Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[Mill Wheel]

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...

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!

edited to fix formatting

Edited by Mill Wheel on Monday 5th December 10:03

[Mill Wheel]

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.
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.

[Mill Wheel]

vonhosen said:

It's not about us as individuals, it's one size for all.

Good... so let us see driving with fog lights on 24/7 prosecuted to the same extent as speeding - when I am cycling home in the dark it is more dangerous than drivers exceeding the speed limit, as the extra dazzle removes my ability to see the cycle path margins!
How about dodgy number plates? They are easy to spot and trace.
Missing headlights?
Careless driving?

Nobody is keen to see ANY of those offences addressed, as there is no money in it for the authorities.
Better to simply set up a camera on a section of road where drivers routinely stray over the speed limit, and penalise them while the majority of dangerous practice on the roads remains, and continues to lead to accidents and resulting injuries, fatalities and hold ups on our roads.

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Guybrush said:

It's because cars are much safer now, even though there're faster and many more of them..over 310 billion miles a year travelled in the UK and a high percentage exceeding stupidly low speed limits on a daily basis. Unless the figures are lower because there a far fewer police on the roads.

Safer cars is just one factor. You can't say for certain how much of the reduction in fatalities is down to that.

Well there ARE clues as to whose arguments can be relied upon... 20 mph limited areas claimed to be safer - yet over 80% of drivers ignore that limit http://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/issues...

Speed cameras turned OFF in Northamptonshire... http://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/knowle...

Road Safety Analysis said:

In the period after the cameras were switched off, the findings highlight a 45% reduction in KSI at camera sites (29 to 16), compared to a 27% reduction across the rest of the county’s road network (1,628 to 1,193). In the same period, casualties of all types at camera sites were down 21% (from 90 to 71) while across Northamptonshire’s other roads there was a 29% fall (from 7,293 to 5,189).

Vehicle manufacturers make decisions on what features they can add to a vehicle on commercially based data - and have added features which cost hundreds of pounds because they work, and because owners are prepared to pay to have them.
If they didn't work they would not be included.

Drivers fear getting caught. With a speed awareness course to fall back on, many will be happy to push the boundaries - just as the course tutor saw fit to take a risk which ended in the death of an unfortunate victim of her haste.

This was highlighted in a recent study on SUPPORT and COMPLIANCE.

University of West England said:

This paper reports a study undertaken by the authors that used a population wide survey of GB drivers to explore how support and compliance were interlinked. Whilst as expected many supporters said they would comply with the limits, and many opponents might not comply, more surprisingly it was also found that some supporters claimed not to comply, while some opponents of 20 mph limits were compliers. Explanations included the strong likelihood of strong moral adherence to not breaking laws amongst opponent–compliers, and self-enhancement bias amongst supporter–non-compliers.

[Mill Wheel]

If the examiner sees you straight line a roundabout because you are the only vehicle on the road, how does he assess whether you may straightline it when another vehicle is approaching from the right?
Roundabouts in West Lancashire are different to those in Cumbria, because Lancashire has made an effort to discourage straight lining with road markings that are not standard... which therefore puzzle drivers who are not used to encountering them.
I know of several learners who have been told not to drive too slowly in case this is viewed as being over cautious, but nobody seems keen to commit to a number which might be viewed as over cautious!

At the end of my test, I was quizzed by my examiner, because I slowed down on an estate for a cat that was walking along the road, and it was suggested to me that the cat is one of few animals which you do not need to report if run over and killed. My response was that was not a green light to run them down!
I presume that is the sort of personal input from the examiner that is now weeded out?

[Mill Wheel]

drf765 said:

I think it is a fact, and that's my opinion.

you THINK it is a fact? Surely it either IS or it ISN'T.

You have always struggled to separate "your opinion" and facts... AND often fail to dicover the facts before voicing your opinion as fact!

You once said "All Cumbria mobile Camera Sites are clearly visible"

I said "no they are not, the site at Ings is overgrown" and showed a picture of the site, with the van hidden with tall grass and overhanging branches in front.

YOU said "You took that picture on a day when the van wasn't there"

But finally after I showed a further closer picture of the van hidden by long grass and branches, were forced to conceed that the site was indeed overgrown, the van was hidden, and that like a complete tt, you had tried to pass off your opinion as fact!

Wouldn't it have been better to check before you opened your mouth to put your foot in it?
No of course not, because you wrote the book on speed camera expertise... literally, but sooner or later people are going to start waking up to your weakness.

[Mill Wheel]

singlecoil said:

Mill Wheel said:

drf765 said:

I think it is a fact, and that's my opinion.

you THINK it is a fact? Surely it either IS or it ISN'T.

This is a good example of the problem with skimming threads looking for posts to object to.

drf was obviously (obvious to the rest of us at least) joking. Read the thread properly this time and you will realise that.

Ah.. so it is really a case of "Many a True Word Spoken in Jest!"?

[Mill Wheel]

cmaguire said:

Digby said:

What ever happened about this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2863893/Ex...


And we can't forget the wonderful...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uks-most-senior-tra...

Just think about all the sanctimonious garbage Hughes dished out before that. 'Practice what you preach' springs to mind, but they know they're talking crap so it's hardly surprising.

The behaviour of Med Hughes, who with all his training and experience chose to exceed the posted limit, is akin to the instructor whose conviction started this thread.
Clearly for some people derive little or no benefit from the training.

Given the claims made for these courses, and the ever increasing numbers of people caught speeding, I question whether those claims can be justified, and instead attribute it to a whole host of other influences among which are improved vehicle safety features, and better emergency response times and care via the paramedic and air ambulance services.

[Mill Wheel]

singlecoil said:

BertBert said:

But we have been suckered in to thinking that somehow they are precise definitions of safety for a given stretch of road.

It's that straw man again, second time this thread.

BertBert is right. The statistics have been manipulated for so many years that those in the speed prosecution industry have forgotten the real truth of the matter altogether!

As they say in the X Files, "The Truth is out there" if you are not put off by those who simply level "STRAW MAN" accusations when the argument looks likely to expose their weakness or threaten their golden goose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/27...

[Mill Wheel]

vonhosen said:

The problem is not people travelling slowly, I'd prefer somebody doing 40 in a NSL in front of me than somebody doing 50, they will be easier to legally overtake, not harder.
The problem is people following too closely who aren't looking to overtake.

The trouble is that your desire to overtake does not feature in their decision making choices when they select their speed.
They either want to go faster but are forbidden by law, or chose a speed at which they felt comfortable, but which is too high for you to overtake safely. A lot of drivers do not adhere to your consideration of a safe overtaking speed.
Once ALL drivers become less centred on their own wishes, and more considerate of their fellow road users, the better off we would be, except of course for interference via conditions imposed remotely often with no good and obvious reason.

There is a bend near Windermere with a 30 mph advisory limit, and no clear reason for it - even the most incompetent driver can negotiate it at 40 mph, most will opt for 45 mph and find it easy, and any experienced competent driver can manage it at 50+ mph.
The reason for the advisory which is not clear, is NOT the bend. It is the downhill stretch and bend which follow, which trips up drivers who carry too much speed through from the first bend.
Local drivers who approach this bend slowly attract the ire of some of those following who are unaware and impatient. There is no means of addressing that issue, other than perhaps a VAS sign.

[Mill Wheel]

vonhosen said:

Mill Wheel said:

There is a bend near Windermere with a 30 mph advisory limit, and no clear reason for it - even the most incompetent driver can negotiate it at 40 mph, most will opt for 45 mph and find it easy, and any experienced competent driver can manage it at 50+ mph.
The reason for the advisory which is not clear, is NOT the bend. It is the downhill stretch and bend which follow, which trips up drivers who carry too much speed through from the first bend.
Local drivers who approach this bend slowly attract the ire of some of those following who are unaware and impatient. There is no means of addressing that issue, other than perhaps a VAS sign.

I don't know the sign & I'm not going to say all signage is well placed or appropriate. I'd rather drivers negotiate a bend at a speed that is within their comfort zone than not though.

In this instance the signage is appropriate, and well placed.
What cannot be conveyed with the sign, is the REASON the sign is apt... which is the downhill following, and further bends, which trip drivers up when excess speed is carried into the following section of road.
Drivers ARE negotiating the bend within their comfort zone when they should be following the advisory.

[Mill Wheel]

tapereel said:

If you are supporting removing drivers from the road that don't meet the required standard then that would include, IMHO, driver's who regard the regulations as optional. Bring it on, what a good idea.

There used to be a process whereby such drivers COULD be removed from the road... via the totting up of points, but now that the authorities are thirsty for money, the Speed Awareness Course can allow them to delay that process by at least one violation - and more in some areas where they are not thorough in checking eligibility for courses!

[Mill Wheel]

singlecoil said:

People who run rehab courses know that it's one thing to teach people to do stuff, it's something else to get them to actually do it.

This is the problem with the driver education that so many people here call for.

And yet Tapereel says "There are many people who have done the course and not received any further points." which either implies that the training on SACs IS effective, or that the drivers were already compliant and simply slipped up, in which case the courses value is questionable as you have observed.
There are calls for the effectiveness to be better assessed, as reported in the Telegraph.





What is needed is "something else to get them to actually do it."

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Errr...what?

How much does a course cost and how much does it actually cost to run it?

I'm going to guess that

1,207,570 drivers attended courses last year. The authorities receive up to £35, but most take less. Cardiff take £20.
Every driver, on every course, every week every year. You think "the authorities make very little out of it."?

[Mill Wheel]

The Surveyor said:

Given the repeated requests for improved driver training on here, a basic refresher session such as this is IMHO a small but useful contribution.

You can take Road Awareness Training (RAT) in Cumbria free of charge, and it covers more than just speeding.
Compulsory Speed Awareness Courses are of course denied to the very drivers who need them the most - those over the threshold limits for courses!
Surely if they WERE effective, then those over the threshold for a course and no points, should be sent on the course WITH points as well?

[Mill Wheel]

The Surveyor said:

Last night there was circa 40 people split between 2 rooms with 3 instructors.

The building is an AA DriveTech leased building which they use for other courses as well as the Speed Awareness Courses. I'm sure they are making a profit from the £90 per person charge although I would suspect they won't see that full value with some going to Northumbria Police who issued my NOP as well as the other Speed Camera Partnership members.

I also don't know where the £100 'fine' actually goes if you take the points as if this was purely about profit, I'm not convinced they wouldn't offer a cheaper 'education' option which is more expensive to administer?

The £100 (plus Victims Surcharge) goes to the Treasury.

AA DriveTech will provide the same Speed Awareness Courses to businesses wishing to improve the driving of their employees.
The cost per person when I last enquired was just over £38 per person training a minimum of 12, at a venue provided by the business.
For £20 drivers at a local facility (hotel or function room) £44+ per person.
Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership courses cost drivers £75, but are not provided by DriveTech.

[Mill Wheel]

Stills from my dashcam footage, taken on the A65 on Sunday.

A Porsche had already made several risky overtakes to leapfrog a line of cars that were following an articulated lorry travelling well below the 60 mph limit.
Eventually there was just a 4x4 between the Porsche and the HGV... but for some distance.
Finally the Porsche pulled out to commence passing the 4x4 and the HGV, but the 4x4 failed to notice, and pulled out on the Porsche, in his own bid to pass the HGV, forcing the Porsche to abort. The 4x4 continued and passed the HGV despite approaching bends.



After a few miles, the Porsche crossed double whites to commence his 2nd attempted passing manoeuvre, and despite a bend ahead, and oncoming traffic, finally got past the HGV.


Speed Awareness? He needed a refresher in hazard perception. His speed was not illegal except briefly perhaps while he passed other vehicles, but was reckless and inconsiderate to others.
The slow pace of the HGV - which was only slightly below the average for that road... excepting the slower acceleration leaving village 30 mph, and a few steeper hills was tedious at times for myself, but frustrating for others.

[Mill Wheel]

The Surveyor said:

cmaguire said:

I'd like to know what ongoing assessment (like Ofsted for schools) goes on to ensure consistency of delivery with these courses. Those two prats should have given refunds for wasting everybody's time.

I don't know the answer to that, but everybody on the course was asked to provide a confidential 1-to-5 feedback response on the venue, content, and presenters at the end. Hopefully somebody takes notice of poor feedback!

So far the data collected seems to have been by insurance companies, asking their customers in questionnaires.
However, given that they only address speeding, as a safety method, they are clearly lacking in so many other areas that feature in the causes of accidents.

[Mill Wheel]

JNW1 said:

If the HGV was travelling so slowly why wasn't the second person in the queue making any attempt to overtake and if they didn't want to be bothered why weren't they - and others of a similar mindset in the queue - leaving adequate gaps for those who, like the Porsche, did want to overtake? I guess from your post and the photos we can't say for certain that adequate gaps weren't being left but they look pretty small to me!

The 4x4 that eventually decides to overtake either didn't look in their mirrors before commencing the move or they did and, despite seeing the Porsche coming-up behind, decided to go anyway. Bad driving either way IMO although I do accept it's an overtaker's responsibility to make sure they can complete a manoeuvre safely (and in this instance the Porsche driver was at least aware and aborted to avoid an accident).

This road is particularly short on places where overtaking can take place safely at any speed - it runs from Kendal to Skipton through the dales, and is mostly narrow, twisting and hilly with numerous small villages with extended 30 mph limits (and some with 100 yard 40 mph buffers!) along it's length.
Tractors and mud on the road at varying times add to the risks. It features in lists of the most dangerous roads in Britain based on it's record of fatalities alone. http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t...
Only on Tuesday it was closed for 12 hours at Lupton after an HGV carrying 9000 chickens overturned... presumably within the 40 mph limited mobile camera enforced section - no deaths (other than a few chickens) but a major disruption to travel!
There are numerous signs warning of speed camera enforcement, which discourages many from attempting overtakes even when they could.
The road is a magnet for motorcyclists on powerful machines, who famously congregate in large numbers at Devils Bridge just outside of Kirkby Lonsdale, and they can appear behind you (overtaking) or in front of you (oncoming) very quickly.

The 4x4 was far too close to the HGV to be able to see very far ahead and was the more foolish of the two IMHO - the Porsche less so, but his better view came at the cost of a greater distance to travel while passing - which is why most sensible drivers opt to sit behind and admire the views!
Even so, frustration is a huge problem here - and there are few places where an HGV could pull over to allow baulked vehicles to pass even if they wanted to.

[Mill Wheel]

Digby said:

Willy Nilly said:

..I feel that the constant reduction of speed limits and down right ruthlessness with which people get prosecuted has, for me at least, turned me completely off driving and seeking to improve my skills.

Quite.

The idiots in charge, who so many on here defend, turned millions of drivers in to "speeders" even if they never were before.

This is entirely due to the belief that accidents and speed cause fatalities and serious injury.
However, fatalities still occur at slow speeds - people knocked down on their own driveways even, or this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-38351...

I have asked before;
"When is a fatal accident NOT a fatal accident?" Answer: "When nobody is killed!"

If a drunk driver drives home at 2.00 am and fails to hit anybody or fall off the road, is that any less serious than one who crosses the path of another vehicle on the road at the same hour and kills the occupants?

No. Of course not!
The focus on accidents resulting in death or injury gives a false impression of whether a stretch of road or drivers behaviours are safe or not.

EVERY accident has a potential to be fatal (see link above) and so it is important that ALL causes of accidents are addressed, and not just try and address the ones (7% according to figure) which involve speed as a CAUSE.

After all, without ANY accident, you could not have a FATAL accident.

But because fatal accidents are the only ones where figures can be relied upon, (as there is no misreporting of a death), and no reliable figures are available for near misses, e.g. a near miss where the driver leaves the scene after leaving the carriageway and crossing a footway when nobody else is about, these are used as the criteria to form policy and actions to address accident levels, and misinformed councils try to adjust (reduce) speed limits to reduce fatalities instead of taking measures that result in reducing numbers of accidents... ANY accidents.

As a bonus, less accident would make travel better and reduce frustration at the holdups they inevitably cause.