Signs that show your speed.

mikey72

Lum wrote: »

..........My issue with the courses is purely about how they get people onto them, and .........

They don't get anyone on to them, you have to do it yourself, and break the law first.

Lum

Like I said, I've never been on one

It just irritates me how the thresholds get moved around when money enters the game when it should be about safety and driver education above all else.

Mids_Costcutter

Lum wrote: »

The price of those courses varies massively if you shop around. Some are as low as £65, some are £130. There's only a few companies that do them (AA Drivetech and TTC being the main ones) and they're all roughly the same content and length, so someone somewhere is making a profit out of them, though possibly not Warwickshire.

Improve driver behaviour yes, and from what I'm told (never been on one) the content of the course is actually quite good, focusses on a lot more than just sticking to the speed limit, something which is only a contributory factor in 4% of KSI collisions. (source: DFT)

Do you have the reference for this please?

My issue with the courses is purely about how they get people onto them, and the bloody obvious jump in speed awareness thresholds that occurred at around the time that responsibility for funding the camera partnerships was moved to the councils.

In 2010 the government also cut the Road Safety Grant by almost 50% and fines from safety cameras go directly to the Treasury not to local authorities to fund road safety programmes. So what should local councils do? Aren't more motorists on the courses preferable anyway, as the education route offers the opportunity to improve behaviour?

If you don't believe me, FOI your favourite camera partnerships and ask them what the threshold for a speed awareness course is in each speed limit, and for the history of that threshold over the last few years.

Obviously some are taking the mick more than others. Warwickshire seem to be one of the better ones so maybe try a different one.

Thanks for your views.

Bongles

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

However shouldn't the main aim be to improve driver behaviour by stopping speeding?

The main aim should be to improve driver behaviour through education (which is what these courses try and do, although you can only hope to educate someone who has chosen to be open to education). That education needs to cover two things:

1) A reminder that it is the driver and the driver alone who is responsible for continuously assessing the changing road and hazard conditions and judging an appropriate speed, and that simply adhering to speed limits is far from sufficient, and

2) how to assess an appropriate speed for the road and hazard conditions.

Lum

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Thanks for your views.

The number comes from a March 2004 report called "Review of the contributory factors system" that used to be available for download on the DFT website. The conclusion was:

Inattention: 25.8%
Failure to judge other person's path or speed: 22.6%
Looked but did not see: 19.7%
Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless: 18.4%
Failed to look: 16.3%
Lack of judgement of own path: 13.7%
Excessive speed: 12.5%

These do not add up to 100% because accidents often have multiple causes.

Now that 12.5% figure differs from the 4% I quoted, but remember that I said that "speeding" (defined as exceeding the posted speed limit) was a cause of 4%. Excessive speed also includes people like the plonker doing 69mph on an ice-covered motorway in thick fog. Yes this is an extreme example but it illustrates the point.

You get the 4% figure based on some figures obtained from Avon&Somerset police under FOI. 67% of accidents categorised as "excessive speed" actually happened within the speed limit! Things like sticking to 70mph even though the road is covered in an inch of water and your car is fitted with Linglongs would fall into that 67%.

I strongly believe that this behaviour is an increasingly common problem due to 10 years of safety campaigns telling people that they will be safe providing they stick to the speed limit. The classic example of that is the "hit me at 30" advert. You know the one, cute little girl "hit me at 30 and there's an 80% chance I'll live, hit me at 40 and there's an 80% chance I will die". I prefer the third option. "Look where you're going, realise there's a kid in road and stop without hitting me at all and there is a 100% chance I will live".

It's also worth noting that the 4% figure also includes joy riders, drunks and other people who wont be paying attention to cameras or flashy warning signs.


Regarding your second point, yes I agree that sending more motorists on the courses is generally a good thing. I just object to the way it's being done putting profit first. This is quite simply a revenue stream for the council and it is highly likely that they are leaning on the camera partnerships to be self funding by sending more people on these courses.

Is this the right thing? maybe. Are they doing it for the right reasons? Absolutely not.

Also, of those 8 categories, 5 of them could all easily be grouped together into one "observation". Not excessive speed, not speeding, just simple failure to look and be aware of your surroundings, but with the exception of one police force that I'm aware of (Cheshire) nobody runs a Driver Alertness Course.

Bongles

Lum wrote: »

...with the exception of one police force that I'm aware of (Cheshire) nobody runs a Driver Alertness Course.

I wonder if you're thinking of the same thing I am. There's a thing called the National Driver Alertness Course which I believe is basically a rebranding (a retrograde rebranding IMO) of what used to be the National Driver Improvement Scheme. It's a course you might be offered as an alternative to a careless driving prosecution in the same way that you might be offered a speed awareness course as an alternative to a speeding prosecution, and I thought provision was quite widespread. As far as I'm aware, it's no more run by police forces than speed awareness courses are run by police forces.

Lum

It was NDAC I was on about, not NDIS.

However it seems your point is still correct. It's become a lot more widespread since I last looked at it.

Must keep my info more up to date.

Bongles

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

You should always drive within the prevailing road conditions. The speed limit is one of these.

I wouldn't describe the speed limit as a prevailing road condition. It's a different class of condition. Your speed needs to be appropriate from two independent points of view of and I think it's unhelpful to muddle them:

a) safety, and
b) any additional legality constraints (e.g. the speed limit).

The prevailing road and hazard conditions - i.e. what you can see out the window - combined with your anticipation and planning is what you use to achieve a). It would be a mistake to think that your speedometer or a flashing sign by the side of the road can help with a). They help with b).

Bongles

Lum wrote: »

It was NDAC I was on about, not NDIS.

However it seems your point is still correct. It's become a lot more widespread since I last looked at it.

Must keep my info more up to date.

I think NDAC is fairly new. It's probably only become widespread fairly recently because it only came into existence fairly recently.

Lum

Bongles wrote: »

I wouldn't describe the speed limit as a prevailing road condition. It's a different class of condition. Your speed needs to be appropriate from two independent points of view of and I think it's unhelpful to muddle them:

a) safety, and
b) any additional legality constraints (e.g. the speed limit).

Bingo we have a winner!

The problem is the more time you spend dealing with b) the less time you spend dealing with a)

In that regard, gadgets like these roadside signs and the GPS camera detectors do provide a safety benefit as they free up more brainpower to deal with a)

In my ideal world policing would be much more focussed on a)