'Motoring high horse'. I'd like to see a horse with a motor on the go but I wouldn't like to see the resulting mess.

For anyone who is having a go at IAM I'd suggest you take a test. You'll then discover the benefits of having done so.

Because a lot of drivers NEED the bleeding obvious stating!!

To expand on the nonsense said today i give you this introductory quote, taken from the right hand side of the page there.

The IAM is urging motorists to look well ahead to see road signs. They give important information and guidance on hazards, road layouts and directions

Im sorry but theres nothing advanced in that, thats chapter one stuff, learning in a theory book at 16. There was me thinking road signs were for decoration serving no useful purpose.

This paragraph also wins the award for 'State The Obvious of the Day'

Seriously, whats advanced in that? Even a learner on their first lesson who doesnt know which pedal is the brake could tell you road signs give you information for goodness sake.

If this is advanced i'd hate to see basic. I feel its horribly patronising of both the IAM and HJ to promote them that they feel fully licenced qualified motorists need to be told what a sign is for and that we should look at them.

Edited by jamie745 on 08/09/2011 at 22:49

*sighs* You're one arent you?

Admit it. Own up.

Signal? I think Avant's got it right. It is a signal. Rather than anything with any substance.

Yes unthrottled all it is is very basic stuff which we all know, but dressed up in a very posh way to make it sound better and more complicated.

Will someone tell me whats advanced about reading road signs? Is that advanced motoring? Or is it (as i very much suspect) something covered on your first driving lesson if not before that 'road signs provide information...'

IPSGA? See thats just all the stuff we already know just put into a pretentious bunch of words to make it sound 'advanced' We all know them five things are the system of car control but because we dont know their fancy stupid terms for it we're not 'advanced' like they are.

With pretentious moronic rubbish like that its no wonder most people never bother with a patronising test and that most sensible normal people like me think they're a bunch of idiots. Its idiotic people taking something which is simple, making it sound more complicated to make themselves sound better.

It'd be like a painter and decorator, who says the most important tools of their job is a brush, paint and over-alls and renaming it the PBO system for advanced tradesmanship. Which when you boil it down its still just painting a wall. But unless you know the terms he's decided to give those things then you're a moronic basic painter, you're not an advanced painter like he is.

Nobody is saying what the IAM say is wrong, most of their stuff is right. But its nothing advanced. Its basic stuff in any driving instruction book and taught by every instructor up and down the land. Theres nothing advanced in there. The only thing thats advanced is the pointless terms they give things and the whole presentation of it to make it sound more complicated.

Edited by jamie745 on 08/09/2011 at 23:26

There isn't. But if everyone drove as taught, there would be fewer accidents.

With our roads statistically safer than our hospitals it would suggest most of Britains motorists drive pretty well. Theres enough good ones to anticipate the bad one and see a loon coming to advert serious disaster. But most accidents are caused by driver error, this is again a basic fact. Doesnt justify dressing basic stuff up as 'advanced.'

The IAM is simply there to uphold basic driving standards

I thought they were there to teach advanced driving standards? Driving instructors, examiners, police and courts are there to uphold driving standards. The IAM is a charity, not a Governmental body responsible for peoples driving. The fact they seem to feel its their role or job to uphold licence holders driving standards is very arrogant and self serving.

whether it puts it across in the right way, and whether the organisation is appropriately named, is a different question.

Well ive already answered that. To set yourself up, invent your own terms for existing things and call yourself 'advanced' because of it is what alienates people. Do they really feel its 'advanced' for people to drive in accordance with 'basic driving standards'. Your words not mine. One minute they're 'Advanced' and the next its 'basic driving standards' surely they should be there to encourage advanced driving standards?

You're trivialising an important issue, don't try and put them down just to make a debating point.

No im not. I gave them the award for patronising advice of the day, which it was. To tell motorists to read signs is patronising. This is a fact. But because the IAM say it they seem to get away with it. We shouldnt be debating anything here, i didnt expect a debate from this thread. As theres nothing to debate. That piece of advice is patronising and stating the obvious. Fact. If the EU had released this today you'd all ridicule them for stating the obvious. If the Government had released it you'd say the same thing. But the IAM? Oohhh noooo its fine.

yes, the magazine is full of letters from those who think grammar is more important than driving

And do they still wonder why they only have around 100,000 members? Or to put it another way, around 0.3% of Britains motorists are a member of the IAM and yet we have some of the safest roads in Europe if not the world. Looks like the 99.7% of us are getting on just fine. And that fact alone proves all they do is teach stuff we already know with more complicated words than neccessary.

but I happen to think that sensible driving doesn't always just happen, sometimes it has to be thought about.

Agreed. But i still dont see what use the IAM serve here. A driving instructor will tell you the same thing, and they're actually qualified and regulated and their opinion is worth something. I still dont see what purpose the IAM serve. I thought about my driving very much so, i manage to concentrate and read signs and ive been driving for 9 years now and havent got any points, been in any accidents, made any claims and run nobody over and ive done all of that without their help. (Granted i reversed my first car into my own tree but it wasnt an insurance claim and no harm done)

If it's such a mundane matter, why don't you take the test and report back on how well you performed?

Because ive already passed the test which actually matters.

" It's true but trite."

Yes - that's how it may come over to you and me, because if we take pride in our driving we do it naturally and as you say don't need to be told.

But somehow these principles need to be got through to thousands of people who think they know what they're doing, but as we see most days on the roads, are clearly in need of this sort of instruction. I'm not sure how this can be done, but any publicity such as that from the IAM is surely better than nothing.

'Because ive already passed the test which actually matters.'

That statement shows how little you know about the strandard driving test.

Edited by 475TBJ on 09/09/2011 at 08:56

Yes well thats the point isnt it, when you tell basic motorists that they're actually 'advanced' when in reality what they've been taught is nothing advanced at all they then believe they are advanced and become worse, more dangerous drivers as a result of that.

Yes usually arrogant members of the IAM (is there any other kind?) believe that everybody else is thick and need the obvious telling to them.

Jamie - A said "a lot" not "everybody".

If you honestly feel that the majority of drivers are excellent then you're a bigger fool than we thought.

The AVERAGE standard of driving in this country is appalling - but there's no need for the good drivers to get offended, the message is aimed at all the others.

<puts two penn'orth in>

I reckon that passing a driving test is largely meaningless; the old adage that you don't really learn to drive until you've passed and started tackling the roads without someone sitting with you is true, in the main.

Having said that, I would very much like to have a go at the police driving course - that actually looks like a challenge (I remember my dad passing it, when I was a little'un).

He was indeed.

If you honestly feel that the majority of drivers are excellent then you're a bigger fool than we thought.

The AVERAGE standard of driving in this country is appalling - but there's no need for the good drivers to get offended, the message is aimed at all the others.

Ok. Lets try this again. *takes deep breath* Ive been talking to dumb brick walls but i'll try it again. 'The Message Aimed at all the Others' so those people who dont read road signs are going to go on a motoring website and read an article telling them to read them? Im sorry do you still not see how pathetically idiotic that is? Am i talking to myself? Am i the only one who can see this?!

The point is, the IAM teach nothing a normal driving instructor doesnt. What you think of the average standard of driving is beside the point, as i said 99.7% of drivers in the UK havent done the IAM test and we seem to get on ok, because all it is is a standard basic driving test teaching standard basic things but in a more complicated way using posh terminology. Thats ALL it is.

Whether you think most peoples driving is good or not is beside the point, the real point is that the IAM serve no role in improving anything. All they do is dress up basic stuff as being more complicated. Like a pompous way of telling you to look right at a roundabout as highlighted above, thats the sort of thing i learned out of a theory test book at 16! Thats nothing advanced! Why wont you see this point! Do i need to spell it out in spaghetti or make a neon sign with it! People just wont see what im trying to say, probably on purpose. *smashes head against brick wall again in hope people will listen!!!!*

If you really believe 99% of Britains motorists need telling that a road sign gives instructions and to look right at a roundabout then you are more patronising than the IAM. I dont know why you think you're so much better. You say Britains drivers are awful but thats just twoddle, with 33 million cars on a small island you're always going to come across a few idiots, but you're forgetting the thousands of cars you encounter everyday who are doing things correctly. And the properly bad drivers, the ones who use phone while driving, drunk, unlicenced, uninsured types etc who make up a very high proportion of accidents will not be solved by the IAM telling them to look right at a roundabout. If heavy fines and disqualifications etc dont deter these idiots then how is the IAM going to do it? Theres a difference between a properly bad driver who causes problems, like the ones highlighted here and someone who forgets to indicate when turning on an empty road, unfortunately its the latter who the IAM seem focused on.

Its pathetic that this thread has turned into a debate about Britains drivers when if anybody but me posted it you'd all just laugh at the IAM and be done with it, or if anyone but the IAM said it, say if the Government released this you'd laugh your heads off, call them patronising and that'd be that. But because its me, quoting the IAM, it turns into a discussion about things the thread wasnt about.

If you honestly believe people are getting driving licences who dont know to look right at a roundabout then thats something you need to take up with the licensing authority and the Government, its not the IAM's responsibility if that is the case but obviously it isnt, because if it was then millions would be dying everyday.

I was bumbling along the M4 the other day. Usual mix of HGVs straining to the limits of their limiters, white vans doing their thing, repmobiles snorting down the outside lane at 90-100 (yes, they do, certainly once they get West of Reading), plus a few panic-stricken people on the inside lane being buzzed by everybody ...

Hundreds of mechanical devices wobbling along on rubber balloons, each individually steered by people of varying skill levels ...

I'm just amazed that it actually works most of the time ...

Edited by veryoldbear on 09/09/2011 at 19:05

Tell me what they teach you on the IAM driving test which a driving instructor didnt (or shouldve) already teach you.

I dont need to fall down a flight of stairs to know it'll be uncomfortable. The whole 'if you havent done it you cant have an opinion' is a pathetic response to divert attention away from the real facts of the matter. Its a tactic often employed by people who've discovered they're wrong.

Edited by jamie745 on 09/09/2011 at 21:13

Are you going to tell me what the IAM teach which driving instructors dont then? Or are you just going to get bogged down with throwing pointless posts and insults at me?

Yes, looking right at a roundabout, thats highly Advanced.

Knowing that road signs provide information and instructions and that we should read them and act upon them is also highly Advanced.

Well things like looking to the off-side when negotiating a roundabout are invaluable Jamie. I always used to look left and now I understand why there are so many dents in my o/s wing.

Hehehehe.

If they put anymore signs up, especially in towns, you dont have enough time to read them,well not safely anyway

The IAM will always give recommendations one way or the other in case we forget they are there:) it doesnt mean you have to take notice of the rubbish they do come out with,half the time a lot of motorists cant see signs anyway,as for driving well I think its aim and steer foot to floor on other peoples insurance

Don't forget "sustainability" and "diversity" .... aaaaaargh!

Statistics show that IAM members have an accident rate some 50%-75% lower than average. Many insurance companies give discounts to people who have passed the test.

I wondered how long it would take for you to have a rant.

100,000 drivers is more than enough.

Calm down jamie745. I think he's winding you up.

Actually Jamie, I don't think it's the size of the sample compared to the total population that makes this an irrelevant statistic.

How representative the sample is of the driving population as a whole on the other hand.....

All this stat says is that the sort of people who join the IAM are less likely to hit things. Whether that's a result of the IAM's teaching or whether it's just that the percentage of boy-racers and clueless mimsers is lower amongst their membership is open for discussion.

What do you mean"It's too small a field of data to take any conclusion out of at all"? It simply means that drivers that have taken the training, reached the standard and passed either the IAM or RoSpA test have an accident rate 50% to 75% less than drivers that haven't. And by the way, all examiners for both organisations have to be holders of a police Class 1 qualification which means they are all serving or retired traffic officers.

The concept of compulsory post L-test training is being considered by government right now, it's called Graduated Driver Licencing. The L-test will in the future be regarded as an entry qualification to driving with the requirement that it is topped up with further training at regular intervals.

Statistics show that IAM members have an accident rate some 50%-75% lower than average. Many insurance companies give discounts to people who have passed the test.

But only 0.3% of Britains motorists are members of the IAM, so with a data field that small a 75% lower than average accident rate means absolutely nothing. Its too small a field of data to take any conclusion out of at all.

Hmm Jamie knows nothing about statistics - rather obviously.

But knowing nuffing never stops him posting about cars either...

Edited by madf on 11/10/2011 at 15:26

If I might interject interfrastically.

An old Uncle of mine used to be fond of quoting "lies, danned lies and statistics"

or indeed the joke? was it? about the accountancy exam :

Question 1. Use the data provided to prove that statistically, activity "A" is more dangerous than activity "B"

Question 2. Now use the same data to prove the opposite proposition!

Anyway, I have mulled over sitting the IAM exam, I havent because

(i) I might fail, because I would question the validity of some of the "gospel", like driving in a lower gear than strictly necessary?

Anyway I have been learning to drive for this past 34 years, mostly fairly successfully.

and

(ii) they mostly seem a bunch of pretentious twerps.(sorry)

BUT!

I have sat in with an advanced? RUC trained driver, now accident inspector.

That was an education, what yer man was seeing that I wasnt, not necessarily pertinent to our safe & speedy progress but nonetheless, an education.

btw he did not necessarily observe speed limits, I liked that.

PS

mulling it over I am now about the right age

Hmmmmm

Edited by dieseldogg on 11/10/2011 at 15:55

I have a degree in physics jointly with maths so I know very little of statistics,

tsk tsk Jamie, I at least, do not think you are thick..................merely misguided

Anyway you must be mixing with media or social studies graduates, try and meet a few Astrophysists or graduate Engineers, from a good University I might add.

Civil Eng BSc (failed)

Edited by dieseldogg on 11/10/2011 at 16:51

I dont have a degree so that must mean im thick. Actually no, as most people with degrees that ive met know very little about anything and think a degree in a frame makes their opinion somehow more valid.

*dusts her several physics degrees and gazes around in ignorance

I think we'll have a maths lesson on the next thread that has stats in it, boys and girls.

Whats the benefits of joining such a group in the first place? some people say that you can get cheaper car insurance, my brother works for an insurance firm (quite a large main stream one) and there is definately no policy of giving a discount because of passing another pointless test. This may be different for other firms but this is the evidence i have in front of me.

stating the blindingly obvious is no help to anyone, no matter how much you argue the point. If you don't know what signs are for then you shouldn't be driving... Simple. and i can't see anybody passing the test without first learning them. so again preaching to the saved.

If you pulled over a driver who ignored a sign, they would know what that sign meant but would have just chose to ignore it. instructing him that they provide information about the road ahead and they he should read them, doesnt change that fact. the way to deal with them is to fine em or ban em for lack of due care and attention. The defence of "I didnt know what the signs were for" wouldn't hold up in court. They took a regulated test, with a regulated Instructor/Examiner, learning regulated rules to abide by, as have everyone driving on the roads.

"The IAM Urges Motorists to Look Out For Traffic Signs Ahead."

You only need to watch tonights C5 8pm Dangerous Drivers programme to see some people don't look out/take any notice of road signs.