RE: Expensive SPECS
Wednesday 10th April 2002
Expensive SPECS
The SPECS system introduced in Nottingham is proving expensive for the local authorities. Drivers on average have cut their speed by 5mph and a council spokesman claims that accidents are down 52%. However only 9 motorists are being caught per day not the predicted 60 that are required to fund the system. The council has committed to funding the equipment from other sources.
Discussion
This article was published in AutoExpress in March 2001:
"Mike Rutherford is motoring editor of the News of the World and talkSport. He appears on ITV's Pulling Power and is founder of the Motorists' Association.
"The motoring public owes Brain Parbutt, the deputy leader of Nottingham Council, a 'thank you'. He's one of the idiots responsible for spending £350,000 on six digital speed cameras for his patch. The plan was that they would nab 60 speeding motorists a day which, at £40 apiece, would rake in £16,800 a week. Clearly Parbutt doesn't deserve praise for this. Actually,it's one of his crystal clear quotes that has done us all a favour.
You see, his heinously expensive cameras are not generating the sort of easy revenue that he hoped for. Because the people who drive in Nottingham know a cynical scam when they see one, only about nine of them are being digitally nicked per day, providing the council with a weekly gross income of just £2,520.
"They haven't turned out to be the money-spinner we expected," is the revealing statement from Brian Parbutt. Here we have the second in command at a huge city council confirming what many drivers have suspected for years: that speed cameras are looked upon by the authorities as money-spinners. Yet publicly, senior politicians and police officers still jeopardise the modicum of credibility they have by continuing to pretend that cameras are not about revenue raising. When are the people of Britain (and in particular the ratepayers of Nottingham) going to wake up to the fact that the only real beneficiaries of hi-tech cameras costing around £60,000 each are the business people who make them? They're laughing all the way to the bank, as motorists are mugged.
Nottingham Council's decision to go for the best devices to make money has backfired. The £360 a day the cameras are 'making' is wiped out by the cost
of installing them, interest charges, administration and maintenance costs and other expenses. The cameras were supposed to be self-financing, but they're failing to even cover their running costs. And don't give me that baloney about cameras being directly responsible for saving lives. It's a load of bollards.
I recently contacted the Department of Transport, the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers and leading chief constables and asked for proof that speed cameras lead to a reduction in road deaths. Some - most notably the useless Department of Transport - admitted they had no such proof. Others refused to get back to me with evidence to support their questionable line. The only thing that is clear is this: speed cameras which are supposed to act as a deterrent are still being deliberately hidden from
view. Some downhill, dual carriageway, motorway-type roads have had cameras installed and their limits reduced to 30 or 40mph in what is purely a money-making racket. And far from saving lives, cameras often jeopardise safety by forcing drivers to keep their eyes on their speedometers, not the road. There's also the little matter of countless rear-end shunts caused when a driver spots a camera at the last moment and brakes hard. Cameras are not the answer. Better education for new and existing drivers is.""
>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Wednesday 10th April 13:47
"Mike Rutherford is motoring editor of the News of the World and talkSport. He appears on ITV's Pulling Power and is founder of the Motorists' Association.
"The motoring public owes Brain Parbutt, the deputy leader of Nottingham Council, a 'thank you'. He's one of the idiots responsible for spending £350,000 on six digital speed cameras for his patch. The plan was that they would nab 60 speeding motorists a day which, at £40 apiece, would rake in £16,800 a week. Clearly Parbutt doesn't deserve praise for this. Actually,it's one of his crystal clear quotes that has done us all a favour.
You see, his heinously expensive cameras are not generating the sort of easy revenue that he hoped for. Because the people who drive in Nottingham know a cynical scam when they see one, only about nine of them are being digitally nicked per day, providing the council with a weekly gross income of just £2,520.
"They haven't turned out to be the money-spinner we expected," is the revealing statement from Brian Parbutt. Here we have the second in command at a huge city council confirming what many drivers have suspected for years: that speed cameras are looked upon by the authorities as money-spinners. Yet publicly, senior politicians and police officers still jeopardise the modicum of credibility they have by continuing to pretend that cameras are not about revenue raising. When are the people of Britain (and in particular the ratepayers of Nottingham) going to wake up to the fact that the only real beneficiaries of hi-tech cameras costing around £60,000 each are the business people who make them? They're laughing all the way to the bank, as motorists are mugged.
Nottingham Council's decision to go for the best devices to make money has backfired. The £360 a day the cameras are 'making' is wiped out by the cost
of installing them, interest charges, administration and maintenance costs and other expenses. The cameras were supposed to be self-financing, but they're failing to even cover their running costs. And don't give me that baloney about cameras being directly responsible for saving lives. It's a load of bollards.
I recently contacted the Department of Transport, the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers and leading chief constables and asked for proof that speed cameras lead to a reduction in road deaths. Some - most notably the useless Department of Transport - admitted they had no such proof. Others refused to get back to me with evidence to support their questionable line. The only thing that is clear is this: speed cameras which are supposed to act as a deterrent are still being deliberately hidden from
view. Some downhill, dual carriageway, motorway-type roads have had cameras installed and their limits reduced to 30 or 40mph in what is purely a money-making racket. And far from saving lives, cameras often jeopardise safety by forcing drivers to keep their eyes on their speedometers, not the road. There's also the little matter of countless rear-end shunts caused when a driver spots a camera at the last moment and brakes hard. Cameras are not the answer. Better education for new and existing drivers is.""
>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Wednesday 10th April 13:47
Its not stopping them erecting more cameras though - another 6 have gone up between the Nottingham ring road and jnc 26 of the M1. I believe it HAS reduced the number of accidents on the monitored routes - what they don't tell you is that most motorists are using the 'rat runs' through the local estates to avoid detection and obviously putting more pedestrians at risk!
quote:
I believe it HAS reduced the number of accidents on the monitored routes
What is the reduction in cars though ?? %wise I'll bet there is a lovely correlation...
Sure people are starting to attack them, we don't want Draconian measures and laws just to raise more cash, when muggers and rapists are being released Early to continue committing offences.
quote:
And far from saving lives, cameras often jeopardise safety by forcing drivers to keep their eyes on their speedometers, not the road. There's also the little matter of countless rear-end shunts caused when a driver spots a camera at the last moment and brakes hard.
This is the EXACT same argument i use when arguing with revenue-raising cameras. They don't see the point - "What's the harm in everyone going 65 mph?"
Interesting fact - it is not possible to hire a chainsaw now. Most tool shops will not hire them out, supposedly because of liability problems. Now I know some dumb b*tch chopped her foot off pruning a tree in her carpet slippers, but is that reason to effectively ban them?
I reckon its more to do with their possible use to prune speed cameras. And I'm allowed to be paranoid, I'm a motorist and they ARE out to get me.
I reckon its more to do with their possible use to prune speed cameras. And I'm allowed to be paranoid, I'm a motorist and they ARE out to get me.
quote:
Interesting fact - it is not possible to hire a chainsaw now. Most tool shops will not hire them out, supposedly because of liability problems. Now I know some dumb b*tch chopped her foot off pruning a tree in her carpet slippers, but is that reason to effectively ban them?
I reckon its more to do with their possible use to prune speed cameras. And I'm allowed to be paranoid, I'm a motorist and they ARE out to get me.
Just tell the hire company why you need one and I'm sure they'll oblige. They might even come and help
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff