MrLizard Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 i went on one of these, absaloute waste of time, but did mean i didnt take the points, i got caught about 5 years ago and the system has changed a bit since then, when i did mine it was a whole day!!! split into 2 halves, 1st half was in a classroom being told how not to speed when you thought it was a 40, 2nd part in a car (skoda) demonstrating how not to drive... 14 people went, 2 people failed 1 guy couldnt see, literally, missed the speed sign, speed camera, and couldnt see the dash, turned up in a beaten up old car and the instructor refused to get in a car with him, so they gave him the points and he tried to drive off. 2nd one was a german lady with a nice Audi S8, having been asked the question, when driving in fog on a motorway where the speed limit is 70mph what speed would you do, answered, "my car wont go any slower than 80mph in top gear" when told she would fail if she wrote that down, she proceeded to write it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wasso Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 i went on one of these, absaloute waste of time, but did mean i didnt take the points, i got caught about 5 years ago and the system has changed a bit since then, when i did mine it was a whole day!!!split into 2 halves, 1st half was in a classroom being told how not to speed when you thought it was a 40, 2nd part in a car (skoda) demonstrating how not to drive... 14 people went, 2 people failed 1 guy couldnt see, literally, missed the speed sign, speed camera, and couldnt see the dash, turned up in a beaten up old car and the instructor refused to get in a car with him, so they gave him the points and he tried to drive off. 2nd one was a german lady with a nice Audi S8, having been asked the question, when driving in fog on a motorway where the speed limit is 70mph what speed would you do, answered, "my car wont go any slower than 80mph in top gear" when told she would fail if she wrote that down, she proceeded to write it down. And we have to share the public highways with these people I wonder if you get this sort of inteligence in places such as Germany? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxi-glasgow Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 English students still have to pay.... it's scottish people that get it free. But that only changed this year did it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
was8v Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I guess they do, check out AA-drivetech i think they are running mine Just looked up their site and they have absolutely nothing in Scotland. This has actually angered me now, why should we in Scotland not have the option of doing a course and not receive 3 penalty points? Its only some safety camera partnerships that do them. Both times I've been snapped by scameras I had points, no course option. My mum got snapped and got offered the course Still it didn't affect my insurance at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 How did it go mate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 i think he's not back yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Maybe they locked him up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HassanZ Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 He was being naughty (took his pillow as promised) so they gave him a 1 day detention. He has to write lines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 Still alive and a free man. Just thought I'd see how/if it has affected my driving before summarising. welll, would say its; 1/3 verbal lesson from your driving instructor 1/3 Brushing up on relevant highway code 1/3 sitting on a seat for 4 hours exactly as punishment Overall I would say it is actually a positive experience and a far better option than the three points. I don't just mean it's better than taking the points from a financial point of view for me, I mean it's a far better way of teaching offenders as a whole a valuable lesson. The instructor: The guy who took our course was a self employed driving insturctor, he made it pretty clear at the start that he wasn't the police, coucil, AAdrivetech or anyone that had any influence on the placemnent or methods employed with speed cameras. I think having a good instructor, like any 4 hour lecture, is the difference between it feeling like an eternity of imprisonment and an informative evening. Fortunately the instructor I got was a good guy and genuinely interested in educating people with a sense of humour to keep you interested. The people: There were about 20 of us there and for the most part we were all doing between 34 and 38 in a 30 zone and lots of us doing so in the first or last few metres of the zone. As you'd expect there was a wide range of people from a couple of young blokes to elderly gentlemen, even a pregnant lady. Most people were of course bitter about it but all accepted the fact they did something wrong and finally after many years of doing that every day they finally got caught. There were a few van drivers, one biker but for the most part it was a room of normal car drivers. The course: about 3:45 of course time in total, after the H&S lectures about fire exits probably more like 3:30 of actual information and it was blasted at 100mph. It was a well laid out, wide ranging and informative session that I would say should be condensed and broadcast as a show when topgear isn't on As far as the information put across, did I learn anything new? Not really, there were a couple of statistics I had never heard but as far as rules of the road it turned out I was pretty up to date. What was interesting though is the level of knowledge coming from a fair few of the other people... We were given out an interactive voting system at one point and asked a bundle of questions so we could see what percentage thought what. Oh man, there were some f'ing terrible answers coming out as to what people believed were the rules of the road Speed cameras: I was never a speed camera hater but I now have a more positive view of them after the course. I have more respect fr the placement of them after it has been thoroughly explained to me BUT i still hold the same opinion (as did the instructor) that where I got done was inappropriate however was still justified. The part I found interesting was the explanation of cameras in the last/first few metres of a speed limit. Basically that section of, say a 30, is pretty damn dangerous. I do what nearly everyone does and find myself doing somewhere around 35- 37 in the first stretch of the zone due to being lazy slowing down. BUT one guy said "Yeah this is how i got caught, I was setting the speed on the cruise and waiting for it to slow down". He got done doing 41 in a 30, in derby that's 1mph away from instapoints. 41 in a 30 imo is shocking. Also there were a smaller group of people caught in a similar way to me accelerating out. The reasoning behind those cameras in the last stretch of the limit is that's where people have been killed, statistically proven (i know damn statistics). But if you put your sensible hat on it makes sense. Guilt trip: There was a guilt trip involved but was far more expertly done than I had expected. Way early on in a lighter mood we were asked to write down the REAL reason we were speeding, no need to tell anyone or show them but just for our own benefit. later on there was a section about braking distances in 30 zones, it showed the scene of an accident with some big fat skid marks. He explained this is how the kid was killed as he didnt look crossing the road. And then showed the court findings that she was doing 38mph or above, if she had been doing 30mph she would have stopped 1m to 5m short of him. Instead she dragged his body under her car a fair way down the road. At this point you feel the guilt trip coming... "So the mother comes out of her house crying, the kids are shouting 'he was speeding!' and they are pointing at you. You don't dare get out the car, terrified to look under the front. The mother arrives and balls in tears at you 'why were you speeding'. The first words out of your lips have to be the words you wrote down earlier. Do you think they are enough for that person to have lost their child?" Sh..it... Not really. Other info: Without the wide spread lessons on the highway code related to speeding, the course would have been much much shorter and in some ways i guess i think they should be manditory, but then i have always believed people should be retested every so many years. Have I slowed down, as a whole not entirely but the judgements I make on the road are far different, will I speed now and again on an empty motorway? yeah probably now and again like everyone. With only 5% of accidents happening there and a small percentage of the overall road deaths being from them It isn't such a death trap. In 30's tbh I don't speed through them anyway. 40's, 50's and the space in and out of them into 30 zones etc I have lots more respect for now. Worth it... Yeah Sore arse from cheap seats... Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Good to see the course was good for you John, I can see that 30 limit guilt trip story opening a whole can-o-worms though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 Good to see the course was good for you John, I can see that 30 limit guilt trip story opening a whole can-o-worms though I can't imagine anyone having written something down that they would honestly say they would tell the mother of the child so it worked pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 He explained this is how the kid was killed as he didnt look crossing the road. And then showed the court findings that she was doing 38mph or above, if she had been doing 30mph she would have stopped 1m to 5m short of him. Instead she dragged his body under her car a fair way down the road. This but is utter b*llocks. If the kid had looked before crossing the f***ing road, then he would have seen the f***ing car and not been run over in the first f***ing place!!! Sorry, but stuff like that boils my ****. Teach kids to use the road properly instead of assuming that every car driver is a menace (even if she clearly was stupidly speeding in this case). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Good to see the course was good for you John, I can see that 30 limit guilt trip story opening a whole can-o-worms though I can't imagine anyone having written something down that they would honestly say they would tell the mother of the child so it worked pretty well. No there is no excuse for hitting a kid and killing them, but even if the person driving had been doing 30 there could be plenty of reasons they couldnt stop in time. Terrible accident, and this time the driver would likely have stopped if doing 30 but there could be reasons they wouldnt have. If the zone is that dangerous it should have been a 20. What they need to ask is if she had been doing 30 and the kid stepped out 3 seconds late (effective stopping distance then the same as doing 38) what damage would she have done? If the zone was 20 and again the kid got hit stepping out 10 seconds later (still not time to stop) what would have happened? Only way to ALWAYS save the kid is to have cars going so slow they will do no damage if they hit the kid with zero notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 I know where you are coming from but to play devils advocate; kid steps out, gets killed. Ekona, You are telling me you would genuinely tell the mother of the chld you just killed when speeding that the kid shouldn't have been so stupid? At no point did the instructor try and claim that doing 30 is 100% safe but there is no way you can prove it is less safe. So again to play the other side of the argument... You are doing 38 in a 30. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 He explained this is how the kid was killed as he didnt look crossing the road. And then showed the court findings that she was doing 38mph or above, if she had been doing 30mph she would have stopped 1m to 5m short of him. Instead she dragged his body under her car a fair way down the road. This but is utter b*llocks. If the kid had looked before crossing the f***ing road, then he would have seen the f***ing car and not been run over in the first f***ing place!!! Sorry, but stuff like that boils my ****. Teach kids to use the road properly instead of assuming that every car driver is a menace (even if she clearly was stupidly speeding in this case). I see the point the instructor was making Husky but even if she wasn't speeding, she still may not of stopped on time if her reactions weren't good enough!!! I understand the logic but I think for the sake if the course they should have a better example as I think that one implies that road safety is only the duty of drivers and not the general public as a whole. Seven years or maybe longer ago when I owned a little 1.2 Clio I was driving down a 30 road from Carfin to New Stevenson. On my side of the road, cars were parallel parked along the length of the road. On the same side of the road was a convenience shop. Nice day/good weather and as I'm driving down a wee boy sprints straight out shop door (sweets in hand) onto the road as I approach. Not even a part of the road that has a zebra crossing or lights - I couldn't see him until he was in front of me due to the parked cars and his lack of height. Needless to say, time slowed down, my life flashed before me, my pants filled and I slammed the anchors on. Stopped, and I joke you not a bawhair away from him. He was like a rabbit in headlights and had almost certainly pi**ed his pants. When i realised I hadn't killed him, I honked the crap out my horn in which I'm sure he preceded to provide his spilled urine a brown friend........and off he ran with his sweeties. On reflection I shouldn't maybe got out and given him a few friendly words about road safety but I couldn't leave the car for sodden pants Hopefully that was enough to scare him. If I had hit him, I have no doubt that I would get the the blame. I'd be the maniac even though I wasn't speeding. I am a teacher and I put a big emphasis on road safety but ultimately it comes down to the person to make sure they are being safe. With some kids (thankfully only a minority) attitudes it's in one ear, out the other as they think it will never happen to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 The argument there, is that 30mph isn't an appropriate speed to drive down that road. Which in reality it isn't, how can you defend yourself, it's very difficult. "there were parked cars and I couldnt see" "so you admit there was a big hazard?" "yes" "and you didnt slow down?" "no" "why" "ummmm..." The point put across in the course and tbh many advanced driver courses is that everyone else is an idiot and you only have control of what YOU do. Do you want to kill a child, No. Can you prevent yourself from killing that child, Yes. So why would you push it in a 30... All comes back to Why? Getting there sooner? Boredom? Laziness? Dissagreeing with the speed limit? Person behind bullying you to speed up? The point they were making, pick one of those reasons and that's what you have to tell the family of the kid you tore the limbs off of or killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The argument there, is that 30mph isn't an appropriate speed to drive down that road. Which in reality it isn't, how can you defend yourself, it's very difficult. "there were parked cars and I couldnt see" "so you admit there was a big hazard?" "yes" "and you didnt slow down?" "no" "why" "ummmm..." The point put across in the course and tbh many advanced driver courses is that everyone else is an idiot and you only have control of what YOU do. Do you want to kill a child, No. Can you prevent yourself from killing that child, Yes. So why would you push it in a 30... All comes back to Why? Getting there sooner? Boredom? Laziness? Dissagreeing with the speed limit? Person behind bullying you to speed up? The point they were making, pick one of those reasons and that's what you have to tell the family of the kid you tore the limbs off of or killed. They use a CHILD and mother in the example for a reason. What would you tell any mother about their child dying in any set of circumstances??? It'd be a pretty shitty feeling no matter what. If you were answering the mother (feelings aside) and you hadn't been speeding your answer could very well be - I was travelling home within the speed limit and your child ran out onto the road without paying any due attention to the traffic. He didn't find an appropriate place to cross, nor did he look to see if any traffic was coming. Can I ask he has he been taught road safety and if not where you when he was crossing the road. If we take human emotion out of this, the picture can be painted differently. I would hope never to be in there circumstances but god forbid if it happens to anyone I hope we can stand back before we attribute blame. In some respects I think this comes down to the UK being a nanny state. I have fulfilled my duty as a road user to be alert and stay within the speed limit. Why is there no or very little focus placed on where, when and how a pedestrian enters the road - they have as big as a responsibility as the road user. I'm a road user and pedestrian and I give us much respect to the roads on foot as I do in car. I understand Husky that 'treat everyone as an idiot' is a good survival tool but is it realistic to slow down every time you see a parked car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Two Q's Id have had .......... they say "the reasoning behind those cameras in the last stretch of the limit is that's where people have been killed, statistically proven (i know damn statistics)." Is this directional? It stands to reason that entering a village people will be likely to be going over 30, but after a mile and a half of 30 limit it doesnt seem so likely ......... And also the olod favourite "You wouldnt have killed the child if you had been travelling at 30mph", does the difference in reaction time between a young, healthy and aware man as compared to a 75 year old with failing eyesight come into it?? I dont speed in towns or villages (or at least I try not to) but this "speed kills" bollocks gets right on my tits, I see innumerate examples of inattentive or downright dangerous driving every day, but these people are apparently much safer than me who occasionaly exceeds a limit in a well maintained sportscar ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 simeple: Speed is an easy one to target and prove. I don't like it any more than you, I was the one who had a sore arse for four hours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 simeple: Speed is an easy one to target and prove. I don't like it any more than you, I was the one who had a sore arse for four hours Told you it was a can of worms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebized Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Think we all know that in Oz the boys in blue can be very unforgiving if you exceed the limit when the signs require a drop in speed. But its much 'fairer' there as virtually everywhere there are warning signs of the forthcoming change and so there is no excuse if you are over the limit as you are given ample time to slow. Here the advanced warnings are very limited - it is a shame it was not mandatory for all highway authorities to provide these instead of the sudden change from 60 to 30, 40 to 30 or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I know where you are coming from but to play devils advocate; kid steps out, gets killed. Ekona, You are telling me you would genuinely tell the mother of the chld you just killed when speeding that the kid shouldn't have been so stupid? To alter the question slightly, what if I was doing bang-on 30 (as I do) and the kid had stepped out and I'd run him down, would I still tell her it was the child's fault? Of course I wouldn't, but you can bet your ass I'd be screaming it in my head. If that's the kind of patronising crap they give you at these meetings, then I'm glad I'm on the right side of the law as I'd go batsh*t crazy at ridiculous examples like that. The rest of it sounds pretty sensible though, in fairness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 simeple: Speed is an easy one to target and prove. I don't like it any more than you, I was the one who had a sore arse for four hours We dont need to know what you did when you got home mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 but it's a kid, it's what they do and as older and wiser people we should look out for them. If the kid steps out with no chance in any way then the words out my mouth would be "he just stepped out..." but if i were speeding I'd feel a bit sheepish. I know its such an overdone example but it's because it should stir emotion in most of us to make a point. Sadly though these days it all washes over many people as they are bombarded with so much it becomes the norm. I've still not heard a good reason to be speeding? Whats the justification for speeding?? Why are you arguing that they are wrong? Do you absolutley have to be going faster? How will it help you in your daily life to be going a little bit faster than the speed limit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 No my arguement was why was the speed limit at said point in the road 30MPH when clearly this isnt/wasnt safe. If theres a possibilty of the child being struck at zero warning, the speeds involved should be slow enough that they arent killed or hopefully seriously injured. This would point to it needing to be a 20MPH limit. Stopping distances have nothing to do with this incident as if the kid had walked out a few seconds later and the driver was doing the limit, the impact would have been the same as them slowing from 38MPH and hitting them later. The kid would still be dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.