Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Driving at a lower speed may not equal driving safely, but if someone is driving dangerously, surely the slower they are doing it at, the better?
As far as dangerous driving is concerned, we already have an offence to cover that and of course offenders should be prosecuted and punished accordingly if found guilty. In terms of speeding, it's undeniably true that the lower the speed at which an accident occurs the less damage it's likely to cause; however, the logical conclusion of that is to either bring back the man with the red flag or not allow anyone to drive and just make everyone use public transport...
JNW1 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Driving at a lower speed may not equal driving safely, but if someone is driving dangerously, surely the slower they are doing it at, the better?
As far as dangerous driving is concerned, we already have an offence to cover that and of course offenders should be prosecuted and punished accordingly if found guilty. In terms of speeding, it's undeniably true that the lower the speed at which an accident occurs the less damage it's likely to cause; however, the logical conclusion of that is to either bring back the man with the red flag or not allow anyone to drive and just make everyone use public transport...
The limits are an expression of what is deemed an acceptable compromise between often competing criteria.
JNW1 said:
, the logical conclusion of that is to either bring back the man with the red flag or not allow anyone to drive and just make everyone use public transport...
No, the logical conclusion is that we set limits that allow everyone to go about their business with reasonable efficiency and at the same time prohibit people from going at whatever speed they choose. singlecoil said:
A lot of the time it will be because they are in no hurry whatsoever, it simply doesn't matter to them how long the journey takes. Otherwise it will be people who are a bit scared, especially elderly people, they know their eyesight isn't as good as it used to be nor their reactions as quick, so they slow down to a speed they are comfortable with.
Precisely. There's nothing wrong with either of those two approaches. Mill Wheel said:
Devil2575 said:
Guybrush said:
It's because cars are much safer now, even though there're faster and many more of them..over 310 billion miles a year travelled in the UK and a high percentage exceeding stupidly low speed limits on a daily basis. Unless the figures are lower because there a far fewer police on the roads.
Safer cars is just one factor. You can't say for certain how much of the reduction in fatalities is down to that. Speed cameras turned OFF in Northamptonshire... http://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/knowle...
Road Safety Analysis said:
In the period after the cameras were switched off, the findings highlight a 45% reduction in KSI at camera sites (29 to 16), compared to a 27% reduction across the rest of the county’s road network (1,628 to 1,193). In the same period, casualties of all types at camera sites were down 21% (from 90 to 71) while across Northamptonshire’s other roads there was a 29% fall (from 7,293 to 5,189).
Vehicle manufacturers make decisions on what features they can add to a vehicle on commercially based data - and have added features which cost hundreds of pounds because they work, and because owners are prepared to pay to have them.If they didn't work they would not be included.
Drivers fear getting caught. With a speed awareness course to fall back on, many will be happy to push the boundaries - just as the course tutor saw fit to take a risk which ended in the death of an unfortunate victim of her haste.
This was highlighted in a recent study on SUPPORT and COMPLIANCE.
University of West England said:
This paper reports a study undertaken by the authors that used a population wide survey of GB drivers to explore how support and compliance were interlinked. Whilst as expected many supporters said they would comply with the limits, and many opponents might not comply, more surprisingly it was also found that some supporters claimed not to comply, while some opponents of 20 mph limits were compliers. Explanations included the strong likelihood of strong moral adherence to not breaking laws amongst opponent–compliers, and self-enhancement bias amongst supporter–non-compliers.
The same report said:
No matter how we analyse the sample, taking into account the trend for Northamptonshire for similar roads (A and B) or not, reporting the casualties as per site or per km, the changes between the two periods, 4 years before and 4 years after the switch off, are not statistically significant. This is consistent with the cameras still being effective by a certain extent, even after switching off.
...so if you are going to quote something would you not think it reasonable to highlight the conclusions? Of course if you don't agree with the conclusions how would that make the report smething you regard as an authority? Doh!The report is only concerned with the fixed sites that were decommissioned and essentially concludes that the effectiveness of fixed cameras in Northants, for that short period, were effective as a deterrent when they were present but not operated. It does omit the increase of mobile enforcement in the same period and of course any return to operation of fixed cameras in that county after the report was made.
I would say your attempted point fails miserably.
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 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.In terms of your other category of people, leaving aside the ageist generalisation I think you may have shot yourself in the foot because in reality what you've said is they're driving at a speed at which they feel safe - I know you used the word comfortable but in the context you've used it it pretty much means the same thing!
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 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.In terms of your other category of people, leaving aside the ageist generalisation I think you may have shot yourself in the foot because in reality what you've said is they're driving at a speed at which they feel safe - I know you used the word comfortable but in the context you've used it it pretty much means the same thing!
vonhosen said:
JNW1 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Driving at a lower speed may not equal driving safely, but if someone is driving dangerously, surely the slower they are doing it at, the better?
As far as dangerous driving is concerned, we already have an offence to cover that and of course offenders should be prosecuted and punished accordingly if found guilty. In terms of speeding, it's undeniably true that the lower the speed at which an accident occurs the less damage it's likely to cause; however, the logical conclusion of that is to either bring back the man with the red flag or not allow anyone to drive and just make everyone use public transport...
The limits are an expression of what is deemed an acceptable compromise between often competing criteria.
Petrolheads struggle with speed limits and need to watch the speedo even when they can use any reasonable and appropriate speed between a slow crawl to the speed limy +10% +1mph.
It is interesting to see that in the 13 years I have read this forum there has been nothing new, reasonable, valid or practical contributed by anyone that would suggest that an increase in speed limits or the reduction in the enforcement of them should be considered or accepted by those responsible for setting them or legislating traffic regulations.
I think it came to it's pinnacle when some s
t-for-brains suggested that 5200 killed on the roads was preferrable to less than 2,000. Well I suppose that was new. 
JNW1 said:
I know the speed limit is a maximum not a minimum but 40mph on a clear road with a 60mph limit is not making proper progress and is actually discourteous to other road users IMO; therefore, if someone's not in a hurry how slow is it acceptable to go to the inconvenience of other road users - 30mph, 20mph?
They can go as lsow as they want to but I agree that a large differential is not at all helpful. It is preferrable for someone who feels comfortable at 30 in a 60 drives at 30 so that they can complete theor journey safely and to the best of their abilities.
An R8 V10+ and a competent driver will manage a twisty NSL far better than a timid new driver or an aging driver or perhaps a disabled driver in a VW Polo or something like that.
Why would the chap in his shiny new Audi be entitled to have the driver in front speed up to allow his progress at NSL to the detriment of the less capable driver's enjoyment of the road?
Further to that there is absolutely no reason why a driver should be made to speed up or allow a driver past who wants to progress at an unlawful speed.
So if you are my speedy, are you entitled to get annoyed when someone is behaving perfectly lawfully and reasonably? I think not.
JNW1 said:
In terms of your other category of people, leaving aside the ageist generalisation I think you may have shot yourself in the foot because in reality what you've said is they're driving at a speed at which they feel safe - I know you used the word comfortable but in the context you've used it it pretty much means the same thing!
That's a large leap-of-faith. In any case, drivers are entitled to drive at whatever speed they wish within the limits of the regulations. If they need to do that to feel comfortable or safe or both they can. Just wait patiently to pass or be let past.Edited by drf765 on Thursday 8th December 14:43
vonhosen said:
Someone doing 40 is easier to pass legally than someone doing 50.
Remember the complaints about HGVs obstructing traffic flow when they were limited to 40, and how that was one of the reasons behind the increase to 50?If somebody was doing 40mph along a clear NSL stretch of road on their driving test, would they fail for it? Yes, they would.
JNW1 said:
I think you may have shot yourself in the foot because in reality what you've said is they're driving at a speed at which they feel safe - I know you used the word comfortable but in the context you've used it it pretty much means the same thing!
NO. The point was made earlier and that I was responding to was that it was being under the limit that made people feel safe, the mere fact that they were under the limit.If ever I'm stuck behind someone doing 40 in a 60, I either wait patiently for a passing opportunity, or if there is none, suck it up. If it makes me late, the fault is mine for not leaving earlier. Live and let live basically.
I find this approach keeps my blood pressure and my accident/conviction history low.
I find this approach keeps my blood pressure and my accident/conviction history low.
TooMany2cvs said:
vonhosen said:
Someone doing 40 is easier to pass legally than someone doing 50.
Remember the complaints about HGVs obstructing traffic flow when they were limited to 40, and how that was one of the reasons behind the increase to 50?If somebody was doing 40mph along a clear NSL stretch of road on their driving test, would they fail for it? Yes, they would.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 8th December 15:32
TooMany2cvs said:
If somebody was doing 40mph along a clear NSL stretch of road on their driving test, would they fail for it? Yes, they would.
Nope, they wouldn't. Not for that and nothing else. But they would fail for tuning in the radio, going the long way round to avoid a tricky junction, making a hands free phone call, and a million other things you can do quite legally once you've passed.
A driving test it to show you can do certain things. There is no obligation to keep doing them. You need to be able to reverse park for your test, but if you don't like doing it, you need never do it again once you've passed. It's up to you.
drf765 said:
In any case, drivers are entitled to drive at whatever speed they wish within the limits of the regulations. If they need to do that to feel comfortable or safe or both they can. Just wait patiently to pass or be let past.
Is that right though? The comment has been made by another poster that if you take your driving test and drive at 40mph on a clear stretch of 60mph road you can expect to fail and when I was learning one of things my instructor always said to me was I risked failing if I didn't make what he described as "proper progress"; therefore, if driving too slowly is unacceptable in the driving test why is it acceptable once you've passed? I'm not advocating speeding here but it's surely not an unreasonable expectation that people drive somewhere near the speed limit assuming conditions allow? Edited by drf765 on Thursday 8th December 14:43
As for being let past by these individuals dream on; in my experience you just have to wait for a suitable opportunity to overtake and often when you do you see flashing headlights when you look back in the mirror - "I'm crawling along and how dare you want to go faster" seems to be the attitude with many of them....
JNW1 said:
Is that right though? The comment has been made by another poster that if you take your driving test and drive at 40mph on a clear stretch of 60mph road you can expect to fail and when I was learning one of things my instructor always said to me was I risked failing if I didn't make what he described as "proper progress"; therefore, if driving too slowly is unacceptable in the driving test why is it acceptable once you've passed?
Because, as said above, the test is to show you can do certain things. You are under no obligation to keep doing them.Do you think that if someone hates reverse parking, they are under some kind of duty to do it. They need to be able to do it on the test if asked, but they can choose to go the next 50 years without doing it again. It's their choice. If they are happy doing 40 in a 60, then let them get on with it.
JNW1 said:
drf765 said:
In any case, drivers are entitled to drive at whatever speed they wish within the limits of the regulations. If they need to do that to feel comfortable or safe or both they can. Just wait patiently to pass or be let past.
Is that right though? The comment has been made by another poster that if you take your driving test and drive at 40mph on a clear stretch of 60mph road you can expect to fail and when I was learning one of things my instructor always said to me was I risked failing if I didn't make what he described as "proper progress"; therefore, if driving too slowly is unacceptable in the driving test why is it acceptable once you've passed? I'm not advocating speeding here but it's surely not an unreasonable expectation that people drive somewhere near the speed limit assuming conditions allow? Edited by drf765 on Thursday 8th December 14:43
As for being let past by these individuals dream on; in my experience you just have to wait for a suitable opportunity to overtake and often when you do you see flashing headlights when you look back in the mirror - "I'm crawling along and how dare you want to go faster" seems to be the attitude with many of them....
If you are on your test and you are justified in driving safely and within the limits and you are making reasonable progress you will be fine. If you repeatedly fail to make sufficient progress and never do so then the examiner would have concerns and may fail the candidate.
How do you know that the person driving within the limit but not up to that limit and is slower than you would like to go is incompetent? Anyone at any time can drive just as fast or as slow as they wish...as long as it is reasonable, safe and appropriate. 10mph to 30mph on the motorway in free flowing traffic isn't approriate I would say.
30-50 in an NSL single carriageway NSL is perfectly OK, why not? I'm certain that wouldn't be a fail on the test.
You don't have to drive at the limit just because the driver behind wants to or indeed your examiner.
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.
drf765 said:
I have never encountered anyone who has demonstrated such a thought.
Possibly because they won't admit it and/or your sample is too small.I was a witness to a RTC where the driver's exact words were "I was well within the speed limit".
As if that exonerated him in some way.
Yes you may have been
head, but you weren't driving to the prevailing road/weather conditions.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Red Devil said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
cmaguire said:
I'll take the 5200. I won't be one of them or responsible for any of them.
Really? Of course you're a flawless driver, that goes without saying () but don't you think it's possible that you might be killed by someone else's stupidity?TwigtheWonderkid said:
Even stupid people moderate their speed due to imposed limits.
Some do, some don't. I'm not sure how one can quantify which ones fall into which bracket or the percentages, though.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Many people would drive faster if there were no limits of cameras, and within those will be the idiots.
Maybe, maybe not, but since I have never advocated that there should be no limits that particular point is not relevant to my post?.I don't doubt that were there to be no limits. and if people were to drive faster as a result, that cadre would contain idiots.
However they exist with the limits we do have, whatever the numerical value may be, so I'm not sure where you're going with that one.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If your are going to be crashed into by a tt, you want that to happen at a lower speed.
Quite.t, you want that to happen at a lower speed. However I reckon that the idiots tend to be those who lack concentration/awareness and their obliviousness extends to their speed too.
For example we have anecdotal evidence that a disturbing number of those who accept the offer of a SAC haven't got a clue what the NSL is.
Or that it varies according to what class of vehicle is being driven (with or without a trailer).
Red Devil 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.If it was actually supported by anything more than your opinion then it might be worth debating.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff