Speed Cameras

spen666

After all the bleating motorists come up with re speed cameras being revenue raising devices, the Evening Standard tonight is running a poll online

Should local authorities scrap speed cameras to save money as they face budget cuts?

The voting is 60/40 in favour of the ban


This would suggest that speed cameras are costing local authorities rather than raising revenue..
So motorists what is it cash raising or cash drain?

Stevo_666

I think that the revenue from the fines goes to Central Government while the councils still have to pay to buy and maintain the things. So the councils are out of pocket, although it may well be that overall they make money.

deptfordmarmoset

There was something on Radio 4 yesterday about a council official (Oxfordshire?) who was reducing the number of cameras - he suggested that the council has the expense of installing and maintaining the cameras but the income goes to central government. So in order to save local costs, they'll end up reducing overall income.

EDIT: or what Stevo 666 said

bails87

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

There was something on Radio 4 yesterday about a council official (Oxfordshire?) who was reducing the number of cameras - he suggested that the council has the expense of installing and maintaining the cameras but the income goes to central government. So in order to save local costs, they'll end up reducing overall income.

EDIT: or what Stevo 666 said

I think it's because central govt have cut (suprise suprise) the road safety budget. So local councils now wouldn't get money for maintaining the cameras.

I think Richard Littlejohn wrote about it in the Daily Mail (blergh!), he said it was cost cutting measures, then said they were just a money making scheme. It can only be one or the other, as Spen said.

If they make a profit for central gov't then it's in their interests to keep paying local councils to install and maintain them. If they made money then the gov't would paying for more of them.

Stevo_666

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

There was something on Radio 4 yesterday about a council official (Oxfordshire?) who was reducing the number of cameras - he suggested that the council has the expense of installing and maintaining the cameras but the income goes to central government. So in order to save local costs, they'll end up reducing overall income.

EDIT: or what Stevo 666 said

Beat you to it DM :P

rjsterry

You're assuming that someone in central government has thought all this through and worked out the net costs/benefits, which is quite an assumption.

jonny_trousers

Just out of interest, is it possible to trip a speed camera on a bike? If so, anyone ever managed it?

bails87

rjsterry wrote:

You're assuming that someone in central government has thought all this through and worked out the net costs/benefits, which is quite an assumption.

True, it's also assuming that they're not just taking their policies straight of the Mail and Express :roll:

If they're a net cost to central gov't then fair enough, consider them for cutting.

But if they're a profit making thing then keep them, surely, when the gov't needs every penny it can get.

The fact they're getting rid of them shows that they obviously don't make much money. Although like you said, depends on a CBA being done

Gussio

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Just out of interest, is it possible to trip a speed camera on a bike? If so, anyone ever managed it?

I would love to, but haven't.

SickAsAParrot

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Just out of interest, is it possible to trip a speed camera on a bike? If so, anyone ever managed it?

I haven't and I'm big and fat, I go through the one at the bottom of Kidsgrove Bank at 35-40 and it doesn't seem to go off.

Those forward facing 'Your speed is:' signs work most of the time though.

spen666

bails87 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You're assuming that someone in central government has thought all this through and worked out the net costs/benefits, which is quite an assumption.

True, it's also assuming that they're not just taking their policies straight of the Mail and Express :roll:

If they're a net cost to central gov't then fair enough, consider them for cutting.

But if they're a profit making thing then keep them, surely, when the gov't needs every penny it can get.

The fact they're getting rid of them shows that they obviously don't make much money. Although like you said, depends on a CBA being done

CBA= Couldn't Be Ar*ed does it not

fits in

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen666 wrote:

After all the bleating motorists come up with re speed cameras being revenue raising devices, the Evening Standard tonight is running a poll online

Should local authorities scrap speed cameras to save money as they face budget cuts?

The voting is 60/40 in favour of the ban


This would suggest that speed cameras are costing local authorities rather than raising revenue..
So motorists what is it cash raising or cash drain?

If by "This", you mean the question, as opposed to the responses to the question, then yes. The premise (that cameras cost LAs money) is built into the question.

I wonder how many of the respondents answered "yes, ban cameras" or "no, keep cameras" as opposed to "yes, ban cameras because they cost the LAs money" or "no, keep them even though they cost money". Quite a few, I'd guess.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

After all the bleating motorists come up with re speed cameras being revenue raising devices, the Evening Standard tonight is running a poll online

Should local authorities scrap speed cameras to save money as they face budget cuts?

The voting is 60/40 in favour of the ban


This would suggest that speed cameras are costing local authorities rather than raising revenue..
So motorists what is it cash raising or cash drain?

Who exactly are you having a conversation with?

Gollum: "my precioussss, we wants it, kill the hobbittss"
Gollum: "but they have been good to us"
Gollum: "give me my preciousssss"
Gollum: "No no I'm afraid, it hurts us"


(Or something like that)

Kieran_Burns

SickAsAParrot wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Just out of interest, is it possible to trip a speed camera on a bike? If so, anyone ever managed it?

I haven't and I'm big and fat, I go through the one at the bottom of Kidsgrove Bank at 35-40 and it doesn't seem to go off.

Those forward facing 'Your speed is:' signs work most of the time though.

I'm not entirely sure how, but I managed to get a 40 limit "your speed is" one to trip and flash to warn me I was doing 41mph :shock:

I'm confused as I was going UPHILL at the time and I swear my comp was reading 17mph :?

(no other traffic around at all, in either direction)

Working theory is that I was breathing so damn' heavily that I moved a huge volume of air directly in the line of the sensors.....

bails87

An interesting article on this...

UndercoverElephant

SickAsAParrot wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Just out of interest, is it possible to trip a speed camera on a bike? If so, anyone ever managed it?

I haven't and I'm big and fat, I go through the one at the bottom of Kidsgrove Bank at 35-40 and it doesn't seem to go off.

Those forward facing 'Your speed is:' signs work most of the time though.

A mate's road club tried this as a peloton, they couldn't get it to go either. The, "Your speed is" things are rubbish, they often flash to tell me I'm going over 30 when the speedo on my bike says roughly 23. The speedo gets the distance right, so I'm assuming it's not actually underreading by 35%.

If it is, I'm WAY more awesome than even I think.

cougie

There was an article on this in the Sunday Times.

Revenues were over 100m UKP.

The grants that were being cut to fund the cameras were something like 50m UKP. (i forget)

So they will lose revenue, Plus they'll have to meet the extra costs of any accidents that not having the cameras working will incur. (however many/few that is).

Someones not thought this through.

Big Wib

cougie wrote:

There was an article on this in the Sunday Times.

Revenues were over 100m UKP.

The grants that were being cut to fund the cameras were something like 50m UKP. (i forget)

So they will lose revenue, Plus they'll have to meet the extra costs of any accidents that not having the cameras working will incur. (however many/few that is).

Someones not thought this through.

Is this a surprise?

This is after all the same government that is planning on closing the office responsible for reviewing expenditure (can't remember the correct name), a department that has saved 10 times it's cost for the years it's been operational :roll:

bails87

The National Audit Office?

It's like on the radio on the way home yesterday, first news item was about the changes to policing, more 'local' volunteer officers to deal with anti-social behaviour and a bigger focus on crime committed by kids and teenagers.

Next item was several hundred job losses at the local council. The childrens services and Connexions (job centre style setup for teenagers) were the hardest hit. :roll: