It's not about the money (yeah, right)!

[4rephill]

Davidonly said:

SAC's (bribes for police waivers): Small sums to Gov't big to the parasites that run this scam. Some folk get rich we get ..... more speed cameras with zero data to justify the whole thing. ZERO!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/police-...

How is it a scam?

People get caught breaking the Law by speeding, and they're given the option in certain circumstances of having points put on their driving licences and paying a fine, or pay to go on a course to avoid having the points.

Nobody is forced to go on the course, just as no one is forced to break the speed limit in the first place.

What would you prefer? - For everyone caught speeding to have no option but to pay a fine and have points on their licence?

(Actually, obviously what you really want is for the authorities to completely ignore people speeding - But that's not going to happen is it?)

If you get caught speeding, are offered an SAC and think that they are just scams then the answer is simple isn't it: Take the points and pay the fine!

[Funk]

SantaBarbara said:

Funk said:

Given that one must declare a SAC in lieu of points to an insurer, do premiums get loaded the same way anyway?

If so, I'd rather not bother with the SAC and just take the points rather than having to sit in faux contrition and repeat the 'speed kills' mantra to be allowed to leave...

Why do you need to declare attendance at a SAC?

Some debate about that.

If an insurer asks you, "Have you had an accident/any points/attended a SAC?" then how would you answer?

I'd heard many were now asking as it - in theory - speaks to your risk profile; you were speeding, you just didn't get points.

[covboy]

Funk said:

SantaBarbara said:

Funk said:

Given that one must declare a SAC in lieu of points to an insurer, do premiums get loaded the same way anyway?

If so, I'd rather not bother with the SAC and just take the points rather than having to sit in faux contrition and repeat the 'speed kills' mantra to be allowed to leave...

Why do you need to declare attendance at a SAC?

Some debate about that.

If an insurer asks you, "Have you had an accident/any points/attended a SAC?" then how would you answer?

I'd heard many were now asking as it - in theory - speaks to your risk profile; you were speeding, you just didn't get points.

Last I heard it was still only Admiral that was asking this. AFAIK there is (apparently) no mechanism for Insurance Companies to check if you've been on a SAC

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

Most times I was stopped 'back then' it was a brief chat and told to 'ease off a bit' or something similar, and then off we go or there might also be a 'producer' chucked in with a visit to the station within 7 days.

I was thinking that too, I would even go further and in the lower band of the SAC speeds wouldn't have even resulted the police pulling you over.
Obviously they realised there was a lot of revenue to be made.

[SantaBarbara]

Raygun said:

I was thinking that too, I would even go further and in the lower band of the SAC speeds wouldn't have even resulted the police pulling you over.
Obviously they realised there was a lot of revenue to be made.

Who do you mean by "they" please?

[Derek Smith]

cmaguire said:

There aren't any.

His line is basically that all the automated non-discretionary enforcement now merely frees up the Police to do other things, but he dished out tickets in a similar way back in the day as they are now (and the 'under 85 on a Motorway and we'll turn a blind eye generally' is made-up and never happened).

The ACPO Guidelines were quite clear: 10mph over the limit plus 2mph was to be the cut off point for prosecution. In effect it told officers that they should not ignore speeding offences over that limit. Below it, an individual police officer made the decision whether or not to prosecute. In a number of forces, if, for instance, there was a 55 in a 50 then the officer had to include justification. Once tickets arrived it was left to individual officers to decide. If there was an appeal then the officer in the case might be contacted, but this was hardly 100%, It was in the guidelines issued by one force at least that they should be asked to justify the ticket.

An ambitious chap was put in charge of ACPO traffic as, some suggest, somewhere he would not bother anyone. In a case of brainstorm, he changed the guidance to 10% over the limit +2mph. Forces could, if they so chose, ignore this but most (all?) did not. The justification for the change was not, let's say, scientific. There was one force that went with the 10%, North Wales.

Many officers went their own way and it was not unknown for the vast majority of tickets to be >10mph over the posted limit. Come machines that generated money for whomever, the 10% +2mph was chosen, although some suggest it was a lower limit.

[anonymous-user]

SantaBarbara said:

Raygun said:

I was thinking that too, I would even go further and in the lower band of the SAC speeds wouldn't have even resulted the police pulling you over.
Obviously they realised there was a lot of revenue to be made.

Who do you mean by "they" please?

Whoever benefits from the money made.
I'm non-political but in 97 it did seem it was the start of the kerching regarding speeding.

[SantaBarbara]

Actually it is about Reducing fatalities and casualties.

[Red Devil]

paintman said:

Sometimes you'd catch lots & sometimes nothing. I do recall one site only resulted in one capture - which turned out to be the main complainant. He was rather philosophical about it

Nothing like a good hypocrite, eh?
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/road-sa...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/17/br...

The second one is the same council which did this. You couldn't make it up...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134787/Dr...

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

paintman said:

I can't find any vonhosen posts on this thread?

There aren't any.

His line is basically that all the automated non-discretionary enforcement now merely frees up the Police to do other things,

Roads Police numbers are down. If cameras are doing the targeted enforcement Roads Policing officers don't have to be tasked doing it, where as when there weren't SCPs etc they would be.

cmaguire said:

but he dished out tickets in a similar way back in the day as they are now (and the 'under 85 on a Motorway and we'll turn a blind eye generally' is made-up and never happened).

Vonhosen hasn't revealed what tolerances he applied, just that people were prosecuted for merely exceeding the limit (i.e. safe speeding) back in the day too. What speed value that happened at was up to the witnessing officer but to say it didn't happen at speeds below 85 is a fallacy. Of course blind eyes were turned to some high speeds (because the officer may have had other priorities at the time) & on occasion a blind eye wasn't turned to quite modest amounts over the limit (because they didn't have other priorities at the time).

The ACPO guidelines were about setting out a fairly consistent approach to it.

[vonhosen]

4rephill said:

Davidonly said:

SAC's (bribes for police waivers): Small sums to Gov't big to the parasites that run this scam. Some folk get rich we get ..... more speed cameras with zero data to justify the whole thing. ZERO!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/police-...

How is it a scam?

It's not, it's enforcement of an offence.

[XDA]

vonhosen said:

4rephill said:

Davidonly said:

SAC's (bribes for police waivers): Small sums to Gov't big to the parasites that run this scam. Some folk get rich we get ..... more speed cameras with zero data to justify the whole thing. ZERO!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/police-...

How is it a scam?

It's not, it's enforcement of an offence.

Which allows the police and private companies (often employing ex-police officers) to make a nice profit.

[vonhosen]

XDA said:

vonhosen said:

4rephill said:

Davidonly said:

SAC's (bribes for police waivers): Small sums to Gov't big to the parasites that run this scam. Some folk get rich we get ..... more speed cameras with zero data to justify the whole thing. ZERO!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/police-...

How is it a scam?

It's not, it's enforcement of an offence.

Which allows the police and private companies (often employing ex-police officers) to make a nice profit.

Whatever the funding model it's enforcement of an offence. No offence no enforcement.
The Police & private companies don't dictate the funding model, the government do & they've changed it numerous times.
What doesn't change is that it's enforcing a legislated offence.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Davidonly said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Davidonly said:

SAC's (bribes for police waivers): Small sums to Gov't big to the parasites that run this scam.

The one I did had 2 guys for 4 hours, plus hire of the hotel facilities where they held it. Plus admin in sending out notices, organising the course etc. 15 people paying £100 so £1500 to cover it. Obviously they make a profit, and as it's a private firm running it who shouldn't they, but I'm not convinced it's the get rich quick scheme you describe.

ANY profit associated with the prosecution of UK citizens for a technical offence ought to raise alarm

Well it doesn't raise any alarms with me. I couldn't care less.

[Funk]

covboy said:

Last I heard it was still only Admiral that was asking this. AFAIK there is (apparently) no mechanism for Insurance Companies to check if you've been on a SAC

That would tally; it was Admiral I was with at the time. I figured they all asked but evidently not.

[cmaguire]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well it doesn't raise any alarms with me. I couldn't care less.

I don't like smoking and find it unpleasant. I would still advocate the freedom of smokers to do exactly that though, provided it does not impact directly on others.

You should try a dose of altruism sometime, the fact you are happy doddering around like an old fart unnecessarily most of the time doesn't mean everyone else is too.

[Stickyfinger]

Davidonly said:

ANY profit associated with the prosecution of UK citizens for a technical offence ought to raise alarm

Prosecution has already been dealt with by the courts/court-paperwork....the SAC is about post conviction/sentence education.

[Pica-Pica]

cmaguire said:

paintman said:

Perhaps you would prefer to go back to the old way.
Points and a fine every time you get caught.

That is not any 'old way' I remember.

And I had plenty of experience.

I would take the 'old way' any day of the week.

In the old way, no speed limits on MWays, very few cars could reach more than 80mph, and took a long time getting there.

[SantaBarbara]

Pica-Pica said:

In the old way, no speed limits on MWays, very few cars could reach more than 80mph, and took a long time getting there.

TThe 70 mph limit has existed for about fifty years now. Not many motorway miles in those. Days

[cmaguire]

Stickyfinger said:

Davidonly said:

ANY profit associated with the prosecution of UK citizens for a technical offence ought to raise alarm

Prosecution has already been dealt with by the courts/court-paperwork....the SAC is about post conviction/sentence education.

How so?

An SAC is a way of avoiding prosecution or conviction.

When offered, because of the ever increasing likelihood of being caught for another trivial transgression, the massive majority will feel 'pushed' into taking the course whether they want to or not. So there is an element of coercion about the whole thing.

I once travelled from Cambridgeshire to Cheshire to do one of these kind of courses. I certainly didn't want to,