Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[Mill Wheel]

Red Devil said:

I'm afraid your sporting analogy doesn't stack up.

It's wholly disingenuous for the full back who gets beaten time after time to claim full credit for the 1-0 win when the rest of the team know full well it's down to the goal keeper making save after save, thereby maintaining a clean sheet, and the centre forward snatching the vital winning goal in the 89th minute.

You haven't been watching Carlisle United play for years, have you!

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

He also clearly doesn't understand risk management.

If you wanted to reduce risk, then the best way surely would be to prevent speeding, thus intervene before offending occurred, but the example I gave of the elderly gentleman advising motorists to slow down before a speed trap, illustrates that the police were happy for the offending to occur until they had collected the toll for speeding.
Fixed cameras don't even make any intervention, and allows drivers to carry on speeding - where is the risk mitigation in that?
As for phone use, inappropriate overtaking, pulling out of junctions in front of other vehicles... what measures are in place to manage those risks, which feature so highly in stats 19 figures, and which incidentally, and example of which I used to illustrate the subject of this thread, when a SAC instructor committed an offence in overtaking dangerously?

[Mill Wheel]

surveyor_101 said:

Rovinghawk said:

When a speed camera is responsible for people going on speed awareness courses there's a strong argument that it's about speed.

34 in 30 does not mean instant death for all other road users!

Especially if limits are set inappropriately.
The limit described earlier in the thread in Chiswick, "lowered to protect the work force working on a bridge" has the camera positioned AFTER the road works, as drivers LEAVE the reduced limit... hardly of any help to the work force half a mile behind!
It's only purpose can be to collect a toll for breaking the law, NOT a safety measure at all!

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Errr...

So you don't think that the risk of punishment serves as a deterent?

Clearly not - the numbers of people being caught speeding are rising, and they are safe in the knowledge that a SAC is offered as long as they are only just above the limit so as not to get points on their license that might affect their insurance... a "Get out of Jail Free" card.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35170779

BBC News said:

Police see rise in income from speed awareness courses
Speed awareness courses provided more than £23m to 20 police force areas in England in one year, the BBC has learned.
Official figures show the number of drivers taking the courses increased 26.5% in that time.
Amounts charged vary as the courses are run by private companies.
Senior police officers claimed forces make no money from the courses and the fees only cover the cost of enforcement.
Most forces keep about £35 of the fee - between £79.50 and £92.50 in total - depending on area and course provider, or it goes to road safety partnerships they run with councils.
The money is to cover the costs of catching speeding motorists and processing offences.
Drivers can choose to take a course instead of receiving points on their licences, which can contribute to an eventual ban for repeated offences.
There was a 26.5% rise in drivers taking the course between 2013 and 2014.
In 2014, the last full year for which data is available, the 20 forces that responded in full to requests for information, out of 39 in England, retained £23.1m compared with £19.7m the year before - a rise of 17%.
For 2015, the figure was £18.3m up to the end of November, the time of asking, but does not take into account any income processed since then.

RAC said:

There was not a clear picture as to whether the courses cut re-offending.
Director Steve Gooding said: "Intuitively, education seems a better option than penalising drivers for what, in many cases, are minor transgressions.
"But we don't have a clear picture of whether the courses change behaviour."

But clearly some are open about the money:

BBC said:

In Bedfordshire, where police and crime commissioner Olly Martins believes turning on M1 speed cameras permanently will generate millions of pounds for the force, the number of people sent on awareness courses almost doubled in one year.
There were 20,562 courses completed in 2014 compared with 11,132 the year before. The force would not reveal its figures for 2015 at the time of asking.

[Mill Wheel]

cmaguire said:

Until there is a system in place similar to Ofsted with schools to police the consistency and quality of said courses your generalisation doesn't hold much water either.
Some of those courses are such utter 'going through the motions' ste the people running them should be the ones being fined for taking the piss.

Given the event that prompted this thread involved a course instructor making a catastrophic error of judgement, it does rather call into question whether the standards even a good course imbues in the attendees last beyond a few weeks or months.

[Mill Wheel]

yonex said:

Can we stop saying Safety Camera Partnership, if ever there was an oxymoron it's that! And agreed, once our draconian authorities have finished with one 'incident blackspot' (read an innocuous area between a 30 and 40 limit) they will probably focus on other areas to get their self perpetuating funds. Luckily we are still free to enjoy motorsport, the miserable bds can't take that away just yet

Any excuse to reduce limits... "S.M.A.R.T." Motorways, road workers protection and now pollution levels! All feed the Speed Awareness Course industry, because drivers cannot see the justification for the lower limits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4145570/Ru...

Daily Mail said:

Rush hour speeding fines for cars going above 60mph on the M1 in an attempt to cut pollution levels
A new speed limit of 60mph could be introduced on part of the M1 near Sheffield
It would be the first pollution-linked speed limit imposed in the United Kingdom
Highways England is considering imposing the restriction due to air quality

The local MP however, is not impressed at the intended limits, perhaps recognising that some vehicles are more economical at higher speeds on motorways... especially on downhill sections!

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Errrr...no.

As someone who got back on a bike 4 years ago after almost a 20 year break this is not the case. Yes you can ride but it takes time before you get good at it again.

That is just YOU, recounting YOUR experience.

My experience was that I got back on a bike after a 30 year break, and the only thing that had changed had changed for the better - the position of the (now indexed) gear levers - now conveniently on the handlebars, instead of on the side of the frame, where you used to have to reach down and try to find the right position!

[Mill Wheel]

PhilboSE said:

I'm with Devil on this, certainly in the case of riding a bike.

I rode a pushbike for nearly 10 years, first 7 miles to school and then at University - both in/through urban areas. I became a pretty proficient cyclist and could do things like ride relatively indefinitely no-handed.

After a 20 year cycling break, start doing it again with the kids and I'm not exactly falling off the thing but my competency is nowhere near where it was. Takes some time to get "dialled back in" and just get used to it again.

Skills atrophy and need further practice to be regained. If you can ride a bike with the same proficiency that you could after a 30 year break, then you weren't riding to a very high standard originally.

I used to commute to school in Portsmouth until I was 17, and as I pointed out had to deal with the gear change below your knees.
When I restarted riding in 2006, my only obstacle was fitness, which soon returned... I now cycle a rural A road with no real concerns.. it was like I had never given up.

I guess as Devil had already pointed out previously, you can only report your own experiences.
I give cyclists a lot more room than some drivers give me, but by the time you see them pass, they are past, so I don't worry about them being close. I might if they were coming towards me!

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Exactly.

I could still ride, but it took some time to get back to the standard I was at before. There are lots of little things that you forget, like just how little grip you have when you ride over a wet metal manhole cover

But wet manhole covers cause loss of grip on any vehicle - it shouldn't come as a surprise just because you have not ridden for some time!

Edited by Mill Wheel on Wednesday 25th January 11:38

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Mill Wheel said:

But wet manhole covers cause loss of grip on ant vehicle - it shouldn't come as a surprise just because you have not ridden for some time!

Trust me, it has far less effect in a car than it does on a bike.

Only because it is difficult to get 50% of your wheels on one at the same time.

However there is a railway crossing near me that is set within metal plates across the road, and it is every bit as dangerous should you touch the brakes while driving across it in the wet... more so if you apply some steering input at the same time!

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Yes but refresher training is comon place, at least in my industry it is.

That is because of events like Flixborough and Bhopal and many others.
It is the same in munitions and firework manufacture, but accidents still happen when workers fail to respect the rules and procedures.
They don't forget to respect them, they choose not to in most cases.

A lot of industry training and assessment is to ensure that businesses can cover themselves in the event of an incident... and not get stuck with a fine like KFC did with workers handling hot gravy without gloves, or Northumbria University giving two students potentially lethal doses of caffeine!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-38692014

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Refresher training has nothing to do with talent or experience in my opinion. In fact experience can bring problems of it's own that it is ueful to have refresher training to try and address.

Experience leads to subjects becoming blasé about procedures.

However, the SAC tutor whose unfortunate lapse triggered this thread would presumably be "refreshed" every time she tutored a course, which I suggested called into question the effectiveness of the teaching offered.

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Mill Wheel said:

Devil2575 said:

Refresher training has nothing to do with talent or experience in my opinion. In fact experience can bring problems of it's own that it is ueful to have refresher training to try and address.

Experience leads to subjects becoming blasé about procedures.

However, the SAC tutor whose unfortunate lapse triggered this thread would presumably be "refreshed" every time she tutored a course, which I suggested called into question the effectiveness of the teaching offered.

Experience leads people to become normallised to the risks involved in what they do.

The SAC tutor is an individual and this is a single event. It doesn't tell you that the teaching offered is ineffective, it tells you that it is not perfect.

Normalised - as in they no longer see the risks in the same light, believing that their routines have reduced the risk?
Isn't that what a SAC is supposed to reduce? The training drivers get while studying to pass their test is revisited in a SAC, in order to remind them of the risks - but one whose job is to conduct the course, who must be constantly reminded of the risk, fails to adapt.

Perhaps the course material is flawed - or is it the attendees who are flawed, and unless they adopt what they are taught, remain flawed?

In any scenario, it seems to me that it is about time the effectiveness of the SAC is assessed, because otherwise it will continue to be viewed as a get out of jail free card, and a means to increase the incomes of the authorities... no matter how insignificant you believe it to be.

[Mill Wheel]

It would appear that the success of the SAC policy has attracted some police forces to extend the courses to mobile phone use - with the new "draconian" phone use laws being a suitable incentive to drivers to accept the course offered!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168076/Fu...

Daily Mail said:

Fury as police chiefs threaten to defy Government's tough new penalties for drivers caught using mobile phones by suggesting they do courses instead
Police chiefs threatening to defy Government over tough new penalties
From March, drivers using phones will be slapped with £200 fine and six points
But in a shock move, police chiefs say they want to defy Ministers and spare harsh punishments for drivers caught - by offering courses instead
Chief Constable Suzette Davenport, national lead for roads policing, told a conference last week that police had to be ‘proportionate’ in their response.

Meanwhile in Northumberland, councillors have become concerned that they are funding cameras, which are targeting lucrative sites, instead of roads with a history of fatal and serious accidents.

http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/campai...

Northumberland Gazette said:

Northumberland County Council may stop paying into the Northumbria Safer Roads Initiative (NSRI), a partnership of local councils and the police which deploys speed camera vans in the North East, saving more than £100,000 a year. Coun Glen Sanderson, ward member for Longhorsley, is delighted as he has been questioning the merits of the NSRI for some time. He feels that speeding in Northumberland can be far better tackled by closer working with the police to ensure hotspots are targeted. One of the key roads, in Coun Sanderson’s opinion, is the A697 and the issue will become even more important when work to dual the A1 starts, forcing more traffic onto this route. A spokeswoman for Northumberland County Council said: “The funding arrangements for the NSRI are currently under review and are still subject to discussion with Northumbria Police and other local authority partners.

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Personally I'd be happy to see people who use mobile phones while driving dragged from their car and kicked to death.

What exactly is draconian about the new laws? Do you view mobile phone use like speeding?

Luckily for those who are happy to use their phones and get caught, Chief Constable Suzette Davenport, national lead for roads policing, thinks that some should pay to attend a course instead - a welcome addition to the SAC income.

As mickmcpaddy said in his earlier post...

mickmcpaddy said:

I feel much safer with out police force calling the shots already.

[Mill Wheel]

768 said:

Mill Wheel said:

Luckily for those who are happy to use their phones and get caught, Chief Constable Suzette Davenport, national lead for roads policing, thinks that some should pay to attend a course instead - a welcome addition to the SAC income.

In better news, she's quit.

Not before she opened Pandora's box though!

It will not have gone unnoticed that there could be money to be made by awarding offenders a get out of jail free coursesafety course instead of 6 points and a huge fine!

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

I don't agree with any form of mobile phone use while driving. The evidence clearly shows that it's the act of being one the phone rather than simply holding it that is the main cause of distraction.

Is there also any evidence of other driver distractions, such as children in the vehicle, music devices, and eating while driving?
You have a source for this assertion right?

I don't disagree, but I would like some actual data to back up our beliefs!

[Mill Wheel]

V6Pushfit said:

Probably already said, but a brilliant way for the waifs and strays of the training 'profession' to earn a fortune by setting up crap courses courtesy of the legislation.

As I said at mine, I'm already proficient at being aware of speeding so they should be called 'slow awareness courses'

The way I see it, is that if they DO WORK, then everybody should be doing a course every few years after passing their test, but if they DON'T WORK, then it is simply a scheme that takes advantage of drivers desperately wanting a clean license, and milking them in a manner that sees the money divded up between quack course providers, and the facilitators.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35170779

[Mill Wheel]

Digby said:

Which begs the question, how many courses does one need before they are no longer a liability?

The question is pertinent in the example given in the opening post of this thread, in which a woman who is a course provider and therefore could expect to have covered the course content more than most, failed to put the learning into practice.
So the answer to your question of HOW MANY COURSES before you are no longer a liability is there can never be enough courses - or should that be many courses is not enough?