Safe Speed Forums

so it is a case of zipping the lip and nodding, a good friend of mine got caught at 37mph and was offered a SAC, his intention was to accept the course but not pay for it / turn up, i advised against this due to the simple fact there must be some sort of cross refererence checks carried out, although i am not sure what he could be charged with later, he fulfilled his S172 requirement and was offered the course around 9 weeks after the NIP date.

he eventually turned down the chance of the course due to loss of earning etc offsetting the £60

Oh I know that, indeed my mum went on a course and said she had the same impression:

It's nice to have independent corroboration.

However, if presented with a situation where they made claims of camera effectiveness and my rebuttal would have resulted with failure of the course and points, then I would welcome the notoriety/heroism and I would take that opportunity to show these sods up for the dismissive self-serving money-grabbers that they are! I genuinely would do exactly that given that my licence is clean and we know 3 points doesn't make much difference to premiums.
Her own SAC pamphlet contained that claim, so I would have taken that opportunity.

Did you get a pamphlet too?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

They made no claims regarding cameras.


The people giving the course certainly don't deserve that level of invective. They were decent people with an almost passionate desire to share their knowledge of safe driving. I would have loved to spend a few hours with one of them discussing road safety.


Several including one from the IAM, none of which mention cameras.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

It's good to stand up for things we believe in. But it's far better if we can do it with impunity. Ask the trainers for permission to speak freely, then vent your spleen. In the worst case, you'd have to throw a few chairs around and take the points. It's no big deal, and you'd set a good example to the others.

You are right of course, but I strongly suspect no permission would be granted.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Fair enough. I have no reason to dispute that given:


Perhaps they knew there was a clued-up Safe Speed supporter on their course and so decided to avoid the topics altogether
Seriously though, it does seem odd that those topics never arose at all; does this suggest something?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Which would have lead to the course degenerating into well rehearsed arguments about speed cameras and several people with much to learn about safe driving being denied that opportunity to learn form an experienced instructor. Nothing would have been gained because the instructors have no power to stop the deployment of cameras. Shooting the messenger is not good practice.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

It suggests to me, the impression that I gained on the day, that those instructors would be very welcome on these forums and who share many of our views on road safety. They were experienced drivers and instructors who had the desire to to spread their knowledge. But they were also human beings who had to earn a crust. Their refusal to discuss cameras was almost certainly part of the job description. As I said to Fat Billy the whole course could easily have degenerated into a rant against cameras with no-one learning anything.

The main emphasis of the course was on driving safely. Two main rationales were given for not exceeding the speed limit. That if you do so you will eventually get caught and punished. And that, in 20 and 30 zones, some accidents are unavoidable and lower speeds reduce the damage.

I am sorry that I am unable to confirm the forums well established prejudice against these courses but I can only report what I experienced.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

At least the first is honest, the second is just the usual rubbish, particularly if you got caught in an NSL for instance.

If they said "in certain situations in 20 and 30 zones, some accidents are potentially unavoidable and lower speeds may reduce the damage." even that would be fine.

Otherwise I do not see anything wrong with the COAST content of the course from what you have said and the refusal to discuss cases or speed cameras is understandable. The motivation behind them? Well as you also said the guys are just trying to earn a crust. It may not be the whole reason, but hey, they and their employers are the ones that like things nicely black and white.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Or, more accurately: In certain situations, some accidents may be unavoidable, regardless of the speed limit. And lower speeds do reduce the statistical probability of death or serious injury. (in the same way as playing only 9 holes in cloudy weather instead of 18 reduces your statistical probability of being killed by lightning)

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

That is effectively what was said: his "certain circumstances" were unpredictable pedestrian behaviour: his "reduction in damage" was matter of statistics



I believe that the instructors are self employed. And they certainly didn't reduce road safety to a series of binary decisions.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Agreed, I was just trying to fit around the original wording



While that is reasonable and the instructors no doubt do know their stuff they are constrained by their terms of employment. It really shows that the background is a process trying to enforce binary logic to an inherently fuzzy system. A single rule output is applied no matter what the inputs are, it is completely at odds with the ideas behind COAST so as good as the rest of the information in the course is it just breaks any internal consistency.

On an earlier point about offering this kind of course to all drivers, my local council does offer road safety training - http://www.bromley.gov.uk/transportandstreets/roadsafety/Training+and+education/complete_driving_course.htm

The cost is not mentioned on the site, however the local paper had an article which mentioned a price of £30.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

maybe you should have left a SS pamphlet for their reading, out of curiosity what was the general feeling by those on the course, browsing around it appears there will be many more participants http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=946984&mid=0&nmt=Speed%20cameras%20being%20turned%20back%20on.

Although I would agree that lower speeds reduce the damage, if COAST is being used then the speed would have already been reduced and probably well below the posted limit. I have on about four occasions had pedestrians walk out in front of me without looking, but instinct told me they were likely to so I had already reacted, and remember it is not just speed, distance and space comes into the equation as well. The problem with the concept "the posted speed fits all", is that it doesn't. Speed is a relative thing and a safe speed depends on actual conditions, too high gives potential danger as does too slow, due to lack of concentration, no doubt why, speed limits set at the 85 percentile have been shown to give the safest condition. Unfortunately speed limits may as well be set by throwing darts at numbers on a wall, they would have as much relevance, as many of the speed limits that are being set these days which are based purely on the whim of local people and Councillors. So the comment made that "those that set speed limits are wiser" than the motorist using the road is both stupid and arrogant and if that is what they really think no wonder we are in the state we are.

However, I would consider that a considerable number of drivers would benefit from such courses and not just those travelling over a posted limit. In fact Hampshire Police used to do such courses free of charge. Four evenings of lectures based on Roadcraft, followed by, normally on a Sunday, a demonstration run by one of their Class 1 drivers giving a commentary. Perhaps if they made such courses available again, then their claimed aim at reducing accidents may be achieved.

Thank you for the report.
If I had attended and felt free to debate fully I would have ......
(What made you think that?) I would have asked precisely what qualifications and what training they had had to run this course ? Who trained them and what qualifications they had? And if they didn't know or hadn't asked why not?If they didn't know are they not interested ? If they just accept what they are told and assume people's qualification how do they know anything that they teach is right and proper ?
Training is not high on promotional driving / riding experiences. Did they at all ask about skid training (I assume not). Did they recognise that with experience your knowledge helps in many areas of driving if one recognises the need to learn, than assume that we 'know it all'?
Which I would have questioned immediately ! I would have had to ask 'Why'? 'We are all here because of them, so why not discuss them - do they not agree with them? and so on !
Also I would have asked 'Why not'? What makes a speed for one road one day correct at 70 and the next day 50, or 60 to 40 and so on ? What is the purpose of speed limits and what research has been done that they know of either for or against the benefit? Are they aware then when a road speed is either increased or decreased that in fact the free travelling speed barely changes - and what does that tell them and why?
Do they know what the free travelling speed is and how it is different to impact speed?
I am sure to the discussion of location of speed cameras would have come up ! Followed by RTTM ...
That speaks of Big brother and a bully tactic to imply that those that set the rules are never to be questioned, and that we are all there to be assimilated! Being treated like a naughty schoolgirl/by is hardly a way to teach anyone anything.
What about when road speeds are now no longer predictable? Look at the earlier result (I would have pointed out) - no one barely knows what it is (unless people hated being there and deliberately answered incorrectly).
They would just not have got away with that non-sense! How precisely would have been the opening question. Then why will someone pay attention to their driving / riding when they go slower and can become more distracted and easily allow there concentration to lapse. What causes accidents? (Inattention / frustration / Driver error) Plus paying attention to the wrong messages (eg checking the passing camera and speedo than observing the road ahead). If you are not paying attention how are you meant to recognise a potential / developing hazard any better? And in fact if you are paying attention at a higher speed (even within the speed limit or out-with) then you will see the developing hazard and take avoiding action like slowing, stopping, light braking etc.
How often have they ever done 20 where is was necessary and were those areas a 20mph ? Isn't enforcement necessary to make drivers go so slow when un-necessary? I might go 5mph on a busy high street environment or when passing a hazard ? Why is a pedestrian errant behaviour not possible in their view to not be allowed for ? What else do they think drivers do not have to allow for ? In fact how many accidents do they think is never a driver's fault (if any)? Then they would have to prove their comment as it is not fact and show a drop in accidents according to their specific wrong implication !
Could have been deliberate - a form of frustration at course attendance.
The trotting out of propaganda non-sense would have me point out all the surveys that clearly show that people are in fact not slowing down at all, and that it is just done elsewhere (even on less safe roads), and that people simply speed on roads that do not have cameras, or where they can see that it is clear or safe to do so. Since it is a technical exercise do they think people respect what they are saying and that the driving population believe them. Or will they increase the speeds by which you can attend a course and help their speed industry to profit even more, while others die due to the wrong road safety policies. Why are they a part of this process- that shows their agreement?
I dare say many do not know the legal definition of pretty much anything and I doubt they did either. The generally understood definition is more likely, but when speeds for the same type roads vary all over the Country is it hardly surprising (see predictable earlier!).
What did they break COAST down to by the way ?
What when the limits are wrong and when Councils have not applied for the right part of the right Road 'Orders' ? What faith can we expect from a system that is often wrong or inadequate or that signs are bad if visible at all ? Yes I too would like to know what else they had to say about why people speed ? Nothing to do with the road was safe to do so, - or broken speedo - or old vehicle and life pressures and so on.
If they believe in COAST how can they then put out twaddle about driving slower therefore makes it safer? Free travelling speed / impact speed - driver reaction. Do they believe in COAST or not ?
Totally agree that attitude is very important, but what about skills, ability knowledge, experience learning, and so on ... What about proper, intelligent and unbiased road safety research - sound engineering solutions. What about deliberate road side furniture to block views to encourage drivers to slow down ...
I dare say this was more interesting and at least positive. I don't suppose they got into learning for self interest / benefit ?
There is of course this concept that eco driving is to be in the test. I dare say they won't get to do the course unless they include it ... most people know how to preserve fuel and with prices pushing people off the road I dare say many think this is somehow positive. But when may bikes are now increasing with higher motorbike accidents how is this meant to be safer ?
They clearly fail to comprehend the 85th %ile or what it means and who are the safest drivers but I would ask.
Well if they ran a good course with good aspects then yes why should it only be the selected few that 'benefit' from this course. How about carrots before punishments and why not make it Nationwide ? How is it fair on those that have no chance of a course ? BUT we must have the right information not just propaganda exercises for no proper benefit.Teaching wrong skills to many make people continue to worry about the wrong road safety aspects and increase paranoia and make driving /riding skills worse.
Why do they think the increase in bicycle accidents and SI accidents have occurred ?
Did they even bring up distraction and paying attention?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Claire. I am very disappointed in you. The way you say you would have behaved would have boorish in the extreme. The course was a Speed Awareness Course: it had its syllabus which the instructors were employed to teach: all the participants were there by choice. It behoved the attendees to take the course as presented - there are other, better, places to discuss the merits or otherwise of speed cameras.

What you suggest would be akin to going to a night school class on British history and spending the whole time on railing about the iniquities of the slave trade. Or of turning a session of weight watchers into a discussion of recipes for cream cakes.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

As an aside, I wonder if they believed that the most economical drivers were the safest? That's something that appears on the backs of petrol pumps on many Cumbrian forecourts at the minute - "safe drivers save fuel". Naturally, it's not unlike the "speed kills" soundbite -(i.e. largely cobblers with a grain of truth), but as you mentioned a diversion into eco-driving, I wonder if they'd claimed it was safer?

First we had the speed money making industry find ways to syphon off a larger & larger portion of the funds they got from their "safety" campaign . Then as proof evolved that they were involved in creative accountancy( the proof exists on this site somewhere, it just has to be found-several members broke down the accounts of SCP accounts for one year )-the then Government decided that highway robbery was HMG prerogative and stopped the legal mugging of FCN FUNDS.So how could SCP find the funds - simple - dangle funding under the guise of speed awareness courses -fit in some mumbo jumbo about COAST etc and hey presto - the speeding funds stay in SCP hands. And the public then think that safety education is taking place . Long way from a dedicated road safety expert , with years of experience policing the roads picking up on some drivers failings and passing on words of wisdom ,which might save a ksi BEFORE it happens, NOT as in the present state wait for an accident to happen and then work out ways to attribute blame and prevent any other occurrences.

Sorry ,mate - my safety training teaches me that good safety practice ensures that we seek to PREVENT ACCIDENTS,not teach /punish folks after the event - WHICH THIS SYSTEM SEEMS TO BE DESIGNED TO DO .

(btw - in over ten years taking blokes on track on the West Coast Main line ,with line speeds of 125, I've not had even a near miss)

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Definitely not! For example they recommended driving in third gear in 30mph limits to make it less likely to creep over the limit.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Didn't you read my description of the course? Most of its content was intended to do just that - teach drivers to avoid accidents. I think that if everyone convicted of any moving traffic offence was sent on one of these course the roads would be a lot safer.


I am sure that if we adopted railway practice on the roads - no more than one vehicle in block with manned block control points; minimum time separation of 10 seconds; no shared use by pedestrian/vehicles - then the rate of KSIs on the roads would be as low or lower than on the railway.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown