Speed awareness course feedback

[Johnnytheboy]

reglard said:

Just gets you off the points sit at the back disengage brain.

[reglard]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

reglard said:

Just gets you off the points sit at the back disengage brain.

Yes, because you've passed a driving test, and therefore have nothing left to learn because you already know everything.

Absolutely there is no legal requirement for me to learn anymore, breaking the speed limit is what everybody does and sometimes you get caught. Costs you £80 or whatever and wastes a Sat morning.

[mygoldfishbowl]

Riley Blue said:

Is it possible to attend a SAC voluntarily? I'm intrigued by the comments so far and fancy sitting in on one. I suppose the easiest way is to find an active camera.

What the hell is wrong with you? These courses are absolutely awful. You do realise they make you do team activities where you have to sit around and discuss the outcome of different scenarios with five or six total bloody strangers. The whole episode was mentally painful.

Do yourself a favour and don't ever even consider doing such a stupid thing ever again.

[CRA1G]

I did one on Monday,paid £84 for the privilege.. 1.15pm until 5.15pm with a twenty break.. and to be fair it wasn't that bad as long as you joined in with questions etc... have learned from it? Probably not,but has saved me three points..

[TwigtheWonderkid]

reglard said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

reglard said:

Just gets you off the points sit at the back disengage brain.

Yes, because you've passed a driving test, and therefore have nothing left to learn because you already know everything.

Absolutely there is no legal requirement for me to learn anymore,

And you got to vote in the referendum.

reglard said:

breaking the speed limit is what everybody does

Now that's not really true, is it.

[otolith]

FIREBIRDC9 said:

One question was "Why do people speed"
My answer was "Because its fun"
People gasped and looked at me like i was the anti-christ.

My sister did the same thing at hers. One of hers.

[otolith]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Average is always the mean unless you're told otherwise. If I recall my schoolboy maths correctly.

Depends on context and convention.

[otolith]

George Smiley said:

It’s really helped me arrive less stressed, sure I can still get my fun, driving rewarding roads but keeping as close to the safe limit is far more rewarding.

Do you mean "safe" as in "safe", or "safe" as in "safe from prosecution for speeding"?

[WJNB]

PurpleTurtle said:

For dual carriageways and motorways with little or no traffic on them then I exercise my judgment as to what is a safe speed for my vehicle and the prevailing conditions, as opposed to some arbitrary limit imposed in the 1960s.

Be very very sure that with such a superior 'I know better' attitude you will one day be caught speeding. Your opinion as to the arbitrary nature of a speed limit will be of no interest & certainly be no defence. So go ahead speed away & have the guts to let us know the day you get caught.

[irc]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Most of the time, exceeding the limit in a 30 zone, especially in urban areas, just means you arrive at the next hold up before the driver who sticks to the limit. Then they roll up behind you!

This old chestnut. The answer is it depends. Where seperate sets of lights have linked sequences speeding can save time. One instance a junction I use regularly - when the lights go green driving at the limit of 30mph gets you to the next set just after it turns red. Driving at 35-40 gets you through this set at green. So I'm on my way while the 30mph driver behind me stops at the light using more time and fuel.

Other times I see a red light we ahead and slow down below 25mph as I know 30mph+ gets me there at red while slowing will often get me there on green and dropping down into 3rd may be all that is needed rather than a stop/start.

Even random red lights some times the 30mph driver catches you but other times the 35-40 driver is through on green and the 30mph driver gets stopped.

All assuming 30mph+ is safe - wide roads without kerbside parked cars or any pedestrians.

[Sheepshanks]

PurpleTurtle said:

For dual carriageways and motorways with little or no traffic on them then I exercise my judgment as to what is a safe speed for my vehicle and the prevailing conditions, as opposed to some arbitrary limit imposed in the 1960s.

I've been caught twice - both times doing what you do. You see a nice road, they see a revenue opportunity.

[V8RX7]

Shakermaker said:

We had this discussion on here a while ago, another PH'er must have been on the same course. I thought they said that the difference was 5mph, but may depend on the speeds from which you started.

but it isn't BS, if you think about it. The rate of stopping will have an effect as well, but the same vehicle with the same weight and brakes etc, if it starts braking at the same point, will take a greater distance to reach a complete stop if it starts with a higher speed. And from that you can work out the actual speed difference at any given point, and the point at which the slower car has reached 0, the faster call will have some distance to travel.

Which if you look at tyre tests is easily the difference between the better tyres and the ditchfinders

So if we fit better tyres we get higher limits ?

Or vice versa ?

This is my problem with Speed Limits and their enforcement, one size does NOT fit all.

[otolith]

WJNB said:

Be very very sure that with such a superior 'I know better' attitude

Is it not the case that a driver's assessment of an appropriate speed for a particular piece of road in a particular car at any given moment almost always will be superior to an assessment based entirely upon the category of road?

(And, yes, if he chooses to ignore the NSL because he thinks it's wrong, the correctness of his assessment will be irrelevant to his prosecution)

[V8RX7]

PurpleTurtle said:

I actually found the course was rather good, espcially the stat that 80% of children hit by a car at 30mph will survive, 80% of childen hit by a car at 40mph will die.

You must be the only person who didn't see those awful adverts then

How many children die if they are taught the green cross code and looked after by responsible parents ?



Alternatively if 30 is the safe speed for passing homes where children may run out, then why are there NSL outside thousands of homes ?

[The Li-ion King]

mygoldfishbowl said:

Riley Blue said:

Is it possible to attend a SAC voluntarily? I'm intrigued by the comments so far and fancy sitting in on one. I suppose the easiest way is to find an active camera.

What the hell is wrong with you? These courses are absolutely awful. You do realise they make you do team activities where you have to sit around and discuss the outcome of different scenarios with five or six total bloody strangers. The whole episode was mentally painful.

Do yourself a favour and don't ever even consider doing such a stupid thing ever again.

Some courses are good, some are as soul destroying as what I imagine Job Club is like for those on JSA at the Job Centre. Sitting in groups with name badges like being at an AA meeting (not the breakdown people) the 'sin' of 36 in a 30 zone as if you were doing 64 voluntarily on a Saturday morning in a drafty office block in Ealing Broadway for 3 hours of your life is just plain wrong

[Zarco]

WJNB said:

PurpleTurtle said:

For dual carriageways and motorways with little or no traffic on them then I exercise my judgment as to what is a safe speed for my vehicle and the prevailing conditions, as opposed to some arbitrary limit imposed in the 1960s.

Be very very sure that with such a superior 'I know better' attitude you will one day be caught speeding. Your opinion as to the arbitrary nature of a speed limit will be of no interest & certainly be no defence. So go ahead speed away & have the guts to let us know the day you get caught.

[anonymous-user]

In before the hypocrites, damn, too late

[RegMolehusband]

PurpleTurtle said:

I actually found the course was rather good, especially the stat that 80% of children hit by a car at 30mph will survive, 80% of childen hit by a car at 40mph will die.

This is what gets me about speed enforcement though, if you banged home to children how to cross the road safely and to drivers the importance of observation and anticipation - 0% of children would die.

There's too much emphasis on speed to the detriment of so many other aspects of driving and being pedestrian.

[dcb]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If you think that, you're one of them. That's not how average works. If you have 10 people, one with an IQ of 150, and 9 with an IQ or 100, then 90% of them have below average intelligence.

True, but try that same maths trick over 60 million folks in the UK, not ten folks.

Feel free to come back when you understand the Central Limit Theorem
and a Normal (or Gaussian) distribution averaged over millions of folks, not ten.

[V8RX7]

WJNB said:

Be very very sure that with such a superior 'I know better' attitude you will one day be caught speeding. Your opinion as to the arbitrary nature of a speed limit will be of no interest & certainly be no defence. So go ahead speed away & have the guts to let us know the day you get caught.

I do the same and speed every day.

If you don't know better then I pity you, I know my capabilities, I know the weather conditions, I know the traffic, I know what car / van / truck I'm driving, I know what load I'm carrying... so obviously I can make a better judgement on my speed than some random number on a stick.

Exactly what scientific approach do you think was used to set the limits and how often are they reviewed ? It's the same limit at 6am on a sunny summer morning as in the snow, in the dark, at rush hour !

I can tell you in the last 25 years I've had no accidents.

Been let off with a warning approx 10 times

Had one SAC

Had 4 sets of 3 points and fines

Have held a clean license for at least the last 10 years

Now, what was your point ?

Edited by V8RX7 on Thursday 12th September 19:21