Speed Awareness Course

[pete75]

Still misses the point that at most speeds the vehicle will be travelling the Skoda DOES NOT have this system, nor does Mercedes...... so how on earth can the proof that these cars do not have this system suggest most "superior" cars do?

Please name a single car that has an automatic braking system that operates across the full normal speed range.





Especially when the driver is relying on an automatic braking system they think exists.... but doesn't according to Mercedes

What do Mercedes say about it and which particular system - they do several?

If you wish to go into detail provide the name the vehicle (as requested) and we can discuss details. It will not however avoid teh fact that it does not support claims of better braking.

Generically:

Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) should work under most conditions however wet roads may increase stopping distances and fog, or sun glare may impact on the technology's ability to detect hazards. It is important to remember that the driver always has responsibility for the vehicle and that they should drive to the conditions.

So we have a wonderful system that can be compromised in bad weather or good weather!

I have named the vehicles I've got which have these systems.
Wet roads increase stopping distances for all braking systems be they automatically or manually applied. Radar operated systems will not be affected by sun or fog.

[Cyril Haearn]

Do you find the automatic brake activates often?

[Cunobelin]

What do Mercedes say about it and which particular system - they do several?

If you wish to go into detail provide the name the vehicle (as requested) and we can discuss details. It will not however avoid teh fact that it does not support claims of better braking.

Generically:

Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) should work under most conditions however wet roads may increase stopping distances and fog, or sun glare may impact on the technology's ability to detect hazards. It is important to remember that the driver always has responsibility for the vehicle and that they should drive to the conditions.

So we have a wonderful system that can be compromised in bad weather or good weather!

I have named the vehicles I've got which have these systems.
Wet roads increase stopping distances for all braking systems be they automatically or manually applied. Radar operated systems will not be affected by sun or fog.

"Our Mercs" hardly supports you claim to have identified either the vehicle or the system

But then again, if there is a reason why you are unwilling to identify the models, that is your choice

[pete75]

If you wish to go into detail provide the name the vehicle (as requested) and we can discuss details. It will not however avoid teh fact that it does not support claims of better braking.

Generically:

Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) should work under most conditions however wet roads may increase stopping distances and fog, or sun glare may impact on the technology's ability to detect hazards. It is important to remember that the driver always has responsibility for the vehicle and that they should drive to the conditions.

So we have a wonderful system that can be compromised in bad weather or good weather!

I have named the vehicles I've got which have these systems.
Wet roads increase stopping distances for all braking systems be they automatically or manually applied. Radar operated systems will not be affected by sun or fog.

"Our Mercs" hardly supports you claim to have identified either the vehicle or the system

But then again, if there is a reason why you are unwilling to identify the models, that is your choice

As I have said in a previous post an E class.

Your final sentence is somewhat ludicrous though, of course, my choice of car is my business not yours.

[mjr]

They also showed that whilst drivers win a speeding offence were statistically more likely to be in an accident in the next 6 months:

Drivers are between 12 and 23 per cent LESS likely to speed within six months of taking a course compared to if they choose the points and fine. And those who participate in a course have a significantly lower collision rate afterwards than those who take the points.

Once again, I am quite happy for any evidence that shows the courses do not work rather than speculation and personal opinion

I think you're misreading the research. It only says that courses work better than points and fines which don't work. It doesn't say that courses work. Both have relatively high reoffending rates, over 20% if I remember what was on the link I posted earlier https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/ ... lty-points

[AlaninWales]

My Nissan Pulsar has AEB.
It cuts out sometimes in heavy rain and frequently in snow. Rain and ice will stop it working too, basically anything that gets in front of the detector (so thick mud too). It sounds a warning that it has done so: This is loud, with flashing between the speedometer and tachometer (very distracting in adverse conditions, just when you need not to be distracted because you are not relying on the damned thing). It can be switched off with a switch down by my right knee, but comes back on each time the engine is switched back on.
It has never braked for me, it does 'warn' if I am moving towards a stationary object, even if I am already braking sufficiently to stop a car length from it, which is irritating. When going around corners, it also warns about stationary cars in the adjacent lane (i.e. it cannot detect that I am steering around the stationary object).
Overall, it is a PITA, as is the "blind spot" detector which detects vehicles in my "blind spot" (i.e. where I can clearly see them in my side mirrors) and flashes a light at me (which I have learned to ignore). This also frequently detects hedges as 'vehicles' and audibly warns me of the danger when I indicate; making turning off narrow lanes a 'tuneful' experience .

[pwa]

They also showed that whilst drivers win a speeding offence were statistically more likely to be in an accident in the next 6 months:

Drivers are between 12 and 23 per cent LESS likely to speed within six months of taking a course compared to if they choose the points and fine. And those who participate in a course have a significantly lower collision rate afterwards than those who take the points.

Once again, I am quite happy for any evidence that shows the courses do not work rather than speculation and personal opinion

I think you're misreading the research. It only says that courses work better than points and fines which don't work. It doesn't say that courses work. Both have relatively high reoffending rates, over 20% if I remember what was on the link I posted earlier https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/ ... lty-points

But unless I am misunderstanding, the definition of re-offending simply means speeding and does not indicate by how much or in what circumstances. The courses also focus on things like speed on streets with lots of parked cars, pedestrian crossings and all the many hazards along the road. The fact that someone who has been on a course still breaks a speed limit says the course failed in one regard, but it does not mean it failed completely. Maybe the re-offending driver is now a bit more careful around parked cars or schools, or on urban streets, but just doesn't pay enough attention on the motorway. Maybe. We don't know. I don't think it is logical to jump to the conclusion that the course has no value at all for re-offenders.

[mjr]

We don't know. I don't think it is logical to jump to the conclusion that the course has no value at all for re-offenders.

I'm not jumping to that conclusion. I'm concluding that it doesn't work, in my opinion of what work means. Nor do points. Other punishments should be tested.

[[XAP]Bob]

We don't know. I don't think it is logical to jump to the conclusion that the course has no value at all for re-offenders.

I'm not jumping to that conclusion. I'm concluding that it doesn't work, in my opinion of what work means. Nor do points. Other punishments should be tested.

Execution, or short, but increasing, bans?

Of course enforcing those bans is a potential issue...

[Pastychomper]

Pull the other one - it's got bells on. I've never seen anyone else use a sat nav in voice-only mode. Most people have them stuck to the windscreen, screen on, looking at complex diagrams and arrows on it while they drive. Some even stick them in the main field of vision area (I'm sure there's a better term for that).

I agree that a lot of drivers put sat-navs in such daft places, but how do you know you've never seen anyone else use one in voice-only mode? The few times I've used one it's been well away from any windows and I doubt anyone outside the car would have known it was there.

[pwa]

Pull the other one - it's got bells on. I've never seen anyone else use a sat nav in voice-only mode. Most people have them stuck to the windscreen, screen on, looking at complex diagrams and arrows on it while they drive. Some even stick them in the main field of vision area (I'm sure there's a better term for that).

I agree that a lot of drivers put sat-navs in such daft places, but how do you know you've never seen anyone else use one in voice-only mode? The few times I've used one it's been well away from any windows and I doubt anyone outside the car would have known it was there.

I don't think Mjr has used one much, or he would know that taking in the visual info you want from a satnav as you approach a junction involves the briefest of glances at a moment of your choosing, when you think you have time. If you choose to rely or road sign directions you have to look at them as they come, whether or not there are pressing road safety issues arising at that moment. With the satnav you get the same info at a safer moment. And of course you should have the satnav to one side so your view is not impeded. I like mine well over to the left, more on the passenger's side. I am quite fussy about having a good clear view in front.

[Cunobelin]

They also showed that whilst drivers win a speeding offence were statistically more likely to be in an accident in the next 6 months:

Drivers are between 12 and 23 per cent LESS likely to speed within six months of taking a course compared to if they choose the points and fine. And those who participate in a course have a significantly lower collision rate afterwards than those who take the points.

Once again, I am quite happy for any evidence that shows the courses do not work rather than speculation and personal opinion

I think you're misreading the research. It only says that courses work better than points and fines which don't work. It doesn't say that courses work. Both have relatively high reoffending rates, over 20% if I remember what was on the link I posted earlier https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/ ... lty-points

Unfortunately Auto Express blocks access so I cannot read the article.

What I am saying is that a blasé claim that they "don't work" is erroneous. There is evidence that in some drivers there are statistically meaningful improvements in driving for those who attended courses which don't exist for those with points and fines.


They will never be perfect, as the proverb goes....... "You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink"

That will always be the case, arrogant drivers who believe they are the bet people to decide how they drive and that laws do not apply to them will not benefit from either training or penalties.

[mjr]

I've never seen anyone else use a sat nav in voice-only mode. Most people have them stuck to the windscreen, screen on, looking at complex diagrams and arrows on it while they drive. Some even stick them in the main field of vision area (I'm sure there's a better term for that).

I agree that a lot of drivers put sat-navs in such daft places, but how do you know you've never seen anyone else use one in voice-only mode? [...]

Maybe it would have been clearer to say I've never been in a car with anyone else using a sat nav in voice-only mode.

I don't think Mjr has used one much, or he would know that taking in the visual info you want from a satnav as you approach a junction involves the briefest of glances at a moment of your choosing, when you think you have time. If you choose to rely or road sign directions you have to look at them as they come, whether or not there are pressing road safety issues arising at that moment. With the satnav you get the same info at a safer moment.

I don't think pwa has been on the roads much and watched satnavvies drive through junctions fiddling with the box on the dash, or ridden in taxis where the driver has condemned themself to no tip by prodding the screen as they go.

And of course you should have the satnav to one side so your view is not impeded. I like mine well over to the left, more on the passenger's side. I am quite fussy about having a good clear view in front.

It's just as well there's nothing important to look at usually found on the passenger's side such as footways or cycleways... oh, wait a minute(!)

Satnavs should be attached to the dash like other instruments IMO, not obstructing any part of the windscreen. Is anyone making a head-up display sat nav yet? That sort of see-through image should be the only legal way to display it on the windscreen.

[mjr]

I think you're misreading the research. It only says that courses work better than points and fines which don't work. It doesn't say that courses work. Both have relatively high reoffending rates, over 20% if I remember what was on the link I posted earlier https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/ ... lty-points

Unfortunately Auto Express blocks access so I cannot read the article.

The key bit is

In total, 21 per cent of speed awareness attendees reoffended within three years, compared to 23 per cent who took points instead of sitting a course.

What I am saying is that a blasé claim that they "don't work" is erroneous. There is evidence that in some drivers there are statistically meaningful improvements in driving for those who attended courses which don't exist for those with points and fines.

Given it's 21% vs 23% caught reoffending (both of which seem surprisingly high when there's so many claims there's not enough police or speed camera), I suspect the difference is in the region where whether it's statistically meaningful depends on the significance level of the test used, rather than it being clear-cut. However, I have neither the time nor - more importantly - the raw data to rerun the test to confirm that just now.

I would say that a blasé claim that speed awareness courses work seems at least as misleading as my view that they don't work. We should define what "works" is. I say they don't work because more than 1 in 5 get caught again and probably many more than that offend again but don't get caught.

[Cunobelin]

I think you're misreading the research. It only says that courses work better than points and fines which don't work. It doesn't say that courses work. Both have relatively high reoffending rates, over 20% if I remember what was on the link I posted earlier https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/ ... lty-points

Unfortunately Auto Express blocks access so I cannot read the article.

The key bit is

In total, 21 per cent of speed awareness attendees reoffended within three years, compared to 23 per cent who took points instead of sitting a course.

What I am saying is that a blasé claim that they "don't work" is erroneous. There is evidence that in some drivers there are statistically meaningful improvements in driving for those who attended courses which don't exist for those with points and fines.

Given it's 21% vs 23% caught reoffending (both of which seem surprisingly high when there's so many claims there's not enough police or speed camera), I suspect the difference is in the region where whether it's statistically meaningful depends on the significance level of the test used, rather than it being clear-cut. However, I have neither the time nor - more importantly - the raw data to rerun the test to confirm that just now.

I would say that a blasé claim that speed awareness courses work seems at least as misleading as my view that they don't work. We should define what "works" is. I say they don't work because more than 1 in 5 get caught again and probably many more than that offend again but don't get caught.

Except that the blasé claim they did not work was not evidence based , the "blasé" claim that they are of benefit was evidenced...personal conjecture falls far short of evidence that they don't work.