Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[vonhosen]

Raygun said:

vonhosen said:

Why is 100mph magically loony?

You've lost me there sonny??

Raygun said:

.........police car is normally pulling over loons doing 100mph which most people would agree with....

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

Raygun said:

The Surveyor said:

Just need to keep our eye's open and keep the speed down then, its covert and underhand but no different to the police using unmarked cars to pursue and pull over cars exceeding the speed limit.

The difference is the unmarked police car is normally pulling over loons doing 100mph which most people would agree with where's the hidden speed camera is just there to rake money in.

Why is 100mph magically loony?

It's not; a decent car in the right hands on the right road is perfectly safe at 100mph, potentially more. Conversely, overtaking before a blind summit doing 50mph is downright dangerous and that's the sort of thing I think unmarked police cars can help to eradicate; they would also be probably far more effective in tackling problems of that nature than cameras IMO! Speed isn't the problem, bad driving is!

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Raygun said:

vonhosen said:

Why is 100mph magically loony?

You've lost me there sonny??

Raygun said:

.........police car is normally pulling over loons doing 100mph which most people would agree with....

None the wiser??
100mph+ = speeding
6 or 7mph over the limit = money making racket

[JNW1]

Raygun said:

vonhosen said:

Raygun said:

vonhosen said:

Why is 100mph magically loony?

You've lost me there sonny??

Raygun said:

.........police car is normally pulling over loons doing 100mph which most people would agree with....

None the wiser??
100mph+ = speeding
6 or 7mph over the limit = money making racket

He's questioning why you think 100mph automatically qualifies as loony behaviour and he's right, it doesn't!

This is weird, I feel like I'm agreeing with vonhosen....

[Ms R.Saucy]

Raygun said:

None the wiser??
100mph+ = speeding
6 or 7mph over the limit = money making racket

i think you may need to revisit secondary school (sub GCSE) level physics specifically Newton's laws of motion ... and the importance of the square of the velocity in determining kinetic energy.

[vonhosen]

Raygun said:

vonhosen said:

Raygun said:

vonhosen said:

Why is 100mph magically loony?

You've lost me there sonny??

Raygun said:

.........police car is normally pulling over loons doing 100mph which most people would agree with....

None the wiser??
100mph+ = speeding
6 or 7mph over the limit = money making racket

Both = speeding
Neither = loony without context that makes them so.

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

He's questioning why you think 100mph automatically qualifies as loony behaviour and he's right, it doesn't!

This is weird, I feel like I'm agreeing with vonhosen....

If I was caught for doing 100+ I wouldn't be moaning, if I was trapped for doing 36 in a 30 I would be very annoyed.
For the majority of people me included I would guess if they read someone had been done for 100+ would say they've got their comeuppance whilst someone who gets done for doing 36 in a 30 most would say quite rightly it's a money making racket.
I might be wrong.

[JNW1]

Raygun said:

JNW1 said:

He's questioning why you think 100mph automatically qualifies as loony behaviour and he's right, it doesn't!

This is weird, I feel like I'm agreeing with vonhosen....

If I was caught for doing 100+ I wouldn't be moaning, if I was trapped for doing 36 in a 30 I would be very annoyed.
For the majority of people me included I would guess if they read someone had been done for 100+ would say they've got their comeuppance whilst someone who gets done for doing 36 in a 30 most would say quite rightly it's a money making racket.
I might be wrong.

No, I wouldn't moan about being caught at that speed either! However, the point is it isn't necessarily lunacy to be going that fast; of course the law takes a dim view of it but that doesn't by definition make it dangerous or even vaguely unsafe - so illegal yes, lunacy no (at least not necessarily!).

ETA: In some circumstances I'd argue 36mph in a 30 limit could be more reckless than (say) 100mph on a deserted stretch of motorway....

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

No, I wouldn't moan about being caught at that speed either! However, the point is it isn't necessarily lunacy to be going that fast; of course the law takes a dim view of it but that doesn't by definition make it dangerous or even vaguely unsafe - so illegal yes, lunacy no (at least not necessarily!).

ETA: In some circumstances I'd argue 36mph in a 30 limit could be more reckless than (say) 100mph on a deserted stretch of motorway....

Of course this has been discussed before but you know as well as I do they love sticking the money making machines a lot of the time where 36 in a 30 isn't dangerous and this is my point.
Vanhouson is craftily equating the two together to give some justification for the police booking people for a slight speed infringement, try not to full into his trap

[JNW1]

Raygun said:

JNW1 said:

No, I wouldn't moan about being caught at that speed either! However, the point is it isn't necessarily lunacy to be going that fast; of course the law takes a dim view of it but that doesn't by definition make it dangerous or even vaguely unsafe - so illegal yes, lunacy no (at least not necessarily!).

ETA: In some circumstances I'd argue 36mph in a 30 limit could be more reckless than (say) 100mph on a deserted stretch of motorway....

Of course this has been discussed before but you know as well as I do they love sticking the money making machines a lot of the time where 36 in a 30 isn't dangerous and this is my point.
Vanhouson is craftily equating the two together to give some justification for the police booking people for a slight speed infringement, try not to full into his trap

To be fair to vonhosen I think all he questioned was the reference to 100mph being loony. He will no doubt come back to speak for himself in the not too distant future but I got the impression he was just making the point that the sanity of a particular speed depends entirely on the circumstances in which it's undertaken (and I agree with him if that is indeed what he's saying!).

I'm sure he'd also say is 36mph in a 30 is illegal just as 100mph is illegal; get caught and you can expect to be prosecuted for either albeit the punishment will obviously be more severe for the latter as in fairness it is a long way over the limit!

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

To be fair to vonhosen I think all he questioned was the reference to 100mph being loony. He will no doubt come back to speak for himself in the not too distant future but I got the impression he was just making the point that the sanity of a particular speed depends entirely on the circumstances in which it's undertaken (and I agree with him if that is indeed what he's saying!).

I'm sure he'd also say is 36mph in a 30 is illegal just as 100mph is illegal; get caught and you can expect to be prosecuted for either albeit the punishment will obviously be more severe for the latter as in fairness it is a long way over the limit!

Tbh JNW most people know when it's a fair cop or not, the worrying thing is that if it returned to just a fair cop there would be so much revenue lost hence why some of our members from various constabularies on here are never going to come clean and own up to it being a con in many circumstances.
What has been a bit of a let down is the Tories who when first got elected back into power said "the war on the motorist is over" but that has proven not to be the case probably after seeing how much money was being made.

[cmaguire]

JNW1 said:

Raygun said:

JNW1 said:

He's questioning why you think 100mph automatically qualifies as loony behaviour and he's right, it doesn't!

This is weird, I feel like I'm agreeing with vonhosen....

If I was caught for doing 100+ I wouldn't be moaning, if I was trapped for doing 36 in a 30 I would be very annoyed.
For the majority of people me included I would guess if they read someone had been done for 100+ would say they've got their comeuppance whilst someone who gets done for doing 36 in a 30 most would say quite rightly it's a money making racket.
I might be wrong.

No, I wouldn't moan about being caught at that speed either! However, the point is it isn't necessarily lunacy to be going that fast; of course the law takes a dim view of it but that doesn't by definition make it dangerous or even vaguely unsafe - so illegal yes, lunacy no (at least not necessarily!).

ETA: In some circumstances I'd argue 36mph in a 30 limit could be more reckless than (say) 100mph on a deserted stretch of motorway....

I would be cheesed off for being done for over the ton on the Motorway, and have been (both). It's trivial subject to circumstance.
It's almost laughable how many people think it is outrageous, but then the 40+ they do in some 30's doesn't compare. The truth is most drivers doing 3-figure speeds on any road are very much 'on-the ball' and focussed. A lot of the 40+ brigade are oblivious to near enough everything and they are the ones that should be at the top of the attention list.
The massive majority of fatalities still occur in the urban environment.

[vonhosen]

Raygun said:

JNW1 said:

To be fair to vonhosen I think all he questioned was the reference to 100mph being loony. He will no doubt come back to speak for himself in the not too distant future but I got the impression he was just making the point that the sanity of a particular speed depends entirely on the circumstances in which it's undertaken (and I agree with him if that is indeed what he's saying!).

I'm sure he'd also say is 36mph in a 30 is illegal just as 100mph is illegal; get caught and you can expect to be prosecuted for either albeit the punishment will obviously be more severe for the latter as in fairness it is a long way over the limit!

Tbh JNW most people know when it's a fair cop or not, the worrying thing is that if it returned to just a fair cop there would be so much revenue lost hence why some of our members from various constabularies on here are never going to come clean and own up to it being a con in many circumstances.
What has been a bit of a let down is the Tories who when first got elected back into power said "the war on the motorist is over" but that has proven not to be the case probably after seeing how much money was being made.

So you want it to be where you (say D for arguments sake) draw the line rather than where A, B, C, or E does.
They've already drawn the lines. One is the limit which is unambiguous & then they give us a secondary line with leeway before prosecution kicks in.
I don't think that's unreasonable on their part, seeing as they want you to keep to the first line anyway.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 10th January 23:33

[Ms R.Saucy]

cmaguire said:

I would be cheesed off for being done for over the ton on the Motorway, and have been (both). It's trivial subject to circumstance.
It's almost laughable how many people think it is outrageous, but then the 40+ they do in some 30's doesn't compare. The truth is most drivers doing 3-figure speeds on any road are very much 'on-the ball' and focussed. A lot of the 40+ brigade are oblivious to near enough everything and they are the ones that should be at the top of the attention list.
The massive majority of fatalities still occur in the urban environment.

i'd agree the hat wearign 44 mph everywhere mob are far more of a problem regardless of whether the Hat is a Barryboy's baseball cap or Victor Meldrew/ Richard Bucket 's trilby / homburg

[anonymous-user]

I'm not on about getting done for 40 in a 30, it's the 34s,35s,36s,37s that some people find themselves doing getting picked off by the cash cow. Please no one mention schools,I think we all agree flouting the law going past these is a no-no!
I have noticed a few occasions where it is genuinely dangerous that they have done the sensible thing and after a fast bit of 60 nsl road you enter a 50 zone before the 30 zone.
Trying to equate getting done for a 100+ to getting caught doing 36 in a 30 don't cut the mustard on a safety percentage basis, yes there are times when over 100 is safe but not as many times it is as safe doing 36 in a 30 and the old kerching machine is working overtime!

[JNW1]

cmaguire said:

JNW1 said:

Raygun said:

JNW1 said:

He's questioning why you think 100mph automatically qualifies as loony behaviour and he's right, it doesn't!

This is weird, I feel like I'm agreeing with vonhosen....

If I was caught for doing 100+ I wouldn't be moaning, if I was trapped for doing 36 in a 30 I would be very annoyed.
For the majority of people me included I would guess if they read someone had been done for 100+ would say they've got their comeuppance whilst someone who gets done for doing 36 in a 30 most would say quite rightly it's a money making racket.
I might be wrong.

No, I wouldn't moan about being caught at that speed either! However, the point is it isn't necessarily lunacy to be going that fast; of course the law takes a dim view of it but that doesn't by definition make it dangerous or even vaguely unsafe - so illegal yes, lunacy no (at least not necessarily!).

ETA: In some circumstances I'd argue 36mph in a 30 limit could be more reckless than (say) 100mph on a deserted stretch of motorway....

I would be cheesed off for being done for over the ton on the Motorway, and have been (both). It's trivial subject to circumstance.
It's almost laughable how many people think it is outrageous, but then the 40+ they do in some 30's doesn't compare. The truth is most drivers doing 3-figure speeds on any road are very much 'on-the ball' and focussed. A lot of the 40+ brigade are oblivious to near enough everything and they are the ones that should be at the top of the attention list.
The massive majority of fatalities still occur in the urban environment.

Going over 100mph can be a very emotive subject but, as I've said before, I agree entirely that doing that speed in the appropriate circumstances is perfectly safe and certainly doesn't make you a homicidal maniac (far from it). However, I suggest that to get to that speed requires conscious thought as it's unlikely you're going to stray 30mph over the limit unintentionally; therefore, if you're caught it's likely to be a result of a deliberate decision to speed and, on the basis you know the consequences in advance, I think you just have to accept the prosecution which will almost certainly follow!

In years gone by I was much more prepared to exceed 100mph where safe to do so albeit not for any sustained period; however, I acknowledge the attitude towards speeding has changed and I'm much less inclined to do that sort of speed now, even in short bursts. I don't particularly like the way things have gone but that's the way it is and realistically I know it's unlikely to change; therefore, I just make the best of what I consider to be a bad job and accept (with reluctance) that we're all being dumbed-down to the level of the lowest common denominator - basically a sort of socialism for the road.

The lowest common denominator brings us neatly to your 40mph brigade and again I agree entirely with your sentiments. However, we went through a discussion about these drivers a lot of pages ago on this very thread and the fact we had so many who were prepared to defend people who often have no awareness whatsoever of what's going-on around them probably says it all. To my mind it's the 40mph brigade who are responsible for much of the bad driving on our roads and they certainly represent a significant proportion of that lowest common denominator who are dragging standards down; just a shame there's isn't the same enthusiasm to tackle that problem as there is to catch people speeding on quiet stretches of NSL or dual carriageway. However, one's a difficult nettle to grasp while the other is easy and generates revenue....

[JNW1]

Raygun said:

I'm not on about getting done for 40 in a 30, it's the 34s,35s,36s,37s that some people find themselves doing getting picked off by the cash cow. Please no one mention schools,I think we all agree flouting the law going past these is a no-no!
I have noticed a few occasions where it is genuinely dangerous that they have done the sensible thing and after a fast bit of 60 nsl road you enter a 50 zone before the 30 zone.
Trying to equate getting done for a 100+ to getting caught doing 36 in a 30 don't cut the mustard on a safety percentage basis, yes there are times when over 100 is safe but not as many times it is as safe doing 36 in a 30 and the old kerching machine is working overtime!

Funnily enough, I tend to have less of an issue with the limits in built-up areas than I do with those on NSL roads and dual carriageways/motorways. There are obviously far more pedestrians around in built-up areas and therefore I do understand it's 30mph for a reason; that doesn't mean I've never exceeded a 30mph limit but hand on heart I'm far less likely to do so than exceed 60mph on a NSL or 70mph on a dual carriageway/motorway. On SAC's the tutors will give plenty of evidence to support why it's 30mph in built-up areas and that's fair enough IMO; however, ask them to provide similar evidence to support why it's 70mph on a motorway or dual carriageway and it all tends to go very quiet!

In terms of your safety percentage comment, I don't have the figures but I wouldn't mind betting there are more fatalities caused by vehicles doing 36mph in a 30 than there are by vehicles doing 100mph on motorways....

[cmaguire]

JNW1 said:

Funnily enough, I tend to have less of an issue with the limits in built-up areas than I do with those on NSL roads and dual carriageways/motorways. There are obviously far more pedestrians around in built-up areas and therefore I do understand it's 30mph for a reason; that doesn't mean I've never exceeded a 30mph limit but hand on heart I'm far less likely to do so than exceed 60mph on a NSL or 70mph on a dual carriageway/motorway. On SAC's the tutors will give plenty of evidence to support why it's 30mph in built-up areas and that's fair enough IMO; however, ask them to provide similar evidence to support why it's 70mph on a motorway or dual carriageway and it all tends to go very quiet!

In terms of your safety percentage comment, I don't have the figures but I wouldn't mind betting there are more fatalities caused by vehicles doing 36mph in a 30 than there are by vehicles doing 100mph on motorways....

Not just more. Way more.

On the last SAC I endured (have had two within the last 3 years, there both times having been 'caught' by SCP's in 70 limits) bar the brief question to show/ask about the limits that apply to various types of road, there was no mention whatsoever about Motorways and Dual Carriageway NSL.
The whole thing was urban areas (with continuous references to running people over, kids particularly) and roads between villages.
They're just pushing an agenda and conveniently overlooking and avoiding the gaping holes in their argument. With a lot of people lining their pockets whilst it continues.

Their latest favourite road sign:

Think!
Speed Kills
Slow down and save a
Child

Usually on a display on 60 mph roads, although the potential increase in its relevance if it were in towns or villages still wouldn't lessen the incongruity of the message.

This one has replaced the 'Don't drink' one running before Christmas which at least had some credibility.

[Devil2575]

Raygun said:

What has been a bit of a let down is the Tories who when first got elected back into power said "the war on the motorist is over" but that has proven not to be the case probably after seeing how much money was being made.

How much money is being made?

You've made a claim there, can you back it up with any evidence?

[Devil2575]

vonhosen said:

Both = speeding
Neither = loony without context that makes them so.

Whether 100+ is loony or not depends on how you look at it. From a keeping your license point of view you could argue that anyone who drives at a such a speed is loony.