why not make a day of it and ride over to one of the areas that do not charge. you would use considerably less than £70 in fuel.....
I don't need to, I'm an IAM Observer :wink: My point was that £70 is a lot for Bikesafe when you can do a whole IAM Skills for Life course with Severn Advanced Motorcyclists for £99 (you pay £139 up front and we give you £40 back when you take your test regardless of the result).
Interesting comment, so from that do we assume that you've reached the pinnacle of riding perfection and no one can possibly point out the odd area where you can polish your riding? This is where the IAM has shot itself in the foot over the years, comments like this. EVERYONE would benefit in some way from ANY sort of training or assessment , just because you choose IAM brand, does not mean the ROSPA, Bikesafe or any of the other training / refresher schemes out there cannot show you something. I went on Bikesafe, so that someone else who I don't normally ride with could take an objective view of my riding and give me feedback on areas that I and the folks I normally ride with had missed. Guess what, all 3 of us had very similar feedback! Just my 2p worth.....
No, that's just your false assumption. I said I don't need to do Bikesafe, which is a stripped down version of what's in the IAM syallabus. I agree. That's why I spend 2 full weekends a year training with Class 1 police riders.
Hmmm Had you mentioned that in your first post, I'd have agreed with you totally, however, the "I don't need to..." without the qualification in your follow up is exactly what gets up my nose when interacting with folks from the IAM. I've never had that attitude from ROSPA, the ERS or any other of the motoring groups, only from IAM members........ Go figure.
The I.A.M. do have a bit of a reputation. I too used to observe with my local group (Manchester 500) so I'm well aware of the image issue. However, just because you're an 'I.A.Mer doesn't mean you religiously berate everyone who doesn't ride to the system and strays over a speed limit. I did it for me, to help me stay safe and I don't care what image that sends out. Any extra training is good, who cares what people think of you and an extra £70 may be a lot of cash but you only need to remember the single piece of info that saves your life and it's then worth it. I decided to do the I.A.M. course because I had the cost reimbursed by my local bike club 'Poynton Motorcycle club' which reimburses you once you pass your I.A.M. A fantastic incentive and something I would recommend everyone who rides on the roads to do. I honestly think everyone (certainly myself included) would benefit from a Bike Safe day, no harm in going over the things you've forgotten. Even the best of us can make an error of judgement that leads to an accident.
I stated quite clearly that I'm an IAM Observer. I have no obligation to qualify anything any further. You could have just asked... I've never had that attitude from ROSPA, the ERS or any other of the motoring groups, only from IAM members........ Go figure.
just to square it up a little, i have to say the worse attitude ive come across is from those who have never done any further on road training since passing their test and in my humble opinion are generally the ones that need it, yet wanna spout off about those that have!
Some people bring too much of their own baggage when they read stuff. Put it like this, if I said I was a qualified Archery Coach would it be 'normal' for people to suggest that my saying I don't need to go to a local club's "have a go" session at a fete is somehow the same as me saying that I'm Robin Hood?
To be fair you're not really comparing apples with apples in your analogy there; you've dismissed all other forms of bike training in your previous posts stating the reason that you're already an I.A.M observer. This gives the impression that you are above all other forms of training, whether that was what you intended to imply or not. It's more like saying that you are a qualified Archery Coach and don't need to go to a local club's archery coach to get some more/alternative/extra training. The difference is subtle but it's obviously not just me that can see this, and why you have quite a few comment on this thread. To go back to your analogy, even if you went to the mythical "have a go" session at the local fate, you might end up being shown how to fire an arrow by the coach of Team GB as that just happens to be his local club ... do you still think you wouldn't learn anything? An open mind is the best tool you can have.
This is what I meant about people bringing their baggage. If you examine what I actually said and what is was with reference to, you'll see that I said I didn't need to do Bikesafe. It's really not. Line up the key points and you'll see. Archery Coach vs Observer, "Have a go" vs Bikesafe, the false assumption that I was implying that I don't need extra training vs. the false assumption that I'm implying that I'm Robin Hood. Your reworking of my analogy is both wrong and misleading. I agree. I just don't like being misquoted.
I'm just going from your original quote ("I don't need to, I'm an IAM Observer :wink: ") without taking all your back-peddling into account.
No back-peddling involved. The thing that I was saying that "I don't need to" (do) is Bikesafe (which is what was being suggested to me). It's all there in black and white if you read it.
Reading Macs' posts is enough to not make me want to do IAM. Much of biking is about having the right attitude on the road towards other road users, and I don't think IAM would give me that based on reading Macs' posts. Would much rather do Bikesafe with the coppers who take time out to help other bikers have fun on the roads in a safe way and learn better roadcraft. I have met many bike cops who are big bike enthusiasts first and foremost, and they are arguably the best trained riders I know of who practice what they teach everyday of their working lives - not just at the pub, or through arrogant forum posts.
