So Camera Partnerships have to meet targets?
Discussion
Sorry, meant to say DO they have to meet targets?....because a journalist phoned me today from the Shropshire Star asking me for further comment following publication of my letter and the head of the West Mercia SCP had apparently said they did not have targets to meet but just had to cover their costs.
Could anybody point me to any info or websites that show they do indeed have government-set targets to meet? I need to discredit them as far as humanly possible!
>>> Edited by regmolehusband on Tuesday 22 July 17:53
Could anybody point me to any info or websites that show they do indeed have government-set targets to meet? I need to discredit them as far as humanly possible!
>>> Edited by regmolehusband on Tuesday 22 July 17:53
Surely covering there costs is a target in itself???
If they have a business plan which says they will put in 150 new cameras this year @ 20k each then thats 3 mil plus the operating costs just to cover the investment, the 3 mil alone equates to 50,000 £60 FPN's - surely a target indeed.
If they have a business plan which says they will put in 150 new cameras this year @ 20k each then thats 3 mil plus the operating costs just to cover the investment, the 3 mil alone equates to 50,000 £60 FPN's - surely a target indeed.
Why should they cover their costs?
Surely there aim is that no one speeds and therefore no one gets issued tickets therefore they make no money?
My understanding was that it costs a lot to install a camera, which is presumably why the vans are more popular these days. The vans being mobile they can set up where they like.
The only non-financial target can be to eliminate speeding in which case they will have done themselves out of a job!
Surely there aim is that no one speeds and therefore no one gets issued tickets therefore they make no money?
My understanding was that it costs a lot to install a camera, which is presumably why the vans are more popular these days. The vans being mobile they can set up where they like.
The only non-financial target can be to eliminate speeding in which case they will have done themselves out of a job!
As already said the catch22 situation of.......
"set up camera costs £xxxxxx, camera catches 'crims and earns £xxxxx in fines, camera reduces speeding, less 'crims' caught, less £xxxxxx earnt, camera doesnt cover its own costs, remove camera, speeding goes up, ickle children playing marbles in middle of dual carriagway get run over by 'crims'"
......demonstrates that Safety
Camera Partnerships must rely on a minimum number of collars a year to make the scheme financially viable.....unless of course they are claiming they have other sources of funding.
Do they claim to have other osurces of funding? Council tax, direct from the governemnt etc.
The London Congestion Charge is demonstrating, by not meeting minimum expected revenue targets to cover costs due to reduced traffic in the zone, that these schemes actually rely on the very thing they are trying to reduce/prevent to remain in business.
Quid pro quo veni vidi vici
"set up camera costs £xxxxxx, camera catches 'crims and earns £xxxxx in fines, camera reduces speeding, less 'crims' caught, less £xxxxxx earnt, camera doesnt cover its own costs, remove camera, speeding goes up, ickle children playing marbles in middle of dual carriagway get run over by 'crims'"
......demonstrates that Safety
Camera Partnerships must rely on a minimum number of collars a year to make the scheme financially viable.....unless of course they are claiming they have other sources of funding. Do they claim to have other osurces of funding? Council tax, direct from the governemnt etc.
The London Congestion Charge is demonstrating, by not meeting minimum expected revenue targets to cover costs due to reduced traffic in the zone, that these schemes actually rely on the very thing they are trying to reduce/prevent to remain in business.
Quid pro quo veni vidi vici
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff