ABD Launches Campaign Against Speed Awareness Courses

ABD Launches Campaign Against Speed Awareness Courses

Author
Discussion

brman

1,233 posts

108 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
deeps said:
Please quote where I have insulted anyone, I cannot see it.

Your words however I would see as an insult, hence why I haven't lowered myself to that sort of language.
deeps said:
Your point about people prefering the course I've tried to cover several times, it's the very meat of the issue, so either people aren't reading what's been presented previously or are playing dumb. I have the feeling some people are making lazy comments without reading the links presented.
rolleyeslaugh

swisstoni

16,850 posts

278 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Ok deeps, lets assume your campaign is a success and you have led us to the sunlit uplands.

What does your Promised Land look like? How will it all be better?

Conscript

1,378 posts

120 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
deeps said:
More than one of the campaign supporters are former police officers, and it's well worth reading what one had to say in this blog post:

“As a former senior police traffic officer and ABD member I have grave reservations about Speed Awareness courses. In my view they ‘offer’ an expensive alternative to prosecution for excessive speeds which in the past would not trouble the guides to prosecutors, so low are the infringements.

So it is that the great and the good sit meekly through half a day’s instruction whilst persistent, dangerous speeders get away with it because the police service has given up overt traffic enforcement. Add to this the proliferation of new speed limits which do not meet long standing criteria and more speed cameras and you have the recipe for both a cash cow and a feeling of driver persecution. Road safety? I don’t think so…….. Malcolm B “.
Firstly, how are they an "expensive alternative to prosecution"? The minimum fine for speeding is now £100 isn't it? Whenever I've seen these courses, they are generally cheaper than that.

Secondly, surely the whole point is that the course is only offered for "minor" speeding infringements..ie SP30 and the like? The idea surely is to educate minor offenders rather than treat them as criminals. More serious offenders aren't offered the course and are dealt with more harshly - the fact that this isn't happening is because there isn't enough enforcement, true, but that's no argument for removing the speed awareness course as an alternative to prosecution for less serious offences in my view.

Disastrous

10,072 posts

216 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
deeps said:
Most of the responses in this thread strangely remind me of the responses I get when I try to teach people how to gamble successfully. As we all know, gambling is a mug's game, we've been told that for ever, and largely that's true. But it's only a mug's game if you don't know how to succeed.

When I teach people I explain that the outcome of a bet is irrelevant, whether a bet wins or loses is totally 100% irrelevant to success.

I place in the region of 150 bets per day, each bet being judged at the point of placement. The price achieved means everything, the result of each bet means nothing and is of no interest to me.

Probably less than 1 in 100 gamblers can fully understand that simple truth. Most will continue studying endless stats and form trying to predict the future, and continue losing.
I'm trying to get my head round this.

I'm assuming it's some sort of system along the lines of the spread of bets meaning that you sort of pick up your own slack?

What I can't understand is how winning or losing is irrelevant. If all your 150 bets lose then you will have done nothing but pay out 150 stakes. That's a loss by any standards.

boyse7en

6,671 posts

164 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Conscript said:
deeps said:
More than one of the campaign supporters are former police officers, and it's well worth reading what one had to say in this blog post:

“As a former senior police traffic officer and ABD member I have grave reservations about Speed Awareness courses. In my view they ‘offer’ an expensive alternative to prosecution for excessive speeds which in the past would not trouble the guides to prosecutors, so low are the infringements.

So it is that the great and the good sit meekly through half a day’s instruction whilst persistent, dangerous speeders get away with it because the police service has given up overt traffic enforcement. Add to this the proliferation of new speed limits which do not meet long standing criteria and more speed cameras and you have the recipe for both a cash cow and a feeling of driver persecution. Road safety? I don’t think so…….. Malcolm B “.
Firstly, how are they an "expensive alternative to prosecution"? The minimum fine for speeding is now £100 isn't it? Whenever I've seen these courses, they are generally cheaper than that.

Secondly, surely the whole point is that the course is only offered for "minor" speeding infringements..ie SP30 and the like? The idea surely is to educate minor offenders rather than treat them as criminals. More serious offenders aren't offered the course and are dealt with more harshly - the fact that this isn't happening is because there isn't enough enforcement, true, but that's no argument for removing the speed awareness course as an alternative to prosecution for less serious offences in my view.
I don't understand one thing: if the cameras are catching hundreds of "great and good" yet "meek" drivers who have strayed a bit above the speed limit, how come the same cameras are unable to catch the "persistent, dangerous speeders" too?


Artey

757 posts

105 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
deeps said:
The amount of hate deeps gets for telling it like it is is astounding. Doesn't surprise me since the sheep will be sheep but I'd at least hope for 1 sheep out of 10 to wake up and smell the coffee.

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
deeps said:
davepoth said:
It'll vary by region, but certainly I agree with you about Avon & Somerset - the number of vans around here is silly. There's one parked at the end of my road most days, I almost feel like waving!
It's a legalised scam through and through. Just site vans on roads where the safe average speed of traffic is above the dumbed down limit, invent a method - a SAC to collect the revenue and bypass the FPN, throw in a dose of propaganda, add some 'save the children' spice, and kerching kerching all day long. They rake in multi millions, their overheads are a drop in the ocean compared to the colossal turnover.

The only way to halt the expansion is to hit the funding via SAC's, which will prove difficult no doubt because of the clever way it's been set up to appeal to the very people it's creaming money out of, as can be seen by replies in this thread, although it's also possible many of the contributors here have come across from Brake or other such orginisations.
Deeps - I think your tinfoil is all absorbed out ...

everyone else -
people do seem to forget that the 'same road' with it's 'political' speed limit may well not be the same road ...

the road where i grew up isa one side ofthe road ribbon development on the edge of a decent sized village , for a long time the NSL applied until the village 'proper' started ... in the intervening 30 or so years , the 40 mph zone has extended outwards and a 50 mph zone been introduced from the village curtailage to the 40 mph limit ...

so what's changed ?

a large plot which was occupied by a single house in grounds has been demolished to be replaced by 60 -80 bed carehome

all the empty single / twin plots have been 'infill' developed

as has the small farmers field which now has a dozen or so houses on it ...

this is before considering the 'bungalow eating' of 2 bed bungalows to be replaced with 3-5 bed houses / dormer bungalows and the massive extensions to what began life as 3 bed semis or detatched houses and are now 4 , 5 or 6 bed houses...

nor does it consider the increased traffic volumes from 2 decent sized residential developments and several in fill / bungalow eating etc developments in the core of the village...

but it's still the same road

Gary C

12,313 posts

178 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
deeps said:
Gary C said:
So why doesn't this ABD campaign against excessively low thresholds and over enforcement, rather than a course which everybody would prefer to an endorsement ?

Arse & elbows.
They do campaign and have been successful in having some dumbed down limits raised, such as the A38 in Somerset.

Your point about people prefering the course I've tried to cover several times, it's the very meat of the issue, so either people aren't reading what's been presented previously or are playing dumb. I have the feeling some people are making lazy comments without reading the links presented.
ABD said:

There is also no hard evidence that putting people through a speed-awareness course has any impact on their subsequent accident record, or behaviour in general. So what we now have is an enormous industry dedicated to raising money to pay course operators, the police and other organisations who benefit from these
Sound like the ABD don't like the course itself to me.

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Gary C said:
deeps said:
Gary C said:
So why doesn't this ABD campaign against excessively low thresholds and over enforcement, rather than a course which everybody would prefer to an endorsement ?

Arse & elbows.
They do campaign and have been successful in having some dumbed down limits raised, such as the A38 in Somerset.

Your point about people prefering the course I've tried to cover several times, it's the very meat of the issue, so either people aren't reading what's been presented previously or are playing dumb. I have the feeling some people are making lazy comments without reading the links presented.
ABD said:

There is also no hard evidence that putting people through a speed-awareness course has any impact on their subsequent accident record, or behaviour in general. So what we now have is an enormous industry dedicated to raising money to pay course operators, the police and other organisations who benefit from these
Sound like the ABD don't like the course itself to me.
weren;t the ABD associated with the 'safe speed' bunch as well ...

Artey

757 posts

105 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
mph1977 said:
but it's still the same road
And that's why we need to punish with all the vengeance those who exceed speed limits by 2mph. Yet we don't give a fk about driver distraction, use of mobile phones, lack of lane discipline, use of indicators and so on. Why? Because you can't easily make fking money off of it. You can't put a speed camera on the side of the road that would print money catching these, no. You'd have to employ proper police and pay them money, pay for cars and other equipment.

These mobile speed cameras and SAC's are a license to print money and what's best those who get "caught" say it's a great thing because they've learned so much from them. If you really did know what they told you before they caught you you shouldn't have been allowed to drive in the first place.

xRIEx

8,180 posts

147 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Artey said:
The amount of hate deeps gets for telling it like it is is astounding. Doesn't surprise me since the sheep will be sheep but I'd at least hope for 1 sheep out of 10 to wake up and smell the coffee.
What hate? I see a lot people saying "I don't agree", "I don't see the problem", "I don't understand the logic of the OP's argument", "SACs are cheaper than the FPN", etc. The OP has insinuated (or outright called) people dumb and you have called people sheep. I've just reread the thread and it seems the only people who have used ad hominems are you and the OP.

We still haven't had a response as to why SACs are "a multi-million pound industry" yet speeding fines (which are higher and have lower associated costs) are not.

CS Garth

2,860 posts

104 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
This is just getting weird.

The main thrust of the argument seems to be articulated as "they are a money making racket".

The problem seems to be that people don't appreciate the macro economic environment we operate in. We would all like to see more road traffic officers. However, money doesn't grow on trees and the funding has to come from somewhere, either by not spending elsewhere (education or healthcare anyone?) or by being borrowed. For the benefit of the ostrich syndrome crowd, doing the latter is something we have been trying to cut down on of late. Post Brexit this is more topical than ever.

Accordingly, technology has to be utilised where it can. Now I don't pretend that speed cameras haven't been wrapped up as "safety cameras/measures" to make money in many cases but despite much grumbling I am yet to hear a coherent counter strategy articulated as to how these situations should be dealt with without cameras/courses.

On the whole the courses are educational, those going on them find them useful and not expensive in the circumstances.

Thus the fact that a minority group (who because they feature a handful of non-representative ex traffic police think they are gospel) dress their own baised views up in the guise of safety is just as misleading as suggesting all cameras are for safety reason.

I can't help feel that half the reason for this is that many of courses are run by ex-police and the ex traffic cops moaning are sick that their ex colleagues are making a good living on top of their pensions by providing a simple market offering where there is demand.

Deeps - as for your betting analogy that's somewhat indicative of the slightly condescending tone of this whole thread I'm afraid. The "teaching people betting analogy" sounds pretty condescending and doesn't help your cause. Just because people don't agree with your supposed incontrovertible evidence when presented with it doesn't mean it hasn't been read. Just that they don't agree.

Oh and if the betting thing does actually work (for this purpose I'll assume it does if your net worth is >£50m) then do PM me...

Artey

757 posts

105 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
xRIEx said:
Artey said:
The amount of hate deeps gets for telling it like it is is astounding. Doesn't surprise me since the sheep will be sheep but I'd at least hope for 1 sheep out of 10 to wake up and smell the coffee.
What hate? I see a lot people saying "I don't agree", "I don't see the problem", "I don't understand the logic of the OP's argument", "SACs are cheaper than the FPN", etc. The OP has insinuated (or outright called) people dumb and you have called people sheep. I've just reread the thread and it seems the only people who have used ad hominems are you and the OP.

We still haven't had a response as to why SACs are "a multi-million pound industry" yet speeding fines (which are higher and have lower associated costs) are not.
They both are bringing in money, obviously. Into different kinds of pockets. SAC's are private vigilantes incentivised by maximising revenues under the pretense of road safety. Similar to what the private parking companies did and still do on a slightly less scumlike scale now. Just think of what mayhem would it cause if councils had PPC's run council parking schemes. Those who don't get what OP means are a bit brainwashed (I see usual suspect nicknames so no surprises there).

xRIEx

8,180 posts

147 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Artey said:
xRIEx said:
Artey said:
The amount of hate deeps gets for telling it like it is is astounding. Doesn't surprise me since the sheep will be sheep but I'd at least hope for 1 sheep out of 10 to wake up and smell the coffee.
What hate? I see a lot people saying "I don't agree", "I don't see the problem", "I don't understand the logic of the OP's argument", "SACs are cheaper than the FPN", etc. The OP has insinuated (or outright called) people dumb and you have called people sheep. I've just reread the thread and it seems the only people who have used ad hominems are you and the OP.

We still haven't had a response as to why SACs are "a multi-million pound industry" yet speeding fines (which are higher and have lower associated costs) are not.
They both are bringing in money, obviously. Into different kinds of pockets. SAC's are private vigilantes incentivised by maximising revenues under the pretense of road safety. Similar to what the private parking companies did and still do on a slightly less scumlike scale now. Just think of what mayhem would it cause if councils had PPC's run council parking schemes. Those who don't get what OP means are a bit brainwashed (I see usual suspect nicknames so no surprises there).
And another ad hominem - if someone disagrees with you they are "brainwashed". This sounds like the same rhetoric as the 9/11 "truthers".

What "vigilantism"? Do you have evidence of SAC providers operating speed cameras or any speed limit enforcement?

CS Garth

2,860 posts

104 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Artey said:
xRIEx said:
Artey said:
The amount of hate deeps gets for telling it like it is is astounding. Doesn't surprise me since the sheep will be sheep but I'd at least hope for 1 sheep out of 10 to wake up and smell the coffee.
What hate? I see a lot people saying "I don't agree", "I don't see the problem", "I don't understand the logic of the OP's argument", "SACs are cheaper than the FPN", etc. The OP has insinuated (or outright called) people dumb and you have called people sheep. I've just reread the thread and it seems the only people who have used ad hominems are you and the OP.

We still haven't had a response as to why SACs are "a multi-million pound industry" yet speeding fines (which are higher and have lower associated costs) are not.
They both are bringing in money, obviously. Into different kinds of pockets. SAC's are private vigilantes incentivised by maximising revenues under the pretense of road safety. Similar to what the private parking companies did and still do on a slightly less scumlike scale now. Just think of what mayhem would it cause if councils had PPC's run council parking schemes. Those who don't get what OP means are a bit brainwashed (I see usual suspect nicknames so no surprises there).
SACs don't dole out the fines for speeding thought do they - they don't set the cameras limits. So how can they be vigilantes? I presume your argument is that because the actual police get £40 from each SAC your view is that they want more people to go on them as they get SAC money whereas if it was points and fines they wouldn't get a penny right?

If so doesn't this mean the police actually get money which they wouldn't otherwise to get to pay for, erm, I don't know, say more traffic officers/beat officers to deal with burglaries etc.

Instead of trotting out an argument about being sheep/don't understand which frankly is just a noise how about you set out:

1) What your actual argument is. They are "money making scams" isn't an argument, it's an unsupported statement.
2) How do you feel speeding offences be processed if the SAC were removed?

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
SACs are a mechanism to prevent too many people falling foul of totting up. They're also self-funding to the point of making a few people a decent profit. If they educate people, make them think twice about their driving and don't cost the tax payer, what's not to like?

I don't know about other people, however I always find it frustrating when something is criticised because in the background some people are making a bucket load of money.

swisstoni

16,850 posts

278 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Artey said:
xRIEx said:
Artey said:
The amount of hate deeps gets for telling it like it is is astounding. Doesn't surprise me since the sheep will be sheep but I'd at least hope for 1 sheep out of 10 to wake up and smell the coffee.
What hate? I see a lot people saying "I don't agree", "I don't see the problem", "I don't understand the logic of the OP's argument", "SACs are cheaper than the FPN", etc. The OP has insinuated (or outright called) people dumb and you have called people sheep. I've just reread the thread and it seems the only people who have used ad hominems are you and the OP.

We still haven't had a response as to why SACs are "a multi-million pound industry" yet speeding fines (which are higher and have lower associated costs) are not.
They both are bringing in money, obviously. Into different kinds of pockets. SAC's are private vigilantes incentivised by maximising revenues under the pretense of road safety. Similar to what the private parking companies did and still do on a slightly less scumlike scale now. Just think of what mayhem would it cause if councils had PPC's run council parking schemes. Those who don't get what OP means are a bit brainwashed (I see usual suspect nicknames so no surprises there).
As the OP seems to gave gone away, perhaps you can answer the question I asked him?
Lets say the dastardly SAC courses are stopped. Everyone done for speeding gets 3 points in the post I presume?
How is this making things better?

Artey

757 posts

105 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
CS Garth said:
I presume your argument is that because the actual police get £40 from each SAC your view is that they want more people to go on them as they get SAC money whereas if it was points and fines they wouldn't get a penny right?
Baby you smart, you loyal, you grateful. I appreciate that. They are incentivised to buy as many scameras as possible since the ROI on these is something an average London investment banker would love to have in their portfolio. If the money went to central pot they wouldn't have a direct incentive to do it.

What's worse the incentive is to MAXIMISE THE PROFITS hence zero tolerance and maximum vigilantism. Even at 3am on a 5 mile stretch of straight road with no traffic around. Where a traffic officer could issue a warning scamera will issue an invoice.

CS Garth said:
If so doesn't this mean the police actually get money which they wouldn't otherwise to get to pay for, erm, I don't know, say more traffic officers/beat officers to deal with burglaries etc.
Which fairy tale does you live in me boay?

CS Garth said:
Instead of trotting out an argument about being sheep/don't understand which frankly is just a noise how about you set out:

1) What your actual argument is. They are "money making scams" isn't an argument, it's an unsupported statement.
2) How do you feel speeding offences be processed if the SAC were removed?
My argument was provided in the post above.

Artey

757 posts

105 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
Lets say the dastardly SAC courses are stopped.
All the scameras that are money making machines stop being profitable and most disappear.

swisstoni said:
Everyone done for speeding gets 3 points in the post I presume?
Obviously. But with fewer scameras hunting for prey there will be fewer random tickets and more common sense applied.

swisstoni said:
How is this making things better?
Things will get back to normal.

xRIEx

8,180 posts

147 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Artey said:
swisstoni said:
Lets say the dastardly SAC courses are stopped.
All the scameras that are money making machines stop being profitable and most disappear.

swisstoni said:
Everyone done for speeding gets 3 points in the post I presume?
Obviously. But with fewer scameras hunting for prey there will be fewer random tickets and more common sense applied.

swisstoni said:
How is this making things better?
Things will get back to normal.
There is no logical step from "ban SACs" to "fewer speed cameras". SAC cost: £100. FPN: £100.

As you yourself have said, a camera and computer system can simply issue a FPN with minimal involvement.

Your premise: "SACs exist because they generate money."
Your argument: "if SACs are scrapped, cameras will disappear and be replaced by police."
Your believed result: "Things will get back to normal."


Your premise: "SACs exist because they generate money."
- So do fixed penalty notices. As has been pointed out several times, including by you, it is cheaper to issue a FPN than it is to run a SAC. The course requires a venue and facilities, lots of admin, two people to run it (on the one I attended). An FPN is mostly automated so has minimal costs - you yourself stated this.

Your argument: "if SACs are scrapped, cameras will disappear and be replaced by police."
- No, because FPNs will be issued instead (exactly as what happened before SACs were introduced) - as above, FPNs are more cost effective for the state, therefore by your logic the number of cameras would increase. Also, there is no guarantee that a police officer will only give you a ticking off. Police also cost more than a camera unit - the money comes from somewhere, so it's either taxpayers or speeders - you choose.


Your believed result: "Things will get back to normal."
- What is 'normal'? Speed cameras have been a common feature on our roads for 20 years, so removing them would be abnormal. Removing SACs would (as stated above) just take us back to cameras and FPNs.