Forum menu
So, I attended my speed awareness course and I have to say, I found it quite enjoyable. I learnt a few things too. I'm £100 out of pocket but I would've been anyway,plus 3 points.
I was surprised to see that the biggest percentage of people on our course were middle to pension age, hardly any boy racers and a fairly equal mix of men and women too.
I would recommend people go on the course if they're given the opportunity
So what things did you learn?
aracer - Member
So what things did you learn?
POSTED 3 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Don't get caught.
IIRC 'boy racers' wont be offered the course, it's only for people a few mph over the limit, and won't apply if you've only passed your test within the last few years as that's 6 points not 3.
Check your insurance now, a lot now expect you to declare if you've been on the course and will ask you at the renewal questions along the lines of "have you ever been caught speeding", "ever attended a speed awareness course" rather than how many points do you have.
Admiral did ask, quickquote didn't and the price difference was quite a bit less than having to say yes to admiral.
On mine they had the video camera footage from a camera van showing where they actual measure your speed. The point being made, was they'll have caught you long before you have chance to brake for the van.Don't get caught.
I was surprised to see that the biggest percentage of people on our course were middle to pension age, hardly any boy racers and a fairly equal mix of men and women too.
Same when I did one
Including the local vicar, who was attending his 2nd course 🙂
Was he charged with moving in a mysterious way?
Aracer
I'm certainly not claiming to be a perfect driver, but I do regularly read the HC (like molly, for internet smart-aresery) and less than convinced that a SAC would teach me anything given the standard of typical candidates they're catering to
Who are these typical candidates? In the very same post you go on to admit you've been caught speeding at least twice, so sounds like the course is aimed very much at people like you.
As they dont offer the courses in Scotland, i took the points. £12 per year increase on my insurance premium. Not really a big deal imo.
There is a nice "control study" running north of the border where SACs are not used which would show how the other factors affecting driving impact these things anyway.
In Scotland there has been a big increase in speeding tickets at the same time as a big increase in road deaths. So I guess catching easy speeders isn't the whole answer.
The highly critical report cast doubt on whether they had helped make Scotland's roads any safer as the number of deaths increased by 14 per cent last year.
Who are these typical candidates?
Well I'm reading this thread (and other previous similar ones) and everybody suggests that the level of ignorance amongst candidates is very high, so I'm assuming they cater for people who haven't read the HC at all since their test. Are you suggesting I'm wrong?
Meanwhile I'm still waiting to hear what vermillion learnt on his course.
In the very same post you go on to admit you've been caught speeding at least twice, so sounds like the course is aimed very much at people like you.
I'm not sure why that follows - the arguments why have already been done. If you read carefully you'll have also noticed what the limits were where I got caught, it seems that most of the courses are about explaining the reasons for not speeding in 30 limits - it's not just chance that I've never been caught speeding in one of those.
If you were clever you might have managed to read between the lines and work out that I was offered a course for speeding in an inappropriate (IMHO, though I expect most people would agree with me) speed limit. I doubt any course is going to convince me I'm wrong about that, so the only possible point would be to explain the benefit of not being caught.
^ I was in the same place, thought the limit where I was caught was inappropriate
Yes a lot of the people on the course where not as knowledgeable as they should be on speed limits etc but I wouldn't say thast ignorance, just lack of knowledge
Ignorance is what you are showing (and I did before I attended) in thinking the limit was inappropriate
The course taught me a lot about why certain speed limits may be in place in those locations you might think they are inappropriate
(and that's quite a thing given I'm also a civil engineer that studied road design at university so thought I knew a bit about designing roads to certain limits)
Relevant-ish column from Mrs Coren-Mitchell:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/26/speed-camera-never-lies-motoring-road-safety
If you don't think you are learning anything on the course you can always use some intelligence and ask questions...
Maybe even why that speed limit was set below what you thought it should be.
^ I was in the same place, thought the limit where I was caught was inappropriate
Was yours a 50 limit which used to be a 70 limit, which met all the usual criteria for being a 70 limit and had had no accidents on that particular bit of road when it was a 70 limit?
(ironically there have been a couple of fatals on the same bit of road a few miles away which has more hazards yet is still a 70 limit - though I believe one of those was doing significantly more than that)
It would help a lot if they could bring in signs that had a dual mode - weekday and weekend for example, or weekday hours.
That would mean that the lower limit could exist only in times where the speed is more appropriate - i.e. because of traffic management, etc, and it would mean that people could moan less about inappropriate limits.
Of course the weekday/weekend switch hours would have to be the same everywhere, but at least it would be less of a blunt instrument approach to speed limits.
Relevant-ish column from Mrs Coren-Mitchell:
Mrs Coren-Mitchell needs to open her bloody eyes, it'd seem. Not sure what she'd get out of an awareness course beyond "see those little numbers in circles on poles? Well, you'll never guess, but..."
She does have a point, in that there are places where signage is poor. I have on occasion found myself thinking "hm, what's the limit here?" but it's an unusual exception rather than the widespread problem Victoria is describing.
It would help a lot if they could bring in signs that had a dual mode - weekday and weekend for example, or weekday hours.
I'd like to see more signs explaining [i]why[/i] limits are set. I reckon people would be more likely to stick to them if we removed the "well, that's inappropriate" element.
Mrs Coren-Mitchell needs to open her bloody eyes, it'd seem.
Or concentrate on the task in hand, driving, rather than the radio or what amusing thing I'm going to write for the column this week.
I did my "What's Driving Us?" course last week (mostly people who haad been caught using a mobile phone whilst driving). When it started I briefly thought this could be good as it seemed like they were going to tell us how to be more tolerant of other road users. But no. It was mostly crap.
We had to do some scenarios where a driver had done something stupid/too fast/irritating. The conclusion they pushed us to was a big red box with "FEAR" written in it. Like people cut you up, overtake in stupid places etc because they aare [i]scared[/i] of being late... what a crock. Most people drive like shit because they are stupid arseholes... pure and simple.
Unless national speed limit applies, or its 30 (in which case there will be streetlights)
There will always be repeater signs
Bad signage exists yes but is not an excuse for speeding
That's one thing the course teaches you, the other ways to identify a speed limit,
They are in the Highway Code but most people wouldn't know them as you either
1. Didn't get tested on the Highway Code as you pass you test before the theory test came in
2. Read the Highway Code just to pass a test (or prove someone wrong)
That's one thing the course teaches you, the other ways to identify a speed limit,
There's a road on my commute which defies this. I'd be interested to hear people's take on it.
The road is signposted 40mph coming out of town. It turns into a NSL where it becomes a country road, and then to a signposted 30 zone as you come back into civilisation.
If you use the street furniture to gauge the speed limit of the NSL, it points to it being a 30 limit. But this is nonsensical, it would imply that they've [i]dropped[/i] the limit as you leave a built-up area, and then later explicitly specified a limit which is the same as is already in force. It's almost certainly supposed to be a single-carriageway NSL with a 60 limit, but the street lights etc don't bear this out.
Have a drive down [url= https://goo.gl/maps/BQO38 ]here[/url] and see what you think.
It's almost certainly supposed to be a single-carriageway NSL with a 60 limit, but the street lights etc don't bear this out.
Here's a clue
Motorway jumctions are lit as well, and residential streets often aren't.
But the rule still works most of the time, if it's not 30 or NSL then it'll have repeater signs. If there's no repater signs you should be able to figure it out.
Someone actualy brought up that question on my course, the answer given was that the cameras are only ever located somewhere the limit is obvious, either by signposts, or a 30 or NSL. Because someone will have measured the distance between the repeater signs to check. There won't be a camera set to 30 on a NSL section of road just because it has street lamps.