Speed Awareness Course

[100%JR]

I don't know anything about average speed cameras but I'd have assumed they were an electronic version of the earliest speed traps which had two policemen at a known distance apart on the road, timing vehicles between those points with a stopwatch. I must be wrong but I can't see how one average speed camera of a pair could produce a speed reading. I'd have assumed it would only record its being passed by the vehicle.

I also believed - perhaps wrongly - that attendance on a course required acceptance of having committed the offence, even if that was through gritted teeth.

I understand that a lot of people are simply looking to move on as quickly as possible, but if the evidence doesn't exist, shelling out to attend a course seems unnecessary, because without the evidence it's hard to see how it could pass the first base.

(I've probably posted before about using one of the old radar sets on Dewsbury Road in Leeds fifty years ago when some drivers, having been detected by the radar, used to stop and go into the public conveniences in Cross Flatts Park, in a vain attempt to increase the time before they reached the second - repeater - unit, where they were stopped and reported all the same. )

The theory around here is that although the signs stipulate average speed cameras SYP have actually installed three standard cameras.This is the only possible explanation for them “allegedly” having speed readings for my “alleged” offences.
Once challenged the standard 3 points/£100 fine,SAC or go to court letter arrives.
It’s all a bit dodgy but I’d expect nothing less from SYP.

[Cunobelin]

I've no idea how this is logged.

That's my concern.

I understand the local course versus doing it somewhere convenient etc, but no doubt you end up with a certificate and receipt system, which you send off to the court(?) and the police to record it so you don't involve DVLA.

Who records it on your record?

I've done one recently (oops). In that experience the firm running it was responsible for telling the police you've done it, you did nothing except attend. The course instructors were also keen on stressing anonymity - others on the course may not want to be identified if you happened to bump into them again - so there was certainly no certificate.

Your friend is lucky - l was caught doing 35 in a 30 and was told if it had been another 1mph over (i.e. 20% over the speed limit or more) there would have been no choice - just the 3 points and fine.

Used to be the "10+2" rule that was an ACPO recommendation



If you were 10% +2mph when you went to Court as it was too great an "error" for an FPN or SAC, there is another higher limit that means an automatic summons

Speed limit: 20 mph

ACPO threshold for:

a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 24 mph
summoning: 35 mph


Speed limit: 30 mph

ACPO threshold for:

a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 35 mph
summoning: 50 mph


Speed limit: 40 mph

ACPO threshold for:

a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 46 mph
summoning: 66 mph

Speed limit: 50 mph

ACPO threshold for:

a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 57 mph
summoning: 76 mph


Speed limit: 60 mph

ACPO threshold for:

a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 68 mph
summoning: 86 mph


Speed limit: 70 mph

ACPO threshold for:

a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course: 79 mph
summoning: 96 mph

[softlips]

I don't know anything about average speed cameras but I'd have assumed they were an electronic version of the earliest speed traps which had two policemen at a known distance apart on the road, timing vehicles between those points with a stopwatch. I must be wrong but I can't see how one average speed camera of a pair could produce a speed reading. I'd have assumed it would only record its being passed by the vehicle.

I also believed - perhaps wrongly - that attendance on a course required acceptance of having committed the offence, even if that was through gritted teeth.

I understand that a lot of people are simply looking to move on as quickly as possible, but if the evidence doesn't exist, shelling out to attend a course seems unnecessary, because without the evidence it's hard to see how it could pass the first base.

(I've probably posted before about using one of the old radar sets on Dewsbury Road in Leeds fifty years ago when some drivers, having been detected by the radar, used to stop and go into the public conveniences in Cross Flatts Park, in a vain attempt to increase the time before they reached the second - repeater - unit, where they were stopped and reported all the same. )

The theory around here is that although the signs stipulate average speed cameras SYP have actually installed three standard cameras.This is the only possible explanation for them “allegedly” having speed readings for my “alleged” offences.
Once challenged the standard 3 points/£100 fine,SAC or go to court letter arrives.
It’s all a bit dodgy but I’d expect nothing less from SYP.

Although average speed cameras are linked and look at average speed they also work conventionally ie pass any one of them over the tolerated speed limit set will trigger them.

[Cunobelin]

Just a little bit off thread. 30mph speed limit introduced 1930. What
You know the arguments so I won't writing anything other than cars then to today.

Acknowledging the giant leaps in brake technology so that cars can stop more efficiently in short distances, and we can also accept the steering is better. There has also been dramatic improvements in tyres so they grip better and this again has improved the ability to stop.

Why then do we have safety campaigners asking for the "standard distances" in the Highway Code to be extended as drivers are unable to stop within them?

Given the improvements, shouldn't they be shortened?

Then we have the classic example where every junction now needs additional high friction surfacing



We have a local junction which is passing a school, visible for some 1/2 mile, has no visual obstructions and clearly marked and signposted as to who has priority and speed bumps onto approach

Yet the council has had to install 50 m of hight friction braking surfaces because drivers were unable to stop at the junction!!!!


It is the age old problem..... Cars may have evolved, but the drivers have not, and the rules must be written to apply to the thick, stupid, inconsiderate and irresponsible drivers

[100%JR]

Acknowledging the giant leaps in brake technology so that cars can stop more efficiently in short distances, and we can also accept the steering is better. There has also been dramatic improvements in tyres so they grip better and this again has improved the ability to stop.

Why then do we have safety campaigners asking for the "standard distances" in the Highway Code to be extended as drivers are unable to stop within them?

Given the improvements, shouldn't they be shortened?

You would think so wouldn't you?

This was brought up/argued at every course I've been on and dismissed.I wish I could give you the really long scientific explanation we got from the course instructors explaining why this is but I can't....because we weren't given one.
So despite all the progress,massive 4,6 and even 8 pot caliper disc brakes,super sticky rubber etc cars still stop in exactly the same distances as they did in the 30s/50s/70s/90s and the reason?
"Driver reaction times are the same"
What an absolute load of rubbish Even if reaction times are the same the MASSIVE leaps in car technology would far out weigh this(and does)
We pointed out the Top Gear test with (IIRK) a Ferrari/Audi R8/Lambo which stopped incredibly quickly and even that was dismissed as staged/perfect conditions/professional drivers etc.
SO.On one of my courses we offered to do a live test using one of our "normal" cars and this was dismissed.Not allowed/no insurance etc.
In short we are being conned and it's a money spinner.You have to agree with their script or you lose

[thirdcrank]

... It is the age old problem..... Cars may have evolved, but the drivers have not, and the rules must be written to apply to the thick, stupid, inconsiderate and irresponsible drivers

I think you have it.

[100%JR]

I think you have it.

Has what?
Not all car drivers are thick,stupid,inconsiderate and irresponsible.If you want to start the car driver/Cyclist debate then do so but there are just as many Cyclists who fall into that category.

No matter which angle you want to come from the figures RE stopping distances are wrong....miles out in fact.These figures give people like you ammunition that is akin to firing blanks...ie useless
Do you drive?
If so try the experiment yourself and you will find that a modern car will actually stop at 50mph in the distance quoted at 30mph in the Highway Code...easily.
If you don't drive then you really don't have the knowledge to comment

[Cyril Haearn]

The great majority of drivers are thick, stupid, etc, nearly all can not read stop signs

My vehicle may have good brakes, but I hardly use them and do not want to try an emergency stop
I especially do not want to spend money on them to change the pads etc
I leave plenty of space and decelerate by taking my foot off the gas

[thirdcrank]

I think the point being made which I quoted is correct. Put another way, there have been all manner of technical improvements in motor vehicles over the years but some drivers choose to consume these benefits by driving more quickly and in particular, at a speed which is inappropriate in the circumstances.

I'm not sure how my driving comes into this but I passed my car driving test in 1965 and my motorcycle test in 1969. I have been a regular driver since passing my test.

[Mick F]

+1
Well said TC.

I'm a tad younger than you - as you know - passed mine 21st Dec 1972 aged one month or so over 18.
Nineteen cars owned since then until now. First was a 1968 Mini.

[Cunobelin]

I think you have it.

Has what?
Not all car drivers are thick,stupid,inconsiderate and irresponsible.If you want to start the car driver/Cyclist debate then do so but there are just as many Cyclists who fall into that category.

Not what was said, there are however some that are, you need to legislate for them

No matter which angle you want to come from the figures RE stopping distances are wrong....miles out in fact.These figures give people like you ammunition that is akin to firing blanks...ie useless

Absolute tripe (apart from totally ignoring the point that the driver is the issue)...... to make these insults you will need to provide evidence..... me I will take that of the TRL and RAC who support my point

Commenting on a new study by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) for road safety charity Brake that suggests Highway Code stopping distances might be due an update, RAC spokesman Rod Dennis said:

“These findings from Brake and TRL are striking and should be taken seriously. From time to time, new evidence will come to light that means it is necessary to update the Highway Code and perhaps this is one such instance.

“While the ability for cars to be able to brake more quickly has improved, our reaction times clearly haven’t. And arguably, our reaction times might even have got worse due to all the distractions that have made their way into the car environment – none more so than the smartphone that constantly demands our attention.

“Many drivers believe they are capable of doing far more at the wheel than they actually are, but the fact remains that driving is one of the most mentally demanding tasks any of us do and we shouldn’t forget that.”

...or perhaps the RAC and TRL are using ammunition that is akin to firing blanks...ie useless (Or simple inconvenient for you?)
I await the evidence from you that supports your claim and shows why the TRL research is invalid

Do you drive?

Yes.......

If so try the experiment yourself and you will find that a modern car will actually stop at 50mph in the distance quoted at 30mph in the Highway Code...easily.

Thank you so much for supporting my point

The CAR can stop in these distances, it is the drivers who are the problem

Rather than an experiment, lets look at reality?

At the junction in question I have never failed to stop, nor have any of my neighbours, or the many parents doing the School run, nor the drivers attending the frequent car boot sales or other events (thousands of vehicles per year).... yet 12 drivers did, causing injury accidents and one fatality. I think the evidence is that the cars can stop, but either all of these drivers were driving 50 yearly cars (not the case) or simply failed to brake at the junction )evidenced by Police reports)

If you don't drive then you really don't have the knowledge to comment

Again ignoring the pettiness, why is this relevant?
There is evidence that a 5 year old could understand, your position is absurd, bit like claiming that you have to be a food inspector to know that al loaf of bread is mouldy or that the lumpy stinking milk in your fridge is "off

[pwa]

The great majority of drivers are thick, stupid, etc, nearly all can not read stop signs

My vehicle may have good brakes, but I hardly use them and do not want to try an emergency stop
I especially do not want to spend money on them to change the pads etc
I leave plenty of space and decelerate by taking my foot off the gas

Not using your brakes frequently can reduce their ability to work well when you really need them. They benefit from a bit of use.

[100%JR]

I think the point being made which I quoted is correct. Put another way, there have been all manner of technical improvements in motor vehicles over the years but some drivers choose to consume these benefits by driving more quickly and in particular, at a speed which is inappropriate in the circumstances.

I'm not sure how my driving comes into this but I passed my car driving test in 1965 and my motorcycle test in 1969. I have been a regular driver since passing my test.

So why make the (useless) point that you did?

[100%JR]

I think you have it.

Has what?
Not all car drivers are thick,stupid,inconsiderate and irresponsible.If you want to start the car driver/Cyclist debate then do so but there are just as many Cyclists who fall into that category.

Not what was said, there are however some that are, you need to legislate for them

No matter which angle you want to come from the figures RE stopping distances are wrong....miles out in fact.These figures give people like you ammunition that is akin to firing blanks...ie useless

Absolute tripe (apart from totally ignoring the point that the driver is the issue)...... to make these insults you will need to provide evidence..... me I will take that of the TRL and RAC who support my point

Commenting on a new study by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) for road safety charity Brake that suggests Highway Code stopping distances might be due an update, RAC spokesman Rod Dennis said:

“These findings from Brake and TRL are striking and should be taken seriously. From time to time, new evidence will come to light that means it is necessary to update the Highway Code and perhaps this is one such instance.

“While the ability for cars to be able to brake more quickly has improved, our reaction times clearly haven’t. And arguably, our reaction times might even have got worse due to all the distractions that have made their way into the car environment – none more so than the smartphone that constantly demands our attention.

“Many drivers believe they are capable of doing far more at the wheel than they actually are, but the fact remains that driving is one of the most mentally demanding tasks any of us do and we shouldn’t forget that.”

...or perhaps the RAC and TRL are using ammunition that is akin to firing blanks...ie useless (Or simple inconvenient for you?)
I await the evidence from you that supports your claim and shows why the TRL research is invalid

Do you drive?

Yes.......

If so try the experiment yourself and you will find that a modern car will actually stop at 50mph in the distance quoted at 30mph in the Highway Code...easily.

Thank you so much for supporting my point

The CAR can stop in these distances, it is the drivers who are the problem

Rather than an experiment, lets look at reality?

At the junction in question I have never failed to stop, nor have any of my neighbours, or the many parents doing the School run, nor the drivers attending the frequent car boot sales or other events (thousands of vehicles per year).... yet 12 drivers did, causing injury accidents and one fatality. I think the evidence is that the cars can stop, but either all of these drivers were driving 50 yearly cars (not the case) or simply failed to brake at the junction )evidenced by Police reports)

If you don't drive then you really don't have the knowledge to comment

Again ignoring the pettiness, why is this relevant?
There is evidence that a 5 year old could understand, your position is absurd, bit like claiming that you have to be a food inspector to know that al loaf of bread is mouldy or that the lumpy stinking milk in your fridge is "off

Oh dear.
What is your point again.I got bored halfway through your(tedious) ramblings?

[thirdcrank]

...So why make the (useless) point that you did?

I was merely adding my support to the bit of a post you edited out when you quoted it.