How many people did you meet for you to form that impression? It would be naive of me to suggest that that attitude doesn't exist, but in my experience the widespread generalisation you make is not applicable. Those individuals I have come across who display the attitude you describe (and I wouldn't blame anyone for being put off by it - it would put me off too) have more often turned out to be members than observers.

rather than Skill Badge for Life

How many hours of professional tuition would you be expecting for £139 then, after VAT, the costs the test (two hours of an examiner's time), the cost of running a road safety charity, administration, advertising, a book, and a small amount going to the group? At the end of the day you paid your money knowing it would be fulfilled by volunteer observers, and like with any body that large, some will be better than others.

If you want professional tuition there are plenty of coaches out there, but expect to pay a lot more than £139 for a day with someone.

The issue I have with fast track is that it seems only to be good for passing a test and not making the roadcraft style the everyday style of the driver which IMO can only be done over time

I agree that it's far better to focus on outcomes (safe, smooth, etc) than style.

I also agree that testing isn't the be-all and end-all. Far from it. It's the training that counts more than the test. However, there are advantages to the test: because passing the test is a goal, it motivates many people to undertake a 'critical mass' of training. Also, for many people, there's a psychological impact on their driving of passing an advanced test. Being an "advanced driver" becomes part of their self-image, which means they continue to feel the importance of driving well ... often lasting for many years after the test.

I strongly agree re: stylistic. There are advantages and disadvantages to testing. Testing must turn off some people. It's not clear cut.

It's certainly a shame about the 'advanced' label. I certainly don't feel very advanced when I make an all-too-frequent human error! However, other attempts at a name seem to have fared poorly. In motorcycling, the BMF shied away from the term advanced, calling its post-test qualification the Blue Riband. Takeup was low. The DSA has its Enhanced Rider scheme, which has low takeup too. I doubt the name is the whole story, but it probably has an impact.

The vast majority of newcomers to advanced driving (ie. IAM and RoSPA associates) have no knowledge or preconceptions whatsoever about "stylistic tests", rocks or hard places. All they want to do is improve their driving, and they believe that one or other of these organisations can help them achieve that goal.

The only reason that people "stay away" is because they do not believe that their driving needs improvement. It's known as unconscious incompetence.

The IAM is focused on trying to sell a product, driver improvement. Unfortunately, the "hard place" that the IAM find themselves in is that they are selling education and its been known for at least two and a half thousand years that only “When the Seeker is ready, the Master will appear". Trouble is we don't have enough seekers.

The number of people who stay away because they don't like the image projected by IAM or RoSPA is minuscule compared with the number of people who stay away because they don't consider that their driving is in need of improvement or, are insufficiently motivated to do anything about it.

The trick with any form of education is to persuade the unconsciously incompetent to adopt a state of conscious incompetence... then the master will appear.

What do you mean by the word..."it", in the phrase "It leads exactly to the sentiments...". I don't see any connection between "it" and anything else that you have posited. We're talking about why the vast majority of people don't consider advanced driving relevant to their situation. The OP actually came to advanced driving. It was only after he arrived did he have a bad experience. His experience isn't typical.

No, but I would regard the existence of Rospa and IAM as a good thing.

A lot of people are just-about competent. They can drive about without crashing, but many are not really very aware of their surroundings, other road-users or the condition of their vehicle. If they encounter difficult situations they often don't know how to deal with them.



There are realtively few people who are well-rounded, smooth, observant 'complete drivers/riders' (I'm constantly aiming for that and have more interest in it than the vast majority, but I'm certainly not the best and have learned from past mistakes).

A very large number of drivers drive far too close behind other vehicles and make a lot of use of the brakes, even people you might expect to know better.


I totally agree.


Many enthusiasts are possibly put-off by the idea of sticking rigidly to speed limits (understandably, from the organisations' legality point-of-view)in quiet, discrete places and/or being told to de-skill some of their car control.



ps. I've mentioned before that I once went on a one-day 'Corporate Fleet IAM' course. This was based around simple, useful tips for defensive driving with no dogma, other than "thou must shift gear once for a hazard", which wasn't an issue for me as that was the way I'd been taught.

I thought it was quite good, but then I've always been interested in driving. Others found it boring.

In my opinion, there should be an incentive for experienced drivers to attend a course like that.

There's room for improvement in pretty much everybody, it therefore follows that if everybody were better our roads would be safer. That means there is a lot of potential for improvement, but it is far from declaring all those outside of the larger advanced driving organisations are incompetent though.

I just don't think that the large advanced driving organisations look an attractive proposition to many & a higher standard is not restricted to their ideologies or methodologies.