Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

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

Of course it is, the public can pay money to avoid the other great scammers in life, the insurance companies. The whole speed kills message is as out of date as our forces themselves. The law should protect the public, not be used to extort cash. If safety was a real concern to the authorities then yearly training would be mandatory, It's not. It's a ludicrous situation where the Police are fundamentally just traffic wardens and logistics. But don't get me started on how inept they are at the actual nuts and bolts of what we as taxpayers fund them to do.

[FidoGoRetroGo]

Yes they do. They raise millions.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

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

Of course it is, the public can pay money to avoid the other great scammers in life, the insurance companies. The whole speed kills message is as out of date as our forces themselves. The law should protect the public, not be used to extort cash. If safety was a real concern to the authorities then yearly training would be mandatory, It's not. It's a ludicrous situation where the Police are fundamentally just traffic wardens and logistics. But don't get me started on how inept they are at the actual nuts and bolts of what we as taxpayers fund them to do.

They've committed an offence.
Where it's really minor in nature no action is taken.
Where it's a little more up the scale they may be given a choice between education or fine/points (their choice)
Where it's a little more up the scale they get fine/points.

That doesn't sound like blackmail.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 21st January 16:41

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

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?

They are exceeding the limit, the offence doesn't require any extra factor when doing so, it's purposely written that there doesn't have to be any danger from the exceeding the limit for their to be an offence. Simply exceeding the limit is enough & it's been that way for over 100 years. It isn't written that way for SCPs to make money, it was written like that way way before SCPs were even thought of.

The limits aren't only about safety (they are also other reasons such as environmental, traffic management etc.)
If there are lots of speeders today then there may be more cameras tomorrow, that's the nature of things with the funding.
If there are fewer speeders today then there may be fewer fewer cameras tomorrow.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

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?

They are exceeding the limit, the offence doesn't require any extra factor when doing so, it's purposely written that there doesn't have to be any danger from the exceeding the limit for their to be an offence. Simply exceeding the limit is enough & it's been that way for over 100 years.
The limits aren't only about safety (they are also other reasons such as environmental, traffic management etc.)
If there are lots of speeders today then there may be more cameras tomorrow, that's the nature of things with the funding.
If there are fewer speeders today then there may be fewer fewer cameras tomorrow.

Ok but IMO they shouldn't claim they're about safety - and call themselves Safety Camera Partnerships - if they can't demonstrate they're doing anything to improve safety; they should just be honest and admit they're speed limit enforcement cameras....

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

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?

They are exceeding the limit, the offence doesn't require any extra factor when doing so, it's purposely written that there doesn't have to be any danger from the exceeding the limit for their to be an offence. Simply exceeding the limit is enough & it's been that way for over 100 years.
The limits aren't only about safety (they are also other reasons such as environmental, traffic management etc.)
If there are lots of speeders today then there may be more cameras tomorrow, that's the nature of things with the funding.
If there are fewer speeders today then there may be fewer fewer cameras tomorrow.

Ok but IMO they shouldn't claim they're about safety - and call themselves Safety Camera Partnerships - if they can't demonstrate they're doing anything to improve safety; they should just be honest and admit they're speed limit enforcement cameras....

They don't only do speed offences so saying 'speed limit enforcement cameras' would be even less accurate.
They also operate red light cameras, as well as providing evidence of other offences for prosecution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/478568...

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

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?

They are exceeding the limit, the offence doesn't require any extra factor when doing so, it's purposely written that there doesn't have to be any danger from the exceeding the limit for their to be an offence. Simply exceeding the limit is enough & it's been that way for over 100 years.
The limits aren't only about safety (they are also other reasons such as environmental, traffic management etc.)
If there are lots of speeders today then there may be more cameras tomorrow, that's the nature of things with the funding.
If there are fewer speeders today then there may be fewer fewer cameras tomorrow.

Ok but IMO they shouldn't claim they're about safety - and call themselves Safety Camera Partnerships - if they can't demonstrate they're doing anything to improve safety; they should just be honest and admit they're speed limit enforcement cameras....

They don't only do speed offences so saying 'speed limit enforcement cameras' would be even less accurate.
They also operate red light cameras, as well as providing evidence of other offences for prosecution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/478568...

It would be interesting to know what percentage of NIP's issued by mobile camera vans are for offences other than speeding; I suspect it's less than 5% with the young lady in your link being one of a tiny minority. That being the case I still think speed limit enforcement cameras is a far more accurate description than safety cameras!

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

It would be interesting to know what percentage of NIP's issued by mobile camera vans are for offences other than speeding; I suspect it's less than 5% with the young lady in your link being one of a tiny minority. That being the case I still think speed limit enforcement cameras is a far more accurate description than safety cameras!

It has fk all to do with safety. Why offer the course to avoid points, out of love for the motorist

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

They've committed an offence.
Where it's really minor in nature no action is taken.
Where it's a little more up the scale they may be given a choice between education or fine/points (their choice)
Where it's a little more up the scale they get fine/points.

That doesn't sound like blackmail.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 21st January 16:41

How's that tower of yours?

I'll repeat. If the authorities were bothered about safety there would be a mandatory review each year. This is just a very thinly vieled way to avoid points, raise cash with this BS about safety on top.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

They've committed an offence.
Where it's really minor in nature no action is taken.
Where it's a little more up the scale they may be given a choice between education or fine/points (their choice)
Where it's a little more up the scale they get fine/points.

That doesn't sound like blackmail.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 21st January 16:41

How's that tower of yours?

I'll repeat. If the authorities were bothered about safety there would be a mandatory review each year. This is just a very thinly vieled way to avoid points, raise cash with this BS about safety on top.

Mandatory review of what?

[JNW1]

yonex said:

JNW1 said:

It would be interesting to know what percentage of NIP's issued by mobile camera vans are for offences other than speeding; I suspect it's less than 5% with the young lady in your link being one of a tiny minority. That being the case I still think speed limit enforcement cameras is a far more accurate description than safety cameras!

It has fk all to do with safety. Why offer the course to avoid points, out of love for the motorist

Personally I see the issue of the NIP and the resultant punishment as slightly separate things.

Once a NIP has been issued I do see potential value in a SAC which is properly run (i.e. isn't just a patronising lecture). However, it seems a downside of taking that option is that you actually help to fund the continued use of the cameras which in turn makes it more likely you'll be caught offending in the future (unless of course the SAC did indeed change your behaviour and you no longer speed!).

However, the issue I have is the initial serving of the NIP is done in the name of safety by these Safety Camera Partnerships when many (most?) of the offences have nothing to do with safety. The reality is we're just using technology to increase the detection level, hence my view a more honest description for these devices would be speed limit enforcement cameras. They may on occasion be used to enforce other things (as vonhosen has illustrated) but I suspect the vast majority of the NIP's they issue - and hence the income they generate in order to continue to function - comes from speeding.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Mandatory review of what?

Of the drivers standards. The SAC would become the basis for a refresher each year. This is what would happen if the authorities wanted to improve driving standards across the board, they're not. What they do is offer an expensive course to people who can ill afford points on their licence.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

Mandatory review of what?

Of the drivers standards. The SAC would become the basis for a refresher each year. This is what would happen if the authorities wanted to improve driving standards across the board, they're not. What they do is offer an expensive course to people who can ill afford points on their licence.

That's a far bigger fish, a totally different topic & probably in the too unpopular with the electorate tray.
I don't want the arse ache of a yearly driving assessment.

The authorities want people to adhere to the limits, that's what speed limits/enforcement is about & they do it in a manner that isn't going to upset the applecart with the electorate.
If you can ill afford points on your licence, then don't act in a way that's likely to accrue them.

I'd much rather they detect & concentrate on people who aren't doing what's appropriate, than throw a retest blanket over everybody.
That's what the offences/points system is about.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

That's a far bigger fish, a totally different topic & probably in the too unpopular with the electorate tray.
I don't want the arse ache of a yearly driving assessment.

The authorities want people to adhere to the limits, that's what speed limits/enforcement is about & they do it in a manner that isn't going to upset the applecart with the electorate.
If you can ill afford points on your licence, then don't act in a way that's likely to accrue them.

I'd much rather they detect & concentrate on people who aren't doing what's appropriate, than throw a retest blanket over everybody.
That's what the offences/points system is about.

Well as an average driver I don't really want the Police, and all their nasty little enterprises cashing in on BS, but we can't always have what we wish for? The authorities care about one thing, when they all get round to admitting this they gain some respect, until then it's a case of do what we say, not what we do. It's easy to quote law, the fact all of us break them, even those 'professional' drivers in Police cars and why and when speed determines accidents is all very well known. But, we find ourselves back at the start. It's too easy to make money at this to actually pay attention to what is really important.

[Devil2575]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

Mandatory review of what?

Of the drivers standards. The SAC would become the basis for a refresher each year. This is what would happen if the authorities wanted to improve driving standards across the board, they're not. What they do is offer an expensive course to people who can ill afford points on their licence.

Sorry but what problem are you trying to fix with a mandatory yearly refresher? What evidence have you got that standards need improving?

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

That's a far bigger fish, a totally different topic & probably in the too unpopular with the electorate tray.
I don't want the arse ache of a yearly driving assessment.

The authorities want people to adhere to the limits, that's what speed limits/enforcement is about & they do it in a manner that isn't going to upset the applecart with the electorate.
If you can ill afford points on your licence, then don't act in a way that's likely to accrue them.

I'd much rather they detect & concentrate on people who aren't doing what's appropriate, than throw a retest blanket over everybody.
That's what the offences/points system is about.

Well as an average driver I don't really want the Police, and all their nasty little enterprises cashing in on BS, but we can't always have what we wish for? The authorities care about one thing, when they all get round to admitting this they gain some respect, until then it's a case of do what we say, not what we do. It's easy to quote law, the fact all of us break them, even those 'professional' drivers in Police cars and why and when speed determines accidents is all very well known. But, we find ourselves back at the start. It's too easy to make money at this to actually pay attention to what is really important.

The Police don't get the cash.
It goes to the one big government pot in the case of fines & the SCP get funded by the government & some from SACs etc.
If you really want to avoid paying fines etc it's not that hard to do by moderating your behaviour.
Police get prosecuted where they get caught breaking the rules too.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

The Police don't get the cash.
It goes to the one big government pot in the case of fines & the SCP get funded by the government & some from SACs etc.
If you really want to avoid paying fines etc it's not that hard to do by moderating your behaviour.
Police get prosecuted where they get caught breaking the rules too.

You're not listening, what a surprise. As you were.

[Crackie]

Devil2575 said:

What evidence have you got that standards need improve, ng?

Pardon me ?? I would be surprised if there were many motorists, at least the ones who had their eyes open whilst driving, who didn't encounter another road user whose driving standards need improving on every journey. A couple of minutes is usually sufficient; happens on most corners in town and virtually every roundabout.

[vonhosen]

Crackie said:

Devil2575 said:

What evidence have you got that standards need improve, ng?

Pardon me ?? I would be surprised if there were many motorists, at least the ones who had their eyes open whilst driving, who didn't encounter another road user whose driving standards need improving on every journey. A couple of minutes is usually sufficient; happens on most corners in town and virtually every roundabout.

Of course there is room for everybody to do better, but our system doesn't only operate (nor should it) on a basis that we all need to be perfect.
I think that is broadly the point he may be making, that & our system seems to provide results that are the envy of the vast majority of countries.
As it is, we also have a system in place that identifies behaviour that falls below the acceptable & a method to address/influence change in that behaviour.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

The Police don't get the cash.
It goes to the one big government pot in the case of fines & the SCP get funded by the government & some from SACs etc.
If you really want to avoid paying fines etc it's not that hard to do by moderating your behaviour.
Police get prosecuted where they get caught breaking the rules too.

You're not listening, what a surprise. As you were.

It's you're not making sense, just having a tin foil hat rant. No surprise. As you were.