Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[TooMany2cvs]

Mill Wheel said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Mill Wheel said:

It was the course providers that gave you the 48% figure?

Why do they not just give you the numbers instead of trying to turn everything into percentages?

10 people did this!

Well, great, but is that 10 out of 10, 10 out of 20, 10 out of 100, 10 out of 1m?

There were 24 people on the course... it said so in the post I was referring to, which you either did not read or chose to deliberately misunderstand.

It was a wider point regarding the use of percentages than just your course - but perhaps not everybody on your course "voted", so not everybody was counted?

[JNW1]

Mill Wheel said:

vonhosen said:

They set a target & they exceeded that target?
They set that target knowing that there would be a lot of variables over which they had little control & some over which they had some control.
Presumably the target was set with that all in mind/considered & they reached their target.
Is that not to be celebrated?

They should not be claiming the credit for it, unless they can show a link between their actions and the results.

There have been less fatalities along my commute to work since I started cycling to work in Hi Viz.
I suppose I could claim that the drop in fatalities was a result of my cycling the route.
The evidence shows that when the speed cameras were installed on the same route, serious injuries rose at the camera site, and fatals remained unabated until I started cycling the route.
I rest my case, which is more tangible than North Yorkshire Councils evidence (They provide none).

I think the 95 Alive initiative is a combined action between the local authority and the emergency services and therefore there are a number of different inputs/actions which all go to form part of the overall outcome. I suppose the proponents of the initiative would say they've hit the overall target set and never said which of the individual actions would yield the greatest benefit; therefore, they'd probably adopt vonhosen's position and say "we've delivered, celebrate the success" (and in fairness an overall reduction in fatalities and serious injuries is obviously to be welcomed). My guess is that things like the increased use of air ambulances over the period has contributed to the reduction in fatalities but I've no statistical evidence to prove that; I do know two people who were involved in road accidents in the County last year whose lives were saved by the fast response of the air ambulance but that will no doubt be far too anecdotal for some who frequent this forum!

However, I would draw a distinction between the 95 Alive initiative and the Safety Camera Partnership as in theory at least the latter is focused specifically on reducing speed related injuries and fatalities. This was discussed a couple of pages back and the evidence in terms of statistics shows no real improvement in fatalities or serious injuries since the camera van fleet was introduced and then progressively increased in size. It obviously depends to some extent on what you use as your start point but if you look at the last year prior to the SCP getting underway the number of speed related fatalities was 10; over the subsequent 4 years the annual average has been 11 so if you were being perverse you could argue the introduction of cameras has increased the number of fatalities! Now I don't believe that for a second but equally I don't think the case has been proved that cameras have made the County's roads safer; being honest I think proving cause and effect would be nigh on impossible so my view is the SCP shouldn't claim they're saving lives when they can't actually prove it. "We believe that by enforcing speed limits we make the roads safer" would probably be more honest but "saving lives, preventing injury" is obviously a much more punchy slogan - why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?!

[cmaguire]

JNW1 said:

It obviously depends to some extent on what you use as your start point but if you look at the last year prior to the SCP getting underway the number of speed related fatalities was 10; over the subsequent 4 years the annual average has been 11 so if you were being perverse you could argue the introduction of cameras has increased the number of fatalities! Now I don't believe that for a second but equally I don't think the case has been proved that cameras have made the County's roads safer

Is it really that unbelievable in certain circumstances?
If enforcement of speed limits increases on certain roads that drivers felt already had limits too low and therefore routinely exceeded them, is it such a far reach to suggest that by frustrating them even further in those areas the end result may be that this frustration then leads to some of them increasing their speeds inappropriately in other areas and thereby increasing fatalities in those other areas.
End result: the Council/SCP shout about their success and the subsequent need for increased enforcement on the other roads that now appear far more dangerous.

[JNW1]

cmaguire said:

JNW1 said:

It obviously depends to some extent on what you use as your start point but if you look at the last year prior to the SCP getting underway the number of speed related fatalities was 10; over the subsequent 4 years the annual average has been 11 so if you were being perverse you could argue the introduction of cameras has increased the number of fatalities! Now I don't believe that for a second but equally I don't think the case has been proved that cameras have made the County's roads safer

Is it really that unbelievable in certain circumstances?
If enforcement of speed limits increases on certain roads that drivers felt already had limits too low and therefore routinely exceeded them, is it such a far reach to suggest that by frustrating them even further in those areas the end result may be that this frustration then leads to some of them increasing their speeds inappropriately in other areas and thereby increasing fatalities in those other areas.
End result: the Council/SCP shout about their success and the subsequent need for increased enforcement on the other roads that now appear far more dangerous.

You may be right but I don't think there's any evidence to support that and personally it's not the conclusion I'd draw! My point is more that the SCP claims to be saving lives as a result of its actions and I don't believe there's any evidence to support that either....

[Mill Wheel]

cmaguire said:

JNW1 said:

It obviously depends to some extent on what you use as your start point but if you look at the last year prior to the SCP getting underway the number of speed related fatalities was 10; over the subsequent 4 years the annual average has been 11 so if you were being perverse you could argue the introduction of cameras has increased the number of fatalities! Now I don't believe that for a second but equally I don't think the case has been proved that cameras have made the County's roads safer

Is it really that unbelievable in certain circumstances?
If enforcement of speed limits increases on certain roads that drivers felt already had limits too low and therefore routinely exceeded them, is it such a far reach to suggest that by frustrating them even further in those areas the end result may be that this frustration then leads to some of them increasing their speeds inappropriately in other areas and thereby increasing fatalities in those other areas.
End result: the Council/SCP shout about their success and the subsequent need for increased enforcement on the other roads that now appear far more dangerous.

You are right of course. Drivers who slow down for a speed camera, drive like idiots once they have passed the camera...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxKq1GpBQCo
Not only does the driver race off through the 30 mph limit, where sight lines are poor, but he then parks on a bend where there are double white lines... but he passed the speed camera in the 40 mph limit below the limit, and even braked further at the camera!

[vonhosen]

Mill Wheel said:

vonhosen said:

They set a target & they exceeded that target?
They set that target knowing that there would be a lot of variables over which they had little control & some over which they had some control.
Presumably the target was set with that all in mind/considered & they reached their target.
Is that not to be celebrated?

They should not be claiming the credit for it, unless they can show a link between their actions and the results.

There have been less fatalities along my commute to work since I started cycling to work in Hi Viz.
I suppose I could claim that the drop in fatalities was a result of my cycling the route.
The evidence shows that when the speed cameras were installed on the same route, serious injuries rose at the camera site, and fatals remained unabated until I started cycling the route.
I rest my case, which is more tangible than North Yorkshire Councils evidence (They provide none).

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

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 19th January 13:19

[cmaguire]

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

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 19th January 13:19

Then it's a shame neither the bat nor the ball belong to me. If either did then I'd take it home.
This isn't a team I want any part of, or a team I want existing at all. I'd sabotage the damn thing if I could.

[Mill Wheel]

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

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 19th January 13:19

If that is the case, then the chap in the south who held up a sign warning of a speed trap ahead, thus getting cars to slow down, should be commended, nit be fined and had his license endorsed!

[vonhosen]

Mill Wheel said:

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

If that is the case, then the chap in the south who held up a sign warning of a speed trap ahead, thus getting cars to slow down, should be commended, nit be fined and had his license endorsed!

Of course actions have to be lawful, yours, mine, the authorities.
Everyone on the team. His weren't.

[Mill Wheel]

vonhosen said:

Of course actions have to be lawful, yours, mine, the authorities.
Everyone on the team. His weren't.

But HE got drivers to slow down - the speed trap would not - it would only punish them for speeding, therefore HIS actions should get more credit for their contribution to road safety.

[vonhosen]

Mill Wheel said:

vonhosen said:

Of course actions have to be lawful, yours, mine, the authorities.
Everyone on the team. His weren't.

But HE got drivers to slow down - the speed trap would not - it would only punish them for speeding, therefore HIS actions should get more credit for their contribution to road safety.

Punishment may have had a longer lasting behavioural change than a temporary suspension of speeding.
It isn't a case of getting drivers to slow down temporarily at any cost, or you could have simply argued for stinger to be deployed across the road as that would have done it too.
It has to be within the law & he wasn't.
You appear to fixated with speed, it's not only about speed, it's about addressing the issues (safety, environment & traffic management etc) through a variety of measures, speed limits being one of them.

[Mill Wheel]

vonhosen said:

You appear to fixated with speed, it's not only about speed, it's about addressing the issues (safety, environment & traffic management etc) through a variety of measures, speed limits being one of them.

I am not the one fixated with speed.
My view is that there are a lot more things that contribute to safety, and that to invest so much money and effort in punishing speed, is to fail to address other causes of injuries and fatalities arising from accidents that could be avoided.

[cmaguire]

Where did you find that joke histogram? No indication of what the Y axis units are and whatever they are it looks like it was made up anyway.

[Mill Wheel]

cmaguire said:

Where did you find that joke histogram? No indication of what the Y axis units are and whatever they are it looks like it was made up anyway.

That is the basis of North Yorkshire's claim to have saved 125 lives between 2005 and March 2011.

Have a look at their website and try and find genuine details of injuries and fatalities for given years.
It isn't a joke - somebody must have spent hours of work to ensure that the figures were difficult to find.
The police figures for officers attending fatal accidents do not match the councils figures for fatalities.

[pim]

So we are being lied to.

It is all about the money.

[vonhosen]

Mill Wheel said:

vonhosen said:

You appear to fixated with speed, it's not only about speed, it's about addressing the issues (safety, environment & traffic management etc) through a variety of measures, speed limits being one of them.

I am not the one fixated with speed.
My view is that there are a lot more things that contribute to safety, and that to invest so much money and effort in punishing speed, is to fail to address other causes of injuries and fatalities arising from accidents that could be avoided.

You are, because you keep banging the drum, bringing it up.

Of course there are a whole host of things that contribute towards safety (but it's not solely about safety where speed is concerned, because it also effects environment & traffic management etc).
I'm not calling for the authorities to concentrate solely on speed, but at the same time it's illogical for them not to address speed (even if it isn't number 1 in causation factors), because it's easy to spot & action.
The investment with speeding isn't a drain on the public purse because under the current model today's speeders pay for a lot of the enforcement that catches tomorrow's speeders (which isn't the same with a lot of other causation factors that amount to offences).
I don't have a problem with people getting prosecuted for speeding where caught, I don't have a problem with people getting prosecuted for any offence which covers actions that show up as a causation factor in collision stats (irrespective of whether they are No 1 causation factor or No 19 causation factor). It's also perfectly natural though that the causation factors that are easier to detect & process may result in more prosecutions than those that don't.

The nature of speeding, the prevalence of it, the fact it's a black/white offence, it's ease of detection/automation/disposal & it's funding model all add up to it being dealt with the way it is.
It's not something that I find concerning & has very little adverse impact on me.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 19th January 20:17

[vonhosen]

pim said:

So we are being lied to.

It is all about the money.

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.

[cmaguire]

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.

[vonhosen]

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.

[Mill Wheel]

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.

Scotland has kept it's RPU and so far passed up on Speed Awareness Course income - but are being urged to take it up by the IAM, who are keen to get their noses in the SAC income trough!
North Yorkshires 95 Alive campaign was a success, because it was a multi agency approach.. police, ambulance, fire brigade, with campaigns in schools, and advice for vulnerable road users such as horse riders.
Where they fell down, was by the end of the campaign, they had lost direction, and started to lose sight of the objective, and try to single out one part of the campaign, and assign the credit.
This was done by the council, not the police - they remained the source of impartial and reliable statistics.