|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Dorset claim poverty in fixed speedcam reduction
Article by: Darren Griffin
Date: 16 Sep 2010
 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 they consider it is more expensive to operate a fixed unattended speed camera (other than occasional maintenance and film changes) than an expensive 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.
| Comments
|
 Posted by MaFt on Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:40 am |
 |
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
|
|
| Posted by Darren on Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:47 am |
|
| Quote: | | 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" |
Quite.
My argument is not that they seek to make more money, but that they seek to catch more drivers.
Prosecuting increasing numbers of drivers has nothing to do with safety and education.
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by matthewj on Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:19 am |
|
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.
|
|
| Posted by Darren on Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:34 pm |
|
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 |
|
| Posted by BigPerk on Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:46 pm |
|
| Quote: | | Prosecuting increasing numbers of drivers has nothing to do with safety and education. |
Not education maybe, but providing they site the vans appropriately (  ) safety might benefit?
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360) |
|
| Posted by BigPerk on Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:53 pm |
|
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) |
|
| Posted by Darren on Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:05 pm |
|
| BigPerk Wrote: | | A fair point, if more than a bit unnecessarily sarcastic, Darren. |
I did add a 'wink' and it wasn't meant to nastily. Bad day?
You suggest that that mobile vans are located with more thought to safety than fixed cameras? If anything I'd suggest that the only safety equation in the siting of mobiles is the safety of the van and operator and little else.
They often appear to be located where they can catch the maximum number of motorists in my experience.
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by BigPerk on Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:11 pm |
|
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. 
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360) |
|
| Posted by Darren on Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:18 pm |
|
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 
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by aj2052 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:31 pm |
|
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 |
|
|
| Click here to view more comments... |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
