|
Done speeding for 36 in a 30 and Driver Improvement after missing a red light. I didn't deliberately jump the light or even gamble on amber - first I knew was when I got the NIP.
Found both courses useful and informative and the ignorance of some my fellow 'students' quite alarming.
If I can pay the cost of a fine and avoid the points while learning useful stuff and getting coffee and biccies included I'm quite happy. If somebody can turn a profit running the courses then bully for them - we've all got to live.
|
Done speeding for 36 in a 30 and Driver Improvement after missing a red light. I didn't deliberately jump the light or even gamble on amber - first I knew was when I got the NIP.
Found both courses useful and informative and the ignorance of some my fellow 'students' quite alarming.
If I can pay the cost of a fine and avoid the points while learning useful stuff and getting coffee and biccies included I'm quite happy. If somebody can turn a profit running the courses then bully for them - we've all got to live.
These 'courses' should surely be about re-educating people who have forgotten what they should've learned when they were learning to drive, not as a means of the person running the course to earn a living or justifying their job's existance.
Nor should they be a way of avoiding fines and points on your licence for attending them like some work lunchtime seminar, where (in my experience) more and more colleagues attend solely because of the free food.
If you learn something useful or it reminds you of such a thing, then great, but they should be used very sparingly - I presume that motorists can't keep going on them every time they get caught 'just' going over the speed limit, etc? If not, then they don't appear to be achieving the goal of people driving more safely.
|
These 'courses' should surely be about re-educating people who have forgotten what they should've learned when they were learning to drive, not as a means of the person running the course to earn a living or justifying their job's existance.
If these courses can be justified, and I believe they can, then they must be provided in a proper professional way. Unless they're provided by volunteers or waged public servants then it's down to professional trainers who reasonably expect to make a living.
What else do you suggest?
Nor should they be a way of avoiding fines and points on your licence for attending them like some work lunchtime seminar, where (in my experience) more and more colleagues attend solely because of the free food.
You attend and follow the course protocol. That means not being late, not being disruptive and being willing to learn.
My current charitable employer provides food for course attendees, nobody goes just to eat dried out M&S 'rare' beef in even drier white bread.
Previous lot, HMG, tried to stop food at meetings as part of 'shock and awe' wave of austerity. In my unit business case was made. It pointed we were flying several participants from Scotland to London for a day long meeting, others came by train. To then lose them for an hour while they bought and consumed sandwiches, at recoverable cost, was an utter waste compared to buying in sandwiches for them to eat together in margins of event when actually a lot of stuff got done.
We got an an exemption.
If you learn something useful or it reminds you of such a thing, then great, but they should be used very sparingly - I presume that motorists can't keep going on them every time they get caught 'just' going over the speed limit, etc?
The rule of thumb is one every three years - bit like expiry of points. At one time multiplicity of providers and police forces meant those accepting two courses in three years had a good chance of getting away. My traffic light offence was in Leicester as was course. Speeding offence was in Plymouth barely a year later and took option for course to be in Northampton.
If I'd been challenged I'd have professed misunderstanding (the rules were not as clear as they might have been) and taken points for latter offence.
The E&W forces have since created a single database.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 13/02/2019 at 00:03
|
|
|
|
|
They will work well for some people and less well or not at all for for others, the only question being how many are in each category.
I'm nearly an expert, having done two. Only a fool would say they couldn't learn anything. One van driver on the first one learnt that goods vehicles have their own speed limits, and he'd been driving a van for 15 years!
I didn't find them patronising although they were pitched a bit low. But then the common denominator is so low that it's probably unrealistic to aim much higher than getting a basic message across, along with a few basic skills and a bit of knowledge.
I was surprised that the second one was actually a bit cheaper than paying the fixed penalty - £85 vs. £100.
|
|
Shame the driving test is the disgrace it is. If it was fit for purpose then perhaps people would not have an attitude to speed. The IAM test is not just about driving but mindset and passing the advanced driving test over 10 years past changed my mindset for sure. People seem to think 20 hours with an ADI provides them with the knowledge to drive for a lifetime and be safe as well as reasonably skilled. It tend to not concur with this.
|
|
I guess there is supposed to be an element of education which clearly works for some and perhaps the time out and being patronised is the punishment part. I wasn’t aware you could be “invited” to attend more than one of these. Surely having attended one and offended again you could be deemed even more guilty. It’s many years since I passed my driving test and is clearly tougher than it was in 1980 but some of the gaps in knowledge mentioned above really are shameful.
|
... I wasn’t aware you could be “invited” to attend more than one of these. ....
...Surely having attended one and offended again you could be deemed even more guilty.
One can only have a course every 3 years at minimum. Mine were 8 years apart.
The second point is not necessarily true. You can only have a course up to 10% +9mph above the limit, which excludes the most blatant (and more likely to be deliberate flouting of the limits).
My second course followed being caught at 36mph in a 30, which is about the minimum one would be reported for anyway (first was 47 in a 40, much the same). Neither case was wilful (you'll have to take my word for that). For example, the last one was at a camera site I have passed probably 200 times before and knew well. I was passing parked cars when a fast moving car approached, having just crested a hill, and I instinctively accelerated gently to clear the obstruction on my side of the road, Mistake!
Whilst it's an offence (a construct of course, not a crime against humanity) and a limit is a limit, I always thought it counterproductive to punish people who are actually trying to observe limits. It's inevitable that one will break them inadvertently from time to time (absence of being caught is not proof of innocence).
Not that I object to being caught and punished, within reason. It's necessary.
I don't think either was patronising BTW, nor were they accusatory. They were delivered by different providers, but I would describe both as good quality training. The content was good. I'm a motoring enthusiast and I actually possess an up to date copy of the HC and of Roadcraft. I've had advanced training, and so most of it was familiar to me. But reinforcement is never a waste of time, and it was clearly new territory for many of the attendees.
|
|
|
|
I've done one and so have both of my daughters. All 3 of us found the course useful and informative. In my case, we were able to go out in pairs at the end and drive for 20 minutes or so in a driving school car observed by an instructor. I was gutted to be put in a Renault Cleo rather than the Suzuki Swift which was also in the line up.
P.S. I also changed my driving - I stopped looking for cameras and concentrated on speed limit signs.
Edited by John Boy on 12/02/2019 at 19:50
|
|
All fair comment and good that the option is there, as Manatee has said there is a difference between deliberate speeding and inadvertently going over the limit although it’s fine line and hard to tell what’s intentional and accidental.
|
|
|
|
I found the general ignorance of speed limits most illuminating. The course was useful and reinforced my attention to speed limits.
But my main beef is that reminders of the 30mph limit are illegal. Unbelievable when so many semi rural roads are tree/bush lined with few houses or streetlamps, have a 30mph limit.
|
|
I agree with your second para, GWS. I don't know how many satnavs have speed limit indicators, but Audis do, and I'm very grateful for this.
I think the increasingly common (as optional extras) head-up displays have these as well.
|
|
|
But my main beef is that reminders of the 30mph limit are illegal. Unbelievable when so many semi rural roads are tree/bush lined with few houses or streetlamps, have a 30mph limit.
Are they? There's a road near me with 30 mph repeaters every couple of hundred yards
|
But my main beef is that reminders of the 30mph limit are illegal. Unbelievable when so many semi rural roads are tree/bush lined with few houses or streetlamps, have a 30mph limit.
Are they? There's a road near me with 30 mph repeaters every couple of hundred yards
If the road has streetlights, then 30 repeater signs are illegal - but some roads without lights have a 30 limit by Traffic Order which may have repeaters.
30 reminders painted on the road are legal as they aren't "repeaters"
|
If the road has streetlights, then 30 repeater signs are illegal - but some roads without lights have a 30 limit by Traffic Order which may have repeaters.
No streetlights, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shame the driving test is the disgrace it is. If it was fit for purpose then perhaps people would not have an attitude to speed. The IAM test is not just about driving but mindset and passing the advanced driving test over 10 years past changed my mindset for sure. People seem to think 20 hours with an ADI provides them with the knowledge to drive for a lifetime and be safe as well as reasonably skilled. It tend to not concur with this.
Why is the driving test a disgrace?
|
Why is the driving test a disgrace?
I was wondering the same thing. Driving test examines your ability to drive to the letter of the law and the highway code.
Its people NOT following the above that leads to prosecution.
|
|
The driving test (and therefore the minimal training that often precedes it) is concerned with rules and control, but has very little to say about safety.
Most of us acquire a passable level of observational skills and anticipation. Some never do, nor apparently do many ever arrive at the point of making allowances for road conditions.
|
The driving test (and therefore the minimal training that often precedes it) is concerned with rules and control, but has very little to say about safety.
Most of us acquire a passable level of observational skills and anticipation. Some never do, nor apparently do many ever arrive at the point of making allowances for road conditions.
The driving test is concerned pretty much entirely with safety! I wonder if it is a fair number of years since you passed your test as today's test is far more of a challenge than it was even 15 years ago eg there is a theory test and a hazard perception test, both to be passed before the practical test (which includes an element of basic maintenance and safety check questions).
The practical test itself is now much stricter than in the past and can include driving on 70mph limit roads. The average number of lessons needed is 40-50 (plus 15 hours practice). Hardly minimal!
|
The driving test (and therefore the minimal training that often precedes it) is concerned with rules and control, but has very little to say about safety.
Most of us acquire a passable level of observational skills and anticipation. Some never do, nor apparently do many ever arrive at the point of making allowances for road conditions.
The driving test is concerned pretty much entirely with safety! I wonder if it is a fair number of years since you passed your test as today's test is far more of a challenge than it was even 15 years ago eg there is a theory test and a hazard perception test, both to be passed before the practical test (which includes an element of basic maintenance and safety check questions).
The practical test itself is now much stricter than in the past and can include driving on 70mph limit roads. The average number of lessons needed is 40-50 (plus 15 hours practice). Hardly minimal!
Does today's driving test include (if not actually driving in such conditions or types of road) questions about (and to what degree):
- Driving on the motorway (this is different to driving on 70mph dual carriageways);
- Driving in heavy rain, going through flooded areas, in high winds, on greasy surfaces or on snow/ice;
- Driving at night;
- The differences between driving FWD, RWD and 4WD vehicles;
- How driving is different when the vehicle is fully laden to just the driver.
It was quite a while ago that I took mine, so I can't remember all the sort of things that were in the test.
I think it's the difference between a newly qualifies train driver or pilot and one with a decade or more of experience - the drivng test is to ensure you meet minimum driving standards to give you and other road users a decent chance in navigating from A to B safely and without peeing off other road users; the IAM test is to ensure you experience and skill level rapidly improves, encouraging the driver to take measures to help that.
|
The driving test (and therefore the minimal training that often precedes it) is concerned with rules and control, but has very little to say about safety.
Most of us acquire a passable level of observational skills and anticipation. Some never do, nor apparently do many ever arrive at the point of making allowances for road conditions.
The driving test is concerned pretty much entirely with safety! I wonder if it is a fair number of years since you passed your test as today's test is far more of a challenge than it was even 15 years ago eg there is a theory test and a hazard perception test, both to be passed before the practical test (which includes an element of basic maintenance and safety check questions).
The practical test itself is now much stricter than in the past and can include driving on 70mph limit roads. The average number of lessons needed is 40-50 (plus 15 hours practice). Hardly minimal!
Does today's driving test include (if not actually driving in such conditions or types of road) questions about (and to what degree):
- Driving on the motorway (this is different to driving on 70mph dual carriageways);
- Driving in heavy rain, going through flooded areas, in high winds, on greasy surfaces or on snow/ice;
- Driving at night;
- The differences between driving FWD, RWD and 4WD vehicles;
- How driving is different when the vehicle is fully laden to just the driver.
It was quite a while ago that I took mine, so I can't remember all the sort of things that were in the test.
I think it's the difference between a newly qualifies train driver or pilot and one with a decade or more of experience - the drivng test is to ensure you meet minimum driving standards to give you and other road users a decent chance in navigating from A to B safely and without peeing off other road users; the IAM test is to ensure you experience and skill level rapidly improves, encouraging the driver to take measures to help that.
Driving on the motorway (this is different to driving on 70mph dual carriageways) - this is not part of the practical test as it would be, um, impractical for people living far from a motorway. But learner drivers are now allowed on motorways (but only with an ADI in a dual control car). The theory test and hazard perception test can also cover motorway driving.
Driving in heavy rain, going through flooded areas, in high winds, on greasy surfaces or on snow/ice - driving tests can take place as long as the conditions are safe (DVSA's decision) so certainly they can take place in high winds, on greasy roads or in heavy rain. The other situations are covered in the theory and/or hazard perception tests.
Driving at night - during winter some of the time slots for tests are during the hours of darkness. Plus covered on hazard perception and theory tests.
The differences between driving FWD, RWD and 4WD vehicles - I am not sure about this. But I would suggest that with modern cars the differences between those systems is not so important as it was in the past - traction control, stability control etc
How driving is different when the vehicle is fully laden to just the driver - yes, theory test.
As you say, the driving test is to make sure you are safe to be let loose on the road alone. And it has got hugely more complicated in the last couple of decades, hence the average being 40-50 hours of instruction before being deemed ready for the test. So a newly-qualified driver today is far better trained than a newly-qualified driver of 30 years ago.
The IAM system is a great way to improve anyone's driving (although the ROSPA method is more well-regarded by most professionals) but I would take issue with your comparison with a driver with ten years of experience - ten years is an awfully long time to get into bad habits and become somewhat.......fixed in a way of thinking. Just have a look at some of the other threads here for examples of people complaining about the driving of others, with the implicit claim of being a better than average driver themselves!
|
|
Whilst I would say that if people learning to drive have more lessons because the test is more comprehensive, I'm not entirely sure if that translates into more and better drivers at the same age/time driving after the test.
I see many inexperienced drivers heavily rely on the three-lettered acronymns to get by, often taking undue risks because they think the ABS, SC, TC, parking sensors, etc will get them out of trouble. I've seen the same with each generation of engineer graduates as they rely more and more on computers (especially software packages) and less on actual training, knowledge and their own wits.
The attitude to minor accidents such as bumps and scuffs in car parks by those under 40 is now shocking - many just laugh and race off (without leaving a note), not learning a valuable lesson in how not to do it.
|
|
|
I don't know why you slate the driving test as a"disgrace".Perhaps you are remembering your own driving test where you bimbled round at 30 mph, did a reverse manoeuvre or two and passed?
Having taught hundreds of pupils to test standard I can say with confidence that the problem with speed and the majority of learner drivers is getting them up to speed safely, not stopping them driving at speed! Because if on test they don't use speed properly, meaning driving up to the posted limit or close to it if conditions allow, they are likely to fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
