National campaign to bring speeding fines back from treasury

[321boost]

Does any one have awareness of this national campaign to bring the speeding fines revenue back to councils? I remember reading in one of the regional specific online news papers (like Manchester evening or Cornwall live) but can’t remember which one. How can one read into it more? It’s like a behind the scenes thing that the public isn’t really told of.

Edited by 321boost on Monday 13th January 14:55

[321boost]

Found it:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-new...

Read the middle part of the news:

“....council plans to work with West Midlands Police and West Midlands Combined Authority in supporting the national campaign lobbying the government for income from speeding fines to be handed back to local authorities..”

So does anyone know more about this?

[eldar]

321boost said:

Found it:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-new...

Read the middle part of the news:

“....council plans to work with West Midlands Police and West Midlands Combined Authority in supporting the national campaign lobbying the government for income from speeding fines to be handed back to local authorities..”

So does anyone know more about this?

No.bad idea.

Councils will have a 2mph limit and a camera at every opportunity.

[321boost]

eldar said:

No.bad idea.

Councils will have a 2mph limit and a camera at every opportunity.

Which is what happened the last time councils were given speeding revenue. I think the number of cameras increased.

[Countdown]

If it becomes a Council issue wont it be easier for local residents to influence the level of enforcement via their Councillor? i.e. Democracy in action.....

[321boost]

Countdown said:

If it becomes a Council issue wont it be easier for local residents to influence the level of enforcement via their Councillor? i.e. Democracy in action.....

No it will be easier for all the safety groups with time on their hands to go to these safety consultations and influence lower speed limits and cameras everywhere with the council ready to collect more revenue.

Also councils have a record of not being very democratic as evident from consultations in the past.

Edited by 321boost on Monday 13th January 15:47

[Countdown]

321boost said:

Countdown said:

If it becomes a Council issue wont it be easier for local residents to influence the level of enforcement via their Councillor? i.e. Democracy in action.....

No it will be easier for all the safety groups with time on their hands to go to these safety consultations and influence lower speed limits and cameras everywhere with the council ready to collect more revenue.

That's pretty much how democracy works....people who are strongly bothered by something, try and do something about it. If we want the right to speed we should do the same.

321boost said:

Also councils have a record of not being very democratic as evident from consultations in the past.

Edited by 321boost on Monday 13th January 15:47

Ours seems very responsive, especially when it comes down to refusing planning permission.....

[321boost]

Countdown said:

321boost said:

Countdown said:

If it becomes a Council issue wont it be easier for local residents to influence the level of enforcement via their Councillor? i.e. Democracy in action.....

No it will be easier for all the safety groups with time on their hands to go to these safety consultations and influence lower speed limits and cameras everywhere with the council ready to collect more revenue.

That's pretty much how democracy works....people who are strongly bothered by something, try and do something about it. If we want the right to speed we should do the same.

321boost said:

Also councils have a record of not being very democratic as evident from consultations in the past.

Edited by 321boost on Monday 13th January 15:47

Ours seems very responsive, especially when it comes down to refusing planning permission.....

Not really, last consultation meeting was held when I was at work. Making it inconvenient and not raising enough awareness is not democratic.

Examples of councils not listening:
Birmingham received opposition to their ULEZ scheme and the council still implemented it.
Bristol held a review of 20mph zones and still kept 20mph on roads despite residents on some roads demanding a speed limit increase. They always have some reason to do what they want.

Examples of council listening:
Manchester holding a referendum on CC.

I have less examples of the authorities listening to what people have to say and more of them not listening or even raising awareness. Why is this national campaign only stated in one article? Were you aware of it before this topic?

Either way I don’t really want to argue with you, you have your opinion and I have mine. I just want an answer to my question.

Edited by 321boost on Monday 13th January 16:34

Edited by 321boost on Monday 13th January 17:02

[ChocolateFrog]

Imagine how much of a cash cow that would be for councils.

[ChocolateFrog]

Countdown said:

If it becomes a Council issue wont it be easier for local residents to influence the level of enforcement via their Councillor? i.e. Democracy in action.....

No. Motorists who care would be in the minority and would just be ignored.

[321boost]

ChocolateFrog said:

No. Motorists who care would be in the minority and would just be ignored.

I think most motorists care, it’s just that they will not even be made aware. For all elections you get various mail, for local consultations and road policies you get b*gger all. At least that’s my experience.

[ceesvdelst]

Councils make enough money from parking, bus lanes and rent for small businesses, they will be lobbying like hell for this.

Don't give it to them!

[321boost]

ceesvdelst said:

Councils make enough money from parking, bus lanes and rent for small businesses, they will be lobbying like hell for this.

Don't give it to them!

The info is limited. I’m sure there are police members on this forum that might have some idea but haven’t said anything.

[bartelbe]

The problem with councils is they are really run by unelected professional council managers. They are the people that push the agenda. Councilors are unpaid part timers and not among the best and brightest. They can easily go native and do what the unelected council officials want.

If those officials are very anti-car, then good luck trying to change the council's policy.

Personally I would have no problem with cars being restricted in cities but only if I am provided with a decent affordable public transport alternative. By that I don't mean a grotty leaking bus shelter, with a fictional bus timetable and equally grotty slow bus.

Frankly I don't enjoy driving in cities, so would love a viable alternative. The problem is, councils want the ULEZ and other measures before providing alternatives.

Oh and a car mag did an article based on a freedom of information request, which asked what percentage of council vehicles. in areas thinking of ULEZ, were diesels? Every council had above 90% diesel and were buying more diesels. This included Bristol, which wishes to ban all diesels. Their excuse, was there was no alternative.

One rule of them, one rule for us.

[rscott]

bartelbe said:

The problem with councils is they are really run by unelected professional council managers. They are the people that push the agenda. Councilors are unpaid part timers and not among the best and brightest. They can easily go native and do what the unelected council officials want.

If those officials are very anti-car, then good luck trying to change the council's policy.

Personally I would have no problem with cars being restricted in cities but only if I am provided with a decent affordable public transport alternative. By that I don't mean a grotty leaking bus shelter, with a fictional bus timetable and equally grotty slow bus.

Frankly I don't enjoy driving in cities, so would love a viable alternative. The problem is, councils want the ULEZ and other measures before providing alternatives.

Oh and a car mag did an article based on a freedom of information request, which asked what percentage of council vehicles. in areas thinking of ULEZ, were diesels? Every council had above 90% diesel and were buying more diesels. This included Bristol, which wishes to ban all diesels. Their excuse, was there was no alternative.

One rule of them, one rule for us.

Not true - district/borough councillors and above are paid. It's only parish/town councillors who aren't.

[rscott]

321boost said:

Countdown said:

321boost said:

Countdown said:

If it becomes a Council issue wont it be easier for local residents to influence the level of enforcement via their Councillor? i.e. Democracy in action.....

No it will be easier for all the safety groups with time on their hands to go to these safety consultations and influence lower speed limits and cameras everywhere with the council ready to collect more revenue.

That's pretty much how democracy works....people who are strongly bothered by something, try and do something about it. If we want the right to speed we should do the same.

321boost said:

Also councils have a record of not being very democratic as evident from consultations in the past.

Edited by 321boost on Monday 13th January 15:47

Ours seems very responsive, especially when it comes down to refusing planning permission.....

Not really, last consultation meeting was held when I was at work. Making it inconvenient and not raising enough awareness is not democratic.

Examples of councils not listening:
Birmingham received opposition to their ULEZ scheme and the council still implemented it.
Bristol held a review of 20mph zones and still kept 20mph on roads despite residents on some roads demanding a speed limit increase. They always have some reason to do what they want.

Examples of council listening:
Manchester holding a referendum on CC.

I have less examples of the authorities listening to what people have to say and more of them not listening or even raising awareness. Why is this national campaign only stated in one article? Were you aware of it before this topic?

Either way I don’t really want to argue with you, you have your opinion and I have mine. I just want an answer to my question.

Edited by 321boost on Monday 13th January 16:34

Edited by 321boost on Monday 13th January 17:02

In other words, you think councils aren't responsive because their decisions don't agree with your views.

[irocfan]

Countdown said:

321boost said:

Countdown said:

If it becomes a Council issue wont it be easier for local residents to influence the level of enforcement via their Councillor? i.e.Democracy in action.....

No it will be easier for all the safety groups with time on their hands to go to these safety consultations and influence lower speed limits and cameras everywhere with the council ready to collect more revenue.

That's pretty much how democracy works....people who are strongly bothered by something, try and do something about it. If we want the right to speed we should do the same.

321boost said:

Also councils have a record of not being very democratic as evident from consultations in the past.

Edited by 321boost on Monday 13th January 15:47

Ours seems very responsive, especially when it comes down to refusing planning permission.....

Democracy in action doesn't really work though. Either the people shouting the loudest get their view passed as it's not worth the, potential, ststorm of complaints if these idiots are ignored or the council just ignore whatever they don't like anyway (look at new-build developments all along the Brentwood to Southend roads/rail-line)

[Countdown]

rscott said:

In other words, you think councils aren't responsive because their decisions don't agree with your views.

That's the thing - PHers not accepting that the majority of people aren't PHers and therefore either aren't too bothered about speed cameras or actively support having them. It's more comforting / palatable to imply that the "system is flawed" and that it's only a "small minority" who are biased against innocent drivers

[rigga]

Interesting its west midlands asking for this, as currently all fixed camera's are turned off, and have been for many years. There are several average cameras popping up, and I think 4 mobile vans to cover the while area.
Seems that as they are short on money, getting revenue back from central government, would solve some of their cash issues, all cameras would be turned back on, and I guess lots more sited.

[321boost]

rscott said:

In other words, you think councils aren't responsive because their decisions don't agree with your views.

Did you not read into any of the examples I gave? I’m sure I can find more. Those are not just my views, those are the views of the residents or “normal” people. Those coming on here saying that the rest of the world is not PHers and not bothered also need to understand that the non PHers are normal people and no one likes a bigger hole in their pocket, inconvenience or restrictions either.