[Closed] Speed awareness courses

I've been on one. I didn't find it patronising.

Mine was held in Carrington, Gtr Manchester but I'm assuming the content is different at different locations.

The course refreshed some important points in the highway code and I re-learnt things I'd forgotten.

Take heart in the fact you are funding the very thing that caught you 😉

What he said, although if you're biting your tongue then just remember you were speeding which makes you more wrong than them! And for pretty much any other cause of an accident the odds/consequences are worse if you're going faster.

Interestingly, the average age seems to be about 65, and it is made up of about 75% women!

A reflection that men under 65 are in work and too busy to do the course?

I found my teacher very patronising and supercilious

His tact was also that speed is the cause of all accidents, which I guess isn't surprising due to the title of the course 🙂

Also, like the OP said, most people seemed to be in their 60's

We had a motorbiker in his 40's who was quite good at shooting down a lot of the nonsense from the guy who was leading the course

I found mine patronising as well and the guy doing it was such a smarmy prick. It wasnt too bad though, did mine in Buckinghamshire so it was full of posh young girls, even got a number off one of them 😛

I had a real comedy selection.

A Subaru driving boy racer who claimed a possible cause of speeding was 'racing somebody'. Also a Bus driver (who was clocked speeding in his bus) who couldn't recognise any road signs (including Give Way) and who was so dangerous on the practical session the instructor had to stop it after a few minutes.

That and a good selection of Yummy Mummys who were likely taking points for their husbands.

Speed IS a contributing factor to ALL crashes. If nobody is moving, nobody crashes. It's that simple.

My 'positive contribution' during my course some years ago was explaining the fallacy of interpreting correlation as causation. (The nice lady claimed drivers who don't speed have less accidents, so if we slowed down... Etc)

I illustrated the fallacy with my example of testicular cancer vs the wearing of bras - an incredibly strong negative correlation. However, in no way will my wearing a bra every day from now on stop me getting ball cancer...

After the mirth died down I was told to shut up or leave. Some people just don't want to be educated!

I did one and it was fine. I realised I am not the driving god I thought I was, wound my neck in a bit and was thankful my licence remained clean.

Speed is indeed the cause of all accidents - usually people driving too slowly.

If they were driving that bit faster they wouldn't have been there at the time the accident occurred.

Cheers

Danny B

Velocity too since direction would seem to count 🙂

Had one at the beginning of the year. Was fine.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/im-about-to-start-a-speed-awareness-course

I illustrated the fallacy with my example of testicular cancer vs the wearing of bras - an incredibly strong negative correlation. However, in no way will my wearing a bra every day from now on stop me getting ball cancer...

After the mirth died down I was told to shut up or leave.

Of course if you were just being a smartarse then fair enough 😉

Renewing my insurance recently the person I was talking to asked me if I'd attended any of these courses. I said I thought the point was that you didn't have to tell insurance companies. Apparently now if they ask you you have to tell them, not all ask yet but I'm sure that'll change. It's apparently treated as driving history so they need to know.

I can see their point but have no doubt they'll just use as an excuse to increase premiums. Doesn't seem much point taking them now, unless you're up to your eyeballs in points.

I did one earlier this year in Guildford.

The AA bloke had a rather comedy, slightly partonising presentation style BUT I thought he and it was enlightening and effective and I now think everyone should have to do it.

I would happily go back again.

This thread is a great illustration of what is wrong with drivers attitudes in the UK.

This thread is a great illustration of what is wrong with drivers attitudes in the UK.

I SHOULD RUN YOU DOWN FOR YOUR INSOLENCE!

BRUM BRUM!

They asked me if I thought my driving was average, above or below. I said above average, and they said that made me overconfident. I said it was nothing to do with overconfidence but down to how woefully bad the "average" driver is. They didn't really have an answer to that.

Best comment was a young boy racer who when faced with road signs fessed up that he didn't know any, he just learned the half dozen he'd been told would be on the test.

This thread is a great illustration of what is wrong with drivers attitudes in the UK.

I blame the driving instructors.

Speed alone does not cause accidents!

Course not. But then neither does alcohol.

Best comment was a young boy racer who when faced with road signs fessed up that he didn't know any, he just learned the half dozen he'd been told would be on the test.

Smells like crap to me. Given that there is and has long been a computerised theory test.

You know what they say; if you can't do it, teach 😉

I don't remember which racing driver said it but no man will ever admit to being a poor driver or poor lover.

They asked me if I thought my driving was average, above or below

I said 9/10, the highest in the group, they asked why so high; don't think i'm excellent, just better than 8/10 people i see when i drive.

Most people said 3 or 4 if i thought i was in the bottom 30% of drivers on the road i'd get more lessons. although it's probably people not having a clue how to assess something out of 10 🙄

I did one recently, it felt like punishment. There was a similar demographic and one young lad/complete knob. It is the only mark on my 18 year driving record.

I drive the same speed as the majority i.e. moderately over the limit on most roads most of the time although I will go very slow when there is clear danger or conditions are poor. I don’t think the course has changed anything re the way I drive – I don’t think there is a problem to fix.

I don't remember which racing driver said it but no man will ever admit to being a poor driver or poor lover.

I am terrible at both 🙁

I drive the same speed as the majority i.e. moderately over the limit on most roads most of the time although I will go very slow when there is clear danger or conditions are poor. I don’t think the course has changed anything re the way I drive – [b]I don’t think there is a problem to fix.[/b]

Failing to spot a police car or camera would suggest that your observation skills need a bit of work.

They hide though, time you see them its to late .A bit like the kid you /I might hit that runs into the road

Maybe if going a little bit slower, or perhaps staying inside the limit would work better, no?

Smells like crap to me. Given that there is and has long been a computerised theory test.

<shrug> 's what he said; implied that it was always the same questions (for the signs at least). How true that is I've no idea, but no-one contradicted him.

I actually learnt some stuff, I had no idea what the national speed limits were, how to spot what NSL was applicable on that road or what a dual carriageway was etc etc.
Only downside was the one or two know-it-all arrogant aerosols who thought they knew better and/or blamed everyone else but themselves. They obviously thought their attempted words of wisdom were amusing to everyone, but all I could see were people cringing and eyebrow raising.

Anyone done one?

I'm currently half way through one, and finding it very patronising.

I got caught doing 70mph on a 60mph stretch (16% too fast). I did the course along with people caught doing 40mph in a 30mph stretch (33% too fast)!

Although I found it somewhat patronising, I couldn't believe the level of ignorance of most of the fellow participants: On the video where you have to count the number of hazards, I was slightly low, and the next highest was half the number of hazards. Some saw just one or two! How are they allowed to drive FFS? 😯

I'm currently half way through one, and finding it very patronising.

You failed to keep your vehicle within the advertised limit and failed to spot the police or speed camera. Why are you surprised that you're being talked down to?

I'll just add the the guy running my course was pretty damn good, and put his foot down (edit: pun unintended) at the start saying this isn't the place to get cocky, take it on the chin or you'll be removed and have to take the fine.

i did one yesterday, i was really dissappointed, the 2nd 2 hours were ok, but it was really basic stuff they covered. I was hoping for something more/better.
But that said some of the people on the course came out with some shockers, and at least two of the OAP's clearly couldn't see the any of the presentations. Plus one was stone deaf doesn't stop him driving but not a lot of use on the course.
The 1st half was utter crap, ex copper with a bad attitude. the longest 2 hours of my life.
some gems
a blue round sign means cyclists MUST (shouted) use the cycle lane.
A car with locked-skidding front wheels will stop better than one with ABS as ABS takes longer to stop!
And the old chesnnut 2 car travelling at 50mph having a head on is a 100mph collison...........OFFS.

the last 10 years i've been averaging 23-25k a year and had no points, knowing what i know now i might just take the points next time.
Oh it was in the west mercia area - might be better in other areas.

I've done two. Found them both useful and informative.

I've done two. Found them both useful and informative.

8)

Think that might be the third time Jimmers 🙂

Thing is, I actually have done two 😳

A car with locked-skidding front wheels will stop better than one with ABS as ABS takes longer to stop!

Did he specify on snow or gravel (in which case it would be true).

2 car travelling at 50mph having a head on is a 100mph collison...........OFFS.

IME, Even after to explain it to people slowly, only about 2% of the population will understand that. 🙄

some gems
a blue round sign means cyclists MUST (shouted) use the cycle lane.

Ooooh I think I'd have been having words with him or his supervisor about that one!

Can someone explain the 50mph one? Why is that not right? 😳
(it's late and I'm too hot so apologies if it is obvious)

I did one a little while back. Found it pretty good actually.
Proved to me what lack of hazard perception and road knowledge inc road signs+speed limits the majority of vehicle drivers have.

I've always thought a 5 year top up test would be worthwhile consideration for drivers+riders. Simple and cheap, but it will keep us all upto a certain level of competency.

"TuckerUK - Member
A car with locked-skidding front wheels will stop better than one with ABS as ABS takes longer to stop!
Did he specify on snow or gravel (in which case it would be true). "

No they showed the old-ish road safety add why the nissan locks up and knocks a little lad down, so dry tarmac.

As for Newtons third law..... if you tell me something i know is a untrue, then how i am going to trust your other facts.

I've always thought a 5 year top up test would be worthwhile consideration for drivers+riders. Simple and cheap, but it will keep us all upto a certain level of competency.

Yep, me too. 😳

🙂

Can someone explain the 50mph one? Why is that not right?
(it's late and I'm too hot so apologies if it is obvious)

Closing speed is 100mph, but you would still only be decelerating from 50mph.

I've always thought a 5 year top up test would be worthwhile consideration for drivers+riders.

+1

In any other walk of life if you were put in charge of a piece of machinery that killed or seriously injured 25,000 people a year then you'd need to be re-tested every year.

Graham 2 cars each at 50mh =100mph divided by 2 cars =50mph each.
google mythbusters 2 cars they do a very visual demo of this,

Oh and one more thing they asked not 1 or 2 but 3 people to leave who hadn't bought their driving licenses......so thats £80 for the course £65 fine and 3 points......darwin at work

Closing speed is 100mph, but you would still only be decelerating from 50mph.

Ahh - so you'd be thrown forward with (roughly) the same force as 50mph into a brick wall, I see.

Presumably it is still worse though, as you'll have bits of the other car coming through your windscreen at 50mph and your crumple zones would be subject to far greater forces as they'd be getting hit from "both sides" (being squashed by your vehicle's momentum while also being squashed by the oncoming vehicle).

Aye. You might also get run over, pushed back, spiked, spun, rolled or indeed a combo of all of then depending on what vehicle you collide with.

depending on what the vehicle you collide with.

Yeah, seems to me it would only really balance out if the vehicles are exactly the same mass and the crumple zones are symmetrical.

Many years ago a uni mate of mine was killed in a head on with a snow plough. Wasn't a lot left of his car 😕

sugdenr
...I would happily go back again...

Presumably it is still worse though, as you'll have bits of the other car coming through your windscreen at 50mph and your crumple zones would be subject to far greater forces as they'd be getting hit from "both sides" (being squashed by your vehicle's momentum while also being squashed by the oncoming vehicle).

Not really. Imagine the crumple zone absorbs energy in proportion to the deformation 1cm of deformation = 1kJ of energy (made up figures, but right ballpark)

If 1 car (500kg) hits a completley imovable brick wall at 50mph (22 m/s), the energy transfered is 1/2* mass * velocity suared = 0.5*500*22*22= 121kJ = 121cm of deformation (so the whole bonnet area).

If 2 cars hit each other at 50mph each thats then that twice (242kJ) the energy and twice the derformation, but that's over 2 bonnets, so actualy it's the same.

If 1 car is replaced by a truck weighing an infiite ammount then the change in velocity is negligable (i.e the truck just keeps going), then the change in speed is 100mph, but it's not 1/2* mass * change in velocity squared, it's just velocity. So in that case the energy transfered is doubled as the car decelerates to zero, then is re accelerated to 50mph backwards, 2.42m of car is crushed and the ocupant is very very dead.

What'll really mess with your head is the earth is spinning at ~1200miles an hour, and moving round the sun as millions of miles an hour, so relatively, both objects have experienced a very small change in velocity! What I don't quite understand is in that case going from 1250mph to 1200mph should have a different result than 1150mpg to 1200mph, i.e. driving east a crash should hurt a lot more than driving west.

[edit] that now reads a bit insensative after the snowplough

As for Newtons third law..... if you tell me something i know is a untrue, then how i am going to trust your other facts.

So basically, they were trying to convince you but you had an equal and opposite reaction to the advice?

As for Newtons third law..... if you tell me something i know is a untrue, then how i am going to trust your other facts.

I was agreeing with you!

Yeah, seems to me it would only really balance out if the vehicles are exactly the same mass and the crumple zones are symmetrical.

True. A tank doing 50mph crashing into a small car doing 50mph, the tank would feel a 0mph impact, the car 100mph...probably.