Scamera quango spending - safety plasma TV, safety T shirts
Discussion
In apparent defiance of 'guidelines' - nothing new there then - scamera pratnerships are spending fine income in a profligate and unwarranted manner, claims the Sunday Telegraph.
Speed camera operators are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds from fines on refurbishing premises and buying plasma television screens and staff T-shirts, new figures reveal.
The "safety camera partnerships", formed by police and local authorities, now spend £95 million running their nationwide network of 4,650 cameras.
Many of their costs are unrelated to road safety, and critics say they have become "fully fledged quangos", wasting huge sums of money and adding to widespread suspicions that speed cameras are merely "revenue-raisers".
The figures for 2005-6, contained in a written parliamentary answer, show that Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire safety camera partnership spent £326,400 on publicity, £81,700 on accommodation, and just under £500,000 on administration.
Hampshire & Isle of Wight spent £86,524 on publicity and appointed a public relations officer, while Cheshire spent £50,000 on refurbishment. Warwickshire spent more than £500,000 on processing costs, £105,450 on management and administration, and £116,693 on communications. Essex ran up an £8,855 bill for photocopying, spent £9,052 on smartboards and £7,495 on a plasma screen and miscellaneous software. Derbyshire budgeted £15,000 for "promotional items" and £250 for staff T-shirts.
The figures also show huge differences in average running costs and profits of cameras in each area. In Hertfordshire, a camera costs £73,167 to maintain and makes a profit of £113,334, while in Lancashire the equivalent figures are £8,972 and £12,615.
Last night, Chris Grayling, the shadow transport secretary, who tabled the questions, accused the partnerships of spending vast sums of money on "expanding their own empires while doing nothing about real road safety problems such as uninsured drivers and people driving with no licence".
"Motorists and the general public have a right to ask why do the partnerships need publicity officers, plasma screens and T-shirts?" he said.
The RAC Foundation called on the Government to set up a watchdog body to monitor how the income was being spent.
Sheila Rainger, the foundation's campaigns manager, said the profits could be spent on "genuine road safety projects" such as educating young drivers.
"We are not anti-speed cameras," Miss Rainger said. "They can do a good job in the right place. But they are in danger of becoming the first and last resort when recent surveys have shown that the most important factor in road accidents is not speed but not paying attention."
The partnerships, formed in the early 1990s, initially did not have to plough profits back into road safety, and surpluses could be used for other council or police projects, prompting complaints that cameras were used simply to make money.
Earlier this year, the partnerships were ordered to use profits for safety projects, but they have continued to spend money on the same things, claiming that they constitute "running costs".
"Genuine road safety projects"
Clearly it's now overdue time to disband these self-serving but pointless empires, sack the empire builders, and get our road safety strategy back on the right road.
Sunday Telegraph said:
Speed camera operators are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds from fines on refurbishing premises and buying plasma television screens and staff T-shirts, new figures reveal.
The "safety camera partnerships", formed by police and local authorities, now spend £95 million running their nationwide network of 4,650 cameras.
Many of their costs are unrelated to road safety, and critics say they have become "fully fledged quangos", wasting huge sums of money and adding to widespread suspicions that speed cameras are merely "revenue-raisers".
The figures for 2005-6, contained in a written parliamentary answer, show that Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire safety camera partnership spent £326,400 on publicity, £81,700 on accommodation, and just under £500,000 on administration.
Hampshire & Isle of Wight spent £86,524 on publicity and appointed a public relations officer, while Cheshire spent £50,000 on refurbishment. Warwickshire spent more than £500,000 on processing costs, £105,450 on management and administration, and £116,693 on communications. Essex ran up an £8,855 bill for photocopying, spent £9,052 on smartboards and £7,495 on a plasma screen and miscellaneous software. Derbyshire budgeted £15,000 for "promotional items" and £250 for staff T-shirts.
The figures also show huge differences in average running costs and profits of cameras in each area. In Hertfordshire, a camera costs £73,167 to maintain and makes a profit of £113,334, while in Lancashire the equivalent figures are £8,972 and £12,615.
Last night, Chris Grayling, the shadow transport secretary, who tabled the questions, accused the partnerships of spending vast sums of money on "expanding their own empires while doing nothing about real road safety problems such as uninsured drivers and people driving with no licence".
"Motorists and the general public have a right to ask why do the partnerships need publicity officers, plasma screens and T-shirts?" he said.
The RAC Foundation called on the Government to set up a watchdog body to monitor how the income was being spent.
Sheila Rainger, the foundation's campaigns manager, said the profits could be spent on "genuine road safety projects" such as educating young drivers.
"We are not anti-speed cameras," Miss Rainger said. "They can do a good job in the right place. But they are in danger of becoming the first and last resort when recent surveys have shown that the most important factor in road accidents is not speed but not paying attention."
The partnerships, formed in the early 1990s, initially did not have to plough profits back into road safety, and surpluses could be used for other council or police projects, prompting complaints that cameras were used simply to make money.
Earlier this year, the partnerships were ordered to use profits for safety projects, but they have continued to spend money on the same things, claiming that they constitute "running costs".
"Genuine road safety projects"
Clearly it's now overdue time to disband these self-serving but pointless empires, sack the empire builders, and get our road safety strategy back on the right road.
vonhosen said:
It was announced long ago that funding is changing from next year.
They'll get a fixed budget.
They'll get a fixed budget.
You mean they will get a fixed amount off every victim, or they will get a fixed amount of money no matter how many people lives they ruin?
I can't see how their budget would not be affected by the amount of revenue they raise for the chancellor.
hedders said:
vonhosen said:
It was announced long ago that funding is changing from next year.
They'll get a fixed budget.
They'll get a fixed budget.
You mean they will get a fixed amount off every victim, or they will get a fixed amount of money no matter how many people lives they ruin?
I can't see how their budget would not be affected by the amount of revenue they raise for the chancellor.
There will be a budget set from central government for the year. They will be tied closer to other local authority departments that have an interest in roads & roads safety. They will not be tied to expenditure solely on cameras & running the SCP. They will be able to use the money for other road safety initiatives away from camera enforcement (which they can't do now).
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 29th October 09:08
vonhosen said:
There will...
They will...
They will not...
They will...
You forgot to mention:
They are useless.
They are failing.
They are not improving safety.
They are sustained only by a well funded spin machine - funded by the income taxpayer and the speed taxpayer.
They are a total waste of space and energy.
They must stop working before UK road safety will start working again.
Sorry Von, I must be even slower than usual today...
What does all that mean? Do they get a fixed amount or not? And why would scammers now be concentrating on other area's of raod safety? I assume you mean other types of electronic surveillance rather than actual safety improvements, better roads and training etc?
What does all that mean? Do they get a fixed amount or not? And why would scammers now be concentrating on other area's of raod safety? I assume you mean other types of electronic surveillance rather than actual safety improvements, better roads and training etc?
hedders said:
Sorry Von, I must be even slower than usual today...
What does all that mean? Do they get a fixed amount or not? And why would scammers now be concentrating on other area's of raod safety? I assume you mean other types of electronic surveillance rather than actual safety improvements, better roads and training etc?
What does all that mean? Do they get a fixed amount or not? And why would scammers now be concentrating on other area's of raod safety? I assume you mean other types of electronic surveillance rather than actual safety improvements, better roads and training etc?
It is my understanding from the press releases etc, that there will be a national budget for SCPs. Each SCP will bid for a slice of the pie outlining their casualty reduction policy & targets in their bid. They won't be tied to electronic surveillance & money can be spent in other areas such as education.
They then get a fixed amount for the year, irrespective of how many fines they issue in that year. Casualty reduction will be the bench mark against which they are measured.
There will be no netting off, all recepit of fines will go the way any other fines currently go through the courts.
hedders said:
Cheers for that Von.
I thought that the casualty figures had remained fairly constant since the introduction of scammers, Surely that means they should get no funding at all!
Yes, hospital data on rta casualties being far more trustworthy than that from the politicised echelons of the police social services department, show no drop in KSI over the last 10 years or so. Maybe a slight increase, all in the era of the (huh) safety camera I thought that the casualty figures had remained fairly constant since the introduction of scammers, Surely that means they should get no funding at all!
. As pointed out already by the ABD and SafesPeed before the Office of the National Statistician got involved and made it official.
All forms of automated arbitrary enforcement have no safety benefit, the so-caled partnerships need closing down and fast.
apache said:
There has got to be more to it than this, what's in it for the Partnerships, how are they going to fund all their toys, where's the incentive to put up cameras.
Government grant?
Safety Plasma TV and porn channel safety decoder with software £7,495
Safety sofas and safety comfy seats in rooms with safety wallpaper £50,000
Safety smartboards £9,052
Safety communication phone calls to Miss Whiplash £116,693
Safety Partnerships
vonhosen said:
It is my understanding from the press releases etc, that there will be a national budget for SCPs. Each SCP will bid for a slice of the pie outlining their casualty reduction policy & targets in their bid. They won't be tied to electronic surveillance & money can be spent in other areas such as education.
How much of their budget will the SCPs be allowed to spend on propaganda?The funny thing about this is the comparison between Lancs and Herts.
Lancs have one of the lowest trip rates for their cameras, where as I know that Herts SCP have a fairly generous threshold for their cameras.
Apart from Watford where there is a stretch of road which has an insane amounts of cameras, Hertfordshire is not too bad for cameras (touch wood).
Scratching my head to work out which cameras are making that kind of money...
Lancs have one of the lowest trip rates for their cameras, where as I know that Herts SCP have a fairly generous threshold for their cameras.
Apart from Watford where there is a stretch of road which has an insane amounts of cameras, Hertfordshire is not too bad for cameras (touch wood).
Scratching my head to work out which cameras are making that kind of money...
vonhosen said:
It is my understanding from the press releases etc, that there will be a national budget for SCPs. Each SCP will bid for a slice of the pie outlining their casualty reduction policy & targets in their bid. They won't be tied to electronic surveillance & money can be spent in other areas such as education.
They then get a fixed amount for the year, irrespective of how many fines they issue in that year. Casualty reduction will be the bench mark against which they are measured.
There will be no netting off, all recepit of fines will go the way any other fines currently go through the courts.
They then get a fixed amount for the year, irrespective of how many fines they issue in that year. Casualty reduction will be the bench mark against which they are measured.
There will be no netting off, all recepit of fines will go the way any other fines currently go through the courts.
Ah, but at the end of the year an SCP's slice of next year's pie will be reviewed depending on their previous years performance (I dare say the size of the pie will be reviewed too), hence it is still in every SCPs interest to generate as much business as possible.
smeggy said:
[quote=vonhosen]It is my understanding from the press releases etc, that there will be a national budget for SCPs. Each SCP will bid for a slice of the pie outlining their casualty reduction policy & targets in their bid. They won't be tied to electronic surveillance & money can be spent in other areas such as education.
They then get a fixed amount for the year, irrespective of how many fines they issue in that year. Casualty reduction will be the bench mark against which they are measured.
There will be no netting off, all recepit of fines will go the way any other fines currently go through the courts.
They then get a fixed amount for the year, irrespective of how many fines they issue in that year. Casualty reduction will be the bench mark against which they are measured.
There will be no netting off, all recepit of fines will go the way any other fines currently go through the courts.
Ah, but at the end of the year an SCP's slice of next year's pie will be reviewed depending on their previous years performance (I dare say the size of the pie will be reviewed too), hence it is still in every SCPs interest to generate as much business as possible.
Gordon Brown is not giving the partnerships the money without demanding a return on his investment. It is in the partnerships interest to ensure that the amount raised in fines is greater than they receive from the government. What happens if they don't? Don't even think about it - they must. Everything they do must raise money so any talk about alternative methods of road safety that do not result in fixed penalties must be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
vonhosen said:
It is my understanding from the press releases etc, that there will be a national budget for SCPs. Each SCP will bid for a slice of the pie outlining their casualty reduction policy & targets in their bid. They won't be tied to electronic surveillance & money can be spent in other areas such as education.
They then get a fixed amount for the year, irrespective of how many fines they issue in that year. Casualty reduction will be the bench mark against which they are measured.
There will be no netting off, all recepit of fines will go the way any other fines currently go through the courts.
As far as I can tell, the grant has looser conditions than the current netting off system, so it could go one of two ways:
- The local authorities cut the budgets to the SCP's and spend the money elsewhere, gradually squeezing them out
- The local authorities give the same/greater budget and enable them to spend the money on more staff and equipment with none of the netting-off restrictions. Eg. in the past few years "dummy flashes" weren't a recoverable cost, but now they probably would be since there is no central policy to say they can't be purchased.
Gareth
g_attrill said:
vonhosen said:
It is my understanding from the press releases etc, that there will be a national budget for SCPs. Each SCP will bid for a slice of the pie outlining their casualty reduction policy & targets in their bid. They won't be tied to electronic surveillance & money can be spent in other areas such as education.
They then get a fixed amount for the year, irrespective of how many fines they issue in that year. Casualty reduction will be the bench mark against which they are measured.
There will be no netting off, all recepit of fines will go the way any other fines currently go through the courts.
As far as I can tell, the grant has looser conditions than the current netting off system, so it could go one of two ways:
- The local authorities cut the budgets to the SCP's and spend the money elsewhere, gradually squeezing them out
- The local authorities give the same/greater budget and enable them to spend the money on more staff and equipment with none of the netting-off restrictions. Eg. in the past few years "dummy flashes" weren't a recoverable cost, but now they probably would be since there is no central policy to say they can't be purchased.
Gareth
rewc said:
Gordon Brown is not giving the partnerships the money without demanding a return on his investment. It is in the partnerships interest to ensure that the amount raised in fines is greater than they receive from the government. What happens if they don't? Don't even think about it - they must. Everything they do must raise money so any talk about alternative methods of road safety that do not result in fixed penalties must be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
Absolutely correct.
The Avon and Somerset SCP have six teams of camera van operators. The wages are budgeted to be 2.2 Million this year (06/07), with a further 1.16 Million going on camera equipment. Interestingly they have budgeted 40 Thousand for overtime pay to cover the bank holidays.
Their entire budget this year is £4,618076.
They have submitted a detailed report stating they fully expect to raise £4,993800 from motorists via camera fines this year. The surplus goes to Gordon. They would not dare make a loss, and remember it's all at their control! They can manipulate their income as desired.
No doubt if they fall behind their business plan target, they will simply lower their enforcement threshold by x mph to make the numbers up. That's a sad fact and when you think about it, it obviously exposes this whole ridiculous scheme for what it really is... a job creation scheme at the motorists expense that has nothing whatsoever to do with road safety. They have already planned how many motorists they are going to prosecute this year!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff