The Great Speed Awareness Course Scam

TooManyPoints

Yes, drivers and pedestrians do silly things which often lead to collisions. That will not be changed overnight, if ever. The idea of speed limits is to mitigate the results of such stupidity. It is unarguable that (generally) a collision at 40mph will result in greater damage and/or injury than one at 30mph. Your comparison with controlling the speed of vehicles and doing the same with that of a bullet is inane.

Deastons

Knapper wrote: »

ONLY when the gun is deliberately or accidentally pointed in the direction of a human, will a death or injury occur.

Or when someone unwittingly moves into the path of the bullet.

And that's the point. People driving through my village at 30mph give everyone plenty of time to correct any mistakes. The ones driving though at 60mph do not.

Roads are used by everyone - not just vehicles.

That's why there are rules as to where you can shoot a gun. On a shooting range, no-one cares. But try firing a gun in my village and see what happens. I can assure you the armed police that appear within minutes won't be interested in your "but I wasn't shooting at anyone" argument.

Knapper wrote: »

Therefore it is NOT the speed of a bullet that kills, it is the person who AIMS the gun at another human.

If I aimed my car at you and drove at 5mph, I suspect you step out of the way. Or perhaps I'd manage to hit you have you'd have a small patch of dirt on your trousers.

But if I did the same at 100mph, you'd die.

So you see, speed does kill.

Cornucopia

The thing about analogies is that they often require a fair wind and a conciliatory attitude in order to get the best from them.

Clearly bullets and cars are not the same - for one thing, cars serve a useful purpose when used properly, whereas bullets, in the UK, have a more mixed justification.

From the discussion, I think we are genuinely dealing with one of those issues in which there are (at least) two valid(ish) positions. Personally, I favour the "appropriate/legal speed is fine" argument, and I think that reflects the reality of the science and of the statistics.

We seem to do this weird and often counter-productive thing in the UK, where we create pariah activities and pariah participant groups - where the activities involved are perfectly legal and legitimate. Moral indignation is alive and well and simmering behind a net curtain near you.

Driving and Drivers are one such category, fuelled by a tiny minority who are genuinely dangerous and anti-social on the roads. What we need is messaging, enforcement and retraining aimed at that minority. Blanket messages that do not reflect the experiences and respect the experience of drivers are a waste of time, and at the margins could conceivably undermine the skills and diligence already being employed successfully on the roads. We can already see that some drivers have lost faith in some speed limits, as a consequence of an overly cautious approach by the authorities. This creates a more dangerous road environment in which there is a dangerously wide range of speeds amongst traffic on the same road.

Some helpful statistics:-

- 327.1 Billion miles were driven on UK roads in 2017.

- In the same year, there were 186,209 casualties of all severities.

That's one casualty for every 1.8 million miles. Of course it can be improved, but it doesn't suggest the failed road safety environment that some people (including some in authority who should know better) seem to want us to believe.

Knapper

Deastons wrote: »

If I aimed my car at you and drove at 5mph, I suspect you step out of the way. Or perhaps I'd manage to hit you have you'd have a small patch of dirt on your trousers.

But if I did the same at 100mph, you'd die.

So you see, speed does kill.

This argument as I have said before is woefully inadequate. Let's be clear again, the reason for any injury or death would indisputably be YOU aiming your car at me. The speed is irrellevant except that it determines the amount of damage, the speed is not the cause, you the driver would be.

The other disappointing outcome of this weak argument, which is the same as the hateful "Speed Kills" campaign, is that it essentially says:

"Hey, slow down to 30mph because it's not ok to kill people on the road but it sure is just fine to maim or permanently disfigure someone doing just 30mph"

It's a stupid argument. It is NOT ok to hit anyone at ANY speed.

So the root cause must be tackled here not the money generating symptom of speed.

Interesting isn't it how we can drive at 70mph on motorways. Not really any pedestrians on motorways. . .

Interetsing isn't it how trains can run at 100mph on railways. Not many pedestrians on rail tracks. . .

So why is it that we permit pedestrians to romp all over the roads, running across them, going half way across and getting stuck, failing to use available pedestrian crossings, walking down blind country roads and so on?

Jaywalking is a crime in the USA. It should be the same here. Start penalising the stupid pedestrians for near misses and dangerous antics, and we might just start to make them think differently when they are around roads.

Same goes for cyclists many of whom are utterly moronic, riding through red lights, undertaking cars, swerving in an out of traffic lanes and so on. Actually I have recently read that new legislation for cyclists is on the way so perhaps some progress there..

Any way we cut this, the £100m+ raised last year from scam Speed Awareness Courses could be better spend on education of pedestrians, drivers and cyclists in an allround way rather than focussing on speed. Install tons more iron rainings along roadsides to encourage people to walk 20yds to the proper crossing. Build more foot bridges and so on.

Mercdriver

Pedestrians walk down blind country roads because the road is a public right of way. You repeatedly say too much and say much that is wrong. Cars and lorries are not the only roadusers, and are not the only one with the right to use the road.

Speeding makes an incident more likely because there is less time to take evasive action by ALL parties. Your assumption that speed is uninvolved is vastly fallacious. Typing reams of information speaks of self obsession.

fred990

I guess those in charge will take no notice of motorists over analysing the drivers vs cyclists vs pedestrians arguments because they don't have to? The 1mph infringement sounds like it might be gaining traction. There are simply far too many drivers now (until fully autonomous vehicles arrive) and in the future that can so easily be relieved of their money! It won't change.

TooManyPoints

If think if Mr Knapper would accept that (a) roads (other than motorways) are provided for purposes other than driving motor vehicles, (b) that all road users sometimes do stupid things and (c) speed is almost invariably a direct function of the amount of damage/injury caused we might move on. Arguing that instead of enforcing speed limits (by means of a "scam") we should educate people so that they do not behave stupidly, or perhaps confine pedestrians to the pavement (if there is one) is just about the most fatuous argument I have encountered lately. I resolved not to dip into this thread again (but cannot help myself). However, unless anything useful arises I'm out because the OP's argument, weak as it was to start with, has become increasingly bizarre.

Cornucopia

I think we've possibly become bogged down by excess verbiage.

The simple premise is that road safety enforcement and education
should focus on the actual causes of accidents, such as they are.

Focusing on speed because it's "simple", "easy" or for the purpose of ingratiation with particular stakeholder groups is a nonsense and does nothing to address whatever problem it is that is claimed to exist.

We've seen the political carnage that results from ignoring the silent majority, so let's bear that in mind in this area of policy.

Knapper

Cornucopia wrote: »

The simple premise is that road safety enforcement and education should focus on the actual causes of accidents, such as they are.

Agreed

Cornucopia wrote: »

Focusing on speed because it's "simple", "easy" or for the purpose of ingratiation with particular stakeholder groups is a nonsense and does nothing to address whatever problem it is that is claimed to exist.

Correct

We are at a point, perhaps more than ever, where the public needs to be convinced that the authorities and core services are operating FOR the people, put there to serve the people, paid for by the people via taxes.


Creating and perpetuating a multi-million pound scam, founded on the easy target of driver speeding, and hocked out to private firms to exploit freely, does absolutely nothing to improve that perception and indeed greatly harms it.


As I posted earlier ITT


Ex-traffic officer is making £1million a year out of courses for drivers who speed

from The Evening Standard


"Last year Mr Howell and his wife Philippa received a £1.3million dividend paid by his company DriveTech. Pre-tax profits more than doubled to £2.6million - 18 months after launching London's speed awareness scheme.

Mr Howell's business is so successful he is now reckoned to be one of the highest paid ex-police officers in the country. "




This all needs to stop.

almillar

This all needs to stop.

If nobody speeds will this ex-traffic officer suddenly be out of business?