RE: Driver training the answer, says RAC
RE: Driver training the answer, says RAC
Friday 3rd September 2004

Driver training the answer, says RAC

The RAC Foundation says high-speed drivers should attend speed courses


Speed awareness courses should be offered to habitual offenders and motorists caught doing high speeds as well as first time and low level offenders, according to the RAC Foundation.

Following the Secretary of State’s launch of the consultation on variable speed penalties yesterday - including proposals for speed courses - the Foundation is urging the Government to consider more widespread application in the interests of road safety.

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation said: "It has been clearly demonstrated that these courses have a favourable effect in changing the driving behaviour and perception of speed.

"Those offenders who have attended speed education courses in areas like Lancashire show real improvements in their driving afterwards. But surely those most in need of education are drivers who don’t just slip over the speed limit but consistently flout the law or drive way above the limit?"

The RAC Foundation argues that while an early opportunity to change attitudes towards speed and prevent re-offending among first timers and those who have inadvertently strayed above the speed limit is also valuable, given limited resources to fund the courses and lack of spaces on them, places should initially be offered to those whose attendance would produce the biggest gain in accident reduction.

"Inappropriate speed is a problem that needs to be addressed by a package of measures - including driver education, a review of speed limits to ensure realistic limits, and better signing of speed limits including interactive warning signs.

"The Foundation believes that much greater emphasis should be put on driver re-education as an alternative to prosecution. We also stress that automatic enforcement by camera is no substitute for traffic police and Government has to address the reduction in officers as a matter of urgency.

"We would also suggest that for those doing higher speeds, courses could be linked to a reduced number of penalty points and fines. We believe that every driver caught speeding should be offered a speed awareness course at least once. We also support the proposal for "driver re-training" for more serious offences."

The Foundation said it has been campaigning for a scheme of national speed awareness courses following national guidelines as initial research suggests that those attending the courses are less likely to re-offend. It stressed the need for national guidelines as the content of current pilot courses varies considerably. All courses should have a practical element with the offender actually going on the road with an advanced instructor, according to the Foundation, adding that more than 25,000 drivers had already taken such courses in Lancashire.

However, it seems unlikely that any government, addicted as they all are to revenues from cash cameras, is likely to cough for greater driver awareness. Far too sensible, perhaps?

Author
Discussion

jonnyb

Original Poster:

2,590 posts

275 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
I have to say that I am a great beliver in driver training. It take about 3 months to train a police driver, but we get idiots that think they can drive well above the speed limit having only just passed their test (I know, I was one of them!).

I think the test in this country sould be in stages, say a basic test for those who want to drve a car upto 90bhp, then a more advanced test for 90-200bhp and an advanced drivers course for 200bhp and above. Also if you want to drive on a motorway then you should have taken some kind of course to teach you how to do it.

Its wrong for you to be able to pass your test in a nisssan micra then jump into a high performance car and throw your self down the motorway at brake neck speed.

BliarOut

72,863 posts

262 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
At last, some common sense. Where are people able to partake in the consultation. I would like my voice heard.

Driving fast when it's appropriate isn't dangerous, you just need the right training to recognise the dangers. Unfortunately, the lentilists have somehow managed to hijack the safety debate.

The driving test as is doesn't equip anyone to handle a performance car, we need something similar to motorcycles where passing the basic test only gets you access to a basic car. If you want performance, you should pass an extended test with off road skid control and observation testing.

The current shuffle your hands and remember the sequence doesn't seem to produce particularly good drivers.

I doubt there would be much resistance to a scheme where speeders had to pay to go on a course to improve their driving instead of the current scheme.

The only problem is the cynic in me doubts anything would ever come of that. Why? Because the government wants cars off the road and speed cameras are their tool of choice.

shoestring7

6,177 posts

269 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
Or how about Insurance industry sponsored training schemes for everyone involved in a fault accident?

Yeah, I know, pigs will fly before the insurance industry gets involved in any initiaties to reduce accidents......

SS7

turbobloke

115,805 posts

283 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
Or how about realistic speed limits? As that fine Suffolk District Coroner Bill Walrond said, at inquest on a fatac he attributed partly to reduced limits, if people regularly break a speed limit we should ask if it's too low (yes it is).
Pigs flying before insurers get their hands dirty means there'll be supersonic saddlebacks before limits are safety related and not political correctness competitions (how low can you go)

>> Edited by turbobloke on Friday 3rd September 10:17

xxplod

2,269 posts

267 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
Sensible comments from all. I can't see why this issue is painted as being as difficult as it often is. Many forces, including my own already run the Driver Rectification Scheme, which is offered to drivers who, usually as a result of an accident would be facing a careles driving charge.

This could easily be extended to speeding motorists and it would be self funding as the DRS is. Drivers pay I think circa £120 for a one day course and then avoid any prosecution.

I think if such a scheme were combined with variable penalties I think it would be a success. I've always said it is wrong that a driver caught doing 45 mph in a 30 limit during the day gets the same £60/3 points as a driver caught doing 48mph in a 40 at 0300 because that's how the cash machine is set.

blademan

493 posts

261 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
xxplod said:

I think if such a scheme were combined with variable penalties I think it would be a success. I've always said it is wrong that a driver caught doing 45 mph in a 30 limit during the day gets the same £60/3 points as a driver caught doing 48mph in a 40 at 0300 because that's how the cash machine is set.

Sensibility prevails here xxplod. Agreed 100%
Shame that the Scam partnerships and politicians dont thinklike this.
P.S. Is your attitude typical of the guys in your force?

Zeddy

57 posts

286 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all

I don't believe what I've been reading!

With so many people of such similar minds (and I have to agree with all that's been said so far), just what does it take to get politicians to open an ear to two!

I'm just about to start motorcycle lessons and thoroughly agree with the structure of the license.

One tweak I'd insert is bhp per ton rather than straight bhp limits. (we all know how different a caterham is from a BMW 7...)

Rant rant, bloody tax hiking government! rant over....

minornut

1,049 posts

260 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
Zeddy said:

With so many people of such similar minds (and I have to agree with all that's been said so far), just what does it take to get politicians to open an ear to two!


Would you leave any orifice on your head open if it was stuck up your arse?!

deltaf

6,806 posts

276 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
xxplod said:
This could easily be extended to speeding motorists and it would be self funding as the DRS is. Drivers pay I think circa £120 for a one day course and then avoid any prosecution.


And here i was thinking it was about safety.
Seems that you can "buy" your way out of being prosecuted huh? Talk about corrupt officials and greasing of palms in other countries, to me, this is exactly the same approach.


RRG

126 posts

270 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
Lot of sense being talked here. One comment; 'The Limit' is always talked about in absolute terms as if its preordaned and 100% correct. In reality they are totally arbitary. If so many people break them (risking fines in the process) then maybe the law makers should really wake up and realise that maybe 'The Limit' is wrong in the first place. I suggest;

Dense urban/schools etc: 20mph
Normal urban: 30mph
Good A/B roads: 60mph about right
Dual carriageway: 80mph (day), 90mph (00:00-06:00)
Motorway: 90mph (day), unlimited (00:00-06:00)

Totally agree with staggered license/training suggestions.

Question is: everyone agrees, but how do we get it implemented? This is a democracy, afterall

james_j

3,996 posts

278 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
A quote from the main body of the initial text:

"...Those offenders who have attended speed education courses in areas like Lancashire show real improvements in their driving afterwards. But surely those most in need of education are drivers who don’t just slip over the speed limit but consistently flout the law or drive way above the limit?..."

Now surely those really in need of education are the groups who are mainly involved in accidents, i.e. the younger driver (under 25s) and the elderly.

Anything else is just attacking the wrong target.

Remember, figures clearly show that the main risk groups that I have just mentioned (under 25s and elderly) are those least likely to be caught speeding.

Therefore, the whole discussion of "speeding" driver behaviour "modification / improvement" is utter rubbish.

I say again, it's addressing the wrong target.

Answers: (1) more realistic driving test - detail discussed on another thread (2) Re-tests for the elderly.

TripleS

4,294 posts

265 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
RRG said:
Lot of sense being talked here. One comment; 'The Limit' is always talked about in absolute terms as if its preordaned and 100% correct. In reality they are totally arbitary. If so many people break them (risking fines in the process) then maybe the law makers should really wake up and realise that maybe 'The Limit' is wrong in the first place. I suggest;

Dense urban/schools etc: 20mph
Normal urban: 30mph
Good A/B roads: 60mph about right
Dual carriageway: 80mph (day), 90mph (00:00-06:00)
Motorway: 90mph (day), unlimited (00:00-06:00)

Totally agree with staggered license/training suggestions.

Question is: everyone agrees, but how do we get it implemented? This is a democracy, afterall


Well I'm sorry but I do not agree. Bearing in mind that you are driving enthusiasts, and mostly high performance car owners, how many of you truly accept that our open road speed limits are anything like reasonable and satisfactory in relation to your own driving style?

The notion that one can not legally exceed 60 mph anywhere at all on our road system (except for dual carriageways and even then it's only 70) no matter how perfect the conditions is quite ludicrous - and some of you are accepting that?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Tafia

2,658 posts

271 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
The Welsh Talivans usually catch folks accelerating a few yards too early as they approach a national limit but, "the powers that be" are proposing that folks driving a couple of miles an hour above a limit, even in perfectly safe circumstances ( see above) should be retrained.

Surely you all do not accept that? It's ludicrous.

bogush

481 posts

289 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
Zeddy said:
I'm just about to start motorcycle lessons and thoroughly agree with the structure of the license.

One tweak I'd insert is bhp per ton rather than straight bhp limits.


Shouldn't it be the same for bikes?

Big difference between a spotty 7st yoof and a mature and powerfully built............... (not to mention ruggedly handsome, kind, generous, witty, sophisticated and intelligent in a down-to-earth kinda way).

adrianmugridge

12,266 posts

307 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
I drove on a road today in Lancashire where up until a few weeks ago the limit was 60. Now a 2 to 3 mile section has been made a 40. As far as I know there have been no crashes on this road recently. So, a few weeks ago it was legal to drive at 60, and now, it's 20 miles per hour over the limit.

My point is that the speed limit is purely arbitory. For example, if a crash occurs today on that road at 60 mph the driver would be blamed for driving at excessive speed but a couple of weeks ago they would not ! But it's the same speed on the same road ! But last week it was okay and now it's not.

TripleS

4,294 posts

265 months

Friday 3rd September 2004
quotequote all
adrianmugridge said:
I drove on a road today in Lancashire where up until a few weeks ago the limit was 60. Now a 2 to 3 mile section has been made a 40. As far as I know there have been no crashes on this road recently. So, a few weeks ago it was legal to drive at 60, and now, it's 20 miles per hour over the limit.

My point is that the speed limit is purely arbitory. For example, if a crash occurs today on that road at 60 mph the driver would be blamed for driving at excessive speed but a couple of weeks ago they would not ! But it's the same speed on the same road ! But last week it was okay and now it's not.


I was talking to a local IAM member who insisted that at no point on the Whitby to Scarborough road is it ever safe to exceed 60 mph, no matter how perfect the conditions might be. He was quite adamant about it, but it just strikes me as a bit coincidental that the speed limit also happens to be 60 mph. For those of you who do not know the road, there are no dual carriageway sections.

I wonder what his view would be if the speed limit were to be changed to 55 mph or 65 mph for example! What then would be his maximum safe speed I wonder?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

cptsideways

13,831 posts

275 months

Saturday 4th September 2004
quotequote all
TripleS said:
I was talking to a local IAM member who insisted that at no point on the Whitby to Scarborough road is it ever safe to exceed 60 mph, no matter how perfect the conditions might be.



Ah yes that bit of rather nice road, Mr IAM is talking out of his ass quite obviously (i'll let him off for the big bendy bits on the hill though you can do those at those speeds in a decent car just)

Now at some time in the past I have allegedly been the passenger in car down there at at least 4 numpty units allbeit for not very long, ok thats probably a few miles at that speed. Of course this was an early am run in daylight, it was quite safe on the open sections to do that sort of speed, ok maybe half that speed then I add I was only the passenger allbeit a very observant one.

>> Edited by cptsideways on Saturday 4th September 00:15

Mad Moggie

618 posts

264 months

Saturday 4th September 2004
quotequote all
adrianmugridge said:
I drove on a road today in Lancashire where up until a few weeks ago the limit was 60. Now a 2 to 3 mile section has been made a 40. As far as I know there have been no crashes on this road recently. So, a few weeks ago it was legal to drive at 60, and now, it's 20 miles per hour over the limit.

My point is that the speed limit is purely arbitory. For example, if a crash occurs today on that road at 60 mph the driver would be blamed for driving at excessive speed but a couple of weeks ago they would not ! But it's the same speed on the same road ! But last week it was okay and now it's not.




Ahhhh! The County where they have over 300 fixed scams and as many mobiles. (They have yet another one on St. Thomas Road - just withing the 40mph zone (arguably well placed in vicinity of a so-called "Beacon" secondary school - on a 40 mph zone ever since it was Chorley Grammar School which locals state to "Willi Speedifonlyhecould" (member of this family) has never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever been the site of any

Sounds about right for the County whose KSI rate has increased by ca 30% since the forest of speed cams appeared ....... since most of the speed limits were reduced ...... enforced by speed cam and staff at the local hospital report that "clients" were not watching the road .......so what were they claiming to have been watching ...?

Oh - and this is County which has increased levels of drink drive/drug accident cases (Police's own figures ... and verified by the haemotology depts' records ...), and the county which has officer Dibble patrolling on his ownsome (his own account on here and verifiable by fact that nobody actually sees a cop car like they used to in this County ....)

The Speed Course (and a course which - according to Vrenchen's colleagues - who attended this - teaches hazard perception and certainly does not bang on the "party line") - is a good idea - but aimed at wrong target and is thus undermined - and still aimed at wrong target despite so-called changes (which my colleague appears to be exempt from - but he was pinged before this "lenient" approach...).

Do not misunderstand us - courses like this are a good idea - and should form part of the 5 year graded assessment we constantly talk about - which would hopefully make speed cams much less viable as we would all choose safest speed for driving . and be more responsible as pedestrians ..... .

But the manner in which they are being offered undermines the whole point of the exercise - it causes resentment and is perceived aas "punishment". A just over first "offender" should receive a warning and this retraining as alternative/ or even in addition (in some cases) to points offered to "more serious speeding offences/second offences"

Ted typing and Vrench being a back seat passenger calling me "Liebchen" as constant ...


ooops - few typos cos she is very distracting ....

>> Edited by Mad Moggie on Saturday 4th September 00:26

adrianmugridge

12,266 posts

307 months

Saturday 4th September 2004
quotequote all
There is actually some more interesting infomation regarding the bit of road I was on yesterday. It's a section of the A65 between Kirby Lonsdale and the M6. A few months ago a load of rumble strips were put down, maybe 10 or more sections. The local paper had an article that said motorists where increasing their speed as they went over them because they had worked out that their cars are jarred less the faster they go !!

Anyway, not only has the limit now changed, but the rumble strips have been removed.

On the different issue, not relating to speed : I'd like to know what the council has to say on the matter that it wasted lord knows how much of the council tax payer's money on this measure in the first place and then spends even more taking the strips out and putting up extra signs ! Still, I suppose it does not matter to the people who make these decisions, after all, it's not their money, so what do they care !! ( Don't start me off on this subject !! )

Mad Moggie

618 posts

264 months

Saturday 4th September 2004
quotequote all
adrianmugridge said:
There is actually some more interesting infomation regarding the bit of road I was on yesterday. It's a section of the A65 between Kirby Lonsdale and the M6. A few months ago a load of rumble strips were put down, maybe 10 or more sections. The local paper had an article that said motorists where increasing their speed as they went over them because they had worked out that their cars are jarred less the faster they go !!

Anyway, not only has the limit now changed, but the rumble strips have been removed.

On the different issue, not relating to speed : I'd like to know what the council has to say on the matter that it wasted lord knows how much of the council tax payer's money on this measure in the first place and then spends even more taking the strips out and putting up extra signs ! Still, I suppose it does not matter to the people who make these decisions, after all, it's not their money, so what do they care !! ( Don't start me off on this subject !! )



The locals in the area are already well lathered up about this. An extra patrol BiB or even school teacher could have been recruited instead of wasting our hard earned money...

They just do not think things through to the bigger picture ... answer is always "speed camera makes roads safe" - and this is pure fanatasy ....


The rumble strips were irritating - it was never a particularly dangerous road either. Of course - thy may have used some fine money for this - one way to spend it ..... and dupe the public yet again ....