ABD Launches Campaign Against Speed Awareness Courses
Discussion
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.
No, they're reacting to the opportunity. You do understand the 85th percentile flow of traffic? 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?.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. 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.
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.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
xRIEx said:
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.
Pages 2 and 3.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.
Whether the SAC fee is refunded or used to pay the FPN is a good point. It would have to be ruled as to whether the original FPN is still valid, or out of date and void. Whether the payer of the SAC fee was party to the conspiracy of corruption, or acted innocently, will also have to be ruled upon.
TooMany2cvs said:
CS Garth said:
Given there are 8 pages of guff here and I'm still not sure what precisely Artey and Deeps beef is (scameras, all sheep, loud noises etc) I'm not hopeful that a complex algorithm based betting strategy articulation will be forthcoming.
Unless it is always bet on red and double your bets each time you loose
Derp did tell us, way back on page 743. Oops, sorry. Page 4.Unless it is always bet on red and double your bets each time you loose
The trick is to not worry about whether you win or lose. It doesn't matter. That's what the man said.
derp said:
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.
...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.
A successful gambler doesn't care if he wins. He doesn't care if he's a successful gambler. He just cares about gambling....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.
<thinks>
Actually, I think that's somebody with a gambling addiction.
xRIEx said:
I can see nothing that supports their or your case, no citations for any legislation regarding the points raised. In fact, they go so far as to state that it is permitted in cases:
"We do not dispute that the police have the right to waive prosecution in some cases when an
offence comes to their attention. This is common practice where the offence is trivial or there are
extenuating circumstances."
Why should SAC fees be refunded? - not answered in the document or thread
Why are they illegal in the first place? - not answered in the document or thread
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? - not answered in the document or thread
"Will have to be ruled upon" - there is as yet no foundation for the claims SACs are in any way illegal. I note the ABD have not brought a case against the government or police forces; maybe their legal counsel also doesn't agree with them.
The legal case is being prepared. "We do not dispute that the police have the right to waive prosecution in some cases when an
offence comes to their attention. This is common practice where the offence is trivial or there are
extenuating circumstances."
Why should SAC fees be refunded? - not answered in the document or thread
Why are they illegal in the first place? - not answered in the document or thread
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? - not answered in the document or thread
"Will have to be ruled upon" - there is as yet no foundation for the claims SACs are in any way illegal. I note the ABD have not brought a case against the government or police forces; maybe their legal counsel also doesn't agree with them.
You say it's not been answered, I say it has been answered. We obviously have vastly different understanding of the words. That's why I said we live on different planets. How did I know you would quote that paragraph out of context without quoting the rest of it?
Who me said:
In days of old etc, we didn't have SAC/tickets issued days etc after the event and have to rack our brains where we'd gone wrong. We had ye olde Traffic cop, with their legendary photographic memory to pull you up and refresh. I wonder how many new learners were saved from fatal errors by these old knights of the road, employing the old adage "stitch in time ". But of course in the days of the labour Government, this approach cost money,( with no recordable results ) and driving was downgraded to speed ( rather than INAPPROPRIATE SPEED) causes accidents .
i agree, that teaching what's wrong, BUT AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY, not some time later, when the offender is not in a position to appreciate the whys and whats of their action.
True. These days it's all about the money unfortunately.i agree, that teaching what's wrong, BUT AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY, not some time later, when the offender is not in a position to appreciate the whys and whats of their action.
Disastrous said:
Set us straight then! I've been dying to hear this!
It's very simple, but as I said and as you can see first hand here, most people will never get it.Whether a bet wins or loses is totally irrelevant to success. When I try to explain this in terms of sporting events, nobody gets it, so I'll put it another way...
Just a quick simple example:
Betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.0 predict the outcome of a toss of a coin 100 times.
Long term you will break even, whether you predict heads or tails is irrelevant, as is the actual result of each spin. It doesn't matter whether each spin wins or loses, a bet is judged at the point of placement not by the result.
The only way to ensure a profit is to back at odds that are greater than the true chance of the occurrence.
Same scenario, now betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.1, as before the result of each spin is irrelevant, but long term you will make 5% profit on turnover. The bets can be judged as good value at the point of placement, the results were irrelevant.
Incidentally, all bookmakers such as Willhill etc will offer punters around 1.95 for heads and 1.95 for tails, hence with their built in value edge they don't care what the result is, just getting the punters through the door is enough to secure a profit.
Now all you have to do is find a way of accurately pricing events and getting bets matched with a built in value edge. You will make a percentage of turnover regardless of the results of events.
Most punters are not price sensitive, they believe they can predict the outcome of events, hence why so very few gamblers succeed.
xRIEx said:
5%? You can get that as an interest rate on bank account accounts, never mind proper investments. You can probably get 5-10% on S&S ISAs (average performance was 7.4% in 2015 tax year) and you don't have to place 150 bets per week in order to get it- step 1: deposit money
- step 2: wait
I haven't looked back but I believe I would have said 150 bets per day, so around 1000 bets per week for around £100 each, averaging 2% profit on turnover, 5% was merely a figure used to demonstrate the profit in the coin scenario and is extremely difficult to achieve long term.
Can you see your anology pays peanuts in comparison?
My example pays 2k tax free profit per week using a bank of 20k.
Your example pays less than 1.5k per year using the same 20k investment.
Still laughing?
Disastrous said:
Or what happens if they all lose, if I'm not missing something?
Yes you are missing something 
Short term variance can be expected and is normal. Long term, even my granny could break even simply by taking bets at the true price. Punters lose because they use a bookmaker who is offering them poor prices. Punters are not price sensitive, they only care about making predictions which is impossible.
CS Garth said:
'Kin hell. You're announcing the above like it is some kind of new and amazing "thing" that will blow people's minds. It is perhaps instead the most hackneyed and basic get rich scheme that people made money selling in the 1980s via ads in the daily mail to thickos who want to get rich. The "value edge" - tremendous, it is obviously hanging around like a bad fart unless you picked up a book up at a boot sale. I can't even be bothered to critique your imprecise articulation of this mathematically rudimentary steamer. Being serious for a moment, I appreciate this may seem amazing to you but it isn't. So going round telling people they won't understand something like this doesn't make you look very worldly.
I'll give you a top tip: Google a little more about arbitrage and prepare to have your world rocked. I'll then let you in on a little secret. Quite a few other people know about the secret. They are called banks.
Final tip: when you state your legal case is being prepared, do you actually have a specialist motoring lawyer working in this or is it some bloke called Dave using the Internet? I hope it is the former because they will pretty quickly tell you you are on a hiding to nothing. If the latter then you will all look foolish
I'm sorry to be blunt and you are obviously well intentioned but you are not building a case based on fact, having reread the initial post the press release is just total foil hatted, swivel eyed loon, daily mail reading junk. And coming on here and insulting the intelligence of those who could, whisper it, be your very equal or possibly even more knowledgable Is foolish
Good luck on the betting - and don't bet more than you can afford to lose please
Funny how I seem to have you so wound up, it was not my intention, I have thrown far less insults and sarcasm than I have received.I'll give you a top tip: Google a little more about arbitrage and prepare to have your world rocked. I'll then let you in on a little secret. Quite a few other people know about the secret. They are called banks.
Final tip: when you state your legal case is being prepared, do you actually have a specialist motoring lawyer working in this or is it some bloke called Dave using the Internet? I hope it is the former because they will pretty quickly tell you you are on a hiding to nothing. If the latter then you will all look foolish
I'm sorry to be blunt and you are obviously well intentioned but you are not building a case based on fact, having reread the initial post the press release is just total foil hatted, swivel eyed loon, daily mail reading junk. And coming on here and insulting the intelligence of those who could, whisper it, be your very equal or possibly even more knowledgable Is foolish
Good luck on the betting - and don't bet more than you can afford to lose please
Arbitrage betting is old hat, you announce it like I wouldn't have heard of it?
In reply to your final dig, I think you underestimate me, I've been doing this full time for many years and make a nice living.
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 s
t at explaining? I wonder why this one has hit such a nerve?
I also note that you ignored my last reply to you, conveniently.
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? 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
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...)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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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 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 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.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff