Graeme wrote:
In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off...
What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all, given
how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising money.
Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.
I'm not sure that helps answer the point. Turning the cameras off
because the Treasury won't pay will result in the Treasury not getting
the money in. The only real question is whether the income is more or
less than the funding, whoever actually pays it. If indeed it is a
cost-effective measure, then it can only be because the cameras raise
less money than they cost to install and operate, which blows the
money-raising argument out of the water. If, OTOH, they raise more money
than they cost, then the treasury should continue funding them, because
its money will come back with interest.
Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of speed
cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. While some may appear to be
effective one has to take into account other changes that were made at the
same time, a factor that is ignored by the so-called safety-camera activists.
Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits. There are
many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the cause of
some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people have to
respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real difference
that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.
A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that anyone
who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.
There are bound to be academic studies on these things. Were they
consulted?
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632846.html
(33 046 at Salisbury, 1985)