[Closed] Speed Awareness Course Attendees

[i]"Motorway speed limits haven't changed for over 40 years "[/i]

Agree, but cars have.

Have you ever driven a pre-1970's car running drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - modern cars are a totally different proposition.

I've driven for 30 years, and according to the speed-kills brigade mantra me and everyone around me should be dead based on the speeds I've driven - except it's all been based on where it's safe to do so. Could be 20mph in a 30mph limit, or 170mph in a 60mph limit - and as someone who use to cover +40k pa, that's a lot of miles at serious speeds. No accidents, for me or anyone else.

Agree, but cars have.

Yes but people and physics haven't.

Didn't I just say this?

it's all been based on where it's safe to do so. Could be 20mph in a 30mph limit, or 170mph in a 60mph limit

I'd love to know under what circumstances 170mph in a 60 is [i]"where it's safe to do so"[/i]???

Perhaps a closed well-marshaled road, carefully inspected for debris and hazards, with wildlife-proof fencing?

crankboy - Member
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.

molgrips - Member
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.

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.

A point which is often made. But why would it increase? Is it not possible that the speed people currently drive at is what feels comfortable and not particularly based on what the current limit is. Also any new limit could be more strictly enforced - which leads onto another point, that the current situation with motorway speed limits (where the limit is less than what most people feel is a safe speed, and isn't really enforced that much) results in all speed limits being devalued, and those more important ones in towns also being ignored. Of course this driving by numbers game also leads to the situation where people think it's OK to do 70 on the motorway in fog...

Yep all 60 limits.

LIMIT. The key word in that sentence is LIMIT. Its not a target, it's not a mandatory speed it's a limit. It does not, nor should it be taken as, mean that anyone thinks that it is necessarily safe to travel at that LIMIT!

Oh and it is actually possible to obey the speed LIMIT and travel at a speed suitable for the prevailing road conditions, but then I'm sure that all you awesome drivers knew that already.

If you are under +/- 25 it would makes sense to ask your mother, father (or grandparents) to take the blame and attend the awareness course for you rather than incur the extra cost levied on you by the insurance company when you renew..............

Cars are better than they were in the 70s sure. So you think we should increase speeds until the death rates are as high as they were in the 70s?

You may not like speed limits. Tough. They are there to protect everyone. You may be Mr Safe, but what about dozy pillock sending a text and doing makeup? You want them doing 100mph as well?

All you speed camera whingers- what are you actually asking for? Abolition of speed limits?

I've resisted thus far, but just can't hold it in any longer. Here's a selection for you molgrips - sorry I'm not sure if there are quite enough in this pic.

[img] [/img]

All you speed camera whingers- what are you actually asking for? Abolition of speed limits?

Nothing really. I'm pretty happy with how the UK's roads work. Speed enforcement is such that the number on the pole becomes more of a guideline than a rule and I'm cool with that.

Read upon the Solomon Curve and the 85th percentile of speed if you are interested in how slower is not always safer

I have to attend my speed awareness course on friday . I was caught doing 35 in a 30 .
Are you obliged to inform your insurance co that you have been caught for speeding , and have opted for a speed awareness course?

Acceleration rates have increased over the last 30 years . Yes , but deceleration times/distances have also dramaticaly reduced over the last 10 years with ABS+ ESP .

You still do not automatically get prosectued for crashing , but you do for speeding although no crashing occured. Who is the worst driver ? One who is 10% over the speed limit , or one who has crashed ?

Why are you asking that question? Are you saying it's ok to speed if you don't crash?

Or is it OK to crash so long as you are not speeding?

But why would it increase? Is it not possible that the speed people currently drive at is what feels comfortable and not particularly based on what the current limit is.

It's [i]possible[/i] - but I suspect the dynamic works more like this: people think speed limits are aimed at "average drivers" and because [i]know[/i] that they are "above average", possibly in an "above average" car, then they can drive X% faster than the limit and still be safer than Mr Average, the dozy sod.

So increasing the limit doesn't decrease the number of speeders (maybe it'd have a short term effect till everyone got used to it).

I do agree that the casual flaunting of the motorway limit by the majority of drivers (including me) does impact on the credibility of all the other limits though. So yeah maybe the solution is to set the motorway limit at 90 or 100, but enforce it strictly with average speed cameras installed on every motorway and ideally strict enforcement of variable limits too (rather than overhead advisory signs that everyone, including me, blindly ignores)

But my point about road design remains. I know some fairly short slip roads where I wouldn't fancy trying to get up to 100mph (or whatever speed the "slow lane" was doing) in a 1 litre Ford Ka, a 30 year old Volvo Estate, or an HGV.

Likewise I can think of motorways with exits from the outside lane that I don't fancy attempting at 100mph.

So I think some degree of re-building would be required.

You have to set a limit. And it might as well be what it currently is. We'd only end up using more fuel, and it wouldn't really make any difference to anything. If the limit were 80 you'd still be whingeing about not being able to do 90.

Or is it OK to crash so long as you are not speeding?

FFS.

Crashing is clearly bad. We crash for lots of reasons. None of us choose to crash, none of us expect to crash. We all think we're not going to crash. Despite all that, we still do crash.

So given that we crash, would it not be better to crash at 70 than 90?

Simple physics says more speed is more dangerous. End of. That is why we have limits.

By that logic, we should set the motorway limits to 20mph. Hey presto, safe motorways!

And anyway, it's not why we have limits, even remotely. Limits were brought in to stop motor manufacturers using the M6 as a test track.

Cars are better than they were in the 70s sure. So you think we should increase speeds until the death rates are as high as they were in the 70s?

Sure, so long as you remove the seatbelt laws, airbags, crumple zones, etc etc whilst you're at it. Otherwise you're just being disingenuous.

Are you obliged to inform your insurance co that you have been caught for speeding , and have opted for a speed awareness course?

No.

I think you're being disingenuous yourself there Cougar.

Increasing the speed limits [i]will[/i] result in an increase in road deaths.

It doesn't matter that we got them down to the current low (relatively speaking) levels by the measures you mention - we're talking about applying good old "risk compensation" to take advantage of that extra safety to let us go faster for the same amount of risk.

By that logic, we should set the motorway limits to 20mph. Hey presto, safe motorways!

You know full well why we don't do that...

Limits were brought in to stop motor manufacturers using the M6 as a test track.

And why was that a bad thing?

Increasing the speed limits will result in an increase in road deaths.

[citation needed]

Risk compensation is an interesting one though; if we took away airbags and replaced them with a 6" metal spike in the middle of the wheel, what effect would that have on accident stats?

You agreed to abide by the speed limits as part of your licence. If you disagree with current speed limits then in protest send your licence back with a strongly worded letter.

DVLA
Swansea
SA6 7JL

Can you explain to me how everyone driving faster, with much greater speed differentials between traffic, and faster higher energy impacts, would NOT result in more people dying?

If you need a citation I suggest http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_gateway/forces/motionrev1.shtml

So yeah maybe the solution is to set the motorway limit at 90 or 100, but enforce it strictly with average speed cameras installed on every motorway and ideally strict enforcement of variable limits too

I'd be all for that principle (I'm far from being anti-speed limit or anti-speed camera for all those who are assuming otherwise - though that point was possibly best answered by the pic above). Though to be honest 100 is far too high, and 90 possibly also too high. Personally at least I very much doubt I'd speed if the limit were 90, even if it wasn't enforced.

I also get your point about some slip roads - one I use regularly is pretty short, and I have before now had the misfortune to be on it as the old duffer in front of me who was doing 50 decided to brake before joining.

You have to set a limit. And it might as well be what it currently is. We'd only end up using more fuel, and it wouldn't really make any difference to anything.

Assuming you ignore the bit about enforcing a new limit and that helping with greater respect for the speed limits which are more important then you'd be right. Would you also care to argue that a French style system of an increased normal limit (say 80) combined with a reduced limit for poor conditions (say 60) wouldn't result in an overall decrease in accidents injuries and fatalities? You can't just look at these things in isolation.

Aracer your 5 was my 2.

Re the French variable speed limits who decides when conditions are bad? Is it a sign that is switched on or a value judgement by the driver/ traffic cop ?

Ah - that was what you meant to put for 2?

I have to attend my speed awareness course on friday . I was caught doing 35 in a 30 .
Are you obliged to inform your insurance co that you have been caught for speeding , and have opted for a speed awareness course?

According to the instructors on my course (Gloucestershire) no you are not. However if you are applying for insurance at a new company and you are asked whether you have attended one you have to answer truthfully. They also mentioned that a couple of insurance companies actually give you a discount if you have been on one as evidence suggests most drivers change their habits after attending - I cannot find any evidence of this via Google though.

The price of the Gloucestershire course was less than the fine and the course itself was engaging and thought provoking. I was able to ask questions such as "Shouldn't limits set in the 1970s be raised because modern cars are so much more capable" which were then debated constructively.

I think I gained something from the course even though I think that where I was caught (road into Newport from M4) had a whiff a revenue raising about it (camera after a bridge as the limit drops from 50 to 30 in a non-residential area). Being honest with myself I was probably not thinking about my speed because I was running a bit late for an appointment at the passport office.

Aracer - a much more sensible post. Most pepole on these threads trot out complete bollocks.

Discussing what speed limits actually should be is another thing. 80 would probably be fine, after all people (even me) feel at complete liberty to drive that fast on the motorway. But what good would it do really? If we start enforcing limits better then maybe we should have the debate.

But even so - 70 is plenty fast enough. I think there's a big advantage in people travelling at similar speeds. So lorries and old people will still be driving at 60 ish, but the fastest will now be doing that bit faster, so the differential will be greater.

The best solution, imo, would be strictly enforced and intelligently set variable limits over the whole network.

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.

Long, but worth listening to the whole piece.

molgrips - Member

All you speed camera whingers- what are you actually asking for? Abolition of speed limits?

Yes, along with the removal of speedometers from cars.
Make people think.

Although I'm not a whinger, as I have never broken a law in my life. 😀

gonefishin - Member

Yep all 60 limits.

LIMIT. The key word in that sentence is LIMIT. Its not a target

Congratulations, you've just failed your driving test. 😆

[i]Yes, along with the removal of speedometers from cars.
Make people think.[/i]

Absolutely, driving to the speed limit, is just poor driving - as I said previously, drive to your and the roads limit.

[i]I think there's a big advantage in people travelling at similar speeds. So lorries and old people will still be driving at 60 ish, but the fastest will now be doing that bit faster, so the differential will be greater.[/i]

It would save the worry of overtaking, eh Moly 😉

I'm a bit uneasy with the idea that we're quailified to judge when it's safe to do, say, 85 on a motorway - I don't remember being tested for that! At the same time, I'm sure I've done it too - I'm just not sure I could argue that it's in any way justifiable. It seems to me that, on any given stretch of road, in any given conditions, the faster you drive, the more likely you are to be involved in an accident, and the worse the consequences will be for you and whatever you hit. And if that lot's not enough, think of the environment. 🙂

Driving to speed limits is not poor driving at all. Driving to speed limits and ignoring road conditions is poor driving, but that's because ignoring road conditions is poor driving.

Drive to conditions but don't go any faster than a limit. Doesn't seem wrong to me. If you think people should be allowed to make up their own minds about speed then you are in cloud cuckoo land, you know nothing about psychology or perception, and not much about driving.

Discussing what speed limits actually should be is another thing. 80 would probably be fine, after all people (even me) feel at complete liberty to drive that fast on the motorway.

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.

I is confuzed

If you're confused by that, you need to put the computer back in the box and send it back to the shop. 😛

No seriously:

Its the legal speed limit and we may not like driving at its tough shit etc

Vs

80 mph is fine on the motorway

Both views apparently being held simultaneously by the same person. Its doublethink Orwell would be proud of!

I is confuzed

That's only a confusing statement if you assume that "peopel can't be trusted" doesn't include himself.

Or possibly "himsefl" 😉

Oh, ok - I doubt if any person on here can hand on heart say that they always stick to the limit - what the heck, it all started on the back of someone being caught speeding. But if your argument hangs on the paradox of people who speed supporting the enforcement of speed limits, fair enough - I just think we're arguing about different things.

pondo - Member

I'm a bit uneasy with the idea that we're quailified to judge when it's safe to do, say, 85 on a motorway

But you are happy for people to judge what a safe speed is below the limit?
Even though it could be a small fraction of that limit?

I is confuzed

Why? I appreciate the need for limits, even though I occasionally transgress. If our limits were higher people would still transgress. So we still need limits.

But you are happy for people to judge what a safe speed is below the limit?
Even though it could be a small fraction of that limit?

Speed is just a single metric with which people judge how good a driver you are.

If I drive down the A1, on a clear day, paying good attention at 85mph when there's little to no traffic and I keep good distance to other vehicles am I worse driver than someone going 29 in a 30 limit whilst tired, paying little attention and thinking about what they'll cook for tea?

We can't measure attentiveness with a camera on the side of the road. So we measure speed.

People get caught by a camera that makes no judgement on HOW they're driving, just how fast.

As I said earlier - I got nabbed doing 46 in a 40 limit. It was a dual carriageway and I was pretty much the only vehicle on the road. It was dry, daylight and out of rush hour. And there are no pathways or houses anywhere near it.

The van was on an overpass and was not clearly visible to me.

I agree totally that the faster you go the nastier an accident will be. But what was I going to hit? Thin air.

This is the problem. It is possible to drive fast and safe. But if you think like a speed camera you won't ever differentiate between sticking to a limit and being safe whatever your speed.

My ex-wife would NEVER exceed the speed limit. But she was an appalling driver. Almost no-one in her family would get in a car with her, and I hated it when she drove.

Inarguable. But part of the problem is, how do you judge quality of driving? Did your ex-wife consider herself a scary driver? Do any of us? Lots of people on here saying they don't see a problem with doing 85 on a clear road on a clear day (me included) - are we actualyl qualified to make that judgement? None of us would do it if we were scared, or felt at risk of an accident, and I bet you could say that of every driver on earth right up to the point of things going out of control.

Are cameras there to measure "quality" of driving? Or are they there as a safety measure because drving quickly is more dangerous than driving slowly?

pondo - Member

Not sure happy's the right word - maybe say that I don't have a lot of choice but to accept it... What I AM happy with, though, is that if they DO make a misjudgement at a speed lower than the posted limit, the consequences will be less severe than if they made a misjudgement at a speed over the posted limit.

No one is disagreeing with simple physics, but prevention is better than cure. Give people an absolute maximum speed and they will drive at that speed, whether safe or not.
Make people think about what is a safe speed to drive at, and they will drive at a safe speed.

If I drive down the A1, on a clear day, paying good attention at 85mph when there's little to no traffic and I keep good distance to other vehicles am I worse driver than someone going 29 in a 30 limit whilst tired, paying little attention and thinking about what they'll cook for tea?

Are those really the only two options?

It is possible to drive fast and safe.

It is, but in almost all circumstances you'd be [i]safer[/i] going slower.

(Unless you're trying to outrun a volcano or something)

if you think like a speed camera you won't ever differentiate between sticking to a limit and being safe whatever your speed.

Why does obeying the law mean you are "thinking like a speed camera"?

You make it sound as if it is impossible to obey the speed limit and still have an independent thought about what is an appropriate speed.

But what was I going to hit? Thin air

That's really not the point. You were speeding, end of.

In the future maybe we'll have intelligent computer systems that'll be able to assess how safe we are and penalise you based on that - then maybe we'll be able to abolish absolute speed limits. But as of now, we're not.

This is about law, and you have to have absolute measureable facts in law, otherwise people will be able to wriggle out of it.

Just learn to stick to the speed limit. It really isn't hard.

This is about law, and you have to have absolute measureable facts in law

That really isn't true.

No one is disagreeing with simple physics, but prevention is better than cure.

Give people an absolute maximum speed and they will drive at that speed, whether safe or not.

Make people think about what is a safe speed to drive at, and they will drive at a safe speed.

That really isn't true.

molgrips - Member

But what was I going to hit? Thin air

That's really not the point. You were speeding, end of.

In the future maybe we'll have intelligent computer systems that'll be able to assess how safe we are and penalise you based on that - then maybe we'll be able to abolish absolute speed limits. But as of now, we're not.

This is about law, and you have to have absolute measureable facts in law, otherwise people will be able to wriggle out of it.

Not true. If you are caught by a person and not a camera, you are able to explain your situation and perhaps get away with 'words of advice'; a bit of a ticking off and 'don't do it again, there's a good fella'.

A camera cannot do this, so it cannot distinguish between someone doing 35 in a 30 who has assessed the situation, looked at the weather conditions, the time of day, the road surface, knows the condition of his car inside out etc. and someone who does 35 in a 30 regardless of weather, road surface, the fact that 3 of their tyres are bald, there is a group of young children messing around on the pavement etc...

Both are breaking the law by the same amount, but the risk is very different.

Right, so why would the person doing 35 be doing 35, when they know it's a 30?

molgrips - Member
Right, so why would the person doing 35 be doing 35, when they know it's a 30?

Dunno.

Taking their sick daughter to the hospital?
Late home for tea?
Stuck in traffic earlier and trying to make up some time?
Fish and chips on the passenger seat getting cold?
Needs a wee and doesn't want to do it illegally at the side of the road?
Late for a flight?

As there are so many 'experts' on this subject has anyone been involved with a community speed watch program? We have a speeding problem through the village so I'm wondering do they work, or if you get a slapped wrist through the post do you just ignore it?

Ah - now that I'd argue with!

Speed governed lorry drivers.

Checkmate! 😆

Pembo - Member

As there are so many 'experts' on this subject has anyone been involved with a community speed watch program? We have a speeding problem through the village so I'm wondering do they work, or if you get a slapped wrist through the post do you just ignore it?

I ignored the one I got (36 in a 30).
At the time I was in a gear with a maximum speed of 30mph, verified by GPS and my speedometer's known inaccuracy.

Being juvenile is not a crime. 😳

Speed governed lorry drivers.

Checkmate!

It seems to me that, on any given stretch of road, in any given conditions, the faster you drive, the more likely you are to be involved in an accident, and the worse the consequences will be for you and whatever you hit.

Red flag with that?

I just think we're arguing about different things.

That started way back in the thread when you attempted to argue that breaking a speed limit (any speed limit no matter how inappropriate) makes somebody a bad driver - bad enough that they shouldn't be on the road if going on a course didn't change their driving habits. Then when that assertion was challenged, you and others came out with a load of strawmen.

molgrips - Member
That's really not the point. You were speeding, end of.

In the future maybe we'll have intelligent computer systems that'll be able to assess how safe we are and penalise you based on that - then maybe we'll be able to abolish absolute speed limits. But as of now, we're not.

This is about law, and you have to have absolute measurable facts in law, otherwise people will be able to wriggle out of it.

Just learn to stick to the speed limit. It really isn't hard.

Molgrips, do you actually believe this or are you just trolling? I really can't tell.

Red flag with that?

That started way back in the thread when you attempted to argue that breaking a speed limit (any speed limit no matter how inappropriate) makes somebody a bad driver - bad enough that they shouldn't be on the road if going on a course didn't change their driving habits. Then when that assertion was challenged, you and others came out with a load of strawmen.

In response to -

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.

I think by definition, if you've had to go on a speed awareness course, the quality of your driving is not as good as it could be, to say the least. If you take corrective advice on board, where's the issue? If you choose to ignore the advice, then I'd say yeah, I question whether you should be on the roads.

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.

The "arguing about different things" quote was in response to -

Its the legal speed limit and we may not like driving at its tough shit etc

Vs

80 mph is fine on the motorway

Both views apparently being held simultaneously by the same person. Its doublethink Orwell would be proud of!