Safe Speed Forums

Hello,

As at least one of you knows my son, a recently qualified driver, was involved in a minor shunt in his Fiat Punto back in September (Aside: Puntos are considerably softer than Landy Discoverys). The crash was his fault, a rear ender on a motorway sliproad, and he was offered the chance to undergo a driver improver course as opposed to going to court, an offer he accepted at the cost of some £150.

He did the course last weekend, and from the feedback he's given me I believe that, with respect to minor at fault incidents at least, this has to be the way to go i.e. offer to improve the driver's skill rather than take them straight to court.

The course ran for 1 1/2 days and had 16 participants. My son thought that he would be amongst chavs and boy racers and was quite surprised (I wasn't) to discover he was the second youngest there, most of the others were way older than him. Only one woman, appeared to have a bit of an 'I don't deserve to be here" attitude, turns out she'd had a similar nerf to my son (a classic roundabout 'stop/go bang' shunt by the sound of it) for which she still blamed the guy in front who stopped when she thought he should have gone One guy told the group (away from the instructors) that he'd blacked out before his incident, something he'd failed to tell the police

They did both classroom theory work and some actual driving as well. The classroom stuff seemed to be aimed at making them think about situations a bit more than perhaps they were used to. One of them was a 'who is at fault' session in which a number of scenarios were played out using a floormat and plastic cars and the groups had to discuss who was to blame for the incident. My son came home a little confused about this one, as the instructors were able to apportion some blame on to both parties in all the scenarios - if they'd failed to get their point across then this represents a missed opportuniy IMHO. I explained that the point I believe they were trying to make was that yes, approaching a obstacle or hazard you may well have right of way, but if you get involved in someone else's error of judgement or stupidity a crash is still a crash. Think ahead and mitigate for their error, they may even thank you!

Out on the road my sons driving style was described as 'old fashioned' in that when he slows down he comes down gear by gear sequentially through the box. Thet taught him the old "brakes for slow, gear to go mantra", but not why you do it this way...I had to explain that too.
They did some town and country work, observation, following distances, hazard recognition, driving smoothly without dabbing the brakes constantly (ease and squeeze as my IAM observer called it).

In the highway code MCOQ test my son scored highest, unsurprising as he's only just studied it! However, many of the 'wrong' answers appeared to be aimed at correcting misapprehensions and bad habits (e.g. flashing headlights at other drivers).

All in all, well worthwhile and he does appear to have taken on board what he was taught, its in his best interests to after all as next years insurance is going to be steep

That sounds like an excellent idea RP. Especially the part where they explained that most accidents are (morally if not legally) the fault of mroe than one party.

Possibly though, these should be mandetory for all newly qualified drivers, not just those involved in minor accidents, although its a good place to start.

I hope that he continues to learn from the course and as his experience grows hopefully more and more of it will make sense.

RWT the woman on the course, she needs her head banging against a wall

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I thought it was a good idea too. Amazingly, on his way back from the course on the Saturday afternoon he had an immediate opportunity to put anticipation and crash avoidance into practive (he's only just told me this). He was heading in L1 down the A5 dual-carraigeway doing about 60-65 when he spotted a car sat in the layby up ahead. Coming up behind him in L2 were two other vehicles travelling considerably faster than he was. Something told him that the car in the layby was about to do EXACTLY what it did do....pull out from a standing start into L1 of the dual carriageway He was already on the brakes but was forced to squeeze past the slowly accelerating car and ended up 3 abreast with it an one of the overtaking cars.
Accelerating wasn't an option, his 1.1 car hasn't enough grunt. At that point he appeared to be in the lap of the gods, relying on the pull-outer to see him and not be so bloody stupid, and the overtakers to recognise what was happening and not continue their overtake.
What else could he have done? Answers below please...

It's ever so easy for me to say this sitting here, but it is about anticipating early. I do my damndest NEVER to have an overtaking car alongside me at any point where there is a likelihood of a merging car on my left, be it from a slip road or a lay-by. Sometimes this involves pulling out very early into L2 and causing the fastards to slow down, but more often it involves subtle early speed adjustments to prevent 3-abreast.

In the case you describe, it seems his two options here would have been to have pulled out when he was pretty sure it was going to happen, while the fastards were several seconds back still - or to lift off and possibly brake earlier. Given that neither of these had happened, his only sensible remaining option was to brake a lot harder and duck in behind it when the car emerged. Pulling out late and relying on the threading needle was IMHO very much more risky and may have caused a multi. Having said that, credit goes to him for reqalising - by whatever means - that it was going to come out into his path. Various telltale signs are there for the experienced - brakelights coming on (as the engine's started), a reach up for the seatbelt.. exhaust smoke... It's all about timing.

If you don't mind the question why was your son offered a course as an alternative to a fine. What was the offence?

I think your son done well to be offered a course considering he is such a new driver, as the courses are aimed more at established experienced drivers, who over the years have developed bad habits.

I must say though i have sent one or two new drivers on the courses myself, especially when a more experienced driver involved had probably contributed to his own downfall against the very young and inexperienced driver.

They are good courses and I don't think people realise that these days, when drivers are offered them some stubborn heads who believe that they have done nothing wrong want to have there day in court, only to find that they get found guilty and end up with 7 points on there licence and a fine and possible costs, against pride and £150 +.
Stephen

But what was the offence?

I'd like to know too. I understand that nowadays rear end shunt = DWCA automatically. So the lesson is hand over insurance and/or driver name and address and clear off quck

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

If you are ever offered a DIS.. TAKE IT .. and ACCEPT what we advise.

Normal rule of thumb.. we do not normally offer to a probationer unless we have good grounds for doing so. Probationers after all revert to provisional and are required to take each part of the test again. We think this to be sufficient warning.. but will reserve professional judgement all the same

DIS here.. COAST based. We think it works

There is no shame in being referred for a DIS and we hope that all who attend our courses leave us as better informed and safer drivers who are on a par with IAM passes and who will continue to apply the new skills acquired by a very intensive course here.

There should be no shame in being offered a Speed Aware either. Just attend with an open mind. Durham and most DIS, Lancs/Staffs Speed Awares are COAST based to my knowledge. I am aware of short-comings of some other Speed Awares which are simply DVD theory and hazard aware based... .. But still be prepared to learn and chalk to experience.


Riggers.. you boy is not breeding out from your common sense and I am delighted he found a positive learning experience from this course.


I am proud of your boy from your post - as I am sure you are too.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

The 'offence' would have been driving without due care and attention. The lesson he learned, as you quite rightly point out, is not to involve the police if possible.
The incident happened on a motorway off slip and he thought his car was undrivebale; inexperience on his part because it wasn't. HE called the police who proceeded to drive his car off onto a layby on the adjoining roundabout and then took all the details. They (the police) left us with the impression that there would be no further action - I mean us because I pitched up to get him home whilst they were still around.
A few weeks later a letter offering him the choice of a course or forwarding of his'case' for consideration of prosecution arrived. After some deliberation during which time I actually phoned the individual who had sent the letter to gain an explanation (which was wishy washy) he took the course.
I could go on, explain why he opted for the course instead of standing his ground (very easy to say when its someone else you're advising to stand their ground) but he did it and gained some benefit. Trouble is he, and I for that matter, will opt for the 'details and run' method if this ever happens again. He was hoist by his own petard

Exchange names addresses and insurance details if available. Even though there is currently a bad PR story involiving a woman who claims police ticked her after the persons who hit her car verbally abused her.. and which I think - purely on the basis of the press report (Waily on Sunday) which could be biased after all - to have been a bad judgement - I would still advise that you should very politely and pleasantly state you wish to take some photos of the incident and you will gladly supply the other party with the photos to assist with the report to the insurers. If no one has been injured. (apart form the car) . you should exchange details. A hit and run ... like Wildy's hit last week .. different as you will need a crime number for insurance purposes - and we will try to elicit as much information as you can supply as it could be we may have something on file which may cross reference and .. lead to prosecuting such low lifes and serving justice for us all..






If you think the car is undriveable .. and you are in the AA or RAC on Relay support.. then do use their services as you have paid for this. Easy to say as afterthought .. Riggers.. but we all live and learn.

The officer should have really have informed your boy that he thought he would benefit from a DIS on the scene. Maybe his superiors took the decision on reading his report.. and even then .. your son should ave been privy to this and signed that the report was a fair reflection of the incident as recorded.

You can still appeal this if you did not receive any such sight of the report by the way.... and it could even lead to a refund or partial refund of the fee and his name removed from the three year database if successful.


It's "procedure" - and you still can check that procedure was strictly adhered to even after course completion per the situation you are describing.

By the way.. we always do this sort of thing "strictly by the book here.. crossing the "t" and dotting the "i" " But I cannot answer for other areas and from your post and because I know your straightforward style from the posts to date - and I respect you very much - perhaps there is a basis for verifying procedure was adhered to in your son's case.



The value of that course will not be lost on him.. and they do vary in content - just like the Speed Awares. We do need to get a harmonisation of these courses and criteria for recommending attendance as well. For record .. I suspect he would have been given a COAST lecture for the collision and perhaps advised to seek some training if such an apparently minor shunt had occurred here - but it would depend on how he came across to our officer as well. We do have to rely on instinct, gut reaction and professional judgement of each situation

I would disclose the DIS and play on the learning curve to the insurers and perhaps suggest your boy does an IAM course as well as these may reduce the loading for a claim by a tiny percentage.. but every little does help! as does a garage, a decent post code, a "quiet commute" .. and so on..



Shop around when you renew for best realistic quote anyway.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Ummmmm, his car was on a motorway offslip IG. How kindly would the BiB have looked upon it if someone else had reported a tailback leading down on to the motorway and they arrived to find some young lad by a car he thinks is undriveable, and who can see the chaos he's causing while waiting for the AA to pitch up but has done nothing to inform the feds? I don't think that was in any way an option for him in this instance, he did what he thought was right and got bitten on the arse.

RP- unlucky i'd say - how many of us would have done what he did - remove the cause of an obstruction to somewhere it didn't matter and wait for help - human nature - looks like dad taught him well , and he got unlucky.

Riggers... he was very unlucky. I think you still have some basis still to query the decision to DIS on the basis of your post as I read it.. I am certain your son will have gained and learned from this whole business in any case. .. even though he does seem to have reaped some rough justice by being faced with either the course or a court appearance over what seems to be a routine insurance shunt and who called the cops to try to keep the motorway flowing in any case.

I know it's easy to type from my little "snug corner" ... but your son will learn and emerge all the stronger and competent from this experience..

I certainly hope he will rise above what could have been a weak assessment of the situation .. and continue to respect the police but not be afraid to ask polite and straight forward questions. Most of us do apply common sense after all.

We do not tolerate abuse or assault.. but as professionals we do (and in the case of a minority should ) listen

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I don't doubt the value of the course.

What concerns me is that the police saw fit to threaten prosecution in this instance. At the end of the day There but for the grace of god we all go. It's only a week ago that I had my minor bump. And that's it, it was a very minor bump. In my mind DWDCA is a fairly serious offence. Does this mean all accidents are therefore offences? I was older and wiser and there was no need for the police to be called. I'm afraid I'm with those who say that the main lesson I've learned from this is, if involved in an accident do not inform the police unless absolutely necessary.

IMO there is a risk that we'll end up further alienating Police and Motorist if this down grading of the prosecution threshold is indeed policy. If it isn't policy, what motivated this course of action....targets for DIS courses maybe?

Only a tiny number of crashes are actually unavoidable so, logically, the answer to your question (excluding that tiny minority) must be "yes" - because there must have occurred (at least) a failure to drive without due care. Should all offences be prosecuted? Different question.

I have to say I'm rather taken by the idea of compulsory 'improver courses' for drivers who cause minor crashes instead of prosecution. Being responsible for an accident is not a bad indicator that there is a degree of deficiency in <some element of> driving technique that could usefully be improved upon.

I think it works for majority ..who are normal and it makes it worthwhile and viable. I think we all know we will never reach the hardcore of 2-5% though.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.