Speed Awareness Course

[Rhoobarb]

am I the only person thinking "if in doubt do 30 mph"!?

slow and steady gets you there with no points

(yes I have been done for 37 in a 30 and done the course the OP refers to)

No, that is what I was taught, if in doubt, 30, along with previous post about 'unless it states otherwise on every other lamp post or so'; streelighting and/or urban areas = 30, single carriageway (no lights or housing) = 60, dual carriageway (not urban) = 70 and Motorway = 70. Although I usually see the NSL signs at the begining of each (apart from the 30 of course as they dont seem to use the NSL signs for that).

Cant say I have had a problem yet, apart from ones that drop down from 60 to 30 going through a village and then have a camera right on the change, rather than giving you time to slow down gently you have to brake aggressively.

Only ever been pulled once, thankfully not for speeding.

No cameras flashed yet either fingers crossed

Edited 16 November, 2010 by Rhoobarb

[Eenymac]

I saw the news article about these new cameras a few weeks ago, stating the multiple offence recording capabilities. My immediate thought though was who is going to pay for these? The police are cash strapped already. Local and County councils are even more cash strapped and having to make cuts too, so where is the money going to come from the buy these?

What I would like to see is an increase in properly trained traffic police. So many times, the fixed cameras, or even mobile ones, are simply catching people speeding at that particular time and place. They do not record dangerous or erratic driving, cannot determine sobriety (caused by drink or drugs), and are in fact no help in determining improper road use outside of their trigger point for one offence only.

[Eenymac]

I got pulled over in my old Fiat Stilo for using my phone whilst driving. The copper came to my window and asked me had i been talkin on my phone and i said yes, he then started to give me a load of verbals about how dangerous it was when i turned my head and looked straight at him and tapped the blue tooth headset in my ear. The expression on his face was brilliant , went about 5 different shades of red muttered sorry sir and stamped back to his car. I had to sit n wait till he drove of before bursting out laughing.

I often drive through a rather well heeled area on my way to and from work (if I decide to not take the M4/M25 route). It always amazes me to see an endless procession of high-end Mercs, BMW's, Aston Martins etc, all with drivers cruising along with a phone stuck to their ear, and never a police car in sight. You'd think that, being able to afford such expensive automobiles, they'd spec Bluetooth or even spend a few quid on a Bluetooth earpiece. My old Seat Leon had a Bluetooth headunit in it from the end of 2005 (bought and installed myself), so it's hardly going to break the bank.

Maybe they spent all the money on the flash car and are mortgaged up to the eyeballs though in an effort to project the right image, and indeed can't afford the Bluetooth earpiece and subsist on baked beans and Pot Noodles!

[eccleshill]

Maybe they spent all the money on the flash car and are mortgaged up to the eyeballs though in an effort to project the right image, and indeed can't afford the Bluetooth earpiece and subsist on baked beans and Pot Noodles!

What my mother used to describe as "all fur coat and no knickers"

[eccleshill]

Cant say I have had a problem yet, apart from ones that drop down from 60 to 30 going through a village and then have a camera right on the change, rather than giving you time to slow down gently you have to brake aggressively.

errmmm...

The 60 is a maximum not a requirement! The idea is that you look ahead and slow down progressively before you reach the 30 sign so you are already doing 30 (or below!) as you pass it.

There does seem to be a major lack of planning when determining speed limits. If you drive through Harewood on the A61 (?) towards Harrogate there is a 30mph zone which switches to NSL as you leave the village. Within 100 yards there is one of those speed sensitive signs warning you to slow to 30mph for a sharp left hand bend! Why not just extend the 30mph zone?

[Eenymac]

What my mother used to describe as "all fur coat and no knickers"

:rofl: Thanks, that brightened up my day, hadn't heard that term for many years and it gave me a good laugh.

[juan27]

What very useful tip did I get? When stopping on a main road ,preparing to turn right, keep your wheels pointing straight ahead. Otherwise you may be tail ended into oncoming traffic.

....I always have my wheels straight as that's the fastest way to get out of the path of the traffic flow you're crossing.

[cjb]

I often drive through a rather well heeled area on my way to and from work (if I decide to not take the M4/M25 route). It always amazes me to see an endless procession of high-end Mercs, BMW's, Aston Martins etc, all with drivers cruising along with a phone stuck to their ear, and never a police car in sight. You'd think that, being able to afford such expensive automobiles, they'd spec Bluetooth or even spend a few quid on a Bluetooth earpiece. My old Seat Leon had a Bluetooth headunit in it from the end of 2005 (bought and installed myself), so it's hardly going to break the bank.

Maybe they spent all the money on the flash car and are mortgaged up to the eyeballs though in an effort to project the right image, and indeed can't afford the Bluetooth earpiece and subsist on baked beans and Pot Noodles!

Amazing, isn't it. About 70%of idiots on handheld phone I see are driving something flash.

[cjb]

am I the only person thinking "if in doubt do 30 mph"!?

slow and steady gets you there with no points

(yes I have been done for 37 in a 30 and done the course the OP refers to)

But there shouldn't be any doubt. What if the person in doubt is doing 30 in an NSL? I don't want to be behind them.

[gregoir]

....I always have my wheels straight as that's the fastest way to get out of the path of the traffic flow you're crossing.

Why is it the fastest way? If the lock is already on (not recommended) then the turning time is eliminated.

[juan27]

Why is it the fastest way? If the lock is already on (not recommended) then the turning time is eliminated.

The fastest way to the far side of the road is a straight line perpendicular to the traffic. If you turn your wheels before moving off you will spend more time in the path of the oncoming traffic as you will be driving further on the "wrong" side of the road.

Edited 16 November, 2010 by juan27

[JohnMcL7]

Regarding 30mph repeaters: if there are street lights and no other speed limit signs then the limit is 30mph. If there are street lights and it is any speed limit other than 30 then a speed limit sign is fixed to every 3rd or 4th lamp post (can't remember which)

I'm surprised there's so many complaints about the lack of repeaters as you're absolutely correct, no repeaters and streetlights mean it's a 30mph limit.

I've seen a few discussions on NSL's on general forums and noticed a lot of people get the dual carriageway NSL incorrect, recently someone rather humourously told someone that the NSL for dual carriageyway was 60mph and suggesting anyone who didn't know that shouldn't have passed their test.

John

[HotRod]

I saw the news article about these new cameras a few weeks ago, stating the multiple offence recording capabilities. My immediate thought though was who is going to pay for these? The police are cash strapped already. Local and County councils are even more cash strapped and having to make cuts too, so where is the money going to come from the buy these?

What I would like to see is an increase in properly trained traffic police. So many times, the fixed cameras, or even mobile ones, are simply catching people speeding at that particular time and place. They do not record dangerous or erratic driving, cannot determine sobriety (caused by drink or drugs), and are in fact no help in determining improper road use outside of their trigger point for one offence only.

The cost will be foot by you and I in increased taxes - as always.. Once they have spent money on some carefully selected "trail" locations, and presented the "facts" that show these camera's reduced offences and therefore cut incidents, they will be rolled out all over the place..

+1 for more police in traffic cars - this way they can do 2 roles.. Police the highways and get to incidents and issues quickly as and when needed.

There should also be stricter penalties for drink / drug driving - 2 yr ban, retest, points, etc for being so plasterd you can't recall driving, is not (IMHO) good enough.. How is that any justice for the innocent drivers you crashed into? or even the pedestrian you put in hospital? You generally see drunk drivers walking away from serious accident, where the sobre driver will brace themselves for the impact and usually come off worse.

I don't believe in drinking and driving at all, there is no excuse for it.. So if you decide to have a few at lunch and drive home, you have made a concious decision to surrender your license.

On a similar note - I know of someone who went out on a saturday night, got so plastered they fell onto a passing car (who was doing well within the limit and could not avoid the incident), she (the drunk) sucessfully sued him (the driver) for injuries.

The law is as ass and needs changing to reflect reality.

Edited 17 November, 2010 by HotRod

[pist0nbr0ke]

The fastest way to the far side of the road is a straight line perpendicular to the traffic. If you turn your wheels before moving off you will spend more time in the path of the oncoming traffic as you will be driving further on the "wrong" side of the road.

Eh? How? :confused:

[juan27]

Eh? How? :confused:

Rubbish drawing but hopefully illustrates the point...

Lets say you are turning right across a road that is 15m wide.

Assume the turning circle of your beloved Octy is 10m and that it is 2m wide.

So to turn through 90 degrees the car needs to follow an arc of radius minimum of 5m + half its width (1m) + .5m clearance = 6.5m

So if you can get full lock on at the last second after starting with straight wheels you travel 8.5m in a straight line perpendicular to the road before turning then follow and arc length

2 x Pi x 6.5/4 = 10.21m

Hence total distance travelled to be safely on your own side of the road is 18.71m

If however you turn your wheels before setting off so that you are never travelling straight you will follow an arc of greater radius equal to the width of the road – (half car width + clearance) =15 – 1.5 = 13.5

And the distance travelled to get safely onto your own side of the road is

2 x Pi x 13.5/4 = 21.21m

So assuming the average speed is the same in both cases clearly you are on the wrong side of the road longer in the latter case.

PS I know the examples are simplified from the real world

Edited 17 November, 2010 by juan27

[pist0nbr0ke]

Rubbish drawing but hopefully illustrates the point...

Lets say you are turning right across a road that is 15m wide.

Assume the turning circle of your beloved Octy is 10m and that it is 2m wide.

So to turn through 90 degrees the car needs to follow an arc of radius minimum of 5m + half its width (1m) + .5m clearance = 6.5m

So if you can get full lock on at the last second after starting with straight wheels you travel 8.5m in a straight line perpendicular to the road before turning then follow and arc length

2 x Pi x 6.5/4 = 10.21m

Hence total distance travelled to be safely on your own side of the road is 18.71m

If however you turn your wheels before setting off so that you are never travelling straight you will follow an arc of greater radius equal to the width of the road – (half car width + clearance) =15 – 1.5 = 13.5

And the distance travelled to get safely onto your own side of the road is

2 x Pi x 13.5/4 = 21.21m

So assuming the average speed is the same in both cases clearly you are on the wrong side of the road longer in the latter case.

PS I know the examples are simplified from the real world

I think the tip was in relation to turning right OFF a main road, i.e. stopped in the centre facing oncoming traffic.........hence if you have your wheels turned whilst waiting & are hit from behind, you get pushed across into the path of the oncoming traffic. :S

[stringbean]

Rubbish drawing but hopefully illustrates the point...

Lets say you are turning right across a road that is 15m wide.

Assume the turning circle of your beloved Octy is 10m and that it is 2m wide.

So to turn through 90 degrees the car needs to follow an arc of radius minimum of 5m + half its width (1m) + .5m clearance = 6.5m

So if you can get full lock on at the last second after starting with straight wheels you travel 8.5m in a straight line perpendicular to the road before turning then follow and arc length

2 x Pi x 6.5/4 = 10.21m

Hence total distance travelled to be safely on your own side of the road is 18.71m

If however you turn your wheels before setting off so that you are never travelling straight you will follow an arc of greater radius equal to the width of the road – (half car width + clearance) =15 – 1.5 = 13.5

And the distance travelled to get safely onto your own side of the road is

2 x Pi x 13.5/4 = 21.21m

So assuming the average speed is the same in both cases clearly you are on the wrong side of the road longer in the latter case.

PS I know the examples are simplified from the real world

I think that you've over simplified the issue and that your assumption that the average speed is going to be the same in both scenarios is wrong.

If you drive straight out of the junction and turn late on full lock then you would be forced to take the turn slowly or end up skidding off the road. If you turned sooner you would be able to accelerate more, get up to a reasonable speed sooner (reducing the likelyhood of being rear-ended) and probably speed about the same amount of time on the wrong side of the road.

Note I'm talking about time here - it's no use only traveling 18m on the wrong side of the road if it takes you significantly longer than traveling 21m.

[juan27]

I think the tip was in relation to turning right OFF a main road, i.e. stopped in the centre facing oncoming traffic.........hence if you have your wheels turned whilst waiting & are hit from behind, you get pushed across into the path of the oncoming traffic. :S

Correct my mistake and that advice does make more sense!

[juan27]

I think that you've over simplified the issue and that your assumption that the average speed is going to be the same in both scenarios is wrong.

If you drive straight out of the junction and turn late on full lock then you would be forced to take the turn slowly or end up skidding off the road. If you turned sooner you would be able to accelerate more, get up to a reasonable speed sooner (reducing the likelyhood of being rear-ended) and probably speed about the same amount of time on the wrong side of the road.

Note I'm talking about time here - it's no use only traveling 18m on the wrong side of the road if it takes you significantly longer than traveling 21m.

I'd got the wrong end of the stick about the original post, but still think the optimum way to pull out turning right is to start off straight and turn as you cross the road. Its all fairly marginal I admit but consider why pedestrians nearly always cross the road straight across rather than ambling diagonally across the road?

I admit there is a degree of difference between the acceleration figures of cars and people however!

Edited 17 November, 2010 by juan27

[Fellwalker]

One thing I learnt on one of these is that lamposts point in the direction of the bend ahead. They also are over other hazzards - laybys, bus stops, junctions etc.

As for keeping your speed down, get a TomTom and turn on the warning of over the speed limit for the road. works a treat, and when you can't tell the speed of the road the TomTom will show you. Also use cruise control to help maintain a constant speed.

TomTom is great when it works. BUT speed limits change, as i found to my cost 3 years ago when in a newly created 30mph limit (I knew it was 40, with the repeater signs having been stolen or broken off over the years) and Tom Tom knew it was 40, but I got done for doing 35, which i thought was well within the limit. The new speed limit start sign was just after a roundabout sign, when i was looking at the traffic on the roundabout, so i never saw it. Ho Hum.

A couple of months later they extended the limit even further, but at least that meant the start sign was obvious.

Other satnavs are as bad or worse. I trialled a navigon but it got too many limits wrong.

The 20mph speed ZONE is what gets me - they do not have to have repeaters if it starts close to a junction or speed bump. So to all intents and purposes it feels like a 30mph limit.

[prolfe]

TomTom is great when it works. BUT speed limits change, as i found to my cost 3 years ago when in a newly created 30mph limit (I knew it was 40, with the repeater signs having been stolen or broken off over the years) and Tom Tom knew it was 40, but I got done for doing 35, which i thought was well within the limit. The new speed limit start sign was just after a roundabout sign, when i was looking at the traffic on the roundabout, so i never saw it. Ho Hum.

A couple of months later they extended the limit even further, but at least that meant the start sign was obvious.

Other satnavs are as bad or worse. I trialled a navigon but it got too many limits wrong.

The 20mph speed ZONE is what gets me - they do not have to have repeaters if it starts close to a junction or speed bump. So to all intents and purposes it feels like a 30mph limit.

In those situations you have to be a bit careful. I've only had to make two speed changes in the last six months.

[dainott]

I can never understand why its the law that you have to wear a seatbelt. Its your life that your supposidly putting in danger and nobody else. I say this as i wouldnt exsist if my old man WAS wearing a seatbelt 30 years ago. He came down a valley A road and a large coal truck had pulled onto his side of the road (coming towards him) to turn into a mine yard and the rear tail on the tipper pealed the roof back on his car like a tin of sardines at head height. The old reason he survived was becasue he dived over to the passenger seat to save his dog sat next to him not knowing that doing this was keeping his head on his shoulders! If he had a seatbelt on then it would have stopped him doing this and i would not be here.

I know that this is an unusual story and more often than not a seatbelt would save you but why isnt that our choice!

As for the everything else its all to make money off the motorist. We are the easy money making target for the government and when you think about the fact that if your caught with no tax, mot or insurance you will usually get 5-6 points and a £60 fine if its the first time, but will get 3 points and the same fine for doing 80 on a motorway. Brilliant aint it!

It doesnt pay to be law abiding these days! If your gonna speed a bit (and everyone does at some point) you might aswell just go the whole hog and steal the car, fill it up and drive off and do 120mph as only a slap on the wrist you will get. As said earlier all the stopping distances are calculated from a bloody flinstones car (anglia) and none of the new technology that millions has been spent on with new cars is taken into account. Why isnt the speed limit on motorways 80? Every car comfortably cruises at that speed and anti lock brakes means even the worst drivers out there can stop in the same time as anyone driving that car (just stamp on the brakes and job done).

Its a crazy country we live in and we only have ourselves to blame in a way as when the govenment says its gonna put average speed cameras everywhere or the price of fuel up to £30 a litre we will just say oh well and do nothing about it unlike (and i hate to say it really) France who will kick off big style and cripple the country until the government give in! Rant over

[Michaelski]

Oh well, I've had my Speed Awareness Course, and I'll try (extremely hard) not get zapped again - NOT because I took all the tuition literally to heart, but because the 4 hours of being "Power-Pointed" to death was so skull-crushingly, bum-numbingly DIABOLICALLY painful.

17 "naughty" people who collectively had paid out some £1600 - & this was the 2nd of the 2 daily sessions.

2 "Born-Again Speed Crucifiers"- one of which (for his pains) "tried" to make the 4 hours somewhat (define "somewhat") interesting, but the 2nd guy would have struggled to describe what it was like being caught in a Tsunami, even remotely interesting.

The whole 17 "criminals" VISIBLY wilting, each time the 2 tutors reiterated (yet again, to the Power N) how supremely qualified THEY were, to be able to "re-educate" the great steaming, unwashed mass of the 17 peasants, and how much better they were, than us, in every respect

NO contest there, they must have seen the (pathetic) videos umpteen times, & in any case, THEY were the ones who dictated the content.

Worth it? Well, it was slightly cheaper than the fixed penalty, and we did (at the conclusion, being patronisingly told that we had all "passed") save points on our licenses.

Virtually ALL of the criminals were there for having driven at anywhere from 33-35mph in a 30 limit. Understandable, as income from SAC's goes to the Companies holding the courses, whereas income from the really naughty speeders, goes to the Government.

The question raised by one of the offenders (if awareness was so important regarding road safety, then drivers keeping a constant eye on their speedo, took their attention away from what was happening on the road" was ignored. Says it all, really.

[expostmanpat]

The one that really narks/ narked me, a local road went 30  40 back to 30 limit, they altered the limit to 30 all the way along and a big sign went up saying Birkenshaw, remember the speed limit with a big red 30 on it, after about 6 month they actually left the sign up but blanked out the red 30. WHY go to the bother of blanking out the 30mph reminder?? and spending money to do it, ******s!! https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7421,-1.6914013,3a,75y,335.38h,69.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skeWJbt0YYG6zhLaXKdXWGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

If you zoom in on the sign you can make out the outline of the stuck on square of reflective material.

Edited 1 February, 2016 by postmanpat

[Michaelski]

In the cause of being STRICTLY honest, I did learn ONE thing from the SAC.

"Apparently" most insurance companies ask only if you have received a conviction, when renewing your insurance - and a SAC does not qualify, because you did not receive a conviction.

Equally apparently, Admiral (& all of their associated companies) DO ask if their insured has undertaken a SAC, and if so, then the premium is increased!!!

Doubtless other companies will inevitably follow suit before too long, as there's now some 1-2 Million drivers now having a SAC, rather than being convicted. As soon as a premium increase is levied for even a SAC, then doubtless the number of people declining the offer of the Course, and accepting the fine (as there's not much between the two) & the points will increase. ANOTHER Golden Egg will be addled.

Says it all, really,