cameras refused to pay for road safety

[stooz]

NO SPEED-CAMERA CASH FOR BIKESAFE SCHEME

September 15th 2004.

The Motor Cycle Industry Association (MCI) has exposed how the Government turned down the opportunity to help fund the police-led Bikesafe scheme using revenue made by speed cameras.

Until the end of this financial year, the administration costs of Bikesafe will be funded by the MCI.

The MCI applied for yearly funding of the Bikesafe scheme from the network of safety camera partnerships. The Government rejected the application - despite the popularity of Bikesafe with riders and the MCI’s belief that it led to an 8 per cent decrease in motorcycle casualties in London in 2003.

Bikesafe combines rider assessment, road-safety discussion and assisted motorcycle riding to identify areas where riders could benefit from advanced training.

Craig Carey-Clinch, MCI Director of Public Affairs, said: “The idea of a national road-safety scheme, which is police-run, has public support and a proven track-record, effectively going bust after a few months is absurd. Government seems to expect that the scheme - for which it has already indicated support - can run on fresh air. The refusal of Ministers to consider speed-camera funding is short-sighted and exasperating, to say the least.”

[iaint]

It's not that they expect 'road safety' schemes to run on fresh air but that they expect them to be at least self-funding or preferably profitable*.

Iain

* In monetary terms rather thatn actually saving lives.

[blademan]

stooz said:

NO SPEED-CAMERA CASH FOR BIKESAFE SCHEME September 15th 2004. The Motor Cycle Industry Association (MCI) has exposed how the Government turned down the opportunity to help fund the police-led Bikesafe scheme using revenue made by speed cameras. Until the end of this financial year, the administration costs of Bikesafe will be funded by the MCI. The MCI applied for yearly funding of the Bikesafe scheme from the network of safety camera partnerships. The Government rejected the application - despite the popularity of Bikesafe with riders and the MCI’s belief that it led to an 8 per cent decrease in motorcycle casualties in London in 2003. Bikesafe combines rider assessment, road-safety discussion and assisted motorcycle riding to identify areas where riders could benefit from advanced training. Craig Carey-Clinch, MCI Director of Public Affairs, said: “The idea of a national road-safety scheme, which is police-run, has public support and a proven track-record, effectively going bust after a few months is absurd. Government seems to expect that the scheme - for which it has already indicated support - can run on fresh air. The refusal of Ministers to consider speed-camera funding is short-sighted and exasperating, to say the least.”

If they were truly interested in road safety, then the moderate cost of funding bikesafe would be tiny compared to the funds the SCP rake in.

[james_j]

No, the money would appear to get ploughed back into the nice big "partnership" salary bill.

[stooz]

The joke is as well, that for every biker that goes on the course, there must be a %age that no longer will fall into the death risk.
If each death is estimated to cost £1 million to "clean up" Then surely someone, somewhere must see that the bikesafe scheme is cost effective?

[mybrainhurts]

stooz said:

...If each death is estimated to cost £1 million to "clean up"...

That statement's in line for the Nobel Bollocks of the Century Award....

[stooz]

Really? where did you get your facts disproving me?

thats what the police told us on the bikesafe course
and The government figures for 2002 have it at £1.5 million

www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/transport/ras02-23.asp#9

[Peter Ward]

stooz said:

The joke is as well, that for every biker that goes on the course, there must be a %age that no longer will fall into the death risk. If each death is estimated to cost £1 million to "clean up" Then surely someone, somewhere must see that the bikesafe scheme is cost effective?

Cost-effective perhaps, but from different budgets.

[mybrainhurts]

stooz said:

Really? where did you get your facts disproving me? thats what the police told us on the bikesafe course and The government figures for 2002 have it at £1.5 million www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/transport/ras02-23.asp#9

If you look into the figures, you'll find they include fixed costs that are there, regardless of whether a crash occurs.

Don't have the details to hand, but consider such things as the salaries of police/fire/ambulance/doctors for the time they spent on the case......depreciation of fire engines/ambulances during the time they were deployed at the incident.....and so on.

Those costs are there at this very moment, even if all those bods are at base eating doughnuts.

Then there are those think-of-a-number "social costs".....suffering, and so on.

The real cost should exclude all this dross, which was put together by someone trying to come up with an astronomical figure.

[Size Nine Elm]

The figure (was 1.2 million last I heard) includes a figure of £800,000 for 'grief'.

Not exactly sure which government budget that one comes out of, or how it is deemed to be 'costs'.

Maybe 'grief' suffers from inflation and is now over £1m.

[deeen]

I would have thought that it is cheaper to die than be in intensive care for a while!!

Maybe there is a case to be made by looking at the savings to the NHS (since there is absolutely no chance of common sense prevailing).