The Great Speed Awareness Course Scam

Deastons

Johno100 wrote: »

Perhaps the speed limit is inappropriate?

You're suggesting that 81% of drivers know better about what speed is appropriate for a particular road?

Judging by a lot of the driving I see, I wouldn't trust most drivers to wipe their own bottoms properly, let alone judge the appropriate speed for a road. I'll leave that up to the experts.

Stoke

I definitely think the 20mph limits outside schools need to stay and should be adhered too. If people think it's acceptable to speed on them, they should be reduced to 15mph. Like I said, the speed limits in this country are woefully inadequate and outdated. Far too many decent roads are capped at 60mph because of history and far too many dangerous roads need lowering, if only to protect life.

Exemplar

Guerillatoker wrote: »

^^ Definitely people who drive at 60 in the middle lane on the motorway when the left lane is clear ^^

Front mounted rocket launchers?

Cornucopia

Deastons wrote: »

You're suggesting that 81% of drivers know better about what speed is appropriate for a particular road?

There's clearly an issue when the vast majority of drivers are ignoring the limit. In fact, there are several issues:-

1. The road cues are not telling drivers that the road is "20 for a reason".

2. Other road users may assume that the 20 limit is effective when it clearly isn't.

3. Enforcement is going to be problematic when it is a matter of shooting fish in a barrel. Similarly, a complete lack of enforcement does nothing to enhance respect for the law.

4. In London, borough-wide 20 limits are being introduced, and arguably these are an ideological imposition rather than being based on sound road-safety or consent principles.

Judging by a lot of the driving I see, I wouldn't trust most drivers to wipe their own bottoms properly, let alone judge the appropriate speed for a road. I'll leave that up to the experts.

If drivers are so incompetent, why do we let them drive at all?

(Not a flippant question).

TooManyPoints

If drivers are so incompetent, why do we let them drive at all?

It's not a flippant question by any means. In some cases the answer should clearly be "We should not."

The number of examples of horrendously incompetent driving is truly astonishing. You see it everywhere. It seems to me that drivers are taught to pass their test, then that's it. Most of the "stuff" they were told about to get through that test (including speed limits) goes straight out of the window along with their torn up L Plates. There have been suggestions on here that "blanket" speed limits are inappropriate and that variations should be made to account for varying conditions, congestion, time of day etc.. I disagree. Many drivers when caught speeding complain that "the limit changed from 30 to 50 to 40 - I just couldn't keep track". Fair comment, but being a competent driver means knowing the prevailing limit at all times.Imagine then if a High Street was 20mph during shop opening hours (if that could be narrowed down sufficiently)., 30 mph in the evening, 40mph midnight to 6am (for example) - all reduced by 5mph if it is raining. How would drivers cope then?

Speed limits are, to a degree, a blunt instrument. But some method of controlling speed has to be exercised and it simply cannot be left to individual drivers to decide what is an appropriate speed to travel. Moaning that you are victim of a "scam" when caught is really not a runner..

Johno100

Deastons wrote: »

You're suggesting that 81% of drivers know better about what speed is appropriate for a particular road?

Speed limits used to be set using the 85th percentile rule and still are in many countries around the world. Namely the speed that 85% of traffic does not exceed.

Explained here in more detail:-

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html

Deastons wrote: »

Judging by a lot of the driving I see, I wouldn't trust drivers to wipe their own bottoms properly, let alone judge the appropriate speed for a road. I'll leave that up to the experts.

The experts :rotfl:

Since central government allowed local councils to set their own limits and disregard the 85th percentile rule it is local elected officials not traffic engineers who have been driving this reduction in limits. Often in the belief that it will be a populist decision that will help them around election time.

reeac

Cornucopia wrote: »

There's clearly an issue when the vast majority of drivers are ignoring the limit. In fact, there are several issues:-

1. The road cues are not telling drivers that the road is "20 for a reason".

2. Other road users may assume that the 20 limit is effective when it clearly isn't.

3. Enforcement is going to be problematic when it is a matter of shooting fish in a barrel. Similarly, a complete lack of enforcement does nothing to enhance respect for the law.

4. In London, borough-wide 20 limits are being introduced, and arguably these are an ideological imposition rather than being based on sound road-safety or consent principles.


If drivers are so incompetent, why do we let them drive at all?

(Not a flippant question).

No, it's a good point. There is an unwritten assumption that the efficient running of the country depends on the vast majority of the population being able and permitted to drive and having access to a vehicle when needed. Our town planning, public transport systems and much else depend on this. There is a degree of regulation in the system in the shape of the law and Darwinian elimination of tearaways but mostly the system works in the UK because, on the whole, we are a fairly placid race.

TooManyPoints

Speed limits used to be set using the 85th percentile rule....

Did they? I'm not aware of that ever being so in the UK. How would it work in practice? Would every road have to have its limit temporarily lifted and a survey conducted to see what speeds drivers manage? Clearly a non-starter.

Experts do not set speed limits, politicians (either local or national) do. As with most legislation, they have to strike a balance between absolute freedom to do what you like and complete restriction to do nothing at all. That balance has to respect the rights of people to do things (in this case to get about) whilst imposing restrictions to reduce hazards which could endanger everybody (in this case the peril of vehicles travelling at excessive speed). This is what they have done. Many may not agree with the current limits and they should lobby their MPs or local councillors for a change. But they are (or should be) well known and are usually well advertised.

misterbarlow

my wife got done by a cam van last year doing 35 in a 30, she said she wasn't gong to sit and be preached to all afternoon, and rejected it and took the fine/points!!

A guy in work went on one too recently, he said when they all left two cars drove out of the car park aggressively and flew off, and the guy who took the course was there smoking, and said to the others smoking with him that he was gonna fail those two and make them pay and take it again..

Herzlos

I honestly can't see any situation in which I'd rather pay £100 + 3 points (+ insurance premiums for 4 years) over paying £90 and having to be preached to for an afternoon.


Even if I didn't learn anything (and lots of people claim the courses were actually pretty good), it'd still keep me 3 points further away from a ban, which might come in handy at some point. I think there are always those that speed off feeling that they are making some kind of point but I doubt anyone really cares.