I was recently caught speeding in Reading by Thames Valley Police. I wasn't aware that there were camera's where I was driving and my speeding wasn't too excessive (36mph in a 30mph zone).

Anyway, I got a letter a couple of weeks ago from Thames Valley Police stating the details of my offence, which I was expected to sign and return. the letter stated that the penalty for my offence was that I would get a fine (bummer) and 3 point on my licence (MAJOR LEAGUE BUMMER!).

Anyway, yesterday I got another letter from them. Apparently, becaue my speeding wasn't too bad I am apparently eligible for a "Speed Awareness Course", which aims to educate rather than penalise. The upside of all this is that should I choose to attend this workshop, I pay a slightly higher fine but I get no points on my licence.

I already have 3 points. I drive a lot for work so am keen to keep my licence as clean as possible. I am more than happy to be "educated" on what a speed limit is and how I can stay within it for half a day to avoid getting more points. Patronisation or Points? I'll be patronised please! Oh yessir!

Seriously, I think this is a bluddy fantastic scheme! I've never heard of it before though. Is this just a Thames Valley thing, or is it nationwide through all forces? Also, has anyone else been on these courses?

Karen I have heard of these schemes - but that is it - just heard the term bandied about. I had no idea what they entailed. It sounds a fantastic scheme.

I presently have 6 points on my licence - both speed camera's - I do have mitigating circumstances for both my offences [one I was trying to escape from a loony road rager who had tail-gated me for over 50 miles and I was seriously in fear of my safety]. But in law I was driving too fast. I paid the fine and accepted the points with shame.

I, more than most, should be well aware of traffic law, and yet I still sped and I still got caught. I would happily have accepted this course had it been offered. I don't think it is patronising, unless people are of the mindset that 'they know everything' and are arrogant.

We are never too old, too experienced or too knowlegdable to learn new things.

My second offence was doing 41 in a 30 zone. Now this zone had been 30 mph for the last 40 odd years of my life, there were no houses nearby, in fact the road was bordered by a 10 foot stone wall on one side and on the other a wrought iron railing. It had apperently changed a few months previously - I didn't know, I wasn't paying attention - this just goes to highlight the importance of reading the road, and sign awareness!

Think its a good idea. We keep making the driving license harder and harder to pass, but the danger is not from the new drivers its ones who have developed bad habits - how many drivers would pass if they retook the test.

My ex is a bobby and took a advanced driving course a year ago so he could drive with blue lights. He had had his license for around 5 years and it shocked him what a bad driver he had become. He also comments that he gets alot of hassle from drivers he pulls over for speeding. Now when he does speed checks he puts himself outside schools as people find it much easier to visualise the dangers in a built up area when children are about.

I think it is a great idea. Last year I received a fine and 3 points for speeding (caught by a speed camera) doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and I would have preferred this to the points on my licence but I wasn't given the option.

I think it is a great idea. Last year I received a fine and 3 points for speeding (caught by a speed camera) doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and I would have preferred this to the points on my licence but I wasn't given the option.

Like I said, I don't know if this scheme is nationwide, or confined only to certain forces, so it might be that Sussex Police don't even do the scheme. But even if they do, I think the offence has to fall within a certain "margin" before you are offered the course. I can't remember the exact wording of the letter, but it definitely implied that I was only being offered the course because my speeding wasn't a great deal over the limit.

You get about a 10% margin over the speed limit which is allowable anyway (so I wouldn't have been penalised at 33mph) - so you might only be offered the course if your speed is that within 20% more than the limit or something. At 40mph in a 30 zone,you'd be exceeding that percentage.

I am honestly not sure about the discretion of camera's - but in real life ie caught bang to rights by a calibrated system on hand by the actual police, then there are discretions available - and I think the national 'average' is 10% of the speed restriction.

So if you are in a 30 mph area and you are between 31 and 33 mph [ie 10% of the speed] - then it is generally just a caution, obv. this rises with the speed limit.

I would welcome this too. I got "caught" by a speed camera doing just over 40 in 30 where there were roadworks. What peed me off is that there was no-one working there at the time and the road was pratically empty. Still, I paid the fine, got the points on my license. It is the points that really stick in my throat. I would say that I am in the majority of occassions a careful driver in build-up areas, but when you are on dual carriageways (it was dual carriageway where I got caught), I think you need to keep up the speed as it is when you are caught behind a slow driver that people get annoyed.

I would also welcome that the age to start driving be increased. It is sad to constantly read about 17/18 years being killed in car accidents where the cause has been speed. I think it should be increased to 21. There is a huge difference between a 21 year old and 17 year old. At 21 you will probably be holding a stable job and be more mature, and not have the urge to do your hand-brake spins and see how fast you can you round a corner. It would save so many young people's lives.

I would also welcome that the age to start driving be increased. It is sad to constantly read about 17/18 years being killed in car accidents where the cause has been speed. I think it should be increased to 21. There is a huge difference between a 21 year old and 17 year old.

I'd be inclined to agree with this Bella - only I'd raise the age to 25.

During the time I've been driving, I've been involved in 2 quite serious car accidents where somebody was hurt. On both ocassions it was the fault of the other driver, and on both ocassions the other driver was under 21 (in the first accident, the guy was 17 and had only passed his test 3 days before).

Of course I have also seen and experienced careless driving from drivers much older than 21, but on the whole older drivers do tend to be more responsible. E.g. When you see a car full of men, and the driver is "showing off" by driving recklessly at speed and overtaking other cars in built up areas, the chances are that the driver is a young lad!

MMM under that my ex would'nt be able to drive his police car and a third of the British Forces would'nt be allowed to drive. You could have a nine year old child, a degree and been working for 4 years before you could actually drive. Oh and the countryside would be dead as no self respecting 24 year old will ask mum to give them a lift in to town as the bus comes once a week on market day.

If you're going to do that then you should also rule out anyone over 60 as their reflex reactions arn't as good as they used to be.

Luckly I am 26 today and so under your 25 and over rule will be able to drive.

I've never been caught by a speed camera but thats becasue I don't speed :angel_not , well I do on the motor way, but not been caught yet.
I think they should introduce these courses to people visiting the country side . What I find so annoying is that all the local roads are 60 mile roads but some people drive at 35 mph and then when we go through a 30mph village they keep going at 35mph giving me no chance to overtake them :ranting: at the passing points once we go back to 60.
One of these days I'm going to paint some signs and hold them up to silly drivers
National speed limit road!
Pull over and let me pass you snail
Slow down you wally it's now 30


I've heard of these schemes Karen and I think they can only be a good thing.
It's true that some roads that are 30 are empty but there are plenty that are not and are full of children playing. If people can get used to automatically sticking to them then there will be less accidents

I think they should introduce these courses to people visiting the country side . What I find so annoying is that all the local roads are 60 mile roads but some people drive at 35 mph and then when we go through a 30mph village they keep going at 35mph giving me no chance to overtake them :ranting: at the passing points once we go back to 60.
One of these days I'm going to paint some signs and hold them up to silly drivers
National speed limit road!
Pull over and let me pass you snail
Slow down you wally it's now 30


Ditto, ditto, ditto.
That happens all the time around here too. It's soooo infuriating :mad2:

I've never been caught by a speed camera but thats becasue I don't speed :angel_not , well I do on the motor way, but not been caught yet.
I think they should introduce these courses to people visiting the country side . What I find so annoying is that all the local roads are 60 mile roads but some people drive at 35 mph and then when we go through a 30mph village they keep going at 35mph giving me no chance to overtake them :ranting: at the passing points once we go back to 60.
One of these days I'm going to paint some signs and hold them up to silly drivers
National speed limit road!
Pull over and let me pass you snail
Slow down you wally it's now 30




Oh god I hate those drivers too Bob! I was on A68 the other week there, whilst going down to see Flip. Anyone who has been on it will know what an awful road it is. If you are stuck behind a slow-moving vehicle you are stuck there forever as the road is full of twists and turns, and over-taking is very risky. Anyway there is a point where the road splits into a dual carriageway giving you that opportunity to overtake. I had been stuck behind this Golf for miles and he was putting along at 35 miles with nothing in front of him, we get to the dual carriageway and the little toe-rag really puts the foot down. I managed to overtake him just before the road went back into single track and I am sure I just went over 60 to do it. I was really annoyed with myself for driving like that but when we went back on the single track he went back to 35 miles. How selfish can you get? People who drive like that are just as dangerous as those who speed as they really stress out the drivers behind them! :ranting:

Question:

A number of people have admitted to speeding, some have been caught, some have not, but no one appears to have any sense of remorse about it.

My question is, why is speeding socially acceptable, but drink driving is not?

Are we saying, speeding is less dangerous than being over the alcohol limit - what's the evidence for this if so?

Sorry to hijack your topic Karen, but I've often wondered why people who have been caught for speeding are generally seen as 'unlucky', but people caught for having one milligram over the limit are the devil incarnate.

I've often wondered why people who have been caught for speeding are generally seen as 'unlucky', but people caught for having one milligram over the limit are the devil incarnate.

That's so true, Noxy. My take on it would be that almost everyone speeds and it's probably a much smaller minority who drink drive so it's a feeling of 'there but for the grace of God...'.. Not that I have any stats, just my thoughts.

Great scheme btw Karen. I'm sure most people would rather pay a higher fine than have points and with the added bonus of a course it makes perfect sense.

Like I said, I don't know if this scheme is nationwide, or confined only to certain forces, so it might be that Sussex Police don't even do the scheme. But even if they do, I think the offence has to fall within a certain "margin" before you are offered the course. I can't remember the exact wording of the letter, but it definitely implied that I was only being offered the course because my speeding wasn't a great deal over the limit.

You get about a 10% margin over the speed limit which is allowable anyway (so I wouldn't have been penalised at 33mph) - so you might only be offered the course if your speed is that within 20% more than the limit or something. At 40mph in a 30 zone,you'd be exceeding that percentage.

I thought it probably was Karen. I was very peed off with myself for getting the caution as this was the 1st time I had had a fine for speeding in the 20 odd years I have been driving. I am generally a very safe driver and would never speed in a built up area but this was not a built up area but on a very wide road, in good conditions with no one around. I did break the law so I really can't complain about my punishment, but sometimes I think the speed limits that are put on certain roads are very strange.

I remember watching something about this on television a few weeks ago. I seem to remember that they showed a classroom lecture followed by a practical lesson.

Hmmm...funny how they don't mind skipping the points on your licence but manage to put up the fine...could almost be construed as revenue gathering really....:glare:

I have a real beef with speed cameras - I think they should adjust to suit the conditions - for example, some tosser could go past at say 30mph and not get caught, but really the conditions (fog, rain, ice etc) dictate a much slower speed. Someone else could safely drive past in good conditions, driving safely at just over the limit and be caught.

Cameras on the M25 adjust to fit the weight of traffic, so why can't all cameras be callibrated to read weather/traffic conditions?

I got caught last summer through the roadworks on the M25 at 45mph in a 40 limit. It was a beautiful summer morning, about 4.30am, no roadworkers and barely another vehicle on the road. £60 and 3 points. If I'd been offered speed awareness training, I don't think I'd have been responsible for my response.

To answer Nox, I think it is this sort of situation that makes people feel 'unlucky' to be caught. I do however think there should be a 25mph, strictly enforced limit in residential areas where kids, pets oldies etc may be put at risk.

Rant over :)

Hmmm...funny how they don't mind skipping the points on your licence but manage to put up the fine...could almost be construed as revenue gathering really....:glare:

Well actually what I said earlier was a bit misleading, because I don't think that they actually did increase the fine, as such.

The actual fine is £60 - and that is the fine whether you do the course or not. However, if you opt to do the course then you don't get points, but the amount you pay is increased to £71. But....I believe that £11 of that is to cover the cost of the course.

Reading through the letter again it appears that the course is not actually run by Thames Valley Police, but by a privately owned 3rd party. Thames Valley Police will obviously have to pay for the 3rd party to run the courses, and £11 is the cost per head for the course.

I remember watching something about this on television a few weeks ago. I seem to remember that they showed a classroom lecture followed by a practical lesson.

Well, if that's the case, then I hope they provide the car for the practical lesson 'cos I'm planning to catch the train. :laugh:

MMM under that my ex would'nt be able to drive his police car and a third of the British Forces would'nt be allowed to drive. You could have a nine year old child, a degree and been working for 4 years before you could actually drive. Oh and the countryside would be dead as no self respecting 24 year old will ask mum to give them a lift in to town as the bus comes once a week on market day.

If you're going to do that then you should also rule out anyone over 60 as their reflex reactions arn't as good as they used to be.

Luckly I am 26 today and so under your 25 and over rule will be able to drive.

Well, I'll revise it to 25 or over then :laugh:

I get your point Becks.

A number of people have admitted to speeding, some have been caught, some have not, but no one appears to have any sense of remorse about it.


I think I mentioned shame Noxy!

I get the feeling that if you get caught, you fall into one of two camps:

1] you are remorseful and do not speed and are aware of the speed limits for reasons that you don't want to get caught again and pay a fine and get points on your licence and/or your speeding may kill or injure someone.

or

2] you speed as usual but are more aware of the camera's mobile blocks and may have even bought a 'camera angle' is that what they are called?? A machine that gives you warning about speed camera's.

I honestly think the best way to reduce speeding is shock tactics. That advert that shows in slo-mo a car at 30 mph and 35 mph - and the damage it can do at 35 mph to the child, and not at 30 mph. More and more of this sort of advert will drive home how dangerous our caars really are.

And upping the age limit to 21 or even 25 - that sadly will discriminate against youngsters who pass their test legally and are good drivers. Becasuse I would like to bet a large sum of cash that the majority of the toerags that cause accidents and speed and who are 16, 17 or 18 - have actually never held a d/l or have theri vehicle taxed or insured or even actually own the vehicle they speed, crash in!!!

To be fair in the case of Speeding Drivers vs Drink Drivers, although both are dangerous, in many scenarios the two are not comparable.

In most cases, drink drivers know that they are over the limit to drive and if they are uncertain, they shouldn't get behind the wheel. However, it is perfectly possible be unaware of speeding.

I'm not a reckless driver, and I am paranoid about losing my licence, yet I have on ocassion exceeded the speed limit. Not always, but often I am unaware that I am doing it - I look down at the speedometer and realise that the speed has crept up to 5/6 mph over the limit. As soon as I realise, I adjust my speed. Obviously, if you are doing 20 mph over the limit you are going to know that you are speeding, but I from my own experience I know it is possible to speed unintentionally.

You can't unintentionally drink-drive.

Sorry to ressurect this thread agina, but I thought you might be interested to know that I did this speed awareness course today.

And it was really bluddy interesting!

The day started with a practical session on a PC - each person was shown a series of interractive video's and asked to either answer questions or respond to scenarios via a mouse click. There were 5 sections, each representing essential driving skills:

1. Speed Test: Based on my answers my speed tends to be higher than average in all environments. I was a bit surprised by that.

2. Close Following / Stopping Distance test: Based on my responses, my stopping distance is slightly closer to the car in front than the average. I was very surprised by that, because I am bluddy paranoid about getting too close to the car in front.

3. Hazard Test: Based on my responses, 1 perceive and respond to hazards very fast (in fact, I scored the highest out of the 20 peole there today).

4. Emotional Responses: This test aimed to measure your emotional reaction to driving. E.g. do you use driving to let off steam. Do you use your driving time to daydream etc. Based on my answers, I have a good level of emtional stability in driving. That result fell in line with my expectations.

5. Distraction Feedback: Speaks for itself and I scored low. I am not easily distracted from driving and that result was in line with my expectations,

All in all, the tests were an eye opener. When forced to really think about it, I was quite surprised by how often I do speed. I'm not a wild driver - usually its only a couple of miles over the speed limit - but it IS speeding and it does make a difference. Not to my driving time of course, but to the potential survival rate of a pedestrian I might hit.

I got lots of useful information out of today, and have now started to think of the speed limit as a necessary evil, rather than an enforced limitation. I'm even thinking more reasonably about speed camera's!!! Did you know before a speed camera can be erected, there has to have been at least 1 fatality or 4 serious injuries on the location within the previous 12 months!!!!!! In other words, wherever there is a camera, there has been at least 1 death or 4 lives ruined due to a motor accident in that location. :ohmy:

And did you know that only a tiny percentage of serious or fatal motor accidents occur on the motorway, but nearly 70% of serious accidents occur on urban roads?

I haven't even talked about the stats. involved in life expectancy vs speed of impact, but lets just say they are shocking. You really don't have to be going very fast at all for the surivival rate of a pedestrian who is hit to decrease to about 10%.

I'm telling you, I'll think more seriously about speeding from now on. I was very impressed with the effectiveness of this workshop.

And I didn't feel patronised once!

Thanks for the report back Karen. it's good to know how these things turn out. it all sounds quite an eye opener.

It does seem an eye opener, I would have liked to have the chance to attend one of these courses.

A colleague of mine is married to the person in charge of the local camera centre. The fatalities/accidents thing is true for putting new cameras in, but it hasn't always been so. There are still a lot of cameras about that were put in before this rule....they are supposed to be coming out but of course these things take time.