Suffolk Scammers want more......
Discussion
www.eadt.co.uk/content/news/story.asp?datetime=27+Jan+2005+08%3A00&tbrand=EADOnline&tCategory=NEWS&category=News&brand=EADOnline&itemid=IPED26+Jan+2005+23%3A26%3A48%3A063
County's bid to reclaim speeding fines
January 27, 2005 08:00
SUFFOLK looks set to launch an ambitious bid to become the first county in the country to reclaim all of the income raised by speed camera fines to reinvest into road safety.
The county council's executive committee is considering making a request to the Government to return future surplus funds generated by the Suffolk Safety Camera Partnership, which manages the county's speed cameras.
The news comes days after it was revealed 48,000 drivers were caught speeding in Suffolk in the past 12 months – generating nearly £3million in speeding fines.
Presently, the revenue received from speeding tickets is used only to cover operational costs including new cameras, with the remainder returning to the Government.
The partnership is on course to raise surplus income this year but it is not known whether the Government would permit such funds to be re-invested into road improvement schemes in the county.
Peter Monk, Suffolk County Council's portfolio holder for public protection, said last night he hoped it would be able to recover 100% of the fund.
But motoring group the AA voiced serious concerns about the move, saying it could leave local authorities dependent on catching speeding motorists to pay for road safety initiatives.
Mr Monk said: "If you don't ask you don't get and I think we have a good case. We feel that money should be ploughed back into safety schemes and initiatives. Safety improvements can lead to improvements in stretches of road.
"But I wouldn't want us to get into a position where we get the money through that and they slice it from another part of our budget. This is extra."
Mr Monk also insisted speed cameras were not an "income generator", adding: "I would rather have no income from our cameras as difficult as it might be because then everybody would be law abiding and we would have a massive reduction in accidents."
A spokeswoman for the Treasury said no council in the country had ever received surplus funding from speeding fines apart from that which covered operational costs.
She added: "The cost of the speed camera programme is met through the funding and any excess goes back to Government's consolidated funds.
"The funds will be used towards all sorts of public services which would include road crime, education and health, which are the Government's priorities."
Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA, said: "Our concerns really have to be firstly the local authority's road safety activity becoming dependent on them catching people speeding and secondly how it affects the local government finance system.
"If the speed cameras work, they will get less money, and that will have implications for the whole of local Government finance.
"The concern is that if school crossing patrols start being paid out of speed camera revenue what happens if speed camera revenue drops?
"We are really concerned about maintaining state funding for road safety and are not particularly very happy relying on the county to catch lots of people speeding."
Last week, Suffolk SafeCam reported the annual rate of casualties killed or seriously injured at sites where speed cameras have been introduced had fallen from 129 in 2003 to 25 in 2004.
Terry Marsh, project manager of Suffolk SafeCam, said the matter of extra finance was for the politicians to discuss and not for an enforcement agency.
The issue is set to be discussed by members of the county council's executive committee on February 3.
County's bid to reclaim speeding fines
January 27, 2005 08:00
SUFFOLK looks set to launch an ambitious bid to become the first county in the country to reclaim all of the income raised by speed camera fines to reinvest into road safety.
The county council's executive committee is considering making a request to the Government to return future surplus funds generated by the Suffolk Safety Camera Partnership, which manages the county's speed cameras.
The news comes days after it was revealed 48,000 drivers were caught speeding in Suffolk in the past 12 months – generating nearly £3million in speeding fines.
Presently, the revenue received from speeding tickets is used only to cover operational costs including new cameras, with the remainder returning to the Government.
The partnership is on course to raise surplus income this year but it is not known whether the Government would permit such funds to be re-invested into road improvement schemes in the county.
Peter Monk, Suffolk County Council's portfolio holder for public protection, said last night he hoped it would be able to recover 100% of the fund.
But motoring group the AA voiced serious concerns about the move, saying it could leave local authorities dependent on catching speeding motorists to pay for road safety initiatives.
Mr Monk said: "If you don't ask you don't get and I think we have a good case. We feel that money should be ploughed back into safety schemes and initiatives. Safety improvements can lead to improvements in stretches of road.
"But I wouldn't want us to get into a position where we get the money through that and they slice it from another part of our budget. This is extra."
Mr Monk also insisted speed cameras were not an "income generator", adding: "I would rather have no income from our cameras as difficult as it might be because then everybody would be law abiding and we would have a massive reduction in accidents."
A spokeswoman for the Treasury said no council in the country had ever received surplus funding from speeding fines apart from that which covered operational costs.
She added: "The cost of the speed camera programme is met through the funding and any excess goes back to Government's consolidated funds.
"The funds will be used towards all sorts of public services which would include road crime, education and health, which are the Government's priorities."
Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA, said: "Our concerns really have to be firstly the local authority's road safety activity becoming dependent on them catching people speeding and secondly how it affects the local government finance system.
"If the speed cameras work, they will get less money, and that will have implications for the whole of local Government finance.
"The concern is that if school crossing patrols start being paid out of speed camera revenue what happens if speed camera revenue drops?
"We are really concerned about maintaining state funding for road safety and are not particularly very happy relying on the county to catch lots of people speeding."
Last week, Suffolk SafeCam reported the annual rate of casualties killed or seriously injured at sites where speed cameras have been introduced had fallen from 129 in 2003 to 25 in 2004.
Terry Marsh, project manager of Suffolk SafeCam, said the matter of extra finance was for the politicians to discuss and not for an enforcement agency.
The issue is set to be discussed by members of the county council's executive committee on February 3.
Suffolk are insane about speed limits (and by extension scameras). There are many ludicrous ones, including the reduction to 50mph of the whole A140 in the county (the Ipswich/Norwich road - one of the half dozen major roads in the county) irrespective of "safety".
Nothing has been done, needless to say, about the really dangerous junctions (dangerous at any speed). A colleague of mine crossed the A140/B1077 every day - it was so bad the only way across was to drive across into the pub opposite and come out through the carpark - and this was at 7AM.
Dangerous at *any* speed.
There are also many 20mph (blanket) limits in villages.
One of the things never mentioned, (maybe it's me) is the concept of traffic density. If you slow traffic from 60mph to 30mph, it may be slower, but there's also twice as much traffic as a unit/sec measurement because it takes twice as long to get from A to B. There's the same number of cars but they are on the road twice as long.
The consequence of this is that there are far fewer gaps for manoeuvres.
Going into Norwich there is a perfect example. A dual carriageway at 70 becomes a single carriageway at 40 ; a density increase of 7*2/4, 14/4 or 3.5. Just after that, there's a side road comes up from Cringleford - it is almost impossible to get in unless someone stops for you.
The real downside is if this is allowed they'll all want it, and we'll get cameras every mile, speed limits reduced to nothing etc etc.
Nothing has been done, needless to say, about the really dangerous junctions (dangerous at any speed). A colleague of mine crossed the A140/B1077 every day - it was so bad the only way across was to drive across into the pub opposite and come out through the carpark - and this was at 7AM.
Dangerous at *any* speed.
There are also many 20mph (blanket) limits in villages.
One of the things never mentioned, (maybe it's me) is the concept of traffic density. If you slow traffic from 60mph to 30mph, it may be slower, but there's also twice as much traffic as a unit/sec measurement because it takes twice as long to get from A to B. There's the same number of cars but they are on the road twice as long.
The consequence of this is that there are far fewer gaps for manoeuvres.
Going into Norwich there is a perfect example. A dual carriageway at 70 becomes a single carriageway at 40 ; a density increase of 7*2/4, 14/4 or 3.5. Just after that, there's a side road comes up from Cringleford - it is almost impossible to get in unless someone stops for you.
The real downside is if this is allowed they'll all want it, and we'll get cameras every mile, speed limits reduced to nothing etc etc.
What sort of job title is "portfolio holder for public protection"?
Having watched the repeat of Clarkson's "Meet the Neighbours" t'other evening, I'm increasingly admiring the French approach...you want to take a risk? Fine, you live with the consequences, why should we interfere?
Why are we so safety obsessed these days?
Having watched the repeat of Clarkson's "Meet the Neighbours" t'other evening, I'm increasingly admiring the French approach...you want to take a risk? Fine, you live with the consequences, why should we interfere?
Why are we so safety obsessed these days?
hornet said:
What sort of job title is "portfolio holder for public protection"?
Having watched the repeat of Clarkson's "Meet the Neighbours" t'other evening, I'm increasingly admiring the French approach...you want to take a risk? Fine, you live with the consequences, why should we interfere?
Why are we so safety obsessed these days?
Because "where there's blame there's a claim". I totally agree that people should be told the risks and then be left to get on with it. Unfortunately we're governed by people who are so risk-averse that they can't decide how to lace up their shoes without a focus group to tell them what people want.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff