Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

JNW1 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

You've used the reverse parking analogy twice now and it was nonsense the first time! Yes that's a skill you need to have for the driving test and can choose not to use ever again if you don't want to; however, providing you don't scrape other people's cars when parking how you get into a space is up to you and doesn't affect other road users. In contrast, not making proper progress when conditions allow does affect other road users and all I'm saying is that if that standard of driving isn't acceptable in the driving test it shouldn't be acceptable afterwards either.

Driving at 40 in a 60 only affects other drivers in so much as they can't go as fast as they'd like. It doesn't force them to take evasive action or similar. They may choose to overtake, which is a higher risk manoeuvre than normal driving, but that's their choice.

As for your claim "all I'm saying is that if that standard of driving isn't acceptable in the driving test it shouldn't be acceptable afterwards either", have you ever fiddled with the radio whilst driving, wound down the window and rested your arm with your elbow out in the breeze, had an hands free phone call? All of those things do not meet the standard to pass a test. But we do them daily and they are not illegal in their own right.

So the whole argument of "if you did that in a test you'd fail" is irrelevant.

[JNW1]

Devil2575 said:

JNW1 said:

So a person makes no major mistakes on their test (doesn't run into anything or anyone, doesn't mount any kerbs during manoeuvres, etc) but never recognises a change in the speed limit and never exceeds 30mph even when it's safe to do so and the speed limit permits. Despite a little queue forming behind them when they do this in a 50mph or 60mph limit the Tools say that's a pass?

Did anyone say that? You can clearly change speed while still driving at well below the limit.

Go back and read the last few posts properly! The comment I made was that if I was an examiner I'd expect a pupil to demonstrate an awareness of changing speed limits and respond accordingly; our resident driving examiner (or at least I assume that's what he is?) politely told me I could do no such thing and would have to follow the tools of assessment. I therefore used the example above to seek clarification as to exactly what that meant and I'm sure he'll respond in due course...

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

So if during the course of their driving test a pupil had two or three stints on a 60mph road - and never exceeded (say) 30mph despite having little traffic and decent weather conditions - that would be fine and worthy of a pass as far as an examiner is concerned?

Do driving tests now include such roads? Long time since I took mine but if they now do then that's a good thing.

I imagine it depends a bit on where you take your test but even when I did mine over 30 years ago there was some out of town work on NSL roads (albeit probably no more than about 10% of the total time). However, regardless of the exact limit, the question is does the driver recognise the limit changes - and adjust their speed accordingly - or do they just drive slowly regardless? If I was an examiner I'd want to see evidence of the former as to me anyone who just drives slowly all the time would convey an impression of someone who isn't really aware and/or confident enough to be allowed out on the road on their own.

If you were an examiner you'd be using & applying the DVSA examiner's tools of assessment & not doing your own thing.

And what do these Tools of Assessment say on this matter then; ok to drive at 30mph everywhere?

You apply the tools looking at all the circumstances & that will result (as I said) in you not getting a serious fault for simply driving below the limit.

So a person makes no major mistakes on their test (doesn't run into anything or anyone, doesn't mount any kerbs during manoeuvres, etc) but never recognises a change in the speed limit and never exceeds 30mph even when it's safe to do so and the speed limit permits. Despite a little queue forming behind them when they do this in a 50mph or 60mph limit the Tools say that's a pass?

As I said you apply the tools of assessment to the full circumstances, so what you are visualising with your little tale might not be what I am visualising with your little tale, instead the examiner will apply the tools to what they are witnessing at the time, but the fact remains simply driving below the limit isn't a serious fault in itself. (Incidentally simply mounting a kerb isn't a serious fault & automatic fail either, there are degrees to it).

[singlecoil]

Davidonly 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.

Probably because it's true! Our roads are full of people crawling along causing queues (and frustration) whilst believing they're driving safely. When I was learning to drive if I'd been doing 40mph on a clear road with a 60mph limit my driving instructor would have suggested ever so politely that I get my finger out and speed-up a bit as I wasn't making proper progress for the conditions; he never suggested I should break the speed limit, only that I should be courteous to other road users....

It's NOT true. It may well suit you to believe it's true, but it isn't.

I have been in a car with a new driver and suggested they were travelling 'too fast' to hear them state clearly ' I am not exceeding the speed limit'.

My son's driving instructor has actually said (which I agree with) that unless there is a good reason not to he should proceed at the speed limit posted to avoid causing frustration behind.

Not sure what's not true here???

What's not true is that many people (or even any people) feel that they are automatically safe because they are under the speed limit. That's not quite the same as the experience you mention.

[Digby]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Driving at 40 in a 60 only affects other drivers in so much as they can't go as fast as they'd like. It doesn't force them to take evasive action or similar. They may choose to overtake, which is a higher risk manoeuvre than normal driving, but that's their choice.

But people do overtake and take risks, mostly due to frustration. Andy why shouldn't they? The road was designed for a certain speed for a reason (despite many now having lower limits, lanes closed off and being targeted by the scamerati)

Our own Government and subsequent parties involved also agree; hence the HGV speed increase.

I remember the HGV debate. I suggested that it didn't matter that a risky overtake was a choice, the fact was simply that people were making that choice and that an increase in speed would help reduce risks.

In other words, speed the hell up and make the road safer.

[singlecoil]

Digby said:

But people do overtake and take risks, mostly due to frustration. Andy why shouldn't they? The road was designed for a certain speed for a reason (despite many now having lower limits, lanes closed off and being targeted by the scamerati)

Our own Government and subsequent parties involved also agree; hence the HGV speed increase.

I remember the HGV debate. I suggested that it didn't matter that a risky overtake was a choice, the fact was simply that people were making that choice and that an increase in speed would help reduce risks.

In other words, speed the hell up and make the road safer.

Another way of looking at that would be that the slower the slow vehicle goes, the easier and safer it is to overtake them.

[vonhosen]

singlecoil said:

Digby said:

But people do overtake and take risks, mostly due to frustration. Andy why shouldn't they? The road was designed for a certain speed for a reason (despite many now having lower limits, lanes closed off and being targeted by the scamerati)

Our own Government and subsequent parties involved also agree; hence the HGV speed increase.

I remember the HGV debate. I suggested that it didn't matter that a risky overtake was a choice, the fact was simply that people were making that choice and that an increase in speed would help reduce risks.

In other words, speed the hell up and make the road safer.

Another way of looking at that would be that the slower the slow vehicle goes, the easier and safer it is to overtake them.

In one breath we hear people complaining that 50 limits are being introduced everywhere, but with LGVs having a NSL 50 limit that's what you end up with.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

So if during the course of their driving test a pupil had two or three stints on a 60mph road - and never exceeded (say) 30mph despite having little traffic and decent weather conditions - that would be fine and worthy of a pass as far as an examiner is concerned?

Do driving tests now include such roads? Long time since I took mine but if they now do then that's a good thing.

I imagine it depends a bit on where you take your test but even when I did mine over 30 years ago there was some out of town work on NSL roads (albeit probably no more than about 10% of the total time). However, regardless of the exact limit, the question is does the driver recognise the limit changes - and adjust their speed accordingly - or do they just drive slowly regardless? If I was an examiner I'd want to see evidence of the former as to me anyone who just drives slowly all the time would convey an impression of someone who isn't really aware and/or confident enough to be allowed out on the road on their own.

If you were an examiner you'd be using & applying the DVSA examiner's tools of assessment & not doing your own thing.

And what do these Tools of Assessment say on this matter then; ok to drive at 30mph everywhere?

You apply the tools looking at all the circumstances & that will result (as I said) in you not getting a serious fault for simply driving below the limit.

So a person makes no major mistakes on their test (doesn't run into anything or anyone, doesn't mount any kerbs during manoeuvres, etc) but never recognises a change in the speed limit and never exceeds 30mph even when it's safe to do so and the speed limit permits. Despite a little queue forming behind them when they do this in a 50mph or 60mph limit the Tools say that's a pass?

As I said you apply the tools of assessment to the full circumstances, so what you are visualising with your little tale might not be what I am visualising with your little tale, instead the examiner will apply the tools to what they are witnessing at the time, but the fact remains simply driving below the limit isn't a serious fault in itself. (Incidentally simply mounting a kerb isn't a serious fault & automatic fail either, there are degrees to it).

I understand you've got to judge a candidate's overall performance on a driving test but if they've driven slowly all the time, have caused a small queue as a result and have failed to recognise - or respond to - any changes in speed limits is that still likely to be a pass providing the rest of their performance has been satisfactory? Sounds like you're saying it is but if that's the case it's rather different from the message I was always given by my driving instructor (admittedly many years ago now!).

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

So if during the course of their driving test a pupil had two or three stints on a 60mph road - and never exceeded (say) 30mph despite having little traffic and decent weather conditions - that would be fine and worthy of a pass as far as an examiner is concerned?

Do driving tests now include such roads? Long time since I took mine but if they now do then that's a good thing.

I imagine it depends a bit on where you take your test but even when I did mine over 30 years ago there was some out of town work on NSL roads (albeit probably no more than about 10% of the total time). However, regardless of the exact limit, the question is does the driver recognise the limit changes - and adjust their speed accordingly - or do they just drive slowly regardless? If I was an examiner I'd want to see evidence of the former as to me anyone who just drives slowly all the time would convey an impression of someone who isn't really aware and/or confident enough to be allowed out on the road on their own.

If you were an examiner you'd be using & applying the DVSA examiner's tools of assessment & not doing your own thing.

And what do these Tools of Assessment say on this matter then; ok to drive at 30mph everywhere?

You apply the tools looking at all the circumstances & that will result (as I said) in you not getting a serious fault for simply driving below the limit.

So a person makes no major mistakes on their test (doesn't run into anything or anyone, doesn't mount any kerbs during manoeuvres, etc) but never recognises a change in the speed limit and never exceeds 30mph even when it's safe to do so and the speed limit permits. Despite a little queue forming behind them when they do this in a 50mph or 60mph limit the Tools say that's a pass?

As I said you apply the tools of assessment to the full circumstances, so what you are visualising with your little tale might not be what I am visualising with your little tale, instead the examiner will apply the tools to what they are witnessing at the time, but the fact remains simply driving below the limit isn't a serious fault in itself. (Incidentally simply mounting a kerb isn't a serious fault & automatic fail either, there are degrees to it).

I understand you've got to judge a candidate's overall performance on a driving test but if they've driven slowly all the time, have caused a small queue as a result and have failed to recognise - or respond to - any changes in speed limits is that still likely to be a pass providing the rest of their performance has been satisfactory? Sounds like you're saying it is but if that's the case it's rather different from the message I was always given by my driving instructor (admittedly many years ago now!).

The examiner doesn't look at their whole drive or overall performance as a package & make a pass or fail assessment based on that. Throughout the whole drive they are measuring the drive against defined outcomes (for every circumstance they are in) & weighting circumstances/how far they are from those defined outcomes. Where the driver is falling short that weighting will result in essentially 4 grades 1) a fault that is not worthy of recording, 2) a driving fault, 3) a serious fault or 4) a dangerous fault. Where something is graded as a fault not worthy of recording due to it's nature/circumstances it will always remain a fault not worthy of recording (where the circumstances remain the same), no matter how much they do it. For it to move to becoming a driving fault the circumstances will need to be different demanding that upscale. If they then go back to the original circumstances in which they were falling short it goes back to being not worthy of recording.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 8th December 21:05

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

I understand you've got to judge a candidate's overall performance on a driving test but if they've driven slowly all the time, have caused a small queue as a result and have failed to recognise - or respond to - any changes in speed limits is that still likely to be a pass providing the rest of their performance has been satisfactory? Sounds like you're saying it is but if that's the case it's rather different from the message I was always given by my driving instructor (admittedly many years ago now!).

Surely it would depend on WHY they were driving slowly (as someone said a while back)?

[Digby]

singlecoil said:

Another way of looking at that would be that the slower the slow vehicle goes, the easier and safer it is to overtake them.

They didn't agree with you. Otherwise truck speeds would have been reduced.

[singlecoil]

Digby said:

singlecoil said:

Another way of looking at that would be that the slower the slow vehicle goes, the easier and safer it is to overtake them.

They didn't agree with you. Otherwise truck speeds would have been reduced.

I think there are a few related subjects on which 'they' disagree with you too.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

I understand you've got to judge a candidate's overall performance on a driving test but if they've driven slowly all the time, have caused a small queue as a result and have failed to recognise - or respond to - any changes in speed limits is that still likely to be a pass providing the rest of their performance has been satisfactory? Sounds like you're saying it is but if that's the case it's rather different from the message I was always given by my driving instructor (admittedly many years ago now!).

Surely it would depend on WHY they were driving slowly (as someone said a while back)?

My original assumption (clearly stated!) was that in my hypothetical example the individual was driving slowly purely out of choice (as opposed to a reduced speed being prudent due to traffic and/or road/weather conditions).

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

The examiner doesn't look at their whole drive or overall performance as a package & make a pass or fail assessment based on that. Throughout the whole drive they are measuring the drive against defined outcomes (for every circumstance they are in) & weighting circumstances/how far they are from those defined outcomes. Where the driver is falling short that weighting will result in essentially 4 grades 1) a fault that is not worthy of recording, 2) a driving fault, 3) a serious fault or 4) a dangerous fault. Where something is graded as a fault not worthy of recording due to it's nature/circumstances it will always remain a fault not worthy of recording (where the circumstances remain the same), no matter how much they do it. For it to move to becoming a driving fault the circumstances will need to be different demanding that upscale. If they then go back to the original circumstances in which they were falling short it goes back to being not worthy of recording.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 8th December 21:05

Ok, so if someone is driving at 30mph in a 30 limit and then move to a 50 limit but stick to 30mph, is that a 1) or a 2) on the above grades? They then move to a 60mph limit, still stick at 30mph and by this time a bit of a queue is forming behind; 1) or 2)? This pattern continues throughout the test and, while they haven't done anything dangerous or committed a serious fault, it's clear they're a bit oblivious to the changing speed limits and the effect their speed is having on other road users. Pass or fail?

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

I know it's not required, but it exists.
And even though it exists people choose instead to buy the stuff you are complaining about because it's cheaper, rather than spending more on what would be more useful/worthwhile on road training.

Forgetting the fact this is completely wrong re: the CPC (because it is required), I found the offerings of some onroad CPC modules.

For a bargain £700+ VAT, you can "learn" such things as...

Route Planning....ok, well, that has to be done every day anyway, otherwise you wouldn't be able to do your job. Ok, let's see what else is included..

Manoeuvring and Reversing.....ok, well, erm, didn't we pass this already? (see above)

Road Awareness.....sorry, what?

Hazard Perception....you mean click a mouse? Didn't we do this already?

Wonderful stuff and probably helpful to someone who doesn't drive and probably laughed at by many companies. It looks like any cheaper options are simply the lesser of two pointless evils.

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

The examiner doesn't look at their whole drive or overall performance as a package & make a pass or fail assessment based on that. Throughout the whole drive they are measuring the drive against defined outcomes (for every circumstance they are in) & weighting circumstances/how far they are from those defined outcomes. Where the driver is falling short that weighting will result in essentially 4 grades 1) a fault that is not worthy of recording, 2) a driving fault, 3) a serious fault or 4) a dangerous fault. Where something is graded as a fault not worthy of recording due to it's nature/circumstances it will always remain a fault not worthy of recording (where the circumstances remain the same), no matter how much they do it. For it to move to becoming a driving fault the circumstances will need to be different demanding that upscale. If they then go back to the original circumstances in which they were falling short it goes back to being not worthy of recording.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 8th December 21:05

Ok, so if someone is driving at 30mph in a 30 limit and then move to a 50 limit but stick to 30mph, is that a 1) or a 2) on the above grades? They then move to a 60mph limit, still stick at 30mph and by this time a bit of a queue is forming behind; 1) or 2)? This pattern continues throughout the test and, while they haven't done anything dangerous or committed a serious fault, it's clear they're a bit oblivious to the changing speed limits and the effect their speed is having on other road users. Pass or fail?

As I keep saying the full circumstances in front of the examiner would have to be considered, not just what you visualise with your what if's (which I can't or may not be visualising from what you say). There is far more scope for speeds below the limit not resulting in recordable faults to speeds above it.

[Digby]

singlecoil said:

Another way of looking at that would be that the slower the slow vehicle goes, the easier and safer it is to overtake them.

Sorry, should have said another way to look at that is that you are wrong rather than Governments etc not agreeing with you.

But hey, I quite like your idea. Millions more overtakes every single day. Put the fun back in to driving!

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

The examiner doesn't look at their whole drive or overall performance as a package & make a pass or fail assessment based on that. Throughout the whole drive they are measuring the drive against defined outcomes (for every circumstance they are in) & weighting circumstances/how far they are from those defined outcomes. Where the driver is falling short that weighting will result in essentially 4 grades 1) a fault that is not worthy of recording, 2) a driving fault, 3) a serious fault or 4) a dangerous fault. Where something is graded as a fault not worthy of recording due to it's nature/circumstances it will always remain a fault not worthy of recording (where the circumstances remain the same), no matter how much they do it. For it to move to becoming a driving fault the circumstances will need to be different demanding that upscale. If they then go back to the original circumstances in which they were falling short it goes back to being not worthy of recording.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 8th December 21:05

Ok, so if someone is driving at 30mph in a 30 limit and then move to a 50 limit but stick to 30mph, is that a 1) or a 2) on the above grades? They then move to a 60mph limit, still stick at 30mph and by this time a bit of a queue is forming behind; 1) or 2)? This pattern continues throughout the test and, while they haven't done anything dangerous or committed a serious fault, it's clear they're a bit oblivious to the changing speed limits and the effect their speed is having on other road users. Pass or fail?

As I keep saying the full circumstances in front of the examiner would have to be considered, not just what you visualise with your what if's (which I can't or may not be visualising from what you say). There is far more scope for speeds below the limit not resulting in recordable faults to speeds above it.

Fail according to my Pops (He did it for a living).

One of the clear messages was to "Get up to speed" because any examiner will want and expect to see it. Not seeing it was a sign of nervousness and nervous drivers would fail.

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

I know it's not required, but it exists.
And even though it exists people choose instead to buy the stuff you are complaining about because it's cheaper, rather than spending more on what would be more useful/worthwhile on road training.

Forgetting the fact this is completely wrong re: the CPC (because it is required), I found the offerings of some onroad CPC modules.

Not CPC is not required!!!!
I mean I know 'on road' CPC is not a requirement (i.e. you can do it all in a classroom), but you are complaining about that.
And although 'on road' CPC is not a requirement some good on road CPC exists.

Digby said:

For a bargain £700+ VAT, you can "learn" such things as...

Route Planning....ok, well, that has to be done every day anyway, otherwise you wouldn't be able to do your job. Ok, let's see what else is included..

Manoeuvring and Reversing.....ok, well, erm, didn't we pass this already? (see above)

Road Awareness.....sorry, what?

Hazard Perception....you mean click a mouse? Didn't we do this already?

Wonderful stuff and probably helpful to someone who doesn't drive and probably laughed at by many companies. It looks like any cheaper options are simply the lesser of two pointless evils.

1) Keep looking, don't just stop at the first hurdle, there's better.
2) Just because you do something already doesn't mean you do it well. You mean you can't improve on any of the things you already do (after all that's a large part of what advanced driving is, getting better at things you already in the main do by being introduced to slightly different approaches to it & keep reflecting/getting feedback in your constant strive to be better still)?

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 8th December 22:11

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

The examiner doesn't look at their whole drive or overall performance as a package & make a pass or fail assessment based on that. Throughout the whole drive they are measuring the drive against defined outcomes (for every circumstance they are in) & weighting circumstances/how far they are from those defined outcomes. Where the driver is falling short that weighting will result in essentially 4 grades 1) a fault that is not worthy of recording, 2) a driving fault, 3) a serious fault or 4) a dangerous fault. Where something is graded as a fault not worthy of recording due to it's nature/circumstances it will always remain a fault not worthy of recording (where the circumstances remain the same), no matter how much they do it. For it to move to becoming a driving fault the circumstances will need to be different demanding that upscale. If they then go back to the original circumstances in which they were falling short it goes back to being not worthy of recording.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 8th December 21:05

Ok, so if someone is driving at 30mph in a 30 limit and then move to a 50 limit but stick to 30mph, is that a 1) or a 2) on the above grades? They then move to a 60mph limit, still stick at 30mph and by this time a bit of a queue is forming behind; 1) or 2)? This pattern continues throughout the test and, while they haven't done anything dangerous or committed a serious fault, it's clear they're a bit oblivious to the changing speed limits and the effect their speed is having on other road users. Pass or fail?

As I keep saying the full circumstances in front of the examiner would have to be considered, not just what you visualise with your what if's (which I can't or may not be visualising from what you say). There is far more scope for speeds below the limit not resulting in recordable faults to speeds above it.

Fail according to my Pops (He did it for a living).

One of the clear messages was to "Get up to speed" because any examiner will want and expect to see it. Not seeing it was a sign of nervousness and nervous drivers would fail.

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.