Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
Willy Nilly said:
Just about every time there is a crash speed is mentioned. The road "improvements" after crashes that I see consist of various speed cameras and or lowered speed limits. Show me instances of reports in the media where there has been a crash and speed hasn't been blamed.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/driver-not-to-blame-for-13957/Willy Nilly said:
On the Rospa and Bikesafe course they talked about speed. The emphasis on speed was not on the number on the speedo, it was you need to stop, on your side of the road, in the distance you can see to be clear. Understood?
I'm familiar with that, but you've forgotten the important extra added caveat of '& reasonably expect to remain so.'Willy Nilly said:
They mentioned speed limits, but the context in which there were mentioned was that "that is what the law says, we mustn't break the law".
Yes.Willy Nilly said:
Contrast that with the anti speeding campaign, 20's Plenty and speed awareness courses and all you get is "speed kills" "exceeding the speed limit is always dangerous" " you will kill someone if you hit them at 40" like I can come off my bike at any speed on a motorway an survive.
Serving Class 1 driver on the first course I did in the classroom bit.
"we went to an RTA on the AXXX. it was a bad one. A resident came out of the house to speak to me and said "I've lived here over 20 years and had never seen any accidents here until that camera was installed."
His colleague on an observed run in my car: "just be careful down here, there's a police money box in the hedge on the left."
You've lost me with that bit, what's the point you are trying to make?Serving Class 1 driver on the first course I did in the classroom bit.
"we went to an RTA on the AXXX. it was a bad one. A resident came out of the house to speak to me and said "I've lived here over 20 years and had never seen any accidents here until that camera was installed."
His colleague on an observed run in my car: "just be careful down here, there's a police money box in the hedge on the left."
Willy Nilly said:
Of course I want privileges! The whole road safety policy now is about appealing to the lowest common denominator. So as private motorist goes out and looks for more training and parts with some cash to do so, what do they get in return? Nothing. So why bother.
You benefit from knowledge & skill that works towards helping you become a better driver.That's would I'd hope for & a realistic outcome, given that's what I'd be looking for them to offer.
Willy Nilly said:
Scrape through the DSA test or pass every driving exam in the country and there is no difference in cost and nor do you get any perceivable benefits like being allowed to drive faster or get a few freebies for events. I'm much better off spending the time and money on the granular applicator course, or doing a few more tickets on my chainsaw ticket. On the one hand you want motorists to have better training, but you're not offering any incentives and infact scoffing that they might want an incentive. So, shove your extra training.
I'm not offering you training.If you think you'll get more value from a granular applicator course then spend it there.
If your reason for seeking driver training is so that you can drive faster on public roads, then you could be right in choosing the granular applicator course.
Willy Nilly said:
You can sit the same course for the full 35 hours and get your CPC up to date.
I know you can, but if you want to learn something you're being a fool.Willy Nilly said:
This is an issue with the system, not the people taking the course. I am yet to speak to anyone that has done one of these courses that has anything positive to say about them. It's nothing more than jobs for the boys.
Take some personal responsibility for your training & look to benefit from it.It's definitely an issue with the person taking it.
If you book tacho training expect to get tacho training, after all you booked/chose it. Don't complain that you got tacho training when you didn't need it.
If you are a bit more discerning you can get good quality training on a topic that you could benefit from.
I suggest all the people you spoke to didn't research & booked on price rather than valuable content. They could only realistically expect to get what they did if they did that & they can only blame themselves.
You blame the authorities for that..... Jeez.
I'll grant you that the authorities were perhaps naive in believing that people would book themselves training that they had researched & would be of value to them. I mean how could they reasonably expect professional drivers to do that
That's been spectacularly true in the case of the people you've spoken to who clearly don't care much about their own professional development but would rather waste money booking training that isn't of value/relevance to them & then blame the system for allowing them to do it.
I assume these people also complain that the authorities won't treat them like adults & give them the personal responsibility to choose a speed without restricting them to a number on a stick!
Willy Nilly said:
Remember that speeding is a technical offence and the speed limits have been set arbitrarily. You could have a new law that everyone should wear a blue hat while driving, wouldn't mean it was a good law. Around here there have been countless reduced speed limits. If I saw some roads getting up graded I wouldn't be so angry, but there have been no upgraded roads. All been reduced.
I'm struggling to see a benefit in the blue hat law over not having one.I can see some benefits from having speed limits over not having any.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th December 19:42
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
As far as I'm aware we have no clear evidence on what public opinion actually is in terms of attitude to speed; however, are a majority really happy or content with the ever increasing use of static and mobile cameras? Perhaps they are but my money would be on probably not.....
Whereas the money of the major political parties is on probably yes, and they've spent a lot more money on it than you have......Similarly if political parties don't mention an intention to deal with what you believe is a problem then it is reasonable to infer that they don't think it will win them any votes, or might even lose them some, especially as adding a couple of lines to a lengthy manifesto really wouldn't cost them anything.
I also see you're still under the illusion that because nothing appears in a political manifesto about a specific issue that means by definition the people are happy with the status quo in that particular area; however, that's not necessarily the case as I illustrated with the example of capital punishment yesterday. Where an issue is a potential hot potato for a political party they will duck it if they can and I suspect the absence of any reference to camera usage in manifestoes has far more to do with that than it does to any happiness or contentment on the public's behalf with current policy in that area.
That's obviously just my opinion and I respect that yours is different. However, you keep stating it's "clear" the public are happy/content with the situation on speed limits and camera usage as if it was a fact but it's not clear at all - it's just your opinion and nothing more.
t up. That's my last word to you.Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
As far as I'm aware we have no clear evidence on what public opinion actually is in terms of attitude to speed; however, are a majority really happy or content with the ever increasing use of static and mobile cameras? Perhaps they are but my money would be on probably not.....
Whereas the money of the major political parties is on probably yes, and they've spent a lot more money on it than you have......Similarly if political parties don't mention an intention to deal with what you believe is a problem then it is reasonable to infer that they don't think it will win them any votes, or might even lose them some, especially as adding a couple of lines to a lengthy manifesto really wouldn't cost them anything.
I'm not going to second guess why the subject isn't high on the political agenda. I think experienced drivers who use the roads for their living would be perfectly happy with the NSL being increased to 80 or 85 but I can also understand how some other, less capable, drivers might be concerned.
BTW, before someone suggests it, I'm not trying to imply I fit into the more capable category.
For what it's worth I don't necessarily think that speed limits are a massive issue to most people, I think they're far more annoyed by the move towards being prosecuted via cameras for the sort of relatively minor transgressions that would have been overlooked historically by traffic police officers. That ever increasing use of cameras was actually the subject of my spat with Singlecoil and, if half of motorists are unhappy with current speed limits, I'd wager more than that proportion is likely to be unhappy with the proliferation of cameras. So happy/content? Doubt it personally but would love to see some figures to prove the case one way or the other!
I have an informed opinion of my driving skills as regards safe driving. Most people say they are above average in this respect but I have statistics to support my contention. That's not bike riding where I'm deemed adequate, which is a bit of a criticism. But car, van and 4x4 my scores are above average.
However, I've been taken out on the roads in powerful cars by advanced drivers and their ability tends to indicate that there is a significant gap between me and them. (I have also been taken out by an ex-F1 driver who gave me the most FM handle moments ever. Real scary but so much fun.)
Despite the fact that these drivers start at very good and go onto exceptional, follow the system and see all sorts of things the rest of us don't, they still have accidents which are their fault. They rarely have them at legal speeds. (I did have two advanced drivers reporting accidents in more less the same location but at slightly different times when reversing into a parking space.) However, once they up the revs the risks increase.
They drive for hours a day, so their mileage is high. They are put under pressure on occasion so perhaps the occasional accident is to be expected, but if so, why do they bend things almost always at high speed?
One of the best, if not the best, drivers to go through driver training when I was in charge was a woman in surveillance. Her instructors wanted her beatified; she was class. Yet within three months she'd written off three police cars. She could prove each time that she was not at fault, and indeed it was always errors of other drivers or a deliberate act of criminal damage with intent. The problem was that drivers could not tell at what speed she was travelling. And therein lies a problem.
She had the ability to judge speed and distance on little information. For the rest of us it is not a skill that comes easily.
There's the old saying, partly true unfortunately, that advanced driving courses allow police officers to have accidents at speeds undreamed of by other drivers. So if the good guys can't keep it on the black stuff, what hope for those of us who don't dribble a lot?
However, I've been taken out on the roads in powerful cars by advanced drivers and their ability tends to indicate that there is a significant gap between me and them. (I have also been taken out by an ex-F1 driver who gave me the most FM handle moments ever. Real scary but so much fun.)
Despite the fact that these drivers start at very good and go onto exceptional, follow the system and see all sorts of things the rest of us don't, they still have accidents which are their fault. They rarely have them at legal speeds. (I did have two advanced drivers reporting accidents in more less the same location but at slightly different times when reversing into a parking space.) However, once they up the revs the risks increase.
They drive for hours a day, so their mileage is high. They are put under pressure on occasion so perhaps the occasional accident is to be expected, but if so, why do they bend things almost always at high speed?
One of the best, if not the best, drivers to go through driver training when I was in charge was a woman in surveillance. Her instructors wanted her beatified; she was class. Yet within three months she'd written off three police cars. She could prove each time that she was not at fault, and indeed it was always errors of other drivers or a deliberate act of criminal damage with intent. The problem was that drivers could not tell at what speed she was travelling. And therein lies a problem.
She had the ability to judge speed and distance on little information. For the rest of us it is not a skill that comes easily.
There's the old saying, partly true unfortunately, that advanced driving courses allow police officers to have accidents at speeds undreamed of by other drivers. So if the good guys can't keep it on the black stuff, what hope for those of us who don't dribble a lot?
Derek Smith said:
I have an informed opinion of my driving skills as regards safe driving. Most people say they are above average in this respect but I have statistics to support my contention. That's not bike riding where I'm deemed adequate, which is a bit of a criticism. But car, van and 4x4 my scores are above average.
However, I've been taken out on the roads in powerful cars by advanced drivers and their ability tends to indicate that there is a significant gap between me and them. (I have also been taken out by an ex-F1 driver who gave me the most FM handle moments ever. Real scary but so much fun.)
Despite the fact that these drivers start at very good and go onto exceptional, follow the system and see all sorts of things the rest of us don't, they still have accidents which are their fault. They rarely have them at legal speeds. (I did have two advanced drivers reporting accidents in more less the same location but at slightly different times when reversing into a parking space.) However, once they up the revs the risks increase.
They drive for hours a day, so their mileage is high. They are put under pressure on occasion so perhaps the occasional accident is to be expected, but if so, why do they bend things almost always at high speed?
One of the best, if not the best, drivers to go through driver training when I was in charge was a woman in surveillance. Her instructors wanted her beatified; she was class. Yet within three months she'd written off three police cars. She could prove each time that she was not at fault, and indeed it was always errors of other drivers or a deliberate act of criminal damage with intent. The problem was that drivers could not tell at what speed she was travelling. And therein lies a problem.
She had the ability to judge speed and distance on little information. For the rest of us it is not a skill that comes easily.
There's the old saying, partly true unfortunately, that advanced driving courses allow police officers to have accidents at speeds undreamed of by other drivers. So if the good guys can't keep it on the black stuff, what hope for those of us who don't dribble a lot?
A good post Derek. However, I've been taken out on the roads in powerful cars by advanced drivers and their ability tends to indicate that there is a significant gap between me and them. (I have also been taken out by an ex-F1 driver who gave me the most FM handle moments ever. Real scary but so much fun.)
Despite the fact that these drivers start at very good and go onto exceptional, follow the system and see all sorts of things the rest of us don't, they still have accidents which are their fault. They rarely have them at legal speeds. (I did have two advanced drivers reporting accidents in more less the same location but at slightly different times when reversing into a parking space.) However, once they up the revs the risks increase.
They drive for hours a day, so their mileage is high. They are put under pressure on occasion so perhaps the occasional accident is to be expected, but if so, why do they bend things almost always at high speed?
One of the best, if not the best, drivers to go through driver training when I was in charge was a woman in surveillance. Her instructors wanted her beatified; she was class. Yet within three months she'd written off three police cars. She could prove each time that she was not at fault, and indeed it was always errors of other drivers or a deliberate act of criminal damage with intent. The problem was that drivers could not tell at what speed she was travelling. And therein lies a problem.
She had the ability to judge speed and distance on little information. For the rest of us it is not a skill that comes easily.
There's the old saying, partly true unfortunately, that advanced driving courses allow police officers to have accidents at speeds undreamed of by other drivers. So if the good guys can't keep it on the black stuff, what hope for those of us who don't dribble a lot?
JNW1 said:
Ok, so you can't point us to any evidence of this research and I rather suspect that's because no such research on the public's attitude to speed cameras has ever been undertaken.
I also see you're still under the illusion that because nothing appears in a political manifesto about a specific issue that means by definition the people are happy with the status quo in that particular area; however, that's not necessarily the case as I illustrated with the example of capital punishment yesterday. Where an issue is a potential hot potato for a political party they will duck it if they can and I suspect the absence of any reference to camera usage in manifestoes has far more to do with that than it does to any happiness or contentment on the public's behalf with current policy in that area.
That's obviously just my opinion and I respect that yours is different. However, you keep stating it's "clear" the public are happy/content with the situation on speed limits and camera usage as if it was a fact but it's not clear at all - it's just your opinion and nothing more.
If there are illusions here, it is you who are labouring under them.I also see you're still under the illusion that because nothing appears in a political manifesto about a specific issue that means by definition the people are happy with the status quo in that particular area; however, that's not necessarily the case as I illustrated with the example of capital punishment yesterday. Where an issue is a potential hot potato for a political party they will duck it if they can and I suspect the absence of any reference to camera usage in manifestoes has far more to do with that than it does to any happiness or contentment on the public's behalf with current policy in that area.
That's obviously just my opinion and I respect that yours is different. However, you keep stating it's "clear" the public are happy/content with the situation on speed limits and camera usage as if it was a fact but it's not clear at all - it's just your opinion and nothing more.
It surprises me that you continue to roll this ball uphill, when the clear weight of observable fact is on my side.
By the way, the capital punishment comparison doesn't work a) because it would be illegal (human rights legislation) and b) because the people who would like to see it return don't have to deal with the practical realities of it whereas any government that tired to re-introduce it would.
singlecoil said:
If there are illusions here, it is you who are labouring under them.
It surprises me that you continue to roll this ball uphill, when the clear weight of observable fact is on my side.
By the way, the capital punishment comparison doesn't work a) because it would be illegal (human rights legislation) and b) because the people who would like to see it return don't have to deal with the practical realities of it whereas any government that tired to re-introduce it would.
A zealot? Possibly.It surprises me that you continue to roll this ball uphill, when the clear weight of observable fact is on my side.
By the way, the capital punishment comparison doesn't work a) because it would be illegal (human rights legislation) and b) because the people who would like to see it return don't have to deal with the practical realities of it whereas any government that tired to re-introduce it would.
Self-righteous and pompous? Definitely.
BertBert said:
Wow, mega diatribe. From speed cameras to WMD all for some mythical person's profit. Excellent.
Choosing to completely ignore something doesn't make it mythical.It is expected on here, though. Just look at all the "Saville is not a pedo" types.
Argument after argument, attempts at belittling those who said he was. Clever words and phrases thought of over dinner to defend and berate ....
All shoved straight up their arse.
Same with WMD's, same with bankers, same with political corruption, same with....well, it's a long list.
Once you become a full PH Jedi, you can move on from "mythical" and simply say "So what?" when evidence is presented.
singlecoil said:
If there are illusions here, it is you who are labouring under them.
It surprises me that you continue to roll this ball uphill, when the clear weight of observable fact is on my side.
Rarely have I come across such a deluded attitude; either that or you are troll. You use words like clear and fact where you have offered nothing whatsoever to support your assertions.It surprises me that you continue to roll this ball uphill, when the clear weight of observable fact is on my side.
What "clear weight of observable fact" ? That is, once again, a statement of your opinion and nothing more unless you support it with some reputable data. I'm more than happy to post the source of the stats & data I've for my opinions & conclusions. Have you anything to support your sweeping statements.
You're entitled to your opinion but you need evidence to support facts............
Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
If there are illusions here, it is you who are labouring under them.
It surprises me that you continue to roll this ball uphill, when the clear weight of observable fact is on my side.
Rarely have I come across such a deluded attitude; either that or you are troll. You use words like clear and fact where you have offered nothing whatsoever to support your assertions.It surprises me that you continue to roll this ball uphill, when the clear weight of observable fact is on my side.
cmaguire said:
singlecoil said:
I posted a link earlier...
The Labour Party Manifesto? Hardly a convincing argument.Are you a member? I suppose that wouldn't be particularly surprising.
singlecoil said:
Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
If there are illusions here, it is you who are labouring under them.
It surprises me that you continue to roll this ball uphill, when the clear weight of observable fact is on my side.
Rarely have I come across such a deluded attitude; either that or you are troll. You use words like clear and fact where you have offered nothing whatsoever to support your assertions.It surprises me that you continue to roll this ball uphill, when the clear weight of observable fact is on my side.
Edited by Crackie on Sunday 11th December 22:47
Devil2575 said:
Derek Smith said:
I have an informed opinion of my driving skills as regards safe driving. Most people say they are above average in this respect but I have statistics to support my contention. That's not bike riding where I'm deemed adequate, which is a bit of a criticism. But car, van and 4x4 my scores are above average.
However, I've been taken out on the roads in powerful cars by advanced drivers and their ability tends to indicate that there is a significant gap between me and them. (I have also been taken out by an ex-F1 driver who gave me the most FM handle moments ever. Real scary but so much fun.)
Despite the fact that these drivers start at very good and go onto exceptional, follow the system and see all sorts of things the rest of us don't, they still have accidents which are their fault. They rarely have them at legal speeds. (I did have two advanced drivers reporting accidents in more less the same location but at slightly different times when reversing into a parking space.) However, once they up the revs the risks increase.
They drive for hours a day, so their mileage is high. They are put under pressure on occasion so perhaps the occasional accident is to be expected, but if so, why do they bend things almost always at high speed?
One of the best, if not the best, drivers to go through driver training when I was in charge was a woman in surveillance. Her instructors wanted her beatified; she was class. Yet within three months she'd written off three police cars. She could prove each time that she was not at fault, and indeed it was always errors of other drivers or a deliberate act of criminal damage with intent. The problem was that drivers could not tell at what speed she was travelling. And therein lies a problem.
She had the ability to judge speed and distance on little information. For the rest of us it is not a skill that comes easily.
There's the old saying, partly true unfortunately, that advanced driving courses allow police officers to have accidents at speeds undreamed of by other drivers. So if the good guys can't keep it on the black stuff, what hope for those of us who don't dribble a lot?
A good post Derek. However, I've been taken out on the roads in powerful cars by advanced drivers and their ability tends to indicate that there is a significant gap between me and them. (I have also been taken out by an ex-F1 driver who gave me the most FM handle moments ever. Real scary but so much fun.)
Despite the fact that these drivers start at very good and go onto exceptional, follow the system and see all sorts of things the rest of us don't, they still have accidents which are their fault. They rarely have them at legal speeds. (I did have two advanced drivers reporting accidents in more less the same location but at slightly different times when reversing into a parking space.) However, once they up the revs the risks increase.
They drive for hours a day, so their mileage is high. They are put under pressure on occasion so perhaps the occasional accident is to be expected, but if so, why do they bend things almost always at high speed?
One of the best, if not the best, drivers to go through driver training when I was in charge was a woman in surveillance. Her instructors wanted her beatified; she was class. Yet within three months she'd written off three police cars. She could prove each time that she was not at fault, and indeed it was always errors of other drivers or a deliberate act of criminal damage with intent. The problem was that drivers could not tell at what speed she was travelling. And therein lies a problem.
She had the ability to judge speed and distance on little information. For the rest of us it is not a skill that comes easily.
There's the old saying, partly true unfortunately, that advanced driving courses allow police officers to have accidents at speeds undreamed of by other drivers. So if the good guys can't keep it on the black stuff, what hope for those of us who don't dribble a lot?
A brilliant post.
I totally agree that sensible speed limits should be in place, but handing down responsibility to setting these limits to knee jerk councillors and politicians who are only interested in their own vested interests is all wrong. The speed limits should be set by experienced and unbiased road planners who have a clear understanding in traffic management and safety, then enforced by traffic police rather than sub-contracted speed camera operators on commission or targets.
I think average speed cameras are a far better idea that the Gatso cameras because they allow motorists some leniency along a given stretch of road, but I really don't think that dropping the limits along vast swathes of roads to unnecessarily low limits for no good reason apart from tax revenue is remotely clever. In theory these systems provide data for the security forces as well as the police, but do we really need five or six average speed cameras installed in less than 1/2 a mile through Annesley (just off Jun 27 M1), and why are motorists being fined for minor speeding offences late at night or in the early hours of the morning when there are no other cars on the road.
Average cameras should be used sparingly to reduce operational costs. They should not be used for petty speed related tax revenue.
Where I live I see the occasional high speed overtaking manoeuvre on what is essentially a straight piece of 40mph road with several side-roads and pubs and houses on both sides. I don't care about minor indiscretions when I'm walking my kids to school, what does piss me off is the idiot overtaking at perhaps 20, 30 or 40+ mph over the limit with no regard to anyone pulling out of the pub or side-roads. When I quizzed the local safety camera partnership about this they said they wouldn't be parking up again because they didn't catch enough speeding motorists, and therein lies the problem, they obviously have a target to meet and it is speed rather than safety!
This whole speed awareness course scam does make me wonder whether it is actually legal. I thought the only organisation that could hand out fines is the court, yet we now have the situation where we are literally being blackmailed to either take a somewhat biased speed awareness course or potentially pay more and collect points in a well fixed kangaroo court.
Perhaps it is time to reassess the funding of the charity cases like BRAKE who now exist in order to justify their funding. Let's put a brake on this type of funding. Why should taxpayers fund these politicised organisations when there are tens of thousands of struggling businesses that could genuinely appreciate financial help at this moment in time.
Yes, that's right. It seems to me that it's easy to read the new comment (not that mine had much worth) when it's at the top. I would have snipped the quote, but it's painful to do on my phone.
The quote in included as an appendix 
Devil2575 said:
singlecoil said:
BertBert said:
Wow, mega diatribe. From speed cameras to WMD all for some mythical person's profit. Excellent.
Bert, this putting the quote after your response to it, is this just a Bert thing? Nobody else does it...Digby said:
Digby stuff
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff