Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Cars are just a way of getting from one place to another.

Needless to say I don't agree with the sentiment above but I think the mindset perhaps explains better than anything else why we have the sort of situation we do on our roads today. There are now far too many with the "my car's just a method of getting from A to B" mentality and often that really shows in both the standard of their driving and their general attitude to motoring; sadly, however, they're now in the majority and many of them represent the lowest common denominator to which we're all being systematically reduced.

I think a significant number of drivers do still appreciate there's potentially far more to a car than just getting from one place to another but sadly I suspect they represent a steadily declining proportion of our total motoring population....

The fact that you don't agree with the sentiment doesn't alter the fact that the majority of people (which was the point of the post from which you extracted the above quote) do. It's a fact that a lot of the posters on threads such as these just can't (don't want?) to grasp. A good many of the people who own cars of which the average PHer would approve do so more to impress neighbours than because the other thrill of driving them, which further reduces the number of people who want to be allowed to drive faster than is currently feasible.

I readily accept that most people on the road agree with the sentiment you expressed; however, that doesn't make it or them correct and I think anyone who knows cars will understand the sentiment to be wrong.

Personally I think those who think otherwise express a mindset which is really better suited to being on public transport; unfortunately, however, the fact so many are in cars means the law is obliged to cater for that lowest common denominator with more competent drivers penalised as a result. Perhaps once the technology is available one solution would be to make those people have a driverless car; after all, if their sole interest is in completing the journey why would they want the hassle of driving?

[Crackie]

Gavia said:

JNW1 said:

Needless to say I don't agree with the sentiment above but I think the mindset perhaps explains better than anything else why we have the sort of situation we do on our roads today. There are now far too many with the "my car's just a method of getting from A to B" mentality and often that really shows in both the standard of their driving and their general attitude to motoring; sadly, however, they're now in the majority and many of them represent the lowest common denominator to which we're all being systematically reduced.

I think a significant number of drivers do still appreciate there's potentially far more to a car than just getting from one place to another but sadly I suspect they represent a steadily declining proportion of our total motoring population....

What is a car if not a means of getting from A to B?

For Caterham / Westfield and I would imagine most bikers, I doubt there is a B in mind. I'm sure there were occasions, a few years ago, when owners used to take their vehicle out purely for recreation ; just A to A.

[Gavia]

Crackie said:

Gavia said:

JNW1 said:

Needless to say I don't agree with the sentiment above but I think the mindset perhaps explains better than anything else why we have the sort of situation we do on our roads today. There are now far too many with the "my car's just a method of getting from A to B" mentality and often that really shows in both the standard of their driving and their general attitude to motoring; sadly, however, they're now in the majority and many of them represent the lowest common denominator to which we're all being systematically reduced.

I think a significant number of drivers do still appreciate there's potentially far more to a car than just getting from one place to another but sadly I suspect they represent a steadily declining proportion of our total motoring population....

What is a car if not a means of getting from A to B?

For Caterham / Westfield and I would imagine most bikers, I doubt there is a B in mind. I'm sure there were occasions, a few years ago, when owners used to take their vehicle out purely for recreation ; just A to A.

You've nicely snipped most of my comment to take that one sentence out of context. As I own two of the fastest production bikes, ride MX and enduro and have just ordered an Alfa QV to replace my M3, I reckon I enjoy a spirited ride / drive. However, for most people a car is transport. It gets them from A to B and that's it. Those people are by far the majority of drivers.

[carinaman]

Oh look, it's Meredydd Hughes again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4349846/Mi...

If they used an accounting package like Sage they'd know where the money was?

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Cars are just a way of getting from one place to another.

Needless to say I don't agree with the sentiment above but I think the mindset perhaps explains better than anything else why we have the sort of situation we do on our roads today. There are now far too many with the "my car's just a method of getting from A to B" mentality and often that really shows in both the standard of their driving and their general attitude to motoring; sadly, however, they're now in the majority and many of them represent the lowest common denominator to which we're all being systematically reduced.

I think a significant number of drivers do still appreciate there's potentially far more to a car than just getting from one place to another but sadly I suspect they represent a steadily declining proportion of our total motoring population....

The fact that you don't agree with the sentiment doesn't alter the fact that the majority of people (which was the point of the post from which you extracted the above quote) do. It's a fact that a lot of the posters on threads such as these just can't (don't want?) to grasp. A good many of the people who own cars of which the average PHer would approve do so more to impress neighbours than because the other thrill of driving them, which further reduces the number of people who want to be allowed to drive faster than is currently feasible.

I readily accept that most people on the road agree with the sentiment you expressed; however, that doesn't make it or them correct and I think anyone who knows cars will understand the sentiment to be wrong.

The concept of being right or wrong has no place in this context. Incidentally, it's not 'my' sentiment. I haven't said word one about my own personal feelings in this matter. I well understand what it is to be a car enthusiast but I stopped involving myself in performance cars a good few years ago when I realised that such involvement was pointless and frustrating.

A good example of the kind of thing that led to my disenchantment was once when I was driving a car along the outside lane of a dual carriageway. I was already exceeding the speed limit by a fair margin, and I had to move over to allow the car behind me past. I had at least another 100mph available to me but I had to let a very ordinary car past because he was prepared to take a higher risk of prosecution than I was.

[Crackie]

singlecoil said:

I well understand what it is to be a car enthusiast but I stopped involving myself in performance cars a good few years ago when I realised that such involvement was pointless and frustrating.

A good example of the kind of thing that led to my disenchantment was once when I was driving a car along the outside lane of a dual carriageway. I was already exceeding the speed limit by a fair margin, and I had to move over to allow the car behind me past. I had at least another 100mph available to me but I had to let a very ordinary car past because he was prepared to take a higher risk of prosecution than I was.

Good post Singlecoil and I have understand your comments about it being pointless and frustrating to own a performance car in the UK today; apart of course for the people who own quick vehicles as trophies rather than to use the performance.

12 months ago I sold a car, which had similar performance above to the one you mention above; I've now got an old A3 oil burner instead. My point being, in relation to the thread question, was that attending a SAC in summer 2015 had negligible effect on my driving. Global NSL reductions, for no apparent reason and subsequent cynical mobile camera placements to enforce many of these have done for me.

[BertBert]

I don't think I understand why this was disenchanting. Surely the interest in sports cars is nothing to do with how fast you are going along a DC in comparison with others? Or have I missed something?

I do agree though that it's very hard to actually enjoy a sporty drive. Capable sports cars struggle to be sporty within the speed limits and within the 'norms' of normal driving. The best car I owned that worked for me was my 996 GT3RS which I go on about endlessly. It was fun in pretty much all circumstances (well maybe not traffic jams).

And back to the plot, my impending SAC has changed my driving. I now set the cruise control to 76 (GPS) rather than 78 on the motorway, just in case (not that I was caught at 78 though). Let's see if I do anything differently as a result of the course. Despite being a bigot and a bit of a knob, I am actually open to ideas

singlecoil said:

A good example of the kind of thing that led to my disenchantment was once when I was driving a car along the outside lane of a dual carriageway. I was already exceeding the speed limit by a fair margin, and I had to move over to allow the car behind me past. I had at least another 100mph available to me but I had to let a very ordinary car past because he was prepared to take a higher risk of prosecution than I was.

[cmaguire]

Sounds like BS anyway.
More information required

[singlecoil]

BertBert said:

singlecoil said:

A good example of the kind of thing that led to my disenchantment was once when I was driving a car along the outside lane of a dual carriageway. I was already exceeding the speed limit by a fair margin, and I had to move over to allow the car behind me past. I had at least another 100mph available to me but I had to let a very ordinary car past because he was prepared to take a higher risk of prosecution than I was.

I don't think I understand why this was disenchanting. Surely the interest in sports cars is nothing to do with how fast you are going along a DC in comparison with others? Or have I missed something?

I do agree though that it's very hard to actually enjoy a sporty drive. Capable sports cars struggle to be sporty within the speed limits and within the 'norms' of normal driving. The best car I owned that worked for me was my 996 GT3RS which I go on about endlessly. It was fun in pretty much all circumstances (well maybe not traffic jams).

It was only one example, there could have been many more. The point is that normal cars are now more than fast enough to get the driver into trouble, in other words, the dynamics of the vehicle are no longer the controlling factor with performance on public roads, it's willingness to risk prosecution that controls how fast a car goes, not power output and drag factor.

The same for cornering ability, these are public roads we are talking about and rare indeed are the situations where one can risk cornering at a speed a normal car couldn't cope with. It's not ability to resist g forces that controls cornering speeds, it's not knowing what's around the corner.

[JNW1]

Gavia said:

Crackie said:

Gavia said:

JNW1 said:

Needless to say I don't agree with the sentiment above but I think the mindset perhaps explains better than anything else why we have the sort of situation we do on our roads today. There are now far too many with the "my car's just a method of getting from A to B" mentality and often that really shows in both the standard of their driving and their general attitude to motoring; sadly, however, they're now in the majority and many of them represent the lowest common denominator to which we're all being systematically reduced.

I think a significant number of drivers do still appreciate there's potentially far more to a car than just getting from one place to another but sadly I suspect they represent a steadily declining proportion of our total motoring population....

What is a car if not a means of getting from A to B?

For Caterham / Westfield and I would imagine most bikers, I doubt there is a B in mind. I'm sure there were occasions, a few years ago, when owners used to take their vehicle out purely for recreation ; just A to A.

You've nicely snipped most of my comment to take that one sentence out of context. As I own two of the fastest production bikes, ride MX and enduro and have just ordered an Alfa QV to replace my M3, I reckon I enjoy a spirited ride / drive. However, for most people a car is transport. It gets them from A to B and that's it. Those people are by far the majority of drivers.

The comment to which I responded stated that cars are just a method of getting from one place to another and, while a majority of drivers on the road may believe that, many of us know it's not true. Given your car choices it sounds like you fall into the latter category so I'm a little surprised you even questioned what I said! However, to clarify, I'm not saying cars aren't a method of getting from one place to another; of course they are and that's their primary purpose for most of us (including me). However, to suggest they can never be anything more than that - and are purely a method of getting from A to B - is just plain nonsense IMO.

It is also my opinion that those who think of cars like that are far more likely to be a liability on the roads than those who take an interest in motoring and their driving; however, before anyone asks, no, I have no objective evidence to support that assertion!

[Gavia]

JNW1 said:

The comment to which I responded stated that cars are just a method of getting from one place to another and, while a majority of drivers on the road may believe that, many of us know it's not true. Given your car choices it sounds like you fall into the latter category so I'm a little surprised you even questioned what I said! However, to clarify, I'm not saying cars aren't a method of getting from one place to another; of course they are and that's their primary purpose for most of us (including me). However, to suggest they can never be anything more than that - and are purely a method of getting from A to B - is just plain nonsense IMO.

It is also my opinion that those who think of cars like that are far more likely to be a liability on the roads than those who take an interest in motoring and their driving; however, before anyone asks, no, I have no objective evidence to support that assertion!

I think we're agreeing, but coming at it from a different angle. I agree that people who see a car as no more than transport are likely to be less aware than those who enjoy driving. My point is that most people are in the former category. People who enjoy driving are very Michu in the minority. I don't think cars are just a means of getting from A to B, but they are even for me most of the time.

[JNW1]

Gavia said:

JNW1 said:

The comment to which I responded stated that cars are just a method of getting from one place to another and, while a majority of drivers on the road may believe that, many of us know it's not true. Given your car choices it sounds like you fall into the latter category so I'm a little surprised you even questioned what I said! However, to clarify, I'm not saying cars aren't a method of getting from one place to another; of course they are and that's their primary purpose for most of us (including me). However, to suggest they can never be anything more than that - and are purely a method of getting from A to B - is just plain nonsense IMO.

It is also my opinion that those who think of cars like that are far more likely to be a liability on the roads than those who take an interest in motoring and their driving; however, before anyone asks, no, I have no objective evidence to support that assertion!

I think we're agreeing, but coming at it from a different angle. I agree that people who see a car as no more than transport are likely to be less aware than those who enjoy driving. My point is that most people are in the former category. People who enjoy driving are very Michu in the minority. I don't think cars are just a means of getting from A to B, but they are even for me most of the time.

Yep, don't disagree with any of that!

[rewc]

carinaman said:

Oh look, it's Meredydd Hughes again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4349846/Mi...

If they used an accounting package like Sage they'd know where the money was?

Speed Awareness Courses are obviously effective for some.

[Crackie]

JNW1 said:

Gavia said:

JNW1 said:

The comment to which I responded stated that cars are just a method of getting from one place to another and, while a majority of drivers on the road may believe that, many of us know it's not true. Given your car choices it sounds like you fall into the latter category so I'm a little surprised you even questioned what I said! However, to clarify, I'm not saying cars aren't a method of getting from one place to another; of course they are and that's their primary purpose for most of us (including me). However, to suggest they can never be anything more than that - and are purely a method of getting from A to B - is just plain nonsense IMO.

It is also my opinion that those who think of cars like that are far more likely to be a liability on the roads than those who take an interest in motoring and their driving; however, before anyone asks, no, I have no objective evidence to support that assertion!

I think we're agreeing, but coming at it from a different angle. I agree that people who see a car as no more than transport are likely to be less aware than those who enjoy driving. My point is that most people are in the former category. People who enjoy driving are very Michu in the minority. I don't think cars are just a means of getting from A to B, but they are even for me most of the time.

Yep, don't disagree with any of that!

I agree too. Sadly the group of people that see cars as no more than transport are often the oblivious irresponsible types who, I think, are responsible ( directly and indirectly ) for more of the KSI accidents on the UKs roads than any other group. Perhaps this group could be targeted using the charge of 'driving without reasonable consideration' and the perpetrators given the choice to attend a BAC ( Bellend awareness course.

The following is lifted from CPS.GOV.UK site.
Driving without reasonable consideration

The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendant's driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.

The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the driver's licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.

A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.

Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC.

Charging Practice

This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:

• flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
• misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
• unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
• unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
• driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
• driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
• driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.

Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates'/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.

Edited by Crackie on Monday 27th March 18:43

[singlecoil]

Crackie said:

I agree too. Sadly the group of people that see cars as no more than transport are often the oblivious irresponsible types who, I think, are responsible ( directly and indirectly ) for more of the KSI accidents on the UKs roads than any other group.

I would have thought that honour belonged to motorcyclists, at least proportionately to miles covered.

[BertBert]

Not much of a gross generalisation then

Crackie said:

I agree too. Sadly the group of people that see cars as no more than transport are often the oblivious irresponsible types who, I think, are responsible ( directly and indirectly ) for more of the KSI accidents on the UKs roads than any other group.

[Crackie]

BertBert said:

Not much of a gross generalisation then

Crackie said:

I agree too. Sadly the group of people that see cars as no more than transport are often the oblivious irresponsible types who, I think, are responsible ( directly and indirectly ) for more of the KSI accidents on the UKs roads than any other group.

possibly a little bit of a generalisation ............I did say often.

Edited by Crackie on Monday 27th March 19:08

[JNW1]

Crackie said:

BertBert said:

Not much of a gross generalisation then

Crackie said:

I agree too. Sadly the group of people that see cars as no more than transport are often the oblivious irresponsible types who, I think, are responsible ( directly and indirectly ) for more of the KSI accidents on the UKs roads than any other group.

possibly a little bit of a generalisation ............I did say often.

Edited by Crackie on Monday 27th March 19:08

It's probably fair to say that when people have an interest in something they tend to make a better fist of it than when they couldn't care less (and that applies to things like work, sport, gardening, cookery, etc, etc, not just driving). Therefore, I think there's a certain logic that says those who have no interest in driving ("my car is purely a means of getting from A to B") are more likely to be relatively clueless behind the wheel; so yes your comment was a generalisation but I suspect it was also pretty close to the mark!

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

Crackie said:

BertBert said:

Not much of a gross generalisation then

Crackie said:

I agree too. Sadly the group of people that see cars as no more than transport are often the oblivious irresponsible types who, I think, are responsible ( directly and indirectly ) for more of the KSI accidents on the UKs roads than any other group.

possibly a little bit of a generalisation ............I did say often.

Edited by Crackie on Monday 27th March 19:08

It's probably fair to say that when people have an interest in something they tend to make a better fist of it than when they couldn't care less (and that applies to things like work, sport, gardening, cookery, etc, etc, not just driving). Therefore, I think there's a certain logic that says those who have no interest in driving ("my car is purely a means of getting from A to B") are more likely to be relatively clueless behind the wheel; so yes your comment was a generalisation but I suspect it was also pretty close to the mark!

On the other hand, enthusiasts are more likely to drive faster, and that sometimes involves overtaking slower vehicles, which is one of the more dangerous activities that occur on roads.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

Crackie said:

BertBert said:

Not much of a gross generalisation then

Crackie said:

I agree too. Sadly the group of people that see cars as no more than transport are often the oblivious irresponsible types who, I think, are responsible ( directly and indirectly ) for more of the KSI accidents on the UKs roads than any other group.

possibly a little bit of a generalisation ............I did say often.

Edited by Crackie on Monday 27th March 19:08

It's probably fair to say that when people have an interest in something they tend to make a better fist of it than when they couldn't care less (and that applies to things like work, sport, gardening, cookery, etc, etc, not just driving). Therefore, I think there's a certain logic that says those who have no interest in driving ("my car is purely a means of getting from A to B") are more likely to be relatively clueless behind the wheel; so yes your comment was a generalisation but I suspect it was also pretty close to the mark!

On the other hand, enthusiasts are more likely to drive faster, and that sometimes involves overtaking slower vehicles, which is one of the more dangerous activities that occur on roads.

Overtaking can increase risk and done badly it can certainly be dangerous; however, in my view it shouldn't represent a problem for a competent driver. I also suspect that a lot of the time the difficulties with overtaking arise because those that don't want to overtake fail to leave adequate gaps for those that do; however, that takes us back to the "my car's just for getting from A to B" brigade....