Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.

[Mill Wheel]

It seems that the government might have been reading the recent but long running thread here, in which the effectiveness of Speed Awareness Courses was called into question by myself!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-slam-b...

The Times said:

The government has also commissioned a review of the classes — the first for more than a decade — to address concerns that they fail to alter drivers’ attitudes.

You might remember that I highlighted that a course instructor had failed to practice what she preached - and had been the cause of a fatal accident.

It goes on to reveal that nobody has any clue how many drivers who have been on courses, go on to reoffend, and it quotes the shadow transport minister, Richard Burden as saying “If ministers want to continue encouraging the use of diversionary courses as an alternative to fixed-penalty notices they must present the evidence that they are working in the intended way.”

This comes after awareness courses for mobile phone use offenders have been dropped and penalties hiked massively, and while the IAM in Scotland are pushing for SACs to be introduced there, with them (the IAM) benefitting from the running of the courses!

Should course providers really be reporting back on how effective they might be, without any evidence other than a questionnaire provided to attendees, which they are told must be filled in before they complete the course and leave?

[Mill Wheel]

Ken Figenus said:

There were many gasps from the audience in mine at a few things the tutor correctly said. He highlighted lots of areas of ignorance or lack of thought from his guests and made many advanced driving technique points. I thought it was all very positive and it was nice to be top of the class for once in my life LOL I was pleasantly surprised at the content (as had gone there for a fight!) and it also keeps 51yr old top cops busy and out of trouble too! Has to be better than pure cash grabs?

But if they are so effective, why is it only drivers just over the limit get to take them, while serial offenders and those well over the limit whose education would seem most wanting, are not offered or even told to take them?

[Mill Wheel]

djc206 said:

Gavia said:

Why does it matter whether they work or not? It's a free pass for a low level speeding offence.

Bingo. One day I will get caught speeding and hope that I can do a course to save me the 3 points. I don't care if they work or not.

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!

[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.

[Mill Wheel]

Gavia said:

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.

The actual work on the road was some distance behind where the picture was taken, so further on, on a perfectly good section of road AFTER the area actually being worked on, they plonked down some cones and a sign and a camera - so the camera/cones "are" the roadworks in that photo.

It seems common practice now to penalise drivers as they leave a section of road works, where as if the issue was safety of road workers, the camera should be BEFORE the risky area!