[Misc] Speed awareness course

[Bold Seagull]

No link other than the fact they share space with several tonnes of metal that can cause them serious harm! Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting they have the same level of testing as a motorist. Kids do a bikeability test at primary school but even if they fail that and don't get a certificate they can still cycle on any road where cycling is permitted. Do you you think that is wise?

The more pertinent question is do I think our roads are safe - unfortunately not. The reason for that isn't cyclists or pedestrians. I would advocate wholeheartedly that kids do bikeability but I wouldn't make it mandatory or requiring a license to cycle, which it would effectively be.

Biggest change in the law we could make is that any vehicle that is involved in a collision or accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, it is their fault and they face a consequence in law regardless of the circumstances. This transformed the relationship between vehicles and other road users in many European countries. It is a fundamental step in culturally changing our idea of priority on our roads.

Your premise is that roads are dangerous for cyclists so get a test done. What we should really be focussing on is what makes roads safer. You're advocating an approach like US schools, don't ban guns, just teach the kids how to hide under a desk...

 

[Triggaaar]

I’m not sure that you’re there to like it - after all it is a form of punishment.

Yeah I'm aware it's not for my pleasure, but because they were talking nonsense, I gave up listening to the rest of it. But I can see some here found it really useful, so it's not all bad. I wonder whether attending the real course was better than the online equivalent.

 

[el punal]

Yeah I'm aware it's not for my pleasure, but because they were talking nonsense, I gave up listening to the rest of it. But I can see some here found it really useful, so it's not all bad. I wonder whether attending the real course was better than the online equivalent.

Well, you get tea and biscuits!

 

[BLOCK F]

The more pertinent question is do I think our roads are safe - unfortunately not. The reason for that isn't cyclists or pedestrians. I would advocate wholeheartedly that kids do bikeability but I wouldn't make it mandatory or requiring a license to cycle, which it would effectively be.

Biggest change in the law we could make is that any vehicle that is involved in a collision or accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, it is their fault and they face a consequence in law regardless of the circumstances. This transformed the relationship between vehicles and other road users in many European countries. It is a fundamental step in culturally changing our idea of priority on our roads.

Your premise is that roads are dangerous for cyclists so get a test done. What we should really be focussing on is what makes roads safer. You're advocating an approach like US schools, don't ban guns, just teach the kids how to hide under a desk...

Not concerning a cyclist or pedestrian, but nevertheless, worth a mention I feel.
Yesterday evening, my wife was driving me back from a hospital appointment and being the careful driver she is, was observing the 30 mph speed limit and driving on dipped lights in poor light. Suddenly, we saw, not far ahead, two youngsters riding an electric scooter, no lights and in the road. Besides the fact that they shouldn’t have been riding the scooter on the road, they were putting themselves in considerable danger. We slowed down even more and gave them a very wide berth. They may not be so lucky next time, but with idiots like that it would be a tad harsh, if there was an accident, to pile all the blame on the motorist. There are idiots on the road beside motorists and where we live, some of them are cyclists without lights and I have to say, mostly young males.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Who has had one?

I got done for doing 45 through the traffic lights at Hillbarn on one of the very rare occasions I have actually got through the lights before they changed.

I received the letter a few days later offering me a speed awareness course at £90 or three points on my licence and a fine as well. Of course I opted for the course thinking it would be 2 and a half hours of mind numbing lecturing.

As it happens I quite enjoyed the course and found it interesting.

Since then, about three weeks ago, I have been far more circumspect in town driving. I was quite amazed by the difference 1 mph an hour over 30 can be in regard to stopping distances.

I have been driving since Noah was a boy and thought I knew exactly what I could and couldn’t do when driving in town traffic. I was wrong and am now far more aware when in 30 and 20 mph limits

What are your thoughts if you’ve done a Speed Awareness Course?

Slow down you maniac!

 

[Blue3]

Had to attend one last year

I was guilty of driving to fast and attending the course saves points the course itself was very short and at the time I felt it was poor but it has had a positive effect in that I now know a couple of things I didn’t before and since have driven within the speed limit without fail an added bonus is it really winds some other road users

 

[CaptainDaveUK]

I found the Traffic Lights awareness course a bit monotonous. 3 hours of repeatedly saying, “orange / amber means stop!” I mean what else was there to say. Trouble is if you’re going 40 and the amber light comes on, it can be more difficult / dangerous to stop, so I tend to go slightly slower these days until I’m sure I’m going to get through. There you, 3 hour course comdensed into one paragraph.

 

[AlbionBro]

On a side note, my Son told me his boss had told him that another employee was not allowed to drive a company vehicle because of how many points they already had accumulated.
I didn't think managers could give out information like that now?
I wonder how many points they had for the company insurers to say, no to them?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Not concerning a cyclist or pedestrian, but nevertheless, worth a mention I feel.
Yesterday evening, my wife was driving me back from a hospital appointment and being the careful driver she is, was observing the 30 mph speed limit and driving on dipped lights in poor light. Suddenly, we saw, not far ahead, two youngsters riding an electric scooter, no lights and in the road. Besides the fact that they shouldn’t have been riding the scooter on the road, they were putting themselves in considerable danger. We slowed down even more and gave them a very wide berth. They may not be so lucky next time, but with idiots like that it would be a tad harsh, if there was an accident, to pile all the blame on the motorist. There are idiots on the road beside motorists and where we live, some of them are cyclists without lights and I have to say, mostly young males.

However this is the perfect anecdote for why it works. When the responsibility is on the driver, regardless of the complete idiotic behaviour of the vulnerable road user, the result is exactly what your wife did - extra caution.

Your wife behaved in that way because she is a sensible responsible human being. Didn't matter that they were complete idiots, she ensured that regardless of their behaviour, she wasn't going to be the one to hit them in a vehicle that could cause them serious harm. That is ultimately what places like the Netherlands changed - so that every driver of a car thought like your wife did, it wasn't worth the risk getting too close, not giving them enough room, not slowing down accordingly.

Completely agree with you, had a motorist not given them as wide a berth as you did, they could be dead, just for being idiots - a harsh price, rather than a driver being extra cautious in their presence that the law could help instill in all drivers.

 

[drew]

The more pertinent question is do I think our roads are safe - unfortunately not. The reason for that isn't cyclists or pedestrians. I would advocate wholeheartedly that kids do bikeability but I wouldn't make it mandatory or requiring a license to cycle, which it would effectively be.

Biggest change in the law we could make is that any vehicle that is involved in a collision or accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, it is their fault and they face a consequence in law regardless of the circumstances. This transformed the relationship between vehicles and other road users in many European countries. It is a fundamental step in culturally changing our idea of priority on our roads.

Your premise is that roads are dangerous for cyclists so get a test done. What we should really be focussing on is what makes roads safer. You're advocating an approach like US schools, don't ban guns, just teach the kids how to hide under a desk...

So pedestrians don't step out in front of cyclists or cyclists never go through a red light and cause problems. I really don't understand your insistence that everything bad that happens on a road is the fault of the motorist. Most of the time it probably is but not every time. You can't blame a motorist if they are driving perfectly safely and a cyclist comes flying out of a side road without looking and there is no time to react. In your world the driver is wholly at fault.

You cite European law which, if I'm not mistaken, is not quite what you are advocating. Isn't the law that there is presumed culpability, ie you are responsible unless you can prove you weren't.

Regarding Block F's example, I think most drivers would do as his wife did. (As an aside, fact is in that case, not only should they not be on the road, they should only be on private land)

 

[drew]

83% of adult cyclists own cars and some of the remainder still drive, but don't own cars.

So that solves 83% of the problem, possibly! Are you suggesting of the remainder, they are driving illegally?

 

[The Oldman]

Just wish some of this teaching how to drive responsibly would get through to a minority who drive down the A23 to the junction with the A27 who think it’s fine to cut into the A27 slip road at the very last minute instead of getting into the correct lane just after the pylons.

 

[drew]

Just wish some of this teaching how to drive responsibly would get through to a minority who drive down the A23 to the junction with the A27 who think it’s fine to cut into the A27 slip road at the very last minute instead of getting into the correct lane just after the pylons.

You can lead a horse to water etc etc but once they've got their licence there's not much that can be done. However, more cameras and using those as evidence of careless or reckless driving would help.

 

[jessiejames]

We now have reliable average speed camera technology often seen on stretches of motorway road-works.
I foresee, that this technology will eventually become installed on every A road and all motorways.
This will eliminate the slow-down, speed-up, yo-yo driving you mention.
Sure it will bring in a King's ransom in fines to begin with, but when drivers learn that there is nowhere where they can get away with exceeding the speed limit, speed limits will be adhered to.

I'm not advocating I want this, just saying that I think it will come ... eventually.

I see so many drivers slow down just as they reach the average speed camerathen speed up once passed it. That shows the type of idiot who can get a licence.

 

[jessiejames]

As a professional Hgv driver I'm embarrassed to say I've been on 3 of these courses. I was called once in the lorry Doing 53 in a 50 And the other 2 times in my car on average speed check. I will admit yes they are worthwhile Because you do learn stuff on them.

It depends on what type of course You are Taken On. The 1st one was speed awareness, Which was good This was Taken by An ex policeman, traffic division. Will we shown a 5 min clip and had to identify hiw many Hazard's were in it. Most picked up on 7 to 10 hazards, me and another person spotted 16 each, another girl spotted over 50. The policeman was able to identify what drivers we were, from casual drivers, to HGV/Coach drivers, even saying that the person who spotted the 50 hazards must have been involved in a seriouse accident. He got it spot on.

The last 2 courses were on smart motorways,it was surprising that the amount of people did not know or understand and the road markings and how many different types of cats are there (6) and what each colour means.

 

[GT49er]

The more pertinent question is do I think our roads are safe - unfortunately not. The reason for that isn't cyclists or pedestrians. I would advocate wholeheartedly that kids do bikeability but I wouldn't make it mandatory or requiring a license to cycle, which it would effectively be.

Biggest change in the law we could make is that any vehicle that is involved in a collision or accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, it is their fault and they face a consequence in law regardless of the circumstances. This transformed the relationship between vehicles and other road users in many European countries. It is a fundamental step in culturally changing our idea of priority on our roads.

Your premise is that roads are dangerous for cyclists so get a test done. What we should really be focussing on is what makes roads safer. You're advocating an approach like US schools, don't ban guns, just teach the kids how to hide under a desk...

Utter bollocks. When I was young I used to ride my bike all the time, as fast as I could. One day, whizzing downhill in the rain towards a give way sign, the car in front of me stopped. Wet brakes didn't work to well - I hit the car's back bunper (no damage done) and fell off my bike. A few minor cuts and bruises - still, as young teenagers we fell off our bikes as a matter of routine - usually we knew exactly how fast we could go round the corners in our town because we'd tried them faster and faster until we fell off - and then we knew the maximum speed!

Anyway, back to my incident of going into the back of that car - do you seriously think that motorist should have been prosecuted, points on his licence, insurance price rocketing, possibility of losing his job if driving depended on it? Seriously?

Even Swanny's ideas of absolute personal freedom and libertarianism pale into insignificance!

 

[jessiejames]

Utter bollocks. When I was young I used to ride my bike all the time, as fast as I could. One day, whizzing downhill in the rain towards a give way sign, the car in front of me stopped. Wet brakes didn't work to well - I hit the car's back bunper (no damage done) and fell off my bike. A few minor cuts and bruises - still, as young teenagers we fell off our bikes as a matter of routine - usually we knew exactly how fast we could go round the corners in our town because we'd tried them faster and faster until we fell off - and then we knew the maximum speed!

Anyway, back to my incident of going into the back of that car - do you seriously think that motorist should have been prosecuted, points on his licence, insurance price rocketing, possibility of losing his job if driving depended on it? Seriously?

Even Swanny's ideas of absolute personal freedom and libertarianism pale into insignificance!

Its all drivers, not just cyclist, i see many lorry drivers doing things that i think is Embarrassing

 

[Weststander]

I see so many drivers slow down just as they reach the average speed camerathen speed up once passed it. That shows the type of idiot who can get a licence.

Not as dumb as that, but occasionally in definitely active camera average speed stretches, you’ll get a car doing a sustained 15mph or more, bullying other cars out of the way.

What gives? False plates, stolen car, car with new owner who’s given false buyer details, car registered at false address?

 

[Doonhamer7]

The more pertinent question is do I think our roads are safe - unfortunately not. The reason for that isn't cyclists or pedestrians. I would advocate wholeheartedly that kids do bikeability but I wouldn't make it mandatory or requiring a license to cycle, which it would effectively be.

Biggest change in the law we could make is that any vehicle that is involved in a collision or accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, it is their fault and they face a consequence in law regardless of the circumstances. This transformed the relationship between vehicles and other road users in many European countries. It is a fundamental step in culturally changing our idea of priority on our roads.

Your premise is that roads are dangerous for cyclists so get a test done. What we should really be focussing on is what makes roads safer. You're advocating an approach like US schools, don't ban guns, just teach the kids how to hide under a desk...

Absolute rubbish and here is why. As a kid I cycled into a car at pace - all my fault. Second one whilst stopped at a set of traffic lights a cyclist pushed up through traffic then fell off bike (couldn’t get feet out clips I assume) smashing into our passenger door, got up and drove off. Cost me £1500 to get repared. So why is either of those cases the car drivers fault?

 

[Bold Seagull]

So pedestrians don't step out in front of cyclists or cyclists never go through a red light and cause problems. I really don't understand your insistence that everything bad that happens on a road is the fault of the motorist. Most of the time it probably is but not every time. You can't blame a motorist if they are driving perfectly safely and a cyclist comes flying out of a side road without looking and there is no time to react. In your world the driver is wholly at fault.

You cite European law which, if I'm not mistaken, is not quite what you are advocating. Isn't the law that there is presumed culpability, ie you are responsible unless you can prove you weren't.

Regarding Block F's example, I think most drivers would do as his wife did. (As an aside, fact is in that case, not only should they not be on the road, they should only be on private land)

Yes, exactly that, rather than presumed innocent you are presumed at fault.

Utter bollocks. When I was young I used to ride my bike all the time, as fast as I could. One day, whizzing downhill in the rain towards a give way sign, the car in front of me stopped. Wet brakes didn't work to well - I hit the car's back bunper (no damage done) and fell off my bike. A few minor cuts and bruises - still, as young teenagers we fell off our bikes as a matter of routine - usually we knew exactly how fast we could go round the corners in our town because we'd tried them faster and faster until we fell off - and then we knew the maximum speed!

Anyway, back to my incident of going into the back of that car - do you seriously think that motorist should have been prosecuted, points on his licence, insurance price rocketing, possibility of losing his job if driving depended on it? Seriously?

Even Swanny's ideas of absolute personal freedom and libertarianism pale into insignificance!

Does your brain and ability to think not extend to being able to process the word consequence, ie could be as simple as being liable for the cost of repairs to the bike? No just go for the self facepalm route. Does cantankerous cover it?