Speed awareness course....interesting but.....
Discussion
Gary29 said:
King Herald said:
He asked what people thought they needed to do to pass the course, and participating was one of the things on the list, as well as being on time, being sober, and staying for the whole four hours
His closing line was "all those who have passed the course will receive mail from the county council telling them....blah blah" which sort of indicated there could be failures.....
I know some people sat still and didn't say a single word for the whole four hours.
I'd put money on them all having 'passed' I've never been on one myself (as I'm a perfect driver obviously!) but I've never heard of anyone having ever 'failed'His closing line was "all those who have passed the course will receive mail from the county council telling them....blah blah" which sort of indicated there could be failures.....
I know some people sat still and didn't say a single word for the whole four hours.
My point was it would be pointless trying to argue the case for speeding to a bloke who's job it is to try and limit everyone's speed, it's like arguing with a woman, you'll never win.
The lad in question kept banging on about how 38 in a 30 was 'normal', how he was an excellent driver (aged 18 and passed on his 17th birthday, driving on the farm since 10 etc etc) and how all the info the chaps put in front of us was factually incorrect.
At the half time break, he got a warning, carry on disrupting and he would be ejected. He jumped in with both feet 15 minutes into the 2nd half and bloke number 2 came over, whilst number 1 carried on talking, and escorted him off the premises.
Edited by eltax91 on Friday 28th July 07:37
mac96 said:
Perhaps he wanted you to say 'to get there quicker' because he had a preset answer to that, to show that the extra speed had little affect on journey time.
Whereas 'because it is more fun' is a subjective thing which he cannot dispute.
That was where he was heading, to prove/hammer home that going faster did not really get you there quicker. Whereas 'because it is more fun' is a subjective thing which he cannot dispute.
I bet he has taught that same class hundreds of times, must be frustrating when the pupils don't play the game right.......
King Herald said:
RobM77 said:
his is certainly a major effect for me. Nevertheless, I figure that because of the high mileage I drive I can't afford to take chances, so I hardly ever break the speed limit. The most I'll ever do is a bit over on the motorway if I'm running late; I'll certainly never breach a 30 or 40mph limit, as that's where the most cameras tend to be. It's nice to never worry about being caught, but I do get incredibly bored at times.
One interesting snippet he demonstrated was that if you were ten minutes late, for example, and wanted to make it up by doing 80 instead of 70mph on the motorway, you'd have to drive 100 miles without dropping your speed to catch up that ten minutes. I'd never really thought that out before. I rarely breach a speed limit in a town or built up area myself, but I got caught when I lost track of what the limit was while cruising through some town one afternoon. Riding a bike for 40 years, in various countries, I tend to gravitate towards whatever speed feels safe if a speed sign isn't very evident. A van up my rear end made me think I was in a 40, not a 30, and lack of concentration on my part lead to me getting busted. Guilty, no excuses.
On my one bike, 1200 Bandit, it can be a bit awkward keeping down to 30 as the motor is a bit lumpy below 2000 rpm..... speed tends to creep up without noticing, if I'm not continually nodding up and down twixt speedo and road. That's not an excuse, just I need to pay close attention.
Edited by King Herald on Thursday 27th July 16:16
My commute is pretty dull and I like figures, so over the years I've worked out the following:
65mph cruise control = averages 45 minutes & 70mpg
70mph cruise control = averages 43 minutes & 65mpg
obviously I've not tested this for higher speeds Needless to say, the trend continues. I'm lucky with my commute in that I never have traffic, so this is highly repeatable to with 30 seconds or so per day; I pretty much never have to change my speed for the entire mway and dc stretches I drive on. Armed with that data, one has to make a decision on arrival time and cost.
rxe said:
For me, its nothing to do with lateness and all about fun. I'll cheerfully blast down a motorway and read a book at my destination rather than arrive exactly on time.
I'm absolutely with the OP. There's little utility or science that can be applied here, its just more interesting.
Exactly my view. I find it hard to believe that anybody on PH cannot understand this. Maybe they don't do it themselves, but denying it totally?I'm absolutely with the OP. There's little utility or science that can be applied here, its just more interesting.
Either they use their car merely as a form of transport, or as a fashion accessory, but not being able to accept that driving fast is enjoyable for many people, well, what can we say.....
I assume the instructor had a specific agenda to teach, and people saying they LIKE driving fast as a reason/excuse for their crime is not within his scope of brainwashing.
King Herald said:
One interesting snippet he demonstrated was that if you were ten minutes late, for example, and wanted to make it up by doing 80 instead of 70mph on the motorway, you'd have to drive 100 miles without dropping your speed to catch up that ten minutes. I'd never really thought that out before.
I've just done the sums and I make it 93 miles and 80 minutes to catchup.Mind you, at 90 mph, you've caught up in 53 miles and 45 minutes and you are
winning all the way after that.
Cost saved time at £10 - £20 an hour and the sums are even more persuasive.
I elected to take a SAC seven years ago after being caught in an unfamiliar part of the country by a speed van while following a bunch of cars at (IIRC) 47 in a 40mph limit. It was a Country A road with no real evidence of hazards and given the opportunity I would probably have overtaken and meandered off into the distance.
What I learned from the course was that the person delivering the course had little or no knowledge of the law but lots of opinion on what is/isn't acceptable or applicable when driving.
As with most informed people I drive to the conditions. Yes I'll enjoy a blast when conditions allow but rarely, if ever, on a Motorway as there's no involvement below 100mph on a fast straight road below 3 figures.
So, for me at least, speeding isn't done for the sake of speeding or necessarily to "get there as quickly as possible", but for the sense of travelling quickly and safely and in car control.
I drove back through the Cotswolds from Milton Keynes to South Wales last weekend, setting off late evening and whilst I could have opted for the long route and cruised the motorway network at 60mph to save fuel, I chose a more direct route using a mix of A and B roads. I enjoyed the countryside, the wildlife (deer, owls and foxes on or around the roads) and drove with those potential obstacles in mind as well as being aware of other traffic. I haven't enjoyed a drive so much in a long time.
Did I speed down those country roads. Maybe. I was too busy concentrating on all of the things going on around me and the various signs and tell tales of where hazards were likely to be coming up to worry too much about what the needle on the speedo was pointing at. But I never at any point in over 150 miles had to brake hard except once when an idiot I was lining up for an overtake decided to straddle the while lines on a straight piece of country road at dusk. Either he lost concentration or was deliberately trying to keep me behind (I expect the latter).
And therein lies the majority of the problem. The "system" is catering for the lowest common denominator which seems to get lower year upon year.
Those who will choose to drive for pleasure are becoming fewer and fewer and those who just one to get from A to B increase year on year.
Those who just want to get from A to B seem to think that anyone going faster then them is a lunatic and anyone going slower is a ditherer. Those who drive for pleasure tend, IME, to want to help others to make progress whereas the A to B'ers only think about themselves at best or try and police others behaviour at worst and can't accept that what they are doing may be more dangerous than the very behaviour they are trying to police.
What I learned from the course was that the person delivering the course had little or no knowledge of the law but lots of opinion on what is/isn't acceptable or applicable when driving.
As with most informed people I drive to the conditions. Yes I'll enjoy a blast when conditions allow but rarely, if ever, on a Motorway as there's no involvement below 100mph on a fast straight road below 3 figures.
So, for me at least, speeding isn't done for the sake of speeding or necessarily to "get there as quickly as possible", but for the sense of travelling quickly and safely and in car control.
I drove back through the Cotswolds from Milton Keynes to South Wales last weekend, setting off late evening and whilst I could have opted for the long route and cruised the motorway network at 60mph to save fuel, I chose a more direct route using a mix of A and B roads. I enjoyed the countryside, the wildlife (deer, owls and foxes on or around the roads) and drove with those potential obstacles in mind as well as being aware of other traffic. I haven't enjoyed a drive so much in a long time.
Did I speed down those country roads. Maybe. I was too busy concentrating on all of the things going on around me and the various signs and tell tales of where hazards were likely to be coming up to worry too much about what the needle on the speedo was pointing at. But I never at any point in over 150 miles had to brake hard except once when an idiot I was lining up for an overtake decided to straddle the while lines on a straight piece of country road at dusk. Either he lost concentration or was deliberately trying to keep me behind (I expect the latter).
And therein lies the majority of the problem. The "system" is catering for the lowest common denominator which seems to get lower year upon year.
Those who will choose to drive for pleasure are becoming fewer and fewer and those who just one to get from A to B increase year on year.
Those who just want to get from A to B seem to think that anyone going faster then them is a lunatic and anyone going slower is a ditherer. Those who drive for pleasure tend, IME, to want to help others to make progress whereas the A to B'ers only think about themselves at best or try and police others behaviour at worst and can't accept that what they are doing may be more dangerous than the very behaviour they are trying to police.
Edited by Tyre Tread on Friday 28th July 13:35
BoRED S2upid said:
And then I bet he tried to argue that somehow you won't get there faster if you speed? If you trundle along at 60 instead of 75 it won't make any difference to your arrival time or something if switched off by then I just wanted it to end!
If you try to go much faster than what you might call the natural speed* of the road you won't gain much in proportion to your peak speed above it because you will not spend a lot of time above it, on the other hand going slower will 'lose' you time in a proportional way. * Rather poorly defined, sorry, I think of it as the speed at which you are not having to slow down a lot and frequently due to traffic. It will be somewhat over the average speed and you can generally time passing a slower vehicle by rolling gently off the throttle even if it is going quite a bit slower than you. To pull numbers out of the air I'd say it is the speed at which your standard deviation in speed is less than 5mph. Trying to go faster might increase the average by 5mph and the SD to 10mph.
King Herald said:
Of course we had to ask our guys if they had any points on their licenses. The one guy told me he would lose his job if he got three points, and have to pick a new career if he got six.
Not sure exactly what his career was, we never got round to that.
My course was run by 2 AA DriveTech advance driving instructors and they said the same thing; looks like the AA have no tolerance for people who don't practice what they preach.Not sure exactly what his career was, we never got round to that.
Mine was actually really good; 2 guys leading it were not at all preachy, were very engaging and quite funny. Decent group of attendees (i.e. no loud mouths; being London most were Uber drivers but everyone was quite chill about the whole thing) and the 4 hours went by quickly. My cousin has also done a course (about a year ago) and he said the leader was a hellfire/brimstone kinda guy and it really dragged on for him. Luck of the draw.
Sheepshanks said:
RobM77 said:
sidgolf said:
a possible counter would be that driver-concentration tends to drop if they are forced to crawl along at a snails-pace.
This is certainly a major effect for me. .OTOH I was very early for a meeting yesterday so drove for a bit at the same speed as the trucks were doing on the motorway yesterday. That feels like you could run faster.
King Herald said:
mac96 said:
Perhaps he wanted you to say 'to get there quicker' because he had a preset answer to that, to show that the extra speed had little affect on journey time.
Whereas 'because it is more fun' is a subjective thing which he cannot dispute.
That was where he was heading, to prove/hammer home that going faster did not really get you there quicker. Whereas 'because it is more fun' is a subjective thing which he cannot dispute.
I bet he has taught that same class hundreds of times, must be frustrating when the pupils don't play the game right.......
On both motorways and derestricted roads though, I really do believe driving to the conditions is far safer than plodding along blindly obeying limits. On the motorway, 70 is often not a good speed, too much time alongside LGV’s and in their blind spots. On 60 limit roads, I am sure we are all well aware of the numbing boredom of rolling along at 45 or 50 MPH when the road is clearly safely suitable for a lot more. I feel I am driving very much more safely when making reasonable progress along a road than when in the plodding snake of cars, with most or all of the drivers close to lapsing into a coma rather than being particularly aware of what is around them.
The government, however, goes with ‘Speed Kills’ rather than trying to educate. We all get on an Airbus A380, or a 787, which should be MASSIVELY dangerous on that basis…
Pottering about South West France this month .... Paranoid about Monsieur Le Plod, as is, it appears, is everyone else as literally no one is speeding. Plethora of 30kmh (19mph) limits ... I understand 30mph (50kph), but 19mph, thro villages on main A (D) roads is frankly ridiculous. I won't return.
paulguitar said:
. I feel I am driving very much more safely when making reasonable progress along a road than when in the plodding snake of cars, with most or all of the drivers close to lapsing into a coma rather than being particularly aware of what is around them.
The government, however, goes with ‘Speed Kills’ rather than trying to educate. We all get on an Airbus A380, or a 787, which should be MASSIVELY dangerous on that basis…
I start to feel sleepy if I wind along fast roads at a mere 40 or 50 speed limit, following a string of cars all doing 5 below that limit..... it is mesmerising, tedious, hypnotic almost.The government, however, goes with ‘Speed Kills’ rather than trying to educate. We all get on an Airbus A380, or a 787, which should be MASSIVELY dangerous on that basis…
I was actually expecting to be assaulted with the "SPEED KILLS" brainwashing as soon as I walked into the course classroom, but it never really happened. Well, it did, but far more subtly.
dcb said:
I've just done the sums and I make it 93 miles and 80 minutes to catchup.
Mind you, at 90 mph, you've caught up in 53 miles and 45 minutes and you are
winning all the way after that.
Cost saved time at £10 - £20 an hour and the sums are even more persuasive.
At 90mph you'll be getting much worse mpg than at 70mph so the 'cost time saved' will be offset by the extra cost of fuel which you'll then have to earn money to pay for.Mind you, at 90 mph, you've caught up in 53 miles and 45 minutes and you are
winning all the way after that.
Cost saved time at £10 - £20 an hour and the sums are even more persuasive.
From my observations, fuel economy drops roughly in direct proportion to speed.
A typical diesel which gives 60mpg at 60mph (9p/mile) would probably manage only 40mpg at 90mph (13.5p/mile). At 60mph each mile takes one minute.
At 90mph each mile takes 40s.
So at 90mph every mile you travel costs an extra 4.5p in fuel and saves you 20s of time. That values each hour at £8 and you'd need to earn £10-11 pre-tax to get £8 in your pay packet.
For a typical petrol giving about 40mpg at 60mph the extra cost per mile at 90mph vs 60mph will be more like 6p, equivalent to £10.80 per hour or £14/hr pre-tax.
Edited by Ron99 on Saturday 29th July 11:14
I'm totally unconvinced by this "going faster doesn't get you there any quicker" suggestion.
I can easily knock a significant amount of time off my journeys by driving fast, and the longer the journey, the more significant it gets. It's not just driving fast in terms of peak speed either, it's about planning to go but preparing to stop. Our roads are busier than ever, have move restrictions (traffic lights, junctions, roundabouts etc) and i find that by good observation coupled with matching my speed to the situation i can be through these features without stopping. Now on one junction that makes hardly any difference, but save 10 sec on 100 junctions and it adds up! What i find about the "monospeeder" and "arbitors of the limits" type drivers is that they stop at every possible opportunity. ie:
Empty roundabout, approach at 40, back off about 1 mile before it, womble up to it, STOP. Then look to see if anyone is coming (which they aren't) fumble with gears and pedals, lurch into roundabout just as someone DOES come. Slam on brakes, stall, fumble with gears and pedals again, get going, pull out in front of someone, into completely the wrong lane on the roundabout, don't indicate, finally stop there exit, cut STRAIGHT across roundabout to their exit, accelerate as slowly as possible up to 40mph.
In that one roundabout, i have "saved" 10 to 20 seconds by planning and observation. And the slower the traffic gets, the more people give up any attempt at efficient progress ime.....
Modern cars are faster than ever, and yet, our roads are slower than ever. It's completely not a surprise that people do 40 through a 30 when they've been stuck behind some dawdling idiot for 30 mins in a nose to tail snake of traffic getting nowhere fast.........
I can easily knock a significant amount of time off my journeys by driving fast, and the longer the journey, the more significant it gets. It's not just driving fast in terms of peak speed either, it's about planning to go but preparing to stop. Our roads are busier than ever, have move restrictions (traffic lights, junctions, roundabouts etc) and i find that by good observation coupled with matching my speed to the situation i can be through these features without stopping. Now on one junction that makes hardly any difference, but save 10 sec on 100 junctions and it adds up! What i find about the "monospeeder" and "arbitors of the limits" type drivers is that they stop at every possible opportunity. ie:
Empty roundabout, approach at 40, back off about 1 mile before it, womble up to it, STOP. Then look to see if anyone is coming (which they aren't) fumble with gears and pedals, lurch into roundabout just as someone DOES come. Slam on brakes, stall, fumble with gears and pedals again, get going, pull out in front of someone, into completely the wrong lane on the roundabout, don't indicate, finally stop there exit, cut STRAIGHT across roundabout to their exit, accelerate as slowly as possible up to 40mph.
In that one roundabout, i have "saved" 10 to 20 seconds by planning and observation. And the slower the traffic gets, the more people give up any attempt at efficient progress ime.....
Modern cars are faster than ever, and yet, our roads are slower than ever. It's completely not a surprise that people do 40 through a 30 when they've been stuck behind some dawdling idiot for 30 mins in a nose to tail snake of traffic getting nowhere fast.........
Ron99 said:
At 90mph you'll be getting much worse mpg than at 70mph so the 'cost time saved' will be offset by the extra cost of fuel which you'll then have to earn money to pay for.
From my observations, above fuel economy drops roughly in direct proportion to speed.
A typical diesel which gives 60mpg at 60mph (9p/mile) would probably manage only 40mpg at 90mph (13.5p/mile). At 60mph each mile takes on minute. At 90mph each mile takes 40s.
So at 90mph every mile you travel costs an extra 4.5p in fuel and saves you 20s of time. That values each hour at £8 and you'd need to earn £10-11 pre-tax to get £8 in your pay packet.
For a typical petrol that gives about 40mpg at 60mph the extra cost per mile at 90mph vs 60mph will be more like 6p, equivalent to £10.80 per hour or £14/hr pre-tax.
Well, you certainly can't be accused of putting across a counter argument which lacks detail and an arithmetic methodology. Fair play to you. From my observations, above fuel economy drops roughly in direct proportion to speed.
A typical diesel which gives 60mpg at 60mph (9p/mile) would probably manage only 40mpg at 90mph (13.5p/mile). At 60mph each mile takes on minute. At 90mph each mile takes 40s.
So at 90mph every mile you travel costs an extra 4.5p in fuel and saves you 20s of time. That values each hour at £8 and you'd need to earn £10-11 pre-tax to get £8 in your pay packet.
For a typical petrol that gives about 40mpg at 60mph the extra cost per mile at 90mph vs 60mph will be more like 6p, equivalent to £10.80 per hour or £14/hr pre-tax.
Ron99 said:
At 90mph you'll be getting much worse mpg than at 70mph so the 'cost time saved' will be offset by the extra cost of fuel which you'll then have to earn money to pay for.
From my observations, fuel economy drops roughly in direct proportion to speed.
A typical diesel which gives 60mpg at 60mph (9p/mile) would probably manage only 40mpg at 90mph (13.5p/mile). At 60mph each mile takes one minute.
At 90mph each mile takes 40s.
So at 90mph every mile you travel costs an extra 4.5p in fuel and saves you 20s of time. That values each hour at £8 and you'd need to earn £10-11 pre-tax to get £8 in your pay packet.
For a typical petrol giving about 40mpg at 60mph the extra cost per mile at 90mph vs 60mph will be more like 6p, equivalent to £10.80 per hour or £14/hr pre-tax.
£14 an hour? We're all powerfully built director types here, you've just demonstrated that we're much better off driving fast. From my observations, fuel economy drops roughly in direct proportion to speed.
A typical diesel which gives 60mpg at 60mph (9p/mile) would probably manage only 40mpg at 90mph (13.5p/mile). At 60mph each mile takes one minute.
At 90mph each mile takes 40s.
So at 90mph every mile you travel costs an extra 4.5p in fuel and saves you 20s of time. That values each hour at £8 and you'd need to earn £10-11 pre-tax to get £8 in your pay packet.
For a typical petrol giving about 40mpg at 60mph the extra cost per mile at 90mph vs 60mph will be more like 6p, equivalent to £10.80 per hour or £14/hr pre-tax.
Edited by Ron99 on Saturday 29th July 11:14
Also worth considering that at certain points in a journey there are elements for which a few seconds will be multiplied.
If I get to traffic lights on green I go straight through, 5 seconds later and I will be waiting for a good few minutes, there are no circumstances where reaching such an obstacle 'late' gains any speed/time/money.
If I get to traffic lights on green I go straight through, 5 seconds later and I will be waiting for a good few minutes, there are no circumstances where reaching such an obstacle 'late' gains any speed/time/money.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff