ABD Launches Campaign Against Speed Awareness Courses

[xRIEx]

With these feet said:

xRIEx said:

Yes, all drivers should know it already. The fact is (evidenced by some amusing clips on the st driving caught on dashcam thread) that a large number of drivers don't know what the fk they're doing. Just because something should be doesn't mean it is. This is where driver awareness courses benefit everyone, even the good drivers: it gives some potentially st drivers some education and a chance to think about their driving and hopefully prevent them from crashing into the good drivers.

As was stated on the course I attended, when you get your driving licence and you sign the declaration bit, you're declaring that you're going to keep up to date with the Highway Code and drive in accordance with that and all relevant laws. None of us there (about 20 or so) had read the HC since passing the test.

Quite true, but then also the fact that there are many crap drivers that dont speed and therefore the chances of ending up on some sort of improvement course is rather slim - and probably pointless due to many driving because of need to rather than enjoyment.

Speed awareness courses are not the only courses available - courses are also offered for mobile phone offences and minor crashes (the latter may not be 'in lieu of prosecution' type courses, but voluntary).

As I said in my first post of this thread, I think every driver should be subject to a continuous improvement programme. The Dunning-Kruger effect is hugely prevalent in driving.

[brman]

TooMany2cvs said:

Except that if you DO lose 51 or more times out of 100, which is really quite likely, you are down.
Equally, if you win 51 or more times out of 100, which is equally as likely as losing, you are up.

So the actual winning IS important. The overall winning is very important, but each individual result makes up a part of that overall result - so each individual result IS important.

well yes and no. Perhaps 100 bets was a poor example as it could well end up against me. But if I made it 1000 bets the chances of that happening are much much smaller. Or of course I could have used better odds to increase the chance of me winning on a smaller number of bets.

I agree that individual results are important as they make up the overall results but I think the point is that it does not matter if the individual result is a win or lose AS LONG AS the overall success rate is high enough.
But I would have thought this is stating the obvious as no-one (even a bookie) can expect to win on every bet they make.........

[TooMany2cvs]

brman said:

Theoretically you are right, it is possible the bets could always go against you - after all it is chance and you can have bad luck. It is still a gamble but, if you do it enough, you would be very unlucky for it not to work overall. But yes, you need to do it a lot. Betting 5 times on coin toss would likely see very variable results. 1000 coin tosses and the results are very likely to be very close to 50:50.

Which presupposes that you DO have a large number of events with very clearly statistically predictable results, so that you can decide on what good pricing for those events is. If they're all identical, then the pricing is good for them all. If they're not, you need to consider the pricing for each event.

Your opinion of whether there's good or bad pricing for an individual event can only be as good as your understanding of the statistical likelihood of each individual event.

And any study of form, in order to try to understand that statistical likelihood of a given result, has already been thoroughly poo-poohed by deeps. Because the result isn't important.

deeps said:

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.

So what we're left with is simply shotgunning bets, isn't it, and hoping that you somehow come out ahead? That's not gambling. That's simply blind optimism.

[Disastrous]

brman said:

Disastrous said:

brman said:

Disastrous said:

I don't understand how you can make money simply by making bets at good odds unless you win. Can you explain that?

It seems obvious to me that if you only lose, which is perfectly possible, then you can never make money. You can't make money just from the act of betting alone, can you?

This bit I do understand (I think...)
Lets say you are the booky and I am betting on a coin toss. Each time I bet £1 on it being a heads.
You know the odds of me winning are 50% so you (being a generous booky) play it fair and give me those odds (1:1). So if I win I get my £1 back plus £1 from you. If I lose, you get to keep my £1.
After 100 bets the odds are I lost 50 times and won 50 times. So I will have broken even.
So it doesn't matter if I lose 50 times, because (statistically) will also win 50 times and break even. So, as stated the outcome of each individual bit is irrelevant, it is the probability of winning over a number of bets that is important.

I'm not sure that's quite right. I agree that over an infinite number of flips, you will get heads as often as tails, but there's no reason why you couldn't have a run of say 100 heads in a row, given that's a 50/50 each time. I'm not a mathematician but I've a feeling I've read that the maths behind this is pretty sound somewhere...I wouldn't bet my life on it though!

My point being that nobody has either an infinite amount to stake nor an infinite number of coins to flip so sooner or later, a bad run would ruin you, and that's just trying to break even.

Theoretically you are right, it is possible the bets could always go against you - after all it is chance and you can have bad luck. It is still a gamble but, if you do it enough, you would be very unlucky for it not to work overall. But yes, you need to do it a lot. Betting 5 times on coin toss would likely see very variable results. 1000 coin tosses and the results are very likely to be very close to 50:50.

Yup, that all makes sense to me.

Ok, so it seems I'm not totally thick, yet this system of deeps' makes no sense to me. I'm not sure it's worthwhile me starting a thread as I don't really know what to ask, but deeps, maybe you could explain in more detail, or even start the thread yourself to explain it if you don't want to clutter this one?

[Blakewater]

There might be some truth to what the ABD says about money making, but it's in serious danger of making itself look like a group of paranoid conspiracy theorists to the wider world.

Driving is dumbed down with low speed limits and basic soundbite road safety messages because most people on the roads are dumb. Then people campaign for low speed limits and traffic calming measures where they live because they only see slowing traffic down as a way to make roads safe.

If the ABD want to be taken seriously as a drivers' organisation they need to look less at trying to remove penalties for driving infringements and more at education for people about road safety so we can get closer to that Utopian ideal of everyone on the road caring about driving well.

[TooMany2cvs]

Blakewater said:

...but it's in serious danger of making itself look like a group of paranoid conspiracy theorists to the wider world.

There's a good reason for that.

They're the equal and opposite knee-jerk-over-reaction to BRAKE, and about as rational. They have been for years.

Actually, just googling to find out how many - since 1993 - I've just realised why I've had a nagging doubt throughout this thread about whether it was Alliance or Association. It used to be Association, but they merged with the "Driver's Alliance" (who?) a few years back.
Reading the press release about the merger confirms their long-standing tenuous grasp on reality.
http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/2495.html

ABD said:

Bearing in mind that the ‘war on the motorist’ is still being fought by those opposed to individual freedom...

Eejit behind DA said:

The freedom to reach your place of employment, your family and friends is under threat.

[mph1977]

TooMany2cvs said:

Blakewater said:

...but it's in serious danger of making itself look like a group of paranoid conspiracy theorists to the wider world.

There's a good reason for that.

They're the equal and opposite knee-jerk-over-reaction to BRAKE, and about as rational. They have been for years.

Actually, just googling to find out how many - since 1993 - I've just realised why I've had a nagging doubt throughout this thread about whether it was Alliance or Association. It used to be Association, but they merged with the "Driver's Alliance" (who?) a few years back.
Reading the press release about the merger confirms their long-standing tenuous grasp on reality.
http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/2495.html

ABD said:

Bearing in mind that the ‘war on the motorist’ is still being fought by those opposed to individual freedom...

Eejit behind DA said:

The freedom to reach your place of employment, your family and friends is under threat.

they are the polar opposite policy wise but do seem to share the tenuous grip on reality and practicality that Brake display

[Pete317]

Blakewater said:

Driving is dumbed down with low speed limits and basic soundbite road safety messages because most people on the roads are dumb. Then people campaign for low speed limits and traffic calming measures where they live because they only see slowing traffic down as a way to make roads safe.

If that's true then the last thing you want to do is make them think that they're safe just because they're driving slower, and so switch off even more than they already were.

[Pothole]

With these feet said:

Im with Deeps on this, why are people happy to subsidise more cameras in the trade off of not getting prosecuted for speeding? We all like to give it a bit of a hoof now and again, but in fairness being preached to by someone in a classroom doesnt sound like anything other than what, as a driver, you should be aware of already.

Add to that, how many simply take the points and ignore the course?

My wife did one a few years ago, said there was quite a bit on CO2 emissions . Sorry, but thats not IMO got anything to do with being caught speeding.

I've done 2 in different parts of the country. There was very little on emissions at either of them. I know they vary but perhaps that's the only bit your wife was awake for?

[deeps]

xRIEx said:

deeps said:

Just as I said, people don't get it

So, no one gets it, no matter how many times you explain it? Just the same as no one gets it when you explain why SACs are illegal?


Have you ever considered that you might be really, really st at explaining?

Wow, I'm a member of several forums, I have to say I've never received such bitterness on any other thread I've been involved in over many years of posting.
I wonder why this one has hit such a nerve?

I also note that you ignored my last reply to you, conveniently.

[deeps]

xRIEx said:

With these feet said:

Im with Deeps on this, why are people happy to subsidise more cameras in the trade off of not getting prosecuted for speeding?

It's been asked many times in this thread but not answered: why does income from SACs subsidise/incentivise the addition of more cameras, but income from FPNs (which we know are lower cost to the legal system) doesn't?

xRIEx, are you being serious? If you don't know the answer to that by now you haven't read or understood anything, I'm almost too embarrassed for you to explain it again, but here's a clue, FPN money goes to the treasury, SAC money goes to the course partners who cream off the profit and like any business, reinvest to expand.

Apologies if I sound rude, I'm only giving back what I get.

edited to fix brackets

Edited by deeps on Sunday 31st July 04:34

Edited by deeps on Sunday 31st July 04:36

[deeps]

Disastrous said:

brman said:

Disastrous said:

brman said:

Disastrous said:

I don't understand how you can make money simply by making bets at good odds unless you win. Can you explain that?

It seems obvious to me that if you only lose, which is perfectly possible, then you can never make money. You can't make money just from the act of betting alone, can you?

This bit I do understand (I think...)
Lets say you are the booky and I am betting on a coin toss. Each time I bet £1 on it being a heads.
You know the odds of me winning are 50% so you (being a generous booky) play it fair and give me those odds (1:1). So if I win I get my £1 back plus £1 from you. If I lose, you get to keep my £1.
After 100 bets the odds are I lost 50 times and won 50 times. So I will have broken even.
So it doesn't matter if I lose 50 times, because (statistically) will also win 50 times and break even. So, as stated the outcome of each individual bit is irrelevant, it is the probability of winning over a number of bets that is important.

I'm not sure that's quite right. I agree that over an infinite number of flips, you will get heads as often as tails, but there's no reason why you couldn't have a run of say 100 heads in a row, given that's a 50/50 each time. I'm not a mathematician but I've a feeling I've read that the maths behind this is pretty sound somewhere...I wouldn't bet my life on it though!

My point being that nobody has either an infinite amount to stake nor an infinite number of coins to flip so sooner or later, a bad run would ruin you, and that's just trying to break even.

Theoretically you are right, it is possible the bets could always go against you - after all it is chance and you can have bad luck. It is still a gamble but, if you do it enough, you would be very unlucky for it not to work overall. But yes, you need to do it a lot. Betting 5 times on coin toss would likely see very variable results. 1000 coin tosses and the results are very likely to be very close to 50:50.

Yup, that all makes sense to me.

Ok, so it seems I'm not totally thick, yet this system of deeps' makes no sense to me. I'm not sure it's worthwhile me starting a thread as I don't really know what to ask, but deeps, maybe you could explain in more detail, or even start the thread yourself to explain it if you don't want to clutter this one?

Disastrous, you are one of the more civilised posters here so I will answer, yes you can make money just from the act of betting alone, that's the whole point. Nobody can predict the future, including outcomes of sporting events.

Do you know anything about roulette, specifically how the table will make money long term? It's a good place to start. Basically, in single zero roulette the house has a 2.7% edge, that is to say the house will make 2.7% profit on turnover long term just by the act of betting (accepting bets).

However, if a lucky punter Placed a mere £10 bet on say red 5, won and placed the lot on red 5 again, won and placed the lot on red 5 again, he would walk away with just over £450,000. For this reason, the second most important thing after value is staking. In the example the house wouldn't have let it happen because it would have severely hit profits, so they limit punters to a fixed stake (probably £100). That way they can lessen short term variance and risk.

In sports betting it's more complicated, but basically you can expect a worst case scenario losing run of 20 times your average betting odds, so if you're betting at average odds of 3.0, allow for a losing run of 60 bets in a row, even though long term average you will only lose 2 out of 3 (back these at 3.3 for 10% value). You can set a staking plan accordingly, you want to stake enough to maximise profit but not to risk the bank falling to an inoperable level. Personally, I stake at 0.5% of the betting bank, which is perhaps a little too conservavtive but works well for me.

Drawdown is another important factor, google RoMaD for more info', but basically you're assessing risk by calculating your return on maximum drawdown, or put another way, annual profit as a percentage of largest losing period. Mine is around 700% which is very good.

So hopefully you might see that a bet is judged at the point of placement and not by the result, if you bet on heads and it comes up tails but you secured odds of 2.1 it was an excellent bet.

Pre-off and in-running sports betting throws up many opportunities to find value bets, you need to know your stuff though by watching thousands of markets and studying how the odds and money move, basically gaining experience in the numbers. Knowing anything about the actual sport by studying sports form and stats I have not found to be necessary.

Hope this helps a little

Edited by deeps on Sunday 31st July 04:43

[deeps]

With these feet said:

Im with Deeps on this, why are people happy to subsidise more cameras in the trade off of not getting prosecuted for speeding? We all like to give it a bit of a hoof now and again, but in fairness being preached to by someone in a classroom doesnt sound like anything other than what, as a driver, you should be aware of already.

Add to that, how many simply take the points and ignore the course?

My wife did one a few years ago, said there was quite a bit on CO2 emissions . Sorry, but thats not IMO got anything to do with being caught speeding.

Thanks, it makes a nice change to see a little support here

I've got nothing against courses as part of the driving test or even refreshers, but as a clever blackmail tool for recapturing lost FPN money they are wrong.

[TooMany2cvs]

deeps said:

SAC money goes to the course partners who cream off the profit and like any business, reinvest to expand.

You do know that the course providers don't run the cameras, right?

[CS Garth]

Despite not quite agreeing with Deeps on the SAC point I would like to add that I think he has been magnanimous in the face of challenge (not least from myself) and courteous throughout. Well done sir for being stoic in be face of live fire.

As you were