Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
If the examiner sees you straight line a roundabout because you are the only vehicle on the road, how does he assess whether you may straightline it when another vehicle is approaching from the right?
Roundabouts in West Lancashire are different to those in Cumbria, because Lancashire has made an effort to discourage straight lining with road markings that are not standard... which therefore puzzle drivers who are not used to encountering them.
I know of several learners who have been told not to drive too slowly in case this is viewed as being over cautious, but nobody seems keen to commit to a number which might be viewed as over cautious!
At the end of my test, I was quizzed by my examiner, because I slowed down on an estate for a cat that was walking along the road, and it was suggested to me that the cat is one of few animals which you do not need to report if run over and killed. My response was that was not a green light to run them down!
I presume that is the sort of personal input from the examiner that is now weeded out?
Roundabouts in West Lancashire are different to those in Cumbria, because Lancashire has made an effort to discourage straight lining with road markings that are not standard... which therefore puzzle drivers who are not used to encountering them.
I know of several learners who have been told not to drive too slowly in case this is viewed as being over cautious, but nobody seems keen to commit to a number which might be viewed as over cautious!
At the end of my test, I was quizzed by my examiner, because I slowed down on an estate for a cat that was walking along the road, and it was suggested to me that the cat is one of few animals which you do not need to report if run over and killed. My response was that was not a green light to run them down!
I presume that is the sort of personal input from the examiner that is now weeded out?
Mill Wheel said:
If the examiner sees you straight line a roundabout because you are the only vehicle on the road, how does he assess whether you may straightline it when another vehicle is approaching from the right?
The driver is observed to ascertain if they check adequately everywhere he/she needs to prior to committing to the move in the circumstances they are in.The driver can only be assessed against what's appropriate for the circumstances they have to deal with, not with what your gut feeling (no evidence to support) they may do in entirely different circumstances.
If they weren't to check adequately before committing to the move that is a different matter.
Pothole said:
Centurion07 said:
Pothole said:
Who do you propose administers these tests and collects the money?
What's to administer?You get handed a question sheet at the start, it gets marked. You get the same one at the end, you pass or fail. Minimal admin needed.
Pothole said:
Vonhosen is right. There is never any valid reason to tailgate another driver. The ultimate stupidity about this kind of behaviour on managed motorways is that if drivers left proper gaps the speeds would probably be increased sooner.
Right by whose definition? Not mine.And a gap doesn't go straight from 'acceptable' to tail-gating either, there is a middle ground where the gap is perfectly safe for the driver creating it but not large enough to allow an overtaking driver to enter safely.
And what exactly are you, Vonhosen or the State doing to deal with what is obviously a road safety issue? Bug@er all, that's what.
vonhosen said:
The driver is observed to ascertain if they check adequately everywhere he/she needs to prior to committing to the move in the circumstances they are in.
The driver can only be assessed against what's appropriate for the circumstances they have to deal with, not with what your gut feeling (no evidence to support) they may do in entirely different circumstances.
If they weren't to check adequately before committing to the move that is a different matter.
Having drivers that straightline roundabouts regularly cut across the front of me requiring me to brake to avoid hitting them (I can see it coming so I'm sighing with disappointment rather than panicking)I wish it was a fail, and it should be. It's something that works in theory but again not in practice because you cannot rely on drivers to look properly. And much like suggesting there is no need to indicate a manoeuver if there are no other road users in the vicinity, it creates bad habits in too many drivers.The driver can only be assessed against what's appropriate for the circumstances they have to deal with, not with what your gut feeling (no evidence to support) they may do in entirely different circumstances.
If they weren't to check adequately before committing to the move that is a different matter.
If drivers indicated and kept in lane around roundabouts the problems would never occur. Besides which, straightlining roundabouts is entirely unnecessary at the pedestrian speeds most drivers are doing anyway.
vonhosen said:
Because as I said, the previous methods resulted in the personal biases of exmaminer's coming to the fore, as in what they considered to be important for the standard rather than them looking objectively/quantifiably at the actual outcomes during the drive in reference to the DVSA standard.
Which today is still make good progress and don't drive too slowly for the road / conditions etc or you can fail.I don't have a single clue why you are mentioning anything else as it has nothing to do with the fact nothing has changed on that front.
Digby said:
vonhosen said:
Because as I said, the previous methods resulted in the personal biases of exmaminer's coming to the fore, as in what they considered to be important for the standard rather than them looking objectively/quantifiably at the actual outcomes during the drive in reference to the DVSA standard.
Which today is still make good progress and don't drive too slowly for the road / conditions etc or you can fail.I don't have a single clue why you are mentioning anything else as it has nothing to do with the fact nothing has changed on that front.
i.e. just because somebody is driving slower than the limit it isn't necessarily a fault/serious fault, so it won't necessarily result in a fail.
The full circumstances will be considered & the tools for assessment applied in weighting of any potential faults.
Digby said:
vonhosen said:
The tools of assessment have changed things, so how speed in relation to the limit is assessed has therefore changed.
Yes. And when good progress is expected, you must make it or you can fail. Just as it has always been.In the old days far less was considered when someone was driving below the limit than now, those changes change how it's assessed.
That's evidenced by you not seeing appropriate speed in the top ten fail reasons since the changes to outcome/evidential based assessment.
The guidance for assessment by examiners specifically states that speed limits are not to be considered as target speeds.
singlecoil said:
robinessex said:
drf765 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.So what's changed and when did it change? What are these new tools VH?
Bert
Bert
vonhosen said:
It's not just as it's always been, it used to be fault marking & now it's not. It's now assessed taking all the circumstances into account.
In the old days far less was considered when someone was driving below the limit than now, those changes change how it's assessed.
That's evidenced by you not seeing appropriate speed in the top ten fail reasons since the changes to outcome/evidential based assessment.
The guidance for assessment by examiners specifically states that speed limits are not to be considered as target speeds.
In the old days far less was considered when someone was driving below the limit than now, those changes change how it's assessed.
That's evidenced by you not seeing appropriate speed in the top ten fail reasons since the changes to outcome/evidential based assessment.
The guidance for assessment by examiners specifically states that speed limits are not to be considered as target speeds.
BertBert said:
So what's changed and when did it change? What are these new tools VH?
Bert
I can't remember the exact month/year it was in the last decade, but it's the way/process that fault assessment is carried out resulting in the way faults are graded.Bert
vonhosen said:
It's not just as it's always been, it used to be fault marking & now it's not. It's now assessed taking all the circumstances into account.
In the old days far less was considered when someone was driving below the limit than now, those changes change how it's assessed.
That's evidenced by you not seeing appropriate speed in the top ten fail reasons since the changes to outcome/evidential based assessment.
The guidance for assessment by examiners specifically states that speed limits are not to be considered as target speeds.
In the old days far less was considered when someone was driving below the limit than now, those changes change how it's assessed.
That's evidenced by you not seeing appropriate speed in the top ten fail reasons since the changes to outcome/evidential based assessment.
The guidance for assessment by examiners specifically states that speed limits are not to be considered as target speeds.
I admit I was very surprised by how extreme slower driving now needs to be in order to attract a fault (let alone serious fault) using that assessment process, but it is methodical consistent & fair to the examinee. It is all far more about looking at outcomes/evidenced based than it was, which used to be simply fault marking without fully considering outcomes & consequences of them before deciding whether a mark or what mark was needed.
vonhosen said:
BertBert said:
So what's changed and when did it change? What are these new tools VH?
Bert
Bert
vonhosen said:
............. It is all far more about looking at outcomes/evidenced based than it was, which used to be simply fault marking without fully considering outcomes & consequences of them before deciding whether a mark or what mark was needed.
........which is the total reverse from changes in speed limit policy (setting / enforcement levels and place and decision to prosecute or indeed create a revenue flow) Edited by Davidonly on Saturday 10th December 08:19
Davidonly said:
vonhosen said:
BertBert said:
So what's changed and when did it change? What are these new tools VH?
Bert
I can't remember the exact month/year it was in the last decade, but it's the way/process that fault assessment is carried out resulting in the way faults are graded.Bert
vonhosen said:
It's not just as it's always been, it used to be fault marking & now it's not. It's now assessed taking all the circumstances into account.
In the old days far less was considered when someone was driving below the limit than now, those changes change how it's assessed.
That's evidenced by you not seeing appropriate speed in the top ten fail reasons since the changes to outcome/evidential based assessment.
The guidance for assessment by examiners specifically states that speed limits are not to be considered as target speeds.
In the old days far less was considered when someone was driving below the limit than now, those changes change how it's assessed.
That's evidenced by you not seeing appropriate speed in the top ten fail reasons since the changes to outcome/evidential based assessment.
The guidance for assessment by examiners specifically states that speed limits are not to be considered as target speeds.
I admit I was very surprised by how extreme slower driving now needs to be in order to attract a fault (let alone serious fault) using that assessment process, but it is methodical consistent & fair to the examinee. It is all far more about looking at outcomes/evidenced based than it was, which used to be simply fault marking without fully considering outcomes & consequences of them before deciding whether a mark or what mark was needed.
vonhosen said:
Davidonly said:
vonhosen said:
BertBert said:
So what's changed and when did it change? What are these new tools VH?
Bert
I can't remember the exact month/year it was in the last decade, but it's the way/process that fault assessment is carried out resulting in the way faults are graded.Bert
vonhosen said:
It's not just as it's always been, it used to be fault marking & now it's not. It's now assessed taking all the circumstances into account.
In the old days far less was considered when someone was driving below the limit than now, those changes change how it's assessed.
That's evidenced by you not seeing appropriate speed in the top ten fail reasons since the changes to outcome/evidential based assessment.
The guidance for assessment by examiners specifically states that speed limits are not to be considered as target speeds.
In the old days far less was considered when someone was driving below the limit than now, those changes change how it's assessed.
That's evidenced by you not seeing appropriate speed in the top ten fail reasons since the changes to outcome/evidential based assessment.
The guidance for assessment by examiners specifically states that speed limits are not to be considered as target speeds.
I admit I was very surprised by how extreme slower driving now needs to be in order to attract a fault (let alone serious fault) using that assessment process, but it is methodical consistent & fair to the examinee. It is all far more about looking at outcomes/evidenced based than it was, which used to be simply fault marking without fully considering outcomes & consequences of them before deciding whether a mark or what mark was needed.
Davidonly said:
The modern UK motorway, when quiet - littered with speed cameras which may or may not enforce an exceptionally low (in global terms) NSL- is the safest type of road almost anywhere on earth subject the the highest level of 24/7 state sanctioned faceless rule making and citizen bullying. Is that really proportional / fair? The age old agreement that 'they' can make some stupid rules (one size does not fit all) but the situation where we (the people and our police) can work around that, by the use of humanity and indeed common sense, is being eroded rapidly. So now the rules are increasingly questioned. In this case the limits set. Once enough people have been stitched up by HADECS 3 at night - in the dry - in perfect conditions THEN I guarantee that in the new age of democracy (the establishment do not like it up 'em do they ???!!!) the M-way NSL will HAVE to go up. I hope that's the case. Otherwise my kids are looking at a joyless future
Our social system is that we subrogate our freedom to do as we wish in order for societal benefit. We elect others to make choices for us & we empower them to decree what is acceptable or not & enforce that decree through law. Those who wish to be elected to that position, tend to want to keep it & know that in order to be elected or keep it their decrees must not be too extreme, but instead have fairly broad support (once they have a status quo they have tacit support & then it takes a large swell to force them to change policy to where they aren't inclined to). They in the main become fairly good at judging/monitoring how hard a line they can take on an issue, after all their political survival depends on it. They of course have a fairly wide scope to act with regard to what people will accept, it being only fairly extreme stances at either end of the scale on an issue that will provoke sufficient disquiet on sufficient scale to cause them concern for their political position. I agree that the potential for that always exists, but until a sizeable number who don't currently see our system of speed limits & their enforcement as too onerous do, that's not going to happen. I myself could be spurred or provoked to object or campaign where I considered it inappropriate, but I don't see the current position as inappropriate or untenable.
It would take more than a little move either way for that to change for me personally. As far as enforcement on motorways is concerned they could cover the complete network & it wouldn't make any difference to me because I already look to remain at speeds that wouldn't see me getting prosecuted on motorways & I plan my motorway journeys with that in mind. Motorways aren't a joyful road nor are they ever likely to be, they are about getting to the joy. Motoring joy isn't to be found on the roads designed for highest speeds & volume of traffic. It's significant changes to the limit that would be more likely to provoke a response change from me than enforcement levels of a limit that I was already broadly in state of acceptance of.
I don't believe you have anywhere near sufficient people who support or hold a view that you do, for great change to be imminently likely. Who knows what the future brings (if things change significantly our stances may become closer aligned), but I suspect automation will be present & speed choice completely taken from our hands on motorways, before it gets to a stage where sufficient would hold your view & effectively be able to force a significant government change.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th December 11:19
vonhosen said:
It's not just as it's always been, it used to be fault marking & now it's not. It's now assessed taking all the circumstances into account.
Yes. And if circumstances are taken into account, you can fail for going too slowly and not making progress when expected........just as it has always been! You seem not to like that idea for some reason.Of course there will be "circumstances", just as there has always been. The entire test is based around what you do due to the circumstances presented at any given moment. How they are being assessed makes little difference to what we are talking about here.
To make things more simple..
Can you fail a current driving test for driving too slowly?
A: Yes.
Can you fail for turning right?
A: Yes.
(add as many examples as you like)
You can go on to explain why, but the answer is still yes.
vonhosen said:
It's not about us as individuals, it's one size for all.
Unfortunately, one size doesn't fit all. you know, I know and everyone on this thread know that speed is easy to measure and limits easy to enforce, that's why speed has been targetted. We all know that inattention is the biggest cause of crashes. Driving slower doesn't make people pay more attention, it just makes the impact speed lower. It's a good thing that aviation safety is a little more thorough than road safety.
Digby said:
vonhosen said:
It's not just as it's always been, it used to be fault marking & now it's not. It's now assessed taking all the circumstances into account.
Yes. And if circumstances are taken into account, you can fail for going too slowly and not making progress when expected........just as it has always been! You seem not to like that idea for some reason.Of course there will be "circumstances", just as there has always been. The entire test is based around what you do due to the circumstances presented at any given moment. How they are being assessed makes little difference to what we are talking about here.
To make things more simple..
Can you fail a current driving test for driving too slowly?
A: Yes.
Can you fail for turning right?
A: Yes.
(add as many examples as you like)
You can go on to explain why, but the answer is still yes.
The pertinent point though is that the changes to the assessment process & the guidance to examiners that speed limits are not to be seen as a target, mean that it's less likely than it was previously. Evidenced by the fact that appropriate speed hasn't been in the top ten failure reasons for the past decade where as it was in the top ten previous to that. It therefore has everything to do with what is being discussed here, because the assessment process directly affects the outcome of the test. The fact you are simply driving below the limit is not on it's own enough for it to be a fault/fail, you don't have to drive right up to the speed limit even if it was safe to do so.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th December 13:08
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff