Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Speed Cameras Could Face The Axe As Government Cuts Funding

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297485/Speed-cameras-face-axe-government-cuts-funding.html

Every speed camera in an entire county could be about to disappear following central government funding cuts, it was disclosed today.

Oxfordshire County Council is cutting its funding to the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership by £600,000 in a bid to meet £11 million savings.

It has resulted in the partnership taking steps to cease all enforcement in the county and switch off its 72 fixed speed cameras, possibly as soon as August 1.

The Government said it was delivering its pledge to 'end the war on the motorist' by following through its promise to end central funding for fixed speed cameras.

But road safety campaigners fear other councils struggling to make ends meet could follow suit, resulting in lives being put at risk.

Every week three people are killed and more than 150 are injured on roads in the Thames Valley, according to statistics from the partnership.

Councillor Keith Mitchell, leader of Conservative-led Oxfordshire County Council, said these were difficult choices but that the level of savings needed to be made were 'unheard of'.

He said today: 'This is a controversial area. Swindon, for example, cut its speed cameras last year and they have not noticed any change in accidents.

'This is just the very start, however. We are going to have to accept that over the next four years difficult decisions will continue to be made.'

It's the speed cameraless recovery.

The money has run out, what is strange with all the fines that these cameras generate you would have thought they would be self funding. Unless of course fine revenue is dropping...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297485/Speed-cameras-face-axe-government-cuts-funding.html

It's the speed cameraless recovery.

The money has run out, what is strange with all the fines that these cameras generate you would have thought they would be self funding. Unless of course fine revenue is dropping...

Any chance you'd expand and rationalize that? Struggling to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the speed cameraless recovery.

The money has run out, what is strange with all the fines that these cameras generate you would have thought they would be self funding. Unless of course fine revenue is dropping...

It's 2 things, to save money the things cost £20K+the cost of cable for the 240vac they use (which is why they cost a huge amount on country roads and there is an absence of them).

Also since Labour lost the election police have been specifically told not to book anybody for speeding unless it is taking the biscuit, i.e. instead of the +10%+3mph (i.e. 36mph) It is somewhat higher.

I know this because um I know this from sources!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance you'd expand and rationalize that? Struggling to understand.

The claim is that these cameras generate huge sums of money:

The £2m traffic camera which has snared 16,123 drivers in three months

Britain’s most profitable speed cameras

The £1m-a-year motorway speed camera that is causing accidents

Now if they are generating these sums why do they need funding from central govt to keep operating?

Either the groups running these cameras are helping themselves to huge profits, or these cameras need huge state subsidies to be kept running.

So in Oxford according to this Mail article if they cut £600k of funding suddenly all these cameras get turned off. Something doesn't add up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

The claim is that these cameras generate huge sums of money:

The £2m traffic camera which has snared 16,123 drivers in three months

Britain’s most profitable speed cameras

The £1m-a-year motorway speed camera that is causing accidents

Now if they are generating these sums why do they need funding from central govt to keep operating?

Either the groups running these cameras are helping themselves to huge profits, or these cameras need huge state subsidies to be kept running.

So in Oxford according to this Mail article if they cut £600k of funding suddenly all these cameras get turned off. Something doesn't add up here.

Hold on. Are you saying these cameras, long after they've been installed and the capital costs recovered . . . that they are costing more money to operate than they collect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 2 things, to save money the things cost £20K+the cost of cable for the 240vac they use (which is why they cost a huge amount on country roads and there is an absence of them).

Also since Labour lost the election police have been specifically told not to book anybody for speeding unless it is taking the biscuit, i.e. instead of the +10%+3mph (i.e. 36mph) It is somewhat higher.

I know this because um I know this from sources!

Interesting so instead of these cameras being set at 32 or 33 in 30 zones it's now down to you having to drive like an idiot.

I've noticed that there appears to be a slightly new approach with the smiley signs telling you your 30 or below :) 31 or above and you get a :(

No ticket but might be more an effective way of controlling speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

If they keep going it could actually become worth living in this god forsaken country.

Johnny love please stop moaning. You do very well in the UK. You have a good standard of living and I reckon you enjoy your computer job too.

Okay dear? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky News report

As it says in that report, the local council have to fund the partnership, but all the money goes to central government. I think Gordon changed the rules a few years ago because he needed some money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on. Are you saying these cameras, long after they've been installed and the capital costs recovered . . . that they are costing more money to operate than they collect?

Yep, I believe that might possible be the case. Are the people running them taking such a huge salary administering them they need a public subsidy for them to be kept running? Something odd is going on here, it just doesn't make sense.

It would be interesting to see the running costs of the firms running these cameras to find out what exactly is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky News report

As it says in that report, the local council have to fund the partnership, but all the money goes to central government. I think Gordon changed the rules a few years ago because he needed some money.

Didn't know that. So the council is effectively subsidising the central govt then?

Looks like they'll all be disappearing across the country then, no incentives for local councils to keep them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I believe that might possible be the case. Are the people running them taking such a huge salary administering them they need a public subsidy for them to be kept running? Something odd is going on here, it just doesn't make sense.

It would be interesting to see the running costs of the firms running these cameras to find out what exactly is happening.

Nah its more to do with all the fines going back to the Government rather than the Road safety partnerships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Yep, I believe that might possible be the case. Are the people running them taking such a huge salary administering them they need a public subsidy for them to be kept running? Something odd is going on here, it just doesn't make sense.

It would be interesting to see the running costs of the firms running these cameras to find out what exactly is happening.

What it'll turn out to be is they won't be adding anymore, but keeping existing ones. Me reckons me reckonsie.

I'm struggling with the public subsidy bit.

We need to put numbers to this - did we already? I'm not all there tonight, had a torrid time earlier on the other forum I seldom visit because they are truly the worst (expats). Reminds me how much I love you lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a fair number of torched speed camera boxes in my town. Assuming each torching costs £20K to replace plus loss of income from fines it probably doesn't take much to tip the whole exercise into loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

I see a fair number of torched speed camera boxes in my town. Assuming each torching costs £20K to replace plus loss of income from fines it probably doesn't take much to tip the whole exercise into loss.

Ahhhh! Yessss.

Of course.

Could the GOVT be expecting an extinction level event for cameras at the hands of the mass disgruntled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Unless you're a pedestrian.

Or a fluffy bunny with a modicum of road sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://fullfact.org/articles/?id=93&sel=articlelist

In tackling the issue it is worth looking both at Mr Fitzpatrick’s specific claim, and how the system of funding for speed camera’s operated more generally.

Mr Fitzpatrick’s office told us his claim was based on Treasury figures, however past Transport ministers including Mr Fitzpatrick, have told MPs the data had not been nationally compiled since 2007.

The Treasury has so far been unable to provide us with the figures for revenue. We were advised by the Department for Transport (DfT) that taking £60 for fixed penalty fines, and multiplying it by the 1.3 million offences detected by cameras would suggest cameras generated about £68 million.

However the DfT also suggested a centrally compiled figure for spending specifically on cameras may also be even harder to come by.

This is because cameras are funded through block grants from government to local road safety partnerships, which is more general spent on road safety, not just on cameras.

As Transport minister, Mr Fitzpatrick suggested the figure total funding from Government for road safety in general was £110 million.

Some individual partnerships do publish the figures for the amount they spend and collect from speed enforcement, enabling a local picture of what happens to the money.

The financial statement from Devon and Cornwall Road Safety Partnership provides such figures. While speed enforcement may have generated a surplus in previous years, in 2008/9 the partnership actually spent more on speed enforcement than was generated in revenue.

Sadly not all partnerships make their figures so readily available. Of course such examples do not prove the case conclusively on way or another as they only apply to one locality.

So while Mr Fitzpatrick’s claim is hard to substantiate, the way the funding system for speed cameras operates, suggests he is correct to question the portrayal of the cameras by ministers and the media as cash cows.

Since 2007, central Government has funded road safety programme through grants, but how these grants are spent is decided by the road safety partnerships.

Meanwhile the revenue from speed camera fines goes to the Treasury.

This in turn means that those who decide how much to spend on cameras are not ultimately the people who receive the revenue from fines, which calls into question the extent to which local authorities could be motivated by finance when installing speed cameras.

For example Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership received a grant of £1.4 million last year, while a spokesman estimated the revenue sent to Treasury was at a similar level if not less.

“I think this year we actually put less into the Treasury than the government actually gave back to us so it’s not generating massive amounts of money just to sit in the Treasury.”

Likewise Thames Valley partnership told us it sent £2.9 million to the Treasury last year, while its operating budget was an estimated £4.25 million. Of course, a much smaller amount of this would be spent on enforcing speed limits.

Yet it would appear that some of these organisations spend more on their overall road safety operations than they raise in fines.

But even if this was not the case the central government grants are not contingent upon money handed over to the Treasury.

A spokesman from Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership explained the situation.

“We make a bid based on what we need and what we want to carry out based on all the road safety issues and Government takes the money into the Treasury, and hand on heart I don’t think the Treasury interfere with what the Government sends to us,” he said.

But if this is what the people in charge of the cameras say, what do motoring groups make of it?

Looks like we need some more figures, ie what are councils spending in other areas on road safety but from what's stated here revenues aren't matching expenditure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://fullfact.org/articles/?id=93&sel=articlelist

Looks like we need some more figures, ie what are councils spending in other areas on road safety but from what's stated here revenues aren't matching expenditure...

A lot of people have GPS now days which warn of speed cameras, coupled with the fact the locals know where they are and slow down to go past them and then speed up again. I would expect revenue to drop, except for ones they move around randomly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://uk.autoblog.com/2010/07/09/speed-cameras-rake-in-87m-a-year-but-don-t-improve-safety/

Despite generating £87m in a year in fines, it has been claimed that speed cameras are not having a positive effect of safety.

Research by the Taxpayers' Alliance and the Drivers' Alliance has shown that the rate of reduction of traffic accidents has slowed since the introduction of speed cameras in 1990.

A Freedom of Information request showed that a total of £87,368,227 was raised in 2008-2009 from speeding fines. This included punishments handed out through speed cameras, court fines and fines issued for neglecting traffic regulations.

However, despite the vast sum of money generated, campaigners are claiming that the reduction in the rate of accidents has actually slowed since speed cameras were introduced 20 years ago. Both organisations suggest that if the rate of reduction had continued at the same pace as the years prior to 1990, there would have been 1,5m fewer casualties on our roads.

"Speed cameras have been a false hope in improving safety on British roads," said Peter Roberts, the chief executive of The Drivers' Alliance. "Close statistical analysis of road casualties shows that, since speed cameras have been the main driver of road safety policy, the road casualty rate has not gone down at the trajectory expected."

The campaigners say more councils should follow the lead of Swindon, which has pledged not to provide any more funding for the devices.

London raked in the largest amount of cash from speeding motorists, generating around £6.3m in 2008-2009, with Avon and Somerset next on the list with £3.5m. It seems Scotland is the best area to live to avoid being fined, with the two areas lowest on the list being Glasgow and Strathkelvin with under £80,000 in fines issued, and Tayside Central and Fife with under £93,000.

Some more stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a goal! I think you've nailed it.

Now. Does this mean they were just about revenue before?

Maybe they where about malinvestment and giving govt friends a nice big fat contract to provide services with?

It would be interesting to know which firms provided the cameras and who ran them along with political allegiances.

Perhaps the political reasoning failed to take into account the points system, perhaps if you just had a fine and no points unless it was excessive speeds then revenue wouldn't have dried up so quickly? Acculminating 12 points can be done rather quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Maybe they where about malinvestment and giving govt friends a nice big fat contract to provide services with?

It would be interesting to know which firms provided the cameras and who ran them along with political allegiances.

Perhaps the political reasoning failed to take into account the points system, perhaps if you just had a fine and no points unless it was excessive speeds then revenue wouldn't have dried up so quickly? Acculminating 12 points can be done rather quickly.

They were very useful for testing brakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.