2 speeding fines for the same time & place

27col

That was one of the good things about the course, They did explain the national speed limits on different types of road very fully.
In Hampshire they have started offering these courses to anyone who is interested. The normal price is about £50 but they are starting the scheme with an introductory offer of £30.
As for the rather ridiculous comment about the fact that speed cameras are bright yellow. That indicates a mind set that says it's ok to speed as long as you slow down in the vicinity of a camera.
There is a driver who definitely needs to do a driver awareness course, I think.

Stephen_Leak

27col wrote: »

<snip> In Hampshire they have started offering these courses to anyone who is interested. The normal price is about £50 but they are starting the scheme with an introductory offer of £30. <snip>

So now law abiding drivers can volunteer to be "fined". I said that the "safety scamera pratnerships" would be getting desperate for revenue, as the level of compliance rose.

But what happens on insurance renewal, if you're asked if you've attended an SAC?

Idiophreak

27col wrote: »

That was one of the good things about the course, They did explain the national speed limits on different types of road very fully.

I don't understand how you can get in the position to be driving a car without knowing this, though!?

give_them_FA

These days people have to work hard to get a driving licence. Theory test, hazard perception test, and practical test that has got progressively harder over the last 20 years.

Before that, it was an easy test, so long as you didn't make a major error you passed, and although there were a couple of Highway Code questions at the end they didn't affect the result.

So it's not unknown for older drivers to be quite clueless over the regulations, as you could get a licence without knowing them.

My own feeling is that speed cameras (and enforcement generally) is much more about raising money than raising safety standards. Why else are the great majority of them sited on wide straight roads where the speed limit is ridulously low (i.e. more people likely to be caught) whilst there are very few on difficult dangerous sections of road (i.e. very few will be foolish enough to speed)? Yet it is the latter that we clearly need IF the objective is safety and not stealth tax.

The_Slithy_Tove

esmerobbo wrote: »

One thing the instructor pulled me on was ratcheting the handbrake on he said I should be doing a "silent" application by holding the button in. Fair do's I said

I disagree. It's nothing to do with the way you drive, or with safety, so it should be b***er all to do with them. I've heard of people being similarly reprimanded for this in driving tests. But then again, there are things in that which are more to do with political correctess (e.g. the "green" agenda) than actual safe, competent driving.

esmerobbo

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

I disagree. It's nothing to do with the way you drive, or with safety, so it should be b***er all to do with them. I've heard of people being similarly reprimanded for this in driving tests. But then again, there are things in that which are more to do with political correctess (e.g. the "green" agenda) than actual safe, competent driving.

I disagreed too, and still ratchet the handbrake on!:D

HO87

Why are we all posting on a thread that died a death last August?

Secondly, and in no way intended to prolong the agony but:

give_them_FA wrote: »

Before that, it was an easy test, so long as you didn't make a major error you passed, and although there were a couple of Highway Code questions at the end they didn't affect the result.

With respect, givethemFA, bolleaux. My sister was failed (1977) when she was unable to identify the correct stopping distances (which formed part of the Highway Code part at the end of the test when you arrived back at the test centre) having had a number of other "minors" during the practical test.

It was certainly an "easier" test but was conducted in vehicles that were of their age as well. So no ESP, ABS or power-steering and drum-brakes all round - that certainly applied in the vehicle I learned on. Incidentally, it did not have synchromesh on 1st (or reverse) so in addition to all of the other car control skills I'd had to learn to double-declutch as well. We were also expected to be able to demonstrate the full range of arm signals - bearing in mind that the cars had manual windows not electric ones so you had to wind the windows up and down. Oh, and sometimes the handbrake was on your right not in the centre console. (What the hell was a centre console?)

Horses for courses, givethemFA, the roads were quieter but were also narrower and generally less well signed, had no crash barriers - even on what motorways then existed - , were less well lit and far more poorly maintained. Cars tended to be heavier and performance was not a word one heard unless you invested in a Jag, Jensen or a European sport and you certainly didn't associate with such wonders as the Austin Cambridge, Hillman Super Minx or even the Morris Marina. And the Ford Capri was only really a suped-up, tail-happy slug. Brakes needed warming up and so did heaters. Rear windscreen heaters and front demisters were a thing of the future. And as for road gritters in advance of poor weather - forget it. The grit/salt didn't go down until it had frozen or there was 4 or 5 inches of compacted snow. And let me tell you that driving from Portsmouth to Plymouth - a journey that then took between 5 and 7 hours on single carriageway was an endurance exercise not the gentle jaunt it is today

Finally, cars today, generally, are more powerful, faster and lighter and the wider, better surfaced and illuminated roads - aklbeit used by far more than they usedto be - enable higher average speeds to be achieved. So why shouldn't the current test be more rigorous? In those days we drove lumbering draughthorses across empty rough ploughed land whereas today the average car is a thoroughbred racehorse driven down purpose-built, neatly laid, and manicured courses by comparison.

Some older people may indeed be clueless about current regulations but then demonstrably there are younger people who seem to have a similar lack of knowledge. :cool:
[/lamp-swinging mode]

.....I'll get me coat.

27col

Idiophreak wrote: »

I don't understand how you can get in the position to be driving a car without knowing this, though!?

Well it was pretty evident that several people on the course were not at all sure.
Also, in view of the number of people who do get pulled for speeding, that they apparently neither know or care, about national speed limits.

27col

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

So now law abiding drivers can volunteer to be "fined". I said that the "safety scamera pratnerships" would be getting desperate for revenue, as the level of compliance rose.

But what happens on insurance renewal, if you're asked if you've attended an SAC?

I doubt whether there are any "law abiding drivers", only those who have not yet been caught.
It is patent nonsense to say that drivers can volunteer to be "fined". If it saved you from licence points and an actual fine, £50 would be money well spent.
As I have said before, you would have to be a very arrogant driver to get nothing out of a Driver Awareness Course.
Anyway, you all carry on driving as you always have, and we'll agree to differ.