Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National [UK] England turning off Greed $cameras

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by robsalvv, Feb 4, 2011.

  1. UK camera's aren't paying their way, so they have to go. What was that the authorities say about $peed $camera's not being about revenue raising?? :-k

    = = = = = = = = = = =

    3 February 2011 Last updated at 09:54 GMT
    A cost cutting drive in the West Midlands is likely to see hundreds of roadside speed cameras being switched off from April.

    A group of seven councils say they can no longer afford to run the cameras - a conclusion reached by many councils across the country in the face of funding cuts.

    Replacing and maintaining the cameras in the region would cost as much as £4m, money that will now be saved.

    One estimate suggests as many as half the speed cameras in the UK are not functioning at any one time.

    Phil Lavelle reports

    Other related links:

  2. The laws of physics are different in the northen hemisphere.
  3. Last line of the first article listed contains the reason, Rob. It's all down to revenue raised not cycling back to those bodies that actually pay for the bloody things:

  4. I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that only a small percentage of speed cameras in NSW are operative at any one time....

    that said, I wouldn't complain about one in my street; it would make backing out of the driveway a whole lot safer after the first few fines were sent out :LOL:
  5. Doesn't say whether they are the fixed (and signed) "Gatso" type cameras but it seems pretty likely.

    Whether funding is the issue or not is debatable. Only a fool is going to get caught more than once in a given location so they may well have a finite business value. The funding and remuneration model is very different over there, so it could easily become unsustainable to run them, especially for smaller local administrations.

    But I prefer to think that popular pressure on vulnerable local councillors might also have been at work. Better hope so because our cameras sure as hell pay their way, and more.
  6. I guess we'll find out if it turns into a shitfight between Westminster and the local councils, titus. If the cameras are 'revenue postitive', Westminster will eventually be forced to pay maintenance if enough councils refuse to stump up. Personally, I'm betting its got more to do with cost shifting than anything else.
  7. Perhaps you should back in instead...

    Isn't it illegal to back out of a drive way anyway???
  8. No, recent law changes has cleaned up a lot of that stupidity in the law, thats not to say there is not a whole lot of other stupidity. :) The only requirement now is Regulation 296

    296 Driving a vehicle in reverse

    (1) The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle unless the driver can do so safely.

    (2) The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle further than is reasonable in the circumstances.
  9. Always seemed like a good idea to me...

    Much safer to back in than out.
  10. I understood that the UK government were providing "grants" to the local councils to maintain the cameras. If there's no grants, then there's no camera's. It still sounds like the cameras weren't paying their way.
  11. I guess it's possible, but I thought that with digital technology, after the initial set up costs, the running costs would be minimal. Which got me thinking. I've just re-watched the BBC vid you posted:


    At the 1'45"-mark, is that a film canister on the back? It couldn't be, could it? (Can anyone confirm/deny?) That could be your costs right there. And with the Tories' public service cuts, perhaps you're right...