Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
OK, capital cost is one thing. But there was a case in this week's news which detailed a highly "successful" GATSO. Successful because it earned huge revenue, but also successful because it caused drivers to slow down. Once this happened, the revenue stream eased off. There were then gripes that it was costing too much for the Police to run it!
Here is a fact: GATSOs will not stop speeding motorists from killing people. What they will do is make sure that the Police/Government earn money from it. Litter louts and fouling dogs don't ruin lives, neither does someone exceeding the limit by 3mph necessarily. Burglars and rapists DO ruin lives, and the Police resources used in operating mobile "Talivans" could easily be redployed to work on this "real" crime. Interesting statistic out today: the number of reported rapes leading to conviction is at an all time low. Yet still we are spending more money on GATSOs.
|
"There was a case in the news this week...." Nuff said. Selective facts, selective reporting. We have £20m of surplus revenues annually due to Gatsos (well convicted speeders). Granted that is not being funnelled directly into policing, but the net gain to the state I would imagine - and I concede don't have a Treasury statistical model to work with - will exceed the neglible cost of what? Not putting a film in a Gatso. In one camera? Identified by the media?
And for the record, killing someone while speeding
is a crime.
__________________
....and can we merge the RTA and Gatso threads? They seem to be one and the same.