IAM - worth it?

I joined up with the institue of advanced motorists before I even bought the blade mainly to get my insurance quotes down a bit (doesn't work unless you pass/qualify) and as ammo to placate the family in case they tried disowning me.

It's been a month now since I've had the bike and the weather is finally good enough to go for my first associate ride oot with an instructor down in Banstead tomorrow morning.

I'm of the opinion that anything that can make you safer, smoother, (faster), and more observant is worth the time.

So - what do you think of the IAM. Good, bad, boring, worth it?

 

Mate at work has just passed his IAM test, he is a quick and confident rider and always sings the praises of IAM, but to be honest its not for me, i disagree with the whole "making progress" at all times, sometimes i like to "coast", therefore id never pass the test......

 

I AM a member myself ... and as with all groups there is a large range of skills and abilities .

On some of the rideouts I have been bored to death and peeled off to do my own thing .

But in the right group of riders it's a cracker . I would recommend doing the training and passing the test deffo .

Its always saved my money at insurance time

 

Thanks for the replies guys.

Well, I went and did my first observed ride.
1st time so there was a rehash of the information on their website and in their booklet, but once they did that then we were doing our document checks (thank god for a scanner and dropbox) and a quick bike check and we were off.

It wasn't too bad once out on the roads. The instructor knew a good mix of B roads with different amounts of sh!t and repair so it needed some concentration.
Not a fast ride out, but a steady pace that allowed us to be a bit more technical on our approach and lines.

The 1st assessment was a success with only a couple of observation points to be wary of during town riding.

Afterwards it was business as usual, but I did notice my corner exit speeds were up and it was all flowing a bit more smoothly.... more like I used to ride years ago.

All in all, a nice bunch of people that are not getting paid to assess your riding and are keen to share their roadcraft knowledge so you re safer (and quicker) oot there.

 

Pretty sure I wouldn't pass this test....

 

Agree, you wouldn't- still you probably have more chance than Lee!

 

My lines are slightly better - but my attitude is way worse ha ha

 

I went and did the bikesafe day course with our local boys in blue and it was really good, came away knowing more than i did going in thats for sure.

 

Glad it went well Callum ... if nothing else you get a different perspective on things

 

yes, there is always something new to learn...

 

Putting my advanced examiner instructor hat on for a moment, as with any type of training whether it be motorcycle, car or knitting, it can only be as good as the instruction you receive tailored to suit the needs of the individual.

All advanced groups have good and bad instructors regardless of whether it is RoSPA, IAM, BMF or whatever, however the problem I have encountered with the IAM in a lot of groups is that with the large groups you get a watering down of instructional ability because of the need to satisfy demand.

Because of the way the IAM test is structured, you can get a guy who really knows his stuff both with the theory and the practical, but he is looked at in the same light as the guy who has just scraped through his test, but because the guy who scraped through has passed, there is nothing in theory to stop him becoming an instructor within his group.

This is why when the register for advanced instructors goes live (which I understand should be in the next 12 months), anyone who offers advanced training either as an observer for a group or as a professional will have to be registered and have passed a recognised course, thereby ensuring that the cowboy element or power junkies are consigned to talking a good ride rather than putting lives at risk.

At the end of the day you have to be satisfied that what you are being told is sound advice, and I am afraid there are a lot out there talking absolute b@llocks, but there are also many others who do a sterling job, you just need to find them. Anyway, read the following which I published about 18 months ago, it might help you!

Over the last few years, advanced rider training has become more popular than ever before, resulting in a surge of new courses as motorcycle schools jump onto the bandwagon.

Now, the last thing I want to do is to criticise those individuals who give up a lot of their spare time and do their best to make our roads a safer place, but I would urge anyone who is contemplating taking an advanced training course to ensure that their instructor is suitably qualified.

At the moment, unlike CBT and Direct Access learner training, advanced rider training is unregulated. In simple terms what this means is that anyone who feels so inclined can offer advanced training. Choose your instructor poorly and you may not get the level of instruction that you hoped for.

There are a number of riders out there who have either taken one of the recognised advanced tests, or have attributes they consider sufficient to qualify them to teach at advanced level, when in fact riding to a standard and being able to teach to that standard are often miles apart.

So what are your options?

Well, you could join a local group such as those run on behalf of organisations such as RoSPA the IAM or the BMF. These groups have much to commend them. Not only do they offer a structured training programme, but the cost of joining is relatively cheap, they have a good social side and offer a recognised advanced test at the completion of what is often a 1 year course. The downside of joining such a group is that there is no guarantee as to the quality or experience of the instructor allocated to you, and as with any form of teaching there are good and bad in all organisations, although most RoSPA groups now only tend to use people who have qualified as advanced instructors under the diploma scheme (which I wrote and set up and ran for many years) and whose instructional ability is retested every three years .

You could go to a professionally qualified instructor or training school, however costs are invariably higher as they have overheads to meet and a living to make. Being professionally qualified does not always mean that they are capable of teaching at advanced level, they may hold a certificate issued by the Driving Standards Agency authorising them to teach CBT and Direct Access, but they may not have the first idea about the requirements of an advanced test.

So, how can you ensure that your instructor is suitably qualified and can be trusted to give you the standard of information and instruction you need? Quite simply by asking the right questions.

What advanced qualification(s) do they hold?

The main recognised standards are Police class 1, RoSPA diploma or gold grade, IAM observer, holding a Btec level 3 or 4 in advanced motorcycle instruction, or belonging to and instructing for a training scheme such as the BMF Blue Riband.

How many students do they teach at advanced level?

If they only teach one or two perhaps there is something you should know about.

What advanced test do they recommend?

If you are talking to a RoSPA or IAM group, then this will not be a relevant question, but it will be relevant if you are talking to an independent instructor. If they favour one test over another, what sort of results have they had over the previous 12 months?

What type of course do they offer?

What you are looking for are indicators that they have actually structured a course syllabus and are not just cobbling something together ad hoc whilst they talk to you on the phone.

What formal training have they done to attain their current position?

Some instructors are self taught and believe that is sufficient. I have even heard of one guy who believes that 10 years as a courier is sufficient on the basis that having survived for so long he must be doing something right! Ex-racers are often the worst offenders, and are of the belief that race craft is a good aid to staying alive on the road.

Can they provide references?

Perhaps past students or organisations they are affiliated to. Recommendation and approval from your peers is often the best form of advertising.

Do they get their own riding and instructional ability checked on a regular basis?

Many don't and end up teaching others dangerous practices.

Although this is not a definitive list of questions, it should at least give you the opportunity to make your own mind up about whether the person you are talking to is someone you would trust to teach you. For many people advanced riding requires a completely different approach to what they are used to. If you have any doubts at all, walk away. There are plenty more qualified fish in the sea.

The bottom line is advanced instruction can not only make riding safer for you, but also more enjoyable, but the training you receive is only as good as the information given to you by your instructor.


By the way, you don't have to take the test to get the badge to prove you are a good rider, although most people do want the insurance discounts which are not normally that much cheaper than without the test behind you, and in fact many insurers no longer offer discounts to advanced riders anyway.

When you have the ability and the skills, believe me, you will know that you have the ability and a great big grin on your face

 

Thanks for your reply Tony

For us on Sunday, our instructor also mentioned all instructors will need an IAIM NVQ (or something) to continue to teach from 2013/4 onwards which should go some way to mitigating the chance of receiving a have-a-go tutor.

While I agree in the principle of your caution on being observed and advised by an inexperienced instructor or someone havng a bad day, I think that it doesn't take into account one element of the instruction.

Me

I'm a million miles from being the best rider out there, but I have a fair amount of road knowledge and know when something is dangerous or not.

If someone advises me on something which I think is wrong, I'll say so.
Not arguing, but putting forward why I'm uncomfortable with the advise and ask for clarification.
If I'm still unhappy with the advise then I can choose to ignore it or compromise on the advise.

 

That is exactly how it should be, if you are not sure, you don't understand or don't agree then say so, because it is a two way thing.

There are many good riders out there, but being a good rider and being able to diagnose, rectify and advise on someone else's riding can be a million miles apart, so being a good rider does not immediately make them a good instructor, and any instructor worth his salt should be able to qualify why a certain point has been raised. You may not agree with it, but you will at least have a different perspective to consider and if it doesn't work for you having had it explained, then don't use it.

As an example, I always sit in a very dominant position just inside or on the centre white line not afraid to sacrifice my position when conditions demand. It gives me an extended view, a good escape route if the vehicle in front brakes suddenly and I have crept up a little too close (which can happen to all of us from time to time) and it also allows me to get a good view of what the driver may be doing through the drivers door mirror, and it is easy to pick off the quick overtake when safe to do so.

However, whilst I adopt the position adopted commonly by many/most Police riders, I would not advocate a student riding in the same position unless they were comfortable and safe, but demonstration and explanation at least allows them to consider the options with reasoned explanation.

Advanced riding is not rocket science, it is actually very easy once a common sense approach has been applied. Three riders holding the same qualification can look at the same hazard but in three different ways. All three deal with the hazard safely and proficiently, who is right and who is wrong? Does it matter providing the hazard is dealt with safely.

Increase the bubble of safety, which in turn will increase the margin of error you have to play with, but as you rightly say, if you do not agree, do not understand or you are uncomfortable with what is being said, then say so as callumw has correctly said