In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

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.

That is of little interest to the County which has the cost of maintaining
the cameras but gets no revenue. With councils facing cuts in funding and
ratecapping it's an obvious area to cyt.

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.

That's the Government's problem not the council's.


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.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

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.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference between 30
and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras do you see in
30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise enough revenue. It is
that level of cynicism that has brought them into disrepute.


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?

Yes, they wouldn't talk.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/