Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[Gavia]

Mill Wheel said:

Well for a start, any road safety measure should be effective, and secondly, insurance companies who used to assess a drivers risk by whether they had point, and charge them more, are now denied this avenue of risk assessment, and instead pass on the costs to all their clients, instead of the risky ones.
Finally as a tax payer, I prefer the fines going to the treasury than making the AA and councils richer with sham courses. If the large amounts of money are being diverted from the treasury, then I think we can expect to question whether they work or not, and who better to ask than the jury on SP&L with their wealth of experience.
Tony Robinson (Baldric) stated publicly that he took notice of what he learned on the course for a while, but that the effect soon wore off.. leaving the AA £40 richer by taking advantage of the cunning plan, but the roads no safer.

How do you know it isn't effective? How do you know that FPNs are effective?

It's not the duty of government or SCPs to help out insurance companies. They set their own rates and have to live with them. Only Admiral seem to care if you've been on one. A few years back I got an SP30 and it made no difference to my premium, not sure what would happen now though.

As a taxpayer, I would rather money didn't go to the Treasury. So if I get caught and offered a course then I'll take it. I assume you'll take the points and fine to stand by your principles.

Sir Tony Robinson may well have reacted the same way to getting points. I did last time I got some, a few month sis fine, but three years is a long time to stick to the speed limits.

I like the use of emotive words such as "sham" to make your point more weighty.

[vonhosen]

Rovinghawk said:

Gavia said:

Who cares where the funds go?

Giving SCPs a financial incentive to catch people when one member of the SCP has the power to unrealistically lower speed limits has a taint of conflict of interest and/or corruption.

SACs are just a device to keep revenue to themselves rather than have it go to central govt. Since they came up with it numbers of cameras have increased massively compared with when they didn't get to keep the cash.

Central government gave them that funding structure because they wanted to remove the central grant to them.
People don't have to do SACs if they don't want to, they can take the FPN & give the money to central government instead.

[RichB]

TooMany2cvs said:

4rephill said:

The simple fact is, the courses work for some people, and for others they're just a way of avoiding getting 3 points on their licence - Nothing more, nothing less.

I know a couple of people who have been on them, one of which found the course interesting, and claims to have changed how they drive by paying a lot more attention to what's going on on the road ahead than did before doing the course, and another who said it was just a waste of a day for them, they learnt nothing whatsoever, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to how they drive on the road but at least they avoided 3 points.

Some people go on them with a mind so closed that they learn exactly what they expected to learn - zero. Perhaps the course should be easier to fail?

My experience tallies with this. I attended one a few years back and actually quite enjoyed it, despite my low expectations beforehand. The presenter was an ex-police motorcycle chap and he made it quite interesting with various anecdotes. I learnt a few things that I now practice too. A few months later my wife attended one (just a coincidence) and she said the presenter was as tedious as sin and bored everyone to sleep.

[768]

Of course they work, they do exactly what was intended, why else would you keep doing something?

Kerching.

[vonhosen]

spookly said:

Gavia said:

What do you want? Let's get rid of them and go back to a fixed penalty and 3 points only?

I'd settle for minor speeding offences not incurring points outside of urban/suburban areas. Keep the fines, no points.

For obviously ridiculous speed where it is blatantly dangerous then prosecute it as dangerous driving and really throw the book at them. People who speed regardless of circumstances/hazards and without any regard for the fact they are on the public road are the ones who really are speeding in a way that their speed could be the direct cause of an accident.

I'd fully support courses if the people who were put on them were identified as needing to have further training as the basis for being there. Being there to avoid 3 points when you are a generally good driver who happened to be doing 45mph in 40mph in a completely safe manner does not improve road safety.

At the moment someone can get a 6 month ban, affecting their jobs and thus their whole life, based on exceeding an arbitrary number on a pole 4 times regardless of them having done anything dangerous. I think that is scandalous. Many people get off with less of a penalty for far worse driving indiscretions which actually have a bad outcome.

Someone I know got a totting up ban. Every time he was only a few mph over. Wasn't offered a course as this was ages ago. Got a 6 month ban.
Lost his job. Was out of work for almost 2 years. How is that in any way a fair punishment that fits his 'crime'? Also had a massive effect on his emotional wellbeing and his family, and he barely avoided divorce.

I stupidly fell asleep when younger while driving. Crashed my car. 3 passengers with me. All fine, but it was lucky. I got 3 points and a fine for careless. Fair enough.
How is what I did in any way comparable to someone doing 45mph in a 40mph zone? short answer: it isn't. They aren't even comparable in terms of the risks posed to other road users.

The punishment for your careless driving was too little, not the punishment for speeding outside of SAC limits is too much.
SAC limits give a pretty large margin before you start getting points for speeding. Of course if people don't want too take the SAC they are welcome to take the fine & points instead.

[Gavia]

768 said:

Of course they work, they do exactly what was intended, why else would you keep doing something?

Kerching.

Explain "kerching".

If you're offered a course you're paying a fine of £100 or for an SAC (normally around the £100 mark), or if you're really daft arguing it all the way to court and getting stuck with a much higher fine and victim surcharge.

Just because a provider is making money out of it doesn't make it automatically bad.

[singlecoil]

Gavia said:

Just because a provider is making money out of it doesn't make it automatically bad.

The perceived wisdom around here is that stuff people don't like (such as speed limits and their enforcement) is bad for whatever reason they can find or think of, and money making is right up there.

[mybrainhurts]

Of course they work.

Just like a money tree, only better.

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

Of course they work.

Just like a money tree, only better.

Fed & thriving mainly from the contributions of plums.

[The Surveyor]

spookly said:

....At the moment someone can get a 6 month ban, affecting their jobs and thus their whole life, based on exceeding an arbitrary number on a pole 4 times regardless of them having done anything dangerous. I think that is scandalous. Many people get off with less of a penalty for far worse driving indiscretions which actually have a bad outcome.

Someone I know got a totting up ban. Every time he was only a few mph over. Wasn't offered a course as this was ages ago. Got a 6 month ban.
Lost his job. Was out of work for almost 2 years. How is that in any way a fair punishment that fits his 'crime'? Also had a massive effect on his emotional wellbeing and his family, and he barely avoided divorce.....

I know what you're saying but come on, 'if' you were on 9 points and that didn't kerb your driving by just a few mph, is any financial punishment going to have any greater effect than the threat of a ban. You'll also have those accusing a fine-only system being a speeding charter for the rich and that won't go down well!

The SAC approach is a sensible first step for those who are caught at relatively low speeds. I'm doing one in a couple of weeks, 42mph in a 30mph, my error and the SAC route keeps my licence clean and was cheaper than the offered fine.

[singlecoil]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

Of course they work.

Just like a money tree, only better.

Fed & thriving mainly from the contributions of plums.

[Corpulent Tosser]

vonhosen said:

Fed & thriving mainly from the contributions of plums.

Thats a bit harsh, refering to people who break the speed limit by a relatively small margin as 'plums'

[vonhosen]

Corpulent Tosser said:

vonhosen said:

Fed & thriving mainly from the contributions of plums.

Thats a bit harsh, refering to people who break the speed limit by a relatively small margin as 'plums'

That's people who get 'caugh't exceeding the speed limit by a not insignificant amount, especially when it is widely known where the enforcement is likely to be taking place in the first place. I don't think plums is harsh at all.

[anonymous-user]

rob0r said:

I got caught recently and attended a SAC about a month ago, I was deliberately doing 80mph in a 70mph limit. I passed my test in 2003 and nearly all of the training went over stuff that had been covered when I passed my test, so other than not getting 3 points on my license I didn't feel like I gained anything.

However, the amount of silver haired OAPs also in attendance was staggering. I would estimate 60% of the 40 or so attendees looked over 60. It seemed most of them had been caught for speeding in residential areas and at lower limits. I actually sat next to two older ladies and they muttered the whole way through that they didn't know this or that, which to my generation is obvious. For example most of the older attendees didn't realise that streetlights can represent a 30 limit.

Whilst it wasn't particularly useful to me I think it can be useful for people who might need to be brought up to date with driving and the highway code in general.

Though I very much doubt that you could provide any real evidence to support your assertion, have you considered that that scenario might be possible because the youth of today is more likely to be caught doing something far more serious, if not killing himself?

I'm sure if your theory were correct we old folks wouldn't be insuring our fleets for £200/300 a time whilst youngsters bleat about being charged thousands for the most banal motors one can imagine.

[Johnnytheboy]

rob0r said:

However, the amount of silver haired OAPs also in attendance was staggering. I would estimate 60% of the 40 or so attendees looked over 60. It seemed most of them had been caught for speeding in residential areas and at lower limits. I actually sat next to two older ladies and they muttered the whole way through that they didn't know this or that, which to my generation is obvious. For example most of the older attendees didn't realise that streetlights can represent a 30 limit.

Most of the people - young or old - on my course seemed to have no clue what speed limits were in multiple situations. It could explain why some people just do 40 everywhere, as a kind of fair average guess.

I was shocked how many drivers of vehicles with different speed limits (towing, LGVs, etc) seemed blissfully
unaware of their limits.

I wangled a way of doing it partly in work time, so it was pretty painless for me.

[7db]

Depends on the provider, like most forms of education. Speak to the "graduates" and with a good instructor you get a fabulous response of "i never knew etc etc".

Most people take no driver education post test. If this is what it takes to increase the level of driver training then I think it's a great thing.

Wish it wasn't just treated as a sausage machine by some of the providers, however.

[Rovinghawk]

The Surveyor said:

Would you be happy with the SCP approach if any 'profits' went direct to central governments?

I would say that it would be an improvement on the current system and it would lessen the accusations of corrupt practice.

A bit of the old 'nemo iudex in causa sua', so to speak.

[Centurion07]

Mill Wheel said:

...one must ask if the thousands of drivers going on speed awareness courses are actually any safer afterwards?

By definition they must be.

Three points plus a fine with no education involved versus a course where, in what seems to be most Pher's experiences including mine, the vast majority of attendees display a staggering amount of ignorance towards all aspects of driving.

The course will educate almost all attendees to some degree thus making them, theoretically, safer. Whether they utilise this new-found knowledge or not is debatable.

But theoretically, they are now technically safer.

For what it's worth, and I'm sure I've mentioned it before, I think there should be a test at the start of the course and then the same test given at the end. Below a certain mark and you get your licence revoked.

[croyde]

I got caught at 80 something on a motorway. Clear road, perfect conditions, had passed loads of idiots on the outskirts of London talking on phones, eating, wandering aimlessly from lane to lane BUT not doing more than 70, so they are safe drivers.

I feel that the people being aware of lanes and going at a good rate tend to be drivers that I trust and people that take driving a car very seriously.

I went to my SAC ready to have it out with the instructors but did have my eyes opened.

I came away feeling that everybody should go on one every couple of years or so, whether they have been speeding or not.

[funkyrobot]

vonhosen said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

vonhosen said:

Fed & thriving mainly from the contributions of plums.

Thats a bit harsh, refering to people who break the speed limit by a relatively small margin as 'plums'

That's people who get 'caugh't exceeding the speed limit by a not insignificant amount, especially when it is widely known where the enforcement is likely to be taking place in the first place. I don't think plums is harsh at all.

'Idiot' is a lot better.