Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[Mill Wheel]

Ms R.Saucy said:

realistically SACs just give another chance before totting up gets them for habitual speeders and may have a transient effect on all attendees.

Are you suggesting that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink?

But you can make it pay for more water, and more hands to do the leading.

[Mill Wheel]

Digby said:

tapereel said:

If you can come up with an optional system that will encourage compliance and improve or at least not compromise safety then use all of your knowledge and experience to propose it.

More signs which light up with smiley or sad faces rather than cameras. They work better than any goon in a hidden van. Let's see if we can think of why they are not quite as popular as the "So much money, you won't know what to do with it" approach.

The trouble is, that once drivers have past the speed camera, fixed or mobile, there is no longer an incentive to hold speed down, and there is NO incentive to adhere to all the other things that contribute to safer driving!

[Mill Wheel]

Davidonly said:

THEN some of them discovered how a 'nice little earner' could be readily spun in the media to justify even greater use of this technology for their personal benefit. The rest as they say is history.

For a while, average speed cameras were being touted as the more acceptable face of speed cameras, but in my experience on motorways in roadworks it simply leads to vehicles following each other far too close for the speeds they are travelling at, while the drivers eyes are glued to their speedo.

[Mill Wheel]

JNW1 said:

As The Surveyor has says, some on here give the impression that if there's no evidence of accidents or fatalities everything in the garden's rosy and a problem is being highlighted which simply doesn't exist; well, I beg to differ and Mill Wheel's dashcam post helps to illustrate why!

Tapereel/drf765 has a history of ignoring (or not believing) in accidents that were not recorded on police databases. When I reported several collisions with walls in a mile long stretch of the A591, he said "Only you see them!".
I was able to photograph them after that to prove I was correct, and eventually, a long stretch of the A591 between the speed cameras at Ings, and Windermere, was re-engineered (ineffectively) in an attempt to reduce the number of collisions, which thankfully had only resulted in one fatality.
However, any one of them could have proved fatal had there been other traffic/road users in the vicinity - as happened in 2006 at Shap, when a car left the road and ploughed into a group of ramblers, killing some of them.

This is the sort of incident that could prove fatal in the wrong circumstances...

Vehicle was heading TOWARDS the camera, turned across the opposite carriageway while spinning, crossed the foot/cycle path and ended up where you see it in the picture.
This bend has seen numerous accidents involving vehicles travelling in the same direction, with no fatalities even though two vehicles ended up on their roofs in separate incidents.

A further low speed accident with serious injuries resulting happened recently:
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/149554... with inattention seemingly the most likely cause, along with a low spec vehicle involved with less crash protection... Citroen C1.

[Mill Wheel]

This is the sort of casual lapse in driving standards that in France would have Les Flics setting up a roadside check, to pull over drivers with no lights on for a bollicking.

Needless to say, last time I saw this was just outside EuroDisney where three motorcycle cops had a queue of mainly UK registered cars waiting for their turn!

It can be hard enough to see cars in these conditions through the swept glass of the windscreen, but even more difficult through the side windows while waiting at junctions.

[Mill Wheel]

Also cars with electronic handbrakes who cannot be arsed to reach down and engage the switch as well as putting it into neutral.

I personally love sitting in a queue getting my eyes lasered by the brake lights of the vehicle in front, as it makes for pretty patterns when you close your eyes!

[Mill Wheel]

cmaguire said:

Mill Wheel said:

Also cars with electronic handbrakes who cannot be arsed to reach down and engage the switch as well as putting it into neutral.

I personally love sitting in a queue getting my eyes lasered by the brake lights of the vehicle in front, as it makes for pretty patterns when you close your eyes!

The need to be look at the vehicles in front is of far less relevance when stationary than when moving so this is not something I am unduly bothered about. There are far too many other tiresome traits to be concerned about that.

4x4s are the worst, as their lights are invariably much higher up, so always above the bonnet line, and also often a much larger array too - excepting the Landrover Defender!

I am perplexed as to why drivers don't see the problem ahead of them, and consider correcting their own behaviour, even if they cannot be bothered to read the Highway Code!

Highway Code 114 said:

You MUST NOT
use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders

use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced.

You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226).

In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again.
Law RVLR reg 27

[Mill Wheel]

pim said:

Highway code 114.

Interesting,the highway code must be the least read book of all paperbacks.Not a blind bit of notice taken.>;)

I have purchased a new copy twice in the past 12 years to keep up to date of changes, and it is of course available online.
This has puzzled some friends, who don't seem to recognise the value of keeping up with recent developments, or refreshing your memory of the contents.
If anything, in the north of England and Scotland, it is important to keep refreshed, given we are some distance to the nearest "S M A R T" Motorway, and unless you travel one regularly, you would be inexperienced without the Highway Code to guide you.
Similarly the various crossings... PUFFIN, PELICAN etc. which seem to escape the notice of 80% of pedestrians!

Incidentally how many drivers are experienced at driving on roads shared by TRAMS, as in Blackpool?

[Mill Wheel]

cmaguire said:

Ms R.Saucy said:

That would be the highway code rule 226 , realistically although the droplet sizes are large, the spray on fast roads in very heavy rain can be as bad as thick fog for reducing visibility of vehicles and ordinary ( 5w) rear marker lights ...

Pre-LED vehicles have 21W rear bulbs. If rain or a combination of rain and low-light levels are affecting visibility then I would expect any sensible driver to put their lights on and not be relying on 5W number-plate bulbs to be seen.
The extra brightness of rear fogs in the rain, which scatters the light, is a liability and therefore increases danger rather than reducing it.

And as I've previously said, how could anyone that has followed another driver in the rain using foglights be so equally stupid as to use them too? Yet they still do?

It surely isn't beyond most drivers level of competence surely to notice if you are having difficulty seeing the lights of oncoming or preceding vehicles, to turn your fog lights on, but seemingly this handy pointer is widely ignored!

Now if the same drivers were to be sent on a speed awareness course, how much would sink in and be put into practise?
The behaviour of a SAC instructor which prompted this thread would seem to indicate that the chances can be slim, and drivers fail to apply what they are supposed to have learned.

[Mill Wheel]

Red Devil said:

Can I plead guilty to this?

BLACKPOOL... https://goo.gl/maps/um8pQGw5Sqj

In the 1980s, the northbound traffic occupied the left of the road, southbound occupied the right, and the tram tracks joined the road from the promenade far left, and crossed the northbound lane and ran up the middle.
Local traffic was used to the sight of a tram coming towards you as it prepared to change, and the tram drivers were used to judging the distances they needed to merge through a gap in the traffic that drivers would create when they saw the tram. Worked well, with no collisions for years.

In time, less and less drivers with experience of sharing the roads with trams were about on the roads, and younger drivers with no experience took their place, and eventually the road had to be realigned, tracks re-laid at great expense to sort out the problem.

The missing factor was experience and common sense. I'm not sure that modern drivers would ever learn to cope, having been brought up in a world where signs, paint and cameras are used in an attempt to herd drivers along like sheep, and skills such as consideration, observation, and anticipation are left to chance.

[Mill Wheel]

Interesting page here from the point of view of RIAS regarding the insurance aspects of declaring a SAC.
http://www.rias.co.uk/rias-and-you/insurance-and-y...

One of the links takes you here:
http://www.staffssaferroads.co.uk/ive-had-a-ticket...

SAC notes said:

Course Topics

Excuses: An opportunity for you to explore the reasons behind why we tend to depart from the posted speed limits.

What causes you to speed: This section allows you to explore and record some of the reasons why you may speed.

Consequences: You are asked to think of the consequences of either speeding or driving at inappropriate speeds and record your thoughts. A sobering section, and for most, probably the first time you will consider speeding as having personal consequences!

So what are you going to do: This section prompts you to plan a strategy, often a very simple one, in order that you do not speed in the future, thus avoiding being in a position where your personal consequences become a reality.

Coping strategy: You will be introduced to the concept of COAST - Concentration, Observation, Anticipation, Space and Time and how to link this to defensive driving.

Looking and seeing: An interesting exercise that demonstrates that we look but often don't see!

Motorcyclists: These are among our more vulnerable of road users and can be difficult to spot. This section aims to raise awareness of the issues associated with blind spots and speed issues with powered two wheelers.

Speed limits: An opportunity to refresh your knowledge of speed limit rules and how to identify a limit when you've missed the sign.

Hazard perception: During this section and working in small groups, you are first asked to examine four different driving scenes. You then record your findings, based upon your observations, as to what you think the speed limit is, what hazards you have identified and then suggest appropriate action and speeds for dealing with each hazard. A thought provoking exercise aimed at enhancing driver's powers of observation and anticipation and the ability to determine an appropriate speed.

Recognition and appropriate use of speed: You will be shown four short video clips, each showing different road and traffic conditions. The presenter will discuss various aspects of hazard awareness and situations that need a consideration towards speed.

Attitudes and beliefs: Most drivers admit that speeding is an issue; however, not many of us will admit to speeding ourselves. This session aims to explore and challenge the concept of what we say and what we do are actually very different.

Implementation Intentions: This gives you the opportunity to reflect on your own driving and make a personal commitment towards making a positive change in your driving via a simple but personal pledge.

When it says: "A thought provoking exercise aimed at enhancing driver's powers of observation and anticipation and the ability to determine an appropriate speed" there is of course a risk that drivers will simply do what they always do - assess the risk from the hazards presented, and drive at an appropriate speed... which may be above the posted speed.

i.e. those 50mph SPECS monitored road works at 3.00 am on a motorway "to protect the workforce" when in fact there is no workforce there, and the cones are pushed back, will inevitably lead to drivers wanting to drive faster than 50 mph... rightly so.

[Mill Wheel]

JNW1 said:

Derek Smith said:

If you think the reduced visibility is such as to require headlamps then you should have your rear fogs on.

So just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that any occasion where you switch your headlights on when it's not dark means you should also have your rear fog lights on as well? Don't agree if that's the proposition as to me fog lights are for use only when visibility is, as you say, substantially reduced; there are times when (for example) on a murky day I'd say it was prudent to use dipped headlights but rear fog lights would be unnecessary (and potentially annoying for other road users).

On motorways, when it is raining, the spray forms it's own fog amongst the water droplets. It is easy to know when fog lights would improve things - it is when vehicles in front start to disappear into the spray when they are only a few yards in front of you.

As to the wattage of bulbs, that is not the only criteria. Some vehicles have large light arrays that are easily seen, while others (i.e. old Landrover Defenders) have pitiful arrays that soon become invisible in inclement conditions.

[Mill Wheel]

Regarding the A40 video, the vehicle that smashes into the rear quarter of the mini clearly has enough room to pass between the two vehicles, and did not have to hit the mini.
I think it's initial speed was even higher, and the driver lost control through heavy braking.

In the BBC report, there is an interesting quote from an eyewitness...


So her partner and her could see the conditions were dangerous, knew that you could not see vehicles in front until you got close, yet continued to drive so fast that they could not stop when the driver in front collided with the crash barrier, and were forced to swerve to avoid running into the incident that occurred in front of them!

Is there enough there to convict them of DWDC?

[Mill Wheel]

I should have also asked "Speed cameras... do they work?" as clearly the eastbound camera at Ings on the A591 is currently working overtime!
It is flashing several times in succession every 5 minutes or so!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzR_OIH_2mo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNmP8Bte0bM

A few drivers have been standing on the brake pedal in a panic when the vehicle in front has appeared to get flashed!

[Mill Wheel]

Red Devil said:

Well if it is, I have been in a state of blissful ignorance for a very long time and I have been extremely fortunate in never having been stopped by the police for being such a heinous scofflaw.

Surely the common sense approach would be:
"clear but dark... dipped lights"
"foggy and lowered visibility... Dipped AND fog lights"

Out of all this discussion, the most useful suggestion has been to link the front fog lights to a speed limiter, but I also feel manufacturers should be stopped from dual switches that mean front fogs come on before rears - if you are in a convoy of vehicles, why would you want to dazzle the driver in front, just so that you can illuminate the rear fog light if you are the last vehicle in the convoy?

I also thing SACs should be more wide ranging and cover ALL safety!

[Mill Wheel]

768 said:

In practice you won't though will you?

I'd be surprised if anything gets within an order of magnitude of the number of speed awareness course attendees. It wouldn't surprise me if 99% of all other courses aren't within 2 orders of magnitude.

A few years ago, in Barrow in Furness, there was a problem with drivers exceeding 30 limits in parts of town, and they ran a campaign where they had a mobile "cinema" caravan parked just off one main routes.
Offending drivers were pulled over and sent straight to the caravan, where they were given a short lecture and made to watch a road safety film.
It was very effective, as the hold up for drivers in too much of a hurry was a major deterrent.
Unfortunately the money has not been available to run it again since.
Part of the funding came from the Fire Brigade and the council, not police, although they were obviously involved in one aspect.

[Mill Wheel]

vonhosen said:

768 said:

Mill Wheel said:

I also thing SACs should be more wide ranging and cover ALL safety!

Driving tuition should. But the practical application of anything under the guise of road safety in this country is only based on speed limits, so I'm not sure why they'd cover anything else. The clear message is that speed is the only thing that matters and even then only in relation to an arbitrary limit.

Speed awareness appears to be only one of the courses, not the only course.

http://www.drivetech.co.uk/driver-awareness/

Whilst other courses are available, they are less common.
It could be entirely possible that drivers on a SAC may have got there due to inattention, and if so, such drivers might benefit from extra tuition, IF improving safety were the primary objective.
If safety were only a secondary issue to collecting a course fee, then of course, they should constrain themselves to addressing speeding, then the customer may be back for one of those other courses at a later date!!

[Mill Wheel]

vonhosen said:

The prevalence of the offence is not because of the resources. It's the other way around, the resources exist because of the offence's prevalence & the funding model.

So it is anbout the money to be made, and not the safety benefit?

[Mill Wheel]

vonhosen said:

Mill Wheel said:

vonhosen said:

The prevalence of the offence is not because of the resources. It's the other way around, the resources exist because of the offence's prevalence & the funding model.

So it is anbout the money to be made, and not the safety benefit?

I've said before, I'll say again.
Safety is from having the speed limits, enforcement is a consequence of having them.
I'd rather cost effective enforcement for speed enforcement, i.e. those getting caught doing it paying the brunt of it, rather than everybody paying for it.

But you are only addressing safety in relation to a small percentage of accident courses. Why are the more important causes of accidents being detected and addressed with appropriate courses?
The safety benefit is obvious, so could it be that the financial benefit is not sufficient?

Here is a Government list of accident causes which does not include Illegal speeding.



Here are figures for the top causes, for ALL accidents, Fatal Accidents, Serious Accidents and Slight Accidents.

Stats 19 figures said:

Exceeding speed limit 5% (15) {7} 4

Slippery road (due to weather) 7% (4) {6} 8
Travelling too fast for conditions 7% (11) {8} 6
Following too close 6% (2) {3} 7
Poor turn or manoeuvre 16% (14) {15} 17
Driver/Rider failed to look properly 44% (27) {36} 45
Driver/Rider failed to judge other person’s path or speed 22% (14) {17} 23
Loss of control 13% (31) {17} 12

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa... page 303

Horses for courses... just need to fix the financials to make it work?

[Mill Wheel]

vonhosen said:

Not true.
I tend to see fixed cameras at higher risk sites & mobile enforcement for greater incidence enforcement.

Really? Things are done differently in Cumbria. Here are two crash maps for a stretch of the A591 between Staveley and Windermere, showing only fatal and serious incidents.
The first is 1999 to 2003 - FIVE years before the first speed camera enforcement by the Cumbria "Safety Camera Partnership, and the second for 2003 to 2007, the FIVE years AFTER CSCP commenced enforcement.

Based on the first map WHERE would YOU place the cameras?


And based on the second map, WHY did accidents apparently INCREASE at the camera site, despite claims to the contrary by the CSCP (and why would they lie about their success)?

Note CSCP enforcement with mobile cameras commenced in May 2003 so there is a small overlap.

Edited by Mill Wheel on Sunday 1st January 21:38