Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
cmaguire said:
JNW1 said:
Funnily enough, I tend to have less of an issue with the limits in built-up areas than I do with those on NSL roads and dual carriageways/motorways. There are obviously far more pedestrians around in built-up areas and therefore I do understand it's 30mph for a reason; that doesn't mean I've never exceeded a 30mph limit but hand on heart I'm far less likely to do so than exceed 60mph on a NSL or 70mph on a dual carriageway/motorway. On SAC's the tutors will give plenty of evidence to support why it's 30mph in built-up areas and that's fair enough IMO; however, ask them to provide similar evidence to support why it's 70mph on a motorway or dual carriageway and it all tends to go very quiet!
In terms of your safety percentage comment, I don't have the figures but I wouldn't mind betting there are more fatalities caused by vehicles doing 36mph in a 30 than there are by vehicles doing 100mph on motorways....
Not just more. Way more.In terms of your safety percentage comment, I don't have the figures but I wouldn't mind betting there are more fatalities caused by vehicles doing 36mph in a 30 than there are by vehicles doing 100mph on motorways....
On the last SAC I endured (have had two within the last 3 years, there both times having been 'caught' by SCP's in 70 limits) bar the brief question to show/ask about the limits that apply to various types of road, there was no mention whatsoever about Motorways and Dual Carriageway NSL.
The whole thing was urban areas (with continuous references to running people over, kids particularly) and roads between villages.
They're just pushing an agenda and conveniently overlooking and avoiding the gaping holes in their argument. With a lot of people lining their pockets whilst it continues.
Their latest favourite road sign:
Think!
Speed Kills
Slow down and save a
Child
Usually on a display on 60 mph roads, although the potential increase in its relevance if it were in towns or villages still wouldn't lessen the incongruity of the message.
This one has replaced the 'Don't drink' one running before Christmas which at least had some credibility.
Anyway I digress, the SAC I did before Christmas did touch on speeding on Motorways but only with regard to being aware of your speed in different weather conditions (indicating that the stated limit may be too fast in limited visibility such as fog) which was sensible, and indicating how speed and wet weather influences braking distances. They did confirm that Motorways were the safest roads and that the most KSI's occur in towns and cities and that is generally because there is a higher proportion of vulnerable pedestrians / cyclists rather than it being due to people specifically exceeding the limits. I think they are aware that pure data linking speeding with KSI's isn't totally conclusive so that was glossed over. You also wouldn't expect them to get drawn into discussions about if or when it was safe to exceed any posted limits however unrealistic you or I think they may be.
Devil2575 said:
How much money is being made?
You've made a claim there, can you back it up with any evidence?
Just an observation but you seem very quick to demand evidence from others but are then rather poor at providing it yourself when challenged to do so; "don't do as I do, do as I say" isn't a great stance to adopt IMO....You've made a claim there, can you back it up with any evidence?
JNW1 said:
Devil2575 said:
How much money is being made?
You've made a claim there, can you back it up with any evidence?
Just an observation but you seem very quick to demand evidence from others but are then rather poor at providing it yourself when challenged to do so; "don't do as I do, do as I say" isn't a great stance to adopt IMO....You've made a claim there, can you back it up with any evidence?
When you make a claim the onus of proof is on you.
I've never made any claims. I've commented on my own observations but never actually stated that something was the case.
The endless to and fro about enforcement is pretty pointless.
I agree with VH: there is little point in b
g about it, especially as there is some leeway incorporated.
Those with more than one brain cell know this and should be able to take into account.
The real issue is the apparently arbitrary choice of limits. Where is the rationale for these?
50 rather than NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/9U4RskC4MRE2
40 rather than 50/NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/ReCXUdoCQY62
40 rather than NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/G14yXFNdao62
Just three random examples, but similar nonsense can be found across the network.
It does nothing to engender respect for limits by those who use the roads.
The upshot is to defeat the whole point of having them in the first place.
It was a foreseeable result of the government allowing those in town and city halls free rein.
Unfortunately MPs are all too often oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
I agree with VH: there is little point in b
g about it, especially as there is some leeway incorporated.Those with more than one brain cell know this and should be able to take into account.
The real issue is the apparently arbitrary choice of limits. Where is the rationale for these?
50 rather than NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/9U4RskC4MRE2
40 rather than 50/NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/ReCXUdoCQY62
40 rather than NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/G14yXFNdao62
Just three random examples, but similar nonsense can be found across the network.
It does nothing to engender respect for limits by those who use the roads.
The upshot is to defeat the whole point of having them in the first place.
It was a foreseeable result of the government allowing those in town and city halls free rein.
Unfortunately MPs are all too often oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
Devil2575 said:
JNW1 said:
Devil2575 said:
How much money is being made?
You've made a claim there, can you back it up with any evidence?
Just an observation but you seem very quick to demand evidence from others but are then rather poor at providing it yourself when challenged to do so; "don't do as I do, do as I say" isn't a great stance to adopt IMO....You've made a claim there, can you back it up with any evidence?
When you make a claim the onus of proof is on you.
I've never made any claims. I've commented on my own observations but never actually stated that something was the case.
So if what you're saying is you were simply commenting on your own observations within North Yorkshire that's fine but in my book evidence carries far more credibility than what an individual may or may not have seen when they were driving around. Anyone who hasn't noticed the increased camera presence in North Yorkshire either a) doesn't drive in the County very often and/or b) isn't very observant behind the wheel. I'm guessing you fall into the former category in which case I don't know why you saw fit to enter a debate with someone who lives in the County and drives its roads on a daily basis!
Red Devil said:
The endless to and fro about enforcement is pretty pointless.
I agree with VH: there is little point in bg about it, especially as there is some leeway incorporated.
Those with more than one brain cell know this and should be able to take into account.
The real issue is the apparently arbitrary choice of limits. Where is the rationale for these?
50 rather than NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/9U4RskC4MRE2
40 rather than 50/NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/ReCXUdoCQY62
40 rather than NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/G14yXFNdao62
Just three random examples, but similar nonsense can be found across the network.
It does nothing to engender respect for limits by those who use the roads.
The upshot is to defeat the whole point of having them in the first place.
It was a foreseeable result of the government allowing those in town and city halls free rein.
Unfortunately MPs are all too often oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
The trouble is that the point you are making regarding inappropriate limits is still related to the anti-speed agenda the authorities are pushing with ever added vigour, along with their enforcement of such.I agree with VH: there is little point in b
g about it, especially as there is some leeway incorporated.Those with more than one brain cell know this and should be able to take into account.
The real issue is the apparently arbitrary choice of limits. Where is the rationale for these?
50 rather than NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/9U4RskC4MRE2
40 rather than 50/NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/ReCXUdoCQY62
40 rather than NSL - https://goo.gl/maps/G14yXFNdao62
Just three random examples, but similar nonsense can be found across the network.
It does nothing to engender respect for limits by those who use the roads.
The upshot is to defeat the whole point of having them in the first place.
It was a foreseeable result of the government allowing those in town and city halls free rein.
Unfortunately MPs are all too often oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
The real problem is their dogmatic attitude to reducing speed as a cure-all medicine to the detriment of any other approach.
An admission that their approach is wrong on any level is unlikely as it undermines the message as a whole. Therefore you're likely wasting your breath as well.
Red Devil said:
It was a foreseeable result of the government allowing those in town and city halls free rein.
Unfortunately MPs are all too often oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
The Government are happy with localisation. When the electorate is moaning the Government just say it is a local issue. Saw it on PM Questions today with regard to a NHS question. Unfortunately MPs are all too often oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
Devil2575 said:
vonhosen said:
Both = speeding
Neither = loony without context that makes them so.
Whether 100+ is loony or not depends on how you look at it. From a keeping your license point of view you could argue that anyone who drives at a such a speed is loony. Neither = loony without context that makes them so.
JNW1 said:
If I make a claim I have no issue in providing evidence and did exactly that in connection with my assertion that mobile camera usage in North Yorkshire has increased over the last 5 years. However, if notwithstanding the evidence people continue to dispute the claim I think it's entirely reasonable to ask them to provide some facts of their own to support their argument; if they can't they're really just making anecdotal comments based on their own random observations and haven't really got a credible case.
I've covered this already. I asked you for evidence and you provided some. I've commented on it and agreed what it shows and what it doesn't. JNW1 said:
So if what you're saying is you were simply commenting on your own observations within North Yorkshire that's fine but in my book evidence carries far more credibility than what an individual may or may not have seen when they were driving around. Anyone who hasn't noticed the increased camera presence in North Yorkshire either a) doesn't drive in the County very often and/or b) isn't very observant behind the wheel. I'm guessing you fall into the former category in which case I don't know why you saw fit to enter a debate with someone who lives in the County and drives its roads on a daily basis!
Yes, commenting on my own observations is fine, as it is for anyone. I'm not staying that something is the case, I'm just questioning your assertion.I live on the very edge of North Yorkshire and I drive in the county typically once a week. Maybe there isn't increased activity in the places where I drive?
The number of cameras in use in the county was only part of your narrative. I chose to enter the debate because I don't agree that your narrative is supported by the evidence. Yes, the use of mobile camera vans started in 2011 and has increased. Yes the fatality stats trend may leveling out over this period, but it also may be comming down.
As I pointed out in a previous post a far more interesting question is what happened over 2007-8 to cause such a dramatic drop in fatalities.
Devil2575 said:
I chose to enter the debate because I don't agree that your narrative is supported by the evidence. Yes, the use of mobile camera vans started in 2011 and has increased.
My principal assertion (narrative?) was that the level of mobile camera usage had increased over the last 5 years and I provided evidence of that; your second sentence above appears to concede exactly that point so which bit of that "narrative" do you feel hasn't been supported with evidence?I also said I didn't feel there was any evidence to suggest that increased camera usage has made the County's roads safer given accident statistics show no reduction in fatalities or serious injuries compared to the period prior to their introduction. Going back to your own post on page 63 you actually said it was impossible to say what was happening with the trend and I tend to agree; however, isn't that in effect an admission that the accident statistics aren't demonstrating an improvement as a result of camera usage? They perhaps don't prove they're ineffective either but there's nothing in the accident statistics you can hang your hat on and say "there you go, there's evidence of an improvement in safety since the use of cameras was expanded". So I stand by that comment as well unless you're going to produce evidence to the contrary!
Edited by JNW1 on Wednesday 11th January 14:33
JNW1 said:
Devil2575 said:
I chose to enter the debate because I don't agree that your narrative is supported by the evidence. Yes, the use of mobile camera vans started in 2011 and has increased.
My principal assertion (narrative?) was that the level of mobile camera usage had increased over the last 5 years and I provided evidence of that; your second sentence above appears to concede exactly that point so which bit of that "narrative" do you feel hasn't been supported with evidence?Narrative is when you connect different information to produce a story. You connected the above and the below to say that speed cameras were only really effective at generating revenue.
JNW1 said:
I also said I didn't feel there was any evidence to suggest that increased camera usage has made the County's roads safer given accident statistics show no reduction in fatalities or serious injuries compared to the period prior to their introduction.
JNW1 said:
Going back to your own post on page 63 you actually said it was impossible to say what was happening with the trend and I tend to agree; however, isn't that in effect an admission that the accident statistics aren't demonstrating an improvement as a result of camera usage? They perhaps don't prove they're ineffective either but there's nothing in the accident statistics you can hang your hat on and say "there you go, there's evidence of an improvement in safety since the use of cameras was expanded". So I stand by that comment as well unless you're going to produce evidence to the contrary!
All I'm saying is that it is too soon to say. The most recent data for 2015 is encouraging but there needs to be a couple more years of data before you can make a judgement.Edited by JNW1 on Wednesday 11th January 14:33
Devil2575 said:
JNW1 said:
Devil2575 said:
I chose to enter the debate because I don't agree that your narrative is supported by the evidence. Yes, the use of mobile camera vans started in 2011 and has increased.
My principal assertion (narrative?) was that the level of mobile camera usage had increased over the last 5 years and I provided evidence of that; your second sentence above appears to concede exactly that point so which bit of that "narrative" do you feel hasn't been supported with evidence?Narrative is when you connect different information to produce a story. You connected the above and the below to say that speed cameras were only really effective at generating revenue.
JNW1 said:
I also said I didn't feel there was any evidence to suggest that increased camera usage has made the County's roads safer given accident statistics show no reduction in fatalities or serious injuries compared to the period prior to their introduction.
JNW1 said:
Going back to your own post on page 63 you actually said it was impossible to say what was happening with the trend and I tend to agree; however, isn't that in effect an admission that the accident statistics aren't demonstrating an improvement as a result of camera usage? They perhaps don't prove they're ineffective either but there's nothing in the accident statistics you can hang your hat on and say "there you go, there's evidence of an improvement in safety since the use of cameras was expanded". So I stand by that comment as well unless you're going to produce evidence to the contrary!
All I'm saying is that it is too soon to say. The most recent data for 2015 is encouraging but there needs to be a couple more years of data before you can make a judgement.Edited by JNW1 on Wednesday 11th January 14:33
2. There has been no demonstrable reduction in fatalities or serious injuries compared to the period prior to their introduction (fact, supported by the accident statistics in a report on the PCC's website).
3. The North Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership now generates income of over £1m/annum (fact, supported by evidence in a report on the PCC's website).
So in summary, lots more mobile camera usage generates quite a lot of revenue but no discernible improvement in safety as measured by fatalities or serious injuries.
I agree we need more data before a judgement can be made on the trends with regards to fatalities and serious injuries but even assuming they're favourable I'd argue you can't necessarily ascribe the improvement to camera usage; if someone tried to do so I'd take a keen interest in how they'd determined cause and effect!
Raygun said:
<snip>
What has been a bit of a let down is the Tories who when first got elected back into power said "the war on the motorist is over" but that has proven not to be the case probably after seeing how much money was being made.
fuel duty escalator ... VED ... planning / parking stuff ... What has been a bit of a let down is the Tories who when first got elected back into power said "the war on the motorist is over" but that has proven not to be the case probably after seeing how much money was being made.
no focus on the fact that it hasn;t returned to a situation where people couldspeed in relative impunity ...
JNW1 said:
1. Mobile camera usage in North Yorkshire has increased over the last 5 years (fact, supported with evidence from North Yorkshire Police and the Police & Crime Commissioner websites).
2. There has been no demonstrable reduction in fatalities or serious injuries compared to the period prior to their introduction (fact, supported by the accident statistics in a report on the PCC's website).
3. The North Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership now generates income of over £1m/annum (fact, supported by evidence in a report on the PCC's website).
So in summary, lots more mobile camera usage generates quite a lot of revenue but no discernible improvement in safety as measured by fatalities or serious injuries.
I agree we need more data before a judgement can be made on the trends with regards to fatalities and serious injuries but even assuming they're favourable I'd argue you can't necessarily ascribe the improvement to camera usage; if someone tried to do so I'd take a keen interest in how they'd determined cause and effect!
Fairly conclusive, and even if their cause and effect assessments are equally flaky, what next?2. There has been no demonstrable reduction in fatalities or serious injuries compared to the period prior to their introduction (fact, supported by the accident statistics in a report on the PCC's website).
3. The North Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership now generates income of over £1m/annum (fact, supported by evidence in a report on the PCC's website).
So in summary, lots more mobile camera usage generates quite a lot of revenue but no discernible improvement in safety as measured by fatalities or serious injuries.
I agree we need more data before a judgement can be made on the trends with regards to fatalities and serious injuries but even assuming they're favourable I'd argue you can't necessarily ascribe the improvement to camera usage; if someone tried to do so I'd take a keen interest in how they'd determined cause and effect!
JNW1 said:
1. Mobile camera usage in North Yorkshire has increased over the last 5 years (fact, supported with evidence from North Yorkshire Police and the Police & Crime Commissioner websites).
2. There has been no demonstrable reduction in fatalities or serious injuries compared to the period prior to their introduction (fact, supported by the accident statistics in a report on the PCC's website).3. The North Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership now generates income of over £1m/annum (fact, supported by evidence in a report on the PCC's website).
So in summary, lots more mobile camera usage generates quite a lot of revenue but no discernible improvement in safety as measured by fatalities or serious injuries.
I agree we need more data before a judgement can be made on the trends with regards to fatalities and serious injuries but even assuming they're favourable I'd argue you can't necessarily ascribe the improvement to camera usage; if someone tried to do so I'd take a keen interest in how they'd determined cause and effect!
They may be having an effect that is being cancelled out by something else?
2015 has seen a record low number of fatalites (although it was equalled a few years back) and there are not enough data points (given the noise in the data) to demonstrate anything so the fact that there has been no demonstrable reduction in fatalities tells you nothing. You need to wait for more data.
Your last point is a great reason to try and justify doing nothing. We can never prove a single measure is having a positive effect conclusively so why bother doing anything. Also even if we see an improvement you'll argue that you can't ascribe it to camera usage. Ok, so unless you know of a parallel universe that can be used as a control then you'll never be satisfied.
£1 million is f
k all in the big scheme of things.Devil2575 said:
Devil2575 said:
JNW1 said:
1. Mobile camera usage in North Yorkshire has increased over the last 5 years (fact, supported with evidence from North Yorkshire Police and the Police & Crime Commissioner websites).
2. There has been no demonstrable reduction in fatalities or serious injuries compared to the period prior to their introduction (fact, supported by the accident statistics in a report on the PCC's website).3. The North Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership now generates income of over £1m/annum (fact, supported by evidence in a report on the PCC's website).
So in summary, lots more mobile camera usage generates quite a lot of revenue but no discernible improvement in safety as measured by fatalities or serious injuries.
I agree we need more data before a judgement can be made on the trends with regards to fatalities and serious injuries but even assuming they're favourable I'd argue you can't necessarily ascribe the improvement to camera usage; if someone tried to do so I'd take a keen interest in how they'd determined cause and effect!
They may be having an effect that is being cancelled out by something else?
2015 has seen a record low number of fatalites (although it was equalled a few years back) and there are not enough data points (given the noise in the data) to demonstrate anything so the fact that there has been no demonstrable reduction in fatalities tells you nothing. You need to wait for more data.
Your last point is a great reason to try and justify doing nothing. We can never prove a single measure is having a positive effect conclusively so why bother doing anything. Also even if we see an improvement you'll argue that you can't ascribe it to camera usage. Ok, so unless you know of a parallel universe that can be used as a control then you'll never be satisfied.
£1 million is f
k all in the big scheme of things.I don't actually see my last point as a reason for doing nothing, more just a reason for people to be honest about the benefits they're claiming for initiatives and be clear about how they will be measured. Mobile cameras may have contributed to improved safety on the roads of North Yorkshire (and elsewhere) but equally they may not because as far as I can see there's no conclusive evidence one way or the other. An obvious contrast is with something like the introduction of air ambulances which contribute in a very tangible and beneficial way; I know of two people who were involved in serious car accidents on North Yorkshire's roads last year who are only here today because of the excellent service the air ambulances provided. Therefore, maybe if people are serious about improving safety perhaps another air ambulance would serve the community better than a fleet of camera vans?
Whether £1 million of revenue and the associated 15% return is significant obviously depends on what you consider the total pot to be; if you think it's peanuts then fair enough but that remains your opinion and not a fact!
I did a SAC yesterday for the first time. Despite both presenters being a bit patronising I thought the content was pretty good in general although some was deliberately contrived. It covered speed limits and then appropriate speed and was positioned to be educational rather than penal.
What was staggering was the general lack of knowledge on display from most people sent on the course. Out of the 24 attendees, only 48% could say what the correct national speed limit was in urban areas. Most could not tell a single carriageway from a dual carriageway and the whole concept of streetlights = 30mph was new information to most people.
Given the level of ignorance amongst most people in the room, I think that the SAC is a very good thing because most of them will now be much better informed than if they had just got 3 points and a similar fine to the cost of attending.
Oh - and to the bloke who spent 10 minutes trying to convince the room and the ex-trafpol presenter that the "only safe option" he had was to speed in the incident that caused him to be on the course: you're a cock.
What was staggering was the general lack of knowledge on display from most people sent on the course. Out of the 24 attendees, only 48% could say what the correct national speed limit was in urban areas. Most could not tell a single carriageway from a dual carriageway and the whole concept of streetlights = 30mph was new information to most people.
Given the level of ignorance amongst most people in the room, I think that the SAC is a very good thing because most of them will now be much better informed than if they had just got 3 points and a similar fine to the cost of attending.
Oh - and to the bloke who spent 10 minutes trying to convince the room and the ex-trafpol presenter that the "only safe option" he had was to speed in the incident that caused him to be on the course: you're a cock.
PhilboSE said:
I did a SAC yesterday for the first time. Despite both presenters being a bit patronising I thought the content was pretty good in general although some was deliberately contrived. It covered speed limits and then appropriate speed and was positioned to be educational rather than penal.
What was staggering was the general lack of knowledge on display from most people sent on the course. Out of the 24 attendees, only 48% could say what the correct national speed limit was in urban areas. Most could not tell a single carriageway from a dual carriageway and the whole concept of streetlights = 30mph was new information to most people.
Given the level of ignorance amongst most people in the room, I think that the SAC is a very good thing because most of them will now be much better informed than if they had just got 3 points and a similar fine to the cost of attending.
Oh - and to the bloke who spent 10 minutes trying to convince the room and the ex-trafpol presenter that the "only safe option" he had was to speed in the incident that caused him to be on the course: you're a cock.
For this minor speed misdemeaner you were found guilty of £20 to attend the sac should of been quite sufficient, the ex traf-pol would be on a lovely pension anyway.What was staggering was the general lack of knowledge on display from most people sent on the course. Out of the 24 attendees, only 48% could say what the correct national speed limit was in urban areas. Most could not tell a single carriageway from a dual carriageway and the whole concept of streetlights = 30mph was new information to most people.
Given the level of ignorance amongst most people in the room, I think that the SAC is a very good thing because most of them will now be much better informed than if they had just got 3 points and a similar fine to the cost of attending.
Oh - and to the bloke who spent 10 minutes trying to convince the room and the ex-trafpol presenter that the "only safe option" he had was to speed in the incident that caused him to be on the course: you're a cock.
PhilboSE said:
What was staggering was the general lack of knowledge on display from most people sent on the course. Out of the 24 attendees, only 48% could say what the correct national speed limit was in urban areas. Most could not tell a single carriageway from a dual carriageway and the whole concept of streetlights = 30mph was new information to most people.
When I passed my driving test 50+ years ago this was information that everyone was expected to know and abide by (if you didn't, it was a fail).I also find it hard to believe that there has been any change to this required knowledge so how did these numpties manage to pass?
What really baffles me is how anyone manages to completely forget such basic stuff X years down the line.
The distinction between lanes and carriageways baffles a lot of people. The streetlights automatically making it 30mph is a legislative construct (distance apart/restricted road status).
In the great majority of cases it's fairly obvious, but it's easy to get caught out where the environment might lead one to conclude otherwise.
One might think this is a 40, or possibly even 50, but it's not - https://goo.gl/maps/NwWB7CC24U12
Red Devil said:
PhilboSE said:
What was staggering was the general lack of knowledge on display from most people sent on the course. Out of the 24 attendees, only 48% could say what the correct national speed limit was in urban areas. Most could not tell a single carriageway from a dual carriageway and the whole concept of streetlights = 30mph was new information to most people.
When I passed my driving test 50+ years ago this was information that everyone was expected to know and abide by (if you didn't, it was a fail).I also find it hard to believe that there has been any change to this required knowledge so how did these numpties manage to pass?
What really baffles me is how anyone manages to completely forget such basic stuff X years down the line.
The distinction between lanes and carriageways baffles a lot of people. The streetlights automatically making it 30mph is a legislative construct (distance apart/restricted road status).
In the great majority of cases it's fairly obvious, but it's easy to get caught out where the environment might lead one to conclude otherwise.
One might think this is a 40, or possibly even 50, but it's not - https://goo.gl/maps/NwWB7CC24U12
This thread is so much more interesting without statistics
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff