Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.

[4040vision]

JNW1 said:

Ok, what I'm saying is that the current method of enforcement is causing lots of people to fall foul of the law who would otherwise never do so. I would also venture to suggest that at the speed they're doing many of these people probably wouldn't attract the attention of a traffic policeman either; highly unlikely you'd be pulled over by one of them for doing 80mph on a dual carriageway but NIP time if you pass a camera van at that speed.

You are exactly right. Those same people, now caught out, are being educated in the way of the law. Hopefully and in practice the vast majority don't reoffend or get caught out again. This way they can be encouraged to be compliant and drive safer.
They are not criminalised just shocked into knowing what they should have done before they were penalised.
A reduction in speeds of traffic is shown by theory and practice to cause fewer and less serious injuries. This is factual and is not disproven by handy engineers pointing back to their own biased and knob-jockey websites with bogus reports.
So do enforcement cameras improve safety? Yes they do.

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

So is there any evidence to show that increased enforcement of the limits via the use of cameras has made our roads safer? I admit I've only looked at the statistics for the county in which I live but by reference to the established measures such as fatalities and serious injuries the local Safety Camera Partnership has achieved nothing (unless you count criminalising a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens, in which case it's been quite successful).

You are still not quite getting it. It's not the enforcement (by whatever means) that makes roads safer, it's the speed limits themselves.

How can speed limits make roads safer unless they're enforced?

I adhered the limits where there was no enforcement today. I did so because there may have been at any point along my journey. There will have actually been enforcement covering only a minute fraction of my journey, but because it existed & the potential for it existing anywhere along the journey, the effects went far beyond where only the enforcement actually was.

That seems like you're saying you obey the limits because you know they're enforced (i.e. you don't drive at the limits because you think they're always inherently safe per se, you drive to them because you realise you may get prosecuted if you don't).

Given the choice I'd driver faster than the posted limit quite a bit of the time when I considered it safe to do so. At the times I would it would (IMHO) have been acceptably safe to travel at that speed above the limit, or indeed a speed below it too. I primarily don't drive above it (where I believe it is safe to) because of the threat of enforcement.

Of course where I considered it only safe to drive at a speed below the limit I would only do that.

Whilst I believe I can safely drive at speeds often far in excess of the limit, I can understand why others might not want me to.
For personal selfish reason I may want to, but equally they'll have valid reason they don't want me to.
Whilst I am happy I can personally judge what's acceptably safe at speeds often far in excess of the limit, I'm not in denial that it represents more risk than me driving at a lower speed (even if it's only a slight increase in risk, risk being a function of likelihood & severity of outcome should it transpire). I also have to accept that whilst I may be happy with the slightly raised risks, others who I share the roads with may not be.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

So is there any evidence to show that increased enforcement of the limits via the use of cameras has made our roads safer? I admit I've only looked at the statistics for the county in which I live but by reference to the established measures such as fatalities and serious injuries the local Safety Camera Partnership has achieved nothing (unless you count criminalising a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens, in which case it's been quite successful).

You are still not quite getting it. It's not the enforcement (by whatever means) that makes roads safer, it's the speed limits themselves.

How can speed limits make roads safer unless they're enforced?

I adhered the limits where there was no enforcement today. I did so because there may have been at any point along my journey. There will have actually been enforcement covering only a minute fraction of my journey, but because it existed & the potential for it existing anywhere along the journey, the effects went far beyond where only the enforcement actually was.

That seems like you're saying you obey the limits because you know they're enforced (i.e. you don't drive at the limits because you think they're always inherently safe per se, you drive to them because you realise you may get prosecuted if you don't).

Given the choice I'd driver faster than the posted limit quite a bit of the time when I considered it safe to do so. At the times I would it would (IMHO) have been acceptably safe to travel at that speed above the limit, or indeed a speed below it too. I primarily don't drive above it (where I believe it is safe to) because of the threat of enforcement.

Of course where I considered it only safe to drive at a speed below the limit I would only do that.

Whilst I believe I can safely drive at speeds often far in excess of the limit, I can understand why others might not want me to.
For personal selfish reason I may want to, but equally they'll have valid reason they don't want me to.
Whilst I am happy I can personally judge what's acceptably safe at speeds often far in excess of the limit, I'm not in denial that it represents more risk than me driving at a lower speed (even if it's only a slight increase in risk, risk being a function of likelihood & severity of outcome should it transpire). I also have to accept that whilst I may be happy with the slightly raised risks, others who I share the roads with may not be.

I get all of that but the point I was making in response to Singlecoil was that speed limits in themselves do not make roads safer, there needs to be enforcement as well for them to be effective. His last post - in which he concedes he at least on occasion drives to the speed limits because he realises he may be prosecuted if the doesn't - seems to suggest he now agrees!

[JNW1]

4040vision said:

So do enforcement cameras improve safety? Yes they do.

You can provide some evidence to support this then?

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

I get all of that but the point I was making in response to Singlecoil was that speed limits in themselves do not make roads safer, there needs to be enforcement as well for them to be effective. His last post - in which he concedes he at least on occasion drives to the speed limits because he realises he may be prosecuted if the doesn't - seems to suggest he now agrees!

I didn't react to that point because it struck me as being particularly obvious.

It's only occasionally that I actually agree that the limit on the road I am driving on is appropriate for me, but it is only rarely that I exceed that limit. So in fact the majority of the time the speed I drive at is strongly influenced by the possible presence of a speed camera.

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

So is there any evidence to show that increased enforcement of the limits via the use of cameras has made our roads safer? I admit I've only looked at the statistics for the county in which I live but by reference to the established measures such as fatalities and serious injuries the local Safety Camera Partnership has achieved nothing (unless you count criminalising a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens, in which case it's been quite successful).

You are still not quite getting it. It's not the enforcement (by whatever means) that makes roads safer, it's the speed limits themselves.

How can speed limits make roads safer unless they're enforced?

I adhered the limits where there was no enforcement today. I did so because there may have been at any point along my journey. There will have actually been enforcement covering only a minute fraction of my journey, but because it existed & the potential for it existing anywhere along the journey, the effects went far beyond where only the enforcement actually was.

That seems like you're saying you obey the limits because you know they're enforced (i.e. you don't drive at the limits because you think they're always inherently safe per se, you drive to them because you realise you may get prosecuted if you don't).

Given the choice I'd driver faster than the posted limit quite a bit of the time when I considered it safe to do so. At the times I would it would (IMHO) have been acceptably safe to travel at that speed above the limit, or indeed a speed below it too. I primarily don't drive above it (where I believe it is safe to) because of the threat of enforcement.

Of course where I considered it only safe to drive at a speed below the limit I would only do that.

Whilst I believe I can safely drive at speeds often far in excess of the limit, I can understand why others might not want me to.
For personal selfish reason I may want to, but equally they'll have valid reason they don't want me to.
Whilst I am happy I can personally judge what's acceptably safe at speeds often far in excess of the limit, I'm not in denial that it represents more risk than me driving at a lower speed (even if it's only a slight increase in risk, risk being a function of likelihood & severity of outcome should it transpire). I also have to accept that whilst I may be happy with the slightly raised risks, others who I share the roads with may not be.

I get all of that but the point I was making in response to Singlecoil was that speed limits in themselves do not make roads safer, there needs to be enforcement as well for them to be effective. His last post - in which he concedes he at least on occasion drives to the speed limits because he realises he may be prosecuted if the doesn't - seems to suggest he now agrees!

It's people's speed choice being influenced by an external influence that provides safety (amongst other benefits). The limits dictate where & what that attempt to influence is, the camera just encourages compliance with that or provides evidence of those that don't.
If the limit is inappropriately set the benefit isn't realised. Whether it's enforced or not doesn't change that.
If the limit is appropriately set the benefit can be realised, where there is encouragement to then comply. (The actual enforcement doesn't have to be present as long as the possibility of it being there exists & the belief that it could be & the penalties wish to be avoided also exists).
Ergo it's the limit that determines if there is going to be a benefit from being appropriately set & the enforcement just encourages compliance so that benefit can be realised.
It's the effects of limits system wide that is important, not the effect on a tiny piece of tarmac where the camera is actually present.

[Engineer792]

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

0000 said:

vonhosen said:

0000 said:

vonhosen said:

Not really very interesting.
Their best performing years were before all that with lower speed limits (65mph) & secondary seat belt law.
Rather than snapshot selective data that those who like to quote the 'Montana paradox' use, you can look at more detailed more encompassing info.
It started to go wrong when they messed about with 'reasonable & prudent', 'no limit' & 'higher national limits'


http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/...
(Graph on Page 9).

If best performing is just fewest fatalities we may as well go back to a time before cars in Montana, or anywhere else, covered a single mile.

The graph on page 14 is far more useful for anyone who isn't completely anti-car at all cost and it doesn't paint the same picture.

The measure chosen was that chosen by those espousing the 'montana paradox' i.e. fatalities.
The graph on page 9 shows trend & when various measures were implemented, the messing about & following higher limits is when trend started rising.
That's not anti car, there is utility in vehicle transport & the graph is against a backdrop of rising vehicle use (even when there was a downward fatality trend). It's surely preferable for fewer fatalities & a slightly lower limit, than a rising trend along with no or a slightly higher limit, no?

No, the vehicle use increase isn't consistent enough to wave your hand and say that and the graph on page 14 shows that's incorrect. The trend you think you see is not there when you account for vehicle use.

You're saying it's not preferable to have a 65mph limit & fewer fatalities than a 75 limit & higher fatalities?
Them's the figures.
As I said those supporting the 'Montana paradox' chose the unit of measure (i.e. fatalities per year).
Your graph on page 14 shows a sharp spike & higher fatality levels during the 'reasonable & prudent' & higher limit periods.

The graph on page 14 shows little or no statistically significant difference in trend between Montana and the rest of the country.

The sharp spike of which you speak is probably no more than statistical noise.

It certainly doesn't support a 'Montana paradox' (which is what I've been addressing with this).

If it's that for which you wish to provide support, for or against, you're looking at the wrong document.
The 'reasonable and prudent' limits applied only to rural interstate roads between 1995 and 1999, whereas this document gives the figures for the whole state.

Edited by Engineer792 on Friday 24th March 23:56

[Davidonly]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

That seems like you're saying you obey the limits because you know they're enforced (i.e. you don't drive at the limits because you think they're always inherently safe per se, you drive to them because you realise you may get prosecuted if you don't).

Well, you've certainly described me there, apart from the strawman about limits being safe. Safety is a thing that exists in degrees, not absolutes. Limits are where the line has been drawn by the relevant authority as the best compromise between the competing criteria.

This is the issue: the 'compromise' is not one that the majority of drivers agree with many cases. These are 'our' roads and we have too little say in how they are administered.

[singlecoil]

Davidonly said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

That seems like you're saying you obey the limits because you know they're enforced (i.e. you don't drive at the limits because you think they're always inherently safe per se, you drive to them because you realise you may get prosecuted if you don't).

Well, you've certainly described me there, apart from the strawman about limits being safe. Safety is a thing that exists in degrees, not absolutes. Limits are where the line has been drawn by the relevant authority as the best compromise between the competing criteria.

This is the issue: the 'compromise' is not one that the majority of drivers agree with many cases. These are 'our' roads and we have too little say in how they are administered.

As a matter of interest, how do you know that? As for too little say, this country is still a democracy. The aggrieved drivers you are referring to have as much say as anyone else.

[Davidonly]

singlecoil said:

Davidonly said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

That seems like you're saying you obey the limits because you know they're enforced (i.e. you don't drive at the limits because you think they're always inherently safe per se, you drive to them because you realise you may get prosecuted if you don't).

Well, you've certainly described me there, apart from the strawman about limits being safe. Safety is a thing that exists in degrees, not absolutes. Limits are where the line has been drawn by the relevant authority as the best compromise between the competing criteria.

This is the issue: the 'compromise' is not one that the majority of drivers agree with many cases. These are 'our' roads and we have too little say in how they are administered.

As a matter of interest, how do you know that? As for too little say, this country is still a democracy. The aggrieved drivers you are referring to have as much say as anyone else.

Seriously??? .... issues of common sense / majority view ought to be decided outside the process of general elections ... Policy is influenced in many ways and it seems to me that 'anti' pressure groups have a significant impact - without the need for a manifesto mandate ....

The ballot box version of this discussion has been done to death. Its clearly ludicrous to suggest that is the only way to change the absurd direction of travel.

[singlecoil]

Davidonly said:

Seriously??? .... issues of common sense / majority view ought to be decided outside the process of general elections ... Policy is influenced in many ways and it seems to me that 'anti' pressure groups have a significant impact - without the need for a manifesto mandate ....

The ballot box version of this discussion has been done to death. Its clearly ludicrous to suggest that is the only way to change the absurd direction of travel.

Yes, absolutely seriously.

And they are decided outside elections, decided by the people that were elected. That's the whole point of elections!

This really is basic stuff and I shouldn't need to explain it to you.

And it really isn't up to you and your friends to decide what the will of the majority is.

[Davidonly]

singlecoil said:

Davidonly said:

Seriously??? .... issues of common sense / majority view ought to be decided outside the process of general elections ... Policy is influenced in many ways and it seems to me that 'anti' pressure groups have a significant impact - without the need for a manifesto mandate ....

The ballot box version of this discussion has been done to death. Its clearly ludicrous to suggest that is the only way to change the absurd direction of travel.

Yes, absolutely seriously.

And they are decided outside elections, decided by the people that were elected. That's the whole point of elections!

This really is basic stuff and I shouldn't need to explain it to you.

And it really isn't up to you and your friends to decide what the will of the majority is.

And who voted for "Brake' and several other pressure groups to represent the issues they do ? The only group not consulted in a fair way on roads policy is actual drivers..... And you are terribly patronising. How's that working out for you?

Its a stitch-up between Government / biased influencers and vested interests. And we all know how far complacency can take bad policy. The 'system' relies on that a lot too - many people WOULD ask for change to issues like the NSL but are never asked by those that have power. I shouldn't need to be saying this either. All grown-ups know how bent 'democracy' is in this regard: Worst possible form of gov't but better than any of the alternatives.

[singlecoil]

Davidonly said:

And who voted for "Brake' and several other pressure groups to represent the issues they do ? The only group not consulted in a fair way on roads policy is actual drivers..... And you are terribly patronising. How's that working out for you?

Its a stitch-up between Government / biased influencers and vested interests. And we all know how far complacency can take bad policy. The 'system' relies on that a lot too - many people WOULD ask for change to issues like the NSL but are never asked by those that have power. I shouldn't need to be saying this either. All grown-ups know how bent 'democracy' is in this regard: Worst possible form of gov't but better than any of the alternatives.

This is verging on tin-foil hysteria. David. I suggest you calm down and have another read of what you've written.

And really, if there is a grain of truth in what you've written (something you've said, but not proved or even demonstrated) then why are you waiting to be asked? If other groups have enough support to lobby for the change they want, then why haven't you?

I'll tell you, it's because outside your bubble nobody else cares about being allowed to drive at 90 or whatever on the motorway. Cars are just a way of getting from one place to another and if that can be done without worrying about people like you whizzing past at the speed you consider appropriate, then they see that as a good thing.

[768]

I don't believe there's a deliberate stitch up. I do believe there's an inconsistency in a relatively small but significant number of individuals who earn an income from enforcing limits and therefore with a strong vested interest in perpetuating that enforcement which does not exist in the other side.

I'd suggest paying a small team of statisticians and giving them the authority to obtain and release data with reports on where limits or even enforcement aren't in the public interest.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

Cars are just a way of getting from one place to another.

Needless to say I don't agree with the sentiment above but I think the mindset perhaps explains better than anything else why we have the sort of situation we do on our roads today. There are now far too many with the "my car's just a method of getting from A to B" mentality and often that really shows in both the standard of their driving and their general attitude to motoring; sadly, however, they're now in the majority and many of them represent the lowest common denominator to which we're all being systematically reduced.

I think a significant number of drivers do still appreciate there's potentially far more to a car than just getting from one place to another but sadly I suspect they represent a steadily declining proportion of our total motoring population....

[Gavia]

JNW1 said:

Needless to say I don't agree with the sentiment above but I think the mindset perhaps explains better than anything else why we have the sort of situation we do on our roads today. There are now far too many with the "my car's just a method of getting from A to B" mentality and often that really shows in both the standard of their driving and their general attitude to motoring; sadly, however, they're now in the majority and many of them represent the lowest common denominator to which we're all being systematically reduced.

I think a significant number of drivers do still appreciate there's potentially far more to a car than just getting from one place to another but sadly I suspect they represent a steadily declining proportion of our total motoring population....

What is a car if not a means of getting from A to B? The fact that some of us enjoy that journey, or take pride in the way we do it is irrelevant. Petrolheads have always been the minority of drivers, other than when cars were first invented. Even now there are different types of petrolheads, kids in souped up stuff, those with stanced cars, off roaders, supercar drivers and so on.

We don't have the right to whizz around how we want and never have had. The fact we can still get away with it most of the time is a positive IMO.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Cars are just a way of getting from one place to another.

Needless to say I don't agree with the sentiment above but I think the mindset perhaps explains better than anything else why we have the sort of situation we do on our roads today. There are now far too many with the "my car's just a method of getting from A to B" mentality and often that really shows in both the standard of their driving and their general attitude to motoring; sadly, however, they're now in the majority and many of them represent the lowest common denominator to which we're all being systematically reduced.

I think a significant number of drivers do still appreciate there's potentially far more to a car than just getting from one place to another but sadly I suspect they represent a steadily declining proportion of our total motoring population....

The fact that you don't agree with the sentiment doesn't alter the fact that the majority of people (which was the point of the post from which you extracted the above quote) do. It's a fact that a lot of the posters on threads such as these just can't (don't want?) to grasp. A good many of the people who own cars of which the average PHer would approve do so more to impress neighbours than because the other thrill of driving them, which further reduces the number of people who want to be allowed to drive faster than is currently feasible.

[768]

I think you're lost. Amongst other things.

[singlecoil]

768 said:

I think you're lost. Amongst other things.

I gather you disapprove of my remarks, but do not have the words to express why.

[Kenny Powers]

Engineer792 said:

What is this 'reward' of which you speak?

G-Force.