|
It's the luck of the draw, some forces offer them, others don't.
My sons were done for speeding, one in North Wales 21 years old, the other in South Yorkshire 18 years old, neither was offered a speed awareness course, both got 3 points and a £60 fine, the cynic inside me says that the forces were more interested in raising revenue than educating young drivers in the dangers of speeding.
|
"the cynic inside me says that the forces were more interested in raising revenue"
1 - The forces have nothing to do with offering speed awareness courses - camera partnerships run them, but police may do some of the session.
2 - You still pay for the courses so revenue is still generated.
|
The criteria for a Speed Awareness is where the offence takes place - not on where you live - the course is offered by many but not all areas. You must do the course in the area where it is offered. You cannot have it transferred nearer home for convenience.
The speed limits at which it will be offered are broadly between the speed at which you will usually not be charged with an offence - (less than 10% over the limit plus 3mph) to equal to 10% over the limit plus 6mph. So in a 30 mph zones in an area offering the course you will normally get a speed awareness between 36mph and 39mph.
Some areas offer the course on all limits based on this criteria. Some only offer it in 30mph areas.
Once you have done a course you cannot do another one within the next two years.
The course is a privilege and not a right - meaning they do not have to offer one - nor can you demand that they do even if a scheme operates in the area where the offence was committed.
There are time limits within which the course must be undertaken but there is flexibility on the actual date.
You do not have to declare that you have undertaken a course to your insurance company.
|
|
>>you must do the course in the area where it is offered.
this isn't the case. I got done in Lincs and I'm doing the course in Horsham Sussex, I live in East Sussex.
The time limit in my [pathetic] case was 'within 4 months of the date of offence (it wasn't an offence - it was a trick). Some cameras are maintaining the speed set, others are setting a new speed, others are guaging average speed over a distance. It's all so clear isn't it?!
I hate the establishment. The government is too powerful a machine now and the apathetic majority should get off it's a*** and put it's foot down.
the government received 755 BILLION last year, they have a cellar worth £750,000 with one full time member of staff and 2 part-timers, all this in the name of 'hospitality' 90% 'fine' wines 10% beers and spirits. They've banned smoking in public places yet they can still smoke in the houses of parliament. They don't give a flying fig about the common man, all they care about is power, money and lining their own pockets. Blair proved this - buying a £3m house. How is he in touch with the common man? Why does a government consult with Maxwell? Because he has the power to swing the vote.
Add this: boycott the most innovative PR exercise ever - the wedding. Get rid of that lot too.
wreckless driving is one thing, tricking the sensible driver to generate revenue is quite another.
|
|
|
|
|
But there is a cost to running the speed awareness course.
|
|
|
|
the cynic inside me says that the forces were more interested in raising revenue than educating young drivers in the dangers of speeding.
The locals make more money out of the courses as the cash is kept local whereas fines go to central government.
|
|
Thanks for the replies. I was also wondering whether it made a difference if it was a mobile camera unit (Police?) as opposed to a fixed camera (road Safety Partnership?)
FTF
Edited by fredthefifth on 21/01/2011 at 12:10
|
|
QUOTE:..""both got 3 points and a £60 fine, the cynic inside me says that the forces were more interested in raising revenue than educating young drivers in the dangers of speeding.""
If the police want to raise revenue from speeders, then one can assume they want people to speed more. I'm not a cynic on this. I think they just want drivers to drive more safely by keeping to speed limits, as has always been the case.
|
|
The courses all seem to be run by ex-Police offices who've set up a little company and rented some office space, with guaranteed punters coming their way from their mates in the force and the camera partnership.
One of the most flagrant examples of public servants (or ex-public servants) milking the system that I've come across.
I went on one and the content delivered was laughable. A few home-made Powerpoint slides, delivered by a not-very-bright chap with an overwhelming sense of self-importance and drama - like he really believed everything he was telling us was fantastically insightful and gold-dust knowledge. It wasn't, it was a crash course in the bleeding obvious for dummies.
Still better than points though.
Edited by gfewster on 24/01/2011 at 12:15
|
|
Most of the people I have dealt with are sceptical when they go on one but once they have attended say they find the courses both insightful and useful.
It seems likely that they will vary in quality from area to area.
|
|
|
|
Presumably you went on this course for your own benefit, not because you had been nicked for speeding.
Why is breaking the speed limit seen as "not a crime at all, more a bit of bad luck" when going through red lights, and driving with bald tyres is worthy of being pulled up for?
|
|
Er, no - I went on it because I'd been done for speeding. Why on earth would I choose to?
Interesting point you raise though.
I exceed the speed limit from time to time, so do most of us. The reasons vary and are many, but I suppose could be summed up as:
1. We sometimes want to progress quicker than the posted limit allows.
2. We sometimes feel that there is no inherent danger in going slightly faster than the limit (by this I mean in terms of absolute numbers, i.e. 34 is not intrinsically more dangerous than 30 - the 30 limit is an arbitrary line created by man rather than nature). Well ok, faster is always more dangerous in absolute terms, but reducto ad absurdum then we shouldn't drive at all if all we're concerned about is safety.
3. We sometimes feel that the limit is inappropriately low.
4. When we're careful about where and when we do it, the risk of detection (or perceived risk of detection) is relatively low.
5. We don't see it as a 'crime' with a 'victim' in the traditional sense.
Shoot me for being honest if you want to. Just trying to explain why most of us do it from time to time.
|
|
I think you capture it pretty well.
On the matter of the course variations mentioned in other posts, a colleague who went on one in Taunton said they found it informative because and instructor demonstrated mathematically the impact of speed, reaction time etc on stopping distance etc in a way not covered in the highyway code. He also said that woe betide anyone who argued principles and the there was an element of treating the attendees like scum bags.
FTF
|
|
Oh they totally won't stand for you disagreeing with them, that's a given. They're on a serious power trip and despite almost certainly having an IQ well below 100 the chap who lectured us viewed himself as the sharpest tool in the box with a duty to eductate the idiots placed before him.
He showed us a photograph of the aftermath of an incident where a child had run across the road outside a petrol station and been hit by a transit doing 36 in a 30. The child died. He asked the group what was the primary cause of the child's death.
I put my hand up and said "the child running out into the road?". He looked at me, tutted, and shook his head. One of the sheep put their hand up and said "exceeding the speed limit?" and he said, very condescendingly, "good, you're learning".
I started to argue the point, but after about 30 seconds realised I was dealing with a neanderthal who couldn't think, reason or formulate opinons of his own. All he could do was read the material and repeat it like it was the word of God. So I went back to sleep and waited for the session to be over.
Edited by gfewster on 26/01/2011 at 11:31
|
Perhaps if the van had been doing 72 instead of 36, it wouldn't have been there to hit the child.
Perhaps if the van was doing 30 the child would have crossed safely.
So what was the point you were arguing?
|
|
That the main reason the child got hit by the vehicle (and killed) was because they ran out into the road..... is that unreasonable?
The child wasn't 'crossing' in any meaningful sense of the word, they ran out without looking and with no thought to the traffic.
Not enough emphasis is placed these days on the responsibility a pedestrian has for their own safety. When I was growing up it was hammered into you, by parents and schools alike, that you do NOT mess around on or near roads, NEVER EVER. Nowadays, children are brought up in an atmosphere of protection and entitlement, where everything is always someone else's fault and responsibility.
There's a school near where I live, and teenagers regularly walk out in front of cars without looking when they want to cross. They do it because they know modern cars can stop in a second or two, and because they know the drivers will always stop. I've had them do it to me for what they'd consider 'a laugh'.
|
|
It would be as easy to argue that had the van not been there the collision would not have taken place. We don't allow children to drive because they do irrational things, drivers must take account of this. Speeding is one factor within our control, yes the speed limit does seem arbitary, but better arbitrary than anarchy? That's why I believe that there should be a limit, not guidance.
|
|
No, it would be not be as easy to argue 'if the van had not been there.....'
To do so would imply that there shouldn't be any vans on the road. Is that practical? No.
My argument implies that children should be taught very seriously about the dangers of running out into roads without looking, like they used to be. Is that practical? Yes.
Perhaps the van might not have hit the child if it had been doing 30. But then what about another case where a child is killed by a van doing 30, and it turns out they wouldn't have hit them if they were doing 25? Reducto ad absurdum, limits go down and down until driving has no advantage over walking (for car drivers) or using a pack-horse (for van drivers).
I'm not defending speeding, especially not in built-up areas. But it is wrong to identify it as the root of all evil (it is convenient to do so because you can target and measure it) when the real causes of most incidents are lack of awareness or judgement.
Edited by gfewster on 26/01/2011 at 17:20
|
"the real causes of most incidents are lack of awareness or judgement."
Indeed - as an example a van driver doing 36 in a 30 and killing a child :-)
|
|
No, a lack of awareness/judgement on the part of the child - when they ran out into the road without looking.
How many b***** times.... ;-)
|
Those with priority on roads are (1) pedestrians (2) horses.
Children aren't rationale beings and don't have fully developed awareness and judgment.
A child dashing into a road is usually distracted by something else - they don't realise the road is there so they don't go through the rote of how to cross a road because they don't want to.
Does it make you happier to know that adults are no better - I'm sure I know not to walk into fountains as I'll get wet:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPW8xmI4w6U
|
My mate Harry got killed in front of me crossing the road as a five year old.
This is over fifty years ago and i still remember as if it was yesterday.Children are unpredictable regarding cars and traffic .
|
Given the irrationality of children, the inference that it is the child's fault for running out into the road, shouldn't children be banned from the roadside. Educating children not to do it is not foolproof, they are children, impetuous and naive, you cannot lay the responsibility at a youngsters feet.
The event does not happen unless both parties are present, we do what we can to minimise the consequences and expect those capable of rationality to be rational, and responsible.
|
|
Brilliant! Like we all don't know the obvious and need enlightening by them - the superior, more knowledgeable, law abiding (mostly, when in uniform) super humans. They make a mistake and you see the closing of ranks and thickest smoke-screens ever.
|
|
|
>> treating the attendees like scum bags
Yeh, that's the Police all over.Holyer than Thou bullies. They are in the biggest and best club on the planet, if their mindset is right - 'great power trip and you can do what you like since filming us is against the law' which should not be the case. I've seen their bullying first hand and what they did was inhumane, 7 of them on one small kid, I couldn't bear his screams and yelled at them - then they noticed they had an audience of about 25 people (the entire queue at a MacDonald's drive through) Yes. They cowered. I hate them.
Many a crime deemed innocent on Earth is registered in Heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still better than points though. So true. I am not surprised at all by what you've said. A friend of mine said recently ' it's a well known fact that Police Officers in the main are thick!' I've only ever noticed their lack of vocabulary and they stand with their legs very wide apart and look ridiculous.
I don't respect them. They are power-tripping, chip on shoulder types, jumped up, cringey, misguided, sneaky bullies. After what they did to that man in London that they coshed to death and got away with it, many people I know now hate the Police.
Infact they say Moat was a top bloke.
|
|
|
|
|
What about the police officers who have caused accidents and deaths by driving like lunatics - in the name of duty?
2 boys in my local area were killed by an off-duty police officer in his Lotus Elise.
I've seen Police cars breaking the law.
Well, the politicians get away with it...why shouldn't they.. I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poor boys. What a worry for you. You're dead right when you say raising revenue. They'll say it's in the name of saving lives. The Police that is, civil servants - 'mustn't ruin our chances of a pension'. Extortioners. In the Bible they're in a category all of their own.
|
|
|
|
