Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Posts: 18397
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Speeding...

Postby Vorpal » 24 Jan 2014, 8:22pm

DavidT wrote:
To be honest, and perhaps to my embarrassment I wasn't particularly aware of their policies on this issue. :oops: I'll have a read up and by all means consider giving them some member feedback.

My defence of IAM is nevertheless based on my experience of the expectations and attitudes shown by their examiners I have met at numerous times (both in and out of car), rather than the portfolio of head office policies.


While you're at it, ask them why well maintained pavements will assist in encouraging cycling. :?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Posts: 1218
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 2:05pm
Location: East Midlands (Originally from Devon)

Re: Speeding...

Postby DavidT » 24 Jan 2014, 9:35pm

Thanks for the prompts, and ease of reference with links. So I've read the policy - and indeed there are bits I don't agree with. (re Helmets and segregation)

However the same policy also includes the following (which amazingly no one has mentioned yet?)

Adult cycle training should be widely available and cycling should be part of the National Curriculum taught in every school
Teaching new drivers about the risk that vehicles pose to cyclists must be a priority
Information campaigns should highlight risky behaviour by drivers and riders and encourage safer interactions between motorised and two wheeled transport
Drivers must adhere to the Highway Code by giving cyclists safe room, respecting advanced stop lines, parking safely and controlling road rage
Safety mirrors should be fitted to large vehicles and at key junctions
Infrastructure improvements which separate cyclists and heavy traffic should have the top priority for investment. Well maintained and pothole free roads, pavements and cycle lanes will assist in the encouragement of cycling. (Totally inappropriate use of "Pavements" noted :wink: )
20mph zones should be widely used in residential areas and where cycling and pedestrian flows merit it
Cyclists should adhere to the highway code, obey road signs and signals and cycle in a safe and predictable manner
There is no evidence that insurance for cyclists would make any difference to cycling or driving behaviour and the IAM does not support compulsory cycle insurance or road tax for this reason

The attitude and Highway Code elements are clearly incuded in the IAM driver training and test expectations. :D

Lots of positives? CTC could surely have written most of that lot? If this (albeit combined with opinions on the segregation and helmet issues) is an "attack" on cycling I wonder how we are supposed to describe typical media reporting and TV presenter soundbites? :roll:

With the bigger picture in mind, I'm glad the IAM are there.

Happy cycling (and driving, where applicable. )

Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Speeding...

Postby Tonyf33 » 25 Jan 2014, 2:24pm

DavidT, it's all well and good repeating verbatim what is written in a policy, but that pretty much constitutes what is part of the driving test/DfT guidelines anyway.
It is oft the attitude of IAM members that worries me, yes they are 'better' drivers than your average joe, but honestly a fair few that I have encountered do not understand the basic rights of cyclists or are just not in agreeance with them, afterall part of the ethos is for motorists to make progress ( :roll: ) which cyclists will inhibit :roll:

You can write whatever policy you like but until 'actions' and not words are the recognised deliverer of a change in attitude for the majority then those words are just that and nothing more.

Posts: 1218
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 2:05pm
Location: East Midlands (Originally from Devon)

Re: Speeding...

Postby DavidT » 25 Jan 2014, 6:42pm


Sorry, elsewhere in the thread the policy had been criticised (helmets, segregation), so I was endeavouring to put the record straight on that matter - IMO the majority of the policies are clearly commendable.

Regarding Members' attitudes, yep they are human and you meet some intolerant ones, or ones that have forgotten their training. However the majority, I have met, on average indeed, are more tolerant than the average driver I have met. I am therefore loathe to criticise the organisation which is trying to make a bit of difference. True it doesn't have a silver bullet/magic wand etc, but who does? Yes IAM/Advanced driving does require "progress", however in my experience this is ALWAYS (caps for emphasis - I'm not shouting :wink: ) secondary to safety. As I imagine you are aware, the term "progress" in advanced terms is inextricably linked with safety - "progress" does not mean going fast regardless of prevailing circumstances and legality. This is in contrast to the understanding and conduct displayed by the overwhelming majority of untrained (since 17) drivers, most of whom couldn't give a damn about speed limits unless there is a camera there, and the attitudes of the press and TV presenters, but I'm repeating myself..