ABD Launches Campaign Against Speed Awareness Courses

[mph1977]

deeps said:

addsvrs said:

Also far more productive than 3 points, so i dont agree with the petition, infact i think they should make all new drivers sit it as an extra to a driving test.

This sums up perfectly how people simply miss the point.

The course as part of the driving test, or even part of a 10 year refresher would be fine.

But as a blackmail tool to recapture lost funding, it is wrong on all levels.

The camera vans mainly prey on roads that have a speed limit below the 85th percentile speed of traffic on that road. That is to say, the average safe flow of traffic on that road is above the limit, typically roads that have had the limit lowered from NSL to 40 or even 30mph.

With the proliferation of these courses and the funds they raise, you will be seeing a lot more of this.

Roads should be policed by the police, not by civilians operating speed cameras from the back of vans to fund a multi million pound speed awareness course industry.

Man Overboard !

Deeps I do not consent to listening to your freewibbling

[SturdyHSV]

deeps said:

addsvrs said:

Also far more productive than 3 points, so i dont agree with the petition, infact i think they should make all new drivers sit it as an extra to a driving test.

This sums up perfectly how people simply miss the point.

Just because he doesn't agree doesn't mean he misses the point. I personally get your point, I just don't agree with it. Just like you get his point, but don't agree with it.

deeps said:

The course as part of the driving test, or even part of a 10 year refresher would be fine.

But as a blackmail tool to recapture lost funding, it is wrong on all levels.

The camera vans mainly prey on roads that have a speed limit below the 85th percentile speed of traffic on that road. That is to say, the average safe flow of traffic on that road is above the limit, typically roads that have had the limit lowered from NSL to 40 or even 30mph.

With the proliferation of these courses and the funds they raise, you will be seeing a lot more of this.

You are aware that the vast majority of drivers are utterly disinterested in driving or paying any attention to anything else on the road? The morons are a danger to themselves and others, so need to be calmed down somehow...

deeps said:

Roads should be policed by the police, not by civilians operating speed cameras from the back of vans to fund a multi million pound speed awareness course industry.

Yes, they should be policed by the police, but there aren't enough police to police all the morons, so what do you propose? Perhaps more education? Who will pay for that? Oh wait, that's already happening with the speed awareness courses.

So what if a few people are becoming richer than you by educating the great unwashed? Should they do it all for free or at a loss? What would be their incentive?

All this nonsense about preying on people, given how incredibly easy it is to avoid the courses, by simply driving within the speed limit + 10% even if you think you know better, or even if you know better and get caught, just take the points. Make your own one man protest against the 'fat cats', and all the other ABD chaps can protest too by taking the points instead and getting on with knowing better. Is it really so important that you drive at 35 because you know better as opposed to 34 where you'd not get punished? Is your car's speedo even that accurate?

Yes, I'm sure people who care a lot about driving can judge the situation and conditions and drive above the speed limit where appropriate because they have an ABD sticker on their rear window. But you're a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny insignificant minority. The rest of the people on the road either lack the experience, the judgement or the level of interest to make any sort of judgement on anything related to driving, and as such they need their hands held so that they don't hurt themselves. Yes they need educating, but that won't happen unless someone can get richer, hence SAC, and ultimately a lot of them simply don't care and never will, hence points, fines and bans.

In summary:

I'm oot.

[Glasgowrob]

call me cynical but I get the feeling the ABD are looking in from the outside at all these organisations creaming off lots of cash and wanting a piece of the pie.



ABD critises SACs ABD suggests replacement scheme backed/ran by ABD PROFIT


I hold the ABD in the same regard as BRAKE and other nonsense groups. self serving and looking out for themselves

[williamp]

sorry if I've missed the point OP but...

addsvrs said:

.....this time round i found it quite interesting and learnt a fair bit, especially how a couple of mph over the limit drastically changes your stopping distance (thanks Tiff Needell video).

Also far more productive than 3 points, so i dont agree with the petition, infact i think they should make all new drivers sit it as an extra to a driving test.

I agree. I had the video too. At the end of the course it did (and still does) make me think about my driving more then before. It made me think I would have paid money to be on the course as it did teach me things I had forgotten. Not a bad thing at all.

It was also good that it could be taken on a Saturday afternoon, so no time off work, and only four hours "lost"

[callahan]

deeps said:

This sums up perfectly how people simply miss the point.

The course as part of the driving test, or even part of a 10 year refresher would be fine.

But as a blackmail tool to recapture lost funding, it is wrong on all levels.

The camera vans mainly prey on roads that have a speed limit below the 85th percentile speed of traffic on that road. That is to say, the average safe flow of traffic on that road is above the limit, typically roads that have had the limit lowered from NSL to 40 or even 30mph.

Not sure about the original post, but this makes a lot of sense to me - we should all get ongoing training as part of our licence to be able to drive, but using this to justify the lowering of limits is wrong.

[otolith]

williamp said:

I agree. I had the video too. At the end of the course it did (and still does) make me think about my driving more then before. It made me think I would have paid money to be on the course as it did teach me things I had forgotten. Not a bad thing at all.

I would have thought that the only thing all of the participants need to learn is "obey the number on a stick" - what else were they teaching that was particularly relevant to people who had been caught exceeding the posted limit?

I'm surprised that people needed reminding about the way that stopping distances scale with speed, given that it's the only truthful bit of information to be extracted from the table of distances we all have to memorise to pass our tests.

[Artey]

addsvrs said:

(...)learnt a fair bit, especially how a couple of mph over the limit drastically changes your stopping distance (thanks Tiff Needell video).

Relative to what? So if you do 30 in built up areas and then go to say France where their limit is 32 does that mean that you're reckless? Did they also tell you that suspension and the age of it's components has even bigger impact on stopping distances than a couple of miles above some arbitrary speed limit? No I didn't think so because they can't fking money that way. They've succeeded at brainwashing you me baoy that's for sure. Speed killllllzah!

[Pete317]

SturdyHSV said:

You are aware that the vast majority of drivers are utterly disinterested in driving or paying any attention to anything else on the road? The morons are a danger to themselves and others, so need to be calmed down somehow...

If that were even remotely true, then how come we don't see thousands of people being killed on our roads every single day?

[xRIEx]

Pete317 said:

SturdyHSV said:

You are aware that the vast majority of drivers are utterly disinterested in driving or paying any attention to anything else on the road? The morons are a danger to themselves and others, so need to be calmed down somehow...

If that were even remotely true, then how come we don't see thousands of people being killed on our roads every single day?

That is a non-sequitur - the level of accidents, injuries and deaths that we see are a result of the current levels in interest/disinterest, combined with all other risk and safety factors. It is reasonable to conjecture that if the average level of attention was increased, the current levels of accidents, injuries and deaths would decrease from their current levels.

[addsvrs]

Artey said:

Relative to what? So if you do 30 in built up areas and then go to say France where their limit is 32 does that mean that you're reckless? Did they also tell you that suspension and the age of it's components has even bigger impact on stopping distances than a couple of miles above some arbitrary speed limit? No I didn't think so because they can't fking money that way. They've succeeded at brainwashing you me baoy that's for sure. Speed killllllzah!

Seriously ? Grow up. Try watching the video of travelling at 30 and braking for a pedestrian, see what happens at 32 / 34 / 40 mph etc.

[brman]

addsvrs said:

Seriously ? Grow up. Try watching the video of travelling at 30 and braking for a pedestrian, see what happens at 32 / 34 / 40 mph etc.

I think this is the problem. There is nothing like seeing one of these videos to drive it home how much a small reduction in speed can reduce the injuries to a pedestrian. But does that mean we should all drive at 20mph just in case a kid jumps off the kerb?

But that is getting off topic I think, we all make our own decisions on what risk to take and have to live with the consequences. I think the core argument here is whether SACs are the problem or not.
In my view it is paranoia to suggest the that the presence of SACs, and the income from them, is used as a key reason to reduce speed limits (and hence increase income from SACs etc etc). I think it is quite possible that speed camera placement is influenced by how easy it is not catch people (and hence possibly increase income) but that is not the same thing.
I'll say it again, I think SACs are a good thing (both for the people caught and for those who gain from their revenue), the problem is the general attitude to risk and the reduction of speed limits.
There are a few roads round here where the limits have been reduced down to 40 or even 30. These are roads where I think it is safe to drive at 60 (or at least as safe as any other 60 limited road). Why have they been reduced? Well, I don't think it is co-incidence that it happens soon after a teenager has killed himself (or his passenger) on that road. But there is the rub, one fatal incident in 10 years where the car has clearly been doing way over the legal limit so would unlikely to have been obeying the new limit anyway. What is the sense in that?
If ABD want to change something, change this, stop getting all paranoid about money making schemes......

edit: I should add, that on the roads I am referring too I have never once seen a speed camera. So the reduction in speed limit has nothing to do with revenue generation and SACs....

[xRIEx]

brman said:

addsvrs said:

Seriously ? Grow up. Try watching the video of travelling at 30 and braking for a pedestrian, see what happens at 32 / 34 / 40 mph etc.

I think this is the problem. There is nothing like seeing one of these videos to drive it home how much a small reduction in speed can reduce the injuries to a pedestrian. But does that mean we should all drive at 20mph just in case a kid jumps off the kerb?

If you can see there is no kid on the pavement, there's no need to slow down; if you can see there is a kid on the pavement, keep alert to the fact they might do something daft; if you can't see the pavement (e.g. parked cars obscuring the view), drive at a suitable compromise of distance from the parked cars/obstruction and speed.

[brman]

xRIEx said:

If you can see there is no kid on the pavement, there's no need to slow down; if you can see there is a kid on the pavement, keep alert to the fact they might do something daft; if you can't see the pavement (e.g. parked cars obscuring the view), drive at a suitable compromise of distance from the parked cars/obstruction and speed.

fair enough, but you are looking at it from the point of view of someone who is (or thinks they are...) an excellent driver. 90% of drivers do so to get from a-b and have no knowledge or interest in road craft. As someone else said, they need hand holding to a greater extent. My question was how far do you go to protect people from themselves? That is one question, and I have already said I think we go too far doing that.
However the question being discussed here is whether SACs are good or bad.

[Mr Tidy]

Sorry OP, but overall I think SACs are a good idea.

My OH certainly would have done if they had been in use when she got caught by a camera doing 33 in a 30 limit in Datchet and ended up with 3 points, when surely any camera-wielding officer would have just given her a b*llocking which would have worked better as an immediate deterrent, whereas the NIP came through the post weeks later!

I'd rather have the choice of SAC or points - being retired I have the time but don't want the points!

I can't see SACs going away any time soon given that the constabularies get a portion of the fee, whereas with a point-scoring conviction they get nothing.

I also really struggle to see how anyone can say points + fine is a better idea than fee only and a bit of time - what exactly is the ABD mandate? Do they have a membership competition where points make prizes?

[Glosphil]

I have been on one Speed Awareness Couse. Some good information but claimed "over 80% of road casualties caused by drivers over the speed limit". Actually figure is 7%.

So-called Hazard Awareness video was awful. WE were shown two videos of drives through a town and asked to list the differences. The photoshopped differences included a missing window, a shortened church steeple and a car that had changed colour. No mention of the man walking along the edge of the pavement who stepped into the road, without looking over his shoulder, to get past a slow old lady.

[swisstoni]

TheLuke said:

The courses are a good thing. I'm sorry I dont agree.

Teaching whats wrong and what can be done to correct that Is much better than just dishing out points willy-nilly.

Totally agree. It's an enlightened approach clearly lost on this bunch I have never heard of.
And so what if it makes a few bob. Better than letting the insurance company screw you for 5 years.

[powerstroke]

When the speed drops it's heads down and phone time ..

[wack]

deeps said:

I did suspect many people would miss the point.

I guess if you're happy to keep paying the course fees as punishment for travelling at a walking pace above a dumbed down speed limit, don't bother reading it

Hopefully that won't include all of you though

http://www.speed-awareness.org/Speed...gn-Summary....

People that regularly speed love the camera courses because it means they get 5-6 chances to keep their licence instead of 3-4 depending on speed

I worked as a courier for 25 years regularly driving into big cities , I'm my 35 years of driving I've had one speeding conviction on the M6 in roadworks , slowed to 50 , got to a section with no cones, no roadworks so assumed I'd ( along with many others) missed the national limit sign then I saw them waiting, kerching kerching kerching as we all went past them at 70

Guy at work has been on the course and accumulated 9 points in 12 months just driving to work and back

That's why people like the courses , he should be banned but isn't,all his points are in 30 limits

The dropping of limits to 50 is another cash cow , Chesterfield to Manchester is one such road , nowhere safe to overtake trucks doing 45 until you get to the only long straight , no way I'm spending an age in the danger zone so I pull out and there in the distance I spot the van , waiting for anyone to overtake at over 50 in the only safe place to do so , it's not the first time I've seen it either.

Anyone speeding in a 30 deserves points but to get them or a course for performing a safe overtake is just generating cash

[Bill]

xRIEx said:

TheLuke said:

The courses are a good thing. I'm sorry I dont agree.

Teaching whats wrong and what can be done to correct that Is much better than just dishing out points willy-nilly.

This.

crofty1984 said:

I think they're a good thing too. I'd not be against them being a requirement when renewing your photocatalytic every 5-10 years of it was much, much cheaper. Not a pass/fail thing, but it couldn't hurt for a lot of the population to have a reminder.

And this.

To maintain any professional qualification you have to complete so many hours of CPD every year to ensure that you're keeping up to date with developments and your skills/knowledge aren't decaying over time. I think when it comes to controlling up to 3.5 tonnes* at up to 70mph, a similar system in principle wouldn't go amiss.

 *Just speaking in relation to the majority of the general public - same should apply for drivers of all categories, if it doesn't already apply to other categories.

This. I did one a few years ago, and while it didn't teach me anything new (obv... ) it was a good refresher and there were quite a few lightbulb moments for the rest of the room who clearly hadn't thought about their driving since they passed.

[Theophany]

Bill said:

This. I did one a few years ago, and while it didn't teach me anything new (obv... ) it was a good refresher and there were quite a few lightbulb moments for the rest of the room who clearly hadn't thought about their driving since they passed.

Of course it didn't, we're all driving gods round these parts.