Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
The Conservatives are pro an 80 limit on Motorways, but there is so much other cr@p going on with spurious related topics it hasn't happened yet. The 2011 coalition were proposing the increase and polls suggested public support for this, which is entirely predictable contrary to much of the nonsense some put forward on here.
Does anybody really believe the public as a whole are not receptive to an 80mph Motorway limit?
As JNW1 has implied, if the question was addressed directly to the public without caveat I would be down William Hill placing a bet on a 'Yes' without sparing the horses.
Does anybody really believe the public as a whole are not receptive to an 80mph Motorway limit?
As JNW1 has implied, if the question was addressed directly to the public without caveat I would be down William Hill placing a bet on a 'Yes' without sparing the horses.
cmaguire said:
The Conservatives are pro an 80 limit on Motorways, but there is so much other cr@p going on with spurious related topics it hasn't happened yet. The 2011 coalition were proposing the increase and polls suggested public support for this, which is entirely predictable contrary to much of the nonsense some put forward on here.
Does anybody really believe the public as a whole are not receptive to an 80mph Motorway limit?
As JNW1 has implied, if the question was addressed directly to the public without caveat I would be down William Hill placing a bet on a 'Yes' without sparing the horses.
If any of that was true we would have had an 80 limit since 2010. Does anybody really believe the public as a whole are not receptive to an 80mph Motorway limit?
As JNW1 has implied, if the question was addressed directly to the public without caveat I would be down William Hill placing a bet on a 'Yes' without sparing the horses.
As it happens the 80 limit was not introduced after the perfunctory introduction of the idea was made by the conservatives and they later received proper advice causing them to abandon the ruse.
In summary your suggestion is complete nonsense and shows you simply make stuff up to support your unjustified position.
drf765 said:
If any of that was true we would have had an 80 limit since 2010.
As it happens the 80 limit was not introduced after the perfunctory introduction of the idea was made by the conservatives and they later received proper advice causing them to abandon the ruse.
In summary your suggestion is complete nonsense and shows you simply make stuff up to support your unjustified position.
Why exactly do you so object to the 80 limit anyway. They have it in Europe without a problem. And a minority here obey the 70 anyway (that'll obviously get an 'anecdotal' from you but I do plenty of miles on the Motorway at way over 80 and even the slow bug@ers are mostly doing low 70's. If there is such massive support for the current limit here as you'd probably suggest then why is everyone and his dog ignoring it?As it happens the 80 limit was not introduced after the perfunctory introduction of the idea was made by the conservatives and they later received proper advice causing them to abandon the ruse.
In summary your suggestion is complete nonsense and shows you simply make stuff up to support your unjustified position.
cmaguire said:
drf765 said:
If any of that was true we would have had an 80 limit since 2010.
As it happens the 80 limit was not introduced after the perfunctory introduction of the idea was made by the conservatives and they later received proper advice causing them to abandon the ruse.
In summary your suggestion is complete nonsense and shows you simply make stuff up to support your unjustified position.
Why exactly do you so object to the 80 limit anyway. They have it in Europe without a problem. And a minority here obey the 70 anyway (that'll obviously get an 'anecdotal' from you but I do plenty of miles on the Motorway at way over 80 and even the slow bug@ers are mostly doing low 70's. If there is such massive support for the current limit here as you'd probably suggest then why is everyone and his dog ignoring it?As it happens the 80 limit was not introduced after the perfunctory introduction of the idea was made by the conservatives and they later received proper advice causing them to abandon the ruse.
In summary your suggestion is complete nonsense and shows you simply make stuff up to support your unjustified position.
You continually make s
t up. That's my last word to you.cmaguire said:
drf765 said:
If any of that was true we would have had an 80 limit since 2010.
As it happens the 80 limit was not introduced after the perfunctory introduction of the idea was made by the conservatives and they later received proper advice causing them to abandon the ruse.
In summary your suggestion is complete nonsense and shows you simply make stuff up to support your unjustified position.
Why exactly do you so object to the 80 limit anyway. They have it in Europe without a problem. And a minority here obey the 70 anyway (that'll obviously get an 'anecdotal' from you but I do plenty of miles on the Motorway at way over 80 and even the slow bug@ers are mostly doing low 70's. If there is such massive support for the current limit here as you'd probably suggest then why is everyone and his dog ignoring it?As it happens the 80 limit was not introduced after the perfunctory introduction of the idea was made by the conservatives and they later received proper advice causing them to abandon the ruse.
In summary your suggestion is complete nonsense and shows you simply make stuff up to support your unjustified position.
Most of us drive at the stupidly silly low limits imposed not because we agree but because we don't want a fine and points on our licence. We attend these silly speed awareness courses to avoid being banned, and when we walk away we stick two fingers up to the
s.My shopping habits have changed since these stupidly low speed limits have been introduced, I avoid driving into Nottingham whenever possible and I buy far more online and from Amazon because I just can't be arsed with the nanny state 20mph, 30, 20, 40, 20 limit changes when driving into town and the silly 30 minute parking limits imposed when I eventually find a parking space. Is far easier to buy online or perhaps drive up to Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield if I'm desperate - though do avoid driving into Sheffield like the plague!
rich888 said:
Most of us drive at the stupidly silly low limits imposed not because we agree but because we don't want a fine and points on our licence.
I agree that most of us adhere to limits because we don't want a fine or points but I don't think you'll find too many who think the current limits are stupidly silly. There are places where driving at half the NSL on an A road would be foolhardy and dangerous but conversely I think is it safe, on some stretches of A road, to travel at speeds significantly over the limit. For obvious reasons I'm not going post the speed. Limits are a necessary evil and are a compromise of many, often conflicting factors.Edited by Crackie on Sunday 11th December 09:43
rich888 said:
cmaguire said:
drf765 said:
If any of that was true we would have had an 80 limit since 2010.
As it happens the 80 limit was not introduced after the perfunctory introduction of the idea was made by the conservatives and they later received proper advice causing them to abandon the ruse.
In summary your suggestion is complete nonsense and shows you simply make stuff up to support your unjustified position.
Why exactly do you so object to the 80 limit anyway. They have it in Europe without a problem. And a minority here obey the 70 anyway (that'll obviously get an 'anecdotal' from you but I do plenty of miles on the Motorway at way over 80 and even the slow bug@ers are mostly doing low 70's. If there is such massive support for the current limit here as you'd probably suggest then why is everyone and his dog ignoring it?As it happens the 80 limit was not introduced after the perfunctory introduction of the idea was made by the conservatives and they later received proper advice causing them to abandon the ruse.
In summary your suggestion is complete nonsense and shows you simply make stuff up to support your unjustified position.
Most of us drive at the stupidly silly low limits imposed not because we agree but because we don't want a fine and points on our licence. We attend these silly speed awareness courses to avoid being banned, and when we walk away we stick two fingers up to the
s.My shopping habits have changed since these stupidly low speed limits have been introduced, I avoid driving into Nottingham whenever possible and I buy far more online and from Amazon because I just can't be arsed with the nanny state 20mph, 30, 20, 40, 20 limit changes when driving into town and the silly 30 minute parking limits imposed when I eventually find a parking space. Is far easier to buy online or perhaps drive up to Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield if I'm desperate - though do avoid driving into Sheffield like the plague!
cmaguire said:
768 said:
And just what did the "proper" advice say?
Perhaps that we would be subject to the carnage that occurs in France, Germany, Spain, Italy etc, conveniently ignoring that their higher fatality rates than ours have little to do with Arterial routes anyway.Countries like Germany perform significantly better than us in towns when it comes to fatality rates, but they are significantly worse than us on the motorways etc (& worse overall as a result of their poorer motorway rates & this is despite PHers often saying they believe the standard of driving on motorways there is better on them (though I haven't experienced a better standard of driving there personally)).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2438551/Mo...
Similar article in the Telegraph for anyone that dismisses the Mail.
Alienating women voters? Politics clouding the issue yet again. I wonder what the polling demographic was in that group.
And all the campaign groups shouting 'For the love of the children' as usual.
So they put that on the backburner after receiving sound advice did they drf675?
Similar article in the Telegraph for anyone that dismisses the Mail.
Alienating women voters? Politics clouding the issue yet again. I wonder what the polling demographic was in that group.
And all the campaign groups shouting 'For the love of the children' as usual.
So they put that on the backburner after receiving sound advice did they drf675?
vonhosen said:
That's not true.
Countries like Germany perform significantly better than us in towns when it comes to fatality rates, but they are significantly worse than us on the motorways etc (& worse overall as a result of their poorer motorway rates & this is despite PHers often saying they believe the standard of driving on motorways there is better on them (though I haven't experienced a better standard of driving there personally)).
Only include the restricted roads, we're not discussing no limitCountries like Germany perform significantly better than us in towns when it comes to fatality rates, but they are significantly worse than us on the motorways etc (& worse overall as a result of their poorer motorway rates & this is despite PHers often saying they believe the standard of driving on motorways there is better on them (though I haven't experienced a better standard of driving there personally)).
Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
it's clear that they are sure that the majority are happy with the status quo.
As JNW1 pointed out earlier, I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that its clear that the majority are happy. I'm 'happy' with the limits we have at the moment. I drive on motorways about twice a week and hardly ever during rush hours. My journeys average out at over 200 motorway miles a week. Not very much I know.
Given the heavy traffic on motorways, what is remarkable is that drivers can cope so well with the occasional idiot: the sudden lane changer, the fast, weaving chap who passes at speed on the nearside lane then pulls over to the outside lane of three and four lane motorways. Or the 'lastminute.com' people who dive for the turn off at the last moment.
The problem with speed awareness courses is that in general speed isn't the problem.
There was a nice little earner in one force area where a speed limit had been changed form 40 to 30 and after a period of amnesty, speed awareness courses were given to those who went through at the old level. It was safe at 40 on one day and then unsafe on the next, so the problem is awareness, observation and being alert to changes.
I like the French rapel reminders.
25 years ago I had to follow a chap through an area of London. He stuck to the speed limit and we caused havoc driving at 30mph. His son would not let his child or wife ride in his car 'cause he had had two, maybe three, accidents. Nowadays I drive at 30 and it seems perfectly normal. That's not to say safe of course.
I don't see how a speed awareness course can help as, to me, speed isn't the problem.
Given the heavy traffic on motorways, what is remarkable is that drivers can cope so well with the occasional idiot: the sudden lane changer, the fast, weaving chap who passes at speed on the nearside lane then pulls over to the outside lane of three and four lane motorways. Or the 'lastminute.com' people who dive for the turn off at the last moment.
The problem with speed awareness courses is that in general speed isn't the problem.
There was a nice little earner in one force area where a speed limit had been changed form 40 to 30 and after a period of amnesty, speed awareness courses were given to those who went through at the old level. It was safe at 40 on one day and then unsafe on the next, so the problem is awareness, observation and being alert to changes.
I like the French rapel reminders.
25 years ago I had to follow a chap through an area of London. He stuck to the speed limit and we caused havoc driving at 30mph. His son would not let his child or wife ride in his car 'cause he had had two, maybe three, accidents. Nowadays I drive at 30 and it seems perfectly normal. That's not to say safe of course.
I don't see how a speed awareness course can help as, to me, speed isn't the problem.
cmaguire said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2438551/Mo...
Similar article in the Telegraph for anyone that dismisses the Mail.
Alienating women voters? Politics clouding the issue yet again. I wonder what the polling demographic was in that group.
And all the campaign groups shouting 'For the love of the children' as usual.
So they put that on the backburner after receiving sound advice did they drf675?
I'd like to see how the estimate for new 80mph limit costing a billion pounds was calculated or possibly contrived; and for the new limit being responsible for 25 deaths and 100 serious injuries. Why will there be £766 million more spent on fuel ? Similar article in the Telegraph for anyone that dismisses the Mail.
Alienating women voters? Politics clouding the issue yet again. I wonder what the polling demographic was in that group.
And all the campaign groups shouting 'For the love of the children' as usual.
So they put that on the backburner after receiving sound advice did they drf675?
Crackie said:
I'd like to see how the estimate for new 80mph limit costing a billion pounds was calculated or possibly contrived; and for the new limit being responsible for 25 deaths and 100 serious injuries. Why will there be £766 million more spent on fuel ?
No mention in this, the most recent Parliamentary briefing paper on the subject...http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
...and that was dated around the same time as that Daily Heil article.
Perhaps the clue is in what the article actually says about those claims...
Daily Fail said:
But last year campaign groups estimated that raising the motorway speed limit to 80mph would cost society an extra £1billion a year, including £766million in fuel bills and more than £62million in health costs.
The groups, which include road safety charity Brake, the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) and Greenpeace, also estimated that the higher limit would lead to 25 extra deaths and 100 serious injuries a year, as well as 2.2 million more tonnes of carbon emissions.
Brake and Greenpeace we know well. So who are CBT? They're the lot formerly known as Transport 2000 - http://www.bettertransport.org.ukThe groups, which include road safety charity Brake, the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) and Greenpeace, also estimated that the higher limit would lead to 25 extra deaths and 100 serious injuries a year, as well as 2.2 million more tonnes of carbon emissions.
rich888 said:
Most of us drive at the stupidly silly low limits imposed not because we agree but because we don't want a fine and points on our licence. We attend these silly speed awareness courses to avoid being banned, and when we walk away we stick two fingers up to the s.
My shopping habits have changed since these stupidly low speed limits have been introduced, I avoid driving into Nottingham whenever possible and I buy far more online and from Amazon because I just can't be arsed with the nanny state 20mph, 30, 20, 40, 20 limit changes when driving into town and the silly 30 minute parking limits imposed when I eventually find a parking space. Is far easier to buy online or perhaps drive up to Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield if I'm desperate - though do avoid driving into Sheffield like the plague!
You are far from alone and I'm sure these are some of the main reasons why so many thousands of shops are closing every year. s.My shopping habits have changed since these stupidly low speed limits have been introduced, I avoid driving into Nottingham whenever possible and I buy far more online and from Amazon because I just can't be arsed with the nanny state 20mph, 30, 20, 40, 20 limit changes when driving into town and the silly 30 minute parking limits imposed when I eventually find a parking space. Is far easier to buy online or perhaps drive up to Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield if I'm desperate - though do avoid driving into Sheffield like the plague!
There were apparently 15 shop closures a day across the UK at the start of 2016, more in the years before this, adding to the list of thousands and it's still rising.
I know lots of people, myself included (including during my working day) who avoid certain areas and certain roads due to cameras. It's not always about being quicker, either, but more to do with the furstration of being forced to sit behind someone on a road designed for 60 mph, who is happy to do 30 mph due to the new 40 mph limit etc.
I have always said I would rather take a route which doesn't play by their silly rules and that this would often involve B roads etc and only yesterday, I read a thread on here where people are crashing in to someones house on a dodgy bend due to so many more people now using the road he lives on ever since they put SPEC cameras on the main route. Not that the spec cameras were needed anyway, they were just another money-making, knee-jerk reaction it seems (no surprise there)
For a over a year, as another example, almost every person I knew avoided the utterly ridiculous and SPECS covered 40 mph limit for 6 or 7 miles in to Dover.
Nothing but fields either side an a wide DC there. None of us used it and it pushed tons of traffic through built up areas because again, you may aswell have something to do and look at to cure the boredom of being stuck at 35 mph on a 70 mph road.
You actually felt uncomfortable doing such a speed on such a road, much like you do on the dragged out 30 mph SPEC covered section on the A2 out of London at the moment. I know lots of people who go around that, too, but if you do use it, you can enjoy drivers sat at 25mph, being passed by people doing 50+ mph coupled with the slamming on of brakes by those who assume it must be some kind of joke or old limit sign etc.
None of it surprises me, though.
We have a Government charging us as a company thousands to make sure our drivers are trained to the highest standard, with part of that test relating to how well you click a mouse.
Once they are trained, we have to pay thousands again almost constantly on ongoing training which isn't worth the paper it's written on and most of which, so long as you have paid them, can be completely ignored with no fear of a fail.
We then have to pay thousands more to alter vehicles and have more training to make sure we avoid cyclists, yet no training at all is required by riders.
Part of the reason they probably do not care for training for riders is that they are happy to have idiots on bikes on the road due to high emission levels and their desperate fight to lower them.
Part of the reason emission levels are so high is because they listened to the experts who said "Everyone needs a diesel" (Same experts who said "He has WMD's, probably - massive profits in war, too)
But of course, once everyone got a diesel, the price of diesel went up and now they want you to get rid of them and may charge you more for having one.
They then charge us as a company and other individuals thousands to modify vehicles (again) so they are allowed to enter low emission zones....zones created to try and cut down on diesel fumes?
...and if you fail to do any of the above, you can bet a lovely and expensive camera will yet again turn you into the criminal of the year when so much as a wheel nut enters the wrong zone, even for a second.
Just enter the word "profit" into anything above and you have pretty much covered everything.
Shops closing? Small price to pay. If greed is helping kill off the local corner store, it just makes more room for best buddies who own massve shop chains to step in.
Take a look at how much Lord Sainsbury gave his old mate Tony Blair...11 million plus.
"In any other country I think a government minister donating such vast amounts of money and effectively buying a political party would be seen for what it is, a form of corruption of the political process." said Mark Seddon, a member of Labour's National Executive Committee.
Anyway, I digress; limits are often no longer about limits, they are about how much can be made from said limits. Some here ignore that fact, some just accept it, others for some reason try to defend it, but as you say, it certainly makes drivers avoid certain areas. You used to be able to have a relatively clear run along the A25 before the spec and variable cams went in on the M25...it's mostly congested now for all of the above reasons.
Well done camera peeps, well done
Derek Smith said:
I'm 'happy' with the limits we have at the moment.
The problem with speed awareness courses is that in general speed isn't the problem.
I don't see how a speed awareness course can help as, to me, speed isn't the problem.
Understood that you are 'happy' with current limits but your other two comments relating to speed not being a factor are interesting; would you be 'unhappy' with 80 ? 11-12% of cars and vans already exceed 80mph, 14% travel between 75 and 80 and 21% travel between 70 and 75. The remaining 54% travel below 70mph.The problem with speed awareness courses is that in general speed isn't the problem.
I don't see how a speed awareness course can help as, to me, speed isn't the problem.
Excess speed is a contributory factor in only 2.5% of all accidents and less than 10% of fatal accidents.
TooMany2cvs said:
Crackie said:
I'd like to see how the estimate for new 80mph limit costing a billion pounds was calculated or possibly contrived; and for the new limit being responsible for 25 deaths and 100 serious injuries. Why will there be £766 million more spent on fuel ?
No mention in this, the most recent Parliamentary briefing paper on the subject...http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...
...and that was dated around the same time as that Daily Heil article.
Perhaps the clue is in what the article actually says about those claims...
Daily Fail said:
But last year campaign groups estimated that raising the motorway speed limit to 80mph would cost society an extra £1billion a year, including £766million in fuel bills and more than £62million in health costs.
The groups, which include road safety charity Brake, the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) and Greenpeace, also estimated that the higher limit would lead to 25 extra deaths and 100 serious injuries a year, as well as 2.2 million more tonnes of carbon emissions.
Brake and Greenpeace we know well. So who are CBT? They're the lot formerly known as Transport 2000 - http://www.bettertransport.org.ukThe groups, which include road safety charity Brake, the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) and Greenpeace, also estimated that the higher limit would lead to 25 extra deaths and 100 serious injuries a year, as well as 2.2 million more tonnes of carbon emissions.
A pile-up in the dark, on a Winter's night with dense fog, and smoke from a potentially negligent fireworks display drifting across the Motorway.
Get real you idiots.
The Mail and Telegraph are far more plausible.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff