Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[Red Devil]

vonhosen said:

I don't care if you claim credit, or who else does.
If improved figures were the goal & achieved it's a win.
Celebrate the win, it doesn't matter if it's down to the goal keeper's performance, the full back, the centre forward or anyone else.
As long as we keep winning

(Wins don't have to come in just one area, they can be safety, environmental, traffic management etc etc.
Also wins don't have to occur in every individual place for it to be a win, it's a nationwide exercise not just local).

It's a team exercise & you're part of the team, well done

I'm afraid your sporting analogy doesn't stack up.

It's wholly disingenuous for the full back who gets beaten time after time to claim full credit for the 1-0 win when the rest of the team know full well it's down to the goal keeper making save after save, thereby maintaining a clean sheet, and the centre forward snatching the vital winning goal in the 89th minute.

[Mill Wheel]

Red Devil said:

I'm afraid your sporting analogy doesn't stack up.

It's wholly disingenuous for the full back who gets beaten time after time to claim full credit for the 1-0 win when the rest of the team know full well it's down to the goal keeper making save after save, thereby maintaining a clean sheet, and the centre forward snatching the vital winning goal in the 89th minute.

You haven't been watching Carlisle United play for years, have you!

[Devil2575]

vonhosen said:

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

It's an offence.
It's fairly easy to detect & provide evidence of.
It exists for safety, environmental & traffic management etc reasons.
It can be addressed in a cost effective way as far as the public purse is concerned.

In the majority of circumstances it is nothing but a stealth tax.
That happens to financially reward a vast number of useless bds in the process.
A government sponsored scam.

I'm aware that's how you view it, but that fact doesn't alter how I view it or make it likely to change how it is.

He also clearly doesn't understand risk management.

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

You appear to fixated with speed, it's not only about speed.

When a speed camera is responsible for people going on speed awareness courses there's a strong argument that it's about speed.

[The Surveyor]

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

You appear to fixated with speed, it's not only about speed.

When a speed camera is responsible for people going on speed awareness courses there's a strong argument that it's about speed.

With that argument being strongly diluted by the contents of said 'speed awareness course' going beyond speeding. As has been said many times on this thread, the message of the actual courses focusses on road-craft and improved observation as much as it does on the 'speed kills' mantra.

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

He also clearly doesn't understand risk management.

If you wanted to reduce risk, then the best way surely would be to prevent speeding, thus intervene before offending occurred, but the example I gave of the elderly gentleman advising motorists to slow down before a speed trap, illustrates that the police were happy for the offending to occur until they had collected the toll for speeding.
Fixed cameras don't even make any intervention, and allows drivers to carry on speeding - where is the risk mitigation in that?
As for phone use, inappropriate overtaking, pulling out of junctions in front of other vehicles... what measures are in place to manage those risks, which feature so highly in stats 19 figures, and which incidentally, and example of which I used to illustrate the subject of this thread, when a SAC instructor committed an offence in overtaking dangerously?

[surveyor_101]

Rovinghawk said:

When a speed camera is responsible for people going on speed awareness courses there's a strong argument that it's about speed.

34 in 30 does not mean instant death for all other road users!

[Mill Wheel]

surveyor_101 said:

Rovinghawk said:

When a speed camera is responsible for people going on speed awareness courses there's a strong argument that it's about speed.

34 in 30 does not mean instant death for all other road users!

Especially if limits are set inappropriately.
The limit described earlier in the thread in Chiswick, "lowered to protect the work force working on a bridge" has the camera positioned AFTER the road works, as drivers LEAVE the reduced limit... hardly of any help to the work force half a mile behind!
It's only purpose can be to collect a toll for breaking the law, NOT a safety measure at all!

[Devil2575]

Mill Wheel said:

Devil2575 said:

He also clearly doesn't understand risk management.

If you wanted to reduce risk, then the best way surely would be to prevent speeding, thus intervene before offending occurred, but the example I gave of the elderly gentleman advising motorists to slow down before a speed trap, illustrates that the police were happy for the offending to occur until they had collected the toll for speeding.
Fixed cameras don't even make any intervention, and allows drivers to carry on speeding - where is the risk mitigation in that?
As for phone use, inappropriate overtaking, pulling out of junctions in front of other vehicles... what measures are in place to manage those risks, which feature so highly in stats 19 figures, and which incidentally, and example of which I used to illustrate the subject of this thread, when a SAC instructor committed an offence in overtaking dangerously?

Errr...

So you don't think that the risk of punishment serves as a deterent?

[vonhosen]

Mill Wheel said:

Devil2575 said:

He also clearly doesn't understand risk management.

If you wanted to reduce risk, then the best way surely would be to prevent speeding, thus intervene before offending occurred, but the example I gave of the elderly gentleman advising motorists to slow down before a speed trap, illustrates that the police were happy for the offending to occur until they had collected the toll for speeding.
Fixed cameras don't even make any intervention, and allows drivers to carry on speeding - where is the risk mitigation in that?

You walking around behind the store detective with a big sign saying 'Watch out - Store Detective' doesn't do much for long term behavioural change. It may have the effect of the shoplifter temporarily suspending his shoplifting so that he doesn't get caught, but it will not promote behavioural change.
An intervention following him getting caught is more likely to have a behavioural change effect & install in him a belief that he could be being observed anytime anywhere.

I'd rather the authorities decide where to use overt & covert enforcement, than you decide that they should only use overt.

Mill Wheel said:

As for phone use, inappropriate overtaking, pulling out of junctions in front of other vehicles... what measures are in place to manage those risks, which feature so highly in stats 19 figures, and which incidentally, and example of which I used to illustrate the subject of this thread, when a SAC instructor committed an offence in overtaking dangerously?

This sort of thing goes on.

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newse...

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 20th January 15:51

[vonhosen]

Mill Wheel said:

vonhosen said:

...because it's easy to spot & action.

Exactly, so the authorities see it as an easy source of income, dress it up as a valuable safety measure, and in some areas close down their RPUs, so that phone use, inattention and a myriad of other issues go largely unaddressed.

No, it was a safety measure etc prior to the current funding structure.
We've had limits & enforcement for almost as long as we've had vehicles, it's not suddenly being touted now that we have SCPs. Limits & enforcement of them on no other basis than the limit was being exceeded has been around for over 100 years. It's just that technology means that it can be done more efficiently now in respect of how many can be detected & processed. That's what happens with technology & why it is sought after/introduced into all kinds of areas.

The scaling down of RPUs isn't because of SCPs, it would have happened if we had them or not. It's a result of Police budget squeezes & Policing priorities.

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Errr...

So you don't think that the risk of punishment serves as a deterent?

Clearly not - the numbers of people being caught speeding are rising, and they are safe in the knowledge that a SAC is offered as long as they are only just above the limit so as not to get points on their license that might affect their insurance... a "Get out of Jail Free" card.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35170779

BBC News said:

Police see rise in income from speed awareness courses
Speed awareness courses provided more than £23m to 20 police force areas in England in one year, the BBC has learned.
Official figures show the number of drivers taking the courses increased 26.5% in that time.
Amounts charged vary as the courses are run by private companies.
Senior police officers claimed forces make no money from the courses and the fees only cover the cost of enforcement.
Most forces keep about £35 of the fee - between £79.50 and £92.50 in total - depending on area and course provider, or it goes to road safety partnerships they run with councils.
The money is to cover the costs of catching speeding motorists and processing offences.
Drivers can choose to take a course instead of receiving points on their licences, which can contribute to an eventual ban for repeated offences.
There was a 26.5% rise in drivers taking the course between 2013 and 2014.
In 2014, the last full year for which data is available, the 20 forces that responded in full to requests for information, out of 39 in England, retained £23.1m compared with £19.7m the year before - a rise of 17%.
For 2015, the figure was £18.3m up to the end of November, the time of asking, but does not take into account any income processed since then.

RAC said:

There was not a clear picture as to whether the courses cut re-offending.
Director Steve Gooding said: "Intuitively, education seems a better option than penalising drivers for what, in many cases, are minor transgressions.
"But we don't have a clear picture of whether the courses change behaviour."

But clearly some are open about the money:

BBC said:

In Bedfordshire, where police and crime commissioner Olly Martins believes turning on M1 speed cameras permanently will generate millions of pounds for the force, the number of people sent on awareness courses almost doubled in one year.
There were 20,562 courses completed in 2014 compared with 11,132 the year before. The force would not reveal its figures for 2015 at the time of asking.

[cmaguire]

The Surveyor said:

With that argument being strongly diluted by the contents of said 'speed awareness course' going beyond speeding. As has been said many times on this thread, the message of the actual courses focusses on road-craft and improved observation as much as it does on the 'speed kills' mantra.

Until there is a system in place similar to Ofsted with schools to police the consistency and quality of said courses your generalisation doesn't hold much water either.
Some of those courses are such utter 'going through the motions' ste the people running them should be the ones being fined for taking the piss.

[Mill Wheel]

cmaguire said:

Until there is a system in place similar to Ofsted with schools to police the consistency and quality of said courses your generalisation doesn't hold much water either.
Some of those courses are such utter 'going through the motions' ste the people running them should be the ones being fined for taking the piss.

Given the event that prompted this thread involved a course instructor making a catastrophic error of judgement, it does rather call into question whether the standards even a good course imbues in the attendees last beyond a few weeks or months.

[cmaguire]

Devil2575 said:

He also clearly doesn't understand risk management.

What I don't like is the State imposing unreasonable demands on my behaviour and expecting me to lap it up because they say so.
I'll continue to ignore them and do what I can to mitigate the risk of punishment, there is no other risk of significance.

[anonymous-user]

I have completed two courses. They're interesting, but let's get to the point. The only reason they are in place is to make money for the Police. It's a joke. It's no wonder they have so little respect.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

I have completed two courses. They're interesting, but let's get to the point. The only reason they are in place is to make money for the Police. It's a joke. It's no wonder they have so little respect.

The money doesn't go to Police budgets, it goes to SCPs.
Today's speeders are funding the SCP enforcement of tomorrow's speeders.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

The money doesn't go to Police budgets, it goes to SCPs.
Today's speeders are funding the SCP enforcement of tomorrow's speeders.

Which is effectively the same thing?

Glorifed traffic warden said:

Ch Insp Rachel Buckle, from the Roads Policing Unit, said: "This money has always been, and continues to be, used to fund our Central Ticket Office, the back office processing function. This has not changed as a consequence of austerity measures."

It's basically blackmailing the motorist. The pathetic advice that speed kills is long overdue a rethink. Especially by those lecturing in the SAC.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

The money doesn't go to Police budgets, it goes to SCPs.
Today's speeders are funding the SCP enforcement of tomorrow's speeders.

Which is effectively the same thing?

Glorifed traffic warden said:

Ch Insp Rachel Buckle, from the Roads Policing Unit, said: "This money has always been, and continues to be, used to fund our Central Ticket Office, the back office processing function. This has not changed as a consequence of austerity measures."

It's basically blackmailing the motorist. The pathetic advice that speed kills is long overdue a rethink. Especially by those lecturing in the SAC.

It's not blackmailing, it's SCPs enforcing the law.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

The money doesn't go to Police budgets, it goes to SCPs.
Today's speeders are funding the SCP enforcement of tomorrow's speeders.

Which is effectively the same thing?

Glorifed traffic warden said:

Ch Insp Rachel Buckle, from the Roads Policing Unit, said: "This money has always been, and continues to be, used to fund our Central Ticket Office, the back office processing function. This has not changed as a consequence of austerity measures."

It's basically blackmailing the motorist. The pathetic advice that speed kills is long overdue a rethink. Especially by those lecturing in the SAC.

It's not blackmailing, it's SCPs enforcing the law.

But often doing so in such a way as to appear to be focusing on raising revenue rather than targeting areas where there are known problems; an interesting approach to deployment if safety is indeed the priority!

Still, could explain why, despite a significant increase in camera usage, at least some SCP's can't demonstrate any safety improvements in terms of fatalities and serious injuries - perhaps they could if they put them in the right places?

Edited by JNW1 on Saturday 21st January 12:59