Speed cameras axed over funding

vanman · 25-07-2010, 17:02

Quote:

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

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/brea...5578-26928069/

yes result !

Peter_ · 25-07-2010, 17:19

All they will do is use a mobile camera van which will catch unsuspecting motorists as they will be unaware of it until to late, they use them all around merseyside to great effect.

Stuart · 25-07-2010, 17:28

So, the local council cannot afford to keep them if central government aren't funding them.

Can't be making much money then. Interesting considering many say they are used purely for revenue.

After all, if they were making a lot of money, someone would find the money to finance them, whether it be central government or the local council.

vanman · 25-07-2010, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

All they will do is use a mobile camera van which will catch unsuspecting motorists as they will be unaware of it until to late, they use them all around merseyside to great effect.

i sure that it will cost more to pay men sitting in vans than it will to load a fixed speed camera.

Sirius · 25-07-2010, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/brea...5578-26928069/

yes result !

Agreed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

All they will do is use a mobile camera van which will catch unsuspecting motorists as they will be unaware of it until to late, they use them all around merseyside to great effect.

And who is going to fund them. ?

TheDaddy · 25-07-2010, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

And who is going to fund them. ?

Dont need funding we have had volunteers operating cameras for years, just bring them back as part of Dave's BS sorry big society initiative.

Gary L · 25-07-2010, 17:52

They could try sponsorship.
You could have in association with Tesco written at the bottom of your ticket. and on the back some special offers in store.

Kymmy · 25-07-2010, 18:20

And the reason behind the dropping of Fixed speed cameras is that they simply don;t need them anymore, more and more traffic flow camera's are becoming ANPR networked and it's just a very little time before it's used as a SPECS system

Which means even more speeding tickets..

As they say if you don't like speed cameras then simply don't speed

Peter_ · 25-07-2010, 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

And who is going to fund them. ?

We already have them in Liverpool and they will pay for themselves all they do is move around and cars are caught in both directions very cost effective and with them not being static they catch more speeders.

Osem · 25-07-2010, 19:20

If you don't speed the cameras won't catch you - simple! It amazes me how many 'perfect' drivers there are out there who don't consider themselves a risk to anyone yet can't apparently see the warning signs and either don't know what speed they're doing or what the prevailing limit is....

frogstamper · 26-07-2010, 00:13

Seems a strange decision to make in the present economic climate, I can remember reading that in 2003 over Â£120 million was raised in fines, either this total has fallen as the years have passed in which case they have served there purpose, or this government is taking them off our roads for short term political gain.
Either way I don't see why cameras are being removed on mass, if this is true, because surely this will result in motorists increasing their speed.
Nobody wants a speeding ticket obviously, but all this will do is ensure that drivers will be less concerned over their speed knowing full well there isn't a speed camera about to catch them.
Also I wonder where the revenue local councils would have collected from cameras will now come from?...council tax rise?

Sirius · 26-07-2010, 05:38

There losing revenue because people know where they are or have sat navs that warn them or have radar detectors. I use all 3 and sleep much better knowing when i drive i get all the information i need about the location of these black spots.

Angua · 26-07-2010, 07:45

And of those 72 cameras probably only 10 or so ever had film in at any one time. So you can see why they are not cost effective. Nearby Swindon seems to manage well without them.

Raistlin · 26-07-2010, 07:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

So, the local council cannot afford to keep them if central government aren't funding them.

Can't be making much money then. Interesting considering many say they are used purely for revenue.

After all, if they were making a lot of money, someone would find the money to finance them, whether it be central government or the local council.

Under the terms by which they are deployed, and due to the way that the fines are collected, ALL revenue coming from the speed cameras goes directly to the Treasury.

Local/District councils won't fund something that is basically going to generate a loss for them, and the Government are cutting funding of 'Road Safety' in line with everything else.

The only way the Local/District councils would consider funding them is if the Treasury allowed them to keep all (or even a reasonable percentage) of the revenue they generate.

---------- Post added at 08:57 ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 ----------

As I understand it, all the cameras were switched off in Swindon as a cost savings measure a while back - for some strange reason there was NO corresponding increase in accidents..... Go figure.....

Kymmy · 26-07-2010, 08:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raistlin

As I understand it, all the cameras were switched off in Swindon as a cost savings measure a while back - for some strange reason there was NO corresponding increase in accidents..... Go figure.....

Turning a camera off is different than removing it. One of the reasons as to why there's so many camera boxes but few actual camera units that fit inside of them.

Remove the camera box then speeds will increase