Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.
Discussion
Gavia said:
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?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.
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.
Nobody. No.
The evidence suggests that speed cameras have led to more deaths and more serious injuries, but you can choose not to allow evidence to influence you.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial... Scientific trials involve counting the number of deaths and injuries, as do all road safety reports.
vonhosen said:
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:
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. 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
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.
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.
Dave Finney said:
Gavia said:
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?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.
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.
Nobody. No.
The evidence suggests that speed cameras have led to more deaths and more serious injuries, but you can choose not to allow evidence to influence you.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial... Scientific trials involve counting the number of deaths and injuries, as do all road safety reports.
JNW1 said:
vonhosen said:
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:
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. 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
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.
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.
They've made all the successive policies that have presided over camera growth, so surely they were OK with that situation or they would have changed to policies resulting in camera numbers dropping if that's what they preferred.
I've seen nothing to suggest that they would suddenly do a U turn & start making policies to result in a number decline, it's more likely (given the evidence) that should SACs numbers collapse that they would make new funding policies so that the same didn't happen to cameras.
singlecoil said:
Dave Finney said:
Gavia said:
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?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.
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.
Nobody. No.
The evidence suggests that speed cameras have led to more deaths and more serious injuries, but you can choose not to allow evidence to influence you.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial... Scientific trials involve counting the number of deaths and injuries, as do all road safety reports.
vonhosen said:
JNW1 said:
vonhosen said:
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:
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. 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
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.
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.
They've made all the successive policies that have presided over camera growth, so surely they were OK with that situation or they would have changed to policies resulting in camera numbers dropping if that's what they preferred.
I've seen nothing to suggest that they would suddenly do a U turn & start making policies to result in a number decline, it's more likely (given the evidence) that should SACs numbers collapse that they would make new funding policies so that the same didn't happen to cameras.
JNW1 said:
vonhosen said:
JNW1 said:
vonhosen said:
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:
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. 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
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.
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.
They've made all the successive policies that have presided over camera growth, so surely they were OK with that situation or they would have changed to policies resulting in camera numbers dropping if that's what they preferred.
I've seen nothing to suggest that they would suddenly do a U turn & start making policies to result in a number decline, it's more likely (given the evidence) that should SACs numbers collapse that they would make new funding policies so that the same didn't happen to cameras.
vonhosen said:
Safety cameras don't have to cost them anything if they want to change the funding. They can make more than they cost. There are enough lemmings to go past them in excess of the limit.
Yes, on reflection I suppose they could just make all NIP's carry a fine and 3 points (no SAC option) and then redistribute a proportion of the income from the fines to the SCP's to keep them funded. The excess of the income from the fines over the cost of funding the SCP's could then be used for other things and would probably prove a tidy revenue earner for the government; there's an encouraging thought with which to start the day!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.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).
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 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?
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.
The sharp spike of which you speak is probably no more than statistical noise.
JNW1 said:
vonhosen said:
Safety cameras don't have to cost them anything if they want to change the funding. They can make more than they cost. There are enough lemmings to go past them in excess of the limit.
Yes, on reflection I suppose they could just make all NIP's carry a fine and 3 points (no SAC option) and then redistribute a proportion of the income from the fines to the SCP's to keep them funded. The excess of the income from the fines over the cost of funding the SCP's could then be used for other things and would probably prove a tidy revenue earner for the government; there's an encouraging thought with which to start the day!
I'm not sure how much the individuals running the course are paid on the day but for the purpose of this exercise lets say £30/hr. This would give the SAC operators the average UK wage when only working 4 hours per day. 2 people running the course, 4 hour course x £30/hr. £240.Receipts - 22 attendees per course x £85ish per course. £1870.
1870 - 240.... £1600 per course income to government coffers to pay for vans, fuel etc. Balance to something which benefits society instead
vonhosen said:
There are enough lemmings to go past them in excess of the limit.
And there always will be, regardless of the number of cameras, size of fines etc - so much for the deterrence factor.There cannot be many drivers in the country who can honestly say that they haven't exceeded the limit at least four times in the past three years, particularly with the proliferation of 20mph limits.
So if society demands that such drivers should be banned then we have a society at war with itself.
vonhosen said:
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.
When faced with a choice between your intuition about the product of the fatality and mileage graphs versus the graph where they've actually run and published the numbers... I'm going to struggle to choose your intuition unless you can show how they've done it incorrectly.The increase in mileage is fairly linear through post war to 2009 typically increasing about 3billion miles every 20 years.
Dave Finney said:
It would be easy enough to determine the effect of courses, just run scientific trials.
But since the authorities refuse to run scientific trials for speed cameras, I would be surprised if they really did want evidence of courses, and for that evidence to be public!
How do you perform a double-blind study on this..........? But since the authorities refuse to run scientific trials for speed cameras, I would be surprised if they really did want evidence of courses, and for that evidence to be public!
GroundEffect said:
Dave Finney said:
It would be easy enough to determine the effect of courses, just run scientific trials.
But since the authorities refuse to run scientific trials for speed cameras, I would be surprised if they really did want evidence of courses, and for that evidence to be public!
How do you perform a double-blind study on this..........? But since the authorities refuse to run scientific trials for speed cameras, I would be surprised if they really did want evidence of courses, and for that evidence to be public!
Another ridiculous thread that completely misses the point.
The question being raised is whether SAC's are more effective than traditional 'points and a fine', the responses being given are whether SAC's are an effective road safety measure. Different.
If you take away the SAC's then you will have just a 'points and fine' system, no 'education' element, just a punishment. Just how can that possibly be any better than the same system but with the addition of some driver education for low-level offending?
The question being raised is whether SAC's are more effective than traditional 'points and a fine', the responses being given are whether SAC's are an effective road safety measure. Different.
If you take away the SAC's then you will have just a 'points and fine' system, no 'education' element, just a punishment. Just how can that possibly be any better than the same system but with the addition of some driver education for low-level offending?
The Surveyor said:
Another ridiculous thread that completely misses the point.
The question being raised is whether SAC's are more effective than traditional 'points and a fine', the responses being given are whether SAC's are an effective road safety measure. Different.
Also different by exclusion from:The question being raised is whether SAC's are more effective than traditional 'points and a fine', the responses being given are whether SAC's are an effective road safety measure. Different.
The Times said:
Ministers will launch a crackdown on speed awareness classes after concerns that they do not change drivers’ habits and are a way for police forces to make money.
The Surveyor said:
If you take away the SAC's then you will have just a 'points and fine' system, no 'education' element, just a punishment. Just how can that possibly be any better than the same system but with the addition of some driver education for low-level offending?
SACs -- Obfuscate the number of people caught who would otherwise be listed in statistics for those receiving points and to some degree totting up bans
- Raise funding (and therefore, trust) issues
0000 said:
The Surveyor said:
Another ridiculous thread that completely misses the point.
The question being raised is whether SAC's are more effective than traditional 'points and a fine', the responses being given are whether SAC's are an effective road safety measure. Different.
Also different by exclusion from:The question being raised is whether SAC's are more effective than traditional 'points and a fine', the responses being given are whether SAC's are an effective road safety measure. Different.
The Times said:
Ministers will launch a crackdown on speed awareness classes after concerns that they do not change drivers’ habits and are a way for police forces to make money.
The Surveyor said:
If you take away the SAC's then you will have just a 'points and fine' system, no 'education' element, just a punishment. Just how can that possibly be any better than the same system but with the addition of some driver education for low-level offending?
SACs -- Obfuscate the number of people caught who would otherwise be listed in statistics for those receiving points and to some degree totting up bans
- Raise funding (and therefore, trust) issues
Also, it is only those who aim to grizzle about the 'speeding enforcement' system who raise the funding issue as a concern over trust. They can always choose not to sit the course, that option is always offered.
Nobody questions where their £100 fine goes when compared to a similar (mine was £90 for example) SAC fee. Most people look at it in simple terms, getting caught speeding either costs £100 plus 3 points, or £90 and a sit-down course. Profit, cost, financial value, is largely irrelevant to the individual when comparing the effectiveness of the SAC against the issuing of 3 penalty points.
If the educational benefit to some participants outweighs any extra complexity then it is no worse than a system with no SAC's. Also as your suggested 'extra complexity' is handled by private suppliers, it's totally a non-issue IMHO.
I'm sure there is room for improvement in the content, delivery and effectiveness of SAC's but as before, nothing you have claimed has supported the view that the speed enforcement system would be more effective without them.
The Surveyor said:
The times quote is of course an over-simplification, as is your claim that there is no educational value in a SAC.
I didn't claim that.The Surveyor said:
Also, it is only those who aim to grizzle about the 'speeding enforcement' system who raise the funding issue as a concern over trust. They can always choose not to sit the course, that option is always offered.
That doesn't address a systemic trust issue.The Surveyor said:
Nobody questions where their £100 fine goes when compared to a similar (mine was £90 for example) SAC fee.
Except that they did until the funding model changed as a result.The Surveyor said:
I'm sure there is room for improvement in the content, delivery and effectiveness of SAC's but as before, nothing you have claimed has supported the view that the speed enforcement system would be more effective without them.
I'm not really claiming it would be more effective without them. You asked how the system could be better without them and at the very least, notwithstanding other aspects, a simpler system is always a better system. As such the onus should be on SACs to prove they make the system better, not the other way around.0000 said:
The Surveyor said:
Also, it is only those who aim to grizzle about the 'speeding enforcement' system who raise the funding issue as a concern over trust. They can always choose not to sit the course, that option is always offered.
That doesn't address a systemic trust issue.0000 said:
The Surveyor said:
I'm sure there is room for improvement in the content, delivery and effectiveness of SAC's but as before, nothing you have claimed has supported the view that the speed enforcement system would be more effective without them.
I'm not really claiming it would be more effective without them. You asked how the system could be better without them and at the very least, notwithstanding other aspects, a simpler system is always a better system. As such the onus should be on SACs to prove they make the system better, not the other way around.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff