Speed cameras, are they there to make money?
Discussion
Something someone said on a thread here yesterday made me think that maybe there should be a thread devoted to this topic.
He pointed out that if speed cameras were there to make money, then why would there be points as well? Meaning that the people who are inclined to speed (and thus provide the money that so many people here insist is the only motive for cameras) get banned. What business would want to ban their best customers?
So if anyone here thinks that they can prove that speed cameras are there to make money, I would like to hear the evidence.
BTW, I don't mean the operators, who are doing it as their job, or the people who make and provide them who are doing it as a business, they all want paying for what they do.
He pointed out that if speed cameras were there to make money, then why would there be points as well? Meaning that the people who are inclined to speed (and thus provide the money that so many people here insist is the only motive for cameras) get banned. What business would want to ban their best customers?
So if anyone here thinks that they can prove that speed cameras are there to make money, I would like to hear the evidence.
BTW, I don't mean the operators, who are doing it as their job, or the people who make and provide them who are doing it as a business, they all want paying for what they do.
Never quite worked out the points system, they are on your licence for an eternity.
I think this was introduced to stop wealthy people just 'paying a fine' and cleaning their teeth with champagne and caviar while the not so fortunate go without toilet paper.
Everything is about making money.
I think this was introduced to stop wealthy people just 'paying a fine' and cleaning their teeth with champagne and caviar while the not so fortunate go without toilet paper.
Everything is about making money.
Nope, of course they're not. They wouldn't put so much money into them and not want a return. Nope, no way.
http://www.businessvans.co.uk/van-news/smart-speed...
http://www.businessvans.co.uk/van-news/smart-speed...
roofer said:
Nope, of course they're not. They wouldn't put so much money into them and not want a return. Nope, no way.
http://www.businessvans.co.uk/van-news/smart-speed...
So your answer amounts to a sarcastic version of 'of course they are there to make money" and a pretty much irrelevant link.http://www.businessvans.co.uk/van-news/smart-speed...
grumpy52 said:
Cameras don't stop you speeding they just catch you doing it .
The obviously do stop most people speeding. You only have to read the threads about people moaning about having to stick to the limits on the A40 for the first time in their lives due to average speed cameras.Knowing the inefficiency of anything the government do, I bet they're not making much profit from them.
I also don't think they're 100% for safety. We all know of speed cameras sited in nonsense locations, but in the short-term it's cheaper than employing another police officer.
If safety was the main concern then tailgating cameras would be much more widespread. 90mph on an empty motorway is a billion times safer than 5 cars on a country road travelling 50mph inches from each others bumpers.
IMO - put tailgaiting cameras everywhere and average speed cameras in accident hot-spots. All current 3-point offences should become fine-only. Nobody should lose their license for doing 80mph on a clear motorway.
I also don't think they're 100% for safety. We all know of speed cameras sited in nonsense locations, but in the short-term it's cheaper than employing another police officer.
If safety was the main concern then tailgating cameras would be much more widespread. 90mph on an empty motorway is a billion times safer than 5 cars on a country road travelling 50mph inches from each others bumpers.
IMO - put tailgaiting cameras everywhere and average speed cameras in accident hot-spots. All current 3-point offences should become fine-only. Nobody should lose their license for doing 80mph on a clear motorway.
Clearly if aren't speeding you can't be caught by a camera.
The argument is obviously whether they are deliberately sited to raise money or in places where there is a genuine need to reduce speeds and hence some risk.
I think the big issue is that most people passing the cameras will be local, so they know where fixed cameras are and often know the common hiding spots for the camera vans. So people just slow down for a very short distance then go back to whatever they would have done before, thus making cameras have a very limited effect.
In the county where I live all of the fixed cameras were turned off ages ago, but they have since installed a single fixed camera... the only one in the whole county that is live. And I agree with its placement as it is within 50 yards of a crossing for a school, so a sensible way to slow drivers near the school. But most drivers use that road at 40mph ish in a 30mph zone when clear, slow for the camera then speed up again.
I'm not convinced that cameras, fixed or mobile, have a massive effect on driving behaviour for anything other than a very small area around the camera/site. I've also seen many cameras/vans in places where it seems to be quite cynical... wide open roads with great visibility but curiously low speed limits... so I've no doubt that some are used as cash cows, maybe not all but there must be quite a few.
The argument is obviously whether they are deliberately sited to raise money or in places where there is a genuine need to reduce speeds and hence some risk.
I think the big issue is that most people passing the cameras will be local, so they know where fixed cameras are and often know the common hiding spots for the camera vans. So people just slow down for a very short distance then go back to whatever they would have done before, thus making cameras have a very limited effect.
In the county where I live all of the fixed cameras were turned off ages ago, but they have since installed a single fixed camera... the only one in the whole county that is live. And I agree with its placement as it is within 50 yards of a crossing for a school, so a sensible way to slow drivers near the school. But most drivers use that road at 40mph ish in a 30mph zone when clear, slow for the camera then speed up again.
I'm not convinced that cameras, fixed or mobile, have a massive effect on driving behaviour for anything other than a very small area around the camera/site. I've also seen many cameras/vans in places where it seems to be quite cynical... wide open roads with great visibility but curiously low speed limits... so I've no doubt that some are used as cash cows, maybe not all but there must be quite a few.
spookly said:
The argument is obviously whether they are deliberately sited to raise money or in places where there is a genuine need to reduce speeds and hence some risk.
Actually no, that is not the argument. You seem to think that cameras are meant to serve the same function as a traffic calming road alteration, and only have an effect in that one area.bigbob77 said:
IMO - put tailgaiting cameras everywhere and average speed cameras in accident hot-spots. All current 3-point offences should become fine-only. Nobody should lose their license for doing 80mph on a clear motorway.
I have no idea why they don't do this immediately. Oh yeah, they're scared of newspapers and BRAKE.Boosted LS1 said:
Are there any accounts available for us to peruse? Or a revenue stream to inspect?
I don't know if there is anything that would give a complete picture.But if there was, and it showed they were making a profit, would it prove anything about the actual intention? It's understood they are supposed to be self financing as far as possible.
IIRC years ago bfore these were invented, the normal method to be done for speeding is that plod had to follow you over a distance . These things will do you if you pass them at 35.01 mph but not at 34.99.and over a distance of what 60ft?
Now if someone can produce figures that shows a massive increase in deaths and injuries by that increase of 0.02 mph, i will say they are doing a good job, but i bet that if you had been caught by plod and given a good b
king for five minut and told to 'bugger off and behave in future', that would be more of an impact that thse damn machines.
Oh and i like the av speed thing better, once the idoit drivers stop braking everytime they go under one, it does make driving a bit more relaxing, but boring!!!!
Now if someone can produce figures that shows a massive increase in deaths and injuries by that increase of 0.02 mph, i will say they are doing a good job, but i bet that if you had been caught by plod and given a good b
king for five minut and told to 'bugger off and behave in future', that would be more of an impact that thse damn machines.Oh and i like the av speed thing better, once the idoit drivers stop braking everytime they go under one, it does make driving a bit more relaxing, but boring!!!!
Since the government stepped in, in 2007, and stopped the SCPs funding themselves from the fines (an obvious conflict of interest), probably not as much or as well as they used to be. Before then, yes, there was a clear incentive for the operators to maximise the number of fines they collected.
What are they for, exactly?
What are they for, exactly?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff