No, Some Don’t Learn

According to Plod, some motorists just don’t learn…

A driver caught using his mobile phone asked for penalty points and a fine rather than opt for a “boring” course, police have said.

The unnamed motorist stated on a caution form he had completed a driver improvement course the day before.

He wrote: “Just give me the points and fine – I did the mobile phone course yesterday. It was as boring as hell.”

I have a colleague who reacted similarly – it was more time, trouble and expense to attend a speed awareness course than to take the hit and spend the day at work, earning money.

The people who don’t learn here are the police, of course. Rather than note what this person has said, they just assume the problem is with them, rather than  try a little introspection. If  the course is poorly designed, then feedback will be negative…

It’s one of the outcomes of infantilising the population. Eventually, people will kick back.

6 Comments

  1. I think part of the problem here is the legal double standard.

    It’s clear from the science that *any* distraction can affect driving. So why does the government even allow Bluetooth kits and the like to be fitted to cars? Instead, the correct solution is to have the phone automatically reply to all incoming phone calls with a message like: “I’m sorry, I can’t answer my phone right now as I’m driving. If you just need to send me some information, please send it via email or text. If the call is urgent, call me again: my phone will tell me to pull over and I’ll call you back when it is safe for me to do so.”

    (Obviously, you can tailor the message to suit. Such as defining what “urgent” means to you.) At the same time, the phone would not allow any calls to be made to any number other than the emergency services until you get out of the car.

    Many argue that, it being your car, you should have every right to do whatever you please within its confines, but cars are typically used on public roads, which is a common space shared with other people. Your choices can, and do, affect the lives of other road users…

    …and no, we are *not* the best judges of our skills and abilities: Read up on the “Dunning-Kruger effect” if you don’t believe me. It explains so much.

    • Yeah, I’m well aware of Dunning Kruger. However, using a phone depends on the situation. Sitting in traffic, it isn’t a problem. Dealing with busy traffic in a city centre, it is. Context is all. My decision as to whether I answer or not is dependent on context. Most of the time, I don’t.

      We cannot entirely eliminate distraction, or we would not allow in-car music or passengers – especially children. Where do you stop?

      Going back to the OP – the mobile phone law was always a nonsense. There was sufficient law in place to deal with drivers who are driving without due care and attention. Answering a hands-free phone may or may not constitute that depending on the context. And policing should be based on that context – but for our modern police force, that is simply far too difficult. It would mean being competent at their jobs…

      A hand-held phone is another matter as it involves driving one-handed or with the phone jammed against a shoulder – either way, the driving activity is physically compromised.

      However, none of this was what I was criticising. That was, the inability of a training provider to respond sensibly to feedback. If your client is telling you that your product is boring, maybe some introspection is in order, rather than attempting to shame the person giving you the feedback?

  2. Surely if the driver had recently completed a course, he would not be entitled to take another for the next three years, so he would have to accept the fine and points.

    I recently had the misfortune to attend a speed awareness course. I can’t say I learned anything, but it was noticeable how many of the other participants seemed to be unaware of the basic principles of speed limits.

    The course was characterised by moralistic shroud-waving and also included some downright incorrect information. The presenters seemed ignorant of the contents of the Highway Code. I challenged them on one point, but after I was branded a smartarse decided that silence was probably the best course of action.

  3. I can sort of understand this. I was self employed and a day off work could cost me £500 so the fine would be a better option.
    Mind you, I’m amazed anybody ever gets knicked for using a phone. I see it all the time.
    There’s no excuse really when hands free kits are so easy to get hold of

    I’m a radio ham. Thirty years ago we had to use goose neck mikes because you could get nicked for using a fist mike. It has to be said that the flexi cable was a bugger if you needed to turn a corner. Happy days…

  4. Speed awareness courses are run by a private company under the auspices of what used to he the Association of Chief Police officers so, in offering you a place on a speed awareness course, the relevant Police Force is sub contracting you to a private company. As a Crown organisation, there has got to be a conflict of interest in the Policing role of arbitrarily keeping the Queen ‘s Peace through legislation and financial gain.

  5. This one has always confused me: why are police officers allowed to answer their radios – which last time I checked are not hands free – whilst driving (sometimes in “hot pursuit”)?

Comments are closed.