Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.
Discussion
Gavia said:
Why does it matter whether they work or not? It's a free pass for a low level speeding offence.
The most accurate evidence available suggests that speed cameras have led to increases in deaths and serious injuries so we need to know if SACs save more lives than die due to the cameras.We DO need evidence of SAC effectiveness, but I don't see scientific trials being run any time soon.
singlecoil said:
Mill Wheel said:
You might remember..
To avoid doubt, perhaps you would say what you would prefer the position to be, for instance, that speed awareness courses should be abolished and replaced with points/fines? Or that the prosecution thresholds should be raised? Speed limits increased? Speed limits abolished?I gather that you are complaining, but as a specialist in complaints myself I know that the first rule of complaining is that you decide what you want to have happen, and make that clear.
WE all know the Speed Aware Courses are a complete sham, handing over £100 to be lectured at as if we are an extreme danger to the world.
Raygun said:
singlecoil said:
Mill Wheel said:
You might remember..
To avoid doubt, perhaps you would say what you would prefer the position to be, for instance, that speed awareness courses should be abolished and replaced with points/fines? Or that the prosecution thresholds should be raised? Speed limits increased? Speed limits abolished?I gather that you are complaining, but as a specialist in complaints myself I know that the first rule of complaining is that you decide what you want to have happen, and make that clear.
WE all know the Speed Aware Courses are a complete sham, handing over £100 to be lectured at as if we are an extreme danger to the world.
sospan said:
I did a course yesterday. The people running it were excellent. I would like to see a refresher lesson with an instructor every 10 years when the photo license photo can be updated. Road conditions are becoming more busy/complex but drivers are not refreshed . These days instructors teach markedly different techniques to learners.
Now, waiting for scornfull replies from "driving gods"!
Your attitude to the course governs what you get out of it. Disinterest and a closed mind means you don't learn anything.
Are you qualified to pass judgement? How many of these courses have you been on?Now, waiting for scornfull replies from "driving gods"!
Your attitude to the course governs what you get out of it. Disinterest and a closed mind means you don't learn anything.
I've been on three of them. One was well managed and constructive, two were sanctimonious, pompous box-ticking by a couple of useless w
kers.Personally I wasn't going to learn anything anyway (my speeding is entirely intentional and outside of urban areas) and the IAM instructor that took me on a driving assessment for one hour plus as part of the constructive course had nothing negative to say about my driving other than that I should keep both hands on the wheel whilst moving unless changing gear. The other two courses were apparently after this extravagance (driving assessments) was curtailed and were all classroom based.
All well and good perhaps if there were any monitoring of the standards and quality of individual courses. As it is maybe you got lucky, but plenty more will sit through pointless garbage to avoid their 3 points. Whilst all the while the companies (like AADrivetech) running these courses pad out their bottom line.
Dave Finney said:
Gavia said:
Why does it matter whether they work or not? It's a free pass for a low level speeding offence.
The most accurate evidence available suggests that speed cameras have led to increases in deaths and serious injuries so we need to know if SACs save more lives than die due to the cameras.We DO need evidence of SAC effectiveness, but I don't see scientific trials being run any time soon.
Gavia said:
Dave Finney said:
Gavia said:
Why does it matter whether they work or not? It's a free pass for a low level speeding offence.
The most accurate evidence available suggests that speed cameras have led to increases in deaths and serious injuries so we need to know if SACs save more lives than die due to the cameras.We DO need evidence of SAC effectiveness, but I don't see scientific trials being run any time soon.
singlecoil said:
Gavia said:
Dave Finney said:
Gavia said:
Why does it matter whether they work or not? It's a free pass for a low level speeding offence.
The most accurate evidence available suggests that speed cameras have led to increases in deaths and serious injuries so we need to know if SACs save more lives than die due to the cameras.We DO need evidence of SAC effectiveness, but I don't see scientific trials being run any time soon.
I produced a world 1st in speed camera research and the method I developed has been accepted by the DfT as being accurate. The RAC Foundation have also published a simplified, less-accurate version of my method and recommended it's use to road safety researchers.
The fact is that most accurate evidence available to date suggests that speed cameras have led to increases in deaths and serious injuries.
Dave Finney said:
Well that's just not true.
I produced a world 1st in speed camera research and the method I developed has been accepted by the DfT as being accurate. The RAC Foundation have also published a simplified, less-accurate version of my method and recommended it's use to road safety researchers.
The fact is that most accurate evidence available to date suggests that speed cameras have led to increases in deaths and serious injuries.
Why do they keep installing more of the bloody things then?I produced a world 1st in speed camera research and the method I developed has been accepted by the DfT as being accurate. The RAC Foundation have also published a simplified, less-accurate version of my method and recommended it's use to road safety researchers.
The fact is that most accurate evidence available to date suggests that speed cameras have led to increases in deaths and serious injuries.
cmaguire said:
Dave Finney said:
Well that's just not true.
I produced a world 1st in speed camera research and the method I developed has been accepted by the DfT as being accurate. The RAC Foundation have also published a simplified, less-accurate version of my method and recommended it's use to road safety researchers.
The fact is that most accurate evidence available to date suggests that speed cameras have led to increases in deaths and serious injuries.
Why do they keep installing more of the bloody things then?I produced a world 1st in speed camera research and the method I developed has been accepted by the DfT as being accurate. The RAC Foundation have also published a simplified, less-accurate version of my method and recommended it's use to road safety researchers.
The fact is that most accurate evidence available to date suggests that speed cameras have led to increases in deaths and serious injuries.
Because there is a net benefit of having speed limits.
Because speed limits are about more than only death/serious injuries.
If I was caught drink driving at just over the limit, say after two pints then I would get a fine and 12 month ban and that would be the end of it, rightly so as its not exactly crime of the century.
However if I had been on a bender and then drove and blew well over, odds on I would be sent on an alcohol awareness course before I could have my licence back, this makes perfect sense to me.
Why the opposite for speeding? cant think of any rea$on myself.
However if I had been on a bender and then drove and blew well over, odds on I would be sent on an alcohol awareness course before I could have my licence back, this makes perfect sense to me.
Why the opposite for speeding? cant think of any rea$on myself.
There are three issues.
1. Lack of data that the detection method and associated speed limit setting are of any benefit as they are being used at present. See RTTM for a starter for 10. See endlessly lowered and inappropriate limits.
2. The corruption of the process by the profits available / privatisation of the judicial process / the fact that these processes amount to a legal form of police bribery.
3. The fact that some surplus generated is being used to increase the number of scam vans etc operating (and for no other alternative method of trying to improve road safety at accident black spots).
I might take a course if it was offered since my own selfish requirements around preserving my license may trump my disgust that these things exist. It has not come up as I don't get caught much and so far only ever by actual coppers in the middle of nowhere (license clean for 9 years I think now). If the course was miles from home I might take the moral high ground and opt for points etc.
The use of speed cameras is it seems linked to the generation of revenues for which the SAC is a key component of the business model. That means they are a dangerous distraction and things are being driven by the wrong measures (like much of what our public sector does). It's very disappointing.
1. Lack of data that the detection method and associated speed limit setting are of any benefit as they are being used at present. See RTTM for a starter for 10. See endlessly lowered and inappropriate limits.
2. The corruption of the process by the profits available / privatisation of the judicial process / the fact that these processes amount to a legal form of police bribery.
3. The fact that some surplus generated is being used to increase the number of scam vans etc operating (and for no other alternative method of trying to improve road safety at accident black spots).
I might take a course if it was offered since my own selfish requirements around preserving my license may trump my disgust that these things exist. It has not come up as I don't get caught much and so far only ever by actual coppers in the middle of nowhere (license clean for 9 years I think now). If the course was miles from home I might take the moral high ground and opt for points etc.
The use of speed cameras is it seems linked to the generation of revenues for which the SAC is a key component of the business model. That means they are a dangerous distraction and things are being driven by the wrong measures (like much of what our public sector does). It's very disappointing.
Davidonly said:
There are three issues.
1. Lack of data that the detection method and associated speed limit setting are of any benefit as they are being used at present. See RTTM for a starter for 10. See endlessly lowered and inappropriate limits.
2. The corruption of the process by the profits available / privatisation of the judicial process / the fact that these processes amount to a legal form of police bribery.
3. The fact that some surplus generated is being used to increase the number of scam vans etc operating (and for no other alternative method of trying to improve road safety at accident black spots).
I might take a course if it was offered since my own selfish requirements around preserving my license may trump my disgust that these things exist. It has not come up as I don't get caught much and so far only ever by actual coppers in the middle of nowhere (license clean for 9 years I think now). If the course was miles from home I might take the moral high ground and opt for points etc.
The use of speed cameras is it seems linked to the generation of revenues for which the SAC is a key component of the business model. That means they are a dangerous distraction and things are being driven by the wrong measures (like much of what our public sector does). It's very disappointing.
Sensationalist tosh. 1. Lack of data that the detection method and associated speed limit setting are of any benefit as they are being used at present. See RTTM for a starter for 10. See endlessly lowered and inappropriate limits.
2. The corruption of the process by the profits available / privatisation of the judicial process / the fact that these processes amount to a legal form of police bribery.
3. The fact that some surplus generated is being used to increase the number of scam vans etc operating (and for no other alternative method of trying to improve road safety at accident black spots).
I might take a course if it was offered since my own selfish requirements around preserving my license may trump my disgust that these things exist. It has not come up as I don't get caught much and so far only ever by actual coppers in the middle of nowhere (license clean for 9 years I think now). If the course was miles from home I might take the moral high ground and opt for points etc.
The use of speed cameras is it seems linked to the generation of revenues for which the SAC is a key component of the business model. That means they are a dangerous distraction and things are being driven by the wrong measures (like much of what our public sector does). It's very disappointing.
If you get caught for low level speeding you're either paying a £100 FPN or c£100 for an SAC. There's no extra revenue generation.
As for "dangerous distraction", how can they be?
mickmcpaddy said:
If I was caught drink driving at just over the limit, say after two pints then I would get a fine and 12 month ban and that would be the end of it, rightly so as its not exactly crime of the century.
However if I had been on a bender and then drove and blew well over, odds on I would be sent on an alcohol awareness course before I could have my licence back, this makes perfect sense to me.
Why the opposite for speeding? cant think of any rea$on myself.
It's not the opposite.However if I had been on a bender and then drove and blew well over, odds on I would be sent on an alcohol awareness course before I could have my licence back, this makes perfect sense to me.
Why the opposite for speeding? cant think of any rea$on myself.
You'd get a stiffer sentence for the second example.
mickmcpaddy said:
If I was caught drink driving at just over the limit, say after two pints then I would get a fine and 12 month ban and that would be the end of it, rightly so as its not exactly crime of the century.
However if I had been on a bender and then drove and blew well over, odds on I would be sent on an alcohol awareness course before I could have my licence back, this makes perfect sense to me.
Why the opposite for speeding? cant think of any rea$on myself.
You'd probably get a much longer ban, a requirement to retake your test and evidence that you don't have an alcohol problem before they let you have your licence back. What they won't do is give you a shorter ban. However if I had been on a bender and then drove and blew well over, odds on I would be sent on an alcohol awareness course before I could have my licence back, this makes perfect sense to me.
Why the opposite for speeding? cant think of any rea$on myself.
Gavia said:
Sensationalist tosh.
If you get caught for low level speeding you're either paying a £100 FPN or c£100 for an SAC. There's no extra revenue generation.
As for "dangerous distraction", how can they be?
One of those ~£100 payments supports entities which only have an interest in generating revenue via such means (and not education, safety, or anything else). The other does not.If you get caught for low level speeding you're either paying a £100 FPN or c£100 for an SAC. There's no extra revenue generation.
As for "dangerous distraction", how can they be?
0000 said:
One of those ~£100 payments supports entities which only have an interest in generating revenue via such means (and not education, safety, or anything else). The other does not.
What? You'll have to talk me through the flow of money then, as it doesn't seem to flow as clearly as you'd suggest. 0000 said:
Gavia said:
Sensationalist tosh.
If you get caught for low level speeding you're either paying a £100 FPN or c£100 for an SAC. There's no extra revenue generation.
As for "dangerous distraction", how can they be?
One of those ~£100 payments supports entities which only have an interest in generating revenue via such means (and not education, safety, or anything else). The other does not.If you get caught for low level speeding you're either paying a £100 FPN or c£100 for an SAC. There's no extra revenue generation.
As for "dangerous distraction", how can they be?
It's a simple remit & they can't force people to drive outside those tolerances or therefore control the flow of revenue. The lemmings can choose to jump off the cliff or not.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff