Camera Partnership with a Secret?

[motco]

[url]www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.594898.0.speed_fines_kept_secret.php

What have they got to hide?

>> Edited by motco on Tuesday 10th May 15:21

[outnumbered]

motco said:

[url]<a href="www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.594898.0.speed_fines_kept_secret.php">www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.594898.0.speed_fines_kept_secret.php</a> What have they got to hide? >> Edited by motco on Tuesday 10th May 15:21

The scammers' FoI guidelines allow them not to respond to requests for revenue generated per site. All the speed camera organisations use the same policy on this.

I'm sure it'd be open to a legal challenge if someone has deep pockets...

[targarama]

Now enough members of the public are affected by these devious methods of revenue capture (lets face it, they dont have much to do with safety), the worm is turning. Hopefully the Bucks Free Press (my local rag) will keep up the pressure and get these people to change their ways.

[james_j]

This bit is interesting:..."The Free Press had applied for the figures under the Freedom of Information Act but was denied on the grounds to do so would prejudice future speed enforcement..."

WTF are they talking about, "Prejudice future speed enforcement"?

Yes, it does sound like they have something to hide.

[g_attrill]

NB: These comments are about partnerships IN GENERAL, not the one mentioned in the report (which I can't even remember after writing the post below)

Basically they keep the details of enforcement of individual sites secret for several reasons:

1) The sites with the most accidents might be enforced LESS than other sites (which might have the most traffic = most fines). This wouldn't match their claims of accident reduction.

2) The partnerships need to enforce in such a way that a steady flow of fines are produced, and in some cases they would need to ramp UP the production of fines to meet their revenue targets. If they released fines issued by date then it might show up some embarassing enforcement patterns (ie. lots of enforcement on busiest roads at the end of a financial period)


Gareth

[Peter Ward]

james_j said:

This bit is interesting:..."The Free Press had applied for the figures under the Freedom of Information Act but was denied on the grounds to do so would prejudice future speed enforcement..." WTF are they talking about, "Prejudice future speed enforcement"? Yes, it does sound like they have something to hide.

I think the idea is that releasing info per camera will show that some boxes have no cameras. This would then give carte blanche for speedaholics to pass them with impunity, thus reducing road safety.

The truth may be somewhere else.....

[deeps]

Quote "The amount of money cameras generate is entirely determined by the number of drivers willing to flout the law and put themselves and other road users at risk by speeding." Unquote

It makes me feel sick to read such utter bullshit , it really does!!
The amount of drivers willing to "flout the law" is constant, we know that and they know that!
The placement and timing of the scamera van is the only thing that determines the amount of cash extorted for that shift.