Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.

[mickmcpaddy]

vonhosen said:

mickmcpaddy said:

If I was caught drink driving at just over the limit, say after two pints then I would get a fine and 12 month ban and that would be the end of it, rightly so as its not exactly crime of the century.

However if I had been on a bender and then drove and blew well over, odds on I would be sent on an alcohol awareness course before I could have my licence back, this makes perfect sense to me.

Why the opposite for speeding? cant think of any rea$on myself.

It's not the opposite.

You'd get a stiffer sentence for the second example.

Totally glossed over the point just like a politician would, this thread is about courses, not fines/bans.

My point was if I had only had a couple of pints no one would deem that I had any problem with alcohol and no need for any sort of rehabilitation or awareness course, I would just be deemed unlucky and would probably never touch a drop again after being banned.

However driving after 10 or 15 pints is deemed a massive problem and they would force you to go on an alcohol rehabilitation course before you ever get your licence back.

So I'm confused why someone who is 5mph over the limit is deemed to need a day in a classroom whilst someone who drives at 60 past a school is deemed to need no further training in driving or to be made aware of what may happen if they do it again.

In all seriousness if they reversed the course criteria and made them mandatory for 50+ in a 30 then they would go out of business in 24 hrs because I'll bet 99% of people that get caught speeding are somewhere round 36/37mph or so.

[vonhosen]

mickmcpaddy said:

vonhosen said:

mickmcpaddy said:

If I was caught drink driving at just over the limit, say after two pints then I would get a fine and 12 month ban and that would be the end of it, rightly so as its not exactly crime of the century.

However if I had been on a bender and then drove and blew well over, odds on I would be sent on an alcohol awareness course before I could have my licence back, this makes perfect sense to me.

Why the opposite for speeding? cant think of any rea$on myself.

It's not the opposite.

You'd get a stiffer sentence for the second example.

Totally glossed over the point just like a politician would, this thread is about courses, not fines/bans.

My point was if I had only had a couple of pints no one would deem that I had any problem with alcohol and no need for any sort of rehabilitation or awareness course, I would just be deemed unlucky and would probably never touch a drop again after being banned.

However driving after 10 or 15 pints is deemed a massive problem and they would force you to go on an alcohol rehabilitation course before you ever get your licence back.

So I'm confused why someone who is 5mph over the limit is deemed to need a day in a classroom whilst someone who drives at 60 past a school is deemed to need no further training in driving or to be made aware of what may happen if they do it again.

In all seriousness if they reversed the course criteria and made them mandatory for 50+ in a 30 then they would go out of business in 24 hrs because I'll bet 99% of people that get caught speeding are somewhere round 36/37mph or so.

They aren't deemed to need, they are offered in lieu.
Not offered for exceeding the drink drive limit perhaps because having a BAC of 0.8% is regarded as more serious than doing 79 in a 70 (no other aggravating factors in either case).

I wouldn't have a problem with them forcing people banned for speeding to go on an awareness course in addition to their ban

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th March 11:09

[mickmcpaddy]

vonhosen said:

I wouldn't have a problem with them forcing people banned for speeding to go on an awareness course in addition to their ban

No neither would I, its obviously a good idea, so why is it not implemented like this then, why is it only offered to low level speeders, if not for the money then what other reason?

[vonhosen]

mickmcpaddy said:

vonhosen said:

I wouldn't have a problem with them forcing people banned for speeding to go on an awareness course in addition to their ban

No neither would I, its obviously a good idea, so why is it not implemented like this then, why is it only offered to low level speeders, if not for the money then what other reason?

Because low level speeding is less serious than low level excess alcohol.
Perhaps they will introduce the requirement for banned speeders, you could always make a suggestion to them.

[mickmcpaddy]

vonhosen said:

mickmcpaddy said:

vonhosen said:

I wouldn't have a problem with them forcing people banned for speeding to go on an awareness course in addition to their ban

No neither would I, its obviously a good idea, so why is it not implemented like this then, why is it only offered to low level speeders, if not for the money then what other reason?

Because low level speeding is less serious than low level excess alcohol.
Perhaps they will introduce the requirement for banned speeders, you could always make a suggestion to them.

So why bother with a course at all then, why not give you a choice of where the money goes, straight to government but you take the 3 points or straight to the police/SCP to buy more cameras with but you don't get any points. If The letters were worded like this then I'll bet most would take the points.

Personally I think if courses are deemed to work and save lives but are optional for low level speeding then they should be compulsory for more serious speeding cases, I dont understand why they aren't.

[vonhosen]

mickmcpaddy said:

vonhosen said:

mickmcpaddy said:

vonhosen said:

I wouldn't have a problem with them forcing people banned for speeding to go on an awareness course in addition to their ban

No neither would I, its obviously a good idea, so why is it not implemented like this then, why is it only offered to low level speeders, if not for the money then what other reason?

Because low level speeding is less serious than low level excess alcohol.
Perhaps they will introduce the requirement for banned speeders, you could always make a suggestion to them.

So why bother with a course at all then, why not give you a choice of where the money goes, straight to government but you take the 3 points or straight to the police/SCP to buy more cameras with but you don't get any points. If The letters were worded like this then I'll bet most would take the points.

Personally I think if courses are deemed to work and save lives but are optional for low level speeding then they should be compulsory for more serious speeding cases, I dont understand why they aren't.

It's a government policy, the SCP don't make it, take it up with your MP.
I don't care personally if they offer courses or just give the points, it makes no difference to me. My behavioural choice is to try & avoid both. Being offered the course isn't guaranteed, doesn't apply everywhere, so I run the risk of points for 79 in a 70. I don't want them so I don't do it. I avoid the stress, save the fuel & it has little/no detriment to my arrival time versus doing 79 at points along the journey. Invariably I catch up with those that were doing 79 at the next hold up ahead where speeds are forced below the limit.

[mickmcpaddy]

Dont get me wrong, I rarely speed either, not enough to get caught anyway, I got 3 points for the first time in 15 years recently, I was doing 60 odd on a motorway and didn't spot the 50 reduction due to not knowing where I was going and an array of roadworks signs everywhere. it was a genuine mistake, not incompetence needing 8 hours of lecture.

I set the cruise at about 33 in 30s, and just sit there not interested in who is up my arse, similarly set it at 75/76 on the motorway and just get on with things. However I do this for the sole reason of not having to hand over any money needlessly, not because I think I might splatter someone all over the road if I go any quicker. Similarly I haven't bothered going to town centre shops for years, not because I give a st about pollution or congestion, its because I can avoid getting a parking/bus lane/box junction/etc/etc ticket easily.

[vonhosen]

I prefer the speed limiter than cruise function & yes I too am attempting to avoid points rather than acting in a belief that i can't choose an appropriate speed for the circumstances in excess of the limit.

[hairyben]

I'm yet to experience an SAC first hand, my first and as yet only speeding snag was deemed too fast to be taught about the dangers of speeding. One might think that after 20 years driving and being found a little outside the desired standard I might benefit from a little tuition but apparently not. And therin lies the problem, like so much today its all about box ticking and cashing cheques and computer says no. The fact theres little set standard or program, and no way of measuring the effectiveness, doesnt suprise me in the slightest. Of course you're going to get ad hoc courses run with a mercenary attitude. Jobs for the boys hey.

We wouldnt abandon educational standards and GCSEs and just tell teachers they're free to make it up as they go along and give everyone a certificate at the end would we.

[singlecoil]

0000 said:

Gavia said:

Sensationalist tosh.

If you get caught for low level speeding you're either paying a £100 FPN or c£100 for an SAC. There's no extra revenue generation.

As for "dangerous distraction", how can they be?

One of those ~£100 payments supports entities which only have an interest in generating revenue via such means (and not education, safety, or anything else). The other does not.

I thought the courses were optional, surely anybody who feels the way you do could take the points instead?

And of course, speeding itself is optional too, you don't have to take the course or the points if you don't want to.

[Gavia]

mickmcpaddy said:

Dont get me wrong, I rarely speed either, not enough to get caught anyway, I got 3 points for the first time in 15 years recently, I was doing 60 odd on a motorway and didn't spot the 50 reduction due to not knowing where I was going and an array of roadworks signs everywhere. it was a genuine mistake, not incompetence needing 8 hours of lecture.

I set the cruise at about 33 in 30s, and just sit there not interested in who is up my arse, similarly set it at 75/76 on the motorway and just get on with things. However I do this for the sole reason of not having to hand over any money needlessly, not because I think I might splatter someone all over the road if I go any quicker. Similarly I haven't bothered going to town centre shops for years, not because I give a st about pollution or congestion, its because I can avoid getting a parking/bus lane/box junction/etc/etc ticket easily.

There seems to be a spate of posters on here justifying getting caught, because the area was unfamiliar to them, or they were lost. I really struggle with this, any half competent driver would be paying more attention and not be caught out by either of those scenarios.

[mickmcpaddy]

OR maybe they had more important things to occupy them than a number on a stick. Not everyone prides themselves on being a driving god, some don't give a toss. You don't have to be Sterling Moss in order to avoid killing someone, its really not that hard.

You do know if more people stuck to the limits they would and do protect the revenue stream by messing with the limits or make things like signage more confusing for us, there will never be an end to the relentless war on "speeding".

[Gavia]

mickmcpaddy said:

OR maybe they had more important things to occupy them than a number on a stick. Not everyone prides themselves on being a driving god, some don't give a toss. You don't have to be Sterling Moss in order to avoid killing someone, its really not that hard.

You do know if more people stuck to the limits they would and do protect the revenue stream by messing with the limits or make things like signage more confusing for us, there will never be an end to the relentless war on "speeding".

I've not suggested sticking to the limit, I've said paying attention. You can only be caught by a fixed camera, a mobile van, or a police car all of which are very visible to anyone paying a moderate amount of attention to what's going on around them.

I ignore limits every time I get in the car. I've been caught once in the last 20 years, so have done pretty well. The one time I did get caught (middle of last year) was my own stupid fault on a road known for having mobile vans. I was happy to pay £90 for an SAC and avoid 3 points.

[mickmcpaddy]

Gavia said:

I've not suggested sticking to the limit, I've said paying attention. You can only be caught by a fixed camera, a mobile van, or a police car all of which are very visible to anyone paying a moderate amount of attention to what's going on around them.

I ignore limits every time I get in the car. I've been caught once in the last 20 years, so have done pretty well. The one time I did get caught (middle of last year) was my own stupid fault on a road known for having mobile vans. I was happy to pay £90 for an SAC and avoid 3 points.

Did you see the picture I posted of the camera I got caught by on the other thread? here it is again



See that red sign plonked right in front of it, it serves no purpose what so ever, those cones were just placed there just for the sake of it, it was well past any road works that were going on. In my opinion they were put there to create confusion for the sole reason to nab people.

[Gavia]

mickmcpaddy said:

Did you see the picture I posted of the camera I got caught by on the other thread? here it is again



See that red sign plonked right in front of it, it serves no purpose what so ever, those cones were just placed there just for the sake of it, it was well past any road works that were going on. In my opinion they were put there to create confusion for the sole reason to nab people.

But you knew the speed limit and you knew you were in roadworks. It's not too much of a stretch to work out that there's likely to be speed cameras in those roadworks. I've just driven back from The Lakes and there are roadworks around Lancaster with a 50 limit. I didn't know that there weren't any speed cameras, but played it safe and drove through them at 57 on my speedo. I haven't driven up that way in about 5 years, but wasn't caught out by anything.

[Mill Wheel]

djc206 said:

Mill Wheel said:

But why would three points matter, unless you were planning on getting enough to be banned?
Some insurance companies have already realised that the courses were preventing them from assessing a risk, and are now asking if you have been on a course - to which you have to be honest or risk your insurance!
The cost of the courses balances or exceeds the fines, and you have to give up your time to attend.

You can attend Road Awareness Training (RAT) courses in Cumbria for free at the local Fire Station if you feel you would benefit from a little tuition... or join the IAM!

Endorsements push insurance costs up. SAC's do not need to be declared to most insurance companies including mine. It's not that much time and as a shift worker I wouldn't need to take any time off work to attend one.

I don't need tuition but I don't need points and the associated costs either especially when the powers that be have offered us a way around them.

Endorsements don't push insurance costs up!
CLAIMS push up costs, and inscos take steps to mitigate their losses,by using the endorsements to target drivers they perceive to be a bigger risk.
By taking a course, those drivers are pushing those costs onto us all.
At present some seek to check by asking if you have been on a course, and you are beholden to answer truthfully... so no real benefit in avoiding the points to your insurance premiums then.

My point is that many drivers are simply using the course as a "get out of jail free" card, and lying to their inscos.
I don't doubt that on the day of the course, the effectiveness is better than it is in 2 or 3 years time... after all, you learned the course material when you learned to drive!

BertBert said:

Just got a course, just under 3 years since the last one! So I would have been on 6 points now. I'm more comfortable to be on 0 points. And you never know, if I can hold in my natural instinct to be a knob, I might just learn or be reminded of something!
Hey ho.
Bert

And if your insco asks if you have been on a course, will you tell them truthfully?
Your points only count towards an endorsement for three years but my insco asks "have you had any in the last FIVE years.

[Mill Wheel]

Gavia said:

mickmcpaddy said:

Did you see the picture I posted of the camera I got caught by on the other thread? here it is again



See that red sign plonked right in front of it, it serves no purpose what so ever, those cones were just placed there just for the sake of it, it was well past any road works that were going on. In my opinion they were put there to create confusion for the sole reason to nab people.

But you knew the speed limit and you knew you were in roadworks. It's not too much of a stretch to work out that there's likely to be speed cameras in those roadworks.

If IIRC, the red sign, speed camera and cones WERE the road works - the ACTUAL road works ENDED some distance before the camera.

Gavia said:

I've just driven back from The Lakes and there are roadworks around Lancaster with a 50 limit. I didn't know that there weren't any speed cameras, but played it safe and drove through them at 57 on my speedo. I haven't driven up that way in about 5 years, but wasn't caught out by anything.

Fifty seven? I bet you were popular, holding up traffic like that.

There is no need whatever for that limit - and most drivers realise this and exceed it - usually by a larger margin than you!
Obeying the limit actually made the problems for traffic joining the motorway worse, by compressing the traffic on the M6, leaving fewer gaps at peak times for joining traffic to safely merge into.

[Gavia]

Mill Wheel said:

Gavia said:

mickmcpaddy said:

Did you see the picture I posted of the camera I got caught by on the other thread? here it is again



See that red sign plonked right in front of it, it serves no purpose what so ever, those cones were just placed there just for the sake of it, it was well past any road works that were going on. In my opinion they were put there to create confusion for the sole reason to nab people.

But you knew the speed limit and you knew you were in roadworks. It's not too much of a stretch to work out that there's likely to be speed cameras in those roadworks.

If IIRC, the red sign, speed camera and cones WERE the road works - the ACTUAL road works ENDED some distance before the camera.

Gavia said:

I've just driven back from The Lakes and there are roadworks around Lancaster with a 50 limit. I didn't know that there weren't any speed cameras, but played it safe and drove through them at 57 on my speedo. I haven't driven up that way in about 5 years, but wasn't caught out by anything.

Fifty seven? I bet you were popular, holding up traffic like that.

There is no need whatever for that limit - and most drivers realise this and exceed it - usually by a larger margin than you!
Obeying the limit actually made the problems for traffic joining the motorway worse, by compressing the traffic on the M6, leaving fewer gaps at peak times for joining traffic to safely merge into.

How can the cones be the roadworks, but not the roadworks? Either they are, or they aren't and the speed limit is a reduced one or it isn't. Looking at that photo, I see a set of roadworks and adjust my speed accordingly.

I didn't hold anyone up today. It's a 50 limit through roadworks. I did an indicated 57, so within tolerance for any camera and easy to adjust my speed down further if needed. I know you live up thatbway with your obsession with Cumbria police, but there is a need. They are completely rebuilding the junction and it's totally changed since last time I was there, not least moving the position of it. One lane is also closed on either side, so reduced to two. On the exit southbound an extra lane has been created and this allows joining traffic to enter unhindered.

I drove the rest of the way at 90ish, taking care around the long straight stretches between Forton and Garstang as that's a hunting ground for plod, but there weren't any.

[0000]

singlecoil said:

0000 said:

Gavia said:

Sensationalist tosh.

If you get caught for low level speeding you're either paying a £100 FPN or c£100 for an SAC. There's no extra revenue generation.

As for "dangerous distraction", how can they be?

One of those ~£100 payments supports entities which only have an interest in generating revenue via such means (and not education, safety, or anything else). The other does not.

I thought the courses were optional, surely anybody who feels the way you do could take the points instead?

And of course, speeding itself is optional too, you don't have to take the course or the points if you don't want to.

Of course.

You don't have to buy anything from your local drug dealer either. God knows why no one just leaves them alone. Anyway, perhaps inform the ministers concerned who see the workings of SACs as an issue, they've obviously missed the complicated optional element.

[Crackie]

Gavia said:

You can only be caught by a fixed camera, a mobile van, or a police car all of which are very visible to anyone paying a moderate amount of attention to what's going on around them.

Precisely........with the exception of the cameras hidden in horseboxes or the camera vans which are painted green, or the cameras mounted on bikes or the unmarked police cars. I think you have been very lucky rather than very observant.