pem123 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Every action in driving should be premeditated, including the foot on the accelerator, observing the limit and speed. Anything else is lacking due care and attention. The issue with DD is that it's rightly socially unacceptable. I wonder if you drive yourself and if so how much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 You are simply wrong. Courses around here are run by private companies (TTC in S.Yorks and Drivetech in Derbyshire) from whom the "authorities" receive not a penny. They won the contract for running the course by tendering for it. The courses are awarded in derbyshire for those doing 37, 38 39 in a 30 zone - minor offence when the speedo reads 40? ___________________________________________ DT - I did say "relevant" authorities not "police" The police themselves decide what their interpretation of "speeding" is and it can vary from one area to another. People who attend the ANDICP courses are deemed by the police to have been "speeding but not by a huge amount" (ANDICP's and relevant Police authorities words - not mine) Therefore, I don't consider myself to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I wonder if you drive yourself and if so how much? Funny, i was thinking the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pem123 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Funny, i was thinking the same. Because I expressed cynicism at your idea that every moment spent behind the wheel should be spent planning and preparing and that we should all be perfect driver robots Perhaps in an ideal world we would be, but this is real life. Anyone with a normal adult mental capacity starts driving naturally (ie without having to think as much as a newbie) after a few months behind a wheel. This means that we drift off, we get complacent and we edge over the speed limit from time to time. Some people also make the conscious decision to speed in certain circumstances. I am one of these and I think that anyone who drives further than the village church once a week and claims to never break the limit is either a liar or a greater danger than someone who drives without being fixed to the speedo the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Because I expressed cynicism at your idea that every moment spent behind the wheel should be spent planning and preparing and that we should all be perfect driver robots this would be a state of "conscious competence", then Perhaps in an ideal world we would be, but this is real life. Anyone with a normal adult mental capacity starts driving naturally (ie without having to think as much as a newbie) after a few months behind a wheel. This means that we drift off, we get complacent this could be a state unconscious incompetence, then??and we edge over the speed limit from time to time. Some people also make the conscious decision to speed in certain circumstances conscious incompetence . I am one of these and I think that anyone who drives further than the village church once a week and claims to never break the limit is either a liar or a greater danger than someone who drives without being fixed to the speedo the whole time. I know which part of the conscious/unconscious competent/incompetent square I'd like to be in. And, by the way, these comments need not have anything to do with speed relative to the limit. You are describing why people make mistakes, get into difficultes and sometimes crash. Is a crash worth avoiding or is it an unavoidable rite of passage and something we are bound to suffer sooner or later? And getting experienced drivers more into a conscious competence in their busy working/driving lives is, for me, the main purpose of post-test driver training and speed is only the by-product of conscious hazard perception. So don't be too cynical about "planning and preparing." Can we move the debate on a bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pem123 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 No-one can know or guarantee that there will be no hazards when they are speeding so to speed is unsafe. Do you not think it depends on what those hazards are? Can they not also be hazards if one is under the speed limit? Surely it depends on the individual circumstances, no? If the limit on a road was increased from 30 to 40 mph would any potential hazards become less hazardous? I find your approach very simplistic and devoid of thought Well surely that's a good arguement for a 2mph limit nationwide? What a ridiculous reply. Why is it? In your world, speed and danger have absolute correlation, so surely the slower we go, the less danger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Why is it? In your world, speed and danger have absolute correlation, so surely the slower we go, the less danger? _______________________________ Dunno Pem... I walked into a lamp post last night and it bl@@dy hurt! Maybe we should all stand still (mind you I may have been a bit over the speed limit and doing a dizzying (and life threatening) 3mph ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pem123 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Why is it? In your world, speed and danger have absolute correlation, so surely the slower we go, the less danger? _______________________________ Dunno Pem... I walked into a lamp post last night and it bl@@dy hurt! Maybe we should all stand still (mind you I may have been a bit over the speed limit and doing a dizzying (and life threatening) 3mph ! Well there you go. Had you been doing 2.5mph, it would have bloody hurt, errr 1/6th less. Probably. You should have your walking licence burned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xranus Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Most speedophiles oppose speed enforcement because it interferes with their infantile lust for speed, although they are rarely open about this, preferring to use weak arguments and silly statements about speed in some way not being related to safety on the roads. In the end, the laws of physics are pretty hard to escape. The faster you go the less time you have to react, the more energy you have to dissipate in order to stop and consequently the accident will be more serious than it need to have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 ___________________________________________ DT - I did say "relevant" authorities not "police" The police themselves decide what their interpretation of "speeding" is and it can vary from one area to another. People who attend the ANDICP courses are deemed by the police to have been "speeding but not by a huge amount" (ANDICP's and relevant Police authorities words - not mine) Therefore, I don't consider myself to be wrong. Well, you wrote: "A simple "click" on the "speed awareness" site will show you that the course is merely a scheme to prevent being "awarded" 3 points on your license and merely a source of extra revenue to the appropriate authorities (around £100) This, I might add is only available for people who have committed minor speed infringements." You may not have meant to but the word "revenue" is emotive for obvious, hackneyed camera-slating reasons - I felt it worth pointing out that all the course fees go to independent private companies and they cannot be seen as "appropriate authorities." And whilst we're on this topic - Courses were thought up as far back as 1988 when the police did a Traffic Law Review - they decided that fines and points don't work and that we'd all benefit from having an educational alternative. So the truth of the matter which many on here miss in their delicious persecution complex is that the monies "raised" from courses does NOT go to those people who place and operate the cameras. ANDISP members deliver the courses. You have a point about the speed courses only being available for those who have committed minor speed infringements - 35 and 36 get a letter of reprimand and 37-39 get offered a course in Derbyshire when measured by FIXED cameras (mobiles work without a 10% plus 2 margin.) Those caught doing 40 and more would also benefit from a course, I believe, but the Constabularies around the country disagree with me (the delivery of theses courses is heading slowly towards a national model but at the moment there are differences still, county to county - one of the most difficult elements of "cameras" etc to defend is that there is no consistency across the country. Some authorities work within ACPO guidelines, others don't.) Moreover, even without the courses, since 2007 any surplus monies (i.e. after they cover their costs) "raised" locally from the cameras goes to the Treasury and then gets divvied up as grants. So there is no real incentive, locally, for the authorities to "go get some more money." Many on here are also working with old "facts." Prior to 2007 (from 2001), we saw an expansion from 1600 to 4800 cameras nationwide, funded by the fines collected. Depending on which side of the fence you sit, this was either a stealth tax on the poor British motorist or a self-financing Govt. initiative that addressed a road safety issue (with some or little success.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.