Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.

[V8RX7]

singlecoil said:

No, the extra cost of putting enough policemen in enough cars to be able to 'tell off' (assuming a successful attitude test) a sufficient number of motorists to have an effect.

You would have to provide the number of police cars in 1990 and the number now - do you know ?

You may also find a saving in the number of accidents / other crimes they prevent.

[mickmcpaddy]

V8RX7 said:

It's both.

Those of us who have been driving for 20+yrs drove with very similar limits but knew that unless we were exceeding them excessively we were very unlikely to get a ticket and that if it was in a reasonable situation then it could usually be negotiated down to 3 points at the roadside.

You had 4 chances and only idiots were banned.

Now it's entirely possible to get a ban within one journey (or a week) without knowing it - ie no chance to moderate your driving having built up 3,6,9 points.

I know a few Tradesmen who have / are driving through bans as they really have no alternative - who exactly does that help ?

Quite, I never remember being concerned about doing 35 in a 30 when I was razzing my XR3i round the streets. No fluffy kittens were harmed either from what I remember.

[singlecoil]

V8RX7 said:

singlecoil said:

V8RX7 said:

Now it's entirely possible to get a ban within one journey (or a week) without knowing it - ie no chance to moderate your driving having built up 3,6,9 points.

Has that ever happened?

Of course it has !

Example with link? Not saying it hasn't, just that I would like to read about it.

V8RX7 said:

singlecoil said:

No, the extra cost of putting enough policemen in enough cars to be able to 'tell off' (assuming a successful attitude test) a sufficient number of motorists to have an effect.

You would have to provide the number of police cars in 1990 and the number now - do you know ?

There's a lot more cars (and roads even) than there were back then.

[Crackie]

Gavia said:

Crackie said:

Do you believe that careful observation, whilst exceeding the limit, is sufficient to avoid be caught by some form of mobile enforcement ?

If so where in the UK do you drive / ride your 15000 miles ?

In the main, yes I do. I think most stats back my view up too. I bet the number of drivers have points on their licences is far smaller than those with a clean licence and I doubt that they're all driving round within the speed limits. Sooner or later I get caught, but it's rare given the volume if speeding I do.

I had a similar view, for about 30 years, and owned some pretty quick cars for much of that period; I loved driving. It would be foolish to say how quickly I used to drive but lets just say enthusiastically; over a quarter of a million miles in various M3s, Turbo Porsches etc with no issues at all. I know that avoiding any points ( and accidents ) during that time involved a great deal of luck rather than any skill on my part but 12 months ago I decided bin quick cars and get an old clunker instead; driving in the UK has become such a tedious, nauseating ball-ache; the proliferation of cameras and unrelenting reduction in NSL has done for me.

If the NSL reductions had been made in conjunction with a push to target poor driving standards as well then possibly I would be less cynical. Unfortunately I find it very hard to find any form of link between the current 'favourite' camera locations and any attempt at reducing casualties.

Getting back to SAC courses, I don't think the one I attended changed my behaviour at all. I'm probably a worse driver now because I'm constantly checking my speed rather than concentrating on observing the road and checking for hazards. I would love to hear some input, during the SAC, from the person(s) or team responsible for the many speed limit reductions introduced in recent years. I honestly struggle with the reasoning behind most of them.

Edited by Crackie on Monday 20th March 23:29

[Gavia]

Crackie said:

I had a similar view, for about 30 years, and owned some pretty quick cars for much of that period. It would be foolish to say how quickly I used to drive but I think drove safely too; over a quarter of a million miles on various M3s, Turbo Porsches etc. I know that avoiding any points ( and accidents ) during that time involved a great deal of luck rather than any skill on my part but 12 months ago I decided bin quick cars and get an old clunker instead; driving in the UK has become such a tedious, nauseating ball-ache. The proliferation of cameras and unrelenting reduction in NSL has done for me.

If some of the speed reduction changes had been made in conjunction with some attempt to target poor driving standards then possibly I would be less cynical however I believe that cynical locations currently favoured by the local camera partnership has little to do with any attempt to improve road safety and reduce casualties.

I've been driving for 30 years and had some quick cars and bikes in that time and still do. I use them how I want where I want and have been caught once in the last 18 years which was an SAC. Other than that I got caught a few times in the late 90s and once in the late 80s. I don't see myself as a particularly obedient driver when it comes to speed limits. I pretty well speed all the time, but I moderate it around how much I'm breaking the limit by. I am though fairly observant as adriver and rider and reckon thatbhas saved me on occasion.

We can leave this part of the doscussion now, as it adds zero value to the debate around whether SACs are any good. You'll never change my view that an option to avoid points is a good thing. Long may they continue. But then I don't object to businesses making money, nor do I think that those running the courses are those out on the roads catching those of us who speed. They are two different businesses.

[Engineer792]

singlecoil said:

Rovinghawk said:

Gavia said:

I don't believe for one second that they are randomly putting up a hundred yards of cones just to catch speeders, that's pure conspiracy theorist wibble.

Suggesting that they're in it for the money is hardly stretching credibility beyond its limit.

Suggesting that they are randomly putting up a hundred yards of cones just to catch speeders is well beyond my credibility limit, though I understand why it would not be beyond yours.

Nothing at all to do with the fixed camera at that location then, you know the one behind the big red sign.

Nothing at all there to be even slightly suspicious about

[V8RX7]

singlecoil said:

There's a lot more cars (and roads even) than there were back then.

So more tax payers, more fuel tax, more road tax...

We'd still need Police numbers for a start.

[Gavia]

Engineer792 said:

Nothing at all to do with the fixed camera at that location then, you know the one behind the big red sign.

Nothing at all there to be even slightly suspicious about

Roadworks. There are clearly roadworks there. Probably a reduced limit still in force too. That should be a clue.

[Engineer792]

Gavia said:

I've experienced the M62 from Halifax to Leeds pre and post Smart motorway and it's a huge amount better now in rush hour. When the NSL applies you can drive through at 90 with no comeback whatsoever. The same applies to the M42 around Birmingham.

While I can't comment on the M62, I have considerable experience of the M42.

Yes, it's a huge amount better at rush hour than it was during all the years in which they were installing the system, with all those roadworks with the 50mph limits - I wonder why the traffic didn't move better with them?
Oh, and not to mention the hard-shoulder running, which effectively increases capacity by a third.

BTW don't try doing 90 through the variable limits section at 90 around Bristol when the NSL applies - you will be nicked.

[Engineer792]

Gavia said:

Engineer792 said:

Nothing at all to do with the fixed camera at that location then, you know the one behind the big red sign.

Nothing at all there to be even slightly suspicious about

Roadworks. There are clearly roadworks there. Probably a reduced limit still in force too. That should be a clue.

Cones are the new roadworks

[7db]

Davidonly said:

7db said:

I don't think it's consistent to argue that most drivers are rubbish and then not argue that the ones whose observation is so utterly shoddy that they fail to spot a great big yellow box on a 20ft pole wouldn't benefit from a little refresher course in how it all works.

I'd give some extra training to everyone, but I suppose prioritising those who are the worst seems to be the best use of resources.

Most speed cameras are much less obvious that that.. as I am sure you are aware. Most people in the unfortunate position to be providing revenues to SAC's are pinged by mobiles in as-near unmarked vans as makes no difference: hidden in hedges / at the sides of flyovers or by sly HADECS 3 scammers variously enforcing the NSL (most ambiguous that) or the pointless reductions on clear roads.

When those poor sods 'done' on a motorway go on the course they are no-doubt berated about the potential that they 'mow down' innocent kids playing in the street.... on the M42...? go figure.

It is utter tosh.

I don't believe that "most" are done by van -- the army of automated cameras is just far too efficient for it to be out-paced by mere mortals with a van. I'm happy to admit I have no facts on that, however, so would welcome some. The vans - by and large - only have 300 yard lenses on the cameras so you have a good chance to check them out before they check you out. And if you happen to get pinged by a concealed trafpol at a mile with a laser, then hop off and buy a lottery ticket -- it's a rarity. And mostly there's no point their hiding as they can catch people by such covert Policing techniques as "driving a marked car".

HADECS 3 are a doddle to spot -- painted yellow on the whole, on a bloody huge gantry, and pre-signalled by a distinctive set of roadside cameras.

It's a tax -- primarily -- on the unobservant. I can't help thinking the entire industry is somewhat surprised and embarrassed that so many people are being caught by such simple devices.

[JNW1]

Gavia said:

JNW1 said:

Gavia said:

Davidonly said:

There is now far more enforcement with no proof of any benefit than there was during the 1980's and 1990's. And more recently an exponential increase with so-called SMART (dumb) motorways and many more ASC's (specs etc). The issue is that the disbenefits are not being quantified as much as the case for any benefit is not made. We need a better way forward and an end to this stupid fixation (with no science at its base) on speed alone. The SAC model is a wheeze to allow things to perpetuate without the government copping the flack.

"Exponential increase", it's hyperbole like this that make your posts so open to easy criticism.

I've experienced the M62 from Halifax to Leeds pre and post Smart motorway and it's a huge amount better now in rush hour. When the NSL applies you can drive through at 90 with no comeback whatsoever. The same applies to the M42 around Birmingham.

What do you want to happen?

I would say that over the last decade or so there has been a significant increase in the use of cameras for speed limit enforcement and that their proliferation has happened more rapidly in recent years; in that context exponential is arguably not an unreasonable word to use?

As for being able to drive through cameras on SMART motorways at 90mph without fear of prosecution, perhaps you can at the moment but how long before the authorities start to use them to enforce the NSL? Just remember that when cameras were first introduced they were meant to improve safety and were to be sited at blackspots where there was a history of accidents; however, look at where a lot of mobile camera vans tend to sit nowadays and you'll see that's no longer the case (if indeed it ever was). Therefore, I think to believe that cameras on SMART motorways won't be used eventually to enforce the NSL is probably naive - it's just a matter of time IMO.

He described the increase in smart motorways as exponential, the Specs stuff wasn't in the same description, but even so I haven't seen them increase, other than temporarily in motorway roadworks.

The argument about when the SMART motorways are always active has been raging since they were first introduced and nothing has changed. You're confusing where fixed cameras can be sited with mobile cameras in the accidemt blackspot thing.

I don't see many camera vans on the roads at all. The way you all talk, you'd think they were on every corner.

So what if they've increased, they're still easy to spot and thisnis about Speed Awareness Courses and not Speed Cameras. I stand by my view that I like the idea of choice and choosing an SAC is what I'll do every time I possibly can; points and fines are the last resort for me.

I think the point Davidonly was trying to make was there is now far more enforcement of speed limits through technology than was historically the case and the benefit of that increased enforcement is not proven (at least in terms of improving road safety).

In terms of camera vans, generally they're operated under a Safety Camera Partnership and the publicity/justification for those schemes focuses on safety not speed limit enforcement (the clue's in the name!). I can assure you there are a number of said vans (and camera bikes) in operation where I live (North Yorkshire) and some of the places they sit have little or nothing to do with safety. Of course you can be extra vigilant when you're approaching an area you know they're likely to operate but by their very nature they can obviously move around and even if you're observant and see them from a reasonable distance you run a risk of being "pinged" before you can react.

I do appreciate this thread is about SAC's but Safety Camera Partnerships are funded in large part from income from SAC's and therefore the two are directly related.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

I think the point Davidonly was trying to make was there is now far more enforcement of speed limits through technology than was historically the case and the benefit of that increased enforcement is not proven (at least in terms of improving road safety).

It may not be 'proven' but it is a hell of a lot cheaper than using policemen in cars. And that difference in cost is highly significant in the context of ttoday's budgetary constraints.

JNW1 said:

In terms of camera vans, generally they're operated under a Safety Camera Partnership and the publicity/justification for those schemes focuses on safety not speed limit enforcement (the clue's in the name!). I can assure you there are a number of said vans (and camera bikes) in operation where I live (North Yorkshire) and some of the places they sit have little or nothing to do with safety. Of course you can be extra vigilant when you're approaching an area you know they're likely to operate but by their very nature they can obviously move around and even if you're observant and see them from a reasonable distance you run a risk of being "pinged" before you can react.

Many people make the same mistake, but if you think about it you will realise the 'safety' they are referring to comes from people observing speed limits everywhere, not just in places where speeding would obviously be dangerous.

[Gavia]

JNW1 said:

I think the point Davidonly was trying to make was there is now far more enforcement of speed limits through technology than was historically the case and the benefit of that increased enforcement is not proven (at least in terms of improving road safety).

In terms of camera vans, generally they're operated under a Safety Camera Partnership and the publicity/justification for those schemes focuses on safety not speed limit enforcement (the clue's in the name!). I can assure you there are a number of said vans (and camera bikes) in operation where I live (North Yorkshire) and some of the places they sit have little or nothing to do with safety. Of course you can be extra vigilant when you're approaching an area you know they're likely to operate but by their very nature they can obviously move around and even if you're observant and see them from a reasonable distance you run a risk of being "pinged" before you can react.

I do appreciate this thread is about SAC's but Safety Camera Partnerships are funded in large part from income from SAC's and therefore the two are directly related.

It's proven the only way it can be, via a reduction in accidents, which the stats support. The argument over there not being an increase in crashes when the cameras were turned off in Swindon or other places is moot, as the cameras remained in place and few would risk speeding through them.

[rewc]

I am not clear after reading the previous 6 pages on the consensus on the question of whether the courses are effective in changing drivers attitudes. How would that be determined? How many drivers who have been on a course offend again, perhaps not necessarily the same offence though?

[JNW1]

Gavia said:

JNW1 said:

I think the point Davidonly was trying to make was there is now far more enforcement of speed limits through technology than was historically the case and the benefit of that increased enforcement is not proven (at least in terms of improving road safety).

In terms of camera vans, generally they're operated under a Safety Camera Partnership and the publicity/justification for those schemes focuses on safety not speed limit enforcement (the clue's in the name!). I can assure you there are a number of said vans (and camera bikes) in operation where I live (North Yorkshire) and some of the places they sit have little or nothing to do with safety. Of course you can be extra vigilant when you're approaching an area you know they're likely to operate but by their very nature they can obviously move around and even if you're observant and see them from a reasonable distance you run a risk of being "pinged" before you can react.

I do appreciate this thread is about SAC's but Safety Camera Partnerships are funded in large part from income from SAC's and therefore the two are directly related.

It's proven the only way it can be, via a reduction in accidents, which the stats support. The argument over there not being an increase in crashes when the cameras were turned off in Swindon or other places is moot, as the cameras remained in place and few would risk speeding through them.

Not convinced they do! Take a look at the serious injuries and fatalities statistics for North Yorkshire and you'll see there's no difference of note between the figures pre and post the Safety Camera Partnership being formed....

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

I think the point Davidonly was trying to make was there is now far more enforcement of speed limits through technology than was historically the case and the benefit of that increased enforcement is not proven (at least in terms of improving road safety).

It may not be 'proven' but it is a hell of a lot cheaper than using policemen in cars. And that difference in cost is highly significant in the context of ttoday's budgetary constraints.

There's no doubt the use of technology has led to a higher level of speed limit enforcement than was historically the case and there's also no doubt that to achieve the same level of enforcement with traffic police would cost a lot more money. Whether the current level of enforcement is desirable and/or improving road safety is however another matter entirely....

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

In terms of camera vans, generally they're operated under a Safety Camera Partnership and the publicity/justification for those schemes focuses on safety not speed limit enforcement (the clue's in the name!). I can assure you there are a number of said vans (and camera bikes) in operation where I live (North Yorkshire) and some of the places they sit have little or nothing to do with safety. Of course you can be extra vigilant when you're approaching an area you know they're likely to operate but by their very nature they can obviously move around and even if you're observant and see them from a reasonable distance you run a risk of being "pinged" before you can react.

Many people make the same mistake, but if you think about it you will realise the 'safety' they are referring to comes from people observing speed limits everywhere, not just in places where speeding would obviously be dangerous.

Again, whether the more vigilant enforcement of arbitrary limits promotes improved road safety is debatable IMO. My guess is people are now being prosecuted for the sort of indiscretions which historically wouldn't have interested a traffic officer - or would have resulted in a friendly warning - and I'm not convinced that does anything to improve things on our roads. However, this is a subject on which we've had to agree to differ in the past and no doubt the same will apply here!

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

There's no doubt the use of technology has led to a higher level of speed limit enforcement than was historically the case and there's also no doubt that to achieve the same level of enforcement with traffic police would cost a lot more money. Whether the current level of enforcement is desirable and/or improving road safety is however another matter entirely....

What makes you think that the current level of enforcement is too high?

[Gavia]

JNW1 said:

Not convinced they do! Take a look at the serious injuries and fatalities statistics for North Yorkshire and you'll see there's no difference of note between the figures pre and post the Safety Camera Partnership being formed....

But there are more cars on the road now than pre SCP, so that suggests a positive. There are too many variables to ever make a comparison that everyone is happy with.

Once again, this thread is about Speed Awareness Courses, not whether we should have automated enforcement of speed limits.

[Engineer792]

Gavia said:

Once again, this thread is about Speed Awareness Courses, not whether we should have automated enforcement of speed limits.

Well, if not for the latter, the former probably wouldn't even exist.

ETA: in which case this would be a null thread

Edited by Engineer792 on Tuesday 21st March 21:56