Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Misc] Speed awareness course



GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
47,254
Gloucester
Its all drivers, not just cyclist, i see many lorry drivers doing things that i think is Embarrassing
What, like stopping at a give way sign and being run into the back of by a young tearaway going too fast to stop in the rain. Give your head a wobble!
 




Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
Yes, exactly that, rather than presumed innocent you are presumed at fault.

Does your brain and ability to think not extend to being able to process the word consequence, ie could be as simple as being liable for the cost of repairs to the bike? No just go for the self facepalm route. Does cantankerous cover it?
I tried to warn you but you insisted on carrying on anyway.

You only have yourself to blame.
 


GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
47,254
Gloucester
Yes, exactly that, rather than presumed innocent you are presumed at fault.

Does your brain and ability to think not extend to being able to process the word consequence, ie could be as simple as being liable for the cost of repairs to the bike? No just go for the self facepalm route. Does cantankerous cover it?
My brain - and rational reasoning - assures me that in that case the motorist wasn't at fault. I, the cyclist, was. End of - any suggestion otherwise os just the silliest thing since .... err .... since ... err ... somebody at The Albion thought Elvis Manu was a good idea. In your world, the poor motorist should be hauled before the courts and have to prove his innocence? Again, I'm calling bollocks.
 


Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
65,391
Withdean area
We’re digressing here with examples of kamikaze cycling by some teens and similar. It’s always gone on, until older and wiser, a lot of young males/kids think they’re indestructible.

I’ve never heard anyone say the ensuing incidents are the fault of drivers full stop.

But as folk in charge of a 1.5T lump of steel, we should do all we reasonably can to minimise the odds of hurting someone or something.

An example. Sometimes I spot cyclists using the road in the dark with no lights on. What’s the point of being angry with them, they may just teens where their light batteries have run out …. it happens to my son. Instead spot them asap and give them a wide berth. Don’t use the mobile, try to drive within the limit and recall what you learnt all those years ago in lessons (near, middle and far hazard perception) all helps.

Then realising how the anti cyclist brigade have hijacked this thread. The same applies in not mowing down pensioners crossing the road, kids running out, motorcyclists, folk in tiny city cars, pets and wildlife.

Slow down a bit, put the mobile away, think about potential hazards.
 


Wokeworrier

Active member
Aug 7, 2021
334
West sussex/travelling
Although these courses probably serve as a wake up call for some, while educating motorists about speed/road awareness, I don't believe for one minute the course instructors or speed camera plod practise what they preach 24/7.

Basically, I agree with those who say it's mainly just another way to fleece motorists.
 






LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
47,226
SHOREHAM BY SEA
I'm a professional advanced driver who does several hundred miles a day sometimes.

A few years ago I had to travel through a section of 50mph average speed cameras between Sandbach and Knutsfod on the M6 every day for 2 years to go to and from work. Inevitably one day I drifted over what they allow and ended up
I’ve slowed down on m-ways and dual carriageways, often setting cruise control to a gentle speed.

I now get to the destination/home stress free. Whilst loads bomb past at 85mph or more, gifting extra profits to the petro companies.
What’s cruise control…is it something fitted to ships?
 


Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
Although these courses probably serve as a wake up call for some, while educating motorists about speed/road awareness, I don't believe for one minute the course instructors or speed camera plod practise what they preach 24/7.

Basically, I agree with those who say it's mainly just another way to fleece law breaking motorists.
...
 












GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
47,254
Gloucester
Dont really know what you mean by this comment.
Yep.100%. Do you have some difficullty understanding? Kindly clarify why a motorist should not stop at a give way sign (if there was traffic on the main road). I await with bated breath for the revelation!

....and do please explain why he should accrue points on his driving licence for doing so. I think the whole world would probably wait with bated breath for that one!
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,175
Burgess Hill
Yes, exactly that, rather than presumed innocent you are presumed at fault.

Does your brain and ability to think not extend to being able to process the word consequence, ie could be as simple as being liable for the cost of repairs to the bike? No just go for the self facepalm route. Does cantankerous cover it?
But that's not what you said. You effectively said that the driver was to blame irrespective of the circumstances which is not the same as a presumption of guilt 'unless you can prove otherwise'. You've changed your position. I'm tempted with another facepalm.

You start with the viewpoint that motorists cause all the problems yet many have cited examples that disprove that yet you still can't accept it.

I'm all for more stringent checks on drivers, preferably periodic driving tests. I'm all for more cctv to catch those idiots jumping red lights or speeding and not advertising where they are so people are just cautious around them. I also think anyone that shares the space with cars should also have a certain level of skill, if only to make them aware of how vulnerable they are to the idiots on the road.
 


jessiejames

Never late in a V8
Jan 20, 2009
2,733
Brighton, United Kingdom
Yep.100%. Do you have some difficullty understanding? Kindly clarify why a motorist should not stop at a give way sign (if there was traffic on the main road). I await with bated breath for the revelation!

....and do please explain why he should accrue points on his driving licence for doing so. I think the whole world would probably wait with bated breath for that one!
I did not blame you did i. All i said was all road users can be idiots including lorry drivers my own profession. I get pissed off straddling 2 lanes with my left turn idicater flashing and an audio left turn warning but still cars, cyclist and cars try to cut me up on the inside. I have even had Pedestrians try to cross whilst turning, this is why i said all road users can be idiots.

And to answer ur question should u have to pay for the damage to ur car if hit by cyclist, NO, they should also have to have insurence.






a
 




GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
47,254
Gloucester
I did not blame you did i. All i said was all road users can be idiots including lorry drivers my own profession. I get pissed off straddling 2 lanes with my left turn idicater flashing and an audio left turn warning but still cars, cyclist and cars try to cut me up on the inside. I have even had Pedestrians try to cross whilst turning, this is why i said all road users can be idiots.

And to answer ur question should u have to pay for the damage to ur car if hit by cyclist, NO, they should also have to have insurence.
I was originally answering a post in which the poster said that any contact between a motor vehicle and a cyclist or pedestrian should automatically be the motorist's fault - which I'm sure you will agree is bollocks. Perhaps you didn't follow the conversation back far enough. As per my example, for instance, should I have sued the car driver for stopping rather than driving straight out into traffic on the main road?

No, I shouldn't have. Every collision between a car and a bike is not automatically the car driver's fault, and should not be treated as such.
 


dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
53,166
Burgess Hill
I was originally answering a post in which the poster said that any contact between a motor vehicle and a cyclist or pedestrian should automatically be the motorist's fault - which I'm sure you will agree is bollocks. Perhaps you didn't follow the conversation back far enough. As per my example, for instance, should I have sued the car driver for stopping rather than driving straight out into traffic on the main road?

No, I shouldn't have. Every collision between a car and a bike is not automatically the car driver's fault, and should not be treated as such.
 




BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,436
We’re digressing here with examples of kamikaze cycling by some teens and similar. It’s always gone on, until older and wiser, a lot of young males/kids think they’re indestructible.

I’ve never heard anyone say the ensuing incidents are the fault of drivers full stop.

But as folk in charge of a 1.5T lump of steel, we should do all we reasonably can to minimise the odds of hurting someone or something.

An example. Sometimes I spot cyclists using the road in the dark with no lights on. What’s the point of being angry with them, they may just teens where their light batteries have run out …. it happens to my son. Instead spot them asap and give them a wide berth. Don’t use the mobile, try to drive within the limit and recall what you learnt all those years ago in lessons (near, middle and far hazard perception) all helps.

Then realising how the anti cyclist brigade have hijacked this thread. The same applies in not mowing down pensioners crossing the road, kids running out, motorcyclists, folk in tiny city cars, pets and wildlife.

Slow down a bit, put the mobile away, think about potential hazards.
I do get cross when I see cyclists without lights, and to be honest, they are usually youngsters, although not exclusively. If a motorist was to injure one of these cyclists, not only would the cyclist suffer, but the incident could be very traumatic for the poor motorist.
Yes, of course we should spot them as soon as we can and give them a wide berth, but there is a reason why the law states that bicycles ridden at night should have visible front and rear lights and I dare say that should a police officer spot any miscreants, that officer would give them a good talking to.
I don’t think any anti cyclist brigade has hijacked this thread, I think that the post suggesting that, ‘ biggest change in the law we could make is that any vehicle that is involved in a collision or accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, it is their fault and they face a consequence in law regardless of the circumstances,’ probably had something to do with it!
I understand what Bold Seagull was on about when he made this remark, but possibly, it wasn’t phrased quite as it might have been.
 
Last edited:




worthingseagull123

Well-known member
May 5, 2012
2,603
I did learn at my speed awareness course that flashing yellow lights on motorways showing a reduced speed limit is only advisory.

Before I did the speed awareness course, I would have slowed down for such signs.
 


Shropshire Seagull

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2004
8,585
Telford
I did learn at my speed awareness course that flashing yellow lights on motorways showing a reduced speed limit is only advisory.

Before I did the speed awareness course, I would have slowed down for such signs.
Which is sensible, heeding advice.
Are you now saying you would ignore the flashing yellow advice because is not mandatory?
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here