The Great Speed Awareness Course Scam

Johno100

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

Everybody's circumstances are different, carer for a relative, working abroad or in a different part of the country, self-employed and a high earner so the economics don't add up. And anyway in this time of a very competitive insurance market the increased premiums for 3pts are in most cases negligible and often wiped out by being a year older, having a years extra NCB.

I think many of those who take the course do it out of vanity. Take the points and they can't (truthfully) boast down the pub or at a family get together that they've had a clean licence for X years.

motorguy

Johno100 wrote: »

Everybody's circumstances are different, carer for a relative, working abroad or in a different part of the country, self-employed and a high earner so the economics don't add up. And anyway in this time of a very competitive insurance market the increased premiums for 3pts are in most cases negligible and often wiped out by being a year older, having a years extra NCB.

I think many of those who take the course do it out of vanity. Take the points and they can't (truthfully) boast down the pub or at a family get together that they've had a clean licence for X years.

I think many do it out of common sense.

Its a no brainer for 99% of people. Why get 3 points on your licence when you dont have to?

And i'm self employed and i'd still do it given the choice.

Richard53

If you don't like the 'scam' of the course, just take the points and pay the fine. You had the choice.

Johno100

TooManyPoints wrote: »

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.

Yes, the 85th percentile was used in this country for many decades as the basis to set speed limits. That was when Councils had to adhere to Department for (was 'of') Transport regulations for setting limits. As to how it would work in practice? With existing roads it would of course only come into play when there was a proposal to reduce an existing historic limit and then a survey would be undertaken.

TooManyPoints wrote: »

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).

BIB and that is the problem, they are swayed by minority interest groups, focus groups and that they can add another 'achievement' to their next election pamphlet.

TooManyPoints wrote: »

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.

And when was the last time you heard of a speed limit being increased?

Bedhead1157

My problem with speed cameras in NI is that they are ALWAYS positioned heading out of a 30 or 40 just before an NSL, you could happily drive halfway through a village at whatever speed you like, to be caught literally 50 m before the road becomes 60.

I got caught at 41, despite the fact I was being overtaken at the time, fair cop, went down the next day and paid the £60 and took the points. Week later I was offered a SAC for 90 quid. Bit late.

Didn't get my licence back for months, seemingly it was lost whilst they expected me to take the SAC, they found it in an office in the PSNI station.

Muscle750

I have a app on my phone where you can put in the reg number and it will tell you wether the vehicle is taxed and MOT last night whilst waiting for my wife to come out the Lards in Leotards class some Toyota hilux pulls up with what can only be described as "Traveller" types thought id have a look .......................guess what last taxed 465 days ago, It was on a 14 plate and looked clean yet these people get away with it yet we go 1 mph over in some circumstances and we get ripped

Herzlos

Johno100 wrote: »

Everybody's circumstances are different, carer for a relative, working abroad or in a different part of the country, self-employed and a high earner so the economics don't add up. And anyway in this time of a very competitive insurance market the increased premiums for 3pts are in most cases negligible and often wiped out by being a year older, having a years extra NCB.

I'm not sure, I got 3 points (albeit a red light camera) and the best I could find was about a £200 increase this year (and I'm on 15 years NCD). So with the points and fine I'm already £300 worse off and I've still got to declare them for 3 years. You'd need to be earning a lot of money before it becomes cheaper to take the points + insurance hike. Plus the course keeps you one mistake further away from a bus pass.


Sure, I can appreciate some people genuinely can't get the time off to do the course, or don't want to waste a days holiday, but for the vast majority the course seems like a total no brainer.

I think many of those who take the course do it out of vanity. Take the points and they can't (truthfully) boast down the pub or at a family get together that they've had a clean licence for X years.

I don't think it's that at all. Lots of driving jobs require 6 or less points on a license; thus taking the course allows you to get caught 4 times before losing your job rather than 3.

Car_54

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm not sure, I got 3 points (albeit a red light camera) and the best I could find was about a £200 increase this year (and I'm on 15 years NCD). So with the points and fine I'm already £300 worse off and I've still got to declare them for 3 years.

Five years.

Knapper

Deastons wrote: »

Hitting a pedestrian/cyclist at 20mph is very unlikely to kill them.

Hitting a pedestrian/cyclist at 60mph is almost certainly going to kill them (or, at the very least, leave them with life-changing injuries).

So how is "speed kills" wrong in this example?

It's wrong because it is not the speed that is killing the pedestrian, just as the speed of a bullet is not the thing that kills a person.


What kills the pedestrian is a either a driver not concentrating or being unable to control the vehicle in the conditions at that specific time, or it's the actions of the pedestrian themselves, putting themselves into the path of a car WITHIN it's available stopping distance.


The speed is not the thing that kills a person it is whatever put the car and person in a collision scenario.


The entire "Speed Kills" campaign of the 70s/80s was imho a pile of crud and remains so.

TooManyPoints

It's wrong because it is not the speed that is killing the pedestrian, just as the speed of a bullet is not the thing that kills a person.

Really? So a bullet at rest or hitting a person at, say, 5mph, will cause equal damage to one travelling at muzzle velocity? Perlease!