Driving - pay the fine or take the course +EV

[AdamM]

Does it?  Crash head on.  One driver dies, the other doesn't.  Unless you are talking about psychological damage from being involved in a fatal accident?

In any case, I don't see why a 4 hour course is needed to state the absolute blinding obvious. 

relatively minor crashes that a driver wearing a seat belt would be able to control become far more serious if that driver is NOT wearing a belt and gets flung across the inside of the car, causing them to lose control of their car.

any yes, flying through the windscreen for a bigger collision is an issue as that can cause more danger for others, as well as the psychological damage to others, and the clean up.

It's the law, not an advisory. If it's so blindingly obvious, why do (a minority of) people not wear it?

[DungBeetle]

Does it?  Crash head on.  One driver dies, the other doesn't.  Unless you are talking about psychological damage from being involved in a fatal accident?

In any case, I don't see why a 4 hour course is needed to state the absolute blinding obvious. 

relatively minor crashes that a driver wearing a seat belt would be able to control become far more serious if that driver is NOT wearing a belt and gets flung across the inside of the car, causing them to lose control of their car.

any yes, flying through the windscreen for a bigger collision is an issue as that can cause more danger for others, as well as the psychological damage to others, and the clean up.

It's the law, not an advisory. If it's so blindingly obvious, why do (a minority of) people not wear it?

Because they are idiots?   That said, I have to say a set of circumstances where a passing motorist is hit by a flying corpse ejected from a car is probably grasping at straws.

[DungBeetle]

By the way - didn't mean to imply opening poster is an idiot - I'm sure it was just a one off!

[AdamM]

it's not the danger of being hit by a flying corpse.
It's that it's much easier to lose control of your vehicle if you're in a collision not wearing your seat belt.

Should be points AND a course IMO.
Same goes for speeding, using phones, jumping lights, etc. 

[DungBeetle]

I think the crux of why we don't see eye to eye on this is I put speeding/using mobile way above someone not weating a seatbelt in terms of seriousness.

If there was a ratio for self harm to "harm to others" then the former would be 20/80.  The latter would be 95/5 (and the 5 is being generous).

[cambridgealex]

I'm just getting insured right now actually, and it says

"Please let us know if you've ever been on a drivers awareness course"

So presumably they'll be increasing the premium for that? But not as much as if you took the points?

[EvilPie]

I'm just getting insured right now actually, and it says

"Please let us know if you've ever been on a drivers awareness course"

So presumably they'll be increasing the premium for that? But not as much as if you took the points?

Or maybe they reduce it because you now have more knowledge?

[david3103]

I'm just getting insured right now actually, and it says

"Please let us know if you've ever been on a drivers awareness course"

So presumably they'll be increasing the premium for that? But not as much as if you took the points?

Or maybe they reduce it because you now have more knowledge?

I believe Alex has the correct interpretation here.

Suggests that the insurers have little faith in the efficacy of the courses.

[cambridgealex]

My Insurance has gone from £1800 to £650 in 3 years!

[Royal Flush]

Does it?  Crash head on.  One driver dies, the other doesn't.  Unless you are talking about psychological damage from being involved in a fatal accident?

In any case, I don't see why a 4 hour course is needed to state the absolute blinding obvious. 

Head on crash, person not wearing belt goes smashing through windscreen, what/who do you think they are going to hit next?

[arbboy]

I'm just getting insured right now actually, and it says

"Please let us know if you've ever been on a drivers awareness course"

So presumably they'll be increasing the premium for that? But not as much as if you took the points?

Or maybe they reduce it because you now have more knowledge?

I believe Alex has the correct interpretation here.

Suggests that the insurers have little faith in the efficacy of the courses.

I would assume insurers think badly on this because why else would you go on one of these courses in reality unless you had committed a 3 point offence and wanted to dodge the points on the licence?  Not even sure if you can just attend them without committing an offence first.  You would have to be a seriously sad fecker to want to.

[kinboshi]

I'm just getting insured right now actually, and it says

"Please let us know if you've ever been on a drivers awareness course"

So presumably they'll be increasing the premium for that? But not as much as if you took the points?

If it doesn't go on to your licence, then how would your insurers know if you have or haven't been on one of these courses - other than you telling them?

[EvilPie]

My Insurance has gone from £1800 to £650 in 3 years!

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but that just means you're getting old.

[DungBeetle]

Does it?  Crash head on.  One driver dies, the other doesn't.  Unless you are talking about psychological damage from being involved in a fatal accident?

In any case, I don't see why a 4 hour course is needed to state the absolute blinding obvious. 

Head on crash, person not wearing belt goes smashing through windscreen, what/who do you think they are going to hit next?

So we are back to the dangers of flying corpses?  My point is that the possibility of a speeder killing a pedestrian is reasonably high.  The possibiity of someone smashing clean through their windscreen and having enough kinetic energy remaining to smash clean through a second windscreen and kill another driver is small.  People not wearing seatbelts are largely putting themselves at risk - fine them if you want but don't waste time putting them on 4 hour "re-education" courses.

[EvilPie]

I didn't wear a seat belt from the age of about 18 through to about 22. Don't know why I just didn't see a problem with it as I wasn't planning on having a crash.

At that age a friend of mine (non-seatbelt wearer, not planning on crashing) had a minor crash that resulted in him losing the use of his arm.

That pretty much re-educated me.

Seeing those stupid adverts where they slow things down and show you what might happen with lots of fake blood are pretty pointless. See something real and I think the re-education side of it is far from pointless.