Summer 2007 IAM magazine

[Major Bloodnok]

I've been perusing the latest issue of Advanced Driving, and was intrigued by an article titled "Personality Check". This reports on some new research designed to pigeon-hole drivers in an attempt to justify simplistic attempts at behavioural change*.

Now, they propose a number of categories for driver personality types (I'm summarising, here):

Deathwish: Male, 19-20, in it for the thrill, drive a modified car.
Young and Reckless: Not as extreme as "Deathwish"
Fast and Cocky: 25-34, high opinion of own ability.
Fast and Far Away: Young, male & female, not particularly interested in cars and driving. Tend to be on autopilot much of the time.
Accidental Tourist: 25-34, high mileage, consider themselves to be reasonably good.
Mr and Mrs Average: older drivers, no strong feelings about driving, low confidence in own ability.
Steady Eddies: 'Nuff said. "Sensible attitude to speed" (sic). can be 'confident' or 'nervous'.
Stress City: 25-34, least likely to enjoy driving, not confident, easily stressed.

There are a few things that strike me about these categories:

• there's a lot of overlap
• the full descriptions are only concerned with why people speed (or not, in the case of Steady Eddies)
• there's a category that is notable by its complete absence (any guesses?)

The whole study appears to be predicated on "speeding is baaad" and looks to me to be an exercise in justifying a pre-decided conclusion. This seems to be confirmed by three "myth buster" panels, one of which purports to explode the myth that "speed cameras don't spot bad drivers". I'll quote:

"Drivers who have been flashed by speed cameras are almost twice as likely to have had a crash as those who haven't."
(I'd like to see the evidence for that one.)
"Furthermore, there is a correlation between the likelihood of drink-driving and the chance of being caught by a speed camera."
(Ditto. Evidence, please.)
"'Cameras are a roadside diagnostic device for spotting crash magnets' says Professor Stradling."
(Yeeeessss. That's why KSIs have dropped so dramatically over the last ten years.)
"'While the laws of physics dictate that speed at impact inexorably increases crash severity..."
(Well, duh!)
"...drivers who speed also have an elevated crash frequency."
(Sigh. Evidence, please. That statement just seems too simplistic.)
"Such risky drivers need help, fast, in changing their behaviour.'"
(Presumably by putting in more cameras.)

I might have some sympathy with the above if they added the qualification "where the speed limit is set reasonably for the stretch of road". As it is, though, it's nothing more than a set of unsupported assertions.

* Cynical? Me?

[BertBert]

looks an interesting article with all categries having a very negative element. Comes across from your description very badly. Paraphrasing there are two classes of driver, the bad ones and the ones that have been "helped" by IAM.

In my year of failing to get going with IAM, I don't recall getting a mag. Is it only for when you are full members having passed?

Anyway for a magazine of a body that is promoting high standards (so called best practice) that's doing neither really. But I guess that's the only one in the mag and the rest are full of interesting and pithy insights to help the Advanced Motorist?

Bert

[BertBert]

bert completely unrelated to the thread sorry said:

So I find my anti-IAM-experience feelings suddenly resurging again. At Sliverstone the other day, I went out with an instructor and we had a whale (wail?) of a time. Great hints and tips, a shared experience and the joy of improving. I am really looking forward to the next instruction. All the observed drives I went on were the opposite. I always felt under a microscope, no fun, no shared experience, no sense of excitement at any improvements. Need to find the time (inclination) to have another go somewhere!

[TripleS]

I can't find a pigeonhole I can recognise as mine, which is not surprising I suppose.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Major Bloodnok]

BertBert: No. It doesn't mention or imply IAM training at all. There are two basic categories, though; those who don't speed, for one of two reasons, and those who do, for a number of reasons. Its appearance in the mag. is just as an article, with no implications about IAM training at all. my concern is that the study, as reported in the article, seems to be starting from the assumption that speeding is the cause of all ills and studying why people do, or don't speed.

The category that seems to be missing is the enthusiastic driver who cares about his or her driving ability and takes measures to improve it.

[TripleS]

Major Bloodnok said:

BertBert: No. It doesn't mention or imply IAM training at all. There are two basic categories, though; those who don't speed, for one of two reasons, and those who do, for a number of reasons. Its appearance in the mag. is just as an article, with no implications about IAM training at all. my concern is that the study, as reported in the article, seems to be starting from the assumption that speeding is the cause of all ills and studying why people do, or don't speed.

The category that seems to be missing is the enthusiastic driver who cares about his or her driving ability and takes measures to improve it.

Thanks Denis I think I've now spotted a suitable pigeonhole, although there are those who would query some of the 'measures' taken.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[WeirdNeville]

Why not just do it on a points basis, ie. "aged 17-20 +10 points, 20-25 +5points" and "frequently exceed the speed limit +2 points". This would give an overall risk factor rather than trying to categorise people. This would draw peoples attention to the things that detract from the quality of their driving. (I.e. Roadcrafts first chapter). For example, you may not fall into any group, but pressure at work can force you into driving faster than you should... This can happen to anyone.

Also, it appears that the categories foster a "them and us" attitude where everyone else falls into one of these groups but the Hallowed IAM members can sit back and realx in the knowledge that because they are not in any of the above groups, their driving is perfect.

We all have areas we could improve on, but recognising this is the first step.

But then I'm a 20 year old male with a deathwish who drives a powerful car, because I'm late for work and I think that I'm a better judge appropriate speed then the plonker who put the signs up, so feel free to ignore me!

Edited by WeirdNeville on Monday 30th July 22:02

[Major Bloodnok]

WeirdNeville said:

Also, it appears that the categories foster a "them and us" attitude where everyone else falls into one of these groups but the Hallowed IAM members can sit back and realx in the knowledge that because they are not in any of the above groups, their driving is perfect.

Can I just stress again that this is not an IAM study, just an article in the IAM magazine. There is no suggestion in the article that IAM members are exempt from inclusion in any of those groups (although I suspect that individual members will have their own opinion on that). The purpose of my post was to highlight what I felt to be a flawed study, not to bash the Institute (don't shoot the messenger and all that).

[WeirdNeville]

Major Bloodnok said:

WeirdNeville said:

Also, it appears that the categories foster a "them and us" attitude where everyone else falls into one of these groups but the Hallowed IAM members can sit back and realx in the knowledge that because they are not in any of the above groups, their driving is perfect.

Can I just stress again that this is not an IAM study, just an article in the IAM magazine. There is no suggestion in the article that IAM members are exempt from inclusion in any of those groups (although I suspect that individual members will have their own opinion on that). The purpose of my post was to highlight what I felt to be a flawed study, not to bash the Institute (don't shoot the messenger and all that).

Ok, just re-red the post and realised that it was a report into a study, and not an AIM article attempting to categorise. As you say, looks very flawed!