Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Knapper
    • By Knapper 9th Aug 18, 4:57 PM
    • 19Posts
    • 6Thanks
    Knapper
    The Great Speed Awareness Course Scam
    • #1
    • 9th Aug 18, 4:57 PM
    The Great Speed Awareness Course Scam 9th Aug 18 at 4:57 PM
    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.


    You see in days gone past you'd get stopped by a good old policeman standing at the side of the road. He's a man (or woman) and has judgement, intelligence and no great desire to penalise you unnecessarily. He would tell you your speed, check if you have a license, MOT, insurance and then depending on what speed you were doing and where it occurred he may, or may not, send you off with a caution. He could exercise judgement and sensible impartiality.


    Roll on a few years and now you have dedicated vans driving around whose sole purpose in life is to catch YOU doing anything from 1mph over the speed limit. You also have cameras everywhere. These cameras and people ARE NOT impartial, they don't exercise judgement, they simply record speed and ruthlessly generate Notices Of Intended Prosecution to those they catch.


    They are part of a huge machine which is the MULTI-MILLION POUND BUSINESS I mentioned.


    You must understand that what they are doing is nothing whatsoever to do with speed reduction or engendering better driving skills in the nation. What they are doing is recruiting course participants for their MULTI-MILLION POUND BUSINESS.

    Every participant on average will pay them £90 for the privilege of attending a 4 hour Speed Awareness Course (NSAC). The more participants they generate the more money the business earns.


    In 2017 there were some 1.2 million attendees of these courses. Do the math. That's over £100 MILLION POUNDS these fat cat private businesses are earning from hapless, easy target motorists.


    So what do people expect when they go on these courses?


    Well read a few reviews on the t'internet and you'll find tales of surprise and wonder. Where people thought they would be told off, patronised and subjected to films of horrific car crashes, there was instead much pleasantness and jolly humour and a bit of quizzing thrown in.


    Unfortunately, if you were one of those people who were surprised after attending an NSAC, then frankly you didn't/don't understand what the hell is going on.


    I will say it again, this is a MULTI-MILLION POUND BUSINESS !
    Do you think such a business, as with any other business, would survive if it patronised it's customers and gave them an uncomfortable time? No of course not.


    So these parasitic companies welcome you with words of understanding.
    "We know you don't want to be here"
    they tell you with pseudo empathy and they give you 4 hours of relaxing presentation, group activity and quizzing.


    Understand that the people presenting do NOT work for these private firms operating this MULTI-MILLION POUND BUSINESS. They are simply subcontracted presenters doing a simple job. They would, if you paid them the same £90 for 4 hours, give you a presentation on anything. Even how to best go to the toilet !!


    In the course I attended there were 24 people. Each paying £90. That's a tidy £2160 for the 4 hour session which equates to £540 per hour !!!!


    That's better than the Prime Minister !


    And for that these shameless parasites wouldn't even put on tea and coffee throughout that 4 hour period !


    Understand that the private companies, of which there are many, don't give a flying ***k about your driving habits. They are not in business to make you a better driver. They are in business to take £90 off as many people as they humanly can as quickly as they can before the entire system changes.


    The people at the top of this food chain are literally raking in £millions.


    Let me be clear though. The independent subcontracted presenters are genuine people. They do care and they mostly have good backgrounds. But that should not let you get distracted from the harsh reality that YOU have simply become the latest victim in what is simply a MULTI-MILLION POUND BUSINESS SCAM. A scam perpetrated by the Police (who are getting about £35 out of every £90 paid) and by the private firms.


    If you simply took the fine and points on your license the money would go straight to the Treasury.


    Not long back the Admiral Group of insurance companies were allegedly starting to ask people during the renewal process whether they had attended Speed Awareness Courses and if so treated it just the same as a speeding ticket, upping your premiums. I was told by the course presenters that 4 weeks ago they changed this tack as they were losing business, presumably as people went to insurance companies that didn't ask that question. The problem is however that the insurance companies are NOT getting their cut from this MULTI-MILLION POUND SCAM so the most likely outcome is that they will ALL pretty soon club together and agree to ask about NSACs during the renewal process. Once they ALL start doing that and the public have nowhere else to turn, THEN this entire scam will crumble because for most people there will be no point at all attending a speed awareness course as your insurance will go up anyway. The only people who would attend then would be people with 6 or 9 points already on their license who would go on a course to prevent getting a driving ban.


    The future seems obvious to me. This MULTI-MILLION POUND SCAM has a very finite life span which is doubtless why they are going hell for leather right now to generate as many £90 paying course candidates as they can. The courses are literally fully booked for weeks and months already.


    Right now, the choice is simple. You get offered the course, you take the course because it's not going to affect your insurance premium.


    However pleasant and sickly nice that course is though, understand one thing, you've been totally scammed and made a hapless target by fat cat private firms operating in league with the police to generate £millions.


    If they cared about your driving skills and behaviours one iota they'd be offering free or very cheap courses to ALL the public at ALL times.


    But they don't . . . .


    It's all about the money !
    Last edited by Knapper; 09-08-2018 at 9:03 PM.
Page 4
    • Johno100
    • By Johno100 11th Aug 18, 2:54 PM
    • 4,156 Posts
    • 4,943 Thanks
    Johno100
    The average course cost is about £90 of which the POLICE get about £35 I believe.
    Originally posted by Knapper
    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.

    As the other poster stated, if you took the fine instead then the money would into the Treasury, all of it. Thus it would be reinvested in public services.
    Originally posted by Knapper
    And as I have also stated at least twice on this thread. "Reinvested in public services" or used to cut the government deficit? No guarantee any of it'll go back to the police.

    The lion's share of the money is going into these private firms that have sprung up all over the country, unsurprisingly because a £500 per HOUR or more earning rate is extremely attractive.

    That lion's share is not going back to the public. It's going into the private firm fat cat's pockets.
    Originally posted by Knapper
    Yes, and we've both stated that that can be prevented by taking the fine and points.

    The police are happy with the situation because the government have cut their budgets over the years so having a nice money generating scam that produces anywhere from £35m to £50m a year for them is clearly something they are going to support and perpetuate.
    Originally posted by Knapper
    One of the things they cut in 2010 were the Road Safety Grants to police forces up and down the country. That money used to pay for speed cameras operations and the withdrawal led to a lot of cameras being switched off and van hours being reduced.

    http://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/issues/speed/knowledge/288.html

    The surplus received from the courses (after the cost of operating them) has filled that gap and most forces, if asked, will say the money is ring fenced for road safety matters specifically running the cameras and the vans via the Safety Camera Partnerships.
    Last edited by Johno100; 11-08-2018 at 3:05 PM.
    • TooManyPoints
    • By TooManyPoints 11th Aug 18, 2:55 PM
    • 141 Posts
    • 99 Thanks
    TooManyPoints
    And whilst that bit of maths and physics is interesting, it remains completely irrelevant because if a person, child or otherwise is going to run in front of a moving car WITHIN that car's braking distance, whatever the speed, then the person is going to get hit. Simple as
    .

    Indeed it is as simple as. Also very simple is that if you are struck at 30mph you have a 90% chance of living. If you are struck at 40mph you have a 90% chance of dying. I would imagine (though do not know for sure) that if you are struck at speeds higher than 40mph your chances of survival decrease whilst if you are struck at speeds slower than 30mph your chances of survival increase. If a person steps in front of a car doing 30mph and the driver immediately brakes the impact will be at a lower speed than if he was braking from 40mph.

    If the pedestrians don't have the required education to cross a road then it doesn't matter how fast you are going.
    You are being simply ridiculous. The higher the speed traveled at the point of initial braking (if indeed any braking at all occurs) the greater the impact speed is likely to be. The higher the impact speed the greater the damage is likely to be.

    All comes down to driving judgement.
    Unfortunately not all drivers are blessed with the same level of judgement Ė hence the need for speed limits to prevent pedestrians being mowed down by the dozy ones. But in any case your argument is going off track. There are more hazards in built up areas than just pedestrians and I thought your initial point was that drivers are being scammed by being given the opportunity to accept out-of-court disposals.

    Whilst I accept that a disproportionate amount of speeding offences result in punishment compared to other motoring offences that is scarcely a valid argument. But in any case, the answer is simple: donít break the speed limits then you wonít pay any money to anybody. There are about 48m driving licence holders in the UK. Letís be extremely generous and say that only half of them regularly drive. Last year speeding offences amounted to a little over 2m. So 22m (over 90%) regular drivers managed to avoid being detected for speeding. So it can be done.
    • Knapper
    • By Knapper 11th Aug 18, 3:18 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Knapper
    If a person steps in front of a car doing 30mph and the driver immediately brakes the impact will be at a lower speed than if he was braking from 40mph.
    Originally posted by TooManyPoints

    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.


    I thought your initial point was that drivers are being scammed by being given the opportunity to accept out-of-court disposals.
    Originally posted by TooManyPoints

    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.


    But in any case, the answer is simple: don!!!8217;t break the speed limits then you won!!!8217;t pay any money to anybody.
    Originally posted by TooManyPoints

    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
    Last edited by Knapper; 11-08-2018 at 3:56 PM.
    • TooManyPoints
    • By TooManyPoints 11th Aug 18, 4:59 PM
    • 141 Posts
    • 99 Thanks
    TooManyPoints
    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.
    The problem is both of those things. Of course the pedestrian is at fault. But everybody (including drivers) does stupid things from time to time. The idea of Road Traffic Law (in this case principally speed limits) is to minimise the damage caused when mistakes are made. The driverís speed at the time of the incident is crucial because the faster he is travelling the greater distance it takes him to come to a halt or at least reduce his speed so as injuries are kept to a minimum. It is certainly not a futile point. What you are suggesting is that if a pedestrian steps into the path of an oncoming car, the speed of that car will not influence the outcome and that is patently absurd.

    Maybe I'm being picky but for me, the prospect of a pedestrian being hit at all is unacceptable.
    Youíre not being picky. I think most right-minded people would say the same. But we both must accept that it does happen and to minimise injuries the speed of vehicles must be limited.

    The idea is NOT to have pedestrians stepping out in front of cars at all is it not ?
    Indeed it is. But they will continue to do so (just as drivers will continue to exceed the speed limits). You cannot divorce the two and say: Stupid pedestrians will step out in front of me. Thats their fault so Iíll travel as fast as I like.

    We will obviously not agree (a privilege we both enjoy) so there is not much point in harping on. But as I said, if a driver believes he is being scammed and is being invited to take part in what you see as an insincere project, he has options available to him even if he cannot avoid breaking the speed limit. The fact that the vast, vast majority of drivers who are offered a course take up the offer seems to indicate that you are in the minority.
    • Johno100
    • By Johno100 11th Aug 18, 5:29 PM
    • 4,156 Posts
    • 4,943 Thanks
    Johno100
    The problem is both of those things. Of course the pedestrian is at fault. But everybody (including drivers) does stupid things from time to time. The idea of Road Traffic Law (in this case principally speed limits) is to minimise the damage caused when mistakes are made. The driverís speed at the time of the incident is crucial because the faster he is travelling the greater distance it takes him to come to a halt or at least reduce his speed so as injuries are kept to a minimum. It is certainly not a futile point. What you are suggesting is that if a pedestrian steps into the path of an oncoming car, the speed of that car will not influence the outcome and that is patently absurd.
    Originally posted by TooManyPoints
    And can you point to a single current road safety initiative, regional or national, that addresses that issue, because I can't?
    • Knapper
    • By Knapper 11th Aug 18, 5:32 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Knapper
    The idea of Road Traffic Law (in this case principally speed limits) is to minimise the damage caused when mistakes are made.
    Originally posted by TooManyPoints

    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.


    The driver!!!8217;s speed at the time of the incident is crucial because the faster he is travelling the greater distance it takes him to come to a halt or at least reduce his speed so as injuries are kept to a minimum.
    Originally posted by TooManyPoints

    Naturally but that point remains true whether you drive at 30mph or 100mph. So the real question is who is determining that a car in a given location needs to be able to stop within a specified distance? Presumably the Road Traffic bods. But how do they arrive at that requirement? Is there a database somewhere that contains information on the distance pedestrians were from a car when they stepped out in front of it every time an accident occurred? And using such data they determine the most common distance and then determined what speed a car needs to be travelling at to be able to brake within that distance? Perhaps this stuff does exist . . . . or maybe they just slap a 30mph limit just about everywhere that is not a dual-carriageway because it's easier.


    Ultimately, if you truly want a nation of drivers to behave in a specific way then you need to properly convince them, heart and mind why that behaviour is needed. I drive down a dual-carriageway most days which has 2 lanes each side and a big central reservation. It has huge wide grass verges each side and then pavements. Despite this it is labelled as a 40mph limit. Why? because there's some ancient bridleway that existed before they built the carriage-way and so there exists the remotest possibility that one day someone on a horse might try to cross it. I've lived in my city all my life, over 50 years. Not once have I witnessed a horse cross that road, nor a pedestrian for that matter. It's a ludicrous speed limit and frankly 99% of cars that traverse that stretch of road do 50mph-60mph. It is quite safe to do so. But if they chose to these parasitic private firms could set up one of their stupid vans and clock drivers all day long to generate more money for themselves. Such is the world we live in.


    What you are suggesting is that if a pedestrian steps into the path of an oncoming car, the speed of that car will not influence the outcome and that is patently absurd.
    Originally posted by TooManyPoints

    Nope I didn't suggest that at all. What I am suggesting is that if a pedestrian steps out at a point within the car's braking distance REGARDLESS OF ITS SPEED, then the pedestrian will get hit.

    You cannot divorce the two and say: Stupid pedestrians will step out in front of me. Thats their fault so I!!!8217;ll travel as fast as I like.
    Originally posted by TooManyPoints

    Actually what every driver NEEDS to do is properly assess an entire range of factors, speed being but one of those and fairly far down the pecking order and then drive accordingly.


    Blindly following speed limits is actually stupid. Many country roads are marked as National Speed Limit when very patently it is hugely dangerous to do that speed. A good driver will recognise that and adjust speed accordingly. The road I was caught on was empty, early in the morning, zero pedestrians or other cars. Travelling in excess of 30mph was "safe as houses" as they say.


    I haven't been the cause of an accident for over 30 years. I assess a wide range of conditions constantly, think ahead, anticipate, am aware of the cars and bikes around me. That is far more important than blindly obeying a speed limit.
    • Knapper
    • By Knapper 11th Aug 18, 5:37 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Knapper
    One further point worth mentioning in this debate. If a pedestrian stupidly steps out in front of a car without looking properly and gets hit, and that driver was determined to be doing say 35mph in a 30mph limit, then the driver is going to get penalised. The pedestrian who has been injured and who may well have ended up causing injuries to others will likely walk away scott free, albeit injured.


    What we lack in this country is the crime of Jaywalking. Pedestrians are not penalised for stupid behaviour. Bring in jaywalking and the accident rates will start to plummet imo
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 11th Aug 18, 5:42 PM
    • 3,641 Posts
    • 2,260 Thanks
    Car 54
    But if they chose to these parasitic private firms could set up one of their stupid vans and clock drivers all day long to generate more money for themselves. Such is the world we live in.
    Originally posted by Knapper
    As others have explained to you, there are no such "parasitic private firms" who set up vans.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 11th Aug 18, 5:46 PM
    • 3,641 Posts
    • 2,260 Thanks
    Car 54
    One further point worth mentioning in this debate. If a pedestrian stupidly steps out in front of a car without looking properly and gets hit, and that driver was determined to be doing say 35mph in a 30mph limit, then the driver is going to get penalised. The pedestrian who has been injured and who may well have ended up causing injuries to others will likely walk away scott free, albeit injured.

    What we lack in this country is the crime of Jaywalking. Pedestrians are not penalised for stupid behaviour. Bring in jaywalking and the accident rates will start to plummet imo
    Originally posted by Knapper

    What penalty do you suggest for jaywalking? Bear in mind that to be a deterrent it needs to be more severe than death or serious injury.


    Also, could you give an example of a country with jaywalking laws which has safer roads than the UK?
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 11th Aug 18, 6:24 PM
    • 2,202 Posts
    • 3,114 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    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"...
    Last edited by silverwhistle; 11-08-2018 at 6:24 PM. Reason: formatting
    • Johno100
    • By Johno100 11th Aug 18, 6:51 PM
    • 4,156 Posts
    • 4,943 Thanks
    Johno100
    What penalty do you suggest for jaywalking? Bear in mind that to be a deterrent it needs to be more severe than death or serious injury.
    Originally posted by Car 54
    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
    • TooManyPoints
    • By TooManyPoints 11th Aug 18, 7:49 PM
    • 141 Posts
    • 99 Thanks
    TooManyPoints
    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.
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 11th Aug 18, 8:21 PM
    • 4,534 Posts
    • 4,017 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    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"...
    Originally posted by silverwhistle
    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
    Last edited by Joe Horner; 11-08-2018 at 8:28 PM.
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 11th Aug 18, 8:27 PM
    • 4,534 Posts
    • 4,017 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    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).
    Originally posted by TooManyPoints
    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!
    • Knapper
    • By Knapper 11th Aug 18, 8:54 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Knapper
    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.
    Originally posted by Johno100

    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."
    • AndyMc.....
    • By AndyMc..... 11th Aug 18, 9:36 PM
    • 2,569 Posts
    • 1,585 Thanks
    AndyMc.....
    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."
    Originally posted by Knapper
    There's a few ex police on who appear to be making a fourtine who have had their loopholes closed.
    Hi there! Weíve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if youíre unsure why itís been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Johno100
    • By Johno100 11th Aug 18, 9:50 PM
    • 4,156 Posts
    • 4,943 Thanks
    Johno100
    Really?!
    Originally posted by Knapper
    Yes really, (assuming your figure is accurate) the £35 goes back to run the cameras and vans.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 11th Aug 18, 9:50 PM
    • 3,641 Posts
    • 2,260 Thanks
    Car 54
    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
    Originally posted by Johno100

    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.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 12th Aug 18, 12:27 AM
    • 2,135 Posts
    • 1,449 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    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
    Originally posted by Knapper
    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.
    Last edited by Mercdriver; 12-08-2018 at 12:33 AM.
    • ben501
    • By ben501 12th Aug 18, 10:49 AM
    • 439 Posts
    • 718 Thanks
    ben501
    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"...
    Originally posted by silverwhistle
    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]
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

373Posts Today

2,770Users online

Martin's Twitter