Speed awareness courses

[DT Ralge]

Because its a good earner and its going to get worse.The AA already run the courses and the RAC has been bought out with the same intentions.

 

So much for being there for the drivers

 

Fgs, the AA is just one company that delivers the courses. The AA has NO control over course numbers and NO control over which cameras are operational.

They make money out of drivers in a number of ways. The parent company (Acromas) saw an opportunity to make more money when Drivetech's owner fancied a gold-plated retirement plan. DT was already a well-established and market-leading driver training company with 2 or 3 arms: one in Police diversionary training (and an ANDISP member, therefore), another in company driver training. Buying up businesses, extending integration vertically or horizontally is what happens. Do you have a problem with capitalism?

 

As for RAC's move of ownership. I'm sure the new owners will be pleased to hear a business plan from you. Can you tell them which ANDISP member they should buy in order to join that club? Because, without it, it's a long hard slog to get involved.

[Cyclone]

It also says that it should apply to roads where the average speed is already 40 or less, so what's the point of that?

 

If the roads are already quiet and these limits won't be enforced by cameras, then I suspect that they will be routinely ignored and have no affect on the rate of casualties on these roads at all.

 

It's a good example you give there, you can sometimes reach 40 maybe, but mostly you'll be doing about 20 as it's narrow and you can't see very far.

But if this limit were applied it would no doubt apply to the Bramptom straight mile on the other side of Ulley as well, a road down which it's quite safe to do the NSL.

[DT Ralge]

It also says that it should apply to roads where the average speed is already 40 or less, so what's the point of that?

 

If the roads are already quiet and these limits won't be enforced by cameras, then I suspect that they will be routinely ignored and have no affect on the rate of casualties on these roads at all.

 

It's a good example you give there, you can sometimes reach 40 maybe, but mostly you'll be doing about 20 as it's narrow and you can't see very far.

But if this limit were applied it would no doubt apply to the Bramptom straight mile on the other side of Ulley as well, a road down which it's quite safe to do the NSL.

 

We agree, then, that it's a bit of a non-story.

I can't think the 40 would be applied to the straight mile but would hold back from writing "quite safe" in relation to long straight stretches - some of the worst smashes in Norfolk (A47, Acle straight) and Lincolnshire (A15) involve such stretches. Is it the lack of perspective on approaching speed on a straight stretch, lack of care taken by drivers on the main road mixed in with lack of care from emerging traffic from side-roads, field entrances ... ? whatever it is, long straight roads contribute to the KSI stats in a way that should not be underestimated.

[Cyclone]

It's safe to drive at 60mph on it, it might not be safe to do 100mph although I'm sure it's possible.

 

I fully expect that once given the power to do this, most local authorities will apply it everywhere with little to though to whether it's necessary or not. Exactly as has happened with the 50 limit.

[DT Ralge]

It's safe to drive at 60mph on it, it might not be safe to do 100mph although I'm sure it's possible.

 

I fully expect that once given the power to do this, most local authorities will apply it everywhere with little to though to whether it's necessary or not. Exactly as has happened with the 50 limit.

 

Well I'm less cynical and don't think it will be done universally simply because it costs money. There has to be reasonable justification to do it in cash-limited times. Time will tell.

[CAGlover]

So lets say you take the 3 points and fine, what if you get caught again in a month. Then you won't have a choice to take the course and you'll be on 6 points and that will go on your insurance. Go on the course and go to the catcliffe one its cheaper (different areas charge more), and just except it. You will learn a little bit.

Its a no brainer really, anyone thats says otherwise is stupid. Don't get me wrong I don't agree with it in principle but I got caught and went with the flow (no harm done).

[dosxuk]

Hi Phil, good that you are back, nearly time to drive to the pub for a fag!

 

Cue "Who's this Phil you're talking about? Do I know you? :suspect:" post...

[DT Ralge]

So lets say you take the 3 points and fine, what if you get caught again in a month. Then you won't have a choice to take the course and you'll be on 6 points and that will go on your insurance. Go on the course and go to the catcliffe one its cheaper (different areas charge more), and just except it. You will learn a little bit.

Its a no brainer really, anyone thats says otherwise is stupid. Don't get me wrong I don't agree with it in principle but I got caught and went with the flow (no harm done).

 

I wouldn't disagree with your advice.

 

However I'm sure a driver can get offered a course with 6 points - it's not just for first-time offenders.

But it is the case that a driver is not offered a second course within a 3-yr period of the first.

And any suggestion (if you are making it) that insurance premiums go up on 6 points but not on 3 has been outdated by insurance company losses on motor policies (whiplash claims etc):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/9146173/Car-insurance-costs-rise-by-up-to-20pc-for-first-time-speed-offenders.html

[Xt500]

I wouldn't disagree with your advice.

 

However I'm sure a driver can get offered a course with 6 points - it's not just for first-time offenders.

But it is the case that a driver is not offered a second course within a 3-yr period of the first.

And any suggestion (if you are making it) that insurance premiums go up on 6 points but not on 3 has been outdated by insurance company losses on motor policies (whiplash claims etc):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/9146173/Car-insurance-costs-rise-by-up-to-20pc-for-first-time-speed-offenders.html

 

Insurance company profits have NEVER been as high as they currently are.

 

"Insurers claim they are not benefiting from these hikes, which are to pay for steep rises in fraud, personal injury claims and damage caused by uninsured drivers.

 

 

But behind closed doors they are creaming off more from drivers through clandestine add-on charges.

 

 

For example, Admiral, which insures 2.8million cars in the UK, boosted its car insurance profits by 28  per cent in the first six months of this year.

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2034356/Hidden-fees-boost-insurers-profits-drivers-face-record-premiums.html

[DT Ralge]

Insurance company profits have NEVER been as high as they currently are.

 

"Insurers claim they are not benefiting from these hikes, which are to pay for steep rises in fraud, personal injury claims and damage caused by uninsured drivers.

 

 

But behind closed doors they are creaming off more from drivers through clandestine add-on charges.

 

 

For example, Admiral, which insures 2.8million cars in the UK, boosted its car insurance profits by 28  per cent in the first six months of this year.

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2034356/Hidden-fees-boost-insurers-profits-drivers-face-record-premiums.html

 

Sorry, I re-read my post and realise that for "losses" I should have written something that made clear that they were upping the ante on premiums to compensate for a massive increase in payouts against personal injury claims.

In fact, I have no knowledge whatsoever about insurance company profits or losses. I also have no knowledge (do you?) about how companies other than the ones in the article are faring profit-wise.

The fact remains, though, that they are no longer sitting on their hands when they hear about an insured's first 3 points.

Edited July 15, 2012 by DT Ralge