North Somerset To Reactivate 52 Speed Cameras

RobBrady

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

_________________
Robert Brady

DennisN

M8TJT · Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:19 am Post subject:

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.

DennisN · Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:30 am Post subject:

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!!

M8TJT · Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:08 pm Post subject:

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

Privateer · Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:48 pm Post subject:

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

Guivre46 · Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:56 pm Post subject:

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

M8TJT · Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:30 am Post subject:

They were not making money for the people who had to upkeep- them Simples.

Guivre46 · Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:42 pm Post subject:

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

HughGW · Lifetime Member Joined: May 31, 2006 Posts: 40

Can the Supt prove an increase in death and injury since switch off? If not then no case to answer m'lud!

DennisN · Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:31 pm Post subject:

Guivre46 · Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:51 pm Post subject:

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

DennisN · Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:42 pm Post subject:

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!!

	PocketGPS
	Web