Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
Crackie said:
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.
Excess speed is a contributory factor in only 2.5% of all accidents and less than 10% of fatal accidents.
I think the figures you quoted were of speeding rather than excess speed. Excess speed is a contributory factor in only 2.5% of all accidents and less than 10% of fatal accidents.
I'd be happy with 80mph. Most cars travel at 80mph. I know someone who puts his cruise control on 77mph, according to satnav, when going to and from rugby matches. I'm frequently overtaken.
The fastest I've been on a motorway is an indicated 155, which I'm told equated to around 145. It was almost anodyne. There was hardly any traffic. Both the car and the (class 1) driver were within safe limits. I'd be happy, delirious in fact, if we could go at those speeds, but it would be dangerous I believe.
I recently had a puncture on a motorway, a blowout at speed. The blue hatchback beside me slowed to let me pull to the hard should. I put a temporary spare on and tried to travel at the 80kph advised as the maximum safe speed. Traffic had difficulty coping. The difference between the traffic in the outside lane and me in the n/s was just 30mph yet people had seemed unable to adjust.
A few years ago someone drove into the back of a car returning from the London to Brighton Veteran Car Run.
Imagine if the difference was all but 100. So at what figure do we draw the line? 80 - yes, I'm OK with that. 90 - possibly. 100 - well now . . .
Speed limits need to reflect the skills of those using the roads. Not only that, a moment's inattention could cause all sorts of problems with larger differentials between fastest and slowest.
When the limit is reduced due to weight of traffic, average speed goes up, rather counter intuitive I know.
What I will say, though, is that it will be impossible to raise the limit due to the conceit of the likes of brake.
I wrote an article on keeping alert at the wheel and ways to put off tiredness. Research from universities in Canada and Australia, especially the latter, showed that there were ways of combating the effects of tiredness, and these worked to an extent when a driver was not tired; i.e. it raised awareness levels in normal driving.
My client put it to brake for their comments and they ridiculed it, their suggestion being that a driver should sleep if he/she exceeds a certain time at the wheel.
Mine was evidenced, theirs wasn't. Mine reduced the likelihood of an accident due to tiredness - the main thrust was know your body - and theirs could well increase it according to the research - there is no time limit that suits everyone; too much sleep is as bad as too little in some ways. So I didn't get paid, a cheap lesson in what facts are not to be published by a commercial concern; misinformation wins and sensible, evidenced advice is banned.
But what can you do?
I suppose I could publish the article on here. After all, no one is going to buy it. It goes against knee jerk reaction.
Mind you, publishing a 500-word article that took me some time to write without getting paid for it goes against my morals.
cmaguire said:
In that Parliamentary briefing they try to suggest the pile-up on the M5 with multiple casualties in November '11 influenced the decision on consideration of an 80mph limit.
Are you reading the same bit I am?Briefing doc said:
...there were calls for the Government to re-think this policy following the fatal crash on the M5 in early November 2011.
There were indeed calls. Where did they come from...?cmaguire said:
The Mail and Telegraph are far more plausible.
The first three result from google for "M5 crash 80mph limit" are all 2011 Mail or Telegraph articles.One of them quotes named spokespeople from Brake and RoSPA, and a named spokesman from the ABD. It's like a singularity of hysterical halfwits.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058458/M5...
Wow, mega diatribe. From speed cameras to WMD all for some mythical person's profit. Excellent.
Digby said:
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.
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
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
singlecoil said:
BertBert said:
Wow, mega diatribe. From speed cameras to WMD all for some mythical person's profit. Excellent.
Bert, this putting the quote after your response to it, is this just a Bert thing? Nobody else does it...Digby said:
Digby stuff
Derek Smith said:
I think the figures you quoted were of speeding rather than excess speed.
So far as I can tell the data is accurate and up to date. Lies, damned lies and statistics and all that but the figures for speeding are the most recent government info I could found after a quick search. Published in June this year using previous year's data.The excess speed being a contributing factor to accidents was from the same document. Here's a link. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The data for bikes and vans is very interesting ( average speed for vans is slightly higher than cars but relatively they have fewer accidents where excess speed is a factor and, relatively, a much smaller percentage of fatal accidents where excess speed was a factor ).
Edited by Crackie on Sunday 11th December 16:23
Edited by Crackie on Sunday 11th December 16:24
vonhosen said:
Willy Nilly said:
vonhosen said:
It's not about us as individuals, it's one size for all.
Unfortunately, one size doesn't fit all. you know, I know and everyone on this thread know that speed is easy to measure and limits easy to enforce, that's why speed has been targetted. We all know that inattention is the biggest cause of crashes. Driving slower doesn't make people pay more attention, it just makes the impact speed lower. It's a good thing that aviation safety is a little more thorough than road safety.
I've have done a ROSPA course in the car and really enjoyed it, had a mare on my test and only got silver. I also did Bike Safe a few years ago and loved that. The coppers were brilliant. On both courses speed was mentioned, but not a numerical value, the emphasis was on stopping on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear, driving to the limit point and positioning on the road. The speed limits were mentioned in passing that you should obey them, but not obeying them keeps you safe and ignoring them means you are an evil baby murderer and should think of the children etc.
Having done these courses I'd quite like to do more, particularly on my bike, but firstly no privileges come with passing them and frankly, the way you talk down to me and treat me like an idiot, you can basically shove them up your arse. You treat me like an idiot, so I'm happy to act like one. As for the Drivers CPC's
what a lost opportunity they are. It's nothing but jobs for the boys. A total farce. Today I've been on the 50 limit of the A127 on my bike. Having ridden around Europe in the last few years I can safely say that that stretch of road with is Specs enforced 50 limit is the worse, most nerve racking piece of road I have ridden on in Europe, entirely because of the low limit and cameras.
Crackie said:
So far as I can tell the data is accurate and up to date. Lies, damned lies and statistics and all that but the figures for speeding are the most recent government info I could found after a quick search. Published in June this year using previous year's data.
The excess speed being a contributing factor to accidents was from the same document. Here's a link. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The data for bikes and vans is very interesting ( average speed for vans is slightly higher than cars but relatively they have fewer accidents where excess speed is a factor and, relatively, a much smaller percentage of fatal accidents where excess speed was a factor ).
Thanks for that, and the link. I'm running on old data. My apologies. The excess speed being a contributing factor to accidents was from the same document. Here's a link. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The data for bikes and vans is very interesting ( average speed for vans is slightly higher than cars but relatively they have fewer accidents where excess speed is a factor and, relatively, a much smaller percentage of fatal accidents where excess speed was a factor ).
Oddly enough the report, which mentions stability of figures, has considerable differences to the last report I read, this some 6 or so years ago.
Willy Nilly said:
vonhosen said:
Willy Nilly said:
vonhosen said:
It's not about us as individuals, it's one size for all.
Unfortunately, one size doesn't fit all. you know, I know and everyone on this thread know that speed is easy to measure and limits easy to enforce, that's why speed has been targetted. We all know that inattention is the biggest cause of crashes. Driving slower doesn't make people pay more attention, it just makes the impact speed lower. It's a good thing that aviation safety is a little more thorough than road safety.
Any RTA fatality is thoroughly investigated, to propose that there isn't and a camera just gets placed where the fatality occurs is frankly laughable.
Willy Nilly said:
I've have done a ROSPA course in the car and really enjoyed it, had a mare on my test and only got silver. I also did Bike Safe a few years ago and loved that. The coppers were brilliant. On both courses speed was mentioned, but not a numerical value, the emphasis was on stopping on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear, driving to the limit point and positioning on the road. The speed limits were mentioned in passing that you should obey them, but not obeying them keeps you safe and ignoring them means you are an evil baby murderer and should think of the children etc.
They said that?Willy Nilly said:
Having done these courses I'd quite like to do more, particularly on my bike, but firstly no privileges come with passing them and frankly, the way you talk down to me and treat me like an idiot, you can basically shove them up your arse. You treat me like an idiot, so I'm happy to act like one.
You do courses for privileges?I'm not sure that's a good motivation.
Who are you talking to about shoving them? me? The people offering to train you? Why would I shove a course nothing to do with me? No thanks.
You can act how you like, you are responsible for how you act, no-one else.
If you want to act like a petulant child you are free to do so, anyone finding you doing so is free to treat you like one.
Willy Nilly said:
As for the Drivers CPC's what a lost opportunity they are. It's nothing but jobs for the boys. A total farce.
They are only a lost opportunity if you don't get the best out of them & it's you who is responsible for getting the best out of them for yourself. If you research & book good quality training in areas of interest/value to yourself, you'll gain from your investment. what a lost opportunity they are. It's nothing but jobs for the boys. A total farce. If you do no research, book the cheapest you can find & keep doing the same course (a course which is of no interest to yourself again & again) then unsurprisingly you'll get nothing from it.
You've wasted an opportunity instead of investing in your knowledge/skills.
Willy Nilly said:
Today I've been on the 50 limit of the A127 on my bike. Having ridden around Europe in the last few years I can safely say that that stretch of road with is Specs enforced 50 limit is the worse, most nerve racking piece of road I have ridden on in Europe, entirely because of the low limit and cameras.
Thanks for the heads up, I'll put that on the avoid list.I love riding all over Europe & I love riding in the UK (I pick my roads carefully for both though)
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th December 17:21
RobinOakapple said:
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. As far as I'm aware we have no clear evidence on what public opinion actually is in terms of attitude to speed; however, are a majority really happy or content with the ever increasing use of static and mobile cameras? Perhaps they are but my money would be on probably not.....
Crackie said:
So far as I can tell the data is accurate and up to date. Lies, damned lies and statistics and all that but the figures for speeding are the most recent government info I could found after a quick search. Published in June this year using previous year's data.
The excess speed being a contributing factor to accidents was from the same document. Here's a link. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The data for bikes and vans is very interesting ( average speed for vans is slightly higher than cars but relatively they have fewer accidents where excess speed is a factor and, relatively, a much smaller percentage of fatal accidents where excess speed was a factor ).
So van drivers really are better drivers?The excess speed being a contributing factor to accidents was from the same document. Here's a link. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The data for bikes and vans is very interesting ( average speed for vans is slightly higher than cars but relatively they have fewer accidents where excess speed is a factor and, relatively, a much smaller percentage of fatal accidents where excess speed was a factor ).
Edited by Crackie on Sunday 11th December 16:23
Edited by Crackie on Sunday 11th December 16:24
I expect the reality is that those who use the roads as part of their job rather than just to 'get to work' are a cut above the rest generally. That's my experience.
Derek Smith said:
I think the figures you quoted were of speeding rather than excess speed.
I'd be happy with 80mph. Most cars travel at 80mph. I know someone who puts his cruise control on 77mph, according to satnav, when going to and from rugby matches. I'm frequently overtaken.
The fastest I've been on a motorway is an indicated 155, which I'm told equated to around 145. It was almost anodyne. There was hardly any traffic. Both the car and the (class 1) driver were within safe limits. I'd be happy, delirious in fact, if we could go at those speeds, but it would be dangerous I believe.
I recently had a puncture on a motorway, a blowout at speed. The blue hatchback beside me slowed to let me pull to the hard should. I put a temporary spare on and tried to travel at the 80kph advised as the maximum safe speed. Traffic had difficulty coping. The difference between the traffic in the outside lane and me in the n/s was just 30mph yet people had seemed unable to adjust.
A few years ago someone drove into the back of a car returning from the London to Brighton Veteran Car Run.
Imagine if the difference was all but 100. So at what figure do we draw the line? 80 - yes, I'm OK with that. 90 - possibly. 100 - well now . . .
Speed limits need to reflect the skills of those using the roads. Not only that, a moment's inattention could cause all sorts of problems with larger differentials between fastest and slowest.
When the limit is reduced due to weight of traffic, average speed goes up, rather counter intuitive I know.
What I will say, though, is that it will be impossible to raise the limit due to the conceit of the likes of brake.
I wrote an article on keeping alert at the wheel and ways to put off tiredness. Research from universities in Canada and Australia, especially the latter, showed that there were ways of combating the effects of tiredness, and these worked to an extent when a driver was not tired; i.e. it raised awareness levels in normal driving.
My client put it to brake for their comments and they ridiculed it, their suggestion being that a driver should sleep if he/she exceeds a certain time at the wheel.
Mine was evidenced, theirs wasn't. Mine reduced the likelihood of an accident due to tiredness - the main thrust was know your body - and theirs could well increase it according to the research - there is no time limit that suits everyone; too much sleep is as bad as too little in some ways. So I didn't get paid, a cheap lesson in what facts are not to be published by a commercial concern; misinformation wins and sensible, evidenced advice is banned.
But what can you do?
I suppose I could publish the article on here. After all, no one is going to buy it. It goes against knee jerk reaction.
Mind you, publishing a 500-word article that took me some time to write without getting paid for it goes against my morals.
You talk too much sense.I'd be happy with 80mph. Most cars travel at 80mph. I know someone who puts his cruise control on 77mph, according to satnav, when going to and from rugby matches. I'm frequently overtaken.
The fastest I've been on a motorway is an indicated 155, which I'm told equated to around 145. It was almost anodyne. There was hardly any traffic. Both the car and the (class 1) driver were within safe limits. I'd be happy, delirious in fact, if we could go at those speeds, but it would be dangerous I believe.
I recently had a puncture on a motorway, a blowout at speed. The blue hatchback beside me slowed to let me pull to the hard should. I put a temporary spare on and tried to travel at the 80kph advised as the maximum safe speed. Traffic had difficulty coping. The difference between the traffic in the outside lane and me in the n/s was just 30mph yet people had seemed unable to adjust.
A few years ago someone drove into the back of a car returning from the London to Brighton Veteran Car Run.
Imagine if the difference was all but 100. So at what figure do we draw the line? 80 - yes, I'm OK with that. 90 - possibly. 100 - well now . . .
Speed limits need to reflect the skills of those using the roads. Not only that, a moment's inattention could cause all sorts of problems with larger differentials between fastest and slowest.
When the limit is reduced due to weight of traffic, average speed goes up, rather counter intuitive I know.
What I will say, though, is that it will be impossible to raise the limit due to the conceit of the likes of brake.
I wrote an article on keeping alert at the wheel and ways to put off tiredness. Research from universities in Canada and Australia, especially the latter, showed that there were ways of combating the effects of tiredness, and these worked to an extent when a driver was not tired; i.e. it raised awareness levels in normal driving.
My client put it to brake for their comments and they ridiculed it, their suggestion being that a driver should sleep if he/she exceeds a certain time at the wheel.
Mine was evidenced, theirs wasn't. Mine reduced the likelihood of an accident due to tiredness - the main thrust was know your body - and theirs could well increase it according to the research - there is no time limit that suits everyone; too much sleep is as bad as too little in some ways. So I didn't get paid, a cheap lesson in what facts are not to be published by a commercial concern; misinformation wins and sensible, evidenced advice is banned.
But what can you do?
I suppose I could publish the article on here. After all, no one is going to buy it. It goes against knee jerk reaction.
Mind you, publishing a 500-word article that took me some time to write without getting paid for it goes against my morals.
I'm surprised you have the inclination to take the time with it here, unless you cut and pasted it. The zealots are not open to debate.
JNW1 said:
As far as I'm aware we have no clear evidence on what public opinion actually is in terms of attitude to speed; however, are a majority really happy or content with the ever increasing use of static and mobile cameras? Perhaps they are but my money would be on probably not.....
Whereas the money of the major political parties is on probably yes, and they've spent a lot more money on it than you have......
vonhosen said:
Willy Nilly said:
vonhosen said:
Willy Nilly said:
vonhosen said:
It's not about us as individuals, it's one size for all.
Unfortunately, one size doesn't fit all. you know, I know and everyone on this thread know that speed is easy to measure and limits easy to enforce, that's why speed has been targetted. We all know that inattention is the biggest cause of crashes. Driving slower doesn't make people pay more attention, it just makes the impact speed lower. It's a good thing that aviation safety is a little more thorough than road safety.
Any RTA fatality is thoroughly investigated, to propose that there isn't and a camera just gets placed where the fatality occurs is frankly laughable.
vonhosen said:
Willy Nilly said:
I've have done a ROSPA course in the car and really enjoyed it, had a mare on my test and only got silver. I also did Bike Safe a few years ago and loved that. The coppers were brilliant. On both courses speed was mentioned, but not a numerical value, the emphasis was on stopping on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear, driving to the limit point and positioning on the road. The speed limits were mentioned in passing that you should obey them, but not obeying them keeps you safe and ignoring them means you are an evil baby murderer and should think of the children etc.
They said that?They mentioned speed limits, but the context in which there were mentioned was that "that is what the law says, we mustn't break the law".
Contrast that with the anti speeding campaign, 20's Plenty and speed awareness courses and all you get is "speed kills" "exceeding the speed limit is always dangerous" " you will kill someone if you hit them at 40" like I can come off my bike at any speed on a motorway an survive.
Serving Class 1 driver on the first course I did in the classroom bit.
"we went to an RTA on the AXXX. it was a bad one. A resident came out of the house to speak to me and said "I've lived here over 20 years and had never seen any accidents here until that camera was installed."
His colleague on an observed run in my car: "just be careful down here, there's a police money box in the hedge on the left."
vonhosen said:
Willy Nilly said:
Having done these courses I'd quite like to do more, particularly on my bike, but firstly no privileges come with passing them and frankly, the way you talk down to me and treat me like an idiot, you can basically shove them up your arse. You treat me like an idiot, so I'm happy to act like one.
You do courses for privileges?I'm not sure that's a good motivation.
Who are you talking to about shoving them? me? The people offering to train you? Why would I shove a course nothing to do with me? No thanks.
You can act how you like, you are responsible for how you act, no-one else.
If you want to act like a petulant child you are free to do so, anyone finding you doing so is free to treat you like one.
vonhosen said:
Willy Nilly said:
As for the Drivers CPC's what a lost opportunity they are. It's nothing but jobs for the boys. A total farce.
They are only a lost opportunity if you don't get the best out of them & it's you who is responsible for getting the best out of them for yourself. If you research & book good quality training in areas of interest/value to yourself, you'll gain from your investment. what a lost opportunity they are. It's nothing but jobs for the boys. A total farce. If you do no research, book the cheapest you can find & keep doing the same course (a course which is of no interest to yourself again & again) then unsurprisingly you'll get nothing from it.
You've wasted an opportunity instead of investing in your knowledge/skills.
Remember that speeding is a technical offence and the speed limits have been set arbitrarily. You could have a new law that everyone should wear a blue hat while driving, wouldn't mean it was a good law. Around here there have been countless reduced speed limits. If I saw some roads getting up graded I wouldn't be so angry, but there have been no upgraded roads. All been reduced.
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
As far as I'm aware we have no clear evidence on what public opinion actually is in terms of attitude to speed; however, are a majority really happy or content with the ever increasing use of static and mobile cameras? Perhaps they are but my money would be on probably not.....
Whereas the money of the major political parties is on probably yes, and they've spent a lot more money on it than you have......JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
As far as I'm aware we have no clear evidence on what public opinion actually is in terms of attitude to speed; however, are a majority really happy or content with the ever increasing use of static and mobile cameras? Perhaps they are but my money would be on probably not.....
Whereas the money of the major political parties is on probably yes, and they've spent a lot more money on it than you have......Similarly if political parties don't mention an intention to deal with what you believe is a problem then it is reasonable to infer that they don't think it will win them any votes, or might even lose them some, especially as adding a couple of lines to a lengthy manifesto really wouldn't cost them anything.
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
As far as I'm aware we have no clear evidence on what public opinion actually is in terms of attitude to speed; however, are a majority really happy or content with the ever increasing use of static and mobile cameras? Perhaps they are but my money would be on probably not.....
Whereas the money of the major political parties is on probably yes, and they've spent a lot more money on it than you have......Similarly if political parties don't mention an intention to deal with what you believe is a problem then it is reasonable to infer that they don't think it will win them any votes, or might even lose them some, especially as adding a couple of lines to a lengthy manifesto really wouldn't cost them anything.
I'm not going to second guess why the subject isn't high on the political agenda. I think experienced drivers who use the roads for their living would be perfectly happy with the NSL being increased to 80 or 85 but I can also understand how some other, less capable, drivers might be concerned.
BTW, before someone suggests it, I'm not trying to imply I fit into the more capable category.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff