Speed Awareness courses
Discussion
In light of the current threads related to young driver accident involvement concerns and how the driving test might be toughened up I came across this in the last day or so.
The Speed Awareness Course is based very closely on the National Driver Improvement Scheme courses which are intended to improve driving standards - recent research undertaken by TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) has shown that the effects on those persons having taken a National Driver Improvement Scheme are insignificant as there were no changes in driver behaviour. An excerpt from the research says "It does not appear that attending an NDIS course is effective in reducing subsequent rates of conviction for careless driving but it does appear that course attendance is associated with higher rates of conviction for speeding".
Which does not sound very positive for anyone seeking success through enforced training regimes (of any kind since the NDIS has a rather broader objective than speed awareness does it not?) and suggests that encouraging individuals to seek self improvement would be a better focus, though still unlikely to change things much for the great majority for whom driving is a necessary evil rather than something to be actively enjoyed where and when possible.
On the other hand the comment selected seem a little contradictory. How can you claim on the one hand that behaviour was not influenced and then claim that you spotted a trend for higher conviction rates for speeding? Does that mean that the careless drivers originally targeted were no less careless but felt more confident than before and therefore started to drive more quickly more often? Or simply drove more often? Or what?
Any observations from the PH massive? Especially from those on the enforcement side or who have been through a Speed Awareness or NDIS Course already.
[footer]Edit for typos.[/footer]
source said: said:
The Speed Awareness Course is based very closely on the National Driver Improvement Scheme courses which are intended to improve driving standards - recent research undertaken by TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) has shown that the effects on those persons having taken a National Driver Improvement Scheme are insignificant as there were no changes in driver behaviour. An excerpt from the research says "It does not appear that attending an NDIS course is effective in reducing subsequent rates of conviction for careless driving but it does appear that course attendance is associated with higher rates of conviction for speeding".
Which does not sound very positive for anyone seeking success through enforced training regimes (of any kind since the NDIS has a rather broader objective than speed awareness does it not?) and suggests that encouraging individuals to seek self improvement would be a better focus, though still unlikely to change things much for the great majority for whom driving is a necessary evil rather than something to be actively enjoyed where and when possible.
On the other hand the comment selected seem a little contradictory. How can you claim on the one hand that behaviour was not influenced and then claim that you spotted a trend for higher conviction rates for speeding? Does that mean that the careless drivers originally targeted were no less careless but felt more confident than before and therefore started to drive more quickly more often? Or simply drove more often? Or what?
Any observations from the PH massive? Especially from those on the enforcement side or who have been through a Speed Awareness or NDIS Course already.
[footer]Edit for typos.[/footer]
Edited by LongQ on Monday 8th January 02:30
LongQ said:
Any observations from the PH massive? Especially from those on the enforcement side or who have been through a Speed Awareness or NDIS Course already.
I have a female friend who undertook the course - well, let's say it hasn't worked. She was all houlier than thou for a week, but now is back to her old ways. Yet she gets all sanctimonious about my road positioning.........
I don't expect sitting in a classroom for a morning is likely to have much of an effect on driving standards - although compliance seems to be the only this the officials are interested in....
My mate went on one of these a year or so ago, one of the things they suggested was putting the car in a lower gear to reduce you tendacy to speed (presumably by the engine revving more and the car being louder) - my mates first thought to that was "hmm, that'd be right in the powerband
"
My mate went on one of these a year or so ago, one of the things they suggested was putting the car in a lower gear to reduce you tendacy to speed (presumably by the engine revving more and the car being louder) - my mates first thought to that was "hmm, that'd be right in the powerband
"OK so the speed courses could well be the waste of time that has long been suspected. But they are surely just a way that the government, through its lapdogs at the scamera partnerships, presnet its 'kind and understanding' face to minor transgressors without making it too blatant that they are actually just lowering thresholds.
BUt the messgae behind the message is thet the National Driver Improvement Scheme, whatever that is in its entirety, is also a waste of time. In turn that suggests that the people who created it don't know what they are doing OR that there is a deeper vein of public psyche to be reached.
Or its not important to the public at large and that the entire road safety message is a concoction of the authorities, whatever their reasons, because the public en masse are in fact 'comfortable' with the risks according to their own innate risk assessment.
BUt the messgae behind the message is thet the National Driver Improvement Scheme, whatever that is in its entirety, is also a waste of time. In turn that suggests that the people who created it don't know what they are doing OR that there is a deeper vein of public psyche to be reached.
Or its not important to the public at large and that the entire road safety message is a concoction of the authorities, whatever their reasons, because the public en masse are in fact 'comfortable' with the risks according to their own innate risk assessment.
Or just possibly none of the above?
LongQ said:
On the other hand the comment selected seem a little contradictory. How can you claim on the ine hand that behaviour was not influenced and then claim that you spotted a trend for higher conviction rates for speeding? Does that mean that the careless drivers originally targeted were no less careless but felt more confident thean before and therefore started to drive more quickly more often? Or simply drove more often? Or what?
That's an interesting puzzle!
LongQ, where does the quote come from? Is there hard evidence that those who have attended these courses offend again (or should I say get caught again) soon after?
I don't think the course is actually offered to those that break the limit by a worthy margin, but is only offered to those that slip over the limit slightly. If they're then not taught to keep a better watch out for cameras on the course (do the course operatives want to do themselves out of a job I would ask here?) perhaps that explains why they re-offend! After all, low end speeding is as common as muck and easy-peasy to detect, and if you've been caught once it does suggest your camera detection may not be upto scratch, hence you get caught again.
Still, I suppose at the very least it creates jobs for a few.
My friend, Doctor Hans-Hermann from germany, opted to take a course instead of points, I think he was done for 36 in a 30, and apparently debated lively with them all the way through, but they said they couldn't understand his accent! Cop out!
deeps said:
LongQ said:
On the other hand the comment selected seem a little contradictory. How can you claim on the ine hand that behaviour was not influenced and then claim that you spotted a trend for higher conviction rates for speeding? Does that mean that the careless drivers originally targeted were no less careless but felt more confident thean before and therefore started to drive more quickly more often? Or simply drove more often? Or what?
That's an interesting puzzle!
LongQ, where does the quote come from? Is there hard evidence that those who have attended these courses offend again (or should I say get caught again) soon after?
The quote is from some meeting minutes I stumbled upon whilst cruising the web but the original information that particular quote refers to is apparently from a TRL report for the Government which assessed the benefits (or otherwise it seems) of the NDIS training which, presumably, had been running for some time.
Part of that training ( as I understand it) is the basis of most of the Speed Awareness courses offered around the country.
I think the report referred to may be TRL 649 but I have not yet found an on-line free source for it yet.
DfT offers this one:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610571.pdf
If seems to say pretty much the same thing by way of executive summary.
DfT offers this one:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610571.pdf
If seems to say pretty much the same thing by way of executive summary.
LongQ said:
Or its not important to the public at large and that the entire road safety message is a concoction of the authorities, whatever their reasons, because the public en masse are in fact 'comfortable' with the risks according to their own innate risk assessment.
I think that's mostly it.
...and I'm mostly happy with them being happy.
Any "Speed Awareness" course is ether going to have to lie or undermine the credability of SCPs and the underlying policies. Good.
LongQ said:
In light of the current threads related to young driver accident involvement concerns and how the driving test might be toughened up I came across this in the last day or so.
The Speed Awareness Course is based very closely on the National Driver Improvement Scheme courses which are intended to improve driving standards - recent research undertaken by TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) has shown that the effects on those persons having taken a National Driver Improvement Scheme are insignificant as there were no changes in driver behaviour. An excerpt from the research says "It does not appear that attending an NDIS course is effective in reducing subsequent rates of conviction for careless driving but it does appear that course attendance is associated with higher rates of conviction for speeding".
Which does not sound very positive for anyone seeking success through enforced training regimes (of any kind since the NDIS has a rather broader objective than speed awareness does it not?) and suggests that encouraging individuals to seek self improvement would be a better focus, though still unlikely to change things much for the great majority for whom driving is a necessary evil rather than something to be actively enjoyed where and when possible.
On the other hand the comment selected seem a little contradictory. How can you claim on the one hand that behaviour was not influenced and then claim that you spotted a trend for higher conviction rates for speeding? Does that mean that the careless drivers originally targeted were no less careless but felt more confident than before and therefore started to drive more quickly more often? Or simply drove more often? Or what?
Any observations from the PH massive? Especially from those on the enforcement side or who have been through a Speed Awareness or NDIS Course already.
[footer]Edit for typos.[/footer]
source said: said:
The Speed Awareness Course is based very closely on the National Driver Improvement Scheme courses which are intended to improve driving standards - recent research undertaken by TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) has shown that the effects on those persons having taken a National Driver Improvement Scheme are insignificant as there were no changes in driver behaviour. An excerpt from the research says "It does not appear that attending an NDIS course is effective in reducing subsequent rates of conviction for careless driving but it does appear that course attendance is associated with higher rates of conviction for speeding".
Which does not sound very positive for anyone seeking success through enforced training regimes (of any kind since the NDIS has a rather broader objective than speed awareness does it not?) and suggests that encouraging individuals to seek self improvement would be a better focus, though still unlikely to change things much for the great majority for whom driving is a necessary evil rather than something to be actively enjoyed where and when possible.
On the other hand the comment selected seem a little contradictory. How can you claim on the one hand that behaviour was not influenced and then claim that you spotted a trend for higher conviction rates for speeding? Does that mean that the careless drivers originally targeted were no less careless but felt more confident than before and therefore started to drive more quickly more often? Or simply drove more often? Or what?
Any observations from the PH massive? Especially from those on the enforcement side or who have been through a Speed Awareness or NDIS Course already.
[footer]Edit for typos.[/footer]
Edited by LongQ on Monday 8th January 02:30
Problem with the Speed Aware ist that it targets blips as opposed to OTT speeding.
Courses appear to vary as well with some merely playing hazard aware DVD und others having a morning of driving theory followed by a practical. I recall the three reps telling me that all on their course were middle aged to elderly und all pinged at 34/35 mph. They said the person giving the course came out with one or two interesting comments
"We aim to teach you how to be more observant - there ist strong possibility that you get pinged more than once as goal posts are changing"
Once of them apparently asked if the threshold was designed to get bums on seats here.. und the person giving the course apparently did not take offence but apparently said the cut off did seem low und let slip that they were all Driving School Instructors who had received specific training to give this course.
NDIS as I understand ist a three session affair .... but there ist also another question mark here... careless driving ist one charge und speeding ist another charge... so ist the careless dropped und the speeding not?
Or does the person who attended the course then fall victim to a ping at 77 mph from a motorway bridge?
Und how long after this course do these people ping a camera?
At what margin? Bearing in mind they on data base for three years und cannot attend a second DIS/Speed Aware in that time. I know of someone who pinged two scams recently in LanCASH£££re. Both were within Speed Aware threshold .. on same day
She did the course for one und had to pay Fixed Penalty on the other. A few week before that she also had Fixed Penalty at Shap on M6.. I wonder if her two speeding fines were counted und weighed against the effectiveness of the Speed Course .. which then mean that yet again we have flaws in recording stats und thus judging overall success of these schemes.Hmm.
A quick browse of some search results suggests (I may have got this wrong as I glanced through the information) that the NDIS course costs around 150 for 1.5 days including practical driving time and the 'Speed Awareness' course about 130 ish for half a day in a mainly or exclusively classroom environment.
Presumably one spins more money than the other.
However since neither have been the subject of a report lauding the results and the success of the scheme (so far as I know) that would seem to suggest that the old adage that people pretty much only have 'learning events' about things that they are interested in would seem to make any ideas about extended training, using the methods and approaches currently employed, somewhat pointless. Which is a shame but not really unexpected.
So the key to a driver improvement approach through training is to find the hot button of learning desire for each and every driver so that the individual shares and enthusiasm for the real benefits it would offer them. It is likely that there would be a large range of such hot buttons. And they have to be real and involved if you want the effect to last any time at all - as the investigations referenced earleir seem to suggest.
The other options are to penalise people off the road or attempt to artificially enforce safety through other policies - traffic calming, reducing speed limits and enforcing even lower limits on certain types of commonly used vehicles (goods and buses for example) or ultimately 'remote' control of vehicles by one means or another.
As for penalising people off the roads - how exactly would that work? Lock up any transgressors? Not happening much now and we seem unwilling to build more gaols to hold serious criminals let alone motorists who transgress technical boundaries.
Presumably therefore the people who may indeed be quite legitimate targets for such drastic enforcement will eventually just carry on driving outside the legal right to do so. In which case they probably will have no real bother at all, like the 2 'drunken, unemployed foreign nationals' in Norfolk who undertook a car damaging spree in full view of CCTV cameras but will be going completely unpunished it seems because they are 'unemployed and foreign nationals' so the costs of prosecution are pointless compared to the cost of damage they caused. Also no point in claiming costs from them since they are unemployed and foreign nationals.
So, that's alright then.
Maybe UK Plc should just put some ads in the media of the world inviting all and sundry to visit for some sort of giant wrecking spree. Whilst they are here they could get driving experience by nicking a car and tearing around with no regard to the law because as foreign nationals it would not be worth prosecuting them and the cost to the public would be greater than the benefit. Strangely for some reason if you are already here such conclusions seem to be unavailable to you, especially if you do have a moral desire to live within the law and are in a financial position to do so.
The only positive angle on the apparent approach is that someone somewhere seems to have though about the net cost to benefit ratio (even though they are condemning innocent parties to a burden of costs they do not deserve).
Now if that thought, using some vaguely realistic figures, could also be rolled out to the Scamerati we get to a more generally supported view of road safety.
I'm not holding my breath. There appear to be changes afoot in the partnership world that will, if my incomplete understanding and predictive abilities are close to guessing correctly, likely make things ever more obfuscated and ever more pressured as a revenue generator with high income targets.
We may think the Treasury is greedy but I rather suspect the Local Authorities will show them up as amateurs in the money extraction game.
Running 'Speed Awareness' courses could be one way to generate funds, with the the proceeds being collected by the Police working with the courts. All you need is a steady supply of punters. Now where do you find them?
Which is an interesting thought really since the recently dropped concept of merging many forces into much bigger units would surely have made such arrangements much more complex to negotiate would it not? There must be more to that than meets the eye as well.
A quick browse of some search results suggests (I may have got this wrong as I glanced through the information) that the NDIS course costs around 150 for 1.5 days including practical driving time and the 'Speed Awareness' course about 130 ish for half a day in a mainly or exclusively classroom environment.
Presumably one spins more money than the other.
However since neither have been the subject of a report lauding the results and the success of the scheme (so far as I know) that would seem to suggest that the old adage that people pretty much only have 'learning events' about things that they are interested in would seem to make any ideas about extended training, using the methods and approaches currently employed, somewhat pointless. Which is a shame but not really unexpected.
So the key to a driver improvement approach through training is to find the hot button of learning desire for each and every driver so that the individual shares and enthusiasm for the real benefits it would offer them. It is likely that there would be a large range of such hot buttons. And they have to be real and involved if you want the effect to last any time at all - as the investigations referenced earleir seem to suggest.
The other options are to penalise people off the road or attempt to artificially enforce safety through other policies - traffic calming, reducing speed limits and enforcing even lower limits on certain types of commonly used vehicles (goods and buses for example) or ultimately 'remote' control of vehicles by one means or another.
As for penalising people off the roads - how exactly would that work? Lock up any transgressors? Not happening much now and we seem unwilling to build more gaols to hold serious criminals let alone motorists who transgress technical boundaries.
Presumably therefore the people who may indeed be quite legitimate targets for such drastic enforcement will eventually just carry on driving outside the legal right to do so. In which case they probably will have no real bother at all, like the 2 'drunken, unemployed foreign nationals' in Norfolk who undertook a car damaging spree in full view of CCTV cameras but will be going completely unpunished it seems because they are 'unemployed and foreign nationals' so the costs of prosecution are pointless compared to the cost of damage they caused. Also no point in claiming costs from them since they are unemployed and foreign nationals.
So, that's alright then.
Maybe UK Plc should just put some ads in the media of the world inviting all and sundry to visit for some sort of giant wrecking spree. Whilst they are here they could get driving experience by nicking a car and tearing around with no regard to the law because as foreign nationals it would not be worth prosecuting them and the cost to the public would be greater than the benefit. Strangely for some reason if you are already here such conclusions seem to be unavailable to you, especially if you do have a moral desire to live within the law and are in a financial position to do so.
The only positive angle on the apparent approach is that someone somewhere seems to have though about the net cost to benefit ratio (even though they are condemning innocent parties to a burden of costs they do not deserve).
Now if that thought, using some vaguely realistic figures, could also be rolled out to the Scamerati we get to a more generally supported view of road safety.
I'm not holding my breath. There appear to be changes afoot in the partnership world that will, if my incomplete understanding and predictive abilities are close to guessing correctly, likely make things ever more obfuscated and ever more pressured as a revenue generator with high income targets.
We may think the Treasury is greedy but I rather suspect the Local Authorities will show them up as amateurs in the money extraction game.
Running 'Speed Awareness' courses could be one way to generate funds, with the the proceeds being collected by the Police working with the courts. All you need is a steady supply of punters. Now where do you find them?
Which is an interesting thought really since the recently dropped concept of merging many forces into much bigger units would surely have made such arrangements much more complex to negotiate would it not? There must be more to that than meets the eye as well.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff