Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
vonhosen said:
I didn't say by popping into illegal territory it meant you were driving like a plum, I said getting caught. Getting caught meant you'd not just popped into illegal territory, it meant you'd exceeded the limit by a significant margin & you'd done that in a place where you knew (or should have known) it was likely that enforcement may be taking place. A lot of more modern cars even have a 'limiter' facility on them.
Careless driving is making mistakes that result in your driving falling below the standard expected of a careful competent driver.
Significant? You think that doing 66mph in a 60mph zone is significant?Careless driving is making mistakes that result in your driving falling below the standard expected of a careful competent driver.
There is also the problem that our speed limits are not very well thought out and do nothing to warn a driver about areas which are a particular hazard.
Take Bristol as an example. No doubt there are places where a 20mph speed is appropriate, but by making massive swathes of the city a 20mph zone all they achieve is drivers switching their brains off.
If they had left the 30mph limits in place and only put in 20mph zones for places where there genuinely has been a series of incidents or there is a very specific hazard it would have been a better idea. Not to mention the environmental impact of 20mph vs 30mph. All of the traffic through the 20mph zones that stick to the limit will be several mpg worse, and churn out more pollutants per mile.
Speed limits don't seem to bear a particularly close correlation with the risks, hazards or previous incidents.
What about NSL country roads.... apparently we can be trusted to blast along those at up to 60mph, in the middle of nowhere, with no mobile signal, miles from any medical assistance. But we can't be trusted to select an appropriate speed between 20mph and 30mph in urban Bristol.
There is also the fact that the UK already has some of the safest roads in Europe and the World.
When you have a bunch of barely trained, knuckle headed monkeys given a license to drive around in 2 tons of steel you will never get the number of deaths and injuries below a certain level unless we all just stop driving. By the very nature of people driving cars there will be mistakes, accidents, injuries and deaths. To err is human.
I fundamentally disagree that concentrating on speed is the right way to deal with the problem of deaths on our roads, I also disagree that there actually is a problem. Of course, it will affect some people, but if we are going to drive we will have incidents. This is the same for public transport too, planes can crash and trains can crash... seemingly trams too.
I think the focus on speed is because it is easy. I think we would have a far better effect on road safety by better educating drivers, and devising ways to spot the more dangerous drivers and getting them off the road for further training. I'd fully support a driving test every 10 years and a harder test each time to reflect driving experience.
If you are making an effort to keep to the limit you don't drift into enforcement territory. Of course if you aren't making the effort to keep to it at the time then you may, but then that's rather the point of the offence & the threshold where action begins to be taken. The enforcement thresholds start at a significant amount over the limit.
I'm not suggesting concentrate on speed, I'm saying you don't ignore it.
The Police don't have the resources for roads Policing, so some of the simpler stuff has been given to other agencies (speed, red lights, bus lanes, yellow lines, no right turns, no U turns, motorway patrols etc). As a result you'll see more being done about those things because it's not being left to the Police to do them. It's not they are being concentrated on, it's that others are now doing them instead of the Police so it may look that way.
I'm not suggesting concentrate on speed, I'm saying you don't ignore it.
The Police don't have the resources for roads Policing, so some of the simpler stuff has been given to other agencies (speed, red lights, bus lanes, yellow lines, no right turns, no U turns, motorway patrols etc). As a result you'll see more being done about those things because it's not being left to the Police to do them. It's not they are being concentrated on, it's that others are now doing them instead of the Police so it may look that way.
Mill Wheel said:
Tony Robinson (Baldric) stated publicly that he took notice of what he learned on the course for a while, but that the effect soon wore off.. leaving the AA £40 richer by taking advantage of the cunning plan, but the roads no safer.
The Mad Monk (PistonHeads) stated publicly that what he learnt on the course stayed with him. He thought it was a very clever plan to enable drivers to learn by their mistakes and not incur points on their licence. In addition, he (The Mad Monk) thought that the roads were safer as a consequence.pork911 said:
Success depends on the attendee's attitude.
This is largely true. It's just about possible you can go in hoping to learn and be disappointed, as some courses are better than others) but by and large, if you go in with the attitude of many on here (I know everything and it's going to be rubbish), then you'll get nothing out of it. Rovinghawk said:
vonhosen said:
They are written so there need be no safety consideration in order to enforce them.
Enforcement of them is based on nothing more than you exceeded the limit.
This saves all that tedious thinking & judgement- so much more efficient.Enforcement of them is based on nothing more than you exceeded the limit.
The Mad Monk said:
Mill Wheel said:
Tony Robinson (Baldric) stated publicly that he took notice of what he learned on the course for a while, but that the effect soon wore off.. leaving the AA £40 richer by taking advantage of the cunning plan, but the roads no safer.
The Mad Monk (PistonHeads) stated publicly that what he learnt on the course stayed with him. He thought it was a very clever plan to enable drivers to learn by their mistakes and not incur points on their licence. In addition, he (The Mad Monk) thought that the roads were safer as a consequence.vonhosen said:
If you are making an effort to keep to the limit you don't drift into enforcement territory. Of course if you aren't making the effort to keep to it at the time then you may, but then that's rather the point of the offence & the threshold where action begins to be taken. The enforcement thresholds start at a significant amount over the limit.
I'm not suggesting concentrate on speed, I'm saying you don't ignore it.
We don't know what the prosecution threshold is. 90mph on a motorway is not excessive speed for the road. I can think of several stretches of motorway where I could easily max my bike out and be able to coast to a stop in the distance I can see to be clear. I'm not saying that I or anyone else should and speed needs to be adjusted to suit traffic and weather conditions, but assuming good conditions it is unreasonable to prosecute for less than 90. That's only a little bit over what I can do legally just down the road and you would be holding up the traffic a few miles further along. I'm not suggesting concentrate on speed, I'm saying you don't ignore it.
There's a 30 limit near me that simply doesn't need enforcing. The buildings on the road are schools on the other side is a field of wheat. When the kids are about the traffic can get below 1mph, I have measured it on my tractor. So why do the local constabulary think it needs enforcing on a Sunday, at 5ish, in August? The only person there to be run over was the copper with the radar gun.
Have you noticed how kids in particular are so fat now? Think of the premature deaths this is storing up for the future. Why do you think they are fat? Could it be that people like you keep repeatedly telling people how, should they step out of the house, they are likely to be ruthlessly mowed down by some reckless hoodlum breaking the speed limit? So they sit in their bedrooms on their various devices, wrapped in cotton wool instead of going out and getting streetwise.
If the KSI statistics are down this year, you'll be crowing about how marvellous low speed limits are and speed cameras are sent from the heavens.
If KSI statistics are up his year we need lower speed limits and more cameras.
When I go for a run I couldn't give two hoots about how fast vehicles are travelling past me. I care not how fast they are driving past my house. When I am on my push bike their speed is of little concern, but I would very much like the to give me a decent amount of room, not squeeze me against the curb when they squeeze between me and a traffic island and it would be great if they stopped overtaking me when I am quite clearly signally right. But there are no automatic means of stopping them doing this, so you don't care.
You still haven't explained how I can sit judging how fast I need to go for 8,9,10, 14 hours at a time at work, yet am not responsible enough to do it in my piss ant car.
Willy Nilly said:
vonhosen said:
If you are making an effort to keep to the limit you don't drift into enforcement territory. Of course if you aren't making the effort to keep to it at the time then you may, but then that's rather the point of the offence & the threshold where action begins to be taken. The enforcement thresholds start at a significant amount over the limit.
I'm not suggesting concentrate on speed, I'm saying you don't ignore it.
We don't know what the prosecution threshold is. 90mph on a motorway is not excessive speed for the road. I can think of several stretches of motorway where I could easily max my bike out and be able to coast to a stop in the distance I can see to be clear. I'm not saying that I or anyone else should and speed needs to be adjusted to suit traffic and weather conditions, but assuming good conditions it is unreasonable to prosecute for less than 90. That's only a little bit over what I can do legally just down the road and you would be holding up the traffic a few miles further along. I'm not suggesting concentrate on speed, I'm saying you don't ignore it.
There's a 30 limit near me that simply doesn't need enforcing. The buildings on the road are schools on the other side is a field of wheat. When the kids are about the traffic can get below 1mph, I have measured it on my tractor. So why do the local constabulary think it needs enforcing on a Sunday, at 5ish, in August? The only person there to be run over was the copper with the radar gun.
Have you noticed how kids in particular are so fat now? Think of the premature deaths this is storing up for the future. Why do you think they are fat? Could it be that people like you keep repeatedly telling people how, should they step out of the house, they are likely to be ruthlessly mowed down by some reckless hoodlum breaking the speed limit? So they sit in their bedrooms on their various devices, wrapped in cotton wool instead of going out and getting streetwise.
If the KSI statistics are down this year, you'll be crowing about how marvellous low speed limits are and speed cameras are sent from the heavens.
If KSI statistics are up his year we need lower speed limits and more cameras.
When I go for a run I couldn't give two hoots about how fast vehicles are travelling past me. I care not how fast they are driving past my house. When I am on my push bike their speed is of little concern, but I would very much like the to give me a decent amount of room, not squeeze me against the curb when they squeeze between me and a traffic island and it would be great if they stopped overtaking me when I am quite clearly signally right. But there are no automatic means of stopping them doing this, so you don't care.
You still haven't explained how I can sit judging how fast I need to go for 8,9,10, 14 hours at a time at work, yet am not responsible enough to do it in my piss ant car.
But that's the point of the limit, the limit means you don't get to make suitability judgements above that speed. The limit is there to stop you going quicker when you believe it's safe to go faster, it doesn't come into play where you don't think it's safe to go as fast as 70, it's then an irrelevance to you.
It doesn't matter if you don't give two hoots about another's speeds, because it's not about you as an individual.
Similarly it doesn't matter whether you can spend hours at work judging how fast you need to go, you still aren't allowed to decide about going above the posted limits. That's exactly what happened with me when I could spend nearly my whole working day making judgements about what is the maximum safe speed to travel at on the public roads ( irrespective of what the posted limit was) only for me not to be able to do the same when I got in my own car/bike to drive/ride home.
It's not about us as individuals, it's one size for all.
singlecoil said:
Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
It's the fact that there is so little enforcement that many do it.
Which fact do you mean ? So little enforcement ????? Can you explain how many "do it" ??
Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
It's the fact that there is so little enforcement that many do it.
Which fact do you mean ? So little enforcement ????? Can you explain how many "do it" ??
I'll assume that you are not seriously suggesting that you need me to quote 'facts' to establish the above, and that you are attempting to set up a point of your own. I suggest you get on and do that and stop messing about.
Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
It's the fact that there is so little enforcement that many do it.
Which fact do you mean ? So little enforcement ????? Can you explain how many "do it" ??
singlecoil said:
Are you serious? You want 'facts' to support my contention that many people speed? Or 'facts' to support my contention that they do it because they believe there's a very very good chance that they will get away with it?
I'll assume that you are not seriously suggesting that you need me to quote 'facts' to establish the above, and that you are attempting to set up a point of your own. I suggest you get on and do that and stop messing about.
How about the possibility that they 'speed' because they feel comfortable doing it as it's not dangerous and the enforcement is an entirely secondary consideration. An inconvenience of modern life if you like.I'll assume that you are not seriously suggesting that you need me to quote 'facts' to establish the above, and that you are attempting to set up a point of your own. I suggest you get on and do that and stop messing about.
All outside of urban areas obviously.
Gavia said:
It's hardly anecdotal. There are millions of journeys undertaken everyday and at most a few hundred trafpol around. Let's increase that and say there are 1000, then the the chances of being caught speeding are less than 1 in 10,000 every day. That's pretty minimal enforcement.
No, your calculation is wrong.It seems to assume that each traffic policeman only stops/reports one person a day.
I suggest that perhaps they stop/report 20 a day.
I also suggest that the vast majority of drivers are below/at/or not more than 10% over the speed limit. Therefore those drivers exceeding the speed limit by more than 10% have a good chance of being reported.
Edited by The Mad Monk on Wednesday 7th December 06:24
vonhosen said:
The Mad Monk said:
Therefore those drivers exceeding the speed limit by more than 10% have a good chance of being reported.
You've got to be kidding!!What has urban areas got to do with it?
If people are capable of judging the safe speed, then they are, urban or otherwise.
I think they aren't. In fact I am certain that there are enough people who cannot judge the safe speed to travel that I am very glad of speed limits.
Bert
If people are capable of judging the safe speed, then they are, urban or otherwise.
I think they aren't. In fact I am certain that there are enough people who cannot judge the safe speed to travel that I am very glad of speed limits.
Bert
cmaguire said:
How about the possibility that they 'speed' because they feel comfortable doing it as it's not dangerous and the enforcement is an entirely secondary consideration. An inconvenience of modern life if you like.
All outside of urban areas obviously.
All outside of urban areas obviously.
RWD cossie wil said:
The laughable thing is that the pretense of safety is still being flogged to death, just call it speed tax & be done with it.
If the authorities were serious about reducing collisions & KSI, they would be concentrating on the far more pressing issues on the roads, such as mobile phone use, the staggering number of people who tailgate to a ridiculous distance in all weathers, at all speeds, lack of indicators & observation on the motorway, total meltdown of people actually being able to negotiate a roundabout in the correct lane....
But they all take effort & don't fill the coffers up quite so well as parking a scamera van on a motorway bridge to ping people for daring to make a bit of progress!
And yes, don't speed don't get done, blah blah, but come on, if you are going to hide a stealth tax under the illusion of road safety, at least be honest about it & say you don't give a s
t how many people are killed really, but the scamer vans are a great source of income...
^^^^ THIS +1If the authorities were serious about reducing collisions & KSI, they would be concentrating on the far more pressing issues on the roads, such as mobile phone use, the staggering number of people who tailgate to a ridiculous distance in all weathers, at all speeds, lack of indicators & observation on the motorway, total meltdown of people actually being able to negotiate a roundabout in the correct lane....
But they all take effort & don't fill the coffers up quite so well as parking a scamera van on a motorway bridge to ping people for daring to make a bit of progress!
And yes, don't speed don't get done, blah blah, but come on, if you are going to hide a stealth tax under the illusion of road safety, at least be honest about it & say you don't give a s
t how many people are killed really, but the scamer vans are a great source of income...You are spot on with your comments, if government really wanted to reduce deaths in the UK they would ban cigarettes, alcohol and fatty fast foods and then encourage a more healthy lifestyle.
As it stands, the safety camera partnership is nothing more than an inefficient modern day window tax scam, run by parasites to justify their very existence. Note: anyone not familiar with the infamous 'window tax' just do a search on google for it.
This is not the way forward to make our country great again, this very cosy police/council safety camera partnership merely drains huge amounts of money out of the local economy by stealth, so kills local shops and businesses in the process whilst diverting money down south to fund ever more grandiose warmongering and other extravagant 'willy waggling' projects dreamed up by those over-paid self-serving clowns in Whitehall.
Who needs enemies in the world when we have friends like this?
Edited to add the footnote: where do you think the origin of the term ‘daylight robbery’ came from? answer is the window tax in 1696. So what will the modern day tax funded camera partnerships and their staff be remembered as in years to come?
Edited by rich888 on Wednesday 7th December 00:34
TooMany2cvs said:
Gavia said:
I really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option.
Indeed. Seems obvious to me.If you're against SACs, and you get a tug that results in you being offered one, then reject it and go for the FPN instead. Job jobbed. You've put your money where your mouth is.
Really - the bribe is working according to many posters here - which is sad (but hey - its a fabulous business model).
http://www.speed-awareness.org/
Edited by Davidonly on Wednesday 7th December 00:23
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff