Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

What's too slowly?
As I said, examiners used to act far more on their 'feeling' for a driver which is all very subjective & open to prejudice.
It's far more evidence/outcome based now which makes it consistent & justifiable. It's not on the whims of the examiner & their DL25s are scrutinised to identify patterns with fault identification.

There's absolutely no need to be doing 45 in a 60 yet I see this all the time now. And all it takes is a few others of similar speed or lack of gumption and there is a queue of these idiots. This makes getting past the instigator of this nonsense a major problem. They are effectively inflicting their shortcomings on everybody behind them. I might like to be doing 100+ in that 60 but that is not an expectation but merely a desire, I don't get irritated by people doing 60 in a 60 because I want to go faster. But 45? C'mon, what the hell is that about?

Somebody doing 40 isn't the problem, the person tailgating that vehicle who doesn't wish to pass it is the problem. That's about following distances, not the chosen speed of the first vehicle. It's easier to legally pass somebody doing 40 than one doing 50.

[cmaguire]

I've had one drive out with an I.A.M. instructor (I think a lot of their teaching is garbage as you'd probably expect) and getting up to the limit after a change was very much de rigeur unless there were reasons not too (being old didn't qualify I imagine, or just not feeling like it).

[Digby]

DL25D :

Driving too slowly can frustrate other drivers and can create danger for yourself and others.

Maintain prgoress. You need to SHOW you can Drive at a realistic speed appropriate to the road.

Use of Speed - make safe and reasonable progress. You need to show confidence.

Etc, etc...


So yeah, as I keep trying to say, nothing much has changed. Perhaps there are less fails on that front simply because so many drivers are stuck at stupidly low limits now anyway.

A 60mph road which is now a 40 or 30 isn't going to result in many people suffering from a lack of confidence etc, is it? They are driving at such low and mind-numbing levels anyway, they could probably pass a test despite absolutely crapping themselves.

The pupil maintained an average of 18 mph throughout the 20 mph limit. Excellent work! Pass..

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

Somebody doing 40 isn't the problem, the person tailgating that vehicle who doesn't wish to pass it is the problem. That's about following distances, not the chosen speed of the first vehicle. It's easier to legally pass somebody doing 40 than one doing 50.

We're in the real world here. That queue of idiots don't leave gaps suitable for overtakes to progress along the queue. You either overtake all of them or none of them. Try doing that without blitzing the speed limit. Annihilate the limit and a chance may present itself, obey the speed limit and you might as well play Russian Roulette. Or add to the queue.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

I've had one drive out with an I.A.M. instructor (I think a lot of their teaching is garbage as you'd probably expect) and getting up to the limit after a change was very much de rigeur unless there were reasons not too (being old didn't qualify I imagine, or just not feeling like it).

That's because the IAM is based on Police teachings but they are falling into the trap of not disassociating the Police purpose (progress imperative) in the crossover, but they should.

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

DL25D :

Driving too slowly can frustrate other drivers and can create danger for yourself and others.

Maintain prgoress. You need to SHOW you can Drive at a realistic speed appropriate to the road.

Use of Speed - make safe and reasonable progress. You need to show confidence.

Etc, etc...


So yeah, as I keep trying to say, nothing much has changed. Perhaps there are less fails on that front simply because so many drivers are stuck at stupidly low limits now anyway.

A 60mph road which is now a 40 or 30 isn't going to result in many people suffering from a lack of confidence etc, is it? They are driving at such low and mind-numbing levels anyway, they could probably pass a test despite absolutely crapping themselves.

The pupil maintained an average of 18 mph throughout the 20 mph limit. Excellent work! Pass..

The assessment process has changed, I showed you the results when you said it was in the top 10, it hasn't been for the last 10 years.
A realistic speed appropriate for the road is not defined as the limit, the limit is the maximum permissible.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 9th December 00:31

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

That's because the IAM is based on Police teachings but they are falling into the trap of not disassociating the Police purpose (progress imperative) in the crossover, but they should.

Why would you not do 60 in a 60? It's that slow it requires neither talent nor concentration to achieve.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Somebody doing 40 isn't the problem, the person tailgating that vehicle who doesn't wish to pass it is the problem. That's about following distances, not the chosen speed of the first vehicle. It's easier to legally pass somebody doing 40 than one doing 50.

We're in the real world here. That queue of idiots don't leave gaps suitable for overtakes to progress along the queue. You either overtake all of them or none of them. Try doing that without blitzing the speed limit. Annihilate the limit and a chance may present itself, obey the speed limit and you might as well play Russian Roulette. Or add to the queue.

So the problem cause is following distances, somebody doing 40 with decent space around them isn't the problem.
If you are concerned about not exceeding the limit you don't overtake where you haven't got a decent differential available to you (that's why I'd prefer somebody doing 40 in front of me than somebody doing 50 - if I want to do 60). Instead you leave sufficient gap for those who are not so bothered (& let them get prosecuted for exceeding the limit should enforcement be around).

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

So the problem cause is following distances, somebody doing 40 with decent space around them isn't the problem.
If you are concerned about not exceeding the limit you don't overtake where you haven't got a decent differential available to you (that's why I'd prefer somebody doing 40 in front of me than somebody doing 50 - if I want to do 60). Instead you leave sufficient gap for those who are not so bothered (& let them get prosecuted for exceeding the limit should enforcement be around).

I'm not entirely sure what point you are making with reference to my previous comment, but if all drivers are travelling at closer to 60 then there usually are larger gaps between vehicles giving opportunities to those who aren't concerned about those limits to overtake. But if there are no suitable opportunities then the speed is close to 60 and that's acceptable.
The bunching and lack of overtaking opportunities is a direct result of the 40mph drivers, and will inevitably frustrate others. If I am presented with an opportunity to overtake these dawdlers then I'll do it at as fast as I can, whilst anticipating the occasional one that pulls out without looking. But I have witnessed on many occasions another frustrated driver carrying out an overtake at far slower speeds than me and coming into conflict with a vehicle from the opposite direction.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

So the problem cause is following distances, somebody doing 40 with decent space around them isn't the problem.
If you are concerned about not exceeding the limit you don't overtake where you haven't got a decent differential available to you (that's why I'd prefer somebody doing 40 in front of me than somebody doing 50 - if I want to do 60). Instead you leave sufficient gap for those who are not so bothered (& let them get prosecuted for exceeding the limit should enforcement be around).

I'm not entirely sure what point you are making with reference to my previous comment, but if all drivers are travelling at closer to 60 then there usually are larger gaps between vehicles giving opportunities to those who aren't concerned about those limits to overtake. But if there are no suitable opportunities then the speed is close to 60 and that's acceptable.
The bunching and lack of overtaking opportunities is a direct result of the 40mph drivers, and will inevitably frustrate others. If I am presented with an opportunity to overtake these dawdlers then I'll do it at as fast as I can, whilst anticipating the occasional one that pulls out without looking. But I have witnessed on many occasions another frustrated driver carrying out an overtake at far slower speeds than me and coming into conflict with a vehicle from the opposite direction.

Bunching & lack of overtaking opportunities is not a direct result of a slower driver, it doesn't HAVE to follow.
It's a direct result of the failure of drivers to maintain a proper following distance.

[Red Devil]

768 said:

Red Devil said:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC54604...
Do they know something we don't about possible future developments north of the border?

Probably. Looks like he's a member of PACTS.

Colour me shocked.

- http://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2...

Eight days later...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14336602.Scotla...

Hmmm.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

Bunching & lack of overtaking opportunities is not a direct result of a slower driver, it doesn't HAVE to follow.
It's a direct result of the failure of drivers to maintain a proper following distance.

Chicken or the egg is it?

The real world reality is that wherever drivers are slowed to a speed that is significantly (one of your favourites) slower than the speed they would be doing if left to make their own choice then the result is bunching. Whether that occurs as a result of a dawdler or an artificially low limit is academic, the result is the same. And suggesting that the resultant mobile road block has nothing to do with the former but is a result of the drivers in the queue not leaving adequate gaps achieves nothing, as absolutely zero is being done to deal with that issue, and it would not occur without the former.
Managed motorways suffer badly from this, whereas the open sections do not until traffic volume is much higher. But those open sections will include many drivers doing significantly (your word again) over the limit and we can't condone that can we?

[Pothole]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Bunching & lack of overtaking opportunities is not a direct result of a slower driver, it doesn't HAVE to follow.
It's a direct result of the failure of drivers to maintain a proper following distance.

Chicken or the egg is it?

The real world reality is that wherever drivers are slowed to a speed that is significantly (one of your favourites) slower than the speed they would be doing if left to make their own choice then the result is bunching. Whether that occurs as a result of a dawdler or an artificially low limit is academic, the result is the same. And suggesting that the resultant mobile road block has nothing to do with the former but is a result of the drivers in the queue not leaving adequate gaps achieves nothing, as absolutely zero is being done to deal with that issue, and it would not occur without the former.
Managed motorways suffer badly from this, whereas the open sections do not until traffic volume is much higher. But those open sections will include many drivers doing significantly (your word again) over the limit and we can't condone that can we?

Vonhosen is right. There is never any valid reason to tailgate another driver. The ultimate stupidity about this kind of behaviour on managed motorways is that if drivers left proper gaps the speeds would probably be increased sooner.

[robinessex]

drf765 said:

singlecoil said:

Red Devil said:

As a result far too many people think that driving below the limit is therefore synonymous with safety.

Have heard this strawman many many times on similar threads.

I have never encountered anyone who has demonstrated such a thought.

Lots in my locality demonstrate this buy driving well below the posted speed limit.

[robinessex]

During my BSM driver instructor training course, the BSM instructor placed significant emphasis on pupils getting up to the posted speed limit as much as possible, consistent with and extraneous reasons not to do so. A pupil NOT doing this wouldn't be put in for their driving test until they complied.

[drf765]

robinessex said:

drf765 said:

singlecoil said:

Red Devil said:

As a result far too many people think that driving below the limit is therefore synonymous with safety.

Have heard this strawman many many times on similar threads.

I have never encountered anyone who has demonstrated such a thought.

Lots in my locality demonstrate this buy driving well below the posted speed limit.

They are perfectly entitled to drive well below if they wish to.

[robinessex]

drf765 said:

robinessex said:

drf765 said:

singlecoil said:

Red Devil said:

As a result far too many people think that driving below the limit is therefore synonymous with safety.

Have heard this strawman many many times on similar threads.

I have never encountered anyone who has demonstrated such a thought.

Lots in my locality demonstrate this buy driving well below the posted speed limit.

They are perfectly entitled to drive well below if they wish to.

I was typing a reply, then my keyboard blew up!!!

[singlecoil]

robinessex said:

drf765 said:

singlecoil said:

Red Devil said:

As a result far too many people think that driving below the limit is therefore synonymous with safety.

Have heard this strawman many many times on similar threads.

I have never encountered anyone who has demonstrated such a thought.

Lots in my locality demonstrate this by driving well below the posted speed limit.

Fair enough to observe that people are driving below the limit, but you've missed the central point, and indeed if they were examples of what RD referred to, they would be driving just below the limit, not well below.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

When did your Pop's examine?
Things have changed away from examiner's potentially prejudiced subjective wants/desires to a defined outcomes basis for greater consistency across examiners.

Late 90's. I mentioned prejudices, wants and desires a moment ago and he said "What on earth is he talking about?"

To see if things have changed, we asked a current friend who does the same.

He said being hesitant when driving and driving too slowly will result in a fail.

There you have it folks! Speed up or go home.

A lot's changed since the 90s.
Your statements are way too simplistic.
What's driving too slowly? How long for? etc etc.
The answer is that it depends on the circumstances & if the current friend doesn't believe that's the case, perhaps they need a standards check or visit to Cardington.

Why has something like the need to make proper progress changed since the 1990's? Absolutely no reason whatsoever why it should have done and frankly a lot of this new stuff sounds like inventing solutions to problems that never existed and making something complicated which fundamentally isn't. Probably a cottage industry running off the back of it mind you....

The assessment process has changed in order to make examining consistent between different examiners, so that it less subjective & open to the vagaries of personal prejudices.
i.e. You should get the same result whatever examiner you had (which wasn't always the case).

But if all that's changed is the method of assessment - as opposed to what does or doesn't constitute a fail - why is not making proper progress in the driving test now apparently acceptable when it never used to be? I do understand a desire for greater objectivity in the assessment process but unless the criteria for a pass or fail have also changed a given action should still have the same outcome as did 20 or 30 years ago (albeit measured and derived in a more consistent way). Therefore, if not making proper progress was a fail back in the 1990's (and back in the early 1980's when I took my test!) that should still be the case today unless the criteria have changed - shouldn't it?

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

When did your Pop's examine?
Things have changed away from examiner's potentially prejudiced subjective wants/desires to a defined outcomes basis for greater consistency across examiners.

Late 90's. I mentioned prejudices, wants and desires a moment ago and he said "What on earth is he talking about?"

To see if things have changed, we asked a current friend who does the same.

He said being hesitant when driving and driving too slowly will result in a fail.

There you have it folks! Speed up or go home.

A lot's changed since the 90s.
Your statements are way too simplistic.
What's driving too slowly? How long for? etc etc.
The answer is that it depends on the circumstances & if the current friend doesn't believe that's the case, perhaps they need a standards check or visit to Cardington.

Why has something like the need to make proper progress changed since the 1990's? Absolutely no reason whatsoever why it should have done and frankly a lot of this new stuff sounds like inventing solutions to problems that never existed and making something complicated which fundamentally isn't. Probably a cottage industry running off the back of it mind you....

The assessment process has changed in order to make examining consistent between different examiners, so that it less subjective & open to the vagaries of personal prejudices.
i.e. You should get the same result whatever examiner you had (which wasn't always the case).

But if all that's changed is the method of assessment - as opposed to what does or doesn't constitute a fail - why is not making proper progress in the driving test now apparently acceptable when it never used to be? I do understand a desire for greater objectivity in the assessment process but unless the criteria for a pass or fail have also changed a given action should still have the same outcome as did 20 or 30 years ago (albeit measured and derived in a more consistent way). Therefore, if not making proper progress was a fail back in the 1990's (and back in the early 1980's when I took my test!) that should still be the case today unless the criteria have changed - shouldn't it?

Because as I said, the previous methods resulted in the personal biases of exmaminer's coming to the fore, as in what they considered to be important for the standard rather than them looking objectively/quantifiably at the actual outcomes during the drive in reference to the DVSA standard. Those biases could then lead to them failing people, based on their bias, as opposed to them actually applying the DVSA standard. (i.e. they were applying their interpretation of the standard as opposed to DVSA interpretation of the standard). The tools of assessment should help address that.

A driver has to make appropriate progress, but you apply the DVSA standard of what amounts to appropriate progress (rather than your own) using the DVSA tools of assessment (rather than your own) & then evidence/weight (as regards to level of fault) any short comings. You do so with full regard to all the attendant circumstances. That results in something more than a simple case of 'being below the limit resulting in a fault/serious fault'. You have to look at all the surrounding circumstances & weight accordingly.

The old methods led to simply fault marking (a box ticking exercise) without any real impact assessment. It resulted in a 'you are doing something (or not doing something) that there's a box on the DL25 for, so I put a mark in that box.' There being little or no assessment in relation to the fault . Now examiners assess the action itself, impact of it, how far it is from the defined DVSA outcome (rather than their own interpretation of what the driver should do), how much further it could potentially be from the defined DVSA outcome etc etc & then weight it accordingly. It is far more outcome/evidence based than previously.

As an example, the old ways of simple fault marking would often lead to a straight 'serious fault' for you straight lining a roundabout (depending on the examiner's personal views of that action, rather than the circumstances it was done in). However if the tools of assessment are used it would lead to the action being anything from a 'no fault' all the way through to a 'dangerous fault', because it would depend on the circumstances rather than a simple tick in the box exercise of 'fault marking' without any assessment taking place. That process should result in a greater spread of assessment results for the action (because it's not just a box ticking exercise, but a full assessment of the action & the circumstances) but it should also result in examiners coming to the same conclusion where they are presented with the same evidence (i.e. greater consistency in like for like actions/circumstances due to the tools of assessment negating personal bias).

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 9th December 16:51