Iam nz

[Berries]

It could be said that those of us who still ride after being the victim of someone elses screwup have learnt nothing.

Yeah, probably. If I had crashed five times and was the only vehicle in four of them I would have taken the hint long before now.

[GrayWolf]

Advanced drivers use a way of driving called “The System” which is derived from the Police “Roadcraft” system of car control. The System of Car Control is a way of driving that allows the driver to approach all situations and negotiate all hazards in a methodical and flexible way that leaves nothing to luck or chance, therefore it will be safe.
The above quote is from the IAM website which I interpret to mean their training will make safe any hazard you confront? What they are trying to claim is in effect even a head on collison could be made safe with their training?

what you are blithely taking out of context and distorting is, the quote you are misrepresenting is for the POLICE trained drivers and riders, they are graded as to the 'speed' etc they are considered skilled enough for. The civilian AIM training is NOT expected to be at 'pursuit speed' levels.
I've relocated this you tube clip from 5th gear....
firstly watch how the Police driver at high speed is extremely relaxed, and as pointed out later the 'style' is extremely regimented, hands '10 to 2', feed the wheel, no crossed hands like a race driver, no heel/toe on brake/accelerator the reading of hazards and the road...then remembering she is a touring car race driver and is using race techniques for driving, and he is using the 'pure' police technique, on track he was only 4 seconds slower... again listen to his dialogue when she is in the car, thinking, not feeling his way through the bends....


http://tinyurl.com/ol4pq9c

then listen to the commentary and ho this police driver 'does it' when on a blue light run on public roads.....

http://tinyurl.com/plktszc

I think you are going to have to realise you are WRONG!

[swbarnett]

the Police should not be necessarily considered better drivers than anyone else as there was a media story some time back about the high number of police vehicles being written off and if IAM police training made them as safe they claim this would not happen now would it? Also there was a crash some years ago where a police officer did a U turn in front of 2 motorbikes and I think killed one or both of them. You are the WRONG one with your thinking and I invite you to look up the stories I have stated. I would be interested in your response if you still think the same way about IAM.

What you say here is relevant to the drivers, not the system. I think you will find that if the drivers stuck to the system religiously these crashes would never have happened. Don't blame the system for the fallibility of those who are supposed to be following it.

[GrayWolf]

The quote I got is not off a police website but the IAM NZ website. It says nothing about having to travel at police pursuit speeds in order pass the course but by passing you will be safe handing any hazard. I have said this before but I will repeat for your interest in that the Police should not be necessarily considered better drivers than anyone else as there was a media story some time back about the high number of police vehicles being written off and if IAM police training made them as safe they claim this would not happen now would it? Also there was a crash some years ago where a police officer did a U turn in front of 2 motorbikes and I think killed one or both of them. You are the WRONG one with your thinking and I invite you to look up the stories I have stated. I would be interested in your response if you still think the same way about IAM.

again you post things completely out of context,,,, as has been pointed out by a previous poster, which had you bothered to read, would not be posting this bullpaki....
DIFFERENCE!!! the UK Police are legally allowed to train under 'pursuit speed conditions' on the public highway, NZ Police receive training MOSTLY dealing with close quarter traffic work. They do not have the 'luxury' of the UK Police training regimen.
Put simply you are attempting to say you know better than a system of driving, developed over 70 years, with THOUSANDS of expert drivers improving, adding to this as times have changed?
The UK Police train the 'drivers' of Royalty and dignitaries, that includes evasion driving training.
The IAM states you will be 'safe handling a hazard', which for fucksake, if you bother to understand that second clip, you can see/hear road reading, threat assessment, anticipation in action on a public road at speed......


Sorry CASSINA, but are you REALLY this thick?

[Jin]

Sorry CASSINA, but are you REALLY this thick?

If she knew she was then she wouldnt be this thick. Catch 22 at work right here

[FJRider]

Owning the crash and owning your part are two separate points. In any crash, you're not going to learn a thing if you spend your time blaming the other side. While legally it may be their fault, you assess objectively and ask yourself (with your increased knowledge through training) if there was anything you could have done differently (ok, I should qualify, I mean reasonably, not, I shouldn't have got on the bike for another 10min) that would have changed the outcome.

It is my belief ...

Few (if any) riders (or motorists) travel with the belief they will crash. During any ride ... all their actions on the road are carried out with a believed acceptable ... little ... or no risk ... to their own personal safety. A safe outcome after many such actions ... may cause them to believe such actions will be as safe as they were in the past.

Risk management is the subject we should be concerning ourselves with. If we believe an action / maneuver we make on the roads is safe ... and we are involved in an accident ... regardless of "Legal" fault ... we should put our hand up and take some responsibility for the end result.

Perceived risk can differ from actual risk ... if some of the risk factors are unknown to you.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing ... it's just a pity we can't get it earlier ...

[Gremlin]

I have said this before but I will repeat for your interest in that the Police should not be necessarily considered better drivers than anyone else as there was a media story some time back about the high number of police vehicles being written off and if IAM police training made them as safe they claim this would not happen now would it? Also there was a crash some years ago where a police officer did a U turn in front of 2 motorbikes and I think killed one or both of them. You are the WRONG one with your thinking and I invite you to look up the stories I have stated. I would be interested in your response if you still think the same way about IAM.

I know for a fact that the police motorcyclists undergo significant training and it's an area of speciality that you can only enter after being the cops 2 odd years (this I'm not exactly sure of the details). In contrast, I'm sure recruits are behind the wheel of cars far more easily. I'm unsure how much real training the general police receive for cars.

During any ride ... all their actions on the road are carried out with a believed acceptable ... little ... or no risk ... to their own personal safety. A safe outcome after many such actions ... may cause them to believe such actions will be as safe as they were in the past.

Absolutely. This is why IAM is an ongoing process. Doing a day course I don't believe sets you up for the next 20 years. There would be an inevitable slide of skills, bad habits creeping in etc unless skills and techniques are regularly re-inforced. You do something, get away with it... you do it more regularly, you develop a bad habit.

There must be some flaw in the system then for the police to not want to stick with it? I am guessing most of their thinking would revolve around how they are going to deal with the job they have been despatched to go to rather than a lengthy IAMS check list which would result in them arriving later than would be ideal maybe.

There is actually a section of the book devoted to this. The noble cause (rushing to a scene) does not outweigh the risk. Getting there a few seconds earlier vs having/causing an incident isn't acceptable. Worrying about what could have occurred doesn't matter. The situation will likely have changed regardless during the response time.

[Gremlin]

So there are different IAMs teachings for different countries then which I did not know. In view of the fact the UK system is better than ours according to you it does mean, does it not that the police here should be treated as no better drivers than anyone else? I am guessing you must be a sales rep for IAM? Once again if it was so good everyone would be required to pass it before getting a license and it would have to be to the UK standard if the govt was serious about getting the road toll down maybe.

Roadcraft has to adapt to the laws of the country. Order of precedence for NZ is Road User Rules 2004 (legislation), Roadcode (intepretation of law <-), Roadcraft.

UK Police have different laws to NZ Police, so adjustments have to be made. Motoring public have different laws as well (legal to cross to oncoming for cornering is not legal here, here we must always indicate, UK you'd fail, you indicate if someone will benefit). Ultimately, we all follow the roadcraft book, but adjustments have to be made with respect to laws.

No, IAM shouldn't be prior to licence tests. It is not a training organisation, nor do we intend to be (plenty of commercial instructors). It is a charity focussed on road safety (and by extension, believe in upskilling drivers). Also, clearly not big enough to handle a sudden influx country wide. However, in time it grows, and you see the influence of roadcraft through things like Ride Forever and CBTA.

Further, IAM normally accepts applications from riders/drivers that hold full licences and have been riding for around a couple of years. It's not a replacement for licence test training, rather another step after gaining your full licence.

[swbarnett]

There must be some flaw in the system then for the police to not want to stick with it?

Name me a system where 100% of it's graduates adhere to it 100% of the time. The biggest, and possibly only, flaw in a system like this is the human implementing it.

[Blackbird]

So there are different IAMs teachings for different countries then which I did not know. In view of the fact the UK system is better than ours according to you it does mean, does it not that the police here should be treated as no better drivers than anyone else? I am guessing you must be a sales rep for IAM? Once again if it was so good everyone would be required to pass it before getting a license and it would have to be to the UK standard if the govt was serious about getting the road toll down maybe. Maybe instead of getting into a debate with me over it you would be better to put your energy into lobbying the Govt to make it compulsary. I bet you would label the Govt thick too if they turned you down?

In your inimitable style, you've chosen to take GrayWolf out of context. Roadcraft doesn't essentially vary wherever it's taught. However, as Gremlin says, making sure that local legislation is adhered to is paramount. The police both in the UK and NZ use Roadcraft as the basis for training but but also have significant additional training to meet specific needs of their profession which casual riders don't require. That is what GrayWolf was trying to say.

To be quite clear, the system is called Roadcraft and was developed by the UK Police. IAM and RoSPA use Roadcraft as the basis for coaching riders who might be described as riding for enjoyment.

I still can't work out whether you're the biggest troll ever to grace KB or the most ignorant person ever to subscribe to the site.

[Gremlin]

Why do you not think it should be a prerequisite for getting a licence if as they claim they can teach you to handle any hazard safely? You can find yourself in a hazardous situation on day 1 after getting your licence not just 2 years afterwards. Someone driving free of fines or crashes for 2 years would be far less likely to need it than someone on day 1 on the road in my opinion.

You need some experience under your belt to be able to understand some of the concepts, have some experience on the road. Roadcraft is not some learn-by-rote thing you pass by re-gurgitating it during your test.

As I explain to associates, you have a toolbox of skills and just like any job, you select the appropriate tool from the box for the job at hand. Through IAM you're gaining more skills and knowledge which helps you identify the risks/hazards (information gathering, positioning) and respond in an appropriate way (reduce speed, change position etc).

There are plenty of Instructors and training organisations to help newbies learn how to co-ordinate clutch, throttle and gears. IAM is at the other end of that path with advanced roadcraft. Remember we're all unpaid and contributing our time - and I don't want to be teaching newbies, otherwise I'd become an Instructor and charge for my time etc.

Also, just because someone has been riding for years doesn't mean they're less likely to need it. We've had riders from a number of backgrounds (ex IAM UK, former Instructors, NZ instructors etc) come through, none have yet passed the fast track that was established for some situations. The biggest thing we've found is that even though they've got good knowledge, if they haven't been actively practising the skills they need some work to get back up to standard.

[Gremlin]

So what sort of experience do you expect people to have before doing the course and what actaully is wrong with the driving test to not be able to assess for such experience? For your information the IAM course does teach vehicle operation (they quote correct gearing) from their website but you expect people to have been doing it possibly wrongly for 2 years before you can help them? From what you have said about cost could that possibly be the reason why it is not part of gaining a licence. Did you not know that learner drivers and the elderly are most at risk of having an accident but you are not interested in reducing their risk in the case of learners anyway. It does not make sense to me.

There is no specific experience, just like if they have 1 year and 11 months it's probably fine. It's called a rough guide.

I'm glad you can tell me (for my information) what I should be commenting on when riding with associates. For your information I don't expect to show someone how to balance clutch/throttle and gears to get away smoothly from a stop. I do expect to educate on gear selection for any given piece of road.

So look at the bigger picture. Roadcraft is promoted as part of the charity. Through this promotion (and I may have to explicitly state it's not only IAM doing this as there are consultants to NZTA etc) we have Ride Forever (via ACC), CBTA and Advanced Rider Training days (delivered on track), plus probably more all based on elements of roadcraft, but perhaps not all. There is also that regional program sponsored by AA/Caltex with Instructors. There are NZTA qualified Instructors, who commercially instruct, coming through IAM to seek the extra accreditation to teach CBTA. As such, far more people are being reached than IAM could directly contact, all upskilling and using roadcraft. Driving/Riding tests are getting harder and licences are easier to lose (1 year and 1 day means a re-sit which means examination under the new system).

Things take time, and I would say a lot of people are putting in a lot of work, to lift the average standard.

Well... except for those with closed minds who refuse to think they can be better.

[caseye]

I've gota Headache!
People, please,no more.
IT will never get what we/you are trying to tell IT.
Because IT really is that thick, that IT can't see how it applies to them.
it is simply not worth the effort.
A brisk, robust discussion about the differences between IAM UK and here would be interesting.

[bogan]

Either there is specific experience or there isnt and you seem to not want to elaborate as to what you would like that to be for some reason. As I said before you debate really needs to be with the Govt if you want to lift the "Average Standard" as you put it and to me that simply means incorporating your teaching in the license test and if not why not?

Why? For your information, a specific experience is not required, as the specificty could well limit the number of the people that would turn up for the training of the motorists on the road; would they not?

For you additional perusal to inform, the govt is bound by popularity is it not, and also the notion of an acceptable loss to which the growth of the economy is pursuant to offset. And additionally informing you of this information for whom it may be directed; all of that is of course offset by the risk of noncompliance is it not.

[Gremlin]

Either there is specific experience or there isnt and you seem to not want to elaborate as to what you would like that to be for some reason.

Well I really can't be arsed, but would IAM have to specify so many km urban and so many rural? What about motorway? What if they don't have a motorway nearby? By mentioning experience it partly helps them. I don't want an associate learning everything I mention by rote. I want them to question and understand why things are done so the skills are better applied. You need experience to do that. They can draw on their own experiences and see if they had approached in a different fashion there would have been a different outcome.

As I said before you debate really needs to be with the Govt if you want to lift the "Average Standard" as you put it and to me that simply means incorporating your teaching in the license test and if not why not?

Thanks for the advice, but that's already well in motion (consultation with government - well, it's actually the agencies that do the hard yards). Did I not mention... no wait, I actually did... tests and assessment are becoming more roadcraft focussed (try passing a test without a headcheck). The thing is, you really seem to lack comprehension. Just because there is no IAM stamp on your licence doesn't mean it's had no input. The fact that roadcraft is being recognised and incorporated IS A WIN (I really don't want to start bolding things, but you needed to see that so I don't have to repeat... again).