Camera Partnership funding
Discussion
Can somebody, perhaps Von, explain how Camera Partnerships are now funded. Are the partnerships given a set sum by the government to fund their operations or is the money given to councils as part of a road safety budget and then can decide how much to give the partnerships?
What happens in the case of Dorset for example where there are two Borough Councils and at least two County Councils covering the whole of Dorset and thus the area of operation of the partnership?
What happens in the case of Dorset for example where there are two Borough Councils and at least two County Councils covering the whole of Dorset and thus the area of operation of the partnership?
According to my understanding the official line is.
Oh btw before I start please do NOT shot the messenger, as I hate these bar stewards as much as you do.
Q: Why are these new partnerships on this planet?
A: to deliver highly visible targeted speed and red traffic light enforcement at places where the risks are greatest, and to co-ordinate, support and develop broader road safety activity.
In other words, business as normal, with the weasel words "broader road safety activity" put in there instead of 'lalalalala we're not listening we're not listening.'
Q: How is the Partnership funded?
A: In one specific case and according my understanding this is typical:-
The Partnership is directly funded by four local highway authorities - Councils A B C & D, - using a special additional road safety fund provided by Central Government for this purpose. Other partner agencies fund indirectly, providing support and facilities which are not re-charged to the Partnership.
Note:- anecdotal evidence suggests that this support which is not re-charged is not reciprocal, i.e. ask the time, expect an invoice, allegedly.
Q:Are you a commercial organisation, and do you get paid by results?
A:No, this is not a commercial organisation but a Partnership of public sector agencies, and there is no payment on results. Core staff working in the Partnership's operational team and Central Ticket Office are employed by X Police Authority; also funded in the Partnership are key staff employed by HM Courts Service (HMCS) in the Fixed Penalty Centre.
The Partnership operates upon a fixed budget set in advance, and the four local highway authorities contribute out of the special road safety grant which Central Government have added for this purpose into the Local Transport Plan funding scheme.
Whether the Partnership's enforcement operations detect a large number of offences or very few makes no difference at all to the Partnership's - or any of the partner agencies' - finances.
No comment, except perhaps to say, it's a public body, more offences, more money, bigger budget, more staff, more status, more cynicism.
Q: Where does the money go?
A: All fines and fixed penalties paid into the Courts are transferred immediately and in their entirety to Central Government.
Still does not affect comment made to previous answer.
Repeat please do not shoot the messenger.
FiF
Oh btw before I start please do NOT shot the messenger, as I hate these bar stewards as much as you do.
Q: Why are these new partnerships on this planet?
A: to deliver highly visible targeted speed and red traffic light enforcement at places where the risks are greatest, and to co-ordinate, support and develop broader road safety activity.
In other words, business as normal, with the weasel words "broader road safety activity" put in there instead of 'lalalalala we're not listening we're not listening.'
Q: How is the Partnership funded?
A: In one specific case and according my understanding this is typical:-
The Partnership is directly funded by four local highway authorities - Councils A B C & D, - using a special additional road safety fund provided by Central Government for this purpose. Other partner agencies fund indirectly, providing support and facilities which are not re-charged to the Partnership.
Note:- anecdotal evidence suggests that this support which is not re-charged is not reciprocal, i.e. ask the time, expect an invoice, allegedly.
Q:Are you a commercial organisation, and do you get paid by results?
A:No, this is not a commercial organisation but a Partnership of public sector agencies, and there is no payment on results. Core staff working in the Partnership's operational team and Central Ticket Office are employed by X Police Authority; also funded in the Partnership are key staff employed by HM Courts Service (HMCS) in the Fixed Penalty Centre.
The Partnership operates upon a fixed budget set in advance, and the four local highway authorities contribute out of the special road safety grant which Central Government have added for this purpose into the Local Transport Plan funding scheme.
Whether the Partnership's enforcement operations detect a large number of offences or very few makes no difference at all to the Partnership's - or any of the partner agencies' - finances.
No comment, except perhaps to say, it's a public body, more offences, more money, bigger budget, more staff, more status, more cynicism.
Q: Where does the money go?
A: All fines and fixed penalties paid into the Courts are transferred immediately and in their entirety to Central Government.
Still does not affect comment made to previous answer.
Repeat please do not shoot the messenger.
FiF
Let's be crystal clear about a few things:
- The new 'road safety grants' are NOT ring fenced for cameras - they aren't even ring fenced for road safety. Cash strapped local authorities can spend the cash on anything they want. Since camera partnerships have been widely - and jealously - regarded as 'rich' in local authority circles, expect massive and ongoing attrition of camera funding.
- The new road safety grants are CAPPED for four years (so far). This ensures that any attrition to the budgets cannot be 'made up' by central government / DfT.
- Camera partnerships now have ever-widening road safety responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities will include major road safety expenses (new roundabout anyone?) that will ensure that the cash left for cameras is fast shrinking.
All in all the DfT has LOST CONFIDENCE in the speed camera programme and has changed the funding to STARVE OUT the cameras. I'm professionaly livid because DfT would clearly now rather save face than save lives. They don't mind us dying out there, just so long as they don't have to admit their deadly mistake.
So:
Sign the Scrapcam petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scrapcam
Support Safe Speed: www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html
Tell your friends what's going on. There's a 'letter to road users' on the Safe Speed front page: www.safespeed.org.uk
I'm not intended to allow DfT to get away with this, and the more resources we can chuck at it the better.
- The new 'road safety grants' are NOT ring fenced for cameras - they aren't even ring fenced for road safety. Cash strapped local authorities can spend the cash on anything they want. Since camera partnerships have been widely - and jealously - regarded as 'rich' in local authority circles, expect massive and ongoing attrition of camera funding.
- The new road safety grants are CAPPED for four years (so far). This ensures that any attrition to the budgets cannot be 'made up' by central government / DfT.
- Camera partnerships now have ever-widening road safety responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities will include major road safety expenses (new roundabout anyone?) that will ensure that the cash left for cameras is fast shrinking.
All in all the DfT has LOST CONFIDENCE in the speed camera programme and has changed the funding to STARVE OUT the cameras. I'm professionaly livid because DfT would clearly now rather save face than save lives. They don't mind us dying out there, just so long as they don't have to admit their deadly mistake.
So:
Sign the Scrapcam petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scrapcam
Support Safe Speed: www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html
Tell your friends what's going on. There's a 'letter to road users' on the Safe Speed front page: www.safespeed.org.uk
I'm not intended to allow DfT to get away with this, and the more resources we can chuck at it the better.
Edited by safespeed on Sunday 22 April 10:39
safespeed said:
- Camera partnerships now have ever-widening road safety responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities will include major road safety expenses (new roundabout anyone?) that will ensure that the cash left for cameras is fast shrinking.
Have great difficulty squaring that statement when reading the accounts and agreements signed with our local PA which have confirmed amounts to be paid in 2007/8 & 2008/9 plus indicative amounts for 2009/10 and 2010/11 based on pratnership et al providing same activity levels as in 2006/7.
There is no mention whatsoever anywhere that I can see which suggests, as you do above, that the pratnership will have responsibility for funding e.g. a new roundabout. Pratnerships have new responsibility to provide input into the decision making process, yes that is something new.
Or do I misunderstand your point?
Regarding the rest of the post about lack of ring fencing, yes that is correct afaik.
About the DfT trying to starve cameras out using this restructuring. I think you are wrong but that is just my opinion.
Flat in Fifth said:
safespeed said:
- Camera partnerships now have ever-widening road safety responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities will include major road safety expenses (new roundabout anyone?) that will ensure that the cash left for cameras is fast shrinking.
Have great difficulty squaring that statement when reading the accounts and agreements signed with our local PA which have confirmed amounts to be paid in 2007/8 & 2008/9 plus indicative amounts for 2009/10 and 2010/11 based on pratnership et al providing same activity levels as in 2006/7.
There is no mention whatsoever anywhere that I can see which suggests, as you do above, that the pratnership will have responsibility for funding e.g. a new roundabout. Pratnerships have new responsibility to provide input into the decision making process, yes that is something new.
I've read all the documents that I can lay my hands on. I've listened to rumour and gossip. I've tried to sift the truth as carefully as I can.
There's a lot of talk about 'integrating cameras with wider road safety objectives'. There's a lot of talk about camera partnerships installing and paying for VAS. Personally I'm quite convinced that the partnerships will be gradually loaded up with more and more responsibility, partly by cash-strapped local authorities with road safety needs and partly by future announcements from DfT. I'm expecting DfT to announce partnership responsibilities for mobile phone law enforcement.
The 'new roundabout' quip is not based on anything specific, except in as much as roundabouts are sometimes a good, yet expensive, solution to a dangerous junction. However, I do know of a case where partnership funds are expected to be used for a £100,000 traffic light controlled crossing point project. I can't give the full details at this point because it's a pending news story.
Flat in Fifth said:
About the DfT trying to starve cameras out using this restructuring. I think you are wrong but that is just my opinion.
Time will tell, of course. Allow me to assure you that it isn't an opinion that I hold 'lightly' or 'wishfully'.
safespeed said:
stuff plus "There's a lot of talk about camera partnerships installing and paying for VAS."
It may differ area to area, e.g locally it is definitely the agreement going forward that "Provision of vehicle actuated signs is at the discretion and cost of the relevant highway authority."
I dunno tbh.
From prev experience I just have this deep down suspicion that all this renaming, restructuring, re arranging finance and responsibilities is another chapter in the history of Governments regadless politicals hues believing that if they rename something the public is stupid enough to forget that it's still the same load of carp it was in the first place.
Thanks to all for the replies. I am trying to get my mind around the situation in Dorset. Bournemouth council has been slated by the Audit Commission for failure to reduce deaths to the pre determined level. Poole Council has apparently met their target. I do not believe the figures for the remainder of Dorset (W Dorset CC? East Dorset CC? have been released).
Is it likely that the councils will have provided the funding in advance to allow the Partnership to operate for this financial year and it will be reveiwed yearly? Do the councils have to use the partnership? In the case of Bournemouth, which is being slatted for its performance, could they perhaps think that their subscription to the partnership is giving a poor return for their money and decide not to fund them. Where would this leave the partnership?
Is it likely that the councils will have provided the funding in advance to allow the Partnership to operate for this financial year and it will be reveiwed yearly? Do the councils have to use the partnership? In the case of Bournemouth, which is being slatted for its performance, could they perhaps think that their subscription to the partnership is giving a poor return for their money and decide not to fund them. Where would this leave the partnership?
safespeed said:
Since camera partnerships have been widely - and jealously - regarded as 'rich' in local authority circles, expect massive and ongoing attrition of camera funding.
So if Captain Gatso destroys one or two (or all of them preferably), does that imply they may never get replaced?
nobleguy said:
safespeed said:
Since camera partnerships have been widely - and jealously - regarded as 'rich' in local authority circles, expect massive and ongoing attrition of camera funding.
So if Captain Gatso destroys one or two (or all of them preferably), does that imply they may never get replaced?
It certainly does imply that replacement will be increasingly difficult to justify.
And we have already seen cases where vandalised cameras haven't been replaced.
I don't think that vandalising cameras is the best way to get rid of them however.
Just_a_guide said:
fluffnik said:
I think I'll write to my councillor and suggest that they withdraw all support from the local SCP.
And they have just as many letters asking for police / SCP to stop speeding in there area...
Very probably.
Where I am it is now The Road Safety Partnership rather than The Safety Camera partnership. I'm not yet sure what the change of name means; hopefully it will be a change of emphasis to include other means of enforcing/educating road safety issues.
puffpuff said:
Just_a_guide said:
fluffnik said:
I think I'll write to my councillor and suggest that they withdraw all support from the local SCP.
And they have just as many letters asking for police / SCP to stop speeding in there area...
Very probably.
Where I am it is now The Road Safety Partnership rather than The Safety Camera partnership. I'm not yet sure what the change of name means; hopefully it will be a change of emphasis to include other means of enforcing/educating road safety issues.
3 E’s
Enforce =
Happy with…been caught once wont happen again I drive every were like a knob now stick to the limits don’t give a S—t how many people I have behind me.
Educating =
I have at my own cost done advance driving read the high way code and tried to improve my driving.. Have kids and a bit of responsibility in life changes you out look a little. But I feel that some people will never learn and they need the above.
Engineering =
I can live with some of the traffic charming measures, but draw the line at the road narrowing give way to on coming cars, that really winds me up. Partly because there is a generation of drivers who never seen them before and have no idea what to do with it (refer you to above one) and the other reason they cause congestion and bottle necks.
There is a massive amount of cars on a proportional less amount of roads. There is a positive to be found from speed cameras and that is half a million people or so on 9 points may well be off the roads for short while when they get a ban for running a red light or speed offence. That should ease the congestion a tad!!!
!!! Flat in Fifth said:
safespeed said:
stuff plus "There's a lot of talk about camera partnerships installing and paying for VAS."
It may differ area to area, e.g locally it is definitely the agreement going forward that "Provision of vehicle actuated signs is at the discretion and cost of the relevant highway authority."
I dunno tbh.
From prev experience I just have this deep down suspicion that all this renaming, restructuring, re arranging finance and responsibilities is another chapter in the history of Governments regadless politicals hues believing that if they rename something the public is stupid enough to forget that it's still the same load of carp it was in the first place.
Just in: www.24dash.com/localgovernment/19697.htm
"Vehicle activated signs to cut speeding in Surrey
Nearly 40 vehicle activated signs (VAS) are in the process of being put up across Surrey as part of a campaign to cut speeds on the county's roads.
[...]
The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership (SSCP) is funding 26 of the VAS, which will light up to speeding drivers on the approach to safety camera sites.
[...]"
Just_a_guide said:
fluffnik said:
I think I'll write to my councillor and suggest that they withdraw all support from the local SCP.
And they have just as many letters asking for police / SCP to stop speeding in there area...
Doubtful, given the topology of this ward.
Might as well wait a week and write to the new one.
Warwickshire's position: www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/A40D9107FF809DCF80257268003E5BD0
Essentially, they love the cameras, they're going to continue with them, and from now on we won't think that cameras are only being used to make money cos they're not.
Essentially, they love the cameras, they're going to continue with them, and from now on we won't think that cameras are only being used to make money cos they're not.
Warwickshire Scammers said:
Camera enforcement to continue following changes to funding
The way safety cameras are funded is changing. From April 2007 safety camera enforcement and associated publicity and education will be funded from a specific road safety grant paid to local authorities by central Government. This replaces a system of cost recovery whereby local partnerships taking part in the National Safety Camera Programme have been able to reclaim their costs from fines paid to the Government for speeding and red light offences.
Safety camera activity in the county has been managed by Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership since October 2001. The Partnership is made up of the County Council, Police, Highways Agency and other agencies with an interest or involvement in speed education and enforcement.
In 2007/08 Warwickshire will receive £2.25 million from the road safety grant. The Government decided on this amount after considering the road safety needs in Warwickshire and making an assessment of the quality of road safety activity in the county. The Department for Transport recently gave Warwickshire the highest possible qualitative assessment for road safety. The County Council will have the freedom to spend the grant on the road safety measures it considers will make the greatest contribution to reducing road casualties in Warwickshire. Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership spent £2.23 million in 2005/06.
Cllr Martin Heatley said “Safety cameras have made a huge contribution to casualty reduction on Warwickshire’s roads in recent years and will continue to do so. I hope that breaking the link between fines paid and funding available for safety cameras will give road users confidence that safety cameras are being used to make our roads safer and for no other reason. The new funding arrangements will also give us greater flexibility as to how we use the money available for road safety. “All of the organisations currently involved in Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership remain committed to using safety cameras as a fundamental part of the County’s road safety strategy.”
There have been dramatic casualty reductions at Warwickshire camera sites. There were 60 fewer deaths or serious injuries at camera sites in 2005 compared to the annual average for 1994-98.
* Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership currently operate 29 fixed speed cameras, 7 red light cameras and 5 mobile enforcement vehicles.
* In a 2006 survey, 66% of Warwickshire residents stated they supported the use of safety cameras as a method of reducing road casualties and accidents.
The way safety cameras are funded is changing. From April 2007 safety camera enforcement and associated publicity and education will be funded from a specific road safety grant paid to local authorities by central Government. This replaces a system of cost recovery whereby local partnerships taking part in the National Safety Camera Programme have been able to reclaim their costs from fines paid to the Government for speeding and red light offences.
Safety camera activity in the county has been managed by Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership since October 2001. The Partnership is made up of the County Council, Police, Highways Agency and other agencies with an interest or involvement in speed education and enforcement.
In 2007/08 Warwickshire will receive £2.25 million from the road safety grant. The Government decided on this amount after considering the road safety needs in Warwickshire and making an assessment of the quality of road safety activity in the county. The Department for Transport recently gave Warwickshire the highest possible qualitative assessment for road safety. The County Council will have the freedom to spend the grant on the road safety measures it considers will make the greatest contribution to reducing road casualties in Warwickshire. Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership spent £2.23 million in 2005/06.
Cllr Martin Heatley said “Safety cameras have made a huge contribution to casualty reduction on Warwickshire’s roads in recent years and will continue to do so. I hope that breaking the link between fines paid and funding available for safety cameras will give road users confidence that safety cameras are being used to make our roads safer and for no other reason. The new funding arrangements will also give us greater flexibility as to how we use the money available for road safety. “All of the organisations currently involved in Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership remain committed to using safety cameras as a fundamental part of the County’s road safety strategy.”
There have been dramatic casualty reductions at Warwickshire camera sites. There were 60 fewer deaths or serious injuries at camera sites in 2005 compared to the annual average for 1994-98.
* Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership currently operate 29 fixed speed cameras, 7 red light cameras and 5 mobile enforcement vehicles.
* In a 2006 survey, 66% of Warwickshire residents stated they supported the use of safety cameras as a method of reducing road casualties and accidents.
Peter Ward said:
Warwickshire's position: www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/A40D9107FF809DCF80257268003E5BD0
Essentially, they love the cameras, they're going to continue with them, and from now on we won't think that cameras are only being used to make money cos they're not.
Essentially, they love the cameras, they're going to continue with them, and from now on we won't think that cameras are only being used to make money cos they're not.
There will still be hard bargaining for the funds and the words are just words.
I learned today that road deaths are up in Warwickshire in 2006, from 40 in 2005 to 47. FWIW. (Not statistically significant.)
www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=134106#134106
Warwickshire Scammers said:
Camera enforcement to continue following changes to fundingThere have been dramatic casualty reductions at Warwickshire camera sites. There were 60 fewer deaths or serious injuries at camera sites in 2005 compared to the annual average for 1994-98.
Paul, do you have any idea whether the 60 fewer KSI for 2005 is statistically significant or otherwise, and how those numbers compare to the numbers for 1999 to 2004, which seem somehow not to be considered to be relevant enough for comparison?
You'd almost suspect that the 2005 number compares poorly against the figures for more recent years
Peter Ward said:
Warwickshire's position: www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/A40D9107FF809DCF80257268003E5BD0
Essentially, they love the cameras, they're going to continue with them, and from now on we won't think that cameras are only being used to make money cos they're not.
Cllr Martin Heatley said “Safety cameras have made a huge contribution to casualty reduction on Warwickshire’s roads in recent years and will continue to do so. [...]”
Essentially, they love the cameras, they're going to continue with them, and from now on we won't think that cameras are only being used to make money cos they're not.
Warwickshire Scammers said:
Cllr Martin Heatley said “Safety cameras have made a huge contribution to casualty reduction on Warwickshire’s roads in recent years and will continue to do so. [...]”
There's a political career that needs ended.
If we all campaign to unseat SCP supporters in our own or neighbouring wards scamera funding might evaporate quite quickly.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff