[Closed] Speed Awareness Course Attendees

I would have been surprised at the same, but I recall my mother being in her late 50s on 9 points, and I think of how appalling a driver my FIL is.

44 is the wrong side of 55.

I always seam to come across old people who drive at 40mph in open 60 zones and then 40mph in 30 zones ...

Not everyone is offered the courses

Lot of 'older' people on the course I attended, and not many 'young uns'.

Most seemed to be there as their had no clue what the speed limits on various roads actually are. That included a couple of 'professional' drivers.

I did the course, I thought it was garbage. I still exceed the limit on empty open roads like the deserted DC where I got caught at 06:00 on Christmas day morning setting off to drive to Wiltshire. But I still drive at 30 or even 25 or less on residential and built up streets.

My late grandfather-in-law was told that he was the oldest person ever caught speeding in Lincolnshire. He was 92.

As an ex-police officer himself, he was half-embarrassed and half massively amused.

TT2000 course for me, offered the choice again i'd take points, total waste of time.
The high light was watching the old boy next to me turn his hearing aids off everytime the one [s]knob[/s] tutor started spouting.

I thought it was useful. Maybe the quality of training varies as much as the quality of drivers?

Said on the BBC earlier that there are 4 million drivers over seventy in the UK, I was surprised to find that they only have to declare themselves fit every 3 years to continue driving -basically an honesty system. I wonder what proportion of those 4 million aren't fit to drive.

Although if a doctor thinks they are unfit, they can have their licence taken from them at any time .

I did the course, I thought it was garbage. I still exceed the limit

I found mine surprisingly painless and a lot cheaper than points

I've never been caught = eye examin/prescription upto date. Its not ****ing rocket science.

Speeding isnt a badge of honour but I do think every driver should face annual eyetest/glasses.

A few weeks ago as I approached the speed camera warning sign on Snake pass a new Merc behind me belted it- the way he left me on the straight...well I reckon he'd have been doing a ton before he drew LEVEL with the camera van before he hit his brakes 😆

You rarely see police speed traps during the morning or evening rush hour so the demographics the OP state make sense.

My mate was hit by an oncoming speeder on another wise deserted open country road . The speeder took a gentle bend a little too wide and peeled the rear door out of his Volvo sending them both off the road.

My speed awareness fought me that no matter how good a driver you are speed exaggerates you mistakes reduces your and other drivers opportunities to react and maximises the damage of an impact.

It also demonstrated how profoundly stupid many habitually speeding drivers are.

Don't know if it's an urban myth, but I've been told a number of times that they don't offer it to the yoof. The course I was on the youngest looking was about 30-35.
I thought mine was useful and and learnt a thing or two.

Yep, same experience as most.

Half full of +60's and only one who looked under 30 - and quite amusing watching them all guess the speed limits.

At the beginning the Instructor asked "why we were there?", no one wanted to answer. So I put my hand up.

"Because we got caught?"

Knowing the answer he was looking for, was "because we were speeding".

There was a smug know-it-all on our course too. There was also the one who bored everyone by constantly whining about the injustice of the circumstances of his penalty.

As well as mostly being aimed at the more mature driver they only seem to be given to those who've transgressed in a small way. IE less than 10mph over a limit.

I guess the idea is that it's just designed to focus the attention and bring the target demographic into line. I suspect they've also done this for a long time and they don't like the mouthy hecklers they're likely to get if they bring in those who regularly flout the law or the under 30s who are less brow beaten by life.

I've never been on one (I've not yet been caught rather than being a goody 2 shoes), are you allowed to dissent or does that get you a fail?

From my limited experience you do get to dissent but you will get to be asked to justify your position which most of those who dissent can't actually do. I got criticised by the group and the leaders for pointing out that speeding was a criminal offense .

I think you only fail the course if you turn up late, leave early or hold the tutor/class at gun point.

"I've never been on one (I've not yet been caught rather than being a goody 2 shoes), are you allowed to dissent or does that get you a fail?"

No, on the TT2000 course there is no discussion, you are there to be punished not to learn. After a chap had argued a 2nd point he was asked if he wanted to leave. If you fail to complete the course you are refered back to the police, points and fine.

I had a clean ticket so i could have taken the point with any further cost. the course was knocking on for 50% more than the fine. So it was touch and go - but I wanted something from the course. I was looking forward to it. I don't go with a it will be crap attitude. To be honest i can't beleave that TT2000 can get away with it. 4 hours sat in a room being spouted at. And some of what they came out with was well..... "if there is a cycle lane cyclists must by law use it"

There are other providers, if you get offered one google the provider and see what the net says.

Don't know if it's an urban myth, but I've been told a number of times that they don't offer it to the yoof. The course I was on the youngest looking was about 30-35.

They tend not to offer it to new drivers as they have 6 points and you're sitting your test again period after passing.

It's the old ones you have to watch out for!

As boxelder said, not everyone is offered.
The explanation I got was that youngsters go hell for leather, and the ones that get the offer of the course are within a certain percentage of the limit. Lapse of "speed awareness", which tends to be the more experienced drivers.

If you think that's a weak sweeping generalisation, it's okay, the feminist running the show was full of 'em 🙄

Did my course yesterday. Thought the two guys presenting were good, but I didn't learn anything.

I got nabbed doing 46 on a 40mph dual carriageway - empty road and no residential buildings (or anything!) nearby. I'm super slow in built up areas.

Got me out of points on my licence, but didn't deliver anything else to me. And perhaps it should have - maybe the courses need a redesign. I was talking to one huy who'd done it three years ago and you actually went out in your car with an instructor for two hours to get a real, practicle assessment and advice.

In North Yorkshire they have set limits.

Over the limit by 10% + 2 and you get offered the course.
Up to 10% + 9 when the offer of a course stops.

Younger people are maybe not getting the course offered due to the speeds they get caught at.

Half full of +60's and only one who looked under 30 - and quite amusing watching them all guess the speed limits.

That to me is a good argument (one of many) for regular re-tests for all drivers.

I regularly see (old) people who quite clearly believe that the speed limit on a NSL dual carriageway is still 50mph. Always amusing to watch them brake for the speed cameras.

And of course the others ones that seem to think two lanes = dual carriageway, who accelerate when the other lane appears then brake at the end.

I found it really interesting - our guys went quite in depth on the relationship between speed and energy, and why the human body doesn't respond well to being hit by speeding cars (hence all the "at 30mph, 80% of pedestrians hit by a car survive - at 40mph 80% die" stuff).

If you've done the course and come away without changing your driving habits, I'd question whether you should be driving.

I found my speed awareness course quite painless and it was certainly better than points on my licence. I came away from it a better driver, certainly a more aware driver anyway.

I did one, at the end you're given a booklet and asked to complete a sentence with your intentions after the course has finished. I complied with 'I intend not to speed again ever' and the chap next to me put 'I intend to slow down for speed cameras and not get caught again' - they don't mark or ask to see the booklet.

I found mine surprisingly painless and a lot cheaper than points

Is that after including the cost of taking time off work? I reckon that at least some of the younger working drivers must reckon the same as I did when I was offered one and figure it's not worth it on that basis, not when I don't appear to be penalised in any significant way on my car insurance (provided I keep my nose clean, and only got another couple of months to go now before my last renewal before my current 3 points falls off - already gone in terms of totting up).

And some of what they came out with was well..... "if there is a cycle lane cyclists must by law use it"

Did you complain about that (after the course)? I certainly would.

If you've done the course and come away without changing your driving habits, I'd question whether you should be driving.

Really? Doesn't that depend on how good your driving standard is before going on the course? Maybe it's those who require such a course in order to learn to drive competently who's place on the roads should be in question.

Obviously if you were a good driver you would not be speeding and so would not be having the course or points choice.

I was one of the youngest people on my course (I was 29 when I took it).

Obviously if you were a good driver you would not be speeding

Really? You think that the legal speed limit is the 'safe' limit on all roads in all conditions and that they don't differ? Sometimes that 'safe' limit is below the legal limit, and at times (and places) it may be above the legal limit. Being a good driver is knowing the difference.

Obviously if you were a good driver you would not be speeding

I always stay within the limit if I've had a few....

Sometimes that 'safe' limit is below the legal limit,

Yup, so a good driver would dirve at that safe speed and would therefore be driving in a safe and legal manner.

and at times (and places) it may be above the legal limit. Being a good driver is knowing the difference.

A good driver might know the differences but he/she wouldn't drive above the speed limit and would therefore still be dirving in both a safe and legal manner.

A good driver might know the differences but he/she wouldn't drive above the speed limit and would therefore still be dirving in both a safe and legal manner.

Oh silly me, of course anyone who ever exceeds the speed limit must automatically be a bad driver 🙄

Oh silly me, of course anyone who ever exceeds the speed limit must automatically be a bad driver

Correct - because they are not thinking about the impact their driving is having on others.

Well it makes a lot more sense than trying to justify speeding because "it was safe".

Really? Doesn't that depend on how good your driving standard is before going on the course? Maybe it's those who require such a course in order to learn to drive competently who's place on the roads should be in question.

It all ties in with people having an overoptimistic opinion of their own standard of driving, and I'm as guilty of that as the next person. The difference between me and the person who says "nah, I didn't learn anything" is that I'm trying to change, hopefully for the better.

Being a good driver is knowing that the legal limit is a maximum and being sufficiently in control of your car and ego not to exceed it and sufficiently aware of the road and a host of other factors to know when you should in fact be going a lot slower than the limit.

I did one last week. It was good but about an hour too long (IMO).

We were termed "unintentional speeders". It wasn't preachy, it was interesting.

There was a 22 yr old on my course. He'd had his licence 18 mths and it was pointed out to him (and the rest of us) that it was unusual and lucky as you only have 6 points max on your licence for the first 2 years.

Most people on the course had had their licence for 25+ years. And they are the people who are "generally" complacent about their skills and experience.

I wish my world was the simple black and white place that some people inhabit, it would be so much simpler than the shades of grey I see 😕

I think it's a shame that as speed is much easier to quantify (and automatically detect and [s]raise funds[/s] fine people) than quality of driving it has become the default measure.

I wish my world was the simple black and white place that some people inhabit, it would be so much simpler than the shades of grey I see

Went to one of these 6 months ago and also found it full of 40-60 year olds.

Given none of us wanted to be there the instructor did a good job of making it interesting and relevent.

A lot of the attendees were pretty ignorant of speed limits with the result many left knowing they could go 10 mph faster on single carraigway roads than they previously thought as they had thought the national limit was 50mph.

One guy also found out his conviction was bogus as he found out that the speed limit signs on the road he had been caught on were not placed according to regs.

Lol at konabunny. 😀

I think it's a shame that as speed is much easier to quantify (and automatically detect and raise funds fine people) than quality of driving it has become the default measure.

And I think it's a misnomer to think that speed cameras are profit-making.

Most people on the course had had their licence for 25+ years. And they are the people who are "generally" complacent about their skills and experience.

complacent or unconciously competent?
Do any of us actually remember anything about the drive to work this morning? I don't. I wasn't thinking about any of it.

I think it's a shame that as speed is much easier to quantify.. than quality of driving

Nice YouTube video from Essex Police showing them enforcing a "quality of driving" issue (namely tailgating):

Several people in the comments defend the driving of the van saying the police should have moved over, it's entrapment, etc

I would imagine if this kind of operation gets more common then people will just moan that it's a money raising exercise too.

Maybe if you slowed down a bit things wouldn't seem so blurry.

I like the warp speed effect, makes it easier to pretend I'm Han Solo on the Kessel run 😀

I think there's a reasonable correlation between speed and quality of driving

I think there's a reasonable correlation between excessive or inapproprite speed and quality of driving.

Unfortunately I can't find the article or the stats to back it up, but the basic premise was that statistically the safest drivers are those who often knowingly drive a little above the speed limit. Not excessive speed just a little above the speed limit, around the figures that might get you sent on a speed awareness course. Not talking about doing 35mph past a sachool at 3pm, but more on the 'open road'.

These drivers are generally compotent and confident. Those at the extemes of the speed spectrum, excessively fast (reckless) or excessively slow (not confident, and maybe not compotent?) where most likely to have accidents.

You can't see what the traffic conditions are like ahead of the police car in that video so you can't make a judgement on whether there was any provocation but the van they've both just overtaken undertakes them at some point so it could be seen as provocative if the way ahead of the police car was clear and he was just slowing down. Doesn't excuse the rude and dangerous driving from the van though.

These drivers are generally compotent and confident.

I think that is skewed by the fact that these drivers are the ones that are aware of what the speed limit actually is, even if they are breaking it, whereas the other groups are skewed by containing the complete muppets who have no idea what is going on.

but the basic premise was that statistically the safest drivers are those who often knowingly drive a little above the speed limit.

So what, would be my response to that. Whether or not someone is "statistically a safer driver" does not alter the fact that when speeding, they have broken the law. You also appear to have confused correlation and causation. Just beacuse some people who break the speed limit are "safe" drivers it doesn't mean that if you allow all drivers to break speed limits that they will magically become "safe" drivers. I'd also have serious reservations about anyone who uses the logic that "I'm a safe driver therefore I'm allowed to break the speed limit".

If the speed limits were abolished do you really think that accident rates would fall?

it could be seen as provocative if the way ahead of the police car was clear and he was just slowing down. Doesn't excuse the rude and dangerous driving from the van though.

Exactly. Most tailgaters seem to do it to bully other drivers or to "punish" them for some perceived transgression.

Regardless of whether the cop car had room to pull left, or whether he slowed down unnecessarily*, the van is acting dangerously and comes with 1 foot of the bumper while doing 70mph and takes both hands off the wheel to wave them about! 😯

.

* Essex Police say in the comments that [i]"To clarify, the officer was unable to make a natural over-taking manoeuvre whilst remaining within the speed limit because of the position of cars around him, out of view? of the camera."[/i] - but then they would wouldn't they 🙂

Ecky-Thump - Member

complacent or unconciously competent?
Do any of us actually remember anything about the drive to work this morning? I don't. I wasn't thinking about any of it.

If they were that competent then surely they should be aware of the speed limit where they are driving and comform to it, or know where the cameras are and slow down before it.

It's no secret where the cameras are, they are all published on websites.

Some awfully poor attempts at reasoning on this thread.

Fact remains, there is a speed limit, so drive to it or pay the fine. End of.

Simple physics says more speed is more dangerous. End of. That is why we have limits. Now there are many other types of bad driving, and they need addressing, but that does not change these facts. Just get used to it and stop whining. It's like talking to my four year old daughter.

annebr, I wasn't defending anyone, just commenting on a factor that might contribute to the perceived imbalance of attendees skewed towards 30-40-50 agegroups.

How about a more honest approach to the speed debate?

I quite like driving fast.

I know if I am caught I will be fined and I'm willing to accept it. No bleating or whining.

But realistically the risks of being caught are very small and I enjoy "making progress". If I do get caught doing 85 on a quiet motorway or 75 on a well sighted country road i'll suck it up and pay the fine.

No excuse for hooning about in town mind you but lets not kid ourselves about the amount of thought that goes into speed limits they are largely just arbitrary numbers. Motorway speed limits haven't changed for over 40 years

Just get used to it and stop whining.

Didn't see anyone whining to be honest. Just some debate about how safe or not a driver is or isnt based on the speed they are doing above or under an arbitrary limit.

Safe isnt necessarily legal and legal isnt necessarily safe.

Question to all those suggesting that speeding is a black and white issue, and that breaking the speed limit makes you a bad driver. Full stop.

What if the section of road you are on used to be a NSL DC, and perfectly safe as such. Does getting caught speeding in what is now a 50 limit make you a bad driver? I acknowledge that breaking it is against the law, but that is a separate issue (there are quite a few strawmen getting thrown around by the absolutists here).

"Motorway speed limits haven't changed for over 40 years "
neither have human reaction times.
The nature and volume of traffic has in terms of more vehicles and more HGV's.
The nature of motorway surfaces has, many are now badly degraded and patched as they are at the end of their life span.
Brakes have improved on average but so has power of acceleration. The average age of drivers has gone up so more slow reactions . Lots more people on the roads in shoddy cars . lots more people on the roads who passed their tests or not in foreign lands.

bad weather is either just as common or more common.

Motorway speed limits haven't changed for over 40 years

People often say that. Does anyone consider what needs to happen to significantly increase the speed limit on our motorway?

I'm no highway engineer but I would imagine that the speed of traffic has a pretty big impact on road design factors like the minimum radius of corners, length of slip roads, camber, sign size and distances from hazard, lighting, crash barriers, lane width, etc

Sounds like increasing the speed limits would either involve A) a LOT of money spent on road rebuilding or B) re-writing or ignoring the existing safety guidance and just accepting the increase in casualties.

If they were that competent then surely they should be aware of the speed limit where they are driving and comform to it, or know where the cameras are and slow down before it.

It's no secret where the cameras are, they are all published on websites.

True, however I was caught on the way home from work a few years ago. It was a wide but winding road with a 40mph speed limit. There was one of those big "40" signs painted on the road and another small "40" sign on a post next to it.

One day I was coming home and just around the corner I was stopped by the police. The speed limit had changed to 30mph that day. The big sign on the road was still saying 40, but the little sign on the post now said 30...

The police clobbered hundreds that day, a few challenged it in court, but it's the little sign with the red border that counts. I was given 3 points and £60 fine, no offer of a course. I was doing 37mph.

People often say that. Does anyone consider what needs to happen to significantly increase the speed limit on our motorway?

I'm no highway engineer but I would imagine that the speed of traffic has a pretty big impact on road design factors like the minimum radius of corners, length of slip roads, camber, sign size and distances from hazard, lighting, crash barriers, lane width, etc

You're making a good argument to justify the motorway limit being upgraded there, given a lot of those factors are related to the performance of vehicles. Not to mention that the de facto speed limit is significantly higher than 70 and the highway engineering seems to cope just fine in general.

aracer why are you breaking the speed limit in your example?

1 because you don't know it has changed? .. bad driver.. poor observation.
2 because you believe that you are entitled to make a personal value judgement as to which elements of the criminal law apply to you and which don't ..bad driver hubris poor judgement lack of acknowledgment that others may be on the road and create a problem that you have no time or opportunity to avoid.
3 because you are in a hurry and late.. bad driver poor planning and incapable of prioritising.
4 because the road has been cleared specially for you and you know that you can handle the car at that speed on that road .. good driver.

The absolutist argument does not hinge on the individual safety of any given driver . They are public roads for all qualified drivers and vehicles the law has to apply to all or none and requires a clear black and white boundary so that it can be applied and enforced . It just so happens that the debate can tangent into purely the safety of speed as accidents at speed are both common and dangerous and reducing speed reduces the risk of accidents and their effects.

What do all of these roads have in common??

[URL= http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad88/RichMTB77/M74_zpsfa89c13f.jp g" target="_blank">http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad88/RichMTB77/M74_zpsfa89c13f.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

[URL= http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad88/RichMTB77/A82a_zpsde9b7001.jp g" target="_blank">http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad88/RichMTB77/A82a_zpsde9b7001.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

[URL= http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad88/RichMTB77/BealachNaBa_zps06350a29.jp g" target="_blank">http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad88/RichMTB77/BealachNaBa_zps06350a29.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

^ They are all too unfeasibly sunny to be in Britain?

^ all in Scotland (and probably all NSL 60 limits?)

they are all made from tarmac?

Do, I get a prize, what's my prize?

Rather than just speeding courses - we need not driving like a d!ck courses, that'd help loads.

As for the drive in this morning, don't remember a bit of it, I do remember that I could have done with a base layer on the bike though 🙂

The tutor on my course also said that they did courses for other misdemeanours.

Like talking on the phone/tailgating etc.

So they aren't *just* targeting speeding.

all in Scotland (and probably all NSL 60 limits?)

Yep all 60 limits.

Seriously its just a number on a pole.

I would rather people drove to the road and conditions and not the number.

That last photo would be fun at 60 😉

I would rather people drove to the road and conditions and not the number.

Absolutely - but I'd also rather they didn't exceed the number on the pole.

Or at the very least didn't endanger others when they did so.

Or drive an inch from my arse to try and make me exceed it!

Seriously its just a number on a pole.

And it's the legal speed limit. I struggle to see what the problem is here. You may not like driving at that speed - tough shit.

We need speed limits, because peopel can't be trusted. It really is that simple.

That last photo would be fun at 60

[url= https://maps.google.com/?ll=55.363692,-2.494819&spn=0.005006,0.009645&t=h&z=17 ]A68 by the Scotland/England border[/url] has some "interesting" corners for a 60 too.

Not uncommon to see a big hole in the crash barrier where someone has tried it too! 🙁

Whether or not someone is "statistically a safer driver" does not alter the fact that when speeding, they have broken the law.

That point is not being disputed by anyone one here.

You also appear to have confused correlation and causation. Just beacuse some people who break the speed limit are "safe" drivers it doesn't mean that if you allow all drivers to break speed limits that they will magically become "safe" drivers. I'd also have serious reservations about anyone who uses the logic that "I'm a safe driver therefore I'm allowed to break the speed limit".

Not at all. I'm not suggesting that exceeding the speed limit makes someone a better driver. The point tis exceeding the speed limit does not mecessarily make someone a bad driver.

Fact remains, there is a speed limit, so drive to it or pay the fine.

I know if I am caught I will be fined and I'm willing to accept it. No bleating or whining.

+1

I got caught fair and square, it was a fair cop, no arguments I was over the limit. I wasn't concentrating as I should have been, bad driving. See I'm not even claiming to be a good driver.

End of.

Sounds like my mother in law when she doesn't like anyone coming back at her and disagreeing with her point of view 🙂

Seriously its just a number on a pole.

I would rather people drove to the road and conditions and not the number.

+1

crankboy, you're going to have to give me a better explanation as to why breaking the law (by ignoring the number on a pole) automatically makes somebody a bad driver. Your current one appears to include a lot of stuff about not being courteous and paying attention to other road users which isn't actually directly related to what number is on the pole.

For reference the correct answer is:
5) because the speed I was doing was perfectly safe for the road and conditions, and I prefer to pay attention to those. The road in question being far safer to travel at speed on than 2 of the pictures posted above (yes I did say 2 - I'll reserve judgement on the other), and the speed I was doing being legal for all 3 of those pictures.

You're making a good argument to justify the motorway limit being upgraded there, given a lot of those factors are related to the performance of vehicles.

I'm not arguing against it - just pointing out that it is a more involved task than re-printing the Highway Code.

The performance of cars may have [i]generally[/i] improved, but as crankboy points as out, the performance of drivers hasn't and the physics involved remains mostly the same too.

Not to mention that the de facto speed limit is significantly higher than 70 and the highway engineering seems to cope just fine in general.

It copes (just about) with people driving at 90 when the limit is 70. But if the limit was set at 90 then the de facto speed limit would also increase.