Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.

[0000]

vonhosen said:

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?

No, the vehicle use increase isn't consistent enough to wave your hand and say that and the graph on page 14 shows that's incorrect. The trend you think you see is not there when you account for vehicle use.

[supermono]

Insurance companies recognise that attendance on one of these courses actually increases the risk of a claim, and they charge appropriately.

That'll be worth an ask I'd have thought.

[rewc]

supermono said:

Insurance companies recognise that attendance on one of these courses actually increases the risk of a claim, and they charge appropriately.

That'll be worth an ask I'd have thought.

I thought it was being caught breaking the speed limit buy an amount that required Police action was what any extra charge would be for?

[supermono]

rewc said:

I thought it was being caught breaking the speed limit buy an amount that required Police action was what any extra charge would be for?

Unfortunately we don't get to see their workings do we? It's clear that most people break limits by that much a lot of the time and the vast vast majority of that goes undetected. It's essentially a random sample of people that appear on these courses and after training, insurance premium hikes proves they're now more dangerous than the rest of the group who speed.

Quite basic statistics actually, although obviously unacceptable to those with their noses in the trough.

[Gavia]

supermono said:

rewc said:

I thought it was being caught breaking the speed limit buy an amount that required Police action was what any extra charge would be for?

Unfortunately we don't get to see their workings do we? It's clear that most people break limits by that much a lot of the time and the vast vast majority of that goes undetected. It's essentially a random sample of people that appear on these courses and after training, insurance premium hikes proves they're now more dangerous than the rest of the group who speed.

Quite basic statistics actually, although obviously unacceptable to those with their noses in the trough.

It's only Admiral that ask, none of the others do, so there's no way for them to correlate any data.

[Gavia]

Engineer792 said:

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

SACs exist because somebody decided it was a good idea to offer an option rather than points and a fine on on FPN. They don't exist because there's demand for them. It's not a free market product.

I didn't dismiss them, I asked the question as to why it matters whether they work or not. I don't really have a view on whether they work, although I'm a bit more careful around the area that I got caught in, but I'd be the same with points and a fine, rather than paying a course fee.

[vonhosen]

0000 said:

vonhosen said:

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?

No, the vehicle use increase isn't consistent enough to wave your hand and say that and the graph on page 14 shows that's incorrect. The trend you think you see is not there when you account for vehicle use.

You're saying it's not preferable to have a 65mph limit & fewer fatalities than a 75 limit & higher fatalities?
Them's the figures.
As I said those supporting the 'Montana paradox' chose the unit of measure (i.e. fatalities per year).
Your graph on page 14 shows a sharp spike & higher fatality levels during the 'reasonable & prudent' & higher limit periods.

[Gavia]

Dave Finney said:

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.

Who instructed these independent reports? Did they have a vested interest in the findings coming out in their favour?

I don't believe that speed cameras have increased death / injury severity.

What are these scientific trials? Will they involve people getting injured / dying to provide a cohort? If so, they are simply unacceptable.

[vonhosen]

supermono said:

Insurance companies recognise that attendance on one of these courses actually increases the risk of a claim, and they charge appropriately.

That'll be worth an ask I'd have thought.

It's not the course that makes them see you as a higher risk, it's the behaviour that led to the course that would lead them to that analysis.

[Engineer792]

Gavia said:

Engineer792 said:

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

SACs exist because somebody decided it was a good idea to offer an option rather than points and a fine on on FPN. They don't exist because there's demand for them. It's not a free market product.

I didn't dismiss them, I asked the question as to why it matters whether they work or not. I don't really have a view on whether they work, although I'm a bit more careful around the area that I got caught in, but I'd be the same with points and a fine, rather than paying a course fee.

And if nobody opted for them they would quickly disappear.

Now, if I may, I've better things do do with my time than to play games with semantics.

[Gavia]

Engineer792 said:

And if nobody opted for them they would quickly disappear.

Now, if I may, I've better things do do with my time than to play games with semantics.

But few people want to cut their nose off to spite their face. I like having five low level speeding offences to play with, over a few years, rather than four.

[Engineer792]

Gavia said:

Engineer792 said:

And if nobody opted for them they would quickly disappear.

Now, if I may, I've better things do do with my time than to play games with semantics.

But few people want to cut their nose off to spite their face. I like having five low level speeding offences to play with, over a few years, rather than four.

Well I don't have any.

But whether or not you like them means diddly-squat - the issue being discussed is their effectiveness.

[singlecoil]

Engineer792 said:

But whether or not you like them means diddly-squat - the issue being discussed is their effectiveness.

It's a common thing on PH for discussions to become wider that the original thread topic. Do you see that as a bad thing? It's never bothered me, in fact I approve of it.

[JNW1]

Engineer792 said:

Gavia said:

Engineer792 said:

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

SACs exist because somebody decided it was a good idea to offer an option rather than points and a fine on on FPN. They don't exist because there's demand for them. It's not a free market product.

I didn't dismiss them, I asked the question as to why it matters whether they work or not. I don't really have a view on whether they work, although I'm a bit more careful around the area that I got caught in, but I'd be the same with points and a fine, rather than paying a course fee.

And if nobody opted for them they would quickly disappear.

Indeed so, along with the "Safety" Cameras they fund! However, the majority will opt for the SAC because a) the cost is lower than the fine and b) they don't want points on their licence; all perfectly understandable and while that's the case anyone who chooses the fine and the points out of some sort of principal is in effect embarking on a one person crusade and whistling in the dark. Having said that said I do think the better run and presented SAC's can act as a useful refresher and are therefore preferable to points and a fine.....

[Engineer792]

singlecoil said:

Engineer792 said:

But whether or not you like them means diddly-squat - the issue being discussed is their effectiveness.

It's a common thing on PH for discussions to become wider that the original thread topic. Do you see that as a bad thing? It's never bothered me, in fact I approve of it.

It's also a common thing on PH for comments to be taken out of context.

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

Engineer792 said:

Gavia said:

Engineer792 said:

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

SACs exist because somebody decided it was a good idea to offer an option rather than points and a fine on on FPN. They don't exist because there's demand for them. It's not a free market product.

I didn't dismiss them, I asked the question as to why it matters whether they work or not. I don't really have a view on whether they work, although I'm a bit more careful around the area that I got caught in, but I'd be the same with points and a fine, rather than paying a course fee.

And if nobody opted for them they would quickly disappear.

Indeed so, along with the "Safety" Cameras they fund! .............

Whilst SAC courses would wither if nobody took them it doesn't follow that cameras would. The ways in which cameras are funded have changed several times in the past. the current funding model is a result of government policy, as was each funding prior to the current system. Cameras will only wither where the government decide to let them do so, because if they can't be funded under the current scheme the government can at the stroke of a pen change the funding model again.
I've seen nothing that suggests the government are willing to let cameras disappear, they make the policies that have allowed them to grow in number.

[singlecoil]

Engineer792 said:

singlecoil said:

Engineer792 said:

But whether or not you like them means diddly-squat - the issue being discussed is their effectiveness.

It's a common thing on PH for discussions to become wider that the original thread topic. Do you see that as a bad thing? It's never bothered me, in fact I approve of it.

It's also a common thing on PH for comments to be taken out of context.

It's a risk we all run.

[Engineer792]

singlecoil said:

Engineer792 said:

singlecoil said:

Engineer792 said:

But whether or not you like them means diddly-squat - the issue being discussed is their effectiveness.

It's a common thing on PH for discussions to become wider that the original thread topic. Do you see that as a bad thing? It's never bothered me, in fact I approve of it.

It's also a common thing on PH for comments to be taken out of context.

It's a risk we all run.

It's no skin off my nose - it's just all becomes a bit tedious when people continually take things out of context, and then attack you over their interpretation of it.

And this unfortunately tends to stifle what could otherwise be an interesting discussion.

[0000]

vonhosen said:

0000 said:

vonhosen said:

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?

No, the vehicle use increase isn't consistent enough to wave your hand and say that and the graph on page 14 shows that's incorrect. The trend you think you see is not there when you account for vehicle use.

You're saying it's not preferable to have a 65mph limit & fewer fatalities than a 75 limit & higher fatalities?
Them's the figures.
As I said those supporting the 'Montana paradox' chose the unit of measure (i.e. fatalities per year).
Your graph on page 14 shows a sharp spike & higher fatality levels during the 'reasonable & prudent' & higher limit periods.

No, I'm saying there was no correlation between speed limit and number of fatalities when they accounted for miles driven. It's not my graph.

[vonhosen]

0000 said:

vonhosen said:

0000 said:

vonhosen said:

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?

No, the vehicle use increase isn't consistent enough to wave your hand and say that and the graph on page 14 shows that's incorrect. The trend you think you see is not there when you account for vehicle use.

You're saying it's not preferable to have a 65mph limit & fewer fatalities than a 75 limit & higher fatalities?
Them's the figures.
As I said those supporting the 'Montana paradox' chose the unit of measure (i.e. fatalities per year).
Your graph on page 14 shows a sharp spike & higher fatality levels during the 'reasonable & prudent' & higher limit periods.

No, I'm saying there was no correlation between speed limit and number of fatalities when they accounted for miles driven. It's not my graph.

There's no spike in the miles travelled to match the spike in fatalities.
The increase in mileage is fairly linear through post war to 2009 typically increasing about 3billion miles every 20 years.