Did my speed awareness course WOW!

What an eye opener it was!
I have to admit, when I got caught doing 35 in a 30, my attitude was 'ok, I have broken the speed limit but was it really nesessary parking a speed van where it was' (between 2 roundabouts close together and with a traffic light crossing right next to it)

I now have a different view after my very informative 'speed awareness course'

Did you know that a fixed gatso camera can only get the go ahead after strict criteria has been met?
There has to have been at least 3 severe or fatal accidents (and/or at least 22 minor accidents) within the last 3 years and within 500 yards of the camera position. There then has to be a speed survey carried out (two small black pipes stretched across the road linked to a box) over a 2 week period and that 85% of non rush hour traffic has to be at least 2% + 3mph over the speed limit. Then an engineer has to do a visual survey of that stretch of road to assess that a camera will be more beneficail/safer than chicanes, speed hups etc. Only THEN can it be allowed to be installed BUT NONE of the revenue goes back into the authority where the camera is, it goes direct to the treasury to fund ad campaigns, road safety groups/talks/courses as well as safer road partnerships etc.

Another fact I learnt is that there are only 3 statatory warning road signs that must be installed (warning triangle) These are the one for school, roundabout and height restrictions. Every other warning sign only gets erected when there has been a few serious accidents, i.e. a blackspot.
By the end of the course, I didn't see a sign as "theres a hidden junction ahead" I now see it as "There's a hidden junction ahead that some poor bugger was seriusly injured or killed so they could get that sign there to warn me not to do the same"

More stats! 
When explaining the reason for me (and the full room of others!) being repremanded for (my 35 in a 30), when we looked at the stats for fatalities at given speeds. It starts fairly low at 2.5% of adults hit at 30mph will die. The line starts to take a sharp swoop upwards as you slide between 30 up to 40mph with 40mph being 90% of collision fatal!!
The lecturer said about people becoming complacent, knowing the roads where they live and knowing 40 is too much over the limit so not letting the needle reach 40 but instead maybe 37, 38 (82% are killed!) even at my 35 mph it was still about 40% so that's an extra 37.5% killed at the speed I was doing rather than doing 30.

He showed us a slide of a stretch of road an asked what speed we think is acceptable and to keep the figure in our head. Then he showed the next slide where there was a policeman standing on the pavement. He said "Imagine that copper stepped into the road to point his speed gun at you, where do you think you'd hit the pedal and where would you stop?"

In a nut shell he gave us "at 30mph you'd react here, hit the brakes here and stop here (missing the copper) then for 40 and 50 etc".
He then showed us the next slide where the camera was a little further up past a slight bend. It showed an accident scene. A 29 year old man, local to that area knew the road and speed limit (which was 30mph) but was doing 38 (complacency) and hit a 14 year old boy at an impact speed of 26 mph, his head made a hole in the windscreen and then he was catapulted 16.5 metres (the lad didn't look before stepping out)
He lost the use of his legs, cannot feed himself and has the mental age of an 8 year old. The driver got a one year driving ban and has to live with what he did. He hasn't driven a car since (this was 8 years ago) The accident investigators said if the driver was doing 30, he would not have hit the boy.

I know there is those pessamistic <spelling?) people out there who may think all sorts of things but I've never really had an opposing opinion of camera's, road schemes etc but I can honestly say I will definatley change some aspects of my driving after today. It was a shock and awe session with stats and they are all totally researchable (and I have just to prove it to myself!) I'm not a preacher but I do feel that most drivers would benefit from this type of course i.e. it should be a proactive not a reactive course.

Sorry I've waffled but it's been probably the biggest eye opener I've ever had and it's really made me think about my awareness of speed and the road I'm driving on.

Thanks for not falling asleep! lol

Mike

Interesting post Mike. I found that I slowed doen a lot once my son was born and I became a little bit more aware of how precious life is.

Dergside wrote: I take on board all of the statistics that have been outlined and accept them, but lets not fool ourselves that the motivation for the proliferation of fixed camera's was solely safety concerns.

Whatever the motivation it certainly wasn't a cash generating exercise. The amount of money made on cameras is measured in millions which in terms of the economy is so miniscule as to be insignificant. So as a way of making money for any governemt it simply wouldn't be worth their time to persue it.

Swindon turned off their cameras last year and stats show no increase in KSI (killed, serious, injured).

It is true that until recently the revenue was retained locally and now it is central government that collects. This means less incentive for the local mongs to see it as a money raising venture.

There is no substitute for a copper watching/patrolling traffic as he can spot dangerous vehicles/drivers that cameras will never see.

Edited by hennabm

I must admit,I was a bit apprehensive as to the reaction I was going to get when I posted the above but I'm glad to say they are all some very well made points. I'm actually glad in a way that I got caught, paid my £80 and learned a valuable lesson before my 'momentary lapse of concentration' (as it was put in my original letter!) got me into more trouble or even worse.

I totally agree with Jack that yes the camera's are indiscriminate and when we were asked, most agreed that those signs that flash up can be just as much a warning instead of holding us to randson and leaving a bitter taste of a fine and 3 points.

And again, yes, we, the insured, the taxed and i.e. the legal ones are the ones who can be caught because we are on the system and therefore identifyable. I have been the victim of an uninsured driver many years ago (with my current car) a guy over took 2 other cars and ran a red light hitting the front wing of my car which my wife was driving (with young baby in the back) He drove away and it turned out he was not on the insurance database and the registered keeper had sold it a few weeks previously so that was the end of that. I was £2500 out of pocket and lost 4 years no claims so I can speak of that from experience.
I think when the people who do drive uninsured etc are not punished properly when they do get caught. They often get driving bans???  if they are going to drive without insurance I doubt they are going to adhere to a ban. That's just far too soft in my opinion. I think they should be made to do community service and help fill in the potholes!

I hope you haven't just jinxed yourself by saying your last line though Jack!  I told a friend of mine and my mother and both said "oh, touch wood, I've never been caught speeding" my mother had her letter through the post last week and my friends husband got his the week before. Never say never!

As said above, there is no substitute for real police and real policing but with the government probably about to cut back on that too, looks like 'big brother' will play a bigger role for a bit longer......

I am still amazed though that every warning sign and camera I see was once some poor bugger getting hurt.
They guy who took our course believes that a proactive approach (like the flashing signs) rather than reactive approach (like a speeding camera, points, fine etc..) is the way forward which I totally agree with and the silly thing is, to get on a course like I did, you have to first get caught speeding.

It was suggested that perhaps insurance companies should cough up for all drivers to take a course like this say every 10 years in order for us to keep our licences. That way, we don't have to pay, the insurance companies foot the bill but would surely cut accidents therefore actually saving what they spend or maybe more and we become smarter and more aware of the potential hazards we sometimes take for granted.

I know I'm certainly a better driver because of it.

Mike

Indeed, it was an eye-opener.