speed awareness course

Iceweasel

capeverde wrote: »

That was really helpful, should get yourself a hobby or a mistress, wouldn't come across as such a ****head then. If you haven't got anything sensible to add, why not keep just your childish comments to yourself.

Altarf was simply stating the obvious - you made a wrong decision at the lights - so your statement of 30 years experience and knowing what to do etc is wrong in this instance.

Your response / attitude leaves a lot to be desired.

Is it possible to 'fail' such a course? If it is, you may well do so, as you've already decided that you have nothing to learn.

I've been driving for 50 years and welcome any / all opportunities to improve my skills. My having a clean licence doesn't prove that I know everything - or even anything at all.

I'd be interested to find out what the content of these courses actually is.

Perhaps part of the course is to point out to folks how impatience and a 'press on' attitude leads to errors.

I do hope that you find time in your obviously busy schedule to attend.

capeverde

Iceweasel wrote: »

Altarf was simply stating the obvious - you made a wrong decision at the lights - so your statement of 30 years experience and knowing what to do etc is wrong in this instance.

Your response / attitude leaves a lot to be desired.

Is it possible to 'fail' such a course? If it is, you may well do so, as you've already decided that you have nothing to learn.

I've been driving for 50 years and welcome any / all opportunities to improve my skills. My having a clean licence doesn't prove that I know everything - or even anything at all.

I'd be interested to find out what the content of these courses actually is.

Perhaps part of the course is to point out to folks how impatience and a 'press on' attitude leads to errors.

I do hope that you find time in your obviously busy schedule to attend.

Firsty if its obvious what the point in stating it, you just come across like a prat.

Anyway. to your point, I dont believe I made a wrong decision at the lights. You are being very presumptive. Firstly you aren't aware of the speed that the lights changed, nor the nature of my load. I was doing under the limit for the area and a sensible speed for what I was carrying. I admitted I went through the light on red, but my snap judgement at that precise moment was that it would have been more dangerous to brake hard than to carry on. It was a split second decision where you foot does a quick dance from accelerator to brake and back. Going on a course isn't going to change my judgement. Im not some twocker driving like an idiot and sometimes things arent always black and white.

Since this has happened, Ive paid attention to the difference in times in light sequences and in my opinion they differ greatly, which I wouldnt imagine is right. This particular light I got caught at in surrey, seemed to jump through amber to red very quickly. So much so I actually remember the one and thought at the time that was quick, I hope they dont have a camera there. Hey presto, I get a ticket.

Would it possibly be out of the question that the authorities in their constant pursuit of raising revenues through motorists start to shave seconds off the traffic light sequences of units with cameras. Just a thought.

Jack_Regan

capeverde wrote: »

Firsty if its obvious what the point in stating it, you just come across like a prat.

Anyway. to your point, I dont believe I made a wrong decision at the lights. You are being very presumptive. Firstly you aren't aware of the speed that the lights changed, nor the nature of my load. I was doing under the limit for the area and a sensible speed for what I was carrying. I admitted I went through the light on red, but my snap judgement at that precise moment was that it would have been more dangerous to brake hard than to carry on. It was a split second decision where you foot does a

quick

dance from accelerator to brake and back. Going on a course isn't going to [STRIKE][/STRIKE]change my judgement. Im not some twocker driving like an idiot and sometimes things arent always black and white.

Since this has happened, Ive paid attention to the difference in times in light sequences and in my opinion they differ greatly, which I wouldnt imagine is right. This particular light I got caught at in surrey, seemed to jump through amber to red very quickly. So much so I actually remember the one and thought at the time that was quick, I hope they dont have a camera there. Hey presto, I get a ticket.

Would it possibly be out of the question that the authorities in their constant pursuit of raising revenues through motorists start to shave seconds off the traffic light sequences of units with cameras. Just a thought.

But it is black and white.

You went through on red and that is an offence.

You can't argue it's safe not to stop on red. If the light were so quick what would have happened if you'd been confronted by a vehicle coming through on green. Would it have been safer to hit them?

Out of interest what was your vehicle and load?

Aretnap

The length of the amber phase is set by law - 3 seconds +/- 0.25 IIRC. If those particular lights have a shorter amber phase then they're faulty and you should defend the charge.

If you seriously think that the authorities are going around deliberately shortening amber phases to extract more money from motorists you should probably wear one of these while driving.

capeverde

No, I absolutely trust the government, councils etc.

Now, lets say the speed of change is 2.75 seconds then and the average stopping distance at 40mph is 118 feet. A car doing 40mph will travel 58.6 feet per second, you see its not leaving a lot of decision time. Factor in the 3.5t trailer and you will see those figures balance.

Lum

The red light camera should show your speed as well as you going through the light. This will typically be printed in the corner of the image, depending on what type of camera it is.

If the red light camera really does have an unduly short amber phase, then a video showing this, in conjunction with the photo showing you doing a sensible speed rather than flooring it trying to get through may be a defence, get yourself over to pepipoo and/or get a solicitor.

Get any evidence you need of a faulty light BEFORE reporting it to the authorities.

capeverde

Thanks for your response Lum, but I feel this thread has deviated a bit and was just debating a point after some accusations. In all honesty I dont have the time or energy to fight this. I made a judgement, if that was wrong in the eyes of the law, I will suck it up. This thread started as I was more hacked off with being told the course was local and then finding out it was in Coventry.

Jack_Regan

capeverde wrote: »

No, I absolutely trust the government, councils etc.

Now, lets say the speed of change is 2.75 seconds then and the average stopping distance at 40mph is 118 feet. A car doing 40mph will travel 58.6 feet per second, you see its not leaving a lot of decision time. Factor in the 3.5t trailer and you will see those figures balance.

No need to include the thinking distance because it will only go one colour after amber.

Lum

Thinking distance also includes reaction time.

Iceweasel

capeverde wrote: »

Thanks for your response Lum, but I feel this thread has deviated a bit and was just debating a point after some accusations. In all honesty I dont have the time or energy to fight this. I made a judgement, if that was wrong in the eyes of the law, I will suck it up. This thread started as I was more hacked off with being told the course was local and then finding out it was in Coventry.

I hope you don't misunderstand me - I'm in support of you checking that the lights are timed correctly - because there is a very short window for any decisions.

If it was too short then you have a good reason to defend this charge. I would support you all the way.

What I couldn't get my head round was your apparent justification / mitigation for running a red light.

I must also agree with you that it seems a bit off to have the course a considerable distance away from where you live.

I still think it would be foolish to either not go to it - or to go and have an argument / walk out.

I'm also interested out of plain curiosity exactly what vehicle you were driving with a 3.5 tonne trailer.