So, went on a proper observed ride today.

[The Spin Doctor]

I got the impression, from the observed rides I did and the stuff I read, that there are two potentially contradictory messages in IAM training: 1. "We want you to be a thinking rider"; 2. "In this situation, do this". The better observers seemed to emphasise the former, the more by-the-book ones the latter.

IMO a big chunk of the problem is the need to ride to a specific set of rules in order to pass the test.

During my own personal time, I was constantly being told "you're not going to pass the test if you / if you don't"... at the same time, when I flipped the session around and started using the leading question technique on my assessors to try to get a handle on what THEY were thinking, there was a tacit admission that there was nothing wrong with my skills or decision-making, I just wasn't doing it in the way that they thought they should be seeing. -

Braking for bends was a good example - I was told that I was braking "because you're not reading the corner right", so I went through a series of question about entry speed / position / line and so on, to find out what he thought I was doing wrong. He had to admit that there was nothing actually wrong with my cornering... "but if you're using the brakes you're not reading the corner right..." was his conclusion even if I was clearly negotiating the corners fine!

My last assessment with BikeSafe (based on RoSPA principles) threw up a similar issue - "you're not making the progress I'd expect from an advanced instructor". Why do I have to? "Because you should be able to." Why? "Well, you just should". The copper was completely baffled that I wouldn't want to ride as fast as the road allowed.

I keep being told by IAM insiders "it's not like that any more" but the number of trainees I get who've had an unsatisfactory experience with the organisation is significant. Sometimes it's the kind of philosophical difference that I have experienced, but something that the IAM are not set up to deal with (but keep trying) is to 'fix' riding problems - with a standard syllabus, it's tough to do that.

[Demannu]

...........well reasoned personal opinion from an experienced rider............

Hopefully Horse will understand that!

[Horse]

...........well reasoned personal opinion from an experienced rider............

Hopefully Horse will think about it for me

tldr? He's agreeing with your mate.

Longer: if you follow the rules - whether or not they're actually what the examiner wants - your observer will be happy.

FWIW i was present when a copper an advanced assessment ride that Spin later described as "Riding like a plank". Both Spin and the copper critiqued the ride, both commented on the same [minor] aspects.

[The Spin Doctor]

...........well reasoned personal opinion from an experienced rider............

Hopefully Horse will think about it for me

tldr? He's agreeing with your mate.

Longer: if you follow the rules - whether or not they're actually what the examiner wants - your observer will be happy.

FWIW i was present when a copper an advanced assessment ride that Spin later described as "Riding like a plank". Both Spin and the copper critiqued the ride, both commented on the same [minor] aspects.

LOL, I thought I was reasonably clear!

Essentially, if you have a test at the end of a course of training, then that training course tends to be prescriptive.

Prescriptive training tends to 'teach' without much in the way of adaptation to the trainee's background or prior expertise, and there's often an inherent assumption that the 'model' being demonstrated is universally applicable to all riding environments and all trainees - what I've referred to as 'one size fits all' approach.

Riding tests tend to result in that kind of approach to training, simply because the test almost inevitably has a series of set criteria which have to be matched, and that tends to lead to training which creates a rider who conforms to the criteria.

Just to clarifiy the assessment that Horse was talking about... it was part of my BTEC in post-test training, and I was paired up with a highly qualified copper on the day, with Horse and Steve Dixey doing the assessments, whilst they in turn were being observed by a moderator from EDEXEL, the body approving the BTEC... so wheels in wheels kind of thing.

Part of the day was an 'assessed ride'. It was an interesting exercise, because I was sent out as the 'stooge' to be assessed, with the copper assessing me, and Horse watching both of us.

I got halfway through the ride and suddenly realised I was making all the mistakes I'd tell my own basic training students not to make - essentially, I'd say to them "don't try to ride like you think the examiner wants to see, ride like you've been taught". There's a big difference. So I mentally switched gear.

The copper said at the end "what happenened? It was like someone flicked a switch and I was watching a different rider".

And I explained - the first half of the ride I was try to 'put on a show' and I was "riding like a plank", the second half was me riding as I usually do.

And then we both critiqued my ride and - this was really interesting - despite our very different background (him Class 1 and plod trainer, me ex-courier and CBT/DAS instructor) we marked it almost exactly the same.

The only difference of opinion was over the 'need' to make progress. With my courier hat on, I said that a relaxed riding pace you can keep up effortlessly for hours is far more important than striving to show that you can ride as fast as the road allows for short periods when you need to. He disagreed

[Demannu]

I know SD was agreeing with me, obviously Horse DIDN'T understand.