Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
Willy Nilly said:
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.
Willy Nilly said:
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.
You can measure how fast people are going, and prosecute them if they exceed the limit, but you can't stop them from being people.It's a good thing that aviation safety is a little more thorough than road safety.
singlecoil said:
Davidonly said:
Otherwise my kids are looking at a joyless future 
Or will have to find their joy elsewhere.Having said that - recent developments mean I'm more positive than I have been for years that we might see some common sense returning and 'democracy' perhaps returning. I really hope it continues
vonhosen said:
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
Many many surveys have supported an 80mph Motorway limit (a new 'random' number' selected for such questions) so I'm sure getting to the 85th percentile would be even more popular.
I agree Motorways are dull - but the faster we are allowed to go (when conditions allow) the sooner we can get off them - and also reduce congestion perhaps? Also it is certainly the case that the current 70mph made-up number has resulted in soporific conditions in modern equipment. That's not a good thing is it?
The data used to force the outdated limit we have on us is very limited, very old and has been questioned a lot. There is a vacuum of 'facts' around this subject. We really should not have to resort to busy political processes to get common sense change examined properly. I can see that the topic is trivial COMPARED to the bigger issues of the day.
Equally in a rapidly changing world - inventing any 'rule' and leaving it unquestioned for 50 years (NSL = 70mph in this case) is simply not logical or fair.
kwits with no idea how to drive.Davidonly said:
singlecoil said:
Davidonly said:
Otherwise my kids are looking at a joyless future
Or will have to find their joy elsewhere.Having said that - recent developments mean I'm more positive than I have been for years that we might see some common sense returning and 'democracy' perhaps returning. I really hope it continues
vonhosen said:
I've never said that you can't fail, I've said that you can, but that is going to be in extreme circumstances. It surprised me how extreme & prolonged it needs to be to fail.
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.
It feels like everything you've said points to it being far less likely to fail a driving test for not making proper progress than it was 20 or 30 years ago. That may be due in part to the assessment process, it may be due in part to the guidance given to examiners, but whatever the reason(s) the outcome is that people are now more likely to get away with driving unnecessary slowly in their driving test (and having done so it's probably not unreasonable to assume that attitude and mindset will stay with them once they've passed). This may go some way to explaining why there appears to be an ever increasing number of drivers who think it's perfectly acceptable to drive at well below the speed limit on the open road; historically the driving assessment process would have penalised that behaviour whereas that no longer appears to be the case (or at least not to anything like the same extent). 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
I daresay some will see this as progress and a good thing (driving more slowly equates to driving more safely, etc) but personally I see it more as a dumbing-down of general driving standards which weren't exactly sky-high in the UK to start with....
singlecoil said:
Davidonly said:
singlecoil said:
Davidonly said:
Otherwise my kids are looking at a joyless future
Or will have to find their joy elsewhere.Having said that - recent developments mean I'm more positive than I have been for years that we might see some common sense returning and 'democracy' perhaps returning. I really hope it continues
My point above IS more general and concerns topics far more important to quality of life, security etc... sorry a bit off topic a guess!
Davidonly said:
I was speaking more generally - speed limits are never going to decide a significant proportion of the vote (so I DISAGREE that any part of the democratic process has ever been brought to bear upon them - that would actually be ludicrous). As I said elsewhere - we shouldn't need to vote on such a technical point anyway. We just need to review things sensibly - it's really not much to ask.
It's diametrically opposite to ludicrous.Of course nobody is going to vote for any given party on the basis of a single issue. But then no party produces a manifesto on a single issue. It's always a number of measures designed to win votes, every one carefully considered and researched.
Therefore my point stands.
vonhosen said:
Digby said:
vonhosen said:
i.e. You should get the same result whatever examiner you had (which wasn't always the case).
Driving too slowly and not making progress resulting in a fail seems to have changed very little.Apparently it was one of the top ten listed reasons for fails!
Not any more
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 8th December 23:34
And as I mentioned, you can probably blame lower limits over anything else. A nervous driver not wanting to hit 50 or 60 mph now doesn't have to worry too much because the limit will probably be 30 or 40.
This is undoubtedly why it needs to be seen for longer periods and involve more than before. How, for example, could you ever fall foul of this if the majority of roads where you live are 20, 30 and 40 mph?
Not likely to happen much, is it? Before, that lovely DC or national speed limit sign would have required you to show you were a confident driver; something not really required these days as a five year old could probably look capable behind the wheel of something moving at less than 20 mph.
No wonder driving standards are becoming a joke.
Mouse clicks to show how good you are behind the wheel, HGV courses where you can sit the exact same course five times in a row and 'pass', but who actually cares? Nobody because it's all incredibly lucrative.
There's not a single reason the above should be allowed.
Safer roads my arse
singlecoil said:
Davidonly said:
I was speaking more generally - speed limits are never going to decide a significant proportion of the vote (so I DISAGREE that any part of the democratic process has ever been brought to bear upon them - that would actually be ludicrous). As I said elsewhere - we shouldn't need to vote on such a technical point anyway. We just need to review things sensibly - it's really not much to ask.
It's diametrically opposite to ludicrous.Of course nobody is going to vote for any given party on the basis of a single issue. But then no party produces a manifesto on a single issue. It's always a number of measures designed to win votes, every one carefully considered and researched.
Therefore my point stands.
Therefore, in general how much democracy is at work when it comes to speed limits and speeding? In practice little or none in my view; maybe the odd local pressure group getting the speed limit through their village changed but on the wider issue of national speed limits and the approach to enforcement I'd say there's been no democratic input. Still, we haven't had a referendum for a while so how about one on the use of speed cameras; the people decide, do we continue with them, yes or no?!
JNW1 said:
Your point is correct in theory but in practice we all know speed limits are unlikely to be an issue even in local never mind national elections; perhaps that might change if limits were reduced significantly and then enforced with even greater rigour but for the moment it's not something that will be on the agenda for any of the major political parties.
Therefore, in general how much democracy is at work when it comes to speed limits and speeding? In practice little or none in my view; maybe the odd local pressure group getting the speed limit through their village changed but on the wider issue of national speed limits and the approach to enforcement I'd say there's been no democratic input. Still, we haven't had a referendum for a while so how about one on the use of speed cameras; the people decide, do we continue with them, yes or no?!
My point is correct both in theory AND in practice. I note that your view is different, but if you want to change mine you will need more than proof by assertion.Therefore, in general how much democracy is at work when it comes to speed limits and speeding? In practice little or none in my view; maybe the odd local pressure group getting the speed limit through their village changed but on the wider issue of national speed limits and the approach to enforcement I'd say there's been no democratic input. Still, we haven't had a referendum for a while so how about one on the use of speed cameras; the people decide, do we continue with them, yes or no?!
singlecoil said:
Davidonly said:
I was speaking more generally - speed limits are never going to decide a significant proportion of the vote (so I DISAGREE that any part of the democratic process has ever been brought to bear upon them - that would actually be ludicrous). As I said elsewhere - we shouldn't need to vote on such a technical point anyway. We just need to review things sensibly - it's really not much to ask.
It's diametrically opposite to ludicrous.Of course nobody is going to vote for any given party on the basis of a single issue. But then no party produces a manifesto on a single issue. It's always a number of measures designed to win votes, every one carefully considered and researched.
Therefore my point stands.
Davidonly said:
The only reason the speed limit has not been increased already (by any party) is the fear of media cycle. Nothing to do with democracy.
Really? Got anything to back that opinion up?
I'd wager that it has more to do with the fact that no government is going to take any action that could potentially increase fatalities. Some on here would be happy with more fatalities if it meant higher limits. I don't think that the majority of voters would.
Devil2575 said:
Really?
Got anything to back that opinion up?
I'd wager that it has more to do with the fact that no government is going to take any action that could potentially increase fatalities.
Have you got anything to back that opinion up?Got anything to back that opinion up?
I'd wager that it has more to do with the fact that no government is going to take any action that could potentially increase fatalities.
Personally I doubt they believe raising the Motorway limit to 80 would make any difference to road deaths, anymore than I do. I expect they are probably more concerned about clean air and noise pollution targets in reality.
Devil2575 said:
Davidonly said:
The only reason the speed limit has not been increased already (by any party) is the fear of media cycle. Nothing to do with democracy.
Really? Got anything to back that opinion up?
I'd wager that it has more to do with the fact that no government is going to take any action that could potentially increase fatalities. Some on here would be happy with more fatalities if it meant higher limits. I don't think that the majority of voters would.
https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/should-the-uk-speed...
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/poll-motorway-speed-l... (another poll)
Ask some drivers?
There are numerous other polls and the fact that over 50% of cars travel around 80mph.... and the fact that MOST of the world is allowed to travel at least 130km/hr...
After this post however I'm out, as this is circular discussion is getting me nowhere. I usually travel 'at a speed appropriate to the conditions' which is often a different number to the NSL - where ever I can avoid detection - therefore the legislators simply need to catch up with the defacto reality. (clean license in case you wanted to know).
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
Your point is correct in theory but in practice we all know speed limits are unlikely to be an issue even in local never mind national elections; perhaps that might change if limits were reduced significantly and then enforced with even greater rigour but for the moment it's not something that will be on the agenda for any of the major political parties.
Therefore, in general how much democracy is at work when it comes to speed limits and speeding? In practice little or none in my view; maybe the odd local pressure group getting the speed limit through their village changed but on the wider issue of national speed limits and the approach to enforcement I'd say there's been no democratic input. Still, we haven't had a referendum for a while so how about one on the use of speed cameras; the people decide, do we continue with them, yes or no?!
My point is correct both in theory AND in practice. I note that your view is different, but if you want to change mine you will need more than proof by assertion.Therefore, in general how much democracy is at work when it comes to speed limits and speeding? In practice little or none in my view; maybe the odd local pressure group getting the speed limit through their village changed but on the wider issue of national speed limits and the approach to enforcement I'd say there's been no democratic input. Still, we haven't had a referendum for a while so how about one on the use of speed cameras; the people decide, do we continue with them, yes or no?!
JNW1 said:
Really? So how in practice has the democratic process affected things like speed limits and their enforcement? As I said in my previous post, I'm sure there are examples of local communities pushing successfully to have something like the speed limit changed on a specific piece of road but a meaningful democratic input on things like the level of national speed limits and their enforcement? Don't remember any political party making it an issue and asking for my views but perhaps I've missed something?
It hasn't but if you and others think it is an issue then you should put yourselves up for election. UKIP did just this with immigration and got it firmly on the agenda.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff