Speed Awareness Course
Discussion
Why is the SAC not part of the learning to drive process? Presumably all drivers would benefit from the education, so why not make sure that everyone has it from the start? I also wonder why those that need it most, those that drive at the highest speeds, don't get it as well as a ban/fine etc.
It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
MikeM6 said:
Why is the SAC not part of the learning to drive process? Presumably all drivers would benefit from the education, so why not make sure that everyone has it from the start? I also wonder why those that need it most, those that drive at the highest speeds, don't get it as well as a ban/fine etc.
It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
It isn't anything to do with speed awareness though is it? The speed awareness course cost me £89 anyway, so it is less about speed awareness, and more about a money making scheme for me. It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
Speed cameras are exactly the same as well, and they aren't about saving anyone's life, and they are all about making money instead in my opinion. Smart motorways are also a fine example of a money grabbing scheme as well.
cerb4.5lee said:
MikeM6 said:
Why is the SAC not part of the learning to drive process? Presumably all drivers would benefit from the education, so why not make sure that everyone has it from the start? I also wonder why those that need it most, those that drive at the highest speeds, don't get it as well as a ban/fine etc.
It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
It isn't anything to do with speed awareness though is it? The speed awareness course cost me £89 anyway, so it is less about speed awareness, and more about a money making scheme for me. It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
Speed cameras are exactly the same as well, and they aren't about saving anyone's life, and they are all about making money instead in my opinion. Smart motorways are also a fine example of a money grabbing scheme as well.
That higher speeds require greater stopping distances than you suspect?
That higher speeds in collisions are likely to increase the consequences in that collision?
vonhosen said:
cerb4.5lee said:
MikeM6 said:
Why is the SAC not part of the learning to drive process? Presumably all drivers would benefit from the education, so why not make sure that everyone has it from the start? I also wonder why those that need it most, those that drive at the highest speeds, don't get it as well as a ban/fine etc.
It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
It isn't anything to do with speed awareness though is it? The speed awareness course cost me £89 anyway, so it is less about speed awareness, and more about a money making scheme for me. It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
Speed cameras are exactly the same as well, and they aren't about saving anyone's life, and they are all about making money instead in my opinion. Smart motorways are also a fine example of a money grabbing scheme as well.
That higher speeds require greater stopping distances than you suspect?
That higher speeds in collisions increase the consequences in that collision?
I'm not saying I'd personally want that, but neither do they, because it wouldn't make them any money. Plus you could also speed limit all cars to 30/40/50mph in those areas as well now if they really wanted to.
cerb4.5lee said:
It is always contentious for certain, but for me brakes and tyres have improved vastly over the years for example. Plus if they don't want you to speed, then why sell cars that can go faster than 70mph, when legally 70mph is the fastest you can go in the UK?
The government don’t sell cars, and 70 isn’t the fastest that you can drive in the UK.I think the fastest I’ve driven legally here is about 150mph.
cerb4.5lee said:
vonhosen said:
cerb4.5lee said:
MikeM6 said:
Why is the SAC not part of the learning to drive process? Presumably all drivers would benefit from the education, so why not make sure that everyone has it from the start? I also wonder why those that need it most, those that drive at the highest speeds, don't get it as well as a ban/fine etc.
It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
It isn't anything to do with speed awareness though is it? The speed awareness course cost me £89 anyway, so it is less about speed awareness, and more about a money making scheme for me. It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
Speed cameras are exactly the same as well, and they aren't about saving anyone's life, and they are all about making money instead in my opinion. Smart motorways are also a fine example of a money grabbing scheme as well.
That higher speeds require greater stopping distances than you suspect?
That higher speeds in collisions increase the consequences in that collision?
I'm not saying I'd personally want that, but neither do they, because it wouldn't make them any money. Plus you could also speed limit all cars to 30/40/50mph in those areas as well now if they really wanted to.
They don't sell the cars, businesses do. And businesses will campaign hard against anything that they think will make their product less desirable to consumers than another. There are of course legal uses at greater speeds than our limits, such as in other countries or on track.
They've introduced ISA which does limit speeds to speed limits. But companies have campaigned against users not being able to override it (though it will be on by default).
vonhosen said:
Yes brakes & tyres have improved. But if you double your speed it still quadruples your braking distance on them. Reaction times will arguably be worse today than previously with distractions increased.
Funnily enough we were only talking about that last night. Our eldest daughter turns 17 next year, and I was wondering how good she'd be at driving, because generally she is pretty sensible. Although her grandad said exactly the same as you about the distractions though, and she will be more than likely spending more time looking at her phone rather than the road I think. Whereas I never look or touch my phone while I'm driving in comparison, but I am a sod for enjoying a very high speed blast should the opportunity arise occasionally on a dry/empty/clear national speed limit road though(what is the point of having a quickish car if you aren't ever going to use it?).
vonhosen said:
Yes brakes & tyres have improved. But if you double your speed it still quadruples your braking distance on them. Reaction times will arguably be worse today than previously with distractions increased.
Which endorses the argument that all speed is too fast. Speed limits should be reduced to the lowest practical.cerb4.5lee said:
I am a sod for enjoying a very high speed blast should the opportunity arise occasionally on a dry/empty/clear national speed limit road though(what is the point of having a quickish car if you aren't ever going to use it?).
There's no point in having a "quickish" car. Your antics need to be stopped 
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
Yes brakes & tyres have improved. But if you double your speed it still quadruples your braking distance on them. Reaction times will arguably be worse today than previously with distractions increased.
Which endorses the argument that all speed is too fast. Speed limits should be reduced to the lowest practical.They accept what they consider to be a tolerable level of casualties, a tolerable level of pollution (noise, air, social), tolerable delays on our roads.
It's all about balance. And they are the people tasked with striking that balance & using legislation to achieve it.
As the politics of what is acceptable to the public can shift, the politics of what will be tolerated by the government (& it's expression through legislation) may also shift.
vonhosen said:
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
Yes brakes & tyres have improved. But if you double your speed it still quadruples your braking distance on them. Reaction times will arguably be worse today than previously with distractions increased.
Which endorses the argument that all speed is too fast. Speed limits should be reduced to the lowest practical.They accept what they consider to be a tolerable level of casualties, a tolerable level of pollution (noise, air, social), tolerable delays on our roads.
It's all about balance. And they are the people tasked with striking that balance & using legislation to achieve it.
As the politics of what is acceptable to the public can shift, the politics of what will be tolerated by the government (& it's expression through legislation) may also shift.
C70Rev said:
Managed to almost get thrown off my course because I wasn’t bowing down to the speed kills mantra.
Trying to point out that it’s inappropriate speed which kills seems to confuse the instructor.
Having local police on site doing an audit probably didn’t help.
I like to believe this is still a free democratic country, however that do apply on a speed awareness course.
Personally I’d rather smart arses like you would STFU - the last thing the rest of the folk in the SAC want to do is listen to some bore arguing with the course hosts. They just want to get it done and be on their way. Trying to point out that it’s inappropriate speed which kills seems to confuse the instructor.
Having local police on site doing an audit probably didn’t help.
I like to believe this is still a free democratic country, however that do apply on a speed awareness course.
Are you under the impression that your massive insights and experience is somehow going to change the message that they’re paid to put out? Or are they rolling their eyes (like the course attendees) and thinking “oh no, not another one?”
vonhosen said:
cerb4.5lee said:
MikeM6 said:
Why is the SAC not part of the learning to drive process? Presumably all drivers would benefit from the education, so why not make sure that everyone has it from the start? I also wonder why those that need it most, those that drive at the highest speeds, don't get it as well as a ban/fine etc.
It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
It isn't anything to do with speed awareness though is it? The speed awareness course cost me £89 anyway, so it is less about speed awareness, and more about a money making scheme for me. It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
Speed cameras are exactly the same as well, and they aren't about saving anyone's life, and they are all about making money instead in my opinion. Smart motorways are also a fine example of a money grabbing scheme as well.
That higher speeds require greater stopping distances than you suspect?
That higher speeds in collisions are likely to increase the consequences in that collision?
At the mo it's just armwaving with lots of self-righteous dogma and punishment coupled to coerce people into compliance. When it's too difficult or impossible, and a hassle plus technical challenge for road signage, to measure and use what's important, then officialdumb makes important what can easily be measured, asserts safety, and then enforces largely inapplicable limits using a uniform set of rounded random numbers.
It's all about pure convenience for enforcement which happens to collect cash, with plausible denial via safety placing emotion over reason.
turbobloke said:
vonhosen said:
cerb4.5lee said:
MikeM6 said:
Why is the SAC not part of the learning to drive process? Presumably all drivers would benefit from the education, so why not make sure that everyone has it from the start? I also wonder why those that need it most, those that drive at the highest speeds, don't get it as well as a ban/fine etc.
It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
It isn't anything to do with speed awareness though is it? The speed awareness course cost me £89 anyway, so it is less about speed awareness, and more about a money making scheme for me. It just seems to undermine the education aspect of it....
Speed cameras are exactly the same as well, and they aren't about saving anyone's life, and they are all about making money instead in my opinion. Smart motorways are also a fine example of a money grabbing scheme as well.
That higher speeds require greater stopping distances than you suspect?
That higher speeds in collisions are likely to increase the consequences in that collision?
I've already clearly said limits are not about safety in isolation. It's one facet of many. when limits need to be set.
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
Yes brakes & tyres have improved. But if you double your speed it still quadruples your braking distance on them. Reaction times will arguably be worse today than previously with distractions increased.
Which endorses the argument that all speed is too fast. Speed limits should be reduced to the lowest practical.They accept what they consider to be a tolerable level of casualties, a tolerable level of pollution (noise, air, social), tolerable delays on our roads.
It's all about balance. And they are the people tasked with striking that balance & using legislation to achieve it.
As the politics of what is acceptable to the public can shift, the politics of what will be tolerated by the government (& it's expression through legislation) may also shift.
No cars at all means no car fatalities.
But it's not just about that, as I've said, it's a balance of many things.
Which includes the benefits to economy & utility from moving around at pace.
vonhosen said:
Slower will be safer.
No cars at all means no car fatalities.
But it's not just about that, as I said, it's a balance of many things.
Which includes the benefits to economy & utility from moving around at pace.
If we are going to get anywhere close to Vision Zero (zero road deaths or serious injuries by 2050), then road users need to take it on the chin. Everyone must be reduced to a crawl.No cars at all means no car fatalities.
But it's not just about that, as I said, it's a balance of many things.
Which includes the benefits to economy & utility from moving around at pace.
Vision Zero is upheld as a balanced objective.
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
Slower will be safer.
No cars at all means no car fatalities.
But it's not just about that, as I said, it's a balance of many things.
Which includes the benefits to economy & utility from moving around at pace.
If we are going to get anywhere close to Vision Zero (zero road deaths or serious injuries by 2050), then road users need to take it on the chin. Everyone must be reduced to a crawl.No cars at all means no car fatalities.
But it's not just about that, as I said, it's a balance of many things.
Which includes the benefits to economy & utility from moving around at pace.
Vision Zero is upheld as a balanced objective.
The incredibly unpalatable point about priorities is here again. Anything which saves one more life on the roads...will cost money and in particular ever lower limits with new signage, road furniture and road paint, etc, could be used to save more lives elsewhere.
Emotion over reason.
turbobloke said:
Zero mph more like.
The incredibly unpalatable point about priorities is here again. Anything which saves one more life on the roads...will cost money and in particular ever lower limits with new signage, road furniture and road paint, etc, could be used to save more lives elsewhere.
Emotion over reason.
Such as avoidable deaths in hospital, suicides and falling down the stairs The incredibly unpalatable point about priorities is here again. Anything which saves one more life on the roads...will cost money and in particular ever lower limits with new signage, road furniture and road paint, etc, could be used to save more lives elsewhere.
Emotion over reason.
IMHO, we've lost the balance of perspective.
[quote=Dog Star][quote=C70Rev]Managed to almost get thrown off my course because I wasn’t bowing down to the speed kills mantra.
Trying to point out that it’s inappropriate speed which kills seems to confuse the instructor.
Having local police on site doing an audit probably didn’t help.
I like to believe this is still a free democratic country, however that do apply on a speed awareness course.
Flat Earther and Vegan...they walk amongst us I'm afraid !!!
Trying to point out that it’s inappropriate speed which kills seems to confuse the instructor.
Having local police on site doing an audit probably didn’t help.
I like to believe this is still a free democratic country, however that do apply on a speed awareness course.
Flat Earther and Vegan...they walk amongst us I'm afraid !!!
C70Rev said:
Managed to almost get thrown off my course because I wasn’t bowing down to the speed kills mantra.
Trying to point out that it’s inappropriate speed which kills seems to confuse the instructor.
Having local police on site doing an audit probably didn’t help.
I like to believe this is still a free democratic country, however that do apply on a speed awareness course.
Contrary to the other poster, I applaud this. Why should everyone sit there like sheep listening to a load of bTrying to point out that it’s inappropriate speed which kills seems to confuse the instructor.
Having local police on site doing an audit probably didn’t help.
I like to believe this is still a free democratic country, however that do apply on a speed awareness course.
ks about the huge dangers of marginal speeding which is just nonsense. I say argue away.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff