Gatso mk 2

[5lab]

ok, all speed cameras in the uk, combined, net LESS THAN £20m profit per year.. that is.. literally.. *nothing* in the eyes of national policing.. its a drop in the ocean - how can you claim they are using it to tax people when there is such little profit?

by comparison, road tax nets over £1,000,000,000 per year.

[schmunk]

That's called making a judgement on a situation and dealing with it as the situation warrants. Which is what police officers CAN do and electronic devices CAN'T do. Which basically backs up the argument that what we actually need is trained police officers patrolling the roads and not hi-tech gizmos linked straight to the treasury.

OK, so you suggest that fixed speed cameras are removed and replaced by mobile cameras operated by police officers.

That's roughly 3,500 locations.

You'd need 4 officers at each location to provide 24/7 coverage (42 hours/week each), not taking into account holiday requirements.

Each officer would be paid an average of say £23,000 each p.a., therefore the total cost to the police force would be approximately (£23,000 + £2,300 Class 1A NIC + £2,300 Pension (est)) + 10% admin costs (est) = £30,000 per police officer per year. This doesn't include the costs of the cars etc...

Therefore, that's a total cost of £30,000 x 4 x 3500 = £420 million per year.


For reference, there were apparently 1.8 million fixed speeding penalties issued in 2003/04.

That would mean operating costs of £233 per £60 penalty...

[schmunk]

Of course, if your main concern (as it seems for several people) is that speed cameras are being used as a 'stealth tax', you could always lobby parliament to have the standard penalty changed to a custodial sentence.

Or indeed, next time you are caught, you can refuse to pay the 'tax' and choose to go to prison instead.

[Rave]

You can't really argue with the 'don't speed, don't get caught' line schmunk- but that doesn't mean it's a particularly good point. I personally think that the speed limits in this country, especially on motorways, are in many cases unreasonable; the more so since the general swingeing round of cuts since speed cameras started being placed everywhere. The A3 out of London is a prime example of this- it was a 70 zone, and in my experience a safe one since the volume of traffic very effectively regulated overall speeds. Then they arbitrarily reduced it to 50 and put speed cameras all the way along. Since no major political party has (in my voting lifetime at least) made a manifesto pledge to review speed limits with a view to raising some, there's never been much I can do about it. Still, I am happy enough with the current status quo whereby I can use my judgement whether to speed or not- if I'm late and the roads are quiet I can and will do 90+mph, and in 8 years of driving I've never been stopped or flashed (or, for that matter, had an accident that was my fault).

Apart from the obvious civil liberties arguments, what bothers me about this is that the enormous amount of money to be spent on hundreds (or thousands?) of cameras and all the associated numberplate recognition cameras etc. seems to be coming at the expense of having real traffic cops driving around our roads in marked or unmarked cars. So, the central computer will be able to spot an unlicenced or uninsured vehicle within 400 yards of it joining the motorway- shame there's unlikely to be any cops within 20 miles to do anything about it.

[RVF500]

Cops don't just sit around cameras all day. They are actaully much more flexible than the cameras that you seem to be passionately in love with. They can be used to spot dangerous drivers, assist in road traffic accidents, assist other officers in other crimes. The list goes on. And yes, I'd rather spend more on putting police officers on the streets than spend less on a profit scheme.

Not seen a camera take down a mugger recently. I have, however, seen traffic police arrest people other than speeding motorists. Technology isn't a bad thing. Over reliance on it is. I have worked in areas where this has happened to the detriment of the service in hand. The armed forces are a prime example. Some clown thinks that infantrymen can be replaced with computer chips. Then they find that they can't hold ground with computer chips and the guys that haven't been laid off are spread far too thinly to be effective. The books balance well but the service is impacted. The same theory holds true when it comes to public services such as policing. Technology should be used to assist and not replace trained people. Cameras have their place but not at the expense of professional officers. I actually agree with cameras at traffic lights. They do act as a deterrent in my view. Cameras hiding behind bushes and not painted yellow don't. I reiterate my view that prevention is better than cure. We've all seen how the sight of a police car on the motorway slows traffic and makes people aware. That too is prevention. Peopel going along the M25 near Hethrow for example, spend more time looking at the side of the road for the traffic cameras so they can slow as they go past. I want them looking at the road not for roadside threats to their wallet. Put in a new system and people will look for telltale signs and be distracted.

As for your argument about not complaining about being caught. I've been caught twice. When you cover as many miles in the amount of time I've been driving the odds on a lapse of concentration or an error being made increase. Once on the way to a funeral and once when I had been working long hours. So there were mitigating circumstances (try explaining that to an electronic chip). Both times by patrol cars who treated me fairly and explained why I had been stopped and what action they were going to take after speaking with me. I didn't complain, I just took on board what they said and went about my business. They made a fair judgement and that was that, 3 points, be more careful.

The other thing you may want to think about in your calculation of police:mobile cameras is the number of admin staff that would be needed to process the huge amount of information that would likely be regurgetated by the system proposed. Equally, I don't recall seeing too many admin clerks arresting miscreants.

[Big RICHARD]

If they are so interested in helping the environment are they going to get rid of speed bumps and other 'traffic calming measures' that cause you to slow down and speed back up again?