Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
In the light of this tragic incident, one must ask if the thousands of drivers going on speed awareness courses are actually any safer afterwards?
What about the other causes of accidents that are not part of the course?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driving-instr...
edited to fix formatting
What about the other causes of accidents that are not part of the course?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driving-instr...
the Mirror said:
Driving instructor on way to teach speed awareness course killed gran in horror crash
Yes, not a client on the course, but the course instructor. the Mirror said:
She was also banned from driving for two years and eight months and must sit an extended driving test.
Judge Niclas Parry said: “You quite inexplicably drove your vehicle into the face of on-coming traffic in an overtaking manoeuvre that was obviously dangerous.
“You are by profession a driving instructor, employed by Lancashire County Council to run speed awareness courses.
Oncoming vehicles should have been visible to a careful driver.”
The court heard careless Corless caused a five-car smash after pulling out at a busy junction on March 25.
Mrs Wharton’s car was struck by two vehicles.
So how effective are courses in changing drivers behaviour? They ARE successful in swelling the coffers of councils strapped for cash - they get a portion of the course fees!Judge Niclas Parry said: “You quite inexplicably drove your vehicle into the face of on-coming traffic in an overtaking manoeuvre that was obviously dangerous.
“You are by profession a driving instructor, employed by Lancashire County Council to run speed awareness courses.
Oncoming vehicles should have been visible to a careful driver.”
The court heard careless Corless caused a five-car smash after pulling out at a busy junction on March 25.
Mrs Wharton’s car was struck by two vehicles.
edited to fix formatting
Edited by Mill Wheel on Monday 5th December 10:03
What do you want? Let's get rid of them and go back to a fixed penalty and 3 points only?
I really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option. Who cares where the funds go? We're paying either way and if it goes to central government via an FPN, then it could quite easily end up back with a local council via the grants that are given annually.
I expect a few to post up some drivel about the Chief Constable wanting a new Jag, because Clarkson once said that's what happens on Top Gear.
Do they work? Posting a scenario where someone who runs a course does something stupid is hardly proof that they don't work. The true measure is how often those attending get caught again vs those who choose points over the course. And the definition is being caught again, as anyone who says they don't speed is most likely lying.
I really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option. Who cares where the funds go? We're paying either way and if it goes to central government via an FPN, then it could quite easily end up back with a local council via the grants that are given annually.
I expect a few to post up some drivel about the Chief Constable wanting a new Jag, because Clarkson once said that's what happens on Top Gear.
Do they work? Posting a scenario where someone who runs a course does something stupid is hardly proof that they don't work. The true measure is how often those attending get caught again vs those who choose points over the course. And the definition is being caught again, as anyone who says they don't speed is most likely lying.
Gavia said:
What do you want? Let's get rid of them and go back to a fixed penalty and 3 points only?
I really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option. Who cares where the funds go? We're paying either way and if it goes to central government via an FPN, then it could quite easily end up back with a local council via the grants that are given annually.
I expect a few to post up some drivel about the Chief Constable wanting a new Jag, because Clarkson once said that's what happens on Top Gear.
Do they work? Posting a scenario where someone who runs a course does something stupid is hardly proof that they don't work. The true measure is how often those attending get caught again vs those who choose points over the course. And the definition is being caught again, as anyone who says they don't speed is most likely lying.
Wot he said ^^^^^^^I really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option. Who cares where the funds go? We're paying either way and if it goes to central government via an FPN, then it could quite easily end up back with a local council via the grants that are given annually.
I expect a few to post up some drivel about the Chief Constable wanting a new Jag, because Clarkson once said that's what happens on Top Gear.
Do they work? Posting a scenario where someone who runs a course does something stupid is hardly proof that they don't work. The true measure is how often those attending get caught again vs those who choose points over the course. And the definition is being caught again, as anyone who says they don't speed is most likely lying.
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.
Gavia said:
What do you want? Let's get rid of them and go back to a fixed penalty and 3 points only?
I really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option. Who cares where the funds go? We're paying either way and if it goes to central government via an FPN, then it could quite easily end up back with a local council via the grants that are given annually.
I expect a few to post up some drivel about the Chief Constable wanting a new Jag, because Clarkson once said that's what happens on Top Gear.
Do they work? Posting a scenario where someone who runs a course does something stupid is hardly proof that they don't work. The true measure is how often those attending get caught again vs those who choose points over the course. And the definition is being caught again, as anyone who says they don't speed is most likely lying.
Well for a start, any road safety measure should be effective, and secondly, insurance companies who used to assess a drivers risk by whether they had point, and charge them more, are now denied this avenue of risk assessment, and instead pass on the costs to all their clients, instead of the risky ones.I really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option. Who cares where the funds go? We're paying either way and if it goes to central government via an FPN, then it could quite easily end up back with a local council via the grants that are given annually.
I expect a few to post up some drivel about the Chief Constable wanting a new Jag, because Clarkson once said that's what happens on Top Gear.
Do they work? Posting a scenario where someone who runs a course does something stupid is hardly proof that they don't work. The true measure is how often those attending get caught again vs those who choose points over the course. And the definition is being caught again, as anyone who says they don't speed is most likely lying.
Finally as a tax payer, I prefer the fines going to the treasury than making the AA and councils richer with sham courses. If the large amounts of money are being diverted from the treasury, then I think we can expect to question whether they work or not, and who better to ask than the jury on SP&L with their wealth of experience.
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.
Gavia said:
What do you want? Let's get rid of them and go back to a fixed penalty and 3 points only?
I really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option. Who cares where the funds go? We're paying either way and if it goes to central government via an FPN, then it could quite easily end up back with a local council via the grants that are given annually.
I expect a few to post up some drivel about the Chief Constable wanting a new Jag, because Clarkson once said that's what happens on Top Gear.
Do they work? Posting a scenario where someone who runs a course does something stupid is hardly proof that they don't work. The true measure is how often those attending get caught again vs those who choose points over the course. And the definition is being caught again, as anyone who says they don't speed is most likely lying.
Good post..if you dont like them don't attend themI really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option. Who cares where the funds go? We're paying either way and if it goes to central government via an FPN, then it could quite easily end up back with a local council via the grants that are given annually.
I expect a few to post up some drivel about the Chief Constable wanting a new Jag, because Clarkson once said that's what happens on Top Gear.
Do they work? Posting a scenario where someone who runs a course does something stupid is hardly proof that they don't work. The true measure is how often those attending get caught again vs those who choose points over the course. And the definition is being caught again, as anyone who says they don't speed is most likely lying.
Mill Wheel said:
Well for a start, any road safety measure should be effective, and secondly, insurance companies who used to assess a drivers risk by whether they had point, and charge them more, are now denied this avenue of risk assessment, and instead pass on the costs to all their clients, instead of the risky ones.
Finally as a tax payer, I prefer the fines going to the treasury than making the AA and councils richer with sham courses. If the large amounts of money are being diverted from the treasury, then I think we can expect to question whether they work or not, and who better to ask than the jury on SP&L with their wealth of experience.
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.
You don't like them do you....Finally as a tax payer, I prefer the fines going to the treasury than making the AA and councils richer with sham courses. If the large amounts of money are being diverted from the treasury, then I think we can expect to question whether they work or not, and who better to ask than the jury on SP&L with their wealth of experience.
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.
As a road-safety measure, do you think they are more or less effective than the established points system for the lower-level speeding enforcement?
I personally can't see any disadvantage of them now they seem to be much better managed.
The simple fact is, the courses work for some people, and for others they're just a way of avoiding getting 3 points on their licence - Nothing more, nothing less.
I know a couple of people who have been on them, one of which found the course interesting, and claims to have changed how they drive by paying a lot more attention to what's going on on the road ahead than did before doing the course, and another who said it was just a waste of a day for them, they learnt nothing whatsoever, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to how they drive on the road but at least they avoided 3 points.
On a personal note, I've never sped slow enough to be offered a course!
I know a couple of people who have been on them, one of which found the course interesting, and claims to have changed how they drive by paying a lot more attention to what's going on on the road ahead than did before doing the course, and another who said it was just a waste of a day for them, they learnt nothing whatsoever, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to how they drive on the road but at least they avoided 3 points.
On a personal note, I've never sped slow enough to be offered a course!
4rephill said:
The simple fact is, the courses work for some people, and for others they're just a way of avoiding getting 3 points on their licence - Nothing more, nothing less.
I know a couple of people who have been on them, one of which found the course interesting, and claims to have changed how they drive by paying a lot more attention to what's going on on the road ahead than did before doing the course, and another who said it was just a waste of a day for them, they learnt nothing whatsoever, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to how they drive on the road but at least they avoided 3 points.
Some people go on them with a mind so closed that they learn exactly what they expected to learn - zero. Perhaps the course should be easier to fail?I know a couple of people who have been on them, one of which found the course interesting, and claims to have changed how they drive by paying a lot more attention to what's going on on the road ahead than did before doing the course, and another who said it was just a waste of a day for them, they learnt nothing whatsoever, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to how they drive on the road but at least they avoided 3 points.
I got caught recently and attended a SAC about a month ago, I was deliberately doing 80mph in a 70mph limit. I passed my test in 2003 and nearly all of the training went over stuff that had been covered when I passed my test, so other than not getting 3 points on my license I didn't feel like I gained anything.
However, the amount of silver haired OAPs also in attendance was staggering. I would estimate 60% of the 40 or so attendees looked over 60. It seemed most of them had been caught for speeding in residential areas and at lower limits. I actually sat next to two older ladies and they muttered the whole way through that they didn't know this or that, which to my generation is obvious. For example most of the older attendees didn't realise that streetlights can represent a 30 limit.
Whilst it wasn't particularly useful to me I think it can be useful for people who might need to be brought up to date with driving and the highway code in general.
However, the amount of silver haired OAPs also in attendance was staggering. I would estimate 60% of the 40 or so attendees looked over 60. It seemed most of them had been caught for speeding in residential areas and at lower limits. I actually sat next to two older ladies and they muttered the whole way through that they didn't know this or that, which to my generation is obvious. For example most of the older attendees didn't realise that streetlights can represent a 30 limit.
Whilst it wasn't particularly useful to me I think it can be useful for people who might need to be brought up to date with driving and the highway code in general.
rob0r said:
However, the amount of silver haired OAPs also in attendance was staggering. I would estimate 60% of the 40 or so attendees looked over 60. It seemed most of them had been caught for speeding in residential areas and at lower limits.
Probably prime members of the 40mph-everywhere brigade.rob0r said:
I actually sat next to two older ladies and they muttered the whole way through that they didn't know this or that, which to my generation is obvious. For example most of the older attendees didn't realise that streetlights can represent a 30 limit.
That's not exactly something that's changed since they passed their test, unless they passed prior to the 30 limit's introduction in the mid 1930s... They've simply forgotten.Just another good argument in favour of regular retesting of everybody.
Gavia said:
What do you want? Let's get rid of them and go back to a fixed penalty and 3 points only?
I really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option. Who cares where the funds go? We're paying either way and if it goes to central government via an FPN, then it could quite easily end up back with a local council via the grants that are given annually.
I expect a few to post up some drivel about the Chief Constable wanting a new Jag, because Clarkson once said that's what happens on Top Gear.
Do they work? Posting a scenario where someone who runs a course does something stupid is hardly proof that they don't work. The true measure is how often those attending get caught again vs those who choose points over the course. And the definition is being caught again, as anyone who says they don't speed is most likely lying.
Well said, they are not mandatory if you don't want to do one you can simply pay the FPN.I really struggle with the obsession people have on here with these courses. They give drivers an option. Who cares where the funds go? We're paying either way and if it goes to central government via an FPN, then it could quite easily end up back with a local council via the grants that are given annually.
I expect a few to post up some drivel about the Chief Constable wanting a new Jag, because Clarkson once said that's what happens on Top Gear.
Do they work? Posting a scenario where someone who runs a course does something stupid is hardly proof that they don't work. The true measure is how often those attending get caught again vs those who choose points over the course. And the definition is being caught again, as anyone who says they don't speed is most likely lying.
Gavia said:
Who cares where the funds go?
Giving SCPs a financial incentive to catch people when one member of the SCP has the power to unrealistically lower speed limits has a taint of conflict of interest and/or corruption.SACs are just a device to keep revenue to themselves rather than have it go to central govt. Since they came up with it numbers of cameras have increased massively compared with when they didn't get to keep the cash.
Rovinghawk said:
Giving SCPs a financial incentive to catch people when one member of the SCP has the power to unrealistically lower speed limits has a taint of conflict of interest and/or corruption.
SACs are just a device to keep revenue to themselves rather than have it go to central govt. Since they came up with it numbers of cameras have increased massively compared with when they didn't get to keep the cash.
Would you be happy with the SCP approach if any 'profits' went direct to central governments? SACs are just a device to keep revenue to themselves rather than have it go to central govt. Since they came up with it numbers of cameras have increased massively compared with when they didn't get to keep the cash.
Mill Wheel said:
Well for a start, any road safety measure should be effective, and secondly, insurance companies who used to assess a drivers risk by whether they had point, and charge them more, are now denied this avenue of risk assessment, and instead pass on the costs to all their clients, instead of the risky ones.
Finally as a tax payer, I prefer the fines going to the treasury than making the AA and councils richer with sham courses. If the large amounts of money are being diverted from the treasury, then I think we can expect to question whether they work or not, and who better to ask than the jury on SP&L with their wealth of experience.
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.
A few years ago all the company vehicle drivers in the company were sent on a driver training course. Covered a number of issues, safe stopping distances, speed limits, risk awareness so I suspect similar to a speed awareness course. This was done at the behest of the insurance company who offered a premium reduction because they had observed lower claim levels from drivers who had additional driver training. Finally as a tax payer, I prefer the fines going to the treasury than making the AA and councils richer with sham courses. If the large amounts of money are being diverted from the treasury, then I think we can expect to question whether they work or not, and who better to ask than the jury on SP&L with their wealth of experience.
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.
I really do wonder if Admiral have sufficient data on the affect of speed awareness courses on number of accidents (especially as most insurers don't ask), and are just working on the data as though any speed awareness course was just an FPN. If that's the case and if SAC's do work, Admiral's stance is not about improving road safety, just increasing the premiums charged.
Gavia said:
What do you want? Let's get rid of them and go back to a fixed penalty and 3 points only?
I'd settle for minor speeding offences not incurring points outside of urban/suburban areas. Keep the fines, no points.For obviously ridiculous speed where it is blatantly dangerous then prosecute it as dangerous driving and really throw the book at them. People who speed regardless of circumstances/hazards and without any regard for the fact they are on the public road are the ones who really are speeding in a way that their speed could be the direct cause of an accident.
I'd fully support courses if the people who were put on them were identified as needing to have further training as the basis for being there. Being there to avoid 3 points when you are a generally good driver who happened to be doing 45mph in 40mph in a completely safe manner does not improve road safety.
At the moment someone can get a 6 month ban, affecting their jobs and thus their whole life, based on exceeding an arbitrary number on a pole 4 times regardless of them having done anything dangerous. I think that is scandalous. Many people get off with less of a penalty for far worse driving indiscretions which actually have a bad outcome.
Someone I know got a totting up ban. Every time he was only a few mph over. Wasn't offered a course as this was ages ago. Got a 6 month ban.
Lost his job. Was out of work for almost 2 years. How is that in any way a fair punishment that fits his 'crime'? Also had a massive effect on his emotional wellbeing and his family, and he barely avoided divorce.
I stupidly fell asleep when younger while driving. Crashed my car. 3 passengers with me. All fine, but it was lucky. I got 3 points and a fine for careless. Fair enough.
How is what I did in any way comparable to someone doing 45mph in a 40mph zone? short answer: it isn't. They aren't even comparable in terms of the risks posed to other road users.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff