Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
Crackie said:
eek Pardon me ?? I would be surprised if there were many motorists, at least the ones who had their eyes open whilst driving, who didn't encounter another road user whose driving standards need improving on every journey. A couple of minutes is usually sufficient; happens on most corners in town and virtually every roundabout.
We do have someone here who thinks he/she is beyond reproach.

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
Crackie said:
Devil2575 said:
What evidence have you got that standards need improve, ng?
eek Pardon me ?? I would be surprised if there were many motorists, at least the ones who had their eyes open whilst driving, who didn't encounter another road user whose driving standards need improving on every journey. A couple of minutes is usually sufficient; happens on most corners in town and virtually every roundabout.
According to you based on your own biased viewpoint.

However we have some of the worlds safest roads. If our driving was so bad there would be a lot more crashes and a lot more fatalities, like Thailand for example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38660283


Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
yonex said:
Crackie said:
eek Pardon me ?? I would be surprised if there were many motorists, at least the ones who had their eyes open whilst driving, who didn't encounter another road user whose driving standards need improving on every journey. A couple of minutes is usually sufficient; happens on most corners in town and virtually every roundabout.
We do have someone here who thinks he/she is beyond reproach.
No you don't.

It's like Groundhog day on this forum.




cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
No you don't.

It's like Groundhog day on this forum.
Yeah, where's his evidence?

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
No you don't.

It's like Groundhog day on this forum.
Really, because it seems to me that if you are in, close to or otherwise engaged to the forces you seem to have the God given right to carpet other folks opinions?

SAC, no, they don't work, yes I have had the pleasure.

Crackie

6,386 posts

241 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Crackie said:
Devil2575 said:
What evidence have you got that standards need improve, ng?
eek Pardon me ?? I would be surprised if there were many motorists, at least the ones who had their eyes open whilst driving, who didn't encounter another road user whose driving standards need improving on every journey. A couple of minutes is usually sufficient; happens on most corners in town and virtually every roundabout.
Of course there is room for everybody to do better, but our system doesn't only operate (nor should it) on a basis that we all need to be perfect.
I think that is broadly the point he may be making, that & our system seems to provide results that are the envy of the vast majority of countries.
As it is, we also have a system in place that identifies behaviour that falls below the acceptable & a method to address/influence change in that behaviour.
I appreciate there is room for everybody to do better and also appreciate that the UKs roads are already safer than most. What I struggle with is the zealous persecution, of motorists who speed, relative to drivers who commit motoring offences which are acknowledged to be much more significant in KSI accidents.

Digby

8,230 posts

245 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
No you don't.

It's like Groundhog day on this forum.
Yes. Let's go back to the entirely ignored piece I posted regarding activated signs being as good, often better and a much cheaper solution than money-making cameras and all those authoritative figures who wanted less cameras.

Sump

5,484 posts

166 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
They've committed an offence.
Where it's really minor in nature no action is taken.
Where it's a little more up the scale they may be given a choice between education or fine/points (their choice)
Where it's a little more up the scale they get fine/points.

That doesn't sound like blackmail.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 21st January 16:41
How's that tower of yours?

I'll repeat. If the authorities were bothered about safety there would be a mandatory review each year. This is just a very thinly vieled way to avoid points, raise cash with this BS about safety on top.
Don't care about all of your guys' arguments but this guy above is correct.

Digby

8,230 posts

245 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
Sorry but what problem are you trying to fix with a mandatory yearly refresher? What evidence have you got that standards need improving?
It works for the great HGV rip-off CPC scheme.

Some of the most highly trained drivers on the road need regular training because all of their training isn't enough.

"Hey, here, you can drive now you have spent a few grand and passed your test.....oh, but we need more and more cash every few years to train you again and again and again and again..."

"Oh, you have been driving for thirty years with no accidents? You need to spend a few grand on training..."

Another bunch of drivers I know have just had to do the HGV CPC cycle module and were forced to go out riding bikes.

Yet still nothing required for cyclists to wobble around city centres mixing it up with rush hour traffic and the same trucks laugh

I wonder if that's because they realise that if they did the right thing and trained cyclists, many would go back to driving the now dirty diesels they suggested we all buy in the first place and that will fk up their pollution targets? Better to target highly trained drivers than untrained riders...make a few quid along the way. Same old story.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
Because cyclists are all totally untrained, all of them, and responsible for such a large proportion of speed related injuries and deaths?

Hmmmmm.

Crackie

6,386 posts

241 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
Crackie said:
Devil2575 said:
What evidence have you got that standards need improve, ng?
eek Pardon me ?? I would be surprised if there were many motorists, at least the ones who had their eyes open whilst driving, who didn't encounter another road user whose driving standards need improving on every journey. A couple of minutes is usually sufficient; happens on most corners in town and virtually every roundabout.
According to you based on your own biased viewpoint.

However we have some of the worlds safest roads. If our driving was so bad there would be a lot more crashes and a lot more fatalities, like Thailand for example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38660283
Which biased viewpoint are you referring to ??

If, as you implied earlier, you think that improvements in driving standards are not a important or a priority, I suggest that you either pay more attention when you are on the road or make an appointment with Specsavers.

The fact that we have some of the safest roads is hardly relevant; further improvements should be our goal, surely ?








Edited by Crackie on Saturday 21st January 21:53

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
Crackie said:
Which biased viewpoint are you referring to ??

If, as you implied earlier, you think that improvements in driving standards are not a important or a priority, I suggest that you either pay more attention when you are on the road or make an appointment with Specsavers.

The fact that we have some of the safest roads is hardly relevant; further improvements should be our goal, surely ?








Edited by Crackie on Saturday 21st January 21:53
I don't want them doing anything more badged up as aimed at making our roads safer. Whatever they do is virtually guaranteed to revolve around speed reduction as they have zero imagination and they've made using the roads miserable as hell already.
I would take the road safety record of numerous other countries over ours if it resulted in road use being a less souless experience.


Digby

8,230 posts

245 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
yonex said:
Because cyclists are all totally untrained, all of them, and responsible for such a large proportion of speed related injuries and deaths?

Hmmmmm.
Not going down that road. I am simply pointing out that Devil suggests we have such safe roads, drivers do not need more training - Von appears to agree.

So why should those who have to do more in the first place to be able to drive a certain type of vehicle have to pay over and over and over again do exactly what they suggest isn't required?

Even more so given it's almost all completely and utterly pointless and even allows you to cover the same training modules over and over again just so long as you pay them!

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
My point was that if the authorities felt it was about safety, like they claim, then instead of a few drivers who dare to travel at 3mph over the limit...all drivers could be 'educated' as they put it. I'm not advocating more legislation just pointing out the hypocrisy of the system and the continued dumbing down of the Police.

It's not about safety, it's about revenue. Nothing more.

Crackie

6,386 posts

241 months

Saturday 21st January 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
I don't want them doing anything more badged up as aimed at making our roads safer. Whatever they do is virtually guaranteed to revolve around speed reduction as they have zero imagination and they've made using the roads miserable as hell already.
I would take the road safety record of numerous other countries over ours if it resulted in road use being a less souless experience.
I agree that using the roads has become an increasingly miserable experience, with no apparent improvement in safety to show for it. Not too many years ago used to enjoy driving; I've owned several 'performance' cars, took the long way home after work etc etc. Today I have a diesel A3 because I find it tiresome to see the 'authorities' focus their attention on speed to the exclusion of almost every other form of hazardous driving.

I'm sure you and many others on the thread could think of a junction, bend or roundabout where a strategically placed camera would produce evidence of various inexperienced, selfish, careless or hard of thinking drivers carrying out manoeuvers which merited prosecution for careless or dangerous driving. I've no idea why cameras are not used for this purpose; they would just be simple cheap still cameras, of sufficient resolution to snap a misdemeanor and a number plate. No clever speed calibration would be necessary and I think they could be used to catch many of the people who are the 'bad' drivers who are a bigger danger on our roads than people who exceed NSL.

Edited by Crackie on Saturday 21st January 23:59

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Sunday 22nd January 2017
quotequote all
Crackie said:
I agree that using the roads has become an increasingly miserable experience, with no apparent improvement in safety to show for it. Not too many years ago used to enjoy driving; I've owned several 'performance' cars, took the long way home after work etc etc. Today I have a diesel A3 because I find it tiresome to see the 'authorities' focus their attention on speed to the exclusion of almost every other form of hazardous driving.

I'm sure you and many others on the thread could think of a junction, bend or roundabout where a strategically placed camera would produce evidence of various inexperienced, selfish, careless or hard of thinking drivers carrying out manoeuvers which merited prosecution for careless or dangerous driving. I've no idea why cameras are not used for this purpose; they would just be simple cheap still cameras, of sufficient resolution to snap a misdemeanor and a number plate. No clever speed calibration would be necessary and I think they could be used to catch many of the people who are the 'bad' drivers who are a bigger danger on our roads than people who exceed NSL.

Edited by Crackie on Saturday 21st January 23:59
What action would 'trigger' these cameras on a functional level?
The unfortunate truth is that speed (or forward movement) is easily used as a trigger for cameras, crap driving isn't. So the current myopic approach isn't likely to change, especially as it yields such good results for those using it.

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Sunday 22nd January 2017
quotequote all
Digby said:
Not going down that road. I am simply pointing out that Devil suggests we have such safe roads, drivers do not need more training - Von appears to agree.
No I'm not against training, I'm against blanket re-testing.

Digby said:
So why should those who have to do more in the first place to be able to drive a certain type of vehicle have to pay over and over and over again do exactly what they suggest isn't required?
1) A work tool & associated employer liability for training with that.
2) Greater exposure/risk due to mileage, vehicles & potential impact on others etc

Digby said:
Even more so given it's almost all completely and utterly pointless and even allows you to cover the same training modules over and over again just so long as you pay them!
I agree you shouldn't be able to do the same 5 days of training in a cycle, all training isn't of equal value. Seek good not cheap if you value your own professional development.

rich888

2,610 posts

198 months

Sunday 22nd January 2017
quotequote all
Looking outside of the box, police officers and safety camera vans merely do what they are paid to do, and that is currently to catch motorists driving over the unduly low speed limits now set by unskilled council officials and members of parliament, who are to be honest clueless in terms of road safety, would you really allow a council official to operate on your heart in an operating theatre, so why are they being allowed to affect millions of motorists every day by meddling with speed limits, when realistically these limits should be set by competent road planners and/or experienced road traffic officers (trafpol) who actually know what they are doing in order to reduce accidents.

This countrywide safety camera partnership is just a great big parasitic organisation that cost millions and employs hundreds or perhaps thousands of lazy individuals who probably sit on their backsides all day long clogging up their arteries whilst pointing a laser camera at motorists which to be honest isn't healthy for their livelihood, this very cosy safety camera partnership drains finances out of motorists each and every day for no good reason except to justify its very existence, it produces nothing, it wastes time, it wastes resources, and it frustrates thousands if not millions of motorists by the need to drive at stupidly low limits, just because one or more clueless council jobsworths or MPs have insisted on lowering road speed limits for no good reason, well apart from tax revenue, and this scam has to stop.

I keep saying this, but in my opinion that this very cosy council/police safety camera partnership is just a great big con, and one day soon there will be a huge class action launched against them, and when that day comes I will be laughing my head off.

And mark my words... come next local election time a few more councillors will be booted out of power if they don't listen and act to reign in these silly draconian speed limits, because if I'm blunt, we motorists are getting pretty damn fu*ked off with this whole safety camera scam... Labour/ Conservative or Other... I know where my X will be going.

Edited by rich888 on Sunday 22 January 01:08

Crackie

6,386 posts

241 months

Sunday 22nd January 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
What action would 'trigger' these cameras on a functional level?
The unfortunate truth is that speed (or forward movement) is easily used as a trigger for cameras, crap driving isn't. So the current myopic approach isn't likely to change, especially as it yields such good results for those using it.
Some could be fixed unmanned cameras, to catch people who cross solid white lines illegally for example. The trigger would only need to determine a vehicle in any given lane was approaching or moving away. Some cameras would be better used by a human, these could be used at roundabouts or blind bends for example. If I saw a manned camera where I thought their deployment might actually be doing something to improve safety I would not object to them i.e. have positioned catch and prosecute the shoddy, selfish, stupid loonies we all encounter all too often.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Sunday 22nd January 2017
quotequote all
Crackie said:
Some could be fixed unmanned cameras, to catch people who cross solid white lines illegally for example. The trigger would only need to determine a vehicle in any given lane was approaching or moving away. Some cameras would be better used by a human, these could be used at roundabouts or blind bends for example. If I saw a manned camera where I thought their deployment might actually be doing something to improve safety I would not object to them i.e. have positioned catch and prosecute the shoddy, selfish, stupid loonies we all encounter all too often.
It won't happen.
There would need to be significant investment in mobile manned units if they were to make a push to deal with 'careless/dangerous' driving, and these units would be stationary for long periods generating very little income. Unlike speed detection, where they are self-funding parked up in a never-ending number of locations. So although they are a State sponsored pisstake on an epic scale based on a fabricated justification of need, they require no ongoing attention on a budgetary level because they rip us off for their funding.