Iam nz

[Madness]

So Cassina to use your own learned the 'hard way' ethos, I out experience you!!!!

But... which one of you has the bigger cock?

[SuperMac]

It would be more interesting than going in circles and it's an inevitable question when migrants from the UK come here and realise that IAM NZ does exist (albeit a tad smaller... like, the country as a whole is currently smaller than some regional groups in UK).

FYI

http://www.iam.org.uk/images/stories...e%20july14.pdf

C O M M O N C O N F U S I O N S
There has been a call for some central guidance in relation to ‘Common
Confusions’ on the subject of both Observing and Examining within the IAM. In
order to alleviate this, the following has been produced in consultation with Staff
Examiners across the country and will be added to as further ‘confusions’ are
identified.

[Gremlin]

FYI

http://www.iam.org.uk/images/stories...e%20july14.pdf

Interesting stuff thanks, particularly noting the "off-siding" on two way... less excuses for those poms coming here

One thing I did forget that the document mentions is straight-lining a multi-lane roundabout. With respect to conditions, legal in UK, not in NZ, you stay within your lane.

Otherwise, much the same as NZ (with a nod to laws obviously). A thinking approach coupled with common sense.

[SuperMac]

Interesting stuff thanks, particularly noting the "off-siding" on two way... less excuses for those poms coming here

One thing I did forget that the document mentions is straight-lining a multi-lane roundabout. With respect to conditions, legal in UK, not in NZ, you stay within your lane.

I would have failed an advanced instructor assessment (in the UK) on one of those points if they'd applied to that test

[pritch]

I'm unsure how much real training the general police receive for cars.

I was told a year or so back that the Police recruits do not receive any driver training- they are merely assessed. There may be driver training later in their career, but then they may have to wait twenty years for that.

In recent history a Police car was written off locally and the local commander told the press that the driver was trained to Police Gold standard. When I questioned how this "gold" standard was obtained I was advised that there was no high speed driving component, it was basically an extended version of a normal driving test.

The explanation was in the nature of a white wash, the car had been crashed at speed during a pursuit on a winding road for which the driver was not competent - whether or not he had received any relevant training.

You can't always assume that the cops can't drive though, one of the locals has raced bikes in the Isle of Man so can presumably punt a car along at pace.

[george formby]

I was told a year or so back that the Police recruits do not receive any driver training- they are merely assessed. There may be driver training later in their career, but then they may have to wait twenty years for that.

In recent history a Police car was written off locally and the local commander told the press that the driver was trained to Police Gold standard. When I questioned how this "gold" standard was obtained I was advised that there was no high speed driving component, it was basically an extended version of a normal driving test.

The explanation was in the nature of a white wash, the car had been crashed at speed during a pursuit on a winding road for which the driver was not competent - whether or not he had received any relevant training.

You can't always assume that the cops can't drive though, one of the locals has raced bikes in the Isle of Man so can presumably punt a car along at pace.

Much to my chagrin, quite a number of our local feds have exactly the same bad habits as our average drivers. Failing to stop at stop signs, crossing the centre line, failing to indicate etc. I kinda figured not all officers get advanced training.

[Tricia1000]

One of the areas that would definitely reduce the number of crashes on the road, both bikes and cars, is mandatory insurance.
For instance, a young guy 17-18, in the UK, has just passed his driving test.. In order for him to get insurance, he will need to buy a car, with a cc rating of 1.2 litres or less. The car may only be worth NZ$2300, but his insurance will cost NZ$11,650 PER YEAR.
If he crashes within the first year, then no one will insure him. It most certainly does encourage drivers in the UK to increase their skills, and to drive carefully. Plus if they have successfully passed a RoSPA or IAM test, then they would get a 10-20% reduction in their insurance. This again encourages safe driving. Whereas here, young teenagers are driving around in 2 or 3 litre turbo yadda yadda cars, without any incentive to improve their skills.
When I was working on revamping the BASIC HANDLING SKILLS TRAINING AND TEST, I tried to get NZTA interested in any number of mandatory driving/riding lessons, but they said that they can't introduce that, I think due to something in the legislation. I also tried to get the RESTRICTED LICENCE TEST for motorcyclists discontinued, but, because it was set up to follow the car model, it couldn't be removed..
Some form of mandatory training would also have a huge positive impact on our crash rates. However, instructors in NZ aren't re-assessed once they have qualified. Plus the method for becoming an instructor isn't really best practice, but that's another whole ball game.
It is hard enough to get class 1 and 6 to go on and take their full licence test. People don't see it as a priority when it comes to budgeting from their wages. So to expect these people to then fork out for hours of training....well, they just wouldn't do it.
Tricia1000
RoADA (Dip)
Consultant to NZTA

You are wrong according to Gremlin and I quote:

You need some experience under your belt to be able to understand some of the concepts, have some experience on the road. So you think the Govt would not incorporate IAMS training into the license test as it would be unpopular? I assume you mean as it would put the cost up? But on the other hand would such training if its as good as those on here say it is bring the road crash ACC bill down to virtually zero. That is of course you believe any screwup by another party is always avoidable from their teaching.

[Tricia1000]

Before the cops are allowed to drive a police car, they have to do the "very watery" AA defensive driving course, which in no way prepares them for driving with lights and two tones.
PLUS, when they first start driving a police car, they don't even have to have a full licence. Restricted will do.

Tricia1000
RoADA (Dip)
Consultant to NZTA

I was told a year or so back that the Police recruits do not receive any driver training- they are merely assessed. There may be driver training later in their career, but then they may have to wait twenty years for that.

In recent history a Police car was written off locally and the local commander told the press that the driver was trained to Police Gold standard. When I questioned how this "gold" standard was obtained I was advised that there was no high speed driving component, it was basically an extended version of a normal driving test.

The explanation was in the nature of a white wash, the car had been crashed at speed during a pursuit on a winding road for which the driver was not competent - whether or not he had received any relevant training.

You can't always assume that the cops can't drive though, one of the locals has raced bikes in the Isle of Man so can presumably punt a car along at pace.

[Ulsterkiwi]

One of the areas that would definitely reduce the number of crashes on the road, both bikes and cars, is mandatory insurance.
For instance, a young guy 17-18, in the UK, has just passed his driving test.. In order for him to get insurance, he will need to buy a car, with a cc rating of 1.2 litres or less. The car may only be worth NZ$2300, but his insurance will cost NZ$11,650 PER YEAR.
If he crashes within the first year, then no one will insure him. It most certainly does encourage drivers in the UK to increase their skills, and to drive carefully. Plus if they have successfully passed a RoSPA or IAM test, then they would get a 10-20% reduction in their insurance. This again encourages safe driving. Whereas here, young teenagers are driving around in 2 or 3 litre turbo yadda yadda cars, without any incentive to improve their skills.
When I was working on revamping the BASIC HANDLING SKILLS TRAINING AND TEST, I tried to get NZTA interested in any number of mandatory driving/riding lessons, but they said that they can't introduce that, I think due to something in the legislation. I also tried to get the RESTRICTED LICENCE TEST for motorcyclists discontinued, but, because it was set up to follow the car model, it couldn't be removed..
Some form of mandatory training would also have a huge positive impact on our crash rates. However, instructors in NZ aren't re-assessed once they have qualified. Plus the method for becoming an instructor isn't really best practice, but that's another whole ball game.
It is hard enough to get class 1 and 6 to go on and take their full licence test. People don't see it as a priority when it comes to budgeting from their wages. So to expect these people to then fork out for hours of training....well, they just wouldn't do it.
Tricia1000
RoADA (Dip)
Consultant to NZTA

I think your referral to the UK system has some merit but does not take the whole picture into account. In the UK model, insurance is there to cover potential personal injury claims as well. These will almost always far and away outweigh the cost of repairing or replacing a vehicle. In that sense the comparison is not a good one because as we all know New Zealand operates a no fault system with ACC, making is illegal to sue someone for personal injury. The cost of insurance in the UK is heavily influenced by the growth of the ambulance chasing legal system allowing claims of a ridiculous nature to result in huge payouts, made even more ridiculous by the fact all health care is free at point of use.
An example, I ran a Renault Espace, a 7 seater 2 litre petrol car. It was worth about 5000GBP. Insurance was costing me 1500GBP a year as an over 35 year old with no accidents and full "no claims" bonus. I asked how I could make premiums lower, three separate companies told me to get rid of a few seats. Engine size and the value of the vehicle and my licence status or training had nothing to do with it at that point.

I know its slightly off topic but I shudder when kiwis talk about compulsory insurance. For one it is tied into not seeing how good ACC actually is (with all its flaws) and for another, once something is compulsory then the insurance companies will have a licence to bump their premiums up overnight. So those already paying insurance will literally pay the consequences and those who drive without insurance will mostly continue to do so. There are plenty of drivers in the UK who do not have insurance even though it is compulsory.

No, the solution to upping standards is raising the level of what has to be done BEFORE anyone gets a licence. Your point about setting funds aside and the way priorities are determined is a good one, once that wee bit of plastic is in someones hot little hand, no further input will be thought of for many.
A driving licence should be a privilege not a right. Privileges are earned.

[GrayWolf]

I think your referral to the UK system has some merit but does not take the whole picture into account. In the UK model, insurance is there to cover potential personal injury claims as well. These will almost always far and away outweigh the cost of repairing or replacing a vehicle. In that sense the comparison is not a good one because as we all know New Zealand operates a no fault system with ACC, making is illegal to sue someone for personal injury. The cost of insurance in the UK is heavily influenced by the growth of the ambulance chasing legal system allowing claims of a ridiculous nature to result in huge payouts, made even more ridiculous by the fact all health care is free at point of use.
An example, I ran a Renault Espace, a 7 seater 2 litre petrol car. It was worth about 5000GBP. Insurance was costing me 1500GBP a year as an over 35 year old with no accidents and full "no claims" bonus. I asked how I could make premiums lower, three separate companies told me to get rid of a few seats. Engine size and the value of the vehicle and my licence status or training had nothing to do with it at that point.

I know its slightly off topic but I shudder when kiwis talk about compulsory insurance. For one it is tied into not seeing how good ACC actually is (with all its flaws) and for another, once something is compulsory then the insurance companies will have a licence to bump their premiums up overnight. So those already paying insurance will literally pay the consequences and those who drive without insurance will mostly continue to do so. There are plenty of drivers in the UK who do not have insurance even though it is compulsory.

No, the solution to upping standards is raising the level of what has to be done BEFORE anyone gets a licence. Your point about setting funds aside and the way priorities are determined is a good one, once that wee bit of plastic is in someones hot little hand, no further input will be thought of for many.
A driving licence should be a privilege not a right. Privileges are earned.

As an expat UK rider, the cost of insurance over there has always been 'high' even back in the 70's when I started, IF you wanted to get high performance vehicles. Way before 'ambulance chasing' occurred, the insurance premiums were geared to 'prevent' young/new/learner drivers from purchasing 'high performance' vehicles. EG A ford cortina mk2, 1600cc, not exactly the epitome of performance and a reasonable premium, UNTIL you went GT or E, immediate 'price hike' for the amazing power delivery that a twin choke webber added to the car.
As a learner rider 200cc or lower had a noticeable drop compared to a 250.
I actually agree with compulsory insurance {3rd party minimum}, as pointed out too many young drivers with what are HIGH PERFORMANCE vehicles without the experience/training/knowledge to use them competently.
The two things that greatly surprised me moving here from the UK is that, learner drivers there are minimum age of 17, and NOT ALLOWED to drive without a full licence holder sitting beside them, at any time or any reason, and that you do not have compulsory insurance here.
Regardless of 'ambulance chasing' the simple fact of being able to claim against in the event of a 'no fault' accident, is more preferable than having to use your own 'fully comp' insurance to repair your own vehicle, and for the insurance company to then take said person to court, and get $5 a week payments for the next 20yrs....

What is a shame, is there was at least one company in the UK that did a 'rider's policy' that actually insured the rider to ride ANY bike fully insured, up to an agreed CC limit on the rider's policy.... and they did do an 'unlimited' cover.

[GrayWolf]

I think your referral to the UK system has some merit but does not take the whole picture into account. In the UK model, insurance is there to cover potential personal injury claims as well. These will almost always far and away outweigh the cost of repairing or replacing a vehicle. In that sense the comparison is not a good one because as we all know New Zealand operates a no fault system with ACC, making is illegal to sue someone for personal injury. The cost of insurance in the UK is heavily influenced by the growth of the ambulance chasing legal system allowing claims of a ridiculous nature to result in huge payouts, made even more ridiculous by the fact all health care is free at point of use.
An example, I ran a Renault Espace, a 7 seater 2 litre petrol car. It was worth about 5000GBP. Insurance was costing me 1500GBP a year as an over 35 year old with no accidents and full "no claims" bonus. I asked how I could make premiums lower, three separate companies told me to get rid of a few seats. Engine size and the value of the vehicle and my licence status or training had nothing to do with it at that point.

I know its slightly off topic but I shudder when kiwis talk about compulsory insurance. For one it is tied into not seeing how good ACC actually is (with all its flaws) and for another, once something is compulsory then the insurance companies will have a licence to bump their premiums up overnight. So those already paying insurance will literally pay the consequences and those who drive without insurance will mostly continue to do so. There are plenty of drivers in the UK who do not have insurance even though it is compulsory.

No, the solution to upping standards is raising the level of what has to be done BEFORE anyone gets a licence. Your point about setting funds aside and the way priorities are determined is a good one, once that wee bit of plastic is in someones hot little hand, no further input will be thought of for many.
A driving licence should be a privilege not a right. Privileges are earned.

Just to add a separate point, insurance in the UK is a legal requirement, a CRIMINAL offence to not have it, and you run a MAJOR risk of your car being crushed if caught..... and they have a system now that automatically alerts for no rego/wof/insurance/licence from a number plate recognition system database. Spotted by a patrol car with a camera??? Your fooked.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Just to add a separate point, insurance in the UK is a legal requirement, a CRIMINAL offence to not have it, and you run a MAJOR risk of your car being crushed if caught..... and they have a system now that automatically alerts for no rego/wof/insurance/licence from a number plate recognition system database. Spotted by a patrol car with a camera??? Your fooked.

both points well made, it is still the case though that insurance in UK is higher in part because of the personal injury element.
And yes more investment is made in detecting those driving illegally, why is that? if there was not a problem why try to detect it?
Making something illegal is in some ways simpler but education is also a vital part of the story. Start off with a higher standard and its easier.

[GrayWolf]

both points well made, it is still the case though that insurance in UK is higher in part because of the personal injury element.
And yes more investment is made in detecting those driving illegally, why is that? if there was not a problem why try to detect it?
Making something illegal is in some ways simpler but education is also a vital part of the story. Start off with a higher standard and its easier.

No difference to NZ or anywhere else really, there are always those that drive/ride with no REGO, WOF, etc,,,,, just with the much larger population getting towards 70 million, it's a cost effective means of enforcement to buy in hi-tech equipment.
Unless it's changed in the last 25 yrs, to get you' 'rego' you had to produce a current insurance certificate and MOT {wof}.

[Ulsterkiwi]

That would be the purpose of maintaining an adequate following distance., thus allowing you time to scan for all hazards including dogs. How are you still alive???????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tamarillo]

Well this thread has been a journey. For those with an interest in roadcraft, IAM UK has rebranded and published a new simpler book directed at us riders. You should be able to see it online here. http://issuu.com/iam_roadsmart/docs/...ok_v16_combine

Issuu is free to join and they don't hassle you. There's lots of bike mags there too.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk