those situations in the first place is preferable, it also makes a big difference if riders then know how to get out of trouble when we do make them

 

i am so glad spin has someone to talk to

 

Nice of you to be concerned

 

This has been the most interesting thread though, v useful

 

Disagree Kevin, If an L plated rider rode in front of a DSA examiner using Advnced techniques they would fail in seconds, straightlining roundabouts, making progress (Advanced style) Overtaking as it is taught to advanced riders by the bodies already mentioned, no lifesavers, un-obvious use of mirrors, more extreme positioning on R handers etc etc would all go down like a lead balloon when on a DSA test, as you know full well. Similarly ride like a newbie on Advanced training and an observer would have a field day not knowing which of the above to start with. the two are poles apart in my opinion. As different as ped is to a Harley, yeah they've both got two wheels but the likeness basically stops there. One is riding to conform with an expected behaviour and fairly black and white and the other is real world stuff with loads more calculated decision making and grey stuff thrown in, one you start with and the other you develop into and it's not developed into all that quickly either. I never suggested you stopped using the skills you learnt in your training but they do need a lot of practicing to turn the novice into a competent 'advanced rider'. I have been bikeing 20 + years and done more than my fair share of Advanced training and I know I'm still not there yet so in my mind that's a 20 year gulf between basic and Advanced but then I suppose it depends how high you set your own standards?