Why don't Camera Partnerships expand?
Discussion
I've just been looking at the enforcement schedule for the Somerset Speed Camera Partnership and it struck me that they only visit about three or four different locations per day, throughout the whole of Somerset, (accepting that we can trust their information).
They go to the same areas on a rotary basis and usually aren't able to return to a site for a month or so leaving it dangerously unattended, so as to have enough time to cover all the sites with the available staff and vans.
It struck me that if they expand they will be able to cover ten, twenty, thirty or more sites per day and be able to frequent sites more often, which given their philosophy will of course save so many more lives that are being lost to the dreaded speeder.
So, the questions I'm pondering are, do they want to expand and if not why not? If they do want to why don't they? Who is stopping them and why? Surely, accepting their philosophy, safety is the number one prioty so the more of them there are the safer we'll be? Any thoughts?
They go to the same areas on a rotary basis and usually aren't able to return to a site for a month or so leaving it dangerously unattended, so as to have enough time to cover all the sites with the available staff and vans.
It struck me that if they expand they will be able to cover ten, twenty, thirty or more sites per day and be able to frequent sites more often, which given their philosophy will of course save so many more lives that are being lost to the dreaded speeder.
So, the questions I'm pondering are, do they want to expand and if not why not? If they do want to why don't they? Who is stopping them and why? Surely, accepting their philosophy, safety is the number one prioty so the more of them there are the safer we'll be? Any thoughts?
Edited by deeps on Friday 9th June 21:49
deeps said:
I've just been looking at the enforcement schedule for the Somerset Speed Camera Partnership and it struck me that they only visit about three or four different locations per day, throughout the whole of Somerset, (accepting that we can trust their information).
They go to the same areas on a rotary basis and usually aren't able to return to a site for a month or so leaving it dangerously unattended, so as to have enough time to cover all the sites with the available staff and vans.
It struck me that if they expand they will be able to cover ten, twenty, thirty or more sites per day and be able to frequent sites more often, which given their philosophy will of course save so many more lives that are being lost to the dreaded speeder.
So, the questions I'm pondering are, do they want to expand and if not why not? If they do want to why don't they? Who is stopping them and why? Surely, accepting their philosophy, safety is the number one prioty so the more of them there are the safer we'll be? Any thoughts?
They go to the same areas on a rotary basis and usually aren't able to return to a site for a month or so leaving it dangerously unattended, so as to have enough time to cover all the sites with the available staff and vans.
It struck me that if they expand they will be able to cover ten, twenty, thirty or more sites per day and be able to frequent sites more often, which given their philosophy will of course save so many more lives that are being lost to the dreaded speeder.
So, the questions I'm pondering are, do they want to expand and if not why not? If they do want to why don't they? Who is stopping them and why? Surely, accepting their philosophy, safety is the number one prioty so the more of them there are the safer we'll be? Any thoughts?
No netting off from next financial year, so they'll have to be operating from fixed budgets.
You can't expand rapidly this year, to shrink back in less than 12 months.
vonhosen said;
No netting off from next financial year, so they'll have to be operating from fixed budgets.
You can't expand rapidly this year, to shrink back in less than 12 months.[/quote]
von, what is to stop them putting a business plan together to cover all the sites in their area which would meet the ever relaxing criteria for mobile sites and then getting the funding? How is it planned for them to expand in the future? What is the incentive for them to reduce the threshold for prosecution to say 33 in a 30 if the funds are going to central government? I hope you don't mind me asking you but you seem to be clued up on their operations.
No netting off from next financial year, so they'll have to be operating from fixed budgets.
You can't expand rapidly this year, to shrink back in less than 12 months.
[/quote] von, what is to stop them putting a business plan together to cover all the sites in their area which would meet the ever relaxing criteria for mobile sites and then getting the funding? How is it planned for them to expand in the future? What is the incentive for them to reduce the threshold for prosecution to say 33 in a 30 if the funds are going to central government? I hope you don't mind me asking you but you seem to be clued up on their operations.
rewc said:
vonhosen said:
No netting off from next financial year, so they'll have to be operating from fixed budgets.
You can't expand rapidly this year, to shrink back in less than 12 months.
von, what is to stop them putting a business plan together to cover all the sites in their area which would meet the ever relaxing criteria for mobile sites and then getting the funding? How is it planned for them to expand in the future? What is the incentive for them to reduce the threshold for prosecution to say 33 in a 30 if the funds are going to central government? I hope you don't mind me asking you but you seem to be clued up on their operations.
Well from next year they are going to be more closely aligned to road safety departments with local authorities. They are not going to be tied to camera functions only as now. They will not be allowed to net off, they will have to fight for their slice of a national budget that has already been set. They will have to have a road safety plan & apply for funding for it. A plan that is focused on meeting the government's road casualty reduction figures.
deeps said:
My point is, if they are for the greater good, why do we not have one, two or three based in every town, rather than the few that there are trying to cover the whole county?
Why not continue to let them net off and expand 100 fold?
Anyway, I'm popping out for a cool beer now....
Why not continue to let them net off and expand 100 fold?
Anyway, I'm popping out for a cool beer now....
You sound like you might support GPS limiters then, they are a possibility.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 9th June 23:04
vonhosen said:
deeps said:
My point is, if they are for the greater good, why do we not have one, two or three based in every town, rather than the few that there are trying to cover the whole county?
Why not continue to let them net off and expand 100 fold?
Anyway, I'm popping out for a cool beer now....
Why not continue to let them net off and expand 100 fold?
Anyway, I'm popping out for a cool beer now....
You sound like you might support GPS limiters then, they are a possibility.
Not in my car!Id guess that if they pop up absolutely everywhere it would become impossible to keep up the charade that the public by and large support them. The goodwill or tolerance might become harder to come by as they'd end up catching everyone at some point, with the exception if the saintly talking textbook Vonhosen of course 
deevlash said:
Id guess that if they pop up absolutely everywhere it would become impossible to keep up the charade that the public by and large support them. The goodwill or tolerance might become harder to come by as they'd end up catching everyone at some point, with the exception if the saintly talking textbook Vonhosen of course
Never said I was a saint.
deevlash said:
Id guess that if they pop up absolutely everywhere it would become impossible to keep up the charade that the public by and large support them. The goodwill or tolerance might become harder to come by as they'd end up catching everyone at some point, with the exception if the saintly talking textbook Vonhosen of course
Exactly. They are tolerated at the moment but only supported by a brain washed minority. They may be many things but they're not daft and wont rock the boat too far as to jeopardise their income.
They believe that slowing drivers down genuinely saves lives, so then why are their efforts and whole operation only a shadow of what it could be? Makes you think.
They would indeed catch virtually every driver at some point, so the benefit according to their philosophy would be many saved lives per year. But they don't do it. If they are genuine in their beliefs it appears they have no morals or balls so to speak, putting not upsetting too many people thus enabling them to keep their jobs, above saving lives.
It's a bit like fooling the people into believing you have developed a drug that cures cancer, but keeping it so exclusive as to be only available to the wealthy few. When you get greedy and go for a larger market the scam is discovered, but you've made a mint and dissapeared.
vonhosen said:
You sound like you might support GPS limiters then, they are a possibility.
So, if we all had GPS limiters fitted, then according to the 'Speed Kills' philosophy, there'd never be another road death.
Gosh, why don't we all rush out and lobby Parliament for them
BB
Edited by BigBob on Saturday 10th June 14:54
deeps said:
I've just been looking at the enforcement schedule for the Somerset Speed Camera Partnership and it struck me that they only visit about three or four different locations per day, throughout the whole of Somerset, (accepting that we can trust their information).
Edited by deeps on Friday 9th June 21:49
Where do you get that from? They visit up to twelve locations a day according to their website and I can see sites that receive more than one visit each week.
BigBob said:
vonhosen said:
You sound like you might support GPS limiters then, they are a possibility.
So, if we all had GPS limiters fitted, then according to the 'Speed Kills' philosophy, there'd never be another road death.
Of course not, it would only address speed & probably road charging that would come with it.
(I don't happen to want GPS limiters or support "Speed kills" philosophy)
vonhosen said:
BigBob said:
vonhosen said:
You sound like you might support GPS limiters then, they are a possibility.
So, if we all had GPS limiters fitted, then according to the 'Speed Kills' philosophy, there'd never be another road death.
Of course not, it would only address speed & probably road charging that would come with it.
(I don't happen to want GPS limiters or support "Speed kills" philosophy)
VH - are you sure no one else has got hold of your password mate - that almost sounds like an admission that speed doesn't kill
BB
BigBob said:
vonhosen said:
BigBob said:
vonhosen said:
You sound like you might support GPS limiters then, they are a possibility.
So, if we all had GPS limiters fitted, then according to the 'Speed Kills' philosophy, there'd never be another road death.
Of course not, it would only address speed & probably road charging that would come with it.
(I don't happen to want GPS limiters or support "Speed kills" philosophy)
VH - are you sure no one else has got hold of your password mate - that almost sounds like an admission that speed doesn't kill
BB
Never said speed does kill.
Never said speed in & of itself is highly dangerous (of course there is always some risk)
Inappropriate speed is dangerous.
deeps said:
My point is, if they are for the greater good, why do we not have one, two or three based in every town, rather than the few that there are trying to cover the whole county?
Why not continue to let them net off and expand 100 fold?
Why not continue to let them net off and expand 100 fold?
Perhaps they fear stirring up a long overdue backlash?
deeps said:
Anyway, I'm popping out for a cool beer now....
I'm just heading for the fridge...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff