Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
Ms R.Saucy said:
an argument which hinges around the assumption that the speed kills message is solely about the speed limit ( which automated enforcement does focus on)
if you don't attempt that unsustained leap of logic
speed related causes
- Exceeding speed limit 5%
-Travelling too fast for conditions 7%
- Following too close 6%
18%
observation related 44+22 = 66%
control related 13+16 = 29%
Or take fatals...if you don't attempt that unsustained leap of logic
speed related causes
- Exceeding speed limit 5%
-Travelling too fast for conditions 7%
- Following too close 6%
18%
observation related 44+22 = 66%
control related 13+16 = 29%
speed related causes IN FATAL ACCIDENTS
- Exceeding speed limit 15%
-Travelling too fast for conditions 11%
- Following too close 2%
28%
observation related 27+14 = 41%
control related 31+14 = 45%
vonhosen said:
Mill Wheel said:
vonhosen said:
Not true.
I tend to see fixed cameras at higher risk sites & mobile enforcement for greater incidence enforcement.
Really? Things are done differently in Cumbria. Here are two crash maps for a stretch of the A591 between Staveley and Windermere, showing only fatal and serious incidents.I tend to see fixed cameras at higher risk sites & mobile enforcement for greater incidence enforcement.
The first is 1999 to 2003 - FIVE years before the first speed camera enforcement by the Cumbria "Safety Camera Partnership, and the second for 2003 to 2007, the FIVE years AFTER CSCP commenced enforcement.
Based on the first map WHERE would YOU place the cameras?
And based on the second map, WHY did accidents apparently INCREASE at the camera site, despite claims to the contrary by the CSCP (and why would they lie about their success)?
Note CSCP enforcement with mobile cameras commenced in May 2003 so there is a small overlap.
Edited by Mill Wheel on Sunday 1st January 21:38
Where are the fixed sites in response to what, where are the mobile sites in response to what?
2) Picking out isolated roads is of little interest or value, system wide effects & effects that enforcement has on choices beyond simply the roads it is taking place on are what is important.
Out of interest what are red markers, what are black markers?
The only place drivers slow is the 20 yards covered by the cameras!
julian64 said:
Mill Wheel said:
WHAT?? And nobody had noticed until a camera caught them speeding?
How bad are the below average drivers I wonder!
People who concentrate on looking for cameras aren't actually prioritising the right things to be looking at while driving.How bad are the below average drivers I wonder!
Never being caught by a camera isn't evidence of good driving. Its evidence of defensive driving.
Putting cameras everywhere doesn't raise the standard of driving in the population.
If they had been looking, presumably they wouldn't have been on the course.
It is common for "Safety" Camera Partnerships to include various statistics in their publicity releases... I'm guessing - perhaps Surveyor 101 could confirm - that these are repeated as part of the course material?
It smacks of a profession where they clutch at every little straw to try and support their case... than have the gall to come here and criticise others for reporting on the negatives of speed cameras, "because as anti camera drivers, we have an anti camera agenda".
surveyor_101 said:
at 30 you would not hit a little boy in the 30 but at 40 you hit him at 22mph
Of course you would... why waste time trying to drive around him as long as you were at a low enough speed not to kill him!Do they not think it also a good idea to learn how to anticipate such events, when you see an unaccompanied child at the roadside?
drf765 said:
How many were caught at:
31, 32, 33, 34 in a 30
41, 42, 43, 44, 45 in a 40
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 in a 50
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 in a 60
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 in a 70?
There must have been a few. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Happy New Year playmates
Excellent numeracy skills... 31, 32, 33, 34 in a 30
41, 42, 43, 44, 45 in a 40
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 in a 50
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 in a 60
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 in a 70?
There must have been a few. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Happy New Year playmates
but what do people take away from the course?Is the effect lasting, like you once claimed speed cameras were, or do course attendees simply slip back into their old ways, just like drivers slow for the camera, then speed up right away?
If the latter, then the courses are just a "get out of jail free" card, lining the pockets of the authorities while masquerading as a safety strategy - just like speed cameras having no lasting effect beyond the few yards in front of the camera.
drf765 said:
Some people are compliant, some not but are deterred by the threat of enforcement. Some will not be deterred until they become subject to that enforcement. Some hopeless cases take more than one shot at a ticket and a
holes bear a grudge and enter permanent denial. Where do you fit?
I'm an observer - I see what goes on once drivers leave the camera, and don't try and claim the effect persists beyond it!holes bear a grudge and enter permanent denial. Where do you fit?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxKq1GpBQCo
And 100 metre 40 mph buffers in front a 30 mph like Kendal from Plumgarths?
Drivers just enter the 40 at 48 - 50, and slow to 38 - 40 when entering the 30 mph limit just like they always did without the 40 mph buffer.
Whoever thought that was a good idea that would slow traffic down!
rich888 said:
I think you're missing the point which is tax revenue, reducing speeder numbers is just a red herring. Government don't care how tax revenue is increased just so long as it increases using whatever means necessary.
Todays safety camera tax is the modern day equivalent of the window tax, as in it is massively flawed and was introduced by clueless short-term tax revenue idiots.
Did you know about the speed camera on the North Circular when you posted that? Todays safety camera tax is the modern day equivalent of the window tax, as in it is massively flawed and was introduced by clueless short-term tax revenue idiots.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/exposed-l...
14,544 tickets in 6 months, for a temporary 30 mph limit.
I wonder how many were offered and took a SAC to avoid the points?
drf765 said:
I'm wondering where Mr Payne was looking.
Well, from the story, I gather Mr Payne, an editor for the Radio Times was travelling in the early hours, not daylight, when traffic speed is slowed by volume of traffic, and apparently it was earlier last year when the leaves were not missing from the trees as shown in the Evening Standard's very recent picture.Mr Blind Pugh Payne said:
I think the general point is that people are simply unaware that they are driving in a 30mph zone. The signs have to be clearer.
Here's the images from the site:I also note the comments from the RAC, who support Mr Payne, and from local residents.
RAC said:
Where a significant number of penalty tickets are being issued then that should automatically set off alarm bells and warrant investigation.
“In this instance, where the speed camera has been raising abnormally high revenues worthy of a successful medium-sized business, then something is wrong — which understandably has angered motorists and adds weight to the mistrust that cameras are often used simply to raise revenue.”
“In this instance, where the speed camera has been raising abnormally high revenues worthy of a successful medium-sized business, then something is wrong — which understandably has angered motorists and adds weight to the mistrust that cameras are often used simply to raise revenue.”
local residents said:
Soumia Jarjoura, 40, a make-up artist, whose bedroom overlooks the camera
“It’s a main circular so it shouldn’t be 30 – it doesn’t make sense at all. To me it’s more a business rather than making it safer. To make it 30 is very sneaky. The excuse is they are doing work so they are trying to reduce the speed. It’s stealing money from the people. My room is just there so at night I could see the flashes – it would flash every two seconds. So I can imagine the £1m they would take. It’s easy."
Andy Vinciguerra lives close to the camera
"It’s unbelievable. People have stopped and asked me about it – various people who have been caught. They ask how long it’s been 30 along here. I’ve seen them outside wandering about. They are being caught out going northbound. I live here and I’m coming down the road thinking if I wasn’t turning into this little slip road – I’d be caught and I know it’s there."
Do you REALLY think there are 14,544 "Blind Pugh" drivers out there? And if there are, shouldn't somebody be stopping them from continuing to drive until they have completed an eyesight test?“It’s a main circular so it shouldn’t be 30 – it doesn’t make sense at all. To me it’s more a business rather than making it safer. To make it 30 is very sneaky. The excuse is they are doing work so they are trying to reduce the speed. It’s stealing money from the people. My room is just there so at night I could see the flashes – it would flash every two seconds. So I can imagine the £1m they would take. It’s easy."
Andy Vinciguerra lives close to the camera
"It’s unbelievable. People have stopped and asked me about it – various people who have been caught. They ask how long it’s been 30 along here. I’ve seen them outside wandering about. They are being caught out going northbound. I live here and I’m coming down the road thinking if I wasn’t turning into this little slip road – I’d be caught and I know it’s there."
surveyor_101 said:
He emerges through a gap in parked cars
Then you should be driving to the conditions...Even in a 30 mph zone, or on a narrow, bendy road whilst passing parked cars, etc. it may be necessary to drive significantly slower than the speed limit, not be calculating what speed is safe to hit a child.
You might just as easily have to avoid somebody opening their car door and stepping out.
vonhosen said:
julian64 said:
Mill Wheel said:
surveyor_101 said:
The most shocking thing was what the average driver doesn't know basic signs and speed limits etc.
WHAT?? And nobody had noticed until a camera caught them speeding?How bad are the below average drivers I wonder!
Never being caught by a camera isn't evidence of good driving. Its evidence of defensive driving.
Putting cameras everywhere doesn't raise the standard of driving in the population.
A pick pocket looks out for covert Police officers, those not doing it don't bother looking for them.
surveyor_101 said:
The most shocking thing was what the average driver doesn't know basic signs and speed limits etc.
If they are not aware of the speed limit they should be driving at, then they will NOT be looking for speed cameras - although their speed may be perfectly safe, if not legal.He later qualified that by pointing out that the course attendees were asked to give the speed limits applying to vehicle types that they were not entitled to drive.
The SAC attendees were of course not in any danger of breaking THOSE limits!!
Cliftonite said:
drf765 said:
Here's the images from the site:
The photograph indicates that a 30 m.p.h. limit is clearly inappropriate at this location.The Radio Times editor who made the FoI to see how many people were caught, was passing through below the previous limit, in the very early hours, when the workforce were not there, so you can be confident that no workers were in danger of any consequences of his actions.
Rovinghawk said:
drf765 said:
I am not aware of any area where speed enforcement is undertaken by any other agency than the police.
And yet when there's bad publicity the PR department states "It's not us, its the SCP".It might have all started with laudable aims but it's currently just a bunch of grubby parasites building a self-serving empire.
At parties, do you proudly proclaim your profession as a defender of safety & protector of the innocent or do you quietly mumble about being a civil servant & hurriedly change the subject?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzR_OIH_2mo
Well the Cumbria Police were not happy at the large number of panicking drivers who contacted them because they had been flashed under the limit, so they responded rather abruptly to people on the telephone, then posted this up on their Facebook page:
In their response to a complaint I and others made about their Safety Camera Partnership manager, Steve Callaghen, they said:
acting Chief Constable Cumbria Police said:
However, having reviewed the various Internet communications by Mr Callaghan and his contributions to web sites, I do not find these useful in terms of the aims and operations of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership and these contributions have ceased.
So THAT is why Steve Callaghan has to use so many aliases!drf765 said:
surveyor_101 said:
Mill Wheel said:
Of course you would... why waste time trying to drive around him as long as you were at a low enough speed not to kill him!
Do they not think it also a good idea to learn how to anticipate such events, when you see an unaccompanied child at the roadside?
Do they not think it also a good idea to learn how to anticipate such events, when you see an unaccompanied child at the roadside?
He emerges through a gap in parked cars
There IS of course an excellent course that teaches you most of what you need to know, and where to find what you don't... it is called learning to drive and taking your driving test.
Unfortunately pedestrians don't get the same level of training, nor are they requested to read the Highway Code. It should be reasonable to assume they are not safe to be on the road until they have read it!
Devil2575 said:
The rubbish system that we have now?
So rubbish that we have some of the safest roads in the world.
Sounds very much like you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist...
What?? Despite all those thousands of drivers speeding?? So rubbish that we have some of the safest roads in the world.
Sounds very much like you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist...
So why are drivers being targeted by speed cameras that detect illegal speeding, which is down the list of top accident causes according to Stats 19 figures?
Evening Standard said:
Transport for London, which approved the siting of the camera, said the speed limit was imposed to protect workers replacing the 94-year-old Power Road Bridge, which carries the North Circular over railway tracks.
If the speed limit is to protect the workers replacing the bridge, why is the CAMERA is set up to detect drivers LEAVING the road works, just before the dual carriageway?It's a bit late to protect the workers by then!
My source tells me:
(a) that there is no camera facing the other way for drivers leaving the dual carriageway and entering the road works from the opposite direction... just a sign on the bridge warning of a camera that is not there, and
(b) during the day, construction work and a reduced lane mean that you cannot achieve 30mph past the workers, and therefore that most detections must be after the workers have gone home!
The signs for marking the end of road works are in this picture along with a further illuminated 30 mph terminal sign, which was previously a 40 mph. A temporary 30 mph sign now resides in a concrete block IN the dual carriageway.
Apparently Mr Payne elected NOT to take a speed awareness course, to ensure his £100 fine went to the Treasury.
Edited by Mill Wheel on Friday 6th January 03:11
JNW1 said:
When I look at the figures for road accidents for the County the number of fatalities in 2015 is the same as in 2012; it's lower than compared to the average of 2010 to 2014 (a 5-year period used for comparison of longer-term trends) but that's largely because there was an increase in fatalities in 2013 which drags that average baseline up. As ever with statistics you can always pick bits to suit your own argument but I'd contend it would be very difficult to make a case for saying North Yorkshire's roads have become safer as a result of the proliferation of mobile cameras. For example, comparing 2014 and 2015 the number of serious collisions on A-roads actually increased even though more mobile camera vans and bikes have been deployed on those type of roads; if you were being perverse you could argue that cameras have increased serious collisions - which I think would be a silly conclusion to draw - but equally it's hardly conclusive evidence that cameras have improved safety either!
Therefore, while I don't dispute that the UK's roads are safer than those of many other countries, I think it's a huge leap of faith to say that's a consequence of the use of cameras. Some of it may be but I suspect a lot of the time they're used to enforce arbitrary limits when there's no safety implication and hence the biggest difference they've made is to the coffers of the Treasury and the profitability of those running SAC's.....
Here in Cumbria there is a camera on my route to work at Ings.Therefore, while I don't dispute that the UK's roads are safer than those of many other countries, I think it's a huge leap of faith to say that's a consequence of the use of cameras. Some of it may be but I suspect a lot of the time they're used to enforce arbitrary limits when there's no safety implication and hence the biggest difference they've made is to the coffers of the Treasury and the profitability of those running SAC's.....
5 years KSIs upto and including 2003 when camera enforecement started:
5 years KSIs including 2003, AFTER camera enforcement started.
While in his role as manager of the Cumbria "Safety" Camera Partnership, dfr765 claimed that the cameras were reducing accidents in Cumbria. He was challenged on this, so came back with "Cameras are reducing accidents, AT CAMERA SITES"
As anyone can see, ONE KSI before, is LESS than THREE KSIs after. So what has happened since?
2008 to 2012? Well still no improvement on the stats BEFORE camera enforcement, but a whole lot of fines and SAC fees collected!
During this period, we have seen better paramedic care, advances in in car safety features such as airbags and seatbelt tensioners, all of which contribute to fewer injuries, which SCPs try and claim the credit for!
Durzel said:
I've resigned myself to accepting that at least speed cameras can be mitigated with 100% efficiency by simply not speeding.
Not entirely true. I was accused of speeding in January 2007, when I was not.Went to court, but got found guilty and fined £30 over the FP offer.
The magistrates have no idea how the system is being manipulated by the speed camera industry, and so just play along.
Devil2575 said:
Mill Wheel said:
Devil2575 said:
The rubbish system that we have now?
So rubbish that we have some of the safest roads in the world.
Sounds very much like you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist...
What?? Despite all those thousands of drivers speeding?? So rubbish that we have some of the safest roads in the world.
Sounds very much like you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist...
So why are drivers being targeted by speed cameras that detect illegal speeding, which is down the list of top accident causes according to Stats 19 figures?
Maybe there is data to support the fact that ensuring compliance with speed limits helps to reduce accidents/severity even when speed isn't the main cause?
1999 - 2003
2003 - 2007, AFTER camera enforcement started.
Devil2575 said:
How much value do you place on a single life being saved? There is simply not the data to make the statement.
The DfT put a value on a life, and on serious injury, regardless of the actual cost - they include a notional sum for "human cost".
Many of those costs are recovered from drivers through insurance. Even the Ambulance Service send a bill to victims of vehicle accidents. In 1985 my journey from Windermere to Lancaster Royal Infirmary cost me £11.
In their first year of trading, Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership returned a profit of £1.6 million, but unfortunately fatal accidents rose from 50 and 49 in the previous 2 years, to 54 in their first year.
The following year they went up again to 57, and only in 2005 did they see a reduction to 44.
It was short lived. The following year fatal accidents rose to a 7 year high, at 60 fatalities.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff