[Closed] Speed awareness course

Why not go and find out?

Jammy git!

I was also lucky enough to be informed by post that I had won a course.
AMAZING! - I didn't even know I had entered a competition.

I still cannot believe my luck until this day.

Its not bad and you will be amazed how much you dont know about road stuff.

Better than points.

i was watching traffic cops the other day, and saw a 206 (wot ive got) that had been in a collision.

didnt know you could fit a 206 into a space a meter long.

impressive.
worrying.
i should probably go on one, im sure ill get the opportunity sooner or later

I have booked on the course now, it's instead of having the points. The course 'costs' £60, which coincidently is how much the fine is that i'm being let off 🙄

Im expecting a room full of bored people desperatly trying to get through 4hrs of twoddle.

I have been told it was complete waste of time and that it was 4 hours of their life wasted and would rather take the points but I haven't been so can't comment. I guess it's worth it if you already have some points though!!

It'll be exactly the oposite of what you think it will be.

Im expecting a room full of bored people desperatly trying to get through 4hrs of twoddle.

That's what you'll get - shifty glances around the room - there's bound to be a few Clarkson wannabes whinging about the fine being a tax on driving but by the end of the course, I bet you'll have recalled loads of stuff you just learned for your theory test and promptly forgot.

Don't forget that not getting the "points" is probably worth more than £60.

I have been told it was complete waste of time and that it was 4 hours of their life wasted

Yep, I saw people like that when I did it - probably got straight back into their cars and sped off down the road.

If you've no points at the moment your insurance company shouldn't load you for three points - I'd rather take three points and pay the same amount for not spending four hours of my time listening to a load of cant.

Depends on how often you get caught, I guess.

I went on one, in 2003 so they might have changed it now.

We all had desks with monitors. I remember one "test" was a video as if you were driving along and you had to click when you thought there was a risk (ie, side roads, zebra crossings etc). The faster you recognised the risk the higher your score. But don't think Grand Theft Auto, the "simulations" were pretty tame.

There was a man from RoSPA there, he was wearing cowboy boots although I don't think that was relevant to the course. Somebody muttered that speed cameras were a stealth tax and the RoSPA guy went into orbit, spouting facts and figures, quite alarming.

Anyway, this is what they said:

1 Speed kills, don't go fast.

2 Do you know where most of the accidents that happen, happen?

3 95% happen either on the motorway hard shoulder (where everyone is going slow)or at speeds of under 30 (tailgating apparently)

4 The remaining 5% happen on the motorway (where everyone is blatting along as if their pants were on fire)

THUS SPEED DOES NOT KILL does it?

We did mention that, but it went down like a concrete canoe.

Anyway, it got me off the points, and thus off a hike in my insurance premium.

And why, exactly, would you turn down the opportunity to make you a better, safer driver?

The course I went on didn't make you a better, safer, driver. They pointed out what the speed limits were for different kinds of roads and seemed to be saying "Get up to the speed limit as fast as possible and stay there" - there didn't seem to be any grey areas like for example, if a road was normally 30 but there was a market on that day, what? still go 30?

BTW, we were all caught doing 36 in a 30. Mine was at 5 to 1 in the morning - not many pedestrians round at that time - funny thing was, I was towing my caravan at the time.

Kit - Member
And why, exactly, would you turn down the opportunity to make you a better, safer driver?

Not sure that this is the case here...

When i did it the closing question was;

What would you do differently?

Take the points.

Slight hijack here guys, but it is important (to me, at least):

Is there an obligation on the side of the pigs / establishment to offer a 'speed awareness course'?

And under what / which circumstances?

Thanks

J

Don't call them the 'pigs' for a start. Rozzers or the filth is fine.

I think the course only applies in 30 and 40 limits for those caught within 10% + 2mph

I was 36 in a rural 30.

Dunno JA but mine was through Staffordshire Speed Awareness Scheme, you only get one too, get caught again within 3 years and its points!!

And everyone knows points make prizes 😛

OK. So if speed doesn't kill why do ALL collisions on the road involve at least one moving vehicle? It's an indisputable fact that everyone doing zero mph would give us no collisions. So taking that to its logical conclusion, ALL collisions are caused by excessive speed.

OK. So if speed doesn't kill why do ALL collisions on the road involve at least one moving vehicle?

I'd take the points.

I did one in August. The course was quite informative and I have slowed down a bit as a result.

I'd take the course. It costs the same as the points anyway and won't put your insurance up. We were told that each point equates to about £70 on your insurance.

95% happen either on the motorway hard shoulder (where everyone is going slow)or at speeds of under 30 (tailgating apparently)

Where exactly did you get these figures from?

The [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2008 ]Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: Annual Report 2008[/url], Table 4a lists [b]Contributory factors: Reported accidents by severity[/b] and from that I get:

[i]Exceeding speed limit[/i] contributed to 14% of fatal accidents.
[i]Travelling too fast for conditions[/i] contributed to 14% of fatal accidents.
[i]Loss of control[/i] contributed to 32% of fatal accidents.
[i]Following too close[/i] 1% of fatals.

😀

I think what the slogan "Speed Kills" means is that HIGH speed kills - but as we see from the statistics, it mostly doesn't, because the vast majority of accidents happen when people are going slow.

I take your point, though, that if vehicles did not move at all they could not possibly crash. That wouldn't really work. You'd have to run round the drive-through at MaccyDees. You could have run-by shootings...

Graham S,

I took notes when I was on the course. That's what they said. I believed 'em.

Well either your notes are wrong, you misunderstood the message, or the teacher was an idiot, because those are the figures published by the Department for Transport. Read them for yourself.

I'd also like you to look at Table 3 which lists [b]Reported accidents and accident rates: by road class and severity[/b] where you will see that in 2008 there were:

136 fatals on Motorways.
1278 fatals on A roads.
927 fatals on other roads.

so something is very wrong with your 95% vs 5% maths.

I went to one, it was good fun. Mostly a test of how others lie (about why they were speeding) and suck upto the people running the course. You can't fail if you cooperate so be honest, its more fun. Should have seen their face when I gave my reason for speeding, "It was fun". The lies from the other attendees were obvious. During mine we had group high way code quiz's and it was scary how little most knew about the general rules of the road.

It only re-inforced my opinion that speeding itself is a poor way to judge drivers.

Lets look at the contributory factors thing.

Lost control, failed to look properly - why do you think the people lost control? I'd be guessing that they were going too fast for their abilities. Why do you think the people failed to look properly? My guess is they were in too much of a hurry.

So that's us up to around 80% of ALL fatalities involving excessive speed and we haven't even looked at the other factors yet.....

Statistics are like miniskirts - they show you a lot, but their main purpose is to hide the good bits.

I think what the slogan "Speed Kills" means is that HIGH speed kills

not what they said on my course --- they gave stats on survival chances of pedestrian being hit at various speeds...Over 20mph and the chances of surviving start looking pretty grim. Makes sense to me.

Julian A

No obligation to offer a course under any circumstances whatsoever. Some forces (well safety partnerships really) choose to do so but it is a choice on their part.

So that's us up to around 80% of ALL fatalities

Sorry Goan - I agree with your point of view, but I can't let you corrupt my stats - it doesn't work like that. The Contributory Factors are not exclusive so you can't add them up to get 80%.

I cant be bothered to read it all, but conversely i actually enjoyed mine, and think all drivers should have to go on one. I learnt alot, and i feel that due to what i was told, I am now a safer driver.

I also got a morning off work. 🙂

Much better than points esp if you pay your own insurance.

Everyone was bored looking at the start but most people found it Ok I think. I learnt a fair bit and it has slowed me down (18 months and counting).

Graham S, ooooooh tetchy!

Firstly, I said I took the course in 2003, five years before your stats.

Secondly, I'm sorry if it upsets you, but that is what the cop said. I wrote it down because it sounded so crazy. I accepted he was the expert and accepted his figures.

As for my maths, he gave the 95% so I subtracted that from 100% and got 5% - isn't that right?

Here's a challenge for all you speeder. The next car journey you take, try driving within the speed limits then take a look at those around you. You may find that it enlightens you a wee it.

Excessive speed [i]may not[/i] cause accidents - although that is very debatable. However an accident is worse the faster you are going. Simple basic physics

Myself I believe virtually every accident involves going to fast - for your skills, for the conditions or for your vehicle.

I got flashed in Essex. fnurr.

The note said "we have 4 centres in Essex so you're sure to find one that's convenient for you" Hmmm. I live in Guildford. Could be worse, I guess.

I thought it was a useful course. I wouldn't have paid for it, but I did learn some things.

Quick summary the Essex course:

Quick poll round the room of why people were speeding. Inattention or ignorance (of the limit) were the main reasons stated. Main reason unstated was probably not really being bothered about going 36 in a 30.

Explanation of how reaction times mean a smallish difference in speed can be the difference between stopping in time and hitting something at a speed that matters.

Various methods of deducing what the speed limit is if you missed the first sign.

Reminder of speed limits on different roads for different vehicles (so you don't get cross & frustrated behind someone with a caravan going 50) along with a reminder of what a dual carriageway is.

Some techniques on keeping focussed on the task of driving and the road and what's around you (to combat the inattention reason).

Some stuff about keeping your distance, maths about what it actually costs you to let someone in and drop back rather than being up someone's arse to stop people cutting in (negligible, chill out and keep your distance was the message)

General hazard spotting in photos.

'N' stuff 'n' stuff.

Interesting, useful and I was glad to avoid the points. Even if I did have to go to Essex... Decent couple of rozzers, too.

To the original poster - you will be told all kinds of things about speed and hazard awareness.

Take the points, pay the fine, and see your next year's insurance go up, OR take 4 hrs out and sit through someone telling you stuff you might not know. Not much of a choice in my opinion.

I try to stick to the speed limit, particularly in built up areas.

I am [u]always [/u]tailgated by people who try to push me to go faster than the speed limit.

Also, people don't seem to be aware that when I am towing my speed limit is 10mph less than everyone else's.

plus the girl I was sat next to was quite fit. Fashion student. We were getting long quite well until she asked me what I did for a living and I couldn't think of a lie in time.

Graham S, ooooooh tetchy!

Not in the slightest. All perfectly mellow here. 8)
Apologies if I appear otherwise.

Firstly, I said I took the course in 2003, five years before your stats.

I won't bore you with the stats for 2003, but let me assure you that they are very similar. You can read them for yourself on the link above.

Secondly, I'm sorry if it upsets you, but that is what the cop said.... he gave the 95% so I subtracted that from 100% and got 5% - isn't that right?

Not in the slightest bit upset. Honestly! 😀
What was the 95% actually in relation to? If he said [i]"95% of all fatal accidents happen on the motorway hard shoulder or at speeds of under 30"[/i] then that completely conflicts with the official figures.

What DO you do for a living nedrapier?

Hi GrahamS

He didn't give any outcomes as to whether the accidents had fatalities or just chipped paint. He just seemed to be using figures in totally the wrong way given that we were all there for being caught speeding. I thought (and still think) that he should have tried to scare the pants off us all by interpreting the figures in the bleakest, most horrific way possible.

It was almost like people who roar down the motorway rarely crash while the rest of us bimble around at low speeds bashing and banging into each other wholesale. It really was most bizarre.

I didn't go home and find any tables to support/undermine his figures.

I was cross at the whole thing. I don't think I should be allowed to go round speeding BUT if it had been a cop not a speed camera there is no way he would have ticketed me at that location at that time of night. Particularly as I was coming down a hill with the caravan SLOWING down because I had seen the 30 sign. The camera was just inside the 30 limit just behind the sign. Grrrrr.

Re. insurance going up that is not my experience with the first 3 points. I'm not a nutter driver and certainly not of the Clarkson school of machismo but when the speed camera thing started a few years ago I got caught by a mobile unit (43 in a 30 on the edge of a village). My insurance didn't change. A couple of years later I got caught again by a static camera (edge of village again) and that DID lead to an increase in my insurance. I've not been on a course - I'd have taken the option - but just getting caught made me think more when driving around. The problem is modern cars. They are so quiet, smooth and insulated from the outside that 30 seems like crawling along. Obviously they still do as much damage as a car 25 years ago (maybe a bit less). The other problem is that driving around at the speed limit can induce a sort of torpor as there isn't much stimulation from your insulated modern car.

I won't bore you with the stats for 2003, but let me assure you that they are very similar. You can read them for yourself on the link above.

If the stats from 2003 are 'very similar' to those 5 years later, are the 'safety measures' (speed cameras etc etc etc) actually working? or are the stats used as propaganda to push certain agendas?

same here,nico. mine stayed the same and he said "thankyou for being so honest.. and as a good will gesture we will give you free breakdown cover"

that was MOREthan.

Karin: I'm a flagpole painter. I paint flagpoles.

(I had some notice that time) 8)

LOL

I didn't go home and find any tables to support/undermine his figures.

Sadly that's exactly the kind of thing lonely internet geeks like me enjoy doing 😀

Looking at the 2003 report, they didn't give such a full Contributory Factors breakdown back then, but it does state:

Excessive speed was the most frequently cited contributory factor to fatal accidents, recorded in 28 per cent of such accidents between 1999 and 2002. This compares with 18 per cent of severe accidents and 11 per cent of slight accidents.

So it still accounts for 11% even if you only look at the minors.

Of course these are "reported accidents", most "scratched paint" accidents aren't likely to be reported, so wouldn't be covered by these figures. It may well be that 95% of ALL accidents, including the non-serious unreported ones, occur in those conditions.

But you can't really use the number of scratched-paint accidents where no one was speeding to support your statement that "THUS SPEED DOES NOT KILL".

GrahamS, stop using cold hard logic and reasoning will you FFS!! I'm seeing far too much sense in your posts. We are discussing the right to speed - and didn't you know it's stupid drivers that kill, not speed (let's forget that one of the things that stupid drivers do a lot of the time is break the speed limit....).

are the 'safety measures' (speed cameras etc etc etc) actually working? or are the stats used as propaganda to push certain agendas?

Hard to say. The number of killed or seriously injured casualties has fallen every year.

1994-98 average: 47,656
2003: 37,215
2006: 31,845
2007: 30,720
2008: 28,572

This could be due to speed awareness, drink drive campaigns, better safety features in cars, better road design, less pedestrians and cyclists or many other factors.

Some safety measures are clearly working, but it is very hard to pick out the effect of individual measures.

GrahamS, stop using cold hard logic and reasoning will you FFS!!

Apologies, I realise it's not the STW way 😀

I did one in Preston last year, I walked in with a right attitude, but walked away happy I had learnt something

My wife driving home last week from work when she stopped to help a group of people carrying out CPR on a woman. They were wasting their time really as the car that had knocked her over had already killed her....

Grow up people.

From what I've seen they only help for people who are a bit thick or arrogant and don't understand why speed is dangerous. But it's better than three points and I guess some people go away educated. The rest will carry on as they are but as I say, thick and arrogant.

From the original post

"Shall i just have three points instead?"

Ti29er

I'm taking the course, it seems the opinion is that i might learn something 😉