Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.

[Gavia]

Engineer792 said:

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

There is absolutely zero logic to that statement. Speed cameras existed before SACs and will continue to exist if SACs were abolished. The question is whether SACs work in terms of stopping people reoffending. The fact we've gone off on the usual tangent isn't surprising, it does show a lack of focus on the question initially raised.

[Engineer792]

Gavia said:

There is absolutely zero logic to that statement. Speed cameras existed before SACs and will continue to exist if SACs were abolished. The question is whether SACs work in terms of stopping people reoffending. The fact we've gone off on the usual tangent isn't surprising, it does show a lack of focus on the question initially raised.

I believe you may be getting confused between 'latter' and 'former'

[Gavia]

Engineer792 said:

Gavia said:

There is absolutely zero logic to that statement. Speed cameras existed before SACs and will continue to exist if SACs were abolished. The question is whether SACs work in terms of stopping people reoffending. The fact we've gone off on the usual tangent isn't surprising, it does show a lack of focus on the question initially raised.

I believe you may be getting confused between 'latter' and 'former'

You're right I am and your statement makes even less sense now in regards to the initial question as to whether SACs work or not

[Dave Finney]

Gavia said:

JNW1 said:

... the benefit of that increased enforcement is not proven (at least in terms of improving road safety).

It's proven the only way it can be, via a reduction in accidents ...

The reductions in serious crashes at speed camera sites are NOT due to the speed cameras, they are due to many effects including site-selection (or RTM), trends, other factors and the speed cameras.

No official report has managed to separate out the effect of the speed cameras, but independent reports have.

The most accurate evidence available to date suggests that speed cameras have increased deaths and resulted in more serious injuries.

There is a solution though, and it's simple, cheap and accurate:

Just run all speed cameras within scientific trials.

[deeps]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet, but I assume this has been mentioned...

http://www.speed-awareness.org/


There is an epidemic of SAC's at the moment, and many people are questioning whether it's right or even legal that police should be waiving prosecution of an offence for monetary gain. Many drivers prefer SAC's than points obviously, but they don't seem to see the bigger picture - the more money SAC's creates the more camera vans will appear.

Basically, if you take the points the £100 fine goes to the Treasury, but if you accept the SAC bribe the police drop the prosecution in exchange for a course fee, none of which then goes to the treasury. A colossally funded rapidly expanding business is the result.

[Davidonly]

deeps said:

I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet, but I assume this has been mentioned...

http://www.speed-awareness.org/


There is an epidemic of SAC's at the moment, and many people are questioning whether it's right or even legal that police should be waiving prosecution of an offence for monetary gain. Many drivers prefer SAC's than points obviously, but they don't seem to see the bigger picture - the more money SAC's creates the more camera vans will appear.

Basically, if you take the points the £100 fine goes to the Treasury, but if you accept the SAC bribe the police drop the prosecution in exchange for a course fee, none of which then goes to the treasury. A colossally funded rapidly expanding business is the result.

Yup

[Engineer792]

Gavia said:

Engineer792 said:

Gavia said:

There is absolutely zero logic to that statement. Speed cameras existed before SACs and will continue to exist if SACs were abolished. The question is whether SACs work in terms of stopping people reoffending. The fact we've gone off on the usual tangent isn't surprising, it does show a lack of focus on the question initially raised.

I believe you may be getting confused between 'latter' and 'former'

You're right I am and your statement makes even less sense now in regards to the initial question as to whether SACs work or not

SACs exist because of the demand for them, thanks largely to automated speed enforcement - so questioning the subject of speed enforcement goes right to the heart of the matter.

As to your question of whether they work in terms of stopping people reoffending, allow me to point out that you yourself dismissed that premise way back on page 1:

Gavia said:

Why does it matter whether they work or not? It's a free pass for a low level speeding offence.

Edited by Engineer792 on Wednesday 22 March 07:42

[anonymous-user]

deeps said:

I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet, but I assume this has been mentioned...

http://www.speed-awareness.org/


There is an epidemic of SAC's at the moment, and many people are questioning whether it's right or even legal that police should be waiving prosecution of an offence for monetary gain. Many drivers prefer SAC's than points obviously, but they don't seem to see the bigger picture - the more money SAC's creates the more camera vans will appear.

Basically, if you take the points the £100 fine goes to the Treasury, but if you accept the SAC bribe the police drop the prosecution in exchange for a course fee, none of which then goes to the treasury. A colossally funded rapidly expanding business is the result.

The actual course is a smokescreen, it's not too different to a east end protection racket, pay us some money and we won't smash your windows. pay us some money and we won't take your licence away, the only difference is one is legal.

[Vanin]

Just been caught doing 71 in a 60 on a Saturday morning 7.10 am, new bypass very wide flat road no hedges not another vehicle in sight. Caught by new hidden camera as I am reasonably familiar with the road.

An hour later I was doing 71 in the middle lane of the M25 sandwiched between a line of lorries in the slow lane and a line of cars doing over 80 in the fast lane, many cutting back into the gap I had left in front.

I was fully aware of the speed in both cases, the former illegal but safe and the latter legal but highly dangerous.

I am about to go on my first SAC

Would the speed awareness course tell me to slow down on the M25 for safety reasons?

I will attempt to approach the course with an open mind and try to gain some benefit, but at the moment I just accept that I have been caught by a government money raising scheme.


Interesting to look at Montana statistics.



https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-l...

Some key points

Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.

1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.

2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.

3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.

4. With the expectation of higher speed when there was no daytime limit, Montana’s seat belt usage was well above the national average on its highways without a primary law, lane and road courtesy increased, speeds remained relatively stable and fatal accidents dropped to a modern low. After the new limits, fatal accidents climbed to a modern high on these classifications of highway, road courtesy decreased and flow conflict accidents rose again.

[V8RX7]

Vanin said:

Just been caught doing 71 in a 60 on a Saturday morning 7.10 am, new bypass very wide flat road no hedges not another vehicle in sight. Caught by new hidden camera as I am reasonably familiar with the road.

An hour later I was doing 71 in the middle lane of the M25 sandwiched between a line of lorries in the slow lane and a line of cars doing over 80 in the fast lane, many cutting back into the gap I had left in front.

I was fully aware of the speed in both cases

To summarise to majority on here / Police / Gov't position - The law is the law



Don't try to use common sense, statistics or facts to defend your completely defensible position.

Next you'll be wanting different limits for 6am on a sunny Sunday morning on a deserted NSL when it is obvious that it's as dangerous as on a dark, busy, winter's evening with snow on the road.

[vonhosen]

Raygun said:

deeps said:

I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet, but I assume this has been mentioned...

http://www.speed-awareness.org/


There is an epidemic of SAC's at the moment, and many people are questioning whether it's right or even legal that police should be waiving prosecution of an offence for monetary gain. Many drivers prefer SAC's than points obviously, but they don't seem to see the bigger picture - the more money SAC's creates the more camera vans will appear.

Basically, if you take the points the £100 fine goes to the Treasury, but if you accept the SAC bribe the police drop the prosecution in exchange for a course fee, none of which then goes to the treasury. A colossally funded rapidly expanding business is the result.

The actual course is a smokescreen, it's not too different to a east end protection racket, pay us some money and we won't smash your windows. pay us some money and we won't take your licence away, the only difference is one is legal.

It's very different.
Smashing your windows would have been illegal.
Giving you points for speeding wouldn't have been.
The offering of courses in lieu of prosecution as a disposal option hasn't emanated from those running the courses etc, it's government policy to educate rather than punish for minor transgressions.

[vonhosen]

Vanin said:

Just been caught doing 71 in a 60 on a Saturday morning 7.10 am, new bypass very wide flat road no hedges not another vehicle in sight. Caught by new hidden camera as I am reasonably familiar with the road.

An hour later I was doing 71 in the middle lane of the M25 sandwiched between a line of lorries in the slow lane and a line of cars doing over 80 in the fast lane, many cutting back into the gap I had left in front.

I was fully aware of the speed in both cases, the former illegal but safe and the latter legal but highly dangerous.

I am about to go on my first SAC

Would the speed awareness course tell me to slow down on the M25 for safety reasons?

I will attempt to approach the course with an open mind and try to gain some benefit, but at the moment I just accept that I have been caught by a government money raising scheme.

The allegation is not that what you were doing was dangerous in either of the two cases you outline. Speed limits do not seek to define what is or isn't a dangerous speed (that would be dependent on the individual circumstances). The offence of exceeding the limit is no allegation of danger & pays no heed to circumstances, it's not written or designed to. It simply draws a line in the sand (that exists for many reasons) & you commit an offence as soon as you pass it (much like you do with any black/white strict liability offence). It is a control measure that you either adhere to or don't at risk of penalty. Further more it isn't enforced with a zero tolerance application & when enforcement action/disposal commences a graduated penalty system follows.

Vanin said:

Interesting to look at Montana statistics.



https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-l...

Some key points

Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.

1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.

2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.

3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.

4. With the expectation of higher speed when there was no daytime limit, Montana’s seat belt usage was well above the national average on its highways without a primary law, lane and road courtesy increased, speeds remained relatively stable and fatal accidents dropped to a modern low. After the new limits, fatal accidents climbed to a modern high on these classifications of highway, road courtesy decreased and flow conflict accidents rose again.

Not really very interesting.
Their best performing years were before all that with lower speed limits (65mph) & secondary seat belt law.
Rather than snapshot selective data that those who like to quote the 'Montana paradox' use, you can look at more detailed more encompassing info.
It started to go wrong when they messed about with 'reasonable & prudent', 'no limit' & 'higher national limits'


http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/...
(Graph on Page 9).

[0000]

vonhosen said:

Not really very interesting.
Their best performing years were before all that with lower speed limits (65mph) & secondary seat belt law.
Rather than snapshot selective data that those who like to quote the 'Montana paradox' use, you can look at more detailed more encompassing info.
It started to go wrong when they messed about with 'reasonable & prudent', 'no limit' & 'higher national limits'


http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/...
(Graph on Page 9).

If best performing is just fewest fatalities we may as well go back to a time before cars in Montana, or anywhere else, covered a single mile.

The graph on page 14 is far more useful for anyone who isn't completely anti-car at all cost and it doesn't paint the same picture.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

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?

I suppose my gripe is that personally I believe technology is being used to enforce limits in a way which doesn't always promote safety (i.e. mobile cameras are often deployed in areas of low risk with the primary purpose seemingly to maximise the number of prosecutions). Some will no doubt argue that's just part of creating an atmosphere of "speed limits are enforced everywhere and not just where there's a high risk of danger" but, compared to where we were pre-cameras, the net effect has just been to criminalise a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens. That might have been justified had it made our roads safer but I see no evidence it has and therefore I feel some of the enforcement now taking place is unnecessary and inappropriate.

Of course you'll always get people with the mentality that says "the law's the law and it must be enforced come what may" but that conveniently overlooks the lack of any real science behind many of our speed limits and some of what we've got now in terms of enforcement is in my view just state nannyism which personally I could well do without. By all means come down on me like a tonne of bricks if I've driven dangerously or without consideration for other road users but if I'm doing 80mph on a quiet stretch of dual carriageway just leave me alone to get on with my life (which going back 20 years is almost certainly what a traffic policeman would have done unless he was having a bad day!).

[JNW1]

Gavia said:

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.

Your assertion was that the statistics proved cameras had improved safety by reducing accidents but you're now saying there are too many variables to reach a conclusion; I'd probably agree with the latter but that being the case how can there be the conclusive proof to which you referred initially?!

[vonhosen]

0000 said:

vonhosen said:

Not really very interesting.
Their best performing years were before all that with lower speed limits (65mph) & secondary seat belt law.
Rather than snapshot selective data that those who like to quote the 'Montana paradox' use, you can look at more detailed more encompassing info.
It started to go wrong when they messed about with 'reasonable & prudent', 'no limit' & 'higher national limits'


http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/...
(Graph on Page 9).

If best performing is just fewest fatalities we may as well go back to a time before cars in Montana, or anywhere else, covered a single mile.

The graph on page 14 is far more useful for anyone who isn't completely anti-car at all cost and it doesn't paint the same picture.

The measure chosen was that chosen by those espousing the 'montana paradox' i.e. fatalities.
The graph on page 9 shows trend & when various measures were implemented, the messing about & following higher limits is when trend started rising.
That's not anti car, there is utility in vehicle transport & the graph is against a backdrop of rising vehicle use (even when there was a downward fatality trend). It's surely preferable for fewer fatalities & a slightly lower limit, than a rising trend along with no or a slightly higher limit, no?

[Vanin]

"The allegation is not that what you were doing was dangerous in either of the two cases you outline. Speed limits do not seek to define what is or isn't a dangerous speed (that would be dependent on the individual circumstances). The offence of exceeding the limit is no allegation of danger & pays no heed to circumstances, it's not written or designed to. It simply draws a line in the sand (that exists for many reasons) & you commit an offence as soon as you pass it (much like you do with any black/white strict liability offence). It is a control measure that you either adhere to or don't at risk of penalty. Further more it isn't enforced with a zero tolerance application & when enforcement action/disposal commences a graduated penalty system follows."

Surely the line in the sand to which you refer is drawn there because of the danger of speeding, and going on a speed awareness course is designed to emphasise my misdemeanour and explain how dangerous my driving was.
You say the line in the sand exists for many reasons-- name a few reasons excluding danger.

I fully accept that I crossed a line and am not trying to avoid the fine. All I would like to hear on the course is for someone to admit that in many cases the speeding was not dangerous, but was a revenue raising exercise.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

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?

I suppose my gripe is that personally I believe technology is being used to enforce limits in a way which doesn't always promote safety (i.e. mobile cameras are often deployed in areas of low risk with the primary purpose seemingly to maximise the number of prosecutions). Some will no doubt argue that's just part of creating an atmosphere of "speed limits are enforced everywhere and not just where there's a high risk of danger" but, compared to where we were pre-cameras, the net effect has just been to criminalise a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens. That might have been justified had it made our roads safer but I see no evidence it has and therefore I feel some of the enforcement now taking place is unnecessary and inappropriate.

Do you see any evidence that it has made the roads less safe? What makes you think speed limits do not need to be enforced? Do you think people would keep to them anyway?

[vonhosen]

Vanin said:

vonhosen said:

"The allegation is not that what you were doing was dangerous in either of the two cases you outline. Speed limits do not seek to define what is or isn't a dangerous speed (that would be dependent on the individual circumstances). The offence of exceeding the limit is no allegation of danger & pays no heed to circumstances, it's not written or designed to. It simply draws a line in the sand (that exists for many reasons) & you commit an offence as soon as you pass it (much like you do with any black/white strict liability offence). It is a control measure that you either adhere to or don't at risk of penalty. Further more it isn't enforced with a zero tolerance application & when enforcement action/disposal commences a graduated penalty system follows."

Surely the line in the sand to which you refer is drawn there because of the danger of speeding, and going on a speed awareness course is designed to emphasise my misdemeanour and explain how dangerous my driving was.
You say the line in the sand exists for many reasons-- name a few reasons excluding danger.

No, there is no requirement for any danger from exceeding the limit for the offence. It (or the limit) doesn't set out to say that 69 in a 70 is safe but 71 in a 70 isn't.
It does not define your driving as dangerous, your speed for the circumstances does & that can result in your speed being dangerous both above & below the speed limit, the speed limit doesn't matter greatly in that.

The offences for inappropriate speed are Sec 2 & Sec 3 RTA 1988 (Dangerous & Careless/Inconsiderate driving). Those are the relevant offences for it.

Speed limits are a risk control & social utility measure. They are also a valid tool (for instance) for traffic management & environmental control.

Vanin said:

I fully accept that I crossed a line and am not trying to avoid the fine. All I would like to hear on the course is for someone to admit that in many cases the speeding was not dangerous, but was a revenue raising exercise.

In most cases the speeding won't be dangerous, but there's an argument it's a stupidity or lack of observation/awareness tax.
They don't control the revenue stream, us drivers do.

You knew the limit didn't you?
You knew the potential consequences of exceeding it didn't you?
You exceeded it by a not insignificant margin didn't you?
You made your choice in light of it & got caught.
You (we) are responsible for your (our) choices.
You ran the gauntlet & in doing so offered yourself to the revenue stream, nobody forced you to, you chose to.

That's not to be preachy, I'm responsible if I exceed the limit myself.
We can choose to do it, but the state reserves the right to punish us where caught.

I personally can see why the state wants speed limits, whether I agree with what they are or not.
I can understand why they exist & why/the way they are enforced. It may not suit me personally, but I can see/understand why they do it.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

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?

I suppose my gripe is that personally I believe technology is being used to enforce limits in a way which doesn't always promote safety (i.e. mobile cameras are often deployed in areas of low risk with the primary purpose seemingly to maximise the number of prosecutions). Some will no doubt argue that's just part of creating an atmosphere of "speed limits are enforced everywhere and not just where there's a high risk of danger" but, compared to where we were pre-cameras, the net effect has just been to criminalise a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens. That might have been justified had it made our roads safer but I see no evidence it has and therefore I feel some of the enforcement now taking place is unnecessary and inappropriate.

Do you see any evidence that it has made the roads less safe? What makes you think speed limits do not need to be enforced? Do you think people would keep to them anyway?

I didn't say it had made the roads less safe, only that I see no evidence that it has made them safer (and remember cameras were introduced - and continue to be introduced via SCP's - on the premise they improve safety). However, one thing cameras have certainly done is criminalise a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens and when that happens you can't help but question whether the law that's being enforced is right in the first place.

I also never said speed limits don't need to be enforced but personally I believe enforcement should happen in a context of safety being the main priority. I daresay some would argue that a mobile camera sitting on an historically low-risk dual carriageway or stretch of NSL road promotes safety but that's not a view I share; IMO it's far more likely they're positioned in those places with a view to maximising revenue and thereby ensuring the SCP model remains profitable and funded.