Home PageFacebookRSS News Feed
PocketGPS
Web
Read the current newsletter! Weekly
Newsletter
SatNav,GPS,Navigation
Luxury Villa at Watersong Davenport, Orlando, Florida for rent
Pocket GPS World - SatNavs | GPS | Speed Cameras: Forums

Pocket GPS World :: View topic - North Somerset To Reactivate 52 Speed Cameras
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in for private messagesLog in for private messages   Log inLog in 

North Somerset To Reactivate 52 Speed Cameras

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> Non-Technical Speed Camera Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RobBrady
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 2717
Location: Chelmsford, UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:52 pm    Post subject: North Somerset To Reactivate 52 Speed Cameras Reply with quote

pocketgpsworld.com
52 static speed cameras are to be switched back on in North Somerset.

The cameras, which represent over 2million worth of equipment, were originally deactivated back in 2010. Local police say they are determined to get the cameras back in action in the hope that they lower deaths in the area.

Each of the cameras, owned by local councils, take 5,000 per annum to run - it is thought that costs can be met in fines.

The police have offered North Somerset Council back office support for any prosecutions to help offset the cost.

Superintendent Ian Smith of Avon and Somerset Police said: "If the running costs can be met by speeding motorists, and as a result of that fewer people are involved in collisions, then there has to be merit in exploring the options to reactivate. We believe combining static cameras with our existing mobile speed enforcement units would provide the best way of influencing driver behaviour."

Supt Smith believes a decision to reactivate the cameras will be made before the end of the year.

Source
email icon

_________________
Robert Brady
Editor, Pocket GPS World
The Premier GPS / SatNav Resource for News, Reviews and Forums
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14746
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:14 am    Post subject: Re: North Somerset To Reactivate 52 Speed Cameras Reply with quote

News Team wrote:
Superintendent Ian Smith of Avon and Somerset Police said: "If the running costs can be met by speeding motorists,..........."

...it will prove that cameras are safety, not a source of income?

DOH!! I have never understood this - if nobody speeds, they cost 5,000 a year, but save lives/injuries. If speeding motorists meet the costs, they cost nothing (heaven forbid they make a profit!) and they DON'T save lives/injuries. What am I missing?

52 cameras??? That's a helluva lot more than we've ever had in the db for North Somerset. It may be 52 in the Avon and Somerset Police area - supposedly the Chief Constable said recently he wanted them all switched back on again.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
The Other Tired Old Man


Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10053
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK

PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a glaringly obvious invalid argument point that most folk seem to have missed/ignored when referring to what they call the 'cash cow speed cameras'.

It goes along the lines of if speed cameras are such a great little earner for the council/police/partnership whoever, then why the hell have they switched off so many of these 'high earners' to 'save money'.

It sure as heck isn't so that they can be seen to be 'getting off the backs' of the motorist like call me Dave promised so long ago. There's no income from that. Rolling Eyes

Get out of that one then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14746
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wasn't it something like the people who pay the camera costs don't get the income?
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
The Other Tired Old Man


Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10053
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK

PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose, if that is right, the it would poke off the people who were paying for the cams. I thought that they either got it all or a percentage of it. Surely if the fines go to one body, the running costs should be borne by them? If this is not the case then it's not surprising that they get switched off. Probably another case of 'perhaps we didn't think that one through enough' Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Privateer
Pocket GPS Moderator
Pocket GPS Moderator


Joined: 30/12/2002 17:36:20
Posts: 4813
Location: Oxfordshire, England, UK

PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought that the local authority had to pay the costs of installing and maintaining the cameras whilst the revenue (fines) from the cameras went to central government instead of directly back to the local authority.

These static cameras are now quite old and are all probably "wet film" instead of digital so may share only a few actual camera units between the static camera housings therefore there is a considerable running cost in man power to provide maintenance, to collect and replace the film, and to swap the actual camera units between sites. That may be one of the reasons for deactivating the cameras in the first place.

Regards,
_________________
Robert.
iPhone 6s Plus, iOS 13.2: iOS CamerAlert v2.0.7
TomTom GO Mobile iOS 2.0.3; TomTom (UK & ROI and Europe) iOS apps v1.29
Garmin Camper 770 LMT-D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guivre46
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Apr 14, 2010
Posts: 1262
Location: West London

PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If these cameras were set up in the first place to reduce serious injury, how could they justify deactivating them? If they were not effective and so justify their deactivation, how can they now justify reactivating them?
_________________
Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
The Other Tired Old Man


Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10053
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK

PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They were not making money for the people who had to upkeep- them Simples.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guivre46
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Apr 14, 2010
Posts: 1262
Location: West London

PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But didn't all they have to do was dust them once a month?
_________________
Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HughGW
Lifetime Member


Joined: May 31, 2006
Posts: 40

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can the Supt prove an increase in death and injury since switch off? If not then no case to answer m'lud!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14746
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guivre46 wrote:
But didn't all they have to do was dust them once a month?

No, they had to go and get the film out for processing and replace with fresh - that's what I believe the 5,000 was for.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guivre46
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Apr 14, 2010
Posts: 1262
Location: West London

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I meant when they were out of use. But you raise an interesting point that they need to raise a minimum income when they are in use.
_________________
Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DennisN
Tired Old Man
Tired Old Man


Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 14746
Location: Keynsham

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surely the question is "Do they save lives/injuries". Whenever some figures are quoted, somebody can always come up with a "cost" of a death or serious injury. And it's ALWAYS far more than 5,000. So one saved per camera more than pays for it. The trouble is, because "your" life has been saved, you actually don't pop round to the Town Hall to pay them 5,000. But that's what taxation and 'Government' expenditure are all about. That is why they should first demonstrate that a particular site needs a camera, then provide the funds from taxation income.

But isn't the problem that it doesn't seem possible to prove that cameras do prevent deaths/injuries. One side of the argument says they do, the other side says the figures cannot be relied upon.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message







Posted: Today    Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> Non-Technical Speed Camera Discussions All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001 phpBB Group
phpBB port v2.1 based on Tom Nitzschner's phpbb2.0.6 upgraded to phpBB 2.0.4 standalone was developed and tested by:
ArtificialIntel, ChatServ, mikem,
sixonetonoffun and Paul Laudanski (aka Zhen-Xjell).

Version 2.1 by Nuke Cops 2003 http://www.nukecops.com

Make a Donation



CamerAlert Database

Click here for the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database

Download Speed Camera Database
18.081 (05 Aug 20)



WORLDWIDE SPEED CAMERA SPOTTERS WANTED!

Click here to submit camera positions to the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database


12mth Subscriber memberships awarded every week for verified new camera reports!

Submit Speed Camera Locations Now


CamerAlert Apps



iOS QR Code






Android QR Code







Terms & Privacy


GPS Shopping