Speed awareness course....interesting but.....

[vonhosen]

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

vonhosen said:

The presenter at the OP's class was however deluded that some people don't speed for any other reason than fun.
He'd have been just as deluded pretending some people don't torture animals or bully kids for fun.

That's a very interesting choice of activities to associate with low-level speeding.

It's got nothing to do with the activities or suggesting anything relative between them, but it does have everything to do with the futility in trying to deny they exist.

[King Herald]

vonhosen said:

Not if you are using your eyes properly. Your vision should be scanning from your horizon to you (inc laterally) & behind on a repeat cycle. So your vision scans should cover the location of the sign multiple times before you get to it, rather than just once. You could possibly miss the detail on one of those scans but not in the three, four or more visits you should be doing.

Multiple times huh? How long does your scan take?

I usually do what I call my 'circle of observation' on my bike: road ahead, road near, mirrors, instruments etc.

At 40mph you are covering 60 feet per second, and in an urban environment with trees hanging out, shops, other signs, buildings etc, there is EVERY chance of missing one sign on the other side of the road. Unless you are specifically looking for it.

But there are also a hundred other things we are looking for, not just speed signs. I pride myself in 40 years of motorcycling in much of Europe, and also in India, Thailand, Philippines, without a serious shunt of any sort. I would like to think I have pretty good road observation skills.

And like I said, if they were REALLY that bothered about speeders, why don't they clear the trees from the 30 sign on that one side of the road?

I shall go take photos tomorrow, and see just how obscured or obvious it is with a closer look.

Eta: and to be honest, I am a bit surprised that stretch actually IS a 40, though obviously you don't have to travel at that speed.

Edited by King Herald on Sunday 30th July 21:40

[dcb]

Ron99 said:

The mpg figures are the kind of figures I've seen in the real world over many thousands of miles (for some years our household has run 3-4 cars covering a total of 30-40k per year).
70mpg from a diesel at 50mph, dropping to 60mpg at 60mph, 50mpg at 70mph and 45mpg at 75mph.
40mpg from a petrol at 50mph dropping to 30mpg at 70mph and 25mpg at 75mph.

From those numbers, I am guessing cars with smaller (< 2 litre) engines.

I think my point remains - larger engined cars get very little reduction in mpg at higher speeds,
because they are geared to cruise efficiently at high speeds.

Ron99 said:

Besides: speeding points add to the cost of insurance

It depends on the insurance company. Getting caught speeding isn't the big deal it used to be.
Some (most?) insurance companies ignore the first three points. They pretty much
have to, to stay in business.

So many millions of Brit drivers have been caught speeding that usually
at the first offence a Speed Awareness course is offered.

Second and later offences usually get points. I suspect millions of Brit
drivers have some points now.

Ron99 said:

Personally I get much more fun out of a twisty minor A-road or major B-road at speeds often less than the NSL rather than zipping along in a straight line at high speed on a motorway.

Quite possibly. I drive fast on the motorway to get there sooner. Time is money
and I don't want to waste my life sticking to a limit that is not only wildly out
of date but also was widely ignored (until the speed cameras arrived).

To say nothing of driving so slowly I have trouble maintaining proper concentration
on the road.

At least back home in Bavaria, when I am plodding along at 125 mph, I am really
watching what I am doing. Back in the UK, it's cruise control on, Classic FM on and
brain off.

Ron99 said:

My real-world observations of cars at legal-ish speeds are consistent with the laws of physics, therefore why not use laws of physics to project higher speeds?

Any even half way decent scientist will tell you that extrapolation is a well known trap
for the unwary and lazy.

[vonhosen]

dcb said:

Second and later offences usually get points. I suspect millions of Brit
drivers have some points now.

State of play on 26th September 2015.

There were 46,762,863 licence holders.
43,927,354 had zero points.
2,200,536 had 3 points.

[Pica-Pica]

dcb said:

Ron99 said:

The mpg figures are the kind of figures I've seen in the real world over many thousands of miles (for some years our household has run 3-4 cars covering a total of 30-40k per year).
70mpg from a diesel at 50mph, dropping to 60mpg at 60mph, 50mpg at 70mph and 45mpg at 75mph.
40mpg from a petrol at 50mph dropping to 30mpg at 70mph and 25mpg at 75mph.

From those numbers, I am guessing cars with smaller (< 2 litre) engines.

I think my point remains - larger engined cars get very little reduction in mpg at higher speeds,
because they are geared to cruise efficiently at high speeds.

Ron99 said:

Besides: speeding points add to the cost of insurance

It depends on the insurance company. Getting caught speeding isn't the big deal it used to be.
Some (most?) insurance companies ignore the first three points. They pretty much
have to, to stay in business.

So many millions of Brit drivers have been caught speeding that usually
at the first offence a Speed Awareness course is offered.

Second and later offences usually get points. I suspect millions of Brit
drivers have some points now.

Ron99 said:

Personally I get much more fun out of a twisty minor A-road or major B-road at speeds often less than the NSL rather than zipping along in a straight line at high speed on a motorway.

Quite possibly. I drive fast on the motorway to get there sooner. Time is money
and I don't want to waste my life sticking to a limit that is not only wildly out
of date but also was widely ignored (until the speed cameras arrived).

To say nothing of driving so slowly I have trouble maintaining proper concentration
on the road.

At least back home in Bavaria, when I am plodding along at 125 mph, I am really
watching what I am doing. Back in the UK, it's cruise control on, Classic FM on and
brain off.

Ron99 said:

My real-world observations of cars at legal-ish speeds are consistent with the laws of physics, therefore why not use laws of physics to project higher speeds?

Any even half way decent scientist will tell you that extrapolation is a well known trap
for the unwary and lazy.

I think Newton's second law of motion still holds good.

[vonhosen]

King Herald said:

vonhosen said:

Not if you are using your eyes properly. Your vision should be scanning from your horizon to you (inc laterally) & behind on a repeat cycle. So your vision scans should cover the location of the sign multiple times before you get to it, rather than just once. You could possibly miss the detail on one of those scans but not in the three, four or more visits you should be doing.

Multiple times huh? How long does your scan take?

Scans don't by definition take long. Thing is you visit the hazard/information 3,4,5 or more times in your journey to it with it starting when it is at the horizon (which may take 20-30 seconds or more to get to) each time assessing any change & updating it within your driving plan.

i.e. The first scan is when it's at the horizon & you can see it's a sign but you can't see the detail, as you move towards it the next time you throw your vision forward your vision goes beyond it & as you scan back you process what more detail you can get from it this time & update, then the process starts again with it being clearer still & so on.
Vision scans works from far to near, not near to far (near to far invariably stops your vision getting to the horizon as you tend to stop lifting it when you see something of interest in the foreground & you're already on top of it).

[King Herald]

vonhosen said:

Scans don't by definition take long. Thing is you visit the hazard/information 3,4,5 or more times in your journey to it with it starting when it is at the horizon (which may take 20-30 seconds or more to get to) each time assessing any change & updating it within your driving plan.

i.e. The first scan is when it's at the horizon & you can see it's a sign but you can't see the detail, as you move towards it the next time you throw your vision forward your vision goes beyond it & as you scan back you process what more detail you can get from it this time & update, then the process starts again with it being clearer still & so on.
Vision scans works from far to near, not near to far (near to far invariably stops your vision getting to the horizon as you tend to stop lifting it when you see something of interest in the foreground & you're already on top of it).

I have to admit I penned 3 replies and each one was somewhat defensive, but I have realised that the correct answer is that I need to 'up my game' in the observation department.

40 years of trouble free riding, while looking for danger, threats etc below eye level, but it has all changed now. Usually I could judge what a speed limit is without needing signs. The road, the traffic, the weather, and I have always managed to set my safe speeds without problem.

However, the goals are all changed now, the biggest threat is now from above head height: speed signs. More focus is needed looking for speed signs than looking for pot holes, errant cars, roadside hazards etc. It is a full time chore.

Even traffic lights and stop signs have a low level indication that something is happening, lines on the road etc. Speed signs have nothing.

In the area I was riding today Uttoxeter-Alton-Cheadle, the speeds go up and down faster than a yoyo. There is just so much roadside furniture with all the other various signs and clutter it is so easy to miss a speed sign.

I rode right past another pair of 30 signs going into Uttoxeter, from a 50, and never noticed until I saw a 30mph repeater sign, so I turned round and went back to see where I had missed them. Plain as day, both sides of the road, full size 60cm speed signs, 10 feet from the ground. And I had missed them. They were not far before a bunch of major roadworks that totally distracted me from my hunt for speed signs.

[anonymous-user]

It's worth noting that it's easier to "miss" signs these days because the limit change often does not correspond to a visual que. ie 30mph limits have been worked back far up the road from say the first houses in the village in a (futile) attempt to get people down to 30 on entering the village. IME, what happens is that people simply ignore (or just don't 'see it' ) the 30mph sign and carry on into the village at 40......

[dcb]

Pica-Pica said:

I think Newton's second law of motion still holds good.

Indeed it does, so why did you mention speed, not acceleration ?
Yes you might have been doing 75 mph, but you don't tell us how fast you got there.
F = ma and all that.

Also, have a go at trying to explain why most cars get better gas mileage out on the open
road, rather than in urban places.

For example, my car gets about 25 mpg in town, 31 mpg average and I can do 37 mpg if
I drive like a pensioner.

[Moonhawk]

Max_Torque said:

iF we get used to ignoring those little red and white signs for 99.99% of the time, how do we let drivers know that there is a hazard ahead, when it REALLY matters.

But it's the "cry wolf" scenario isn't it.

By blindly following the "speed kills" mantra and dropping speed limits for little to no reason - the authorities are basically crying wolf all the time and as such people start to become desensitised.

Instead of the speed limit being set to reinforce a drivers perception of a safe speed to travel - they are seen as a mechanism to punish drivers.

How many times have you seen a speed trap outside a school at 8:30am compared to an NSL road in the middle of nowhere that last month got inexplicably reduced down to 40mph

[King Herald]

Exactly. Couple of miles in a built in 40 and it suddenly changes to a 30, then the same further on a couple of miles.

The explanation from our instructor was all the changes are made over several years, due to fatalities, accidents, complaints, incidents, and they keep changing, adding, removing signs and regulations.

Leaving Uttoxeter roundabout heading towards Alton Towers it is 50mph for maybe 200 metres, then 40 for 200 yards, then back to 50 again.

Heading out of my home town on A518 it is 30mph, you hit a big roundabout, and when you turn left, right there, 15 feet above your head, is a 40 sign. The speed limit goes up, for 200 yards, then goes up to 50. The dozens of times I have turned left at that roundabout over the last seven months since we moved back here and I have never even noticed that sign, it is so far above your line of vision, you literally have no to be looking for it to see it.

[Johnnytheboy]

vonhosen said:

dcb said:

Second and later offences usually get points. I suspect millions of Brit
drivers have some points now.

State of play on 26th September 2015.

There were 46,762,863 licence holders.
43,927,354 had zero points.
2,200,536 had 3 points.

Hooray for Speed Awareness Courses!

I'd love to see how those figures have changed since SACs were rolled out widely. I bet more people used to.

Sorry for going on topic.

[vonhosen]

Moonhawk said:

Max_Torque said:

iF we get used to ignoring those little red and white signs for 99.99% of the time, how do we let drivers know that there is a hazard ahead, when it REALLY matters.

But it's the "cry wolf" scenario isn't it.

By blindly following the "speed kills" mantra and dropping speed limits for little to no reason - the authorities are basically crying wolf all the time and as such people start to become desensitised.

Instead of the speed limit being set to reinforce a drivers perception of a safe speed to travel - they are seen as a mechanism to punish drivers.

Speed limits aren't about re-enforcing the driver's perception of a safe speed to travel at.
They by their nature are invariably set below that perception, that's why they limit their choice of speed & why they require enforcement. Couple that with the fact 'a safe speed to travel at' isn't their sole raison d'être.

Moonhawk said:

How many times have you seen a speed trap outside a school at 8:30am compared to an NSL road in the middle of nowhere that last month got inexplicably reduced down to 40mph

A fixed camera is often the preferred option outside schools.

[vonhosen]

Johnnytheboy said:

vonhosen said:

dcb said:

Second and later offences usually get points. I suspect millions of Brit
drivers have some points now.

State of play on 26th September 2015.

There were 46,762,863 licence holders.
43,927,354 had zero points.
2,200,536 had 3 points.

Hooray for Speed Awareness Courses!

I'd love to see how those figures have changed since SACs were rolled out widely. I bet more people used to.

Sorry for going on topic.

You can see very easily.
Do a FOI request, get the results & post them up.
I'd bet on there being 90+% on zero points.

[ROB_GTR]

Been on 2 of these Speed Awareness Courses and found both times to be extremely frustrating. I took the approach of "try and be interested and join in" but after getting nowhere with common sense and fact I found myself switch off and just be there in body.

Yes they have a course to deliver and a message to get across but FFS have a proper discussion / debate about the reality of speeding etc and not be so narrow minded!
Braking distances have reduced - FACT, but they will argue the toss nonetheless.

On a motorway I tend to stick to the speed limit or there about as it is incredibly boring and consumes a lot of fuel for little 'fun', same in a built up area.

A quiet 'B' road is a different kettle of fish..... My daily commute is 12 miles of quiet B road FUN, regardless of speed limit, I drive to the conditions and my mood that day.

[King Herald]

The road over Buxton pass way has a rigidly enforced speed limit, with average speed cameras as well as, I've been told, helicopter patrols in summer, because of the amount of bikers who get killed trying to, er, 'get there sooner'.

I found it hard to actually keep up to the speed limit, let alone break it. There are some very surprising ever-tightening corners to be found. Fun can be had while still being legal.

Edited by King Herald on Monday 31st July 22:21

[Moonhawk]

vonhosen said:

Speed limits aren't about re-enforcing the driver's perception of a safe speed to travel at.

They are supposed to be (according to the government)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

"Speed limits should be evidence-led and self-explaining and seek to reinforce people's assessment of what is a safe speed to travel."

[vonhosen]

Moonhawk said:

vonhosen said:

Speed limits aren't about re-enforcing the driver's perception of a safe speed to travel at.

They are supposed to be (according to the government)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

"Speed limits should be evidence-led and self-explaining and seek to reinforce people's assessment of what is a safe speed to travel."

Things have moved on, limits are being imposed for other reasons.

Smart motorways reduce speeds in a bid to slow you before you get to an area that the driver could make an assessment for that imposed early reduction in limit (ideally the driver never sees the reason if it works properly).
Speed limits being introduced for air pollution reasons irrespective of what the driver may assess is a safe speed.
Limits not being increased because of the effects on noise pollution, irrespective of what the driver may assess as a safe speed.

[Limpet]

Both my awareness courses were actually OK. First one was made slightly more irritating by the obligatory insufferable bell-end in the audience, who wouldn't shut up and argued every point. I don't think there was a person in the room who didn't want to knock his bung in by the first break. The instructor was a bit of a laugh, and confessed at one point that middle lane morons were a bigger problem for her than speeders

Didn't find them preachy at all. I guess it depends who is delivering the course. The format and content of the two I did bore little relation to each other either.

[swisstoni]

Limpet said:

Both my awareness courses were actually OK. First one was made slightly more irritating by the obligatory insufferable bell-end in the audience, who wouldn't shut up and argued every point.

Might have been someone on this thread