For those who remember the previous one, which distorted data and was abused in the press, there's a new poll to comment on. I told them, nicely, that I wouldn't bother again.
This one?
[img] 
[/img]
The IAM exists solely so its members can tell everyone they meet that they are members of the IAM.
I met a few very good IAM members who were in it to improve riding (and they did improve mine) but rj is probably right with his generalisation.
randomjeremy - Member
The IAM exists solely so its members can tell everyone they meet that they are members of the IAM.
That is always what I thought as well, bit like MENSA in that regard. Makes you wonder who signs up for these things.
Although the IAM do seem to do some lobbying on behalf of the public for improvements in road safety.
The ideals of IAM are fine.
I'd definitely prefer that the driving public gave some [b]thought[/b] to their driving/riding and the impact of their actions on others.
If everybody undertook the IAM course then that would be no bad thing. Observation and planning is is a good thing.
Being a member shouldn't provide a sense of superiority though.
Theirs (and Rospa's) system is the slightly quirky, Roadcraft method of driving, but it is not "the one, true way" to smooth car control.
I joined and passed their test(motorbike). I'm grateful to the volunteers who run it, but I've no interest in being a [i]member of the club[/i]. I didn't re-new my membership.
This story...
discussed here...
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/57-of-all-cyclists-run-red-lights-according-to-iam