|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
North Somerset To Reactivate 52 Speed Cameras
Article by: rob brady
Date: 12 Nov 2013
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
| | |  |
| Comments
|
 Posted by DennisN on Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:14 am |
 |
| 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!! |
|
| Posted by M8TJT on Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:19 am |
|
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. 
Get out of that one then.
|
|
| Posted by DennisN on Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:30 am |
|
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!! |
|
| Posted by M8TJT on Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:08 am |
|
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'
|
|
| Posted by Privateer on Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:48 am |
|
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 14.0.1: iOS CamerAlert v2.0.7
TomTom GO Mobile iOS 2.3.1; TomTom (UK & ROI and Europe) iOS apps v1.29
Garmin Camper 770 LMT-D |
|
| Posted by Guivre46 on Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:56 pm |
|
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 |
|
| Posted by M8TJT on Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:30 am |
|
They were not making money for the people who had to upkeep- them Simples.
|
|
| Posted by Guivre46 on Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:42 pm |
|
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 |
|
| Posted by HughGW on Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:20 am |
|
Can the Supt prove an increase in death and injury since switch off? If not then no case to answer m'lud!
|
|
| Posted by DennisN on Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:31 pm |
|
| 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!! |
|
| Posted by Guivre46 on Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:51 pm |
|
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 |
|
|
| Click here to view more comments... |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
