ROSPA Riding

[Morety]

I don't honestly think the nob status will increase consistency,there will always be inconsistent veiws imo

And do you have to pay to retake the nob test? Lo retests were conduted whithin the local group.

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

The training and N/O exam are paid for by IAM. Yes, there may always be inconsistencies but at least this N/O quali seeks to provide greater consistency and a uniform standard amongst observers, which is to be welcomed. There is undoubtedly quite a variation across the UK in the skill, experience and knowledge of L/O's and at least this move is a positive one to try and level things out. As for renewing N/O status, no-one is twisting anyone's arm to have the status in the first place, and like many voluntary schemes, you inevitably pick up some costs if you want to go down that route. Talk to any blood biker on here and they'll tell you that their voluntary service costs them dear financially in some cases. We had to supply our own safety gear, white helmets, and even pay for the hiviz and helite vests (if we wanted those), but at least our check rides are FoC.

 

[autogs]

Yep as an ex blood biker I get that, but I don't see why a nob test pass will make consistency better.

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

 

[Morety]

Yep as an ex blood biker I get that, but I don't see why a nob test pass will make consistency better.

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

Because the standards for N/O are being formalised and subject to test, rather than subjective recommendation. There are a lot of people who acted as L/O on no more than they wished to do it, and had rides vetted by local head observers or members of their teams. The idea now is there's guidelines and a set proforma plus detailed standards and knowledge expected in a more formal procedure. I've read through the guidelines which are quite specific and reasonably tight in what is called for. Put it this way, I see more merit in this than in recommending Masters to anyone. Many of the guys I ride with would fly through their Masters (if they took it but they see no point to Masters which they see as more bragging rights) but that doesn't mean that they all have the skill sets to be effective N/O's which expands training to getting the best out of prospective riders, so encompasses more positive motivation and sets (or at least attempts to) better consistency than I think was actually happening (what was meant to happen and what actually did happen are not necessarily the same thing). At least this pushes for that "missing" consistency and sets formalised standards, even if not perfect, it's a good start imho.

Mind you, I'm having second thoughts myself now as the title "nob" doesn't appeal somehow

 

[autogs]

Yep I get the intention is there, personally I doubt much will change

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

 

[Morety]

I hope that it does. If it's any consolation, from the training I've been through, it's clear that a weeding out process will be in force at the training stage. Some may be advised "it's not for them" as whilst there's no doubts about their riding ability, their retention of hierarchy items (what really matters and what is pedantry) and adherence to the new guidelines and/or their ability to motivate and pass on some really good development plans may not be up to scratch. Some have skill sets which are strong in some areas and not others. It does seem that a sort of weeding out process takes place at the N/O training stage, never mind the check ride and exam. No-one should consider themselves a better or worse rider because of this, it's just some may be better suited to the training process but there's definitely a new and strong emphasis on riding standards needing first and foremost, to be exemplary at all times amongst N/Os.

 

[autogs]

Well I do admire your veiw for the future but it seems in my part of the world its pretty hard to fail the lob to nob test,I have to leave it at that I'm afraid.

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

 

[ncpierce]

I don't honestly think the nob status will increase consistency,there will always be inconsistent veiws imo

And do you have to pay to retake the nob test? Lo retests were conduted whithin the local group.

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

I didn’t have to pay when I retook mine. I’m guessing any cost was taken by the Group.

 

[autogs]

I didn’t have to pay when I retook mine. I’m guessing any cost was taken by the Group.

Yep,my point is the group pays for nob tests boosting their profits, no payment for lo tests, imo the IAM have initiated this just as a money maker. All imo obviously

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

 

[trebor]

Yep,my point is the group pays for nob tests boosting their profits, no payment for lo tests, imo the IAM have initiated this just as a money maker. All imo obviously

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

The cost of the NO test (and IMI registration) and future retests, is covered by the IAM, the group does not pay. However, if the prospective NO fails the test they may well charge for the retest, I'm not sure.
FYI, my group, to date, has never had to pay for NO tests.

 

[autogs]

The cost of the NO test (and IMI registration) and future retests, is covered by the IAM, the group does not pay. However, if the prospective NO fails the test they may well charge for the retest, I'm not sure.
FYI, my group, to date, has never had to pay for NO tests.

If that's the case I'm misinformed

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

 

[trebor]

If that's the case I'm misinformed

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

I do hope so!
I was at one of the IAM Forums a couple of years ago when it was announced that all the LOs had to become NOs if they wished to continue Observing, and no mention was made of charges to the Groups being introduced. Also, earlier this year I held an Observers meeting for my Group to inform them how we were going to carry out the LO to NO training. I invited the Area Services Delivery Manager along to give an intro to the topic, he made no mention of charges, so I'm assuming the IAM will continue covering the cost of the Assessments as they have done in the past.
I registered a couple of LOs as NOs with the IMI a few weeks ago, and no charges have been made or invoiced to the Group.

 

[GS2022]

Relating to the docking of marks for not overtaking … I remember on my exam, dropping points for this even though I positioned myself for the overtake but the examiner stressed that there had been a point where it may have been possible and the opportunity was lost early on. I strongly disagreed and dropped a First

You missed out on a First because you missed an overtake. Sadly, that speaks volumes about the emphasis put on overtaking.

Emphasising making progress makes complete sense for police riders—it’s an essential skill for their job. But civilian riders don’t have this requirement.

I have no personal axe to grind, as I’ve a First and several Golds. However, I feel the emphasis on making progress is excessive for civilians, often putting people under pressure to overtake.

 

[Pukmeister]

I missed out on a First because I made an overtake.

You can’t fucking win !

 

[Morety]

You missed out on a First because you missed an overtake. Sadly, that speaks volumes about the emphasis put on overtaking.

Emphasising making progress makes complete sense for police riders—it’s an essential skill for their job. But civilian riders don’t have this requirement.

I have no personal axe to grind, as I’ve a First and several Golds. However, I feel the emphasis on making progress is excessive for civilians, often putting people under pressure to overtake.

Yes, and I reasoned that as we were travelling, in wet, blustery conditions, at close on 50pmh once the van driver got going, I considered that making progress enough in the conditions. His point was that there had been an early opportunity just as the said van pulled out in front of us, but that opportunity lasted perhaps 20 seconds further up the road. Perhaps I ought to have taken it because it was there but my reasoning was that I had got into the overtaking position and then dropped back as I didn't see the benefit with a right hand corner coming up 150yds further of putting myself at risk in those conditions. I may have won the moral victory but the only opinion that matters on the test is that of the examiner. I have seen a positive change in consistency and attitude with my local group since that time, with far more common sense in play, and with our numbers augmented by some very experienced instructors, some ex-police advanced riders, some ex ROSPA instructors and the change has been a welcome one. I can't speak for every group but I am happy that the general standard of observing within our group is to a high standard. There are still a few who were L/O's under the old system who seem less clued up, but they have a choice....get more experience and training to come up to scratch or they won't make N/O, and as it should be. I think much of the past issues have lain at the vagaries of some relatively inexperienced yet opinionated LO's. Personally, I don't much care if I go a first, or close to, as long as I passed and then progressed through Obs training and blood biking. I enjoy both.

 

[richardbd]

Because the standards for N/O are being formalised and subject to test, rather than subjective recommendation....

This is the theory. Unfortunately it's a million miles from the reality. The qualification of Local Observers was always subject to test, just that the testing was carried out by (qualified) National Observers within the groups. All that's happening now is that the process is based on the subjective opinions of a different set of people.

Anybody who thinks the standard will improve as a result of this initiative is either delusional or an IAM employee. From what I can see on the ground, the standards the IAM applies are noticeably lower than those set by many of the groups.

The best illustration of how badly thought through the latest IAM/IMI tick-box exercise is, is the FACT that it is actually possible to qualify as a National Observer without ever having run an Observed Ride without being accompanied by a supervising National Observer.

The simple reality is that far from improving the overall quality of observers, the process is having the exact opposite effect on the ground. The average real experience of observers is going down, not up.

The process is also having a major negative effect on observer morale, as everybody watches it devalue the National Observer qualification and subjects great Local Observers to unnecessary and non-beneficial tests which far too many opt not to bother with.

Still, the powers that be in Welwyn must know what they're doing...

 

[Morety]

This is the theory. Unfortunately it's a million miles from the reality. The qualification of Local Observers was always subject to test, just that the testing was carried out by (qualified) National Observers within the groups. All that's happening now is that the process is based on the subjective opinions of a different set of people.

Anybody who thinks the standard will improve as a result of this initiative is either delusional or an IAM employee. From what I can see on the ground, the standards the IAM applies are noticeably lower than those set by many of the groups.

The best illustration of how badly thought through the latest IAM/IMI tick-box exercise is, is the FACT that it is actually possible to qualify as a National Observer without ever having run an Observed Ride without being accompanied by a supervising National Observer.

The simple reality is that far from improving the overall quality of observers, the process is having the exact opposite effect on the ground. The average real experience of observers is going down, not up.

The process is also having a major negative effect on observer morale, as everybody watches it devalue the National Observer qualification and subjects great Local Observers to unnecessary and non-beneficial tests which far too many opt not to bother with.

Still, the powers that be in Welwyn must know what they're doing...

Not sure I agree with that. I can't see how it is possible to obtain a national obs quali without having undertaken a number of observed rides under a qualified N/O, followed by a check ride/observed ride with either an examiner or chief instructor. Ultimately, it's up to the chief instructor to ensure standards are met and if that isn't happening in some areas, then that's a different discussion to be had with the IAM. I can only speak as I find, having had experience of Rospa and IAM. Whilst there are differences between the two, I've come across equally qualified and able instructors within both and similarly, some less than expected. I think the derogatory language isn't really appropriate either as there's nothing "delusional" about it, if one person's experience is very different to another's, based on the groups they ride with. All it may highlight are that there are obviously significant perceived differences between groups themselves. That I can believe.

 

[Pukmeister]

You do realise that IAM is now a business, don’t you ??

 

[Engineer]

You do realise that IAM is now a business, don’t you ??

Under the guise of a charity

 

[richardbd]

Not sure I agree with that. I can't see how it is possible to obtain a national obs quali without having undertaken a number of observed rides under a qualified N/O, followed by a check ride/observed ride with either an examiner or chief instructor. Ultimately, it's up to the chief instructor to ensure standards are met and if that isn't happening in some areas, then that's a different discussion to be had with the IAM. I can only speak as I find, having had experience of Rospa and IAM. Whilst there are differences between the two, I've come across equally qualified and able instructors within both and similarly, some less than expected. I think the derogatory language isn't really appropriate either as there's nothing "delusional" about it, if one person's experience is very different to another's, based on the groups they ride with. All it may highlight are that there are obviously significant perceived differences between groups themselves. That I can believe.

You’re misunderstanding most of what I said.

The key point is that you can qualify now as a National Observer ONLY ever having been under supervision.

In the old days you would have run 20-30 observed rides as a Local Observer before you ever got near a National test. That’s why the average NOB now is significantly less experienced and less well qualified than they used to be.

Today’s process is like qualifying a pilot without them ever having flown solo.

As for the varying standards, you’re right, they do vary between groups. They always have and they always will.

I comment as the Chief Observer of one of the IAM’s bigger local groups. I get to see a regular flow of associate and observer test reports and I can tell you that the standards our group has always set are markedly higher than those I now see regularly from the IAM.

Far from the revised process improving standards, it is inevitably reducing them to a lower level, albeit that lower level might be more consistent than it used to be.

 

[autogs]

This is the theory. Unfortunately it's a million miles from the reality. The qualification of Local Observers was always subject to test, just that the testing was carried out by (qualified) National Observers within the groups. All that's happening now is that the process is based on the subjective opinions of a different set of people.

Anybody who thinks the standard will improve as a result of this initiative is either delusional or an IAM employee. From what I can see on the ground, the standards the IAM applies are noticeably lower than those set by many of the groups.

The best illustration of how badly thought through the latest IAM/IMI tick-box exercise is, is the FACT that it is actually possible to qualify as a National Observer without ever having run an Observed Ride without being accompanied by a supervising National Observer.

The simple reality is that far from improving the overall quality of observers, the process is having the exact opposite effect on the ground. The average real experience of observers is going down, not up.

The process is also having a major negative effect on observer morale, as everybody watches it devalue the National Observer qualification and subjects great Local Observers to unnecessary and non-beneficial tests which far too many opt not to bother with.

Still, the powers that be in Welwyn must know what they're doing...

Amen to that put far better than me earlier on in this thread, so Richard who pays for a NOB retest?

The IAM business model is a complete turn off for me I (and I know I'm in a minority of 1 I think in my group) refuse to pander to the IAM any more I won't be going forward for a NOB test.
Nose face? Maybe but I have my principals.

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk