ADUK Archive

I attended an Avon & Somerset Safety Camera Partnership (mouthful) 'Speed Choice' workshop today. I hasten to add voluntarily representing my IAM group.

For those that don't know, this is the optional 1/2 day course for people caught speeding as an alternative to getting 3 points.

I could go into a lot of detail but my overpowering reactions were:

a) how good the presenters were
b) how every driver would benefit...
c) wouldn't it be good to make it compulsory perhaps after driving for a couple of years?

Any thoughts? (or questions about the course if anyone's interested).

Sounds interesting.

What was the message of the course and how did they get it across? Was it stats, stories, videos? How did they avoid the driver-annoying unqualified 'speed kills' message?

jasonh wrote:What was the message of the course and how did they get it across? Was it stats, stories, videos?

The message was mainly to think of the consequences of not giving yourself enough time/space to react to something unexpected. They presented some interesting facts about 'residual speed' (the effect extra speed has before you brake on the final impact speed at a set distance). They talked about the 'ripple effect' of being involved in a serious accident: how it effects many, many people not just the driver and the victim.

They used good 'ol powerpoint but made it fairly interactive with many breaks for discussion, compare stories etc. They did show the tv advert with the car hitting a pedestrian in slo-mo and how 'at 30 you would have stopped here'. In fact they showed a special version as well and one of the presenters talked through what was happening. The video is *very* clever with lots of side clues built in to make specific points when presented like this.

jasonh wrote:How did they avoid the driver-annoying unqualified 'speed kills' message?

They didn't 'preach'. They reassured the attendees they weren't going to give them a hard time - more get them thinking about speed and road safety. It was very much focussed on keeping speed low in 30s and how quickly things happen even at this speed. They also explained the rationale behind the placement of speed cameras and where the money goes to try and debunk some of the ridiculous arguments being propogated.

The presenters were quiet, friendly and did their utmost to come across as being 'normal' - some would say 'fluffy'!

Out of the 8 attendees (4 men, 4 women) I would say only 1 was resistent to the message. He was honest enough to admit he enjoyed driving fast but then backed this up by saying he was skilful and could clearly stop much quicker than the highway code defines (which may or may not be true in perfect conditions). I don't think he understood even the 'thinking' time concept

I was a little concerned about the HGV1 driver who didn't know the National Speed Limit .

After the 'special' video (above) the attendees were stunned and complete silence decended when they were asked to talk in groups about it. I think it really hit home without being gory.

I just wish everyone could do this course.

Did they acknowledge any positive benefits of speed?

martine wrote:Out of the 8 attendees (4 men, 4 women) I would say only 1 was resistent to the message. He was honest enough to admit he enjoyed driving fast but then backed this up by saying he was skilful and could clearly stop much quicker than the highway code defines (which may or may not be true in perfect conditions).

I think this is a big problem with the Highway Code's approach of putting figures on stopping distances. For example, I have no idea what 315ft looks like from the driver's seat, but I do know how much distance I need to allow to be able to stop my car from 70mph. All very subjective!

He may well be skillful and be able to "handle" a car, but the fact that he got caught speeding suggests his observation may not be up to scratch! Maybe a good candidate for the IAM?

Chris

Cheers Martin, that's really very interesting.

I think you might be right that it would be good if everyone did the course. I'm increasingly coming to the view that post-test driver training should be an absolute requirement. When you think about road deaths in comparison to something like, say, adverse events caused by prescription drugs, it just seems completely absurd how flimsy our efforts against road death are. If the car had only been invented in the last twenty years you can guarantee that the rules and requirements would be much tighter (for better or worse) and the sheer number of deaths would be more widely seen as utterly unacceptable and scandalous.

7db wrote:Did they acknowledge any positive benefits of speed?

No. What did you have in mind?

ScoobyChris wrote:I think this is a big problem with the Highway Code's approach of putting figures on stopping distances. For example, I have no idea what 315ft looks like from the driver's seat, but I do know how much distance I need to allow to be able to stop my car from 70mph. All very subjective!

True but they do show 'car lengths' in the HC.

A useful guide on m-ways are the little marker posts off the hard shoulder (the ones that show which direction the nearest emergency phone is). In case you don't know, these are 100m apart - roughly 315ft.

ScoobyChris wrote:He may well be skillful and be able to "handle" a car, but the fact that he got caught speeding suggests his observation may not be up to scratch! Maybe a good candidate for the IAM?
Chris

True he may well be skilful at driving fast but best to keep it to track days I'd have thought. Certainly his obs weren't up to scratch but his attitude needed working on - he came across as arrogant and pretty dismissal of things said. I was going to engage him a little after the course but he disappeared before I had a chance.

martine wrote:wouldn't it be good to make it compulsory perhaps after driving for a couple of years?

Along with every other kind of further driver training. it would be great but can you see goverment making it law in our car orientated society? - I think not.

martine wrote:A useful guide on m-ways are the little marker posts off the hard shoulder (the ones that show which direction the nearest emergency phone is). In case you don't know, these are 100m apart - roughly 315ft.

I'm going to find myself a quiet bit of motorway some day soon and have a go at this. Instinct tells me about half the distance between marker posts is nearer the mark. Sounds arrogant I know, hence the practical experiment.

martine wrote:

7db wrote:Did they acknowledge any positive benefits of speed?

No. What did you have in mind?

In my experience, balanced messages are easier to digest as the recipients hear part of what they believe in there already.

MarkRenton wrote:People think it's all about misery and desperation and death and all that shit which is not to be ignored, but what they forget is the pleasure of it. Otherwise we wouldn't do it. After all, we're not fucking stupid. At least, we're not that fucking stupid.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:

martine wrote:A useful guide on m-ways are the little marker posts off the hard shoulder (the ones that show which direction the nearest emergency phone is). In case you don't know, these are 100m apart - roughly 315ft.

I'm going to find myself a quiet bit of motorway some day soon and have a go at this. Instinct tells me about half the distance between marker posts is nearer the mark. Sounds arrogant I know, hence the practical experiment.

The 2 second gap is about the distance between 2 lamp posts which is the same as the distance between the "keep apart 2 chevrons" which are marked on the motorway at certain places. the little marker posts, with the number on them and the direction of the nearest emergency phone, are ABOUT 4 seconds apart.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:

martine wrote:A useful guide on m-ways are the little marker posts off the hard shoulder (the ones that show which direction the nearest emergency phone is). In case you don't know, these are 100m apart - roughly 315ft.

I'm going to find myself a quiet bit of motorway some day soon and have a go at this. Instinct tells me about half the distance between marker posts is nearer the mark. Sounds arrogant I know, hence the practical experiment.

Don't forget thinking time. If your reaction time is 0.8s (which I seem to remember reading on here some where), that's already 25m gone at 70mph before you start braking.

Yup, understood. To be accurate it needs an assistant in the car. They should have a secondary mirror, and can then select a random marker post (when it's safe - obviously the driver should check too) and call "brake" or something so as to include the thinking time element.

ROG wrote:...the little marker posts, with the number on them and the direction of the nearest emergency phone, are ABOUT 4 seconds apart.

Actually to be pendantic, 70mph = 102 feet per second. The marker posts are 328 ft (100m) apart so they are 3.22 seconds apart.