The Great Speed Awareness Course Scam
Options
Comments
-
On that basis you could make everyone drive at 5mph. It doesn't really wash. The aim should be to minimise the accidents in the first place.
But we do not. The reason is that the law is about striking a balance. Two scenarios: Nobody drives any motor vehicles anywhere !!!8211; 100% safe (and impractical). No speed limits anywhere - 100% unsafe (and highly undesirable). Parliament has decided where the balance between the two is marked. The aim is to reduce accidents (in fact almost all of them are not !!!8220;accidents!!!8221; at all but the result of negligence of some form or another). A raft of measures are in place to achieve that including speed limits.Nope I didn't suggest that [that the speed of the car will not influence the outcome] at all.
I beg your pardon but you did:The problem in the scenario is NOT the speed of the driver,
Of course the initial cause of the problem was the pedestrian stepping into the road. But since that problem is one of the hazards encountered by drivers and since such incidents cannot be reasonably foreseen speed limits must be imposed to minimise the damage. It is simply not good enough to suggest that a pedestrian stepping into the road carelessly must take the consequences of a car travelling at excessive speed because they were the cause of the problem to begin with.
I think I!!!8217;m out now.0 -
silverwhistle wrote: »I see the speeding apologists are out in force on this thread, with the usual implication that they are a safe driver and the speed they chose was a safe one.
From a Met policeman who booked someone for doing a rather fast speed on a motorbike down Hyde Park at 4 in the morning: "I'm not booking you for speeding but because you didn't see me"...
I was told very similar when I got my first (and only) speeding points back in the early 90s. Quiet sunny Sunday, long open road through Tidworth heading out towards Marlborough, and 30 something in a 30 driving a Yugo 55.
The guy was stopped watching, I did see him but didn't realise I was over the limit. As he pointed out, I didn't react as he became visible so my awareness wasn't as great as I thought it was that day.
Was kind of glad he got me on the way out rather than on the way back when I was towing my mate's Sierra that had broken down and I'd gone to collect. On a rope, with an 1100 Yugo, from north of Marlborough to Middle Wallop.
Those were the days :rotfl:0 -
TooManyPoints wrote: »But we do not. The reason is that the law is about striking a balance. Two scenarios: Nobody drives any motor vehicles anywhere - 100% safe (and impractical). No speed limits anywhere - 100% unsafe (and highly undesirable).
Third scenario:
No speed limits anywhere BUT lifetime ban if you're involved (not caused, involved) in an accident. 5 years inside for breaking such ban, life for breaking it twice.
Pretty damn safe and self regulating once the country got used to it and would enormously change driver attitudes and improve the overall standard of those left on the roads.
But if they ever did it I'm taking a 5 year holiday on Mars while things settle down because the first few years will be carnage!0 -
No it goes back to the Safety Camera Partnership to run the cameras and the vans. Not to pay for a new chauffeur driven car for the Chief Constable.
Really?!
From 9 years ago . . . 2009
Ex-traffic officer is making £1million a year out of courses for drivers who speed
from The Evening Standard
(sorry MSE prevents me putting up the link)
"Chris Howell is profiting from police policy which allows motorists to escape fixed three-point penalties by attending driving classes.
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.
The Association of Chief Police Officers said it was "deeply concerned" by the sums being earned by DriveTech.
"This scheme should not lay people a golden egg," said ACPO's Ian Aspinall, who is in charge of speed awareness courses nationally, adding: "It is all about community safety. This should not be about making money."0 -
Really?!
From 9 years ago . . . 2009
Ex-traffic officer is making £1million a year out of courses for drivers who speed
from The Evening Standard
(sorry MSE prevents me putting up the link)
"Chris Howell is profiting from police policy which allows motorists to escape fixed three-point penalties by attending driving classes.
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.
The Association of Chief Police Officers said it was "deeply concerned" by the sums being earned by DriveTech.
"This scheme should not lay people a golden egg," said ACPO's Ian Aspinall, who is in charge of speed awareness courses nationally, adding: "It is all about community safety. This should not be about making money."
There's a few ex police on who appear to be making a fourtine who have had their loopholes closed.0 -
Of course it doesn't, no other penalty is set on that basis.
You seem unaware or have forgotten that one part of the UK does have a Jaywalking Law the breaching of which can result in a fixed penalty or a more substantial fine at court.
https://www.lurganmail.co.uk/news/town-protester-put-others-at-risk-by-jaywalking-rules-district-judge-1-4761935
If pedestrians are not deterred by the risk of death or injury, why would they be deterred by a £100 fine?
And no, I wasn't aware that jaywalking was a crime in NI. But it will be a sad day when we take NI as our model of a civilised society.0 -
This is a futile point. It's a generalisation and says nothing that isn't obvious. The problem in the scenario is NOT the speed of the driver, it is the fact that a person has stepped in front of a car. Maybe I'm being picky but for me, the prospect of a pedestrian being hit at all is unacceptable. This is why the whole "Speed Kills" campaign of the 90s was utterly stupid. It basically said that at high speed an impact is likely to kill someone whereas at lower speeds, well, they'll only get severely injured or maimed . . . . as if that were somehow acceptable !!
The idea is NOT to have pedestrians stepping out in front of cars at all is it not ? and the solution to that has absolutely nothing to do with drivers speeding marginally over the limit.
No the original point is essentially that what should be a sincere campaign to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities has been usurped by fat cat private firms who see the entire thing as a very lucrative money spinning venture that can earn them money at the fantastic rate of £500 per hour or more ! The campaign is therefore no longer genuine, it's spirit has been lost. Greed and the pursuit of money has now trumped the desire to reduce accidents and fatalities. The whole thing is a farce. The money and effort should be being channelled into finding ways to people better drivers and to make pedestrians more safety aware.
And again this argument, trotted out by quite a few people, fails to address the underlying issues. Me travelling within the speed limits is NOT going to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on the roads. The greatest advances in reducing those statistics have come from three primary areas:
1. Compulsory seat belt wearing
2. Better car safety aspects
3. More advanced/efficient tyres and braking systems
I can't take you seriously, because all you are doing is ranting. Learn to argue more succinctly rather than ranting which just makes you lack any credibility.
Speed does make a difference as it makes you less able to anything about the stupidity of other road users. Having the attitude of 'Tough! He/she shouldn't have done what led to the incident' in unproductive and is part of the reason why insurance goes up even if the incident isn't our fault. We have to moderate our speed and ensure safe travelling distances and do more to avoid collisions.
Most incidents are not accidents. They are rarely unavoidable.
Ask yourself this question. If your child stepped out in the road, even though they shouldn't, how would you feel if that child was struck by a driver speeding, whether above a prescribed limit or in ignorance of road conditions.
At the same time, I do wonder whether an over-reliance on cameras is making drivers drive to the presence of cameras in wanton ignorance of the limits.
If you don't want the punishment/education, don't do the crime.0 -
silverwhistle wrote: »I see the speeding apologists are out in force on this thread, with the usual implication that they are a safe driver and the speed they chose was a safe one.
From a Met policeman who booked someone for doing a rather fast speed on a motorbike down Hyde Park at 4 in the morning: "I'm not booking you for speeding but because you didn't see me"...
If they're sat there with a speed camera it wouldn't make much difference since they'd have already clocked you. Your comment suggests that if the motorbike driver had seen the police and slowed down, they wouldn't have been booked, something that I believe often used to happen in the days when police considered conditions and not just legality.
Who decides what is safe though? Many schools have the signs with reduced limits at certain times. Some motorways and other major roads have variable speed limits that can be reduced if needed (signs on overhead gantries for example). In an ideal world that could be extended across much of the road network, but the cost and logistics would be far to high.
Instead we get stretches of road such as one where I used to live, where the speed limit has been reduced along several parts, from national speed limit to 50mph, 40mph and in a couple of places had the 30mph limit extended.
Like many places in the country, at certain times of day you'd be lucky to even get up to 30mph there, but whatever the reasons were for reducing the speed limits, most of those factors aren't relevant 24/7.
[Sarcasm]Luckily we have the safety camera vans there occasionally to catch people who are speeding. A shame they do it on clear parts of the road where people are tempted to go a little faster, but never seen on the 'dangerous' parts of the road that were the reason the speed limit was lowered. So any drivers who decide to speed along the parts where accidents are more likely, are unlikely to get caught unless they're involved in an accident themselves.[/Sarcasm]0 -
So you got caught speeding a little, probably no great shakes, maybe doing anywhere from 31mph to 41mph in a 30mph limit (and yes they ARE pulling up people at 31mph !!!!) and they offered you an NSAC (National Speed Awareness Course).
Sounds great. No points on your licence, no conviction and thus no insurance premium hike right?
But what is really going on here . . .
Let me break it down because like me, you've just become the latest victim of what is a MULTI-MILLION POUND SCAM.
Stopped reading after that, stick to speed limit and everything after you posted after that does not apply
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards