Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

I agree you shouldn't be able to do the same 5 days of training in a cycle, all training isn't of equal value. Seek good not cheap if you value your own professional development.

Define good? Good to me would be something that would give some benefit and be worth the expenditure.

Which module would that be for someone who has driven for decades who in many cases is also required to do work refresher courses?

[Digby]

rich888 said:

Looking outside of the box, police officers and safety camera vans merely do what they are paid to do, and that is currently to catch motorists driving over the unduly low speed limits now set by unskilled council officials and members of parliament, who are to be honest clueless in terms of road safety, would you really allow a council official to operate on your heart in an operating theatre, so why are they being allowed to affect millions of motorists every day by meddling with speed limits, when realistically these limits should be set by competent road planners and/or experienced road traffic officers (trafpol) who actually know what they are doing in order to reduce accidents.

This countrywide safety camera partnership is just a great big parasitic organisation that cost millions and employs hundreds or perhaps thousands of lazy individuals who probably sit on their backsides all day long clogging up their arteries whilst pointing a laser camera at motorists which to be honest isn't healthy for their livelihood, this very cosy safety camera partnership drains finances out of motorists each and every day for no good reason except to justify its very existence, it produces nothing, it wastes time, it wastes resources, and it frustrates thousands if not millions of motorists by the need to drive at stupidly low limits, just because one or more clueless council jobsworths or MPs have insisted on lowering road speed limits for no good reason, well apart from tax revenue, and this scam has to stop.

I keep saying this, but in my opinion that this very cosy council/police safety camera partnership is just a great big con, and one day soon there will be a huge class action launched against them, and when that day comes I will be laughing my head off.

And mark my words... come next local election time a few more councillors will be booted out of power if they don't listen and act to reign in these silly draconian speed limits, because if I'm blunt, we motorists are getting pretty damn fu*ked off with this whole safety camera scam... Labour/ Conservative or Other... I know where my X will be going.

Edited by rich888 on Sunday 22 January 01:08

I have just been reading how they are due to upgrade many cameras near where I live at a cost of 25 to 35k a camera, but they are using the suggestion of costs per accident to the economy across all of the UK as a way to justify it.

Despite seeing the lowest number of offences, one camera was still a "success" due to there being nine people killed or injured in its polygon covered area before the camera was fitted (and another cam on opp side of road) and only two serious crashes since. Notice how once again, we are not told how many were killed, why they were killed or injured yet they make a point of saying there were only two 'crashes' after it was installed. The usual play on words. The usual 30 mph limit which should be 40.

They also make no mention of how many crashes and accidents there have been since the camera was removed six months ago. My guess would be zero. They are keen to upgrade this camera to the new technology, however, no doubt due to it recording the lowest offence results. Now, it will be able to save lives using technology over a much greater distance and that should boost the numbers for them nicely.

Not that you can get an accurate figure now, anyway. Figures are now given within brackets of numbers, dealt with by court appearance, fines and speed awareness courses. Want to know how many drivers a specific camera caught on the M20? That will be between 1,000 and 4,999 people, Sir.

Unsurprisingly, the cameras closest to me which did the best were the ones installed on the M25. "More than 10,000" and counting for one of them. I use that road a great deal so am glad they are looking out for me and care about my safety

[Crackie]

cmaguire said:

Crackie said:

Some could be fixed unmanned cameras, to catch people who cross solid white lines illegally for example. The trigger would only need to determine a vehicle in any given lane was approaching or moving away. Some cameras would be better used by a human, these could be used at roundabouts or blind bends for example. If I saw a manned camera where I thought their deployment might actually be doing something to improve safety I would not object to them i.e. have positioned catch and prosecute the shoddy, selfish, stupid loonies we all encounter all too often.

It won't happen.
There would need to be significant investment in mobile manned units if they were to make a push to deal with 'careless/dangerous' driving, and these units would be stationary for long periods generating very little income. Unlike speed detection, where they are self-funding parked up in a never-ending number of locations. So although they are a State sponsored pisstake on an epic scale based on a fabricated justification of need, they require no ongoing attention on a budgetary level because they rip us off for their funding.

I don't understand why there would need to be significant investment; just re-deploy the existing 'speed' cameras and use them to target careless/dangerous offenders instead. I can think of 3 or 4 locations ( roundabouts and blind corners )in the city where I live where it would be easy to secure 'due care and attention' convictions in numbers far higher than some of the 'speed' locations currently being used. Word would soon get around regarding the new use of the cameras. Hopefully the dimwit drivers who dangerously ignore white lines or cut blind corners or cut up other drivers by straight-lining roundabouts, will think harder when behind the wheel.

Competent drivers would have no concerns about being targeted and poorer, dangerous, drivers would hopefully have to improve. The other benefit is that whilst the cameras are actually being used to do something beneficial, they aren't being used to target minor speed transgressions.

Has to worth a pilot scheme or two ???

Edited by Crackie on Sunday 22 January 11:25

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

I agree you shouldn't be able to do the same 5 days of training in a cycle, all training isn't of equal value. Seek good not cheap if you value your own professional development.

Define good? Good to me would be something that would give some benefit and be worth the expenditure.

Which module would that be for someone who has driven for decades who in many cases is also required to do work refresher courses?

Driving for decades doesn't mean all your practices are good, habits get ingrained & not all ingrained habits are good.

[JNW1]

Crackie said:

cmaguire said:

Crackie said:

Some could be fixed unmanned cameras, to catch people who cross solid white lines illegally for example. The trigger would only need to determine a vehicle in any given lane was approaching or moving away. Some cameras would be better used by a human, these could be used at roundabouts or blind bends for example. If I saw a manned camera where I thought their deployment might actually be doing something to improve safety I would not object to them i.e. have positioned catch and prosecute the shoddy, selfish, stupid loonies we all encounter all too often.

It won't happen.
There would need to be significant investment in mobile manned units if they were to make a push to deal with 'careless/dangerous' driving, and these units would be stationary for long periods generating very little income. Unlike speed detection, where they are self-funding parked up in a never-ending number of locations. So although they are a State sponsored pisstake on an epic scale based on a fabricated justification of need, they require no ongoing attention on a budgetary level because they rip us off for their funding.

I don't understand why there would need to be significant investment; just re-deploy the existing 'speed' cameras and use them to target careless/dangerous offenders instead. I can think of 3 or 4 locations ( roundabouts and blind corners )in the city where I live where it would be easy to secure 'due care and attention' convictions in numbers far higher than some of the 'speed' locations currently being used. Word would soon get around regarding the new use of the cameras. Hopefully the dimwit drivers who dangerously ignore white lines or cut blind corners or cut up other drivers by straight-lining roundabouts, will think harder when behind the wheel.

Competent drivers would have no concerns about being targeted and poorer, dangerous, drivers would hopefully have to improve. The other benefit is that whilst the cameras are actually being used to do something beneficial, they aren't being used to target minor speed transgressions.

Has to worth a pilot scheme or two ???

Edited by Crackie on Sunday 22 January 11:25

A nice thought but given the way the model for "safety" cameras works I cant see it happening. From what I understand Safety Camera Partnerships get most of their income from SAC's and therefore if you deploy the cameras to focus on things other than speeding potentially the revenue for the SCP's starts to dry-up; that means fewer camera vans therefore less income and so on until they disappear altogether. Given their contribution to safety that would arguably be no bad thing but the SCP model is deliberately set-up to do the opposite; catch more speeders, fund more cameras, catch more speeders, fund more cameras, etc. Therefore, although your suggestion would almost certainly prosecute more poor drivers it would prosecute fewer speeders and therefore for the SCP's to redeploy their cameras in that way would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.....

[cmaguire]

JNW1 said:

A nice thought but given the way the model for "safety" cameras works I cant see it happening. From what I understand Safety Camera Partnerships get most of their income from SAC's and therefore if you deploy the cameras to focus on things other than speeding potentially the revenue for the SCP's starts to dry-up; that means fewer camera vans therefore less income and so on until they disappear altogether. Given their contribution to safety that would arguably be no bad thing but the SCP model is deliberately set-up to do the opposite; catch more speeders, fund more cameras, catch more speeders, fund more cameras, etc. Therefore, although your suggestion would almost certainly prosecute more poor drivers it would prosecute fewer speeders and therefore for the SCP's to redeploy their cameras in that way would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.....

Which is essentially what I said.

[Crackie]

JNW1 said:

A nice thought but given the way the model for "safety" cameras works I cant see it happening. From what I understand Safety Camera Partnerships get most of their income from SAC's and therefore if you deploy the cameras to focus on things other than speeding potentially the revenue for the SCP's starts to dry-up; that means fewer camera vans therefore less income and so on until they disappear altogether. Given their contribution to safety that would arguably be no bad thing but the SCP model is deliberately set-up to do the opposite; catch more speeders, fund more cameras, catch more speeders, fund more cameras, etc. Therefore, although your suggestion would almost certainly prosecute more poor drivers it would prosecute fewer speeders and therefore for the SCP's to redeploy their cameras in that way would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.....

Hi JNW1, you've spent a little time interpreting North Yorkshire camera partnership's results & stats; there are several of the current speed camera locations which contribute zero or very little to the SCPs income. I see no reason why these locations couldn't be removed from the list and substituted with some of the more obvious 'due care and attention' locations instead.

Under these circumstances revenue would increase, not decrease so the safety camera parasites partnerships would be happy. If targeting careless / dangerous drivers, rather than speeders, can be statistically proven to reduce KSI and also increase revenue then there may be opportunity for some genuine progress.......I certainly think there would be fewer frustrated, embittered, exasperated and disillusioned motorists on the road.

Might even tempt me back into a proper car...........

Edited by Crackie on Sunday 22 January 19:11

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

I agree you shouldn't be able to do the same 5 days of training in a cycle, all training isn't of equal value. Seek good not cheap if you value your own professional development.

Define good? Good to me would be something that would give some benefit and be worth the expenditure.

Which module would that be for someone who has driven for decades who in many cases is also required to do work refresher courses?

Driving for decades doesn't mean all your practices are good, habits get ingrained & not all ingrained habits are good.

Define good.

And again, which "good" modules on offer justify the price?

Your habits being ingrained comment is covered for many by company courses.

So again, what are we paying for?

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

I agree you shouldn't be able to do the same 5 days of training in a cycle, all training isn't of equal value. Seek good not cheap if you value your own professional development.

Define good? Good to me would be something that would give some benefit and be worth the expenditure.

Which module would that be for someone who has driven for decades who in many cases is also required to do work refresher courses?

Driving for decades doesn't mean all your practices are good, habits get ingrained & not all ingrained habits are good.

Define good.

And again, which "good" modules on offer justify the price?

Your habits being ingrained comment is covered for many by company courses.

So again, what are we paying for?

Courses that address your driver's needs & shortcomings.
Is there no room for the driving of your driver's to improve?
Target that.

[JNW1]

Crackie said:

JNW1 said:

A nice thought but given the way the model for "safety" cameras works I cant see it happening. From what I understand Safety Camera Partnerships get most of their income from SAC's and therefore if you deploy the cameras to focus on things other than speeding potentially the revenue for the SCP's starts to dry-up; that means fewer camera vans therefore less income and so on until they disappear altogether. Given their contribution to safety that would arguably be no bad thing but the SCP model is deliberately set-up to do the opposite; catch more speeders, fund more cameras, catch more speeders, fund more cameras, etc. Therefore, although your suggestion would almost certainly prosecute more poor drivers it would prosecute fewer speeders and therefore for the SCP's to redeploy their cameras in that way would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.....

Hi JNW1, you've spent a little time interpreting North Yorkshire camera partnership's results & stats; there are several of the current speed camera locations which contribute zero or very little to the SCPs income. I see no reason why these locations couldn't be removed from the list and substituted with some of the more obvious 'due care and attention' locations instead.

Under these circumstances revenue would increase, not decrease so the safety camera [s]parasites[/s] partnerships would be happy. If targeting careless / dangerous drivers, rather than speeders, can be statistically proven to reduce KSI and also increase revenue then there may be opportunity for some genuine progress.......I certainly think there would be fewer frustrated, embittered, exasperated and disillusioned motorists on the road.

Might even tempt me back into a proper car...........

Your argument would be entirely logical if the primary purpose of safety cameras was to improve safety. The SCP's try to tell us that's what they're about but the fact they don't behave in the way you suggest - and instead deploy cameras on relatively safe stretches of road where they know the incidence of relatively minor speeding transgressions is likely to be high - suggests a different set of priorities. As I said a few posts back, speed limit enforcement cameras would be a far more honest description of what they are; their whole model relies on funding from people going on SAC's and that being the case it's no great surprise that speed limit enforcement is where their efforts are concentrated - that might also improve safety but then again it might not (and the accident statistics suggest not, at least as far as North Yorkshire is concerned).

So if SCP's decided to move cameras away from locations which generate little or no revenue where are they likely to be deployed instead; locations where they're likely to catch more people speeding or locations which might detect some careless or dangerous drivers? Given the way the funding model works my money would be firmly on the former even though the latter would potentially have more of a positive impact on safety.

I hear what you say about a proper car but sadly they're becoming more and more of a waste of time on our public roads as if you use them to anything like their potential you're looking at a ban - and possibly even a custodial sentence - if you get caught. If you've got the money and the garage space I think something more modest for the road plus a track car for fun is probably the way to go!

[anonymous-user]

Can we stop saying Safety Camera Partnership, if ever there was an oxymoron it's that! And agreed, once our draconian authorities have finished with one 'incident blackspot' (read an inocuous area between a 30 and 40 limit) they will probably focus on other areas to get their self perpetuating funds. Luckily we are still free to enjoy motorsport, the miserable bds can't take that away just yet

[Willy Nilly]

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

I agree you shouldn't be able to do the same 5 days of training in a cycle, all training isn't of equal value. Seek good not cheap if you value your own professional development.

Define good? Good to me would be something that would give some benefit and be worth the expenditure.

Which module would that be for someone who has driven for decades who in many cases is also required to do work refresher courses?

Driving for decades doesn't mean all your practices are good, habits get ingrained & not all ingrained habits are good.

Define good.

And again, which "good" modules on offer justify the price?

Your habits being ingrained comment is covered for many by company courses.

So again, what are we paying for?

Courses that address your driver's needs & shortcomings.
Is there no room for the driving of your driver's to improve?
Target that.

The courses are mandatory not to mention expensive. One might be forgiven for thinking that they may meet a certain standard, maybe even geared toward experience so that the more experience drivers have courses more suited to them and drivers such as myself that have low driving hours have one geared to toward their need. But no, pay up, turn up and suck it up. Which clown thought it a good idea to be able to take all of the hours on the same course, utterly ridiculous. Even you cannot defend this, can you?

[vonhosen]

Willy Nilly said:

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

I agree you shouldn't be able to do the same 5 days of training in a cycle, all training isn't of equal value. Seek good not cheap if you value your own professional development.

Define good? Good to me would be something that would give some benefit and be worth the expenditure.

Which module would that be for someone who has driven for decades who in many cases is also required to do work refresher courses?

Driving for decades doesn't mean all your practices are good, habits get ingrained & not all ingrained habits are good.

Define good.

And again, which "good" modules on offer justify the price?

Your habits being ingrained comment is covered for many by company courses.

So again, what are we paying for?

Courses that address your driver's needs & shortcomings.
Is there no room for the driving of your driver's to improve?
Target that.

The courses are mandatory not to mention expensive. One might be forgiven for thinking that they may meet a certain standard, maybe even geared toward experience so that the more experience drivers have courses more suited to them and drivers such as myself that have low driving hours have one geared to toward their need. But no, pay up, turn up and suck it up. Which clown thought it a good idea to be able to take all of the hours on the same course, utterly ridiculous. Even you cannot defend this, can you?

You (your employer) get to choose the course & supplier.
Choose a supplier & course that suits your needs.
If you book courses that don't offer you development then that's your (your employer's) fault.
Value isn't just finding the cheapest course.
If you book the same course again & again, then that's your (your employer's) fault you aren't getting anything positive out of it.
It's an opportunity for your professional development, get something of use to you out of it.

[Willy Nilly]

vonhosen said:

You (your employer) get to choose the course & supplier.
Choose a supplier & course that suits your needs.
If you book courses that don't offer you development then that's your (your employer's) fault.
Value isn't just finding the cheapest course.
If you book the same course again & again, then that's your (your employer's) fault you aren't getting anything positive out of it.
It's an opportunity for your professional development, get something of use to you out of it.

It's mandatory for children to go to school, so it's expected that their education meets a certain standard. It is no up to the people taking these courses to rummage around looking for some sort of grading that doesn't exist for them.

As a sprayer operator, I have to go on a course every year (not done it yet) to be allowed to ply my trade and or my employer to be able to sell his produce that I will ultimately end up spraying. City and Guilds run the courses, so I'd expect a certain standard. When I did my chainsaw course, it was fantastic, taken by a consultant tree surgeon who clearly spent a lot of time operating a chainsaw. The course had been cut together by arboriculturists, the HSE and the chainsaw manufacturers, so it seemed all bases were covered. I never got that impression doing my CPCs and the SAC was frankly a joke, no, an insult. The CPC ans SAC weren't voluntary. Or cheap.

[vonhosen]

Willy Nilly said:

vonhosen said:

You (your employer) get to choose the course & supplier.
Choose a supplier & course that suits your needs.
If you book courses that don't offer you development then that's your (your employer's) fault.
Value isn't just finding the cheapest course.
If you book the same course again & again, then that's your (your employer's) fault you aren't getting anything positive out of it.
It's an opportunity for your professional development, get something of use to you out of it.

It's mandatory for children to go to school, so it's expected that their education meets a certain standard. It is no up to the people taking these courses to rummage around looking for some sort of grading that doesn't exist for them.

As a sprayer operator, I have to go on a course every year (not done it yet) to be allowed to ply my trade and or my employer to be able to sell his produce that I will ultimately end up spraying. City and Guilds run the courses, so I'd expect a certain standard. When I did my chainsaw course, it was fantastic, taken by a consultant tree surgeon who clearly spent a lot of time operating a chainsaw. The course had been cut together by arboriculturists, the HSE and the chainsaw manufacturers, so it seemed all bases were covered. I never got that impression doing my CPCs and the SAC was frankly a joke, no, an insult. The CPC ans SAC weren't voluntary. Or cheap.

Of course it's up to you.
You get to choose the supplier & the course from all of them that are out there, pick one that fulfils your need.
Don't pick something that doesn't & then complain it doesn't.

[Willy Nilly]

vonhosen said:

Of course it's up to you.
You get to choose the supplier & the course from all of them that are out there, pick one that fulfils your need.
Don't pick something that doesn't & then complain it doesn't.

So how does one go about selecting a good course for the CPC? There is no way to know if the course is any good. As for the SAC and I assume any of the other courses, it's "this is the course, these are the dates, pay up of take the points." Which is why I simply will not volunteer to do any more courses on my bike or car until the whole debacle finishes. The person on the other end of the phone when I booked mine was quite taken aback when I gave her my opinion of the system, she clearly expected, "yes sir, no sir". She was wrong.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

You (your employer) get to choose the course & supplier.
Choose a supplier & course that suits your needs.
If you book courses that don't offer you development then that's your (your employer's) fault.
Value isn't just finding the cheapest course.
If you book the same course again & again, then that's your (your employer's) fault you aren't getting anything positive out of it.
It's an opportunity for your professional development, get something of use to you out of it.

Your above suggestions would no doubt be the same if you were telling me how to get more out of being trained regularly to use a knife and fork.

There has to come a point where it is utterly pointless to keep on telling people how to use a knife and fork.

I would suggest, as with driving, that's after you have passed the expensive test which shows you are capable of using a knife and fork.

If I can't use a knife and fork, I can't eat. If I can't do everything covered by a CPC and company training, I can't work.

I keep asking, but maybe you could suggest the absolute best modules which can teach me something related to my job? You will need to suggest five.

Once you have suggested five, you then need to suggest some more for the coming years; and then some more and some more and then more and yet more and even more..

Can you do that? I'm all ears.

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

So how does one go about selecting a good course for the CPC? There is no way to know if the course is any good. As for the SAC and I assume any of the other courses, it's "this is the course, these are the dates, pay up of take the points." Which is why I simply will not volunteer to do any more courses on my bike or car until the whole debacle finishes. The person on the other end of the phone when I booked mine was quite taken aback when I gave her my opinion of the system, she clearly expected, "yes sir, no sir". She was wrong.

It'll never finish, it makes too much money!

[Crackie]

Digby said:

They are due to upgrade many cameras near where I live at a cost of 25 to 35k a camera,

That is an obscene amount to charge per camera; I'd like to see a breakdown of how that figure is arrived at. I wonder how many noses are in the trough to get to that number ? I don't know the cost of the laser speed sensor but build cost for a high quality IP addressable camera is well under $50 USD.

Edited by Crackie on Sunday 22 January 20:17

[vonhosen]

Willy Nilly said:

vonhosen said:

Of course it's up to you.
You get to choose the supplier & the course from all of them that are out there, pick one that fulfils your need.
Don't pick something that doesn't & then complain it doesn't.

So how does one go about selecting a good course for the CPC? There is no way to know if the course is any good.

Be honest for starters.
Reflect on where your knowledge is lacking & what skills you could improve on. (I very much don't the answer is zero)
Then look for suppliers/courses that address those needs.
Do some research.