A colleague appeared this morning £150 poorer but without points. (34 in a 30, £90 for a 3 hour course last night and £60 for the fine.)
He produced some amazing statistics.
1. Last year had the lowest-ever death rate on the roads. (I pointed out that it was probably the economy, not speed cameras that had achieved that miracle).
2. Doing 32mph you will hit somebody at 10mph when doing 30mph you wouldn't - and they'd done tests on an airfield to prove it.
He admitted he often drives on autopilot and doesn't think much about the speed he does.
He had (indeed still has) no idea what the legal speed limit is on different types of roads.
Anyway, I think the course did him some good. Perhaps the driving test should only last ten years.
|
... I think the course did him some good...
I've spoken to a handful of people who have done a course, and each one conceded they found it helpful.
|
I've been on one (flashed at 36 in a 30 on the A40 in High Wycombe, I was looking for a car dealer's, wasn't familiar with the area, wasn't paying attention to my speed and didn't notice the camera) and I found it interesting and useful.
I actually came away thinking they should be compulsory every 10 years or so for everyone.
|
I've done this sort of course - not speeding related as such. I'd say it was useful. We also went out driving in a driving examiners car and took turns and got observed. This was one of the more useful parts IMO.
It was pretty much like a ROSPA driving course I did at work. These were compulsory every few years but were eventually cit to save money. Irony is they used to run them to improve driving standards to reduce accidents... and therefore reduce costs.
|
They cannot cope with the existing number of tests, so more tests is not the answer, it is too expensive, however I think perhaps a new theory test every ten years might solve a lot of issues. However speeding is often down to arrogance rather than ignorance. There is no no excuse for not knowing the limits of say a dual and single carriage way at the national speed limit.
I admit to occasional gone over the limit in situations where the traffic is moving fast and too busy concentrating on changing lane safely, I might creep to say 32 in a 30.
|
Is there any YouTube (or similar) videos of what is taught at this course?
Or any Power Point presentation what they show?
|
>> fast and too busy concentrating on changing lane safely, I might creep to say 32
>> in a 30.
We should have automatic licence removal for pussy footing about too.
:-) I'm joking I'm joking!
|
>>There is no no excuse for not knowing the limits of say a dual and single carriage way at the national speed limit.
You'd be amazed at how many people think the limit is 50 or 60 on national speed limited dual carriageways.
|
My Partner went on one recently, (she was caught doing 34 in a 30)
And she said a) it was really interesting b) and actually learnt something from it
There was however the odd person, who didn't think that they should be there as they "where perfect drivers anyway"
My partner came out of it having learned something and some sound advice
"You may be a good driver, but its the bad ones that will kill you"
|
>> You'd be amazed at how many people think the limit is 50 or 60 on national speed limited dual carriageways.
Likewise the ones who dont, who drive non-car derived vans.
|
|
Whathappened to the 10% + 3 rule? Getting done for 34 in a 30 is a bit tough!
|
>> Whathappened to the 10% + 3 rule? Getting done for 34 in a 30 is
>> a bit tough!
I thought it was 10%+1 and I'm fairly sure Mrs B's SAC was on that basis. Given speedo inconsistencies 34 is going to be pretty close to an indicated 40 so it's well into innatentive or autopilot territory
|
The limit at which a speed awareness course may - important word - be offered has recently raised to, I think, ten per cent plus 9mph.
No courses available for offences in Scotland.
|
>> The limit at which a speed awareness course may - important word - be offered
>> has recently raised to, I think, ten per cent plus 9mph.
Woo- License to do 86mph on the motorway then without copping any points!
I always thought the prosecution limit was 10%+2mph.
|
|
I always thought it was just 10%
|
Haven't been on the motorway for a while but the amount of drivers who where going well over 80.The cops would have had a feel day.Depending on the weather and circumstances talking to a motorway cop he would stop a car doing about 90.mph.( alledgedly).
|
>> prosecution limit was 10%+2mph
ACPO guidelines, rather than hard and fast rule I think.
I got stopped by a copper on foot in 2003 for doing 41 in a 30, he said he was reporting anyone doing 42 or over that morning so I was lucky. He said the threshold varied depending on the exact location, time of day etc. He was standing in the wooden bus shelter here: bit.ly/p8MHiN on a road where the limit had previously been 40mph.
I've never been on a speed awareness course, nor am I likely to as I simply don't speed anywhere (save the odd, very rare late-night motorway blast). I don't stare at my speedo to the exclusion of all else, but since I saw someone get knocked down last year I've been aware that if I hit something (or someone) then my initial speed and its appropriateness would be one of the first things analysed by both the police and my insurance.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Fri 19 Aug 11 at 16:23
|
Ten per cent plus 9mph is about the strength of it since April, although strictly, it's a guideline:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13022347
|
I used to be an instructor on those for the local council, though back then that was mainly for offences other than speeding. Most people who went through thought the course very enlightening and worth doing, though the general ignorance of even the most basic signs and rules of the road was an eye-opener.
Some of the "offences" people were offered the course for lieu of a prosecution were so vague and trivial I often felt that if the offender had refused there was no way plod would have taken it to court.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Fri 19 Aug 11 at 16:38
|
|
It was never a "rule" - it was a "guideline"
|
"Doing 32mph you will hit somebody at 10mph when doing 30mph you wouldn't - and they'd done tests on an airfield to prove it."
What does that mean?
|
I think it means if someone stepped out in front of you xx yards ahead, and you were doing 30 mph, and applied the brakes, you would stop short of them. If you were doing 32 mph you would not stop in time and you would be doing 10mph when you hit them.
Mind you if they were xx-y yards away, and you were doing 30 mph, you would hit them.
|
|
It's a pretty meaningless statement unless you know what distance xx is.
|
>> It's a pretty meaningless statement unless you know what distance xx is.
>>
Not really. It means that, at the point where you would have stopped had you been doing 30, you will still be doing 10mph had you been doing 32. Nothing difficult to understand about that.
|
The original statement was
'Doing 32mph you will hit somebody at 10mph when doing 30mph you wouldn't - '
This is patently not true: You need to know the distance you are talking about. If it is anywhere within the thinking distance you will hit him at full tilt whatever speed you are doing. If it is is further away than the relevant stopping distance you will stop in time whatever speed you are travelling.
Assuming as stoping distance of 75 feet at 30 mph and 83 feet feet at 32 mph a more correct statement would be
"if someone steps in your path 75 feet away and you are travelling at 30 mph you will be able to stop. If you are travelling at 32mph you will hit that person at 10mph
|
It's all fairly meaningless, until somebody can explain "it's 30 for a reason".
So, 30 is much safer than 32, but presumably 28 is much safer than 30, because you can put something together to say that "if somebody steps out X feet in front of you, if you are doing 28 you will miss them, but if you are doing 30, you will hit them at Y mph".
So why is it 30 and not 28?
I'm not saying that there isn't a very good reason for picking 30, just that "it's 30 for a reason" doesn't explain what it is.
|
>> It's all fairly meaningless, until somebody can explain "it's 30 for a reason".
>>
>> So, 30 is much safer than 32, but presumably 28 is much safer than 30,
>> because you can put something together to say that "if somebody steps out X feet
>> in front of you, if you are doing 28 you will miss them, but if
>> you are doing 30, you will hit them at Y mph".
>>
>> So why is it 30 and not 28?
>>
>> I'm not saying that there isn't a very good reason for picking 30, just that
>> "it's 30 for a reason" doesn't explain what it is.
>>
And 26 is safer than 28, as is 24 than 26....
Where's the red flag man when you need him?
|
>> And 26 is safer than 28, as is 24 than 26....
>>
>> Where's the red flag man when you need him?
Well, quite.
I suppose the answer is that 30 is arbitrary, and the reason is that it's "safer" than 32 (albeit not as safe as 28).
|
>> I think it means if someone stepped out in front of you xx yards ahead,
>> and you were doing 30 mph, and applied the brakes, you would stop short of
>> them. If you were doing 32 mph you would not stop in time and you
>> would be doing 10mph when you hit them.
And if you were doing 50 mph you would have passed them before they had chance to step out in front of you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnf6ib823vM&NR=1&feature=fvwp
|
>> "Doing 32mph you will hit somebody at 10mph when doing 30mph you wouldn't - and
>> they'd done tests on an airfield to prove it."
>>
>> What does that mean?
>>
I think it means that some poor beggar got to stand on an airfield while someone ran a car into him at 10mph....:-}
|
|
when i did it you only paid the £60.00 all in
|
Frankly, I am exasperated by our speed limits or rather the continually changing nature of them over relatively short distances of road. We all know places where it's 30 then up to 40 and then back to 30 etc. etc. How can any reasonable driver be expected to know just what is the limit at any moment in time. I hate the proliferation of street signage but repeater signs are needed for speed maxima. Sometimes, in familiar areas I just don't know what I'm supposed to be adhering to, frankly.
I tend to be a stickler for adhering to the limits but feel very conscious that I seem to be going slower than most other drivers. In today's modern cars it is far too easy to exceed the lower limits unless you, say, change down to a much lower gear. I tend to use my cruise control a lot but it does not take into account downward slopes where the car runs away despite being set for say 30 or 40.
I am now going to say that fateful thing in that I have never been had up for speeding although realise that this is tempting fate. I have been driving for over 55 years and love driving fast but safely, if that's not a contradiction.
Probably if I were driving professionally or did a much higher annual mileage in the UK I would be exposed to different police forces with less flexibility than here in the S.E. where we spend so much time clogged up in traffic.
|
|
My mum's going on one of these courses next week after getting nabbed by a mobile camera (47 in a 40). I will let you know her thoughts. Ahead of the event, they are unprintable. :-)
|
>> My mum's going on one of these courses next week after getting nabbed by a
>> mobile camera (47 in a 40). I will let you know her thoughts. Ahead of
>> the event, they are unprintable. :-)
>>
Thats basically what my partners opnion of it where, however after the event she came back with a completly different opnion of it
|
No need for tests on airfields...
>> % Convert speeds in mph to m/s
v=30*1609.3/3600;
V=32*1609.3/3600;
% v^2=(u^2) +2as
% Deceleration of 0.7g - fairly reasonable, and is the basis for highway code figures
a=0.7*9.81;
% Highway code "Thinking time 0.67s"
s = ((v^2) / (2*a)) + (0.67 * v)
U = sqrt( V^2 - 2*a*(s - (0.67*V)))
Umph=U*3600/1609.3
s =
22.0805
U =
5.7451
Umph =
12.8518
>>
10 mph is quite reasonable and credible.
|
Funny NC, that's just what I was thinking.
You never took shoe size into account though, which is Umph / SS x Pie.
|
>> Frankly, I am exasperated by our speed limits or rather the continually changing nature of
>> them over relatively short distances of road.
Oldgit, if there are no repeaters indicating a limit, and there are streetlights, it's 30. If there are no repeaters indicating a limit and there are no street lights, it's 60. 70 on dual carriageways and motorways unless otherwise indicated. There is no room for confusion if you follow this. There are NO exceptions.
That's all you need to know, and that's what they'll tell you on speed awareness courses. It's what they told my class, and I was one of 3 people out of about 30 who knew this beforehand.
>> In today's modern cars it is far too easy to exceed the lower limits unless you, say, change down to a much lower gear.
Well, on the speed awareness course you will be told that it's best to drive in third in a 30 limit. You may not want to, but it's hard to argue that it's not a good way of sticking to the 30.
|
>> but it's hard to
>> argue that it's not a good way of sticking to the 30.
>>
Why is that? Cars accelerate much quicker in 3rd from say 28 than they would in 4 or 5.
I remember once driving a tuned up mini that was so powerful that the only way not to accidentally send the speed zooming up to 50 was to drive in top gear all the time.
|
Cliff,
IIRC the rationale for low gears in a 30 to do with engine noise. In third there's a noticeable change in tone between say 25 and 35. Much less so in top.
|
>> Oldgit, if there are no repeaters indicating a limit, and there are streetlights, it's 30.
>> If there are no repeaters indicating a limit and there are no street lights, it's
>> 60. 70 on dual carriageways and motorways unless otherwise indicated. There is no room for
>> confusion if you follow this. There are NO exceptions.
If only life were so simple. There are very many sections of road with street lamps and NO repeater signs, or very few only every mile or so. So if there are street lamps and and no repeaters there MAY be a 30 limit. And if you are on an unfamiliar road, you are sometimes not sure!
Last edited by: pete4344 on Tue 23 Aug 11 at 20:28
|
>> If only life were so simple. There are very many sections of road with street
>> lamps and NO repeater signs, or very few only every mile or so. So if
>> there are street lamps and and no repeaters there MAY be a 30 limit. And
>> if you are on an unfamiliar road, you are sometimes not sure!
>>
Then if the street lamps are spaced 100 meters (IIRC), there are no repeater signs, Its a 30 mph limit
|
It's 200 yards or 183 meters
The effective rule is:
unless road is signed to the contrary, a 30 mph speed limit applies where there are three or more lamps throwing light on the carriageway and placed not more than 183 metres apart.
|
So there's the answer:)
If in doubt, stop the car and stride it out.
Pat
|
>> So there's the answer:)
>> If in doubt, stop the car and stride it out.
>> Pat
If in doubt, go for the lower limit.
Simples....
|
The law (I presume it's defined in a Road Traffic Act somewhere) is oddly dogmatic on repeater signs. They are not permitted on streetlighted 30mph roads - although there are plenty in the bizarre rural 30 stretches South Oxfordshire DC has given us. Of course, drivers ought to know the streetlamps rule, but plainly most don't, and I'd have thought more would adhere to the limit if they saw an occasional reminder. Some councils have taken to painting 30 circles on the tarmac to get around the restriction.
Presumably there's also a rule to govern the frequency of repeaters in higher limits. My subjective impression is that there are fewer than there used to be. I quite often find myself among streetlamps on an unfamiliar road, having missed the sign at the entrance, thinking "This can't be a 30," but having to wait a long time for a reassuring 40 or NSL repeater. Quite often the first I see is in the mirror on the other side. Anyone know the rules?
|
>> >> Oldgit, if there are no repeaters indicating a limit, and there are streetlights, it's...........................
>> If only life were so simple. There are very many sections of road with street
>> lamps and NO repeater signs, or very few only every mile or so. So if
>> there are street lamps and and no repeaters there MAY be a 30 limit. And
>> if you are on an unfamiliar road, you are sometimes not sure!
>>
Thanks for introducing an element of sense into my comments. Life isn't that simple when driving, as there are so many distractions when driving and we can't and shouldn't have our eyes glued to our speedometers when our modern cars waft us to perhaps higher speeds than intended.
I don't drive by numbers and after 55 years of driving in both familiar and unfamiliar areas often wonder just what speed max. I should not exceed. There are areas where the speed goes from 50 down to 40 and then to 30 and back up again in a matter of 1 or 2 miles which, frankly is preposterous.
There often seems no logical reason why this should be so and we all know roads where the max. speed is set too high and so the whole set up needs an urgent review, in my opinion.
As a driver I feel really frustrated at times with the set limits. There is an area near me at Biggin Hill Aerodrome where, for reasons bettter known to those, other than myself, where the speed limit is 30mph - goodness knows why! I stay doggedly at 30 whilst other all fly past me (excuse the pun).
|
I'm with Oldgit on this.
I like to observe speed limits, particularly the lower ones, but there are some stretches of road where it's difficult to be sure what the limit it.
|
So you're changing your argurment, Oldgit. You started saying you didn't understand the speed limit rules, then they were explained to you, now you're saying that it's the limits which are wrong, not that you don't understand the rules around them.
Totally different subject.
|
>> So you're changing your argurment, Oldgit. You started saying you didn't understand the speed limit
>> rules, then they were explained to you, now you're saying that it's the limits which
>> are wrong, not that you don't understand the rules around them.
>>
>> Totally different subject.
>>
Oh, pardon me for digressing slighty. I did not know that this was a sin. I am still discussing the variability of speed limits and often the confusion in me knowing exactly what speed I am supposed to be doing and I consider myself, maybe wrongly, to be one of the more enlightened motorists using our roads, in view of my acccident record and never having had points on my licence (I realise I'm asking for trouble now)!
It is the continual changing of speed limits within relatively short periods that gets my goat. I'd rather they chose the lower 'safe' limit and stick with that rather than let you do 40 mph and possibly 50mph before suddenly reining you in again.
|
"There are areas where the speed goes from 50 down to 40 and then to 30 and back up again in a matter of 1 or 2 miles which, frankly is preposterous. "
Not sure why that is preposterous. If there were no speed limits at all I can well imagine a stretch of road where the safe speed to drive would vary in such a fashion. It is of course regrettable that left to their own devices many drivers do not drive at appropriate speeds for the roads and for that reason we have to have so many speed limits.
|
>> If there were no speed limits at all I can well imagine a stretch of road where the safe speed to drive would vary in such a fashion
Ahh, but therein lies the rub. I suspect the road in question does not vary in hazards in accordance with the speed limits.
>> It is of course regrettable that left to their own devices many drivers do not drive at appropriate speeds for the roads and for that reason we have to have so many speed limits.
There's no reason to legislate for numpties, we choose too, but there's no solid reason.
|
"I suspect the road in question does not vary in hazards in accordance with the speed limits.'
Perhaps the OP would be good enough to post the location and can take a look on street view.
|
>> He produced some amazing statistics.
>> 2. Doing 32mph you will hit somebody at 10mph when doing 30mph you wouldn't -
>> and they'd done tests on an airfield to prove it.
Of course it's meaningless! I did say it was amazing. Perhaps incredible would have been better.
|
...Of course it's meaningless!...
The meaning is a small reduction in speed leads to a significant reduction in stopping distance.
Put another way, half the speed gives much less than half the stopping distance.
|
Why people should go on speed awareness courses - Iffy
