Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.
Discussion
Crackie said:
Precisely........with the exception of the cameras hidden in horseboxes or the camera vans which are painted green, or the cameras mounted on bikes or the unmarked police cars. I think you have been very lucky rather than very observant.
Of course I have, as the country has these hidden speed cameras round every corner hasn't it 
Horsebox was news nearly a decade ago, yet nobody come see on here complaining of being done by one.
Unmarked cars seem to be the preserve of motorways, but I rarely see any marked patrols, let alone unmarked ones.
I have never heard of green speed camera vans.
Either way, I do around 15000 miles a year on bikes and car and don't believe I'm that lucky. To paraphrase Gary Player, the more I pay attention, the luckier I get.
Mill Wheel said:
BertBert said:
Just got a course, just under 3 years since the last one! So I would have been on 6 points now. I'm more comfortable to be on 0 points. And you never know, if I can hold in my natural instinct to be a knob, I might just learn or be reminded of something!
Hey ho.
Bert
And if your insco asks if you have been on a course, will you tell them truthfully?Hey ho.
Bert
Your points only count towards an endorsement for three years but my insco asks "have you had any in the last FIVE years.
I don't mind them asking and think it's the right thing to do to answer honestly. I don't want to monkey about with the insurance and if it makes the insurance uncompetetive in price, I'll go elsewhere.
Bert
Gavia said:
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?
You seem to be a very arrogant person. You will blend in with most of the pro-establishment drones here
There are some notable exceptions who do actually represent a logical position on the 'pro mindless enforcement' side of the discussion. Very few. One perhaps. Von.Davidonly said:
The business model is a distraction from more effective ideas and approaches that might actually help improve our roads.
You seem to be a very arrogant person. You will blend in with most of the pro-establishment drones here There are some notable exceptions who do actually represent a logical position on the 'pro mindless enforcement' side of the discussion. Very few. One perhaps. Von.
Your point is weakened by the ad hominem nature of your posts. You seem to be a very arrogant person. You will blend in with most of the pro-establishment drones here
There are some notable exceptions who do actually represent a logical position on the 'pro mindless enforcement' side of the discussion. Very few. One perhaps. Von.However, to be clear the business model is irrelevant. The enforcement is the thing that matters and that has to be done for the law to be effective or at least respected to some extent. If there were zero enforcement then it would be anarchy on the roads.
Gavia said:
Davidonly said:
The business model is a distraction from more effective ideas and approaches that might actually help improve our roads.
You seem to be a very arrogant person. You will blend in with most of the pro-establishment drones here There are some notable exceptions who do actually represent a logical position on the 'pro mindless enforcement' side of the discussion. Very few. One perhaps. Von.
Your point is weakened by the ad hominem nature of your posts. You seem to be a very arrogant person. You will blend in with most of the pro-establishment drones here
There are some notable exceptions who do actually represent a logical position on the 'pro mindless enforcement' side of the discussion. Very few. One perhaps. Von.However, to be clear the business model is irrelevant. The enforcement is the thing that matters and that has to be done for the law to be effective or at least respected to some extent. If there were zero enforcement then it would be anarchy on the roads.
It is still my view that if the NSL were to be abolished, or the limits substantially raised, most people would not drive much faster than they currently do; or at least they wouldn't do it on a regular basis. This is partly because of the increased fuel consumption and cost, but also because most people would not feel safe and comfortable at much higher speeds than those to which we have been accustomed this past 50 years: they'd give themselves too many frights.
This may not be a viewpoint that is widely held by others, but it's certainly how I feel about it.
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.
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.
Gavia said:
Really? It's a free pass in the sense that you don't get points and a fine, you just pay a similar amount to the fine (sometimes less). You also don't pay more in insurance, unless you're stupid and own up to the only company that asks (Admiral). Oh and you still have 12 points to play with.
I'd call that a free pass.
The upfront cost is much the same, sometimes more. Then factor in travel and the loss of a day's leave, it's far from free. More than the addition to my insurance in my case, which was negligible.I'd call that a free pass.
Gavia said:
How can the cones be the roadworks, but not the roadworks? Either they are, or they aren't and the speed limit is a reduced one or it isn't. Looking at that photo, I see a set of roadworks and adjust my speed accordingly.
The actual work on the road was some distance behind where the picture was taken, so further on, on a perfectly good section of road AFTER the area actually being worked on, they plonked down some cones and a sign and a camera - so the camera/cones "are" the roadworks in that photo.It seems common practice now to penalise drivers as they leave a section of road works, where as if the issue was safety of road workers, the camera should be BEFORE the risky area!
p1esk said:
I don't believe zero enforcement would result in anarchy on the roads. As far as I can see most drivers get along in a fairly decent manner and without causing much trouble. Of course things will go wrong occasionally through innocent error or momentary lack of attention or a misjudgement, but I think we should accept that as part of the general riskiness of life.
It is still my view that if the NSL were to be abolished, or the limits substantially raised, most people would not drive much faster than they currently do; or at least they wouldn't do it on a regular basis. This is partly because of the increased fuel consumption and cost, but also because most people would not feel safe and comfortable at much higher speeds than those to which we have been accustomed this past 50 years: they'd give themselves too many frights.
This may not be a viewpoint that is widely held by others, but it's certainly how I feel about it.
Firstly, people mostly get along, as even the speeders are reined in to some extent by the limit and how much they'll exceed it by. Remove those limits and hell will break loose. It is still my view that if the NSL were to be abolished, or the limits substantially raised, most people would not drive much faster than they currently do; or at least they wouldn't do it on a regular basis. This is partly because of the increased fuel consumption and cost, but also because most people would not feel safe and comfortable at much higher speeds than those to which we have been accustomed this past 50 years: they'd give themselves too many frights.
This may not be a viewpoint that is widely held by others, but it's certainly how I feel about it.
Secondly, the pre is a consistent argument on that the standard of driving is falling, which to some extent I agree with. However, can you imagine letting those drivers loose at whatever speed they like, or worse how nervous they'd be when others around them are whizzing around twice as fast as before?
CrutyRammers said:
The upfront cost is much the same, sometimes more. Then factor in travel and the loss of a day's leave, it's far from free. More than the addition to my insurance in my case, which was negligible.
And it's often less. The worst case scenario is that it's a few pounds dearer, it still cheaper than the extra points and fine would cost on your insurance. It might not have been for you, but I see no reason to put points on my licence unnecessarily.Courses run evenings and weekends, plus losing a whole day off of your annual holiday allowance is hardly a killer, nor does it actually cost you anything. If you're self employed do a weekend / evening course or plan that day's work around the half day that you're on the course
Travel? You can book a course near to you. You don't have to go back to where the offence occurred. I was caught in Lancashire and did mine in GMP at a cost of £85, so £15 less than the fine.
Edited by Gavia on Monday 20th March 13:04
Mill Wheel said:
Gavia said:
How can the cones be the roadworks, but not the roadworks? Either they are, or they aren't and the speed limit is a reduced one or it isn't. Looking at that photo, I see a set of roadworks and adjust my speed accordingly.
The actual work on the road was some distance behind where the picture was taken, so further on, on a perfectly good section of road AFTER the area actually being worked on, they plonked down some cones and a sign and a camera - so the camera/cones "are" the roadworks in that photo.It seems common practice now to penalise drivers as they leave a section of road works, where as if the issue was safety of road workers, the camera should be BEFORE the risky area!
Crackie said:
Gavia said:
I do around 15000 miles a year on bikes and car and don't believe I'm that lucky. the more I pay attention, the luckier I get.
Well done, did you get a certificate or medal ?Edited by Crackie on Sunday 19th March 21:46
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.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.4040vision said:
Its cheaper and easier not to do any enforcement at all. It would make financial sense not to do it.
Then there would be no speed limits in effect, if they were not enforced.To carry your point you need to show why that would be a good thing (to everyone, not just you).
Gavia said:
p1esk said:
I don't believe zero enforcement would result in anarchy on the roads. As far as I can see most drivers get along in a fairly decent manner and without causing much trouble. Of course things will go wrong occasionally through innocent error or momentary lack of attention or a misjudgement, but I think we should accept that as part of the general riskiness of life.
It is still my view that if the NSL were to be abolished, or the limits substantially raised, most people would not drive much faster than they currently do; or at least they wouldn't do it on a regular basis. This is partly because of the increased fuel consumption and cost, but also because most people would not feel safe and comfortable at much higher speeds than those to which we have been accustomed this past 50 years: they'd give themselves too many frights.
This may not be a viewpoint that is widely held by others, but it's certainly how I feel about it.
Firstly, people mostly get along, as even the speeders are reined in to some extent by the limit and how much they'll exceed it by. Remove those limits and hell will break loose.It is still my view that if the NSL were to be abolished, or the limits substantially raised, most people would not drive much faster than they currently do; or at least they wouldn't do it on a regular basis. This is partly because of the increased fuel consumption and cost, but also because most people would not feel safe and comfortable at much higher speeds than those to which we have been accustomed this past 50 years: they'd give themselves too many frights.
This may not be a viewpoint that is widely held by others, but it's certainly how I feel about it.
Secondly, the pre is a consistent argument on that the standard of driving is falling, which to some extent I agree with. However, can you imagine letting those drivers loose at whatever speed they like, or worse how nervous they'd be when others around them are whizzing around twice as fast as before?
...and then you mention 'whizzing around twice as fast as before', which sounds like wild talk to me.
Anyhow, neither of us knows what would happen. We're both attempting to forecast the result - which is always an uncertain business - so I guess we'll just have to agree to differ.
singlecoil said:
4040vision said:
Its cheaper and easier not to do any enforcement at all. It would make financial sense not to do it.
Then there would be no speed limits in effect, if they were not enforced.To carry your point you need to show why that would be a good thing (to everyone, not just you).
If however the police can recover their costs and be able to fund other essential tasks then good, maybe it would be worthwhile working out how they can recover funding the policing of fraud too, now that would be worthwhile.
4040vision said:
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.In fact minutes of one LA (as linked to on PH at the time) stated quite clearly that because of general budget strains they wanted to lower the threshold and widen the limit of qualification for the courses, to process more attendees, make more money, and use it for the shortfall in unrelated budget areas.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff