ABD Launches Campaign Against Speed Awareness Courses

[poing]

Couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread since it went off the rails but to summarise it seems to me:

The police make a bit of money which means less for the tax payer.
The driver receives an education rather than meaningless points.

I'm not seeing a problem.

[Huff]

Well I simply agreed with all of this early response:

Krikkit said:

I don't see the problem with a SAC - the end result is less money into the coffers to fund more cameras etc than a traditional fine -> Good.

Less points being dished out so the insurance companies can gouge us -> Good.

It also normalises post-test driver education, also a good thing.

I've done a SAC, and it was reasonably informative, and most people there agreed they actually learnt something which improved their driving on the day.

It's the chance to 'normalise post-test driver education' that matters, I think. I'd extend it to MLMs too...

[xRIEx]

deeps 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.

Thanks for restoring my faith in human nature Artey.

From the continued responses I can only assume that still very few people, if any, have actually taken the time to read the document linked, the points repeatedly being raised are covered in the document...

http://www.speed-awareness.org/Speed-Awareness-Cam...

I would copy and paste it to save people the trouble of clicking the link, but that doesn't work.

I've read it - it doesn't address any of the points.

[swisstoni]

Hey Deeps, I'll try again;

Why is it going to be better when your campaign is a success?

Simple question. And before you say it, your blurb doesn't cover it.

[Sheetmaself]

powerstroke said:

Ok but what about the lowering of speed limits on our A roads from 60 down to as low as 30 where nothing has changed
apart from maybe a local councillor now lives on that road,
Anyone think stupidly low limits are anything but counterproductive ????

Just because your, and likely my, perception of what the speed limit should be doesn't match what the speed limit is does not mean that you should be surprised should you be caught.

There is a lovely winding road near me which is a 40mph section, i see this as a road which has good sight lines, has no junctions, a footpath which isseperated from the road by a hedge, and no houses on it. I therefore regularly go over 60 on this road. Doesnt mean im not breaking the law and doesnt mean that by doing so i should be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions.

[TooMany2cvs]

deeps said:

From the continued responses I can only assume that still very few people, if any, have actually taken the time to read the document linked, the points repeatedly being raised are covered in the document...

http://www.speed-awareness.org/Speed-Awareness-Cam...

Posting a link to some random tinfoil hat bks behind a domain name that could be taken at first glance as vaguely official is no different from you actually typing it, y'know. It's still tin-foil hat bks.

[Ian Geary]

My views on this rather curious thread:

Words to be avoided in any sensible argument about speed enforcement: Scam, scamera, vigilante, baoy (is this even a word?), prey, legalised robbery, blackmail, brainwashed

They’re just silly, and rather than awe me with their strength of feeling, they just seem to highlight the paucity of the arguments proffered.

deeps said:

The camera vans mainly prey [sic] on roads that have a speed limit below the 85th percentile speed of traffic on that road. That is to say, the average safe flow of traffic on that road is above the limit, typically roads that have had the limit lowered from NSL to 40 or even 30mph.

So that is to say, roads where a lot of people speed? That’s hardly surprising. Maybe they’re reacting to complaints about people speeding?.


And whose to say that by identifying and deterring speeding motorists on the safer stretches of roads, the safety partnerships aren’t helping to prevent accidents from happening on more dangerous sections of road? (the ones with the average safe flow of traffic below the limit, where everyone.. oh yeah - speeds)


And it is certainly conceivable that safety partnerships favour the "safer" stretches of road because it is perhaps unsafe, or not practical, to set up camera vans on the less safe stretches of road.


And if speed enforcement should only be targeted at unsafe roads, how many collision / injuries does there need to be on a road before it’s deemed to be “unsafe” enough for speed enforcement to be allowed? I would think it’s conceivable that residents and politicians of those areas might want some enforcement to take place before those consequences occur, rather than after.


As posted earlier, the easiest, simplest, least tin-foil using way to undermine their business model is for drivers to obey the posted limit, or otherwise keep an eye out for speed enforcement (by whichever agency)


But if a camera could be identified to capture tail-gating or driver in attention, then I would be 100% behind it ( the principle that is, not the camera!)


Ian

[deeps]

poing said:

Couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread since it went off the rails but to summarise it seems to me:

The police make a bit of money which means less for the tax payer.
The driver receives an education rather than meaningless points.

I'm not seeing a problem.

This isn't fair, you can't expect me to explain the reality of the situation over and over again, especially if you can't even be bothered to read the posted links.

I'll summarise one last time...


The police have no right in law to waiver prosecution for speeding offences.

Long story, but basically if a speeding fine (FPN) is paid it goes to the treasury. A clever few ex-police chiefs realised they could keep all that money if they waived the FPN and offered a course. Unfortunately for them that is not legal. This means they now profit colosally, hence the proliferation of speed camera vans to maximise revenue.

Scrapping the illegal courses will lead to the scrapping of most of the vans and a possible huge refund of illegal monies obtained.

It's difficult to get this across to people as the very nature of the choice between a course or penalty points is how they have gotten away with it so far. Everyone will choose the course over points, it's human nature, but in doing so the camera van industry expands and expands. Clever, but as always greed was their downfall.

[deeps]

Huff said:

Well I simply agreed with all of this early response:

Krikkit said:

I don't see the problem with a SAC - the end result is less money into the coffers to fund more cameras etc than a traditional fine -> Good.

That's the opposite of the truth. Please read the thread. Unless by slim chance you actually mean you want to see more cameras?

Krikkit said:

Less points being dished out so the insurance companies can gouge us -> Good.

Anyone who's been on a SAC is well advised to declare it to their insurance company. You have committed the same offence whether paying by FPN or waivered FPN SAC fee.

Krikkit said:

It also normalises post-test driver education, also a good thing.

I've done a SAC, and it was reasonably informative, and most people there agreed they actually learnt something which improved their driving on the day.

It's the chance to 'normalise post-test driver education' that matters, I think. I'd extend it to MLMs too...

Driver education is really important, but this is actually a seperate issue.

Courses as part of the driving test and refresher courses are always good, but not as a blackmail tool to gain revenue by bypassing the FPN. I've actually said this before in this thread, so I'll let the thread die soon as it's clear most people don't bother reading it.

[deeps]

xRIEx said:

I've read it - it doesn't address any of the points.

You live on a different planet to me my friend

[deeps]

swisstoni said:

Hey Deeps, I'll try again;

Why is it going to be better when your campaign is a success?

Simple question. And before you say it, your blurb doesn't cover it.

Hey swisstoni,

The 'blurb' does actually cover it but...

It will vastly reduce the amount of speed camera vans on our roads.

Enforcement will be carried out by trained traffic police officers, not civillians in camera vans maximising revenue at the expense of real road safety.

[deeps]

Sheetmaself said:

powerstroke said:

Ok but what about the lowering of speed limits on our A roads from 60 down to as low as 30 where nothing has changed
apart from maybe a local councillor now lives on that road,
Anyone think stupidly low limits are anything but counterproductive ????

Just because your, and likely my, perception of what the speed limit should be doesn't match what the speed limit is does not mean that you should be surprised should you be caught.

There is a lovely winding road near me which is a 40mph section, i see this as a road which has good sight lines, has no junctions, a footpath which isseperated from the road by a hedge, and no houses on it. I therefore regularly go over 60 on this road. Doesnt mean im not breaking the law and doesnt mean that by doing so i should be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions.

Speed limits used to be set using the tried and tested 85th percentile method, that is to say the speed at which 85% of drivers did not exceed.

Unfortunately, some are now set using the dumbing down method, which basically means as low as possible for often no reason at all.

The ABD has succesfully campaigned to have some limits raised, such as the A38 in Somerset when it was dumbed down from NSL to 40 and 30, then consequently heavilly targeted by camera vans catching all the safe drivers above the dumbded limit. The limit was eventually reinstated, too late for the drivers caught of course.

Another drawback of dumbing down limits below the 85th percentile flow is the frustrated overtakes that it can contribute to. Dumbing down does not make a road safer, the 85th percentile method was employed for good reason.

[deeps]

TooMany2cvs said:

Posting a link to some random tinfoil hat bks behind a domain name that could be taken at first glance as vaguely official is no different from you actually typing it, y'know. It's still tin-foil hat bks.

Okay boss

[deeps]

Ian Geary said:

My views on this rather curious thread:

Words to be avoided in any sensible argument about speed enforcement: Scam, scamera, vigilante, baoy (is this even a word?), prey, legalised robbery, blackmail, brainwashed

They’re just silly, and rather than awe me with their strength of feeling, they just seem to highlight the paucity of the arguments proffered.

deeps said:

The camera vans mainly prey [sic] on roads that have a speed limit below the 85th percentile speed of traffic on that road. That is to say, the average safe flow of traffic on that road is above the limit, typically roads that have had the limit lowered from NSL to 40 or even 30mph.

So that is to say, roads where a lot of people speed? That’s hardly surprising. Maybe they’re reacting to complaints about people speeding?.

No, they're reacting to the opportunity. You do understand the 85th percentile flow of traffic?

Ian Geary said:

And whose to say that by identifying and deterring speeding motorists on the safer stretches of roads, the safety partnerships aren’t helping to prevent accidents from happening on more dangerous sections of road? (the ones with the average safe flow of traffic below the limit, where everyone.. oh yeah - speeds)


And it is certainly conceivable that safety partnerships favour the "safer" stretches of road because it is perhaps unsafe, or not practical, to set up camera vans on the less safe stretches of road.

You've defeated your own argument there, the "average safe flow of traffic" can't be both below the limit and "where everyone.. oh yeah - speeds". They will not enforce on roads where the 85th percentile flow is below the limit as they won't catch enough drivers, simple truth.

Ian Geary said:

And if speed enforcement should only be targeted at unsafe roads, how many collision / injuries does there need to be on a road before it’s deemed to be “unsafe” enough for speed enforcement to be allowed? I would think it’s conceivable that residents and politicians of those areas might want some enforcement to take place before those consequences occur, rather than after.

It isn't targeted on unsafe roads, any road with a safe average flow above the limit to maximise turnover.

Ian Geary said:

As posted earlier, the easiest, simplest, least tin-foil using way to undermine their business model is for drivers to obey the posted limit, or otherwise keep an eye out for speed enforcement (by whichever agency)


But if a camera could be identified to capture tail-gating or driver in attention, then I would be 100% behind it ( the principle that is, not the camera!)


Ian

At last we agree, the 3 E's of road safety OAP, COAST etc should be taught to all drivers as part of the test and refresher courses.

[Pete317]

Ian Geary said:

My views on this rather curious thread:

Words to be avoided in any sensible argument about speed enforcement: Scam, scamera, vigilante, baoy (is this even a word?), prey, legalised robbery, blackmail, brainwashed

They’re just silly, and rather than awe me with their strength of feeling, they just seem to highlight the paucity of the arguments proffered.

deeps said:

The camera vans mainly prey [sic] on roads that have a speed limit below the 85th percentile speed of traffic on that road. That is to say, the average safe flow of traffic on that road is above the limit, typically roads that have had the limit lowered from NSL to 40 or even 30mph.

So that is to say, roads where a lot of people speed? That’s hardly surprising. Maybe they’re reacting to complaints about people speeding?.


And whose to say that by identifying and deterring speeding motorists on the safer stretches of roads, the safety partnerships aren’t helping to prevent accidents from happening on more dangerous sections of road? (the ones with the average safe flow of traffic below the limit, where everyone.. oh yeah - speeds)


And it is certainly conceivable that safety partnerships favour the "safer" stretches of road because it is perhaps unsafe, or not practical, to set up camera vans on the less safe stretches of road.


And if speed enforcement should only be targeted at unsafe roads, how many collision / injuries does there need to be on a road before it’s deemed to be “unsafe” enough for speed enforcement to be allowed? I would think it’s conceivable that residents and politicians of those areas might want some enforcement to take place before those consequences occur, rather than after.


As posted earlier, the easiest, simplest, least tin-foil using way to undermine their business model is for drivers to obey the posted limit, or otherwise keep an eye out for speed enforcement (by whichever agency)


But if a camera could be identified to capture tail-gating or driver in attention, then I would be 100% behind it ( the principle that is, not the camera!)


Ian

So you berate someone for proffering poor arguments, yet all you have to offer in return is your own unsubstantiated opinion

[xRIEx]

deeps said:

xRIEx said:

I've read it - it doesn't address any of the points.

You live on a different planet to me my friend

Or I have a different opinion to you.

deeps said:

Scrapping the illegal courses will lead to the scrapping of most of the vans and a possible huge refund of illegal monies obtained.

Talking about living on another planet...

This is tin-foil hat levels of delusion.

Why should SAC fees be refunded?
Why are they illegal in the first place?
If the SACs attended by offenders were deemed illegal and the punishment void, but the conviction still valid, would the money 'refunded' be used to pay for the FP that the offender would have got instead? If not, why not?

If you say the answers are in the ABD document, please give me a page and paragraph number and I'll give it a read.

[mph1977]

deeps said:

<snip>
The police have no right in law to waiver prosecution for speeding offences.

<snip>

Scrapping the illegal courses will lead to the scrapping of most of the vans and a possible huge refund of illegal monies obtained.

Please supply details of the legislation that forces a Police force to prosecute every crime

I really think you don't UnderStand what you are in fact saying here ...

Man Overboard !

[swisstoni]

I think I'm getting somewhere now;
At the bottom of all this is a reasonable point about the potentially dubious use of MOBILE speed cameras to generate revenue for the police from their apparently direct cut of local SAC fees.
I can see how this would be a problem worth campaigning about.

However this has been lost in a debate about SACs and speed cameras in general - and unfortunately most people think that the SAC is a reasonable thing and that fixed speed cameras are a necessary evil.

So, a fair point badly made and with a less than great attitude from its proponents IMHO.

[xRIEx]

poing said:

Couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread since it went off the rails but to summarise it seems to me:

The police make a bit of money which means less for the tax payer.
The driver receives an education rather than meaningless points.

I'm not seeing a problem.

I would add to that list: all drivers benefit as potentially bad/disinterested drivers get some education that might help them stop crashing into another car/pedestrian.

[Disastrous]

Any news on this foolproof gambling system yet??