Putting scameras out of business

[leadfootlydon]

From The Daily Mail Wednesday 22-Mar-2006, page 10.

"Partnerships retain a proportion of the cash raised from fixed penatlies but not from fines paid into court. Mr Knox insisted:

'An increase in the number of people in court doesn't benefit us. Any fines paid go to the treasury. We can only recover our costs from the people who pay the conditional offers which arrive in their letter boxes.'

He refused to say how many people were being prosecuted overall because of the camera."

This is from a story about a *single* speed camera on the A3 that is likely to generating more than £7 million a year with a backlog of over 400 case waiting to be heard in court.

So if everyone chose to go to court, the partnerships would be starved of revenue, regardless of whether the driver was found guilty or not.

And the flaw is.....

[trax]

The flaw is, after the Partnerships lie, bully and bluster the civilian, they tend to accept the conditional offer, even though they have never seen any evidence of their alleged offence. Thats how these multi-million turnover business can afford to carry on regardless, without any targets attributed to safety, or any accountability to anyone.

[vonhosen]

From next financial year they get no money from conditional offers at all.
They will be completely funded by government & all fines will go through courts.

[leadfootlydon]

Well, at least that is a step towards democracy (picking up a point of yours from another thread).

It puts the government slightly more in charge, and the government is more susceptible to pressure.

[plasticpig]

The article misses the main point. If everyone chose to got to court that would be an extra 1.8 million court cases. The magistrates courts would not be able to handle such an increase in workload and would be swamped. As far as I am concerned it it is a fundmental right for the man/women in the street to have his day in court.

[targarama]

Damn, I clicked on this thread hoping for an active discussion on the relative merits of petrol, old tyres, angle grinders, tow ropes, matches, nail varnish remover, black spray paint etc.

[Fat Richie]

targarama said:

Damn, I clicked on this thread hoping for an active discussion on the relative merits of petrol, old tyres, angle grinders, tow ropes, matches, nail varnish remover, black spray paint etc.

Acid etch kits?

[safespeed]

leadfootlydon said:

It puts the government slightly more in charge, and the government is more susceptible to pressure.

Looks to me like the DfT is disowning the cameras and leaving it to partnerships / local authorities to defend them.

[fido]

still waiting for my fine/penalty. i'm definitely going to court because they won't show me the evidence. if this means, the SCP won't receive any funds, even better.

[leadfootlydon]

vonhosen said:

From next financial year they get no money from conditional offers at all. They will be completely funded by government & all fines will go through courts.

Do you mean funded by central government or by local government?

This may be two daft questions, but where exactly does the money go that drivers pay to "the court"? In other words, who gets to spend the money?

And where is the money coming from to fund the cameras? Surely not from the money that is paid to the court?

[vonhosen]

leadfootlydon said:

vonhosen said: From next financial year they get no money from conditional offers at all. They will be completely funded by government & all fines will go through courts. Do you mean funded by central government or by local government? This may be two daft questions, but where exactly does the money go that drivers pay to "the court"? In other words, who gets to spend the money? And where is the money coming from to fund the cameras? Surely not from the money that is paid to the court?

From 2007 camera activity and partnerships will be integrated into wider local authority road safety activity, and expenditure on safety cameras will cease to be funded through netting-off. Government will instead be allocating an additional £110 million a year in England over the first four years of the changes - considerably more than the latest projection of annual expenditure by safety camera partnerships in England which is some £93 million.

Authorities will be able to use this funding for all types of road safety measures. As well as the greater flexibility, this will provide financial stability and facilitate long term planning.

Local authorities will be awarded money based on their road casualty need, and also through the quality of casualty reduction plans that they will submit annually to the DfT. The Highways Agency, Transport for London, and Welsh Assembly will be compensated to cover their roads.

Fines collected through the judiciary go to central government.

>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 23 March 00:01

[leadfootlydon]

vonhosen said:

From 2007 camera activity and partnerships will be integrated into wider local authority road safety activity, and expenditure on safety cameras will cease to be funded through netting-off. Government will instead be allocating an additional £110 million a year in England over the first four years of the changes - considerably more than the latest projection of annual expenditure by safety camera partnerships in England which is some £93 million. Authorities will be able to use this funding for all types of road safety measures. As well as the greater flexibility, this will provide financial stability and facilitate long term planning. Local authorities will be awarded money based on their road casualty need, and also through the quality of casualty reduction plans that they will submit annually to the DfT. The Highways Agency, Transport for London, and Welsh Assembly will be compensated to cover their roads. Fines collected through the judiciary go to central government. >> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 23 March 00:01

Thank you. I will attempt to digest that data. It sounds like a step in the right direction, but I (we) are now so jaded and mistrusting that it is very easy to be suspicious and search for ulterior motives.

[tvrslag]

[/quote]

From 2007 camera activity and partnerships will be integrated into wider local authority road safety activity, and expenditure on safety cameras will cease to be funded through netting-off. Government will instead be allocating an additional £110 million a year in England over the first four years of the changes - considerably more than the latest projection of annual expenditure by safety camera partnerships in England which is some £93 million.

Authorities will be able to use this funding for all types of road safety measures. As well as the greater flexibility, this will provide financial stability and facilitate long term planning.

Local authorities will be awarded money based on their road casualty need, and also through the quality of casualty reduction plans that they will submit annually to the DfT. The Highways Agency, Transport for London, and Welsh Assembly will be compensated to cover their roads.

Fines collected through the judiciary go to central government.

>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 23 March 00:01[/quote]

Just playing devils advocate for a moment. If a local authority has more accidents it gets more money, surely this is actually anethema to trying to reduce casualties. Why actually complete any road safety modification plans if they reduce casualties if you will get less money? Also as local authorities also get through council tax, funds for policing I can see this being cut even more now that they can claim funds for more cameras.

[catso]

vonhosen said:

From next financial year they get no money from conditional offers at all. They will be completely funded by government & all fines will go through courts.

Presumably they will have 'targets' imposed upon them and the 'excesses' will simply go to fund some other anti-motorist or anti-citzen project.
Also this will 'discourage' people from taking there case to court, in effect they will have consolidated the scamming to one centrally controlled 'partnership' thus ensuring the now maximised profit goes where they intended it to in the first instance.

I don't believe that this change will make any beneficial difference to the motoring public or to road safety.

>> Edited by catso on Thursday 23 March 10:58

[leadfootlydon]

tvrslag said:

If a local authority has more accidents it gets more money, surely this is actually anethema to trying to reduce casualties.

Brilliant idea . Why not have the central government *deduct* amounts from local government funding based on the level of accidents. That would focus their attention.

The local authorities would then have a financial incentive to make a genuine investment in *real* safety measures.

Someone told me that Chinese doctors were paid only if you stayed healthy. If you got sick, you didn't pay. With the Westernisation of China, this is probably no longer the case.

[TheExcession]

leadfootlydon said:

Someone told me that Chinese doctors were paid only if you stayed healthy. If you got sick, you didn't pay. With the Westernisation of China, this is probably no longer the case.

I'd heard this too, not sure if it's an urban myth or not.

[CombeMarshal]

I'm sure on topgear they worked out, if we all stuck to the speed limits, they would have to stop using the cameras after 1 week as they would be more expensive to maintain than the money they'd get out of them!
Oh and the goverment made more from tax from Simon Cowl than they did from Cameras last year!