Speed awareness course - or not?

Jackinbox99

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

this option is nolt always available in a fine/points letter but you can write back offering to do this course if theyre willing to appoint you to a SAC centre.

In my experiences local police forces have a certain criteria in which they use to offer the SAC to people. For example, my brother got rammed off the road by a driver a few years back - his car ended up down a ditch and was so badly damaged it was written off by the insurance company. He was lucky not to be seriously injured. The driver of the other car did not stop, but returned to the scene later after a change of heart. We subsequently had a letter from the police saying they were not prosecuding the driver for dangerous driving and he was going on a speed awareness course.

As a comparison, I got my first set of points last year, for doing 80mph in a 70mph on a dual carrageway. I was overtaking a lorry and had a long queue of traffic behind me waiting to overtake me. Fair enough, 80 in a 70 is speeding, but I do 40k miles a year and have never made a car insurance claim in 20years, so I was anxious to avoid points and learn how I can drive safer. I wrote to the police asking if I could do a speed awareness course and they wrote back saying that they did not offer it for my offence.

So, my local police are really saying they regard a speeding motorist as not someone who would benefit from a speed awareness course and should be fined, have points and the subsequent higher insurance - but a dangerous hit-and-run driver on the other hand should not have any points on their license and is an ideal canditate for a speed awareness course. Go Figure! Id have thought it would be the other way around!!!

3 points on my license increased my premium this year by £60.

Flyboy152

Jackinbox99 wrote: »

In my experiences local police forces have a certain criteria in which they use to offer the SAC to people. For example, my brother got rammed off the road by a driver a few years back - his car ended up down a ditch and was so badly damaged it was written off by the insurance company. He was lucky not to be seriously injured. The driver of the other car did not stop, but returned to the scene later after a change of heart. We subsequently had a letter from the police saying they were not prosecuding the driver for dangerous driving and he was going on a speed awareness course.

As a comparison, I got my first set of points last year, for doing 80mph in a 70mph on a dual carrageway. I was overtaking a lorry and had a long queue of traffic behind me waiting to overtake me. Fair enough, 80 in a 70 is speeding, but I do 40k miles a year and have never made a car insurance claim in 20years, so I was anxious to avoid points and learn how I can drive safer. I wrote to the police asking if I could do a speed awareness course and they wrote back saying that they did not offer it for my offence.

So, my local police are really saying they regard a speeding motorist as not someone who would benefit from a speed awareness course and should be fined, have points and the subsequent higher insurance - but a dangerous hit-and-run driver on the other hand should not have any points on their license and is an ideal canditate for a speed awareness course. Go Figure! Id have thought it would be the other way around!!!

3 points on my license increased my premium this year by £60.

The issue with both accounts is evidence. Your brother's collision, although very distressing, was not witnessed by a police officer with the necessary equipment. They had no proof as to whose fault it was, only a supposition that on balance, it was the other driver. It would have been impossible to establish his exact speed and therefore could not prosecute him for speeding, but they may have concluded that he was probably driving too fast. In your case, the evidence was there and there would have been no disputing it; ergo, you were prosecuted for the offence.

Gene_Hunt_2

Lum wrote: »

I'm also talking about the recommendations in the earlier editions of Roadcraft (which the IAM system is based on) not the recommendations for the basic driving test.

Which was updated about 15 years ago.;)

Lum wrote: »

So you're in an advisory 60, stuck behind someone doing 50 it would have been legal to overtake them at 70 and Roadcraft recommended doing so.

Only if the speed limit was 70.

hubert_cumberdale

my insurance went down as i got a quote and thought my 6 points had expired then when i realised they hadnt i called back and got a requote and it was £72 cheaper what a result mind you that didnt offset the 2 x £60 fines i had

Jackinbox99

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The issue with both accounts is evidence. Your brother's collision, although very distressing, was not witnessed by a police officer with the necessary equipment. They had no proof as to whose fault it was, only a supposition that on balance, it was the other driver. It would have been impossible to establish his exact speed and therefore could not prosecute him for speeding, but they may have concluded that he was probably driving too fast. In your case, the evidence was there and there would have been no disputing it; ergo, you were prosecuted for the offence.

Ah, in my brothers case a bus load of passengers witnessed the event and got the other drivers number plate. I think this is what made the driver return to the scene of the crime and admit to causing the accident.

I was just puzzled that a dangerous driver would get a speed awareness course - as like you say, he may not have been speeding, but just driving dangerously. Once he did the course, all would have been forgotten about and his insurance company has no way of knowing just how dangerous a driver the guy was.

In my case, fair enough, i was speeding, the evidence was there in black/white and not disputed. I guess the police figured 80 in a 70 wasnt "dangerous" enough. I did read somewhere that they tend to only offer the SAC to those who are caught speeding in 30mph zones - where it is more dangerous.

Lum

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Which was updated about 15 years ago.;)

Yes, indeed it was, I stated quite clearly I was referring to the older editions. Funny how police driving standards are in decline since this update though, isn't it?

Only if the speed limit was 70.

In the days when the white sign with the black diagonal stripe meant "derestricted" there was no speed limit on such roads.

Gene_Hunt_2

Lum wrote: »

In the days when the white sign with the black diagonal stripe meant "derestricted" there was no speed limit on such roads.

Hardly relevant to a speed awareness course then is it?

Flyboy152

Jackinbox99 wrote: »

Ah, in my brothers case a bus load of passengers witnessed the event and got the other drivers number plate. I think this is what made the driver return to the scene of the crime and admit to causing the accident.

They would not have been able to prove what his speed was and neither does it prove the driver's intention on return.

I was just puzzled that a dangerous driver would get a speed awareness course - as like you say, he may not have been speeding, but just driving dangerously. Once he did the course, all would have been forgotten about and his insurance company has no way of knowing just how dangerous a driver the guy was.

I didn't say whether he had been driving dangerously or not, but the police concluded that he was probably driving too fast. Again, with the lack of evidence (and a bus load of people recording his registration number is not enough evidence of dangerous driving), it would have been impossible for the police to prosecute him for anything.

In my case, fair enough, i was speeding, the evidence was there in black/white and not disputed. I guess the police figured 80 in a 70 wasnt "dangerous" enough.

I imagine they did consider driving at that speed to be dangerous, hence the reason for you prosecution.

I did read somewhere that they tend to only offer the SAC to those who are caught speeding in 30mph zones - where it is more dangerous.

That may very well be the case.

Lum

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Hardly relevant to a speed awareness course then is it?

This thread went off topic about a page back. Pretty sure all the OPs questions were answered though.

Gene_Hunt_2

Lum wrote: »

This thread went off topic about a page back. Pretty sure all the OPs questions were answered though.

Interesting how you brought Road Craft into a speeding thread. The police of course have an exemption to speed, Joe public doesn't.