RE: London educates speeding drivers
Thursday 27th July 2006
There is an escape - but only at 36mphLondon's police and transport authority have combined to provide education for drivers caught speeding -- as long as you're doing a maximum of 36mph. Any more than that and you start attracting points. And weirdly, if you're doing less, you attract points too, with the option to contest the penalty as per normal.
London educates speeding drivers
But only if you're doing 36mph exactly
There is an escape - but only at 36mph
It's all part of a scheme designed to educate drivers about the dangers of speeding. It takes the format of a workshop, which costs £72 -- a tad more than the points penalty of £60 but without the points. The aim is to explain what happens when you hit something or someone at that speed.
The Met and Transport for London are following the lead of Thames Valley and Northumbria police forces who do something similar.
However, it seems a bit pointless to pick 36mph -- it would appear to be a semi-random figure plucked from the air simply with the aim of keeping the numbers manageable. It's also a bit unfair on those travelling at, say 35mph. But if it saves points and improves drivers' education -- even if only about speeding as opposed to other elements in the whole driving mix -- then it's probably on balance to be welcomed.
Discussion
hayesey said:
hmm, so rather than driving around at about 32-33mph I'd be better off speeding up to 36 then?
I think it's a great idea but it should be any speed up to 36.
I think it's a great idea but it should be any speed up to 36.
Couldn't agree more.
Are they now operating a zero tolerance on speeding over 30mph? Sorry officer, by speedo doesn't read in increments as low as 30.4mph.
I always thought that it was acceptable for a speedo to over read by a percentage but not under read when it left the factory. How are we supposed to guarentee that our speedos are calibrated accurately enough? Could we face prosecution when out needles are bang on the mark due to tolerancing?
Mat
mat205125 said:
hayesey said:
hmm, so rather than driving around at about 32-33mph I'd be better off speeding up to 36 then?
I think it's a great idea but it should be any speed up to 36.
I think it's a great idea but it should be any speed up to 36.
Couldn't agree more.
Are they now operating a zero tolerance on speeding over 30mph? Sorry officer, by speedo doesn't read in increments as low as 30.4mph.
I always thought that it was acceptable for a speedo to over read by a percentage but not under read when it left the factory. How are we supposed to guarentee that our speedos are calibrated accurately enough? Could we face prosecution when out needles are bang on the mark due to tolerancing?
Mat
Most speedos are manufactured with a tolerance of +5-10%, -0% so a reading of 70 mph could be an actual road speed of 64-70mph but no more than that.
mat205125 said:
[quote=hayesey]hmm, so rather than driving around at about 32-33mph I'd be better off speeding up to 36 then?
I think it's a great idea but it should be any speed up to 36.
I think it's a great idea but it should be any speed up to 36.
Couldn't agree more.
Are they now operating a zero tolerance on speeding over 30mph? Sorry officer, by speedo doesn't read in increments as low as 30.4mph.
I always thought that it was acceptable for a speedo to over read by a percentage but not under read when it left the factory. How are we supposed to guarentee that our speedos are calibrated accurately enough? Could we face prosecution when out needles are bang on the mark due to tolerancing?
If your speedo is bang on the mark, say 30 mph and as you say is set up to over read, then your actual speed is less than 30, probably nearer 27 or 28 mph - hence, no danger of being caught speeding.
The higher your speed the larger the gap - ie: at a speedo speed of 70mph you might only be doing an actual 65mph or there abouts.
I have witnessed this by comparing my speedo with my GPS unit which is more accurate.
Think one of the reasons speedos over read is that it is generally better to over read than under read but also some are affected by tyres wearing - as the tyres wear the diameter changes and the gearing is effectivley altered...
Be interesting to know the threshold for prosecution - should be 36 anyway.
I predict the new Road Safety Bill with its lower points for less speed deal will lead to effectively zero tolerance - if they only have a band of 31 - 39 for 2 points then you can bet they will use the full range
Adaptive cruise control for me I think
I predict the new Road Safety Bill with its lower points for less speed deal will lead to effectively zero tolerance - if they only have a band of 31 - 39 for 2 points then you can bet they will use the full range
Adaptive cruise control for me I think
I have my doubts about the effectivness of the tuition too... 
I was offered a similar course after I parked my Civic on it's roof.
I was told the police had considered my circumstances and were prepared to offer me a 2 day course for £140 (no points on my licence). It took all of a nano-second to decide and choose the £140 option rather than the points.
I can't say a learnt anything from the course and actually found more useful information from having a read through Roadcraft.
It was led by a few AA instructors and the one I had tried to have me believe that his underpowered small car (Forget what it was now - Fiat No-go or something like that) actually drove better if I kept the rev's very low (almost tick-over speed)... Think he must have had a bump on the head and forgot his car was a petrol not a deisel or something.
"If you can hear the engine you're reving it too much" he said
Tried explaining my Civic Type S could be heard even at tick-over and didn't have much power under 2000rpm but he wasn't having any of it.
In the end I passed the course by swithcing to "Driving Miss Daisy" mode and doing everything exactly as though I'd just passed my test after being a learner.
I was offered a similar course after I parked my Civic on it's roof.
I was told the police had considered my circumstances and were prepared to offer me a 2 day course for £140 (no points on my licence). It took all of a nano-second to decide and choose the £140 option rather than the points.
I can't say a learnt anything from the course and actually found more useful information from having a read through Roadcraft.
It was led by a few AA instructors and the one I had tried to have me believe that his underpowered small car (Forget what it was now - Fiat No-go or something like that) actually drove better if I kept the rev's very low (almost tick-over speed)... Think he must have had a bump on the head and forgot his car was a petrol not a deisel or something.
"If you can hear the engine you're reving it too much" he said
Tried explaining my Civic Type S could be heard even at tick-over and didn't have much power under 2000rpm but he wasn't having any of it.
In the end I passed the course by swithcing to "Driving Miss Daisy" mode and doing everything exactly as though I'd just passed my test after being a learner.
"The aim is to explain what happens when you hit something or someone at that speed."
FFS why don't they spend more money on educating pedestrians about the dangers of stepping out onto a road full of cars, buses and wagons travelling at 30mph......
80% survive being hit at this speed, you know.
20% die.
FFS why don't they spend more money on educating pedestrians about the dangers of stepping out onto a road full of cars, buses and wagons travelling at 30mph......
80% survive being hit at this speed, you know.
20% die.
Humberside Police operate this system, I was caught at 44 in a 40 and offered a course £60 no points, by a mobile camera not too many fixed cameras up here.
I went on the course me, a lot of truckers from West Yorkshire (All got done the same day on their way to Hull docks) Police explained to the unlucky drivers unlike your force we don't do fixed, our force likes to surprise you! and to complete the group a couple of local guys and 1 solitory house wife!
First half (2 hour course) a council transport guy(ct) showed us films (Australian origin) of accidents and we were asked to comment:-
1st Film
A man walks out of a newagent reading a newspaper walks out between two parked cars and splat!
Q (ct) What was wrong in that film?
A (ALL) Idiot didn't look
ct Wrong driver was driving at 35mph!
A (ALL) The car speed wasn't obvious from the film but idiot walking out was!
2nd Film
A man driving along a road, a kangaroo jumps out in front of him , he swerves and crashes
Q (ct) What was wrong in that film?
A (ALL) We have no Kanagaroos in Hull it wouldn't happen here!
ct Wrong answer if he'd been driving at the correct speed he could have avoided accident
At this point with the group in total disbelief at what we'd heard so far, we were warned by the Traffic Policeman who would hold the 2nd half of the course, 'You can fail this course and you will get 3points' from this point we paid attention.
The second hour was the Traffic Policeman explaining all that involves a RTA and how excessive speed is the major contribution in most cases.
After the course we got a goody bag (badge, pen, handbook of all mobile camera places in Humberside (very useful).
Was the course worth it, for the truckers yes they need their licenses for the rest I suppose so in the short term, given none of us had been doing more than 6mph above the limit
we weren't your actual hooligan drivers. But maybe because we all had to take an afternoon off work to attend the course and lost pay, we remember it more than somebody who just picks up 3pts.
I went on the course me, a lot of truckers from West Yorkshire (All got done the same day on their way to Hull docks) Police explained to the unlucky drivers unlike your force we don't do fixed, our force likes to surprise you! and to complete the group a couple of local guys and 1 solitory house wife!
First half (2 hour course) a council transport guy(ct) showed us films (Australian origin) of accidents and we were asked to comment:-
1st Film
A man walks out of a newagent reading a newspaper walks out between two parked cars and splat!
Q (ct) What was wrong in that film?
A (ALL) Idiot didn't look
ct Wrong driver was driving at 35mph!
A (ALL) The car speed wasn't obvious from the film but idiot walking out was!
2nd Film
A man driving along a road, a kangaroo jumps out in front of him , he swerves and crashes
Q (ct) What was wrong in that film?
A (ALL) We have no Kanagaroos in Hull it wouldn't happen here!
ct Wrong answer if he'd been driving at the correct speed he could have avoided accident
At this point with the group in total disbelief at what we'd heard so far, we were warned by the Traffic Policeman who would hold the 2nd half of the course, 'You can fail this course and you will get 3points' from this point we paid attention.
The second hour was the Traffic Policeman explaining all that involves a RTA and how excessive speed is the major contribution in most cases.
After the course we got a goody bag (badge, pen, handbook of all mobile camera places in Humberside (very useful).
Was the course worth it, for the truckers yes they need their licenses for the rest I suppose so in the short term, given none of us had been doing more than 6mph above the limit
we weren't your actual hooligan drivers. But maybe because we all had to take an afternoon off work to attend the course and lost pay, we remember it more than somebody who just picks up 3pts.
percy flage said:
"The aim is to explain what happens when you hit something or someone at that speed."
FFS why don't they spend more money on educating pedestrians about the dangers of stepping out onto a road full of cars, buses and wagons travelling at 30mph......
80% survive being hit at this speed, you know.
20% die.
FFS why don't they spend more money on educating pedestrians about the dangers of stepping out onto a road full of cars, buses and wagons travelling at 30mph......
80% survive being hit at this speed, you know.
20% die.
When I was at school, we had the Green Cross Code drummed into us. "look what you are doing, don't walk out between parked cars, don't play in the road, etc".
Why, in the last 25 years has the onus changed from the pedestrain to the driver ? Cars on the road, people on the path. How many people are hit whilst on the path ? Almost none, I'd say. It's just more of the "I'm not to blame for anything" attitude we have today. Don't get me started...
"The second hour was the Traffic Policeman explaining...... and how excessive speed is the major contribution in most cases"
More of the 'say it often enough and everyone believes it' b*****cks. From the figures I've seen, in various studies, CAUSE of accidents being excessive speed accounts for between 3.4 and 15.7%. Even if we get biased, and call it 20%, that still means that the powers that be are doing F*** all about 80% of accidents. Which in my mind is CRIMINAL.
Another oft quoted staistic is that speed is 'A' factor in 98% of accidents. Seeing as it's difficult for two stationary cars to hit each other, I would think it's more like 100%, as speed, velocity, MOVEMENT, needs to be there in some form or another for anything to happen.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the coming road safety bill actually had something to do with road safety in it?
This obsession with 'speed kills' (Can't be bothered to police the roads/train drivers, and we want an easy way to make money/create jobs for the boys) is costing LIVES in this country. Lives of mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, wives and husbands. About time the criminals who thought it all up, who carry it out, and who keep on repeating LIES got locked up for mass murder......
Something needs to be done .....mutter mutter mutter.
More of the 'say it often enough and everyone believes it' b*****cks. From the figures I've seen, in various studies, CAUSE of accidents being excessive speed accounts for between 3.4 and 15.7%. Even if we get biased, and call it 20%, that still means that the powers that be are doing F*** all about 80% of accidents. Which in my mind is CRIMINAL.
Another oft quoted staistic is that speed is 'A' factor in 98% of accidents. Seeing as it's difficult for two stationary cars to hit each other, I would think it's more like 100%, as speed, velocity, MOVEMENT, needs to be there in some form or another for anything to happen.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the coming road safety bill actually had something to do with road safety in it?
This obsession with 'speed kills' (Can't be bothered to police the roads/train drivers, and we want an easy way to make money/create jobs for the boys) is costing LIVES in this country. Lives of mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, wives and husbands. About time the criminals who thought it all up, who carry it out, and who keep on repeating LIES got locked up for mass murder......
Something needs to be done .....mutter mutter mutter.
alhuyshe said:
From the figures I've seen, in various studies, CAUSE of accidents being excessive speed accounts for between 3.4 and 15.7%. Even if we get biased, and call it 20%, that still means that the powers that be are doing F*** all about 80% of accidents. Which in my mind is CRIMINAL.
Another oft quoted staistic is that speed is 'A' factor in 98% of accidents. Seeing as it's difficult for two stationary cars to hit each other, I would think it's more like 100%, as speed, velocity, MOVEMENT, needs to be there in some form or another for anything to happen.
Something needs to be done .....mutter mutter mutter.
Another oft quoted staistic is that speed is 'A' factor in 98% of accidents. Seeing as it's difficult for two stationary cars to hit each other, I would think it's more like 100%, as speed, velocity, MOVEMENT, needs to be there in some form or another for anything to happen.
Something needs to be done .....mutter mutter mutter.
Anyone here been on one of these courses? If you had you'd know that it readily acknowledges that 'A factor' can be one of a number of things. Courses like this focus on the issue of the increased impact speed depending how fast you go.
The fact is that if you are going at 30 there are some accidents that are avoidable that would not be avoidable at 35, 36, 39 or whatever and they are exactly the sort of accidents that involve pedestrians, particularly kids.
This is not the same as the course that the Civic Type S driver above sat - that sounds like the National Driver Improvement Scheme - which tends to gather together drivers on careless driving etc charges and CAN result in the license being revoked if the course isn't passed.
As for Green Cross Code etc - Absolutely right there should be more of this in the schools and more of this dealt out by parents but the fact that it often isn't is no excuse for anyone breaking the law.
I love my car(s) and I like to press on but I'm not small minded enough to think that if I'm caught that it's anyone else's fault than my own.
[quote=grahamg
As for Green Cross Code etc - Absolutely right there should be more of this in the schools and more of this dealt out by parents but the fact that it often isn't is no excuse for anyone breaking the law.
[/quote]
True, but that assumes that the law is reasonable. Also, my missues has a habit of jaywalking, and when I shout at her, she says "Well, I've got right of way". Well, yes, that's true, but it's not much of a comfort if you get hit by a car that you just stepped out in front of.
As for Green Cross Code etc - Absolutely right there should be more of this in the schools and more of this dealt out by parents but the fact that it often isn't is no excuse for anyone breaking the law.
[/quote]
True, but that assumes that the law is reasonable. Also, my missues has a habit of jaywalking, and when I shout at her, she says "Well, I've got right of way". Well, yes, that's true, but it's not much of a comfort if you get hit by a car that you just stepped out in front of.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff