Dorset claim poverty in fixed speedcam reduction

Darren

Dorset Road Safe have announced plans to reduce the number of fixed speed cameras in the county.

Citing financial considerations following the 25% reduction in funding from central government for the move, they went on to announce an increase in the number of mobile speed camera vans on the fleet from two to five.

Quite why it they consider it is more expensive to operate a fixed unattended speed camera (other than occasional maintenance and film changes) than a manned speed camera van is left unexplained.

Now the cynical amongst us may suppose that this move is about catching more motorists, something mobile cameras are very much better at.

_________________
Darren Griffin

MaFt · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:40 am Post subject:

I'm undecided on this... Whether it is mobile or fixed my understanding is that the government still gets the money from the fines?

If so then part of me thinks that maybe they're not in it for the money and they do genuinely want people to slow down on the roads. However, the money used to man 3 more mobile vans perhaps could be better spent on making roads safer and better designed (eg chicanes, lowered speed limits near schools, design roads to feel like the speed that they are etc etc).

They turned off the fixed cameras quoting they could not afford to keep them running. Maybe what they meant to say was "we turned them off because everyone knows they are there and slows down for them, instead we will hide in bushes with a van and a laser to catch you off-guard mwuhahahahaha"; which, at least, would have been more honest if not such a widely over-rated newspaper headline.

MaFt

Darren · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:47 am Post subject:

matthewj · Frequent Visitor Joined: Apr 03, 2006 Posts: 751

The information needed to know the answer is the maintenance payments on the fixed cameras. Just because they don't have staff or move doesn't mean they are cheap to run. Well, they may be cheap to run, but the company that maintains them may charge a fortune. Once you know that, you can compare the costs properly.

Darren · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:34 pm Post subject:

I'm not suggesting they are cheap to run. I am questioning whether they are cheaper to run than a fleet of safety camera vans which require manning.

We're looking at an FoI request to establish the details.
_________________
Darren Griffin

BigPerk · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:46 pm Post subject:

Darren · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:50 pm Post subject:

BigPerk · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:53 pm Post subject:

A fair point, if more than a bit unnecessarily sarcastic, Darren. But I did say 'site the vans appropriately'. If people are speeding in the wrong places then it's possibly a trade off between sharp braking and continuous travel at dangerous speeds. And drivers are supposed to allow a stopping gap from the car in front after all (aren't they?), whereas pedestrians, for example, may be less prepared.

But, no different really from what happens with fixed cams, except that they are not always installed with safety in mind anyway, as is often debated on here.
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

Darren · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:05 pm Post subject:

BigPerk · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject:

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I was thinking that with the financial squeeze and lack of revenue return to partnerships/councils, and the apparent increasing awareness of safety rather than (non-existent) revenue, we might see a little more commonsense from the authorities. But you may well be right. Cool

_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

Darren · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:18 pm Post subject:

I truly hope I'm not right but I'm naturally pessimistic when it comes to matters such as these. After all, the revenue has been going to Govt for some years now and I haven't detected any more common sense being deployed Sad

_________________
Darren Griffin

aj2052 · Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:31 am Post subject:

Perhaps you should put in the possible equation that Fixed cameras are sited ti meet minimum accident statistics wereas mobiles can moved anyware and not neccesarily meet the same criteria, net result more income i.e. more profitable, perhaps the Councils know more than Joe Public on the future proceeds division?
_________________
Moto G5s Plus, Sygic 17.4.8

M8TJT · Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:19 am Post subject:

Guivre46 · Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:45 am Post subject:

From Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/honestjohn/8004809/Speed-limit-signs-obscured-by-foliage-Honest-John.html

Even a hard old veteran suggests it might be easier just to pay up.

Also: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/honestjohn/8004798/Speed-controlled-traffic-cameras-in-Spain.html

I'm sure everyone steps over the limit from time to time, but it is the hard-nosed flouters that need the most attention.
_________________
Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom

M8TJT · Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:35 am Post subject:

	PocketGPS
	Web