[Article] Speeding motorists will soon face 600 privately-operated cameras

Our man in Havana

Automan wrote:

Also this looks interesting:

http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/laserpropark.htm

LOL! I like it. I wonder if the gardai will belive you that its just an innocent parking sensor?

mmenarry

Personally, I see absolutely no problem in the camera operators being paid bonuses. Provided of course, that the bonuses are paid on the number of reduced fatalities/serious injuries on the roads.

It would be interesting to see how many private operators would be interested in tendering if payment was based on that!

M.

masterK

mmenarry wrote:

Personally, I see absolutely no problem in the camera operators being paid bonuses. Provided of course, that the bonuses are paid on the number of reduced fatalities/serious injuries on the roads.

That's actually an excellent idea, it'll never happen though.

Mr Pudding wrote:

I heard representatives from the garda and the NRA talking about this months ago.

What they said was this:

-There would be no quotas or bonuses. The private operators was be instructed to carry out a certain number of checks on certain roads at certain times. If they did this they would ge paid a set amount regardless of how many people they caught. If they deviated from the instruction they would not get paid.
-The garda and the NRA or NSC or all three (I can't remember) would decide where and when the checks would happen. Apparently locations and times would be worked out based on when accidents and death actually occured.

In theory that sounds great but I would be highly skeptical of it in reality, to prove that they are doing their job the private company would have to show results, now sitting on a quite but dangerour country back road all day with a speed gun may save some lives but the number of speeding fines issued would minimal and therefore difficult for a company to demonstrate results.

Let's take an example, most of the speed cameras are moved off motorways and dual carriageways to quiet but dangerous rural roads, at the end of the year the number of speeding fines would most likely be down so therefore it will appear that there has been a decline in the effort made to catch speeding motorists. It wouldn't be true and lives would be saved but the Government will see revenue down and wonder what's going on.

Hagar

Isn't that exactly the dilemma the Gardai face now?

If they patrol an area and force drivers to observe the law then they have eliminated speeding and there are no offenders to catch but since it can't be measured it seems as if they are sitting around scratching their arses

On the other hand if they do catch a lot of speeding mototists there is an outcry and they are branded as money-grabbers fleeceing the public.

It's a lose/lose situation for the Gardai and it will be exactly the same for a private firm if they do their job correctly.

Seth Brundle

Hagar wrote:

Isn't that exactly the dilemma the Gardai face now?

I said it before - the gardai are sent out by their superiors to build statistics. If the stats for a particular area are low then they risk losing a man from that area.

trout

Q1 : Why do people speed ?

Q2 : Are speed limits generally sensible ?

I'm not being a smartass here (unlike my posts above) ... I'm genuinely asking why people speed ?

As for question 2 ... I think we can all rhyme off examples of speeds limits on major roads being way too slow, while some limits on minor roads are not low enough.

In more advanced places, there are dedicated Traffic police, who patrol major and mintor routes, enforcing traffic laws including speed limits. These same states have electronic signs which advise of speed limits, and these limits can vary depending on weather conditions, road conditions, local events etc. etc.
I'm thinking here of California, and L.A. with very high density of cars to people.

Surely this is a better way of enforcing road safety than giving it to private enterprise?

Do NTR have the motorists best interest at heart ? No, because they are driven by profit. Will a private speed camera operator be driven by profit ... the answer must be "yes ... if they want to stay in business".
(shudder ... what if NTR tender for this contract:eek: )

I really believe privatising speed cameras is naive short term thinking, and while it may not save enough lives, there will certainly be money changing hands.

When the next round of politicians come canvassing at my door ... I'll ask their views on privatising speed cameras versus bolstering a dedicated Garda Traffic core. It would be interesting to see how sophisticated the thinking will become.

I'm all for safety ... really ... I will obey all sensible speed limits and drive safely with respect for conditions, other road users, and myself ... I cannot approve of private operators enforcing public safety on our roads.

KerranJast

MrPudding wrote:

I heard representatives from the garda and the NRA talking about this months ago.

What they said was this:

-There would be no quotas or bonuses. The private operators was be instructed to carry out a certain number of checks on certain roads at certain times. If they did this they would ge paid a set amount regardless of how many people they caught. If they deviated from the instruction they would not get paid.
-The garda and the NRA or NSC or all three (I can't remember) would decide where and when the checks would happen. Apparently locations and times would be worked out based on when accidents and death actually occured.

The upshot of this is, if they do it like this, that there should be a reduction of checks on dual carriage ways and motorways as they have smaller accident rates. There should also be massively increased checks at odd hours.

They specifically made the point that an operator that simply sat on the motorway all day would simply not get paid as it is unlikely he would be sent there.

To me this sounds good. I think the most important part is there can be no quotas or "commission." If it is setup as they have said it will be I think it will actually be a good system.

I am not keen on covert checks. I would prefer blackspots were covered by very overt cameras that were signposted well in advance and painted a nice bright colour. As I have said before, as far as I am concerned a speed camera doing it's job should not catch anyone.

Oh, did anyone cacth the article in the times yesterday about the new system in the north? It is being installed on the Belfast - Newry road first. It consisted of pairs of cameras set 10 miles apart. You are photographed at each set and you average speed is worked out. They say it allows for short burst of speeding to allow overtaking, assuming of course that when not overtaking you are travelling below the limit.

Apparently it is very effective in controlling speed over long distances as people tend to slow down for the cameras and then speed up once they are past. Interesting I thought.

MrP

That system is being piloted in Scotland too and has been running very effectively in France for years. It'll will cost more to run though than is raised in fines but it will be saving lives. It means you won't be stung for breaking the limit when overtaking, only if you've been breaking the limit for most of your trip between the cameras. It means people will realise theres no point in speeding because you'll be caught at the end of the road. The Govt are considering sticking them on the big national roads and motorways to reduce the number of idiots doing 80mph plus those roads, rather than single fixed cams that speeders will twig how to beat as the OP mentioned.

Hagar

The French use regular speed cams on the motorways as well as the system detailed above. But they publish they whereabouts of the cameras so their intent is clearly to control speeding not increase revenue. Would it be the same in Ireland I wonder?

Seth Brundle

The SPECS system to be brought to NI will not have any effect on drivers with a non-UK licence.

The French seemingly don't have something like the SPECS but evaluate speeding based on the time on the autoroute ticket. However, after being in France 3 times over the last 4 years I have never been spoken to about speeding - in one instance doing ~100km at an average of about 200kmph

MrPudding

masterK wrote:

That's actually an excellent idea, it'll never happen though.

Hmmm, I am quite sceptical myself but I live in hope.

masterK wrote:

In theory that sounds great but I would be highly skeptical of it in reality, to prove that they are doing their job the private company would have to show results, now sitting on a quite but dangerour country back road all day with a speed gun may save some lives but the number of speeding fines issued would minimal and therefore difficult for a company to demonstrate results.

I don't know that this is true. My understanding is that they will be judged on the number of checks carried out not the number of speeding detections. I am not sure of the technical workings of the speed detectors but I presume they have the ability to log the number of times the trigger is pulled.

masterK wrote:

Let's take an example, most of the speed cameras are moved off motorways and dual carriageways to quiet but dangerous rural roads, at the end of the year the number of speeding fines would most likely be down so therefore it will appear that there has been a decline in the effort made to catch speeding motorists. It wouldn't be true and lives would be saved but the Government will see revenue down and wonder what's going on.

We need to move away from the concept of revenue generated as the means to judge whether or not the checks are happening. You seem to be caught up with the idea that the success of the scheme will be based on the amount of revenue generated. When they were talking about it on the radio they made it quite clear that this was not going to be the case. Of course time will tell whether or not this is actually the case.

We can only hope that the gov starts looking at road death stats and not speeding revenue.

MrP

Seth Brundle

MrPudding wrote:

We can only hope that the gov starts looking at road death stats and not speeding revenue.

I believe that the government have promised that it will be structured towards saving lives rather than boosting finances. However, this comes from the smae government that promised 2000 extra gardai, to reduce hospital waiting lists...

sweeper4

masterK wrote:

In theory that sounds great but I would be highly skeptical of it in reality, to prove that they are doing their job the private company would have to show results, now sitting on a quite but dangerour country back road all day with a speed gun may save some lives but the number of speeding fines issued would minimal and therefore difficult for a company to demonstrate results.

Let's take an example, most of the speed cameras are moved off motorways and dual carriageways to quiet but dangerous rural roads, at the end of the year the number of speeding fines would most likely be down so therefore it will appear that there has been a decline in the effort made to catch speeding motorists. It wouldn't be true and lives would be saved but the Government will see revenue down and wonder what's going on.

While the aim seems to be to place these mobile cameras at dangerous/high accident spots and the NRA and Gardai MAY be genuine in identifying these locations to the operators - it is not likely to end up like that. You cannot place a mobile manual speed camera/detector on many dangerous rural roads. It is likely it will be deployed on a straight safe stretch in the vicinity of the area, which will still lead to claims of "shooting fish". Of course, the threat of the possibility of a speed camera being around every corner may have the effect of slowing people down.
Visible fixed cameras on those dangerous stretches, or ideally a traffic corps that actually drives with the flow of traffic would have more effect in my opinion. Mobile manual cameras are constrained to be able to perform the function I think most people have in mind.

Seth Brundle

sweeper4 wrote:

ideally a traffic corps that actually drives with the flow of traffic would have more effect in my opinion. Mobile manual cameras are constrained to be able to perform the function I think most people have in mind.

A marked car driving along in traffic will not be seen by as many other drivers compared to it driving against the flow.

sweeper4

kbannon wrote:

A marked car driving along in traffic will not be seen by as many other drivers compared to it driving against the flow.

The idea was not that it would be a passive detterent - rather performing traffic duties and enforcing all traffic laws on it's travels instead of sitting static on a safe straight stretch of road waiting for a target exceeding the speed limit.

Not sure what you mean anyway, if it is driving in traffic is it not also driving against the flow of those cars travelling in the opposite direction?

Seth Brundle

Yes but I pictured that you meant the marked car driving to say cork on a friday evening in busy traffic. My point was that it would be better served driving back towards Dublin when the majority of traffic was heading towards Cork, thereby the car was seen by more drivers.

parsi

Hagar wrote:

The French use regular speed cams on the motorways as well as the system detailed above. But they publish they whereabouts of the cameras so their intent is clearly to control speeding not increase revenue. Would it be the same in Ireland I wonder?

I like the French system with their pre-advertised fixed radars. And they are always at dangerous spots. Of course they still have the mobile patrols...

sweeper4

kbannon wrote:

Yes but I pictured that you meant the marked car driving to say cork on a friday evening in busy traffic. My point was that it would be better served driving back towards Dublin when the majority of traffic was heading towards Cork, thereby the car was seen by more drivers.

Ah, point taken. No, my idea was more that they would patrol their own area, enforcing all traffic laws while on duty.

jack_christie

trout wrote:

It's a well known fact that covert & hidden cameras save lives

Speed cameras 'may cause accidents'
"Fresh doubts over the value of speed cameras were raised today after a surge in accidents at sites where they are installed.

Official papers show that the number of crashes rose instead of fell at 70 sites in London."

JC

trout

jack_christie wrote:

Speed cameras 'may cause accidents'
"Fresh doubts over the value of speed cameras were raised today after a surge in accidents at sites where they are installed.

Official papers show that the number of crashes rose instead of fell at 70 sites in London."

JC

dude ... I was being a smart-ass ... I should have used a smilie ... if you read my subsequent posts you'll see my position on speed cameras is similar to yours ... I'm all for safety, and not for profiteering

I agree with you ... I can see how speed cameras can cause accidents ... we've all seen people jam on the brakes when they spot a camera ... happens on the M50 on a daily basis.

The more I read of this thread, the more I believe the answer to road safety is a dedicated Garda Traffic Corps ... patrolling up & down major & minor routes. Cameras may have a part to play in this, I'm thinking of cameras at major junctions & bottlenecks, which would identify private cars in bus lanes, or drivers abusing filter lanes, well known black spots (Blakes Corner, main Sword roundabout ??) ... but I cannot accept that private organisations will ever see road users as anything other than a source of revenue.

MrPudding

trout wrote:

... but I cannot accept that private organisations will ever see road users as anything other than a source of revenue.

I there is no connection between the number of people caught and the amount that the company gets paid there is no issue with revenue generation. Can you not see that?

We know know how the system is going to work until we get more information. It may well turn out that there is quotas and bonuses. If there is i think there will be uproar.

I hope that the government has realised just how big a problem this will be and actually implement this scheme as they said they would. If they do there will be no revenue generation for the oprators. Read my first post on this thread. In it I explain how the NRA & Garda said the operators would operate. If they follow through on this I think it will be an OK system that should not be open to abuse.

With regards to hidden fixed cameras, I don't like them. There should be bright orange cameras at accident blackspots and other areas where there is high level of drivers fcuking arround. These cameras should be signposted well in advance so there is no surprise. This should force driver to take it easy in thoses areas. I would expect the cameras would not make much money and this is exactly how I think it should be.

MrP

trout

MrPudding wrote:

I there is no connection between the number of people caught and the amount that the company gets paid there is no issue with revenue generation. Can you not see that?

We know know how the system is going to work until we get more information. It may well turn out that there is quotas and bonuses. If there is i think there will be uproar.

MrP

I've read your previous posts. I'm cynical enough to say that what is stated and what actually happens are sometimes different.

I have to disagree with you on the revenue generation aspect ... private enterprise will always be driven the almighty dollar ... my beef is that road safety should be driven by a concern for saving lives ... simple as that.

Regardless of how many fines are issued, or how they are incentivised - private operators will expect to cover their costs and at the very least make an operating profit.

Ultimately, the costs of this excercise will be borne by road users ... either directly through fines to the private entities, or indirectly through taxes & excise to the government who then pay the private entity ... or possibly both.

... private operators can only be driven by profit ... otherwise they would be NGO's or Registered Charities

As a parallel ... consider the private clamping firms and how they have a stated aim of improving traffic flow and preventing illegal parking ... on the face of it that's a noble aim ... the flip side is that there is a volume of anecdotal evidence supporting claims that some .. i say some clampers have quotas to meet, and see their license to operate as a license to print money. Remember the BBC Watchdog documentary last year on this topic ?

How do we ensure that private speed camera operators are more altruistic ? How are they to be regulated and monitored ? What standards will they adhere to ?

I don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about any private operator of speed cameras getting into bed with any government without being well paid ... and who is going to pay them ... US!

Question : Does anyone know of any countries where speed cameras have been privatised ? Who runs the French motorway fixed cameras ?

Completely agree with you on the 'in yer face' speed cameras at black spots ... they should be dayglo orange, 20 feet tall and bulletproof ... ideally they will run at a loss, because no-one will act the maggot on those stretches of road... that might save lives, and cost very little too.

Peace

Our man in Havana

I know that lockheed martin run the speed/red light cameras in LA county in the USA. They receive a cut of each fine issued.

MrPudding

trout wrote:

I've read your previous posts. I'm cynical enough to say that what is stated and what actually happens are sometimes different.

I am forever the optimist.

trout wrote:

I have to disagree with you on the revenue generation aspect ... private enterprise will always be driven the almighty dollar ... my beef is that road safety should be driven by a concern for saving lives ... simple as that.

Regardless of how many fines are issued, or how they are incentivised - private operators will expect to cover their costs and at the very least make an operating profit.

Of course they will have to make money. This is where the key will be. If they are paid for doing a certain number of checks in a certain area at a certain time regardless of how many speeders they catch and do not get paid for any checks outside the specification it will not be revenue generation.

This will require the governement to realise saving lives will be a cost and speed detection should not nessecarily be self financing.

trout wrote:

Ultimately, the costs of this excercise will be borne by road users ... either directly through fines to the private entities, or indirectly through taxes & excise to the government who then pay the private entity ... or possibly both.

Of course someone has to pay. What are you saying here? You don't want to pay through fine and you don't want to pay through tax? Someone has to pay whether the gards or a private operator is doing the speed checks. I would hazard a guess the a private operator would e able to carry out and administer speed checks cheaper than the gards.

trout wrote:

... private operators can only be driven by profit ... otherwise they would be NGO's or Registered Charities

You keep bringing up this point. The answer is the same pay them for the number of check they do at a specified location and at a specified time. Do not pay them for checks outside the specification and do not give bonuses for detections. Simple.

trout wrote:

As a parallel ... consider the private clamping firms and how they have a stated aim of improving traffic flow and preventing illegal parking ... on the face of it that's a noble aim ... the flip side is that there is a volume of anecdotal evidence supporting claims that some .. i say some clampers have quotas to meet, and see their license to operate as a license to print money. Remember the BBC Watchdog documentary last year on this topic ?

We have all heard the rumors about clamping quotas. And lets face it, anyone working with the vigor these guys do must be on commission. But, it is not relevent. The simple solution is, as has been pointed out make no connectio between the number of people caught and the money that the operators get.

trout wrote:

How do we ensure that private speed camera operators are more altruistic ? How are they to be regulated and monitored ? What standards will they adhere to ?

They don't have to be altruistic. Once more for the cheap seats. Tell them where they need to go, when they need to go there and how long they need to stay there or how many *checks* they need to carry out. Once they have completed the requirement they come back to base. The equipment is checked to ensure they did the work as required. If it is then they will get paid if it isn't they don't.

trout wrote:

I don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about any private operator of speed cameras getting into bed with any government without being well paid ... and who is going to pay them ... US!

Of course we are going to pay them. Whoever does it we will have to pay. We just hae to hope that the gov don't balls it up. See my optimistic side coming up again?

trout wrote:

Completely agree with you on the 'in yer face' speed cameras at black spots ... they should be dayglo orange, 20 feet tall and bulletproof ... ideally they will run at a loss, because no-one will act the maggot on those stretches of road... that might save lives, and cost very little too.

Peace

Exactly. They should never catch anyone.

MrP

trout

MrPudding wrote:

Of course someone has to pay. What are you saying here? You don't want to pay through fine and you don't want to pay through tax? Someone has to pay whether the gards or a private operator is doing the speed checks. I would hazard a guess the a private operator would e able to carry out and administer speed checks cheaper than the gards.
.
.
.
We just hae to hope that the gov don't balls it up. See my optimistic side coming up again?

I salute your optimism ... even from the cheap seats:cool:

I don't want to pay for privately operated cameras at all ... I would be much happier, and less vocal, about paying for a dedicated Garda Traffic Corps who would actively enforce road safety rules above and beyond speeding. Even the smartest camera is a blunt instrument when compared with the sophistication of Templemore's finest.

Speed cameras are a passive tool against speeding, a well run Garda Traffic Corps should be an active tool against a wide range of road offences. That's not to say Garda can't involve cameras in certain locations, for a variety of uses.

While private operators may well be able to run speed cameras more efficiently than the Gardai, there will be ancillary costs outside of the operators in maintaining the relationships, setting the terms & standards, drafting schedules, and reviewing them, issuing fines, pursuing actions etc... the operators are obliged to turn a profit. Would you cap the profit ?

Keep private operators out of road safety, and support your local police:D

MrPudding

trout wrote:

Keep private operators out of road safety, and support your local police:D

I think operating speed checks are a waste of garda time. I mean it seems like no brainer work. I don't see this as a replacement to a good traffic corps but as something that will free them up to do proper polce stuff.

We both know that once the scheme is actually kicked off I will be bitterly disappointed as there will probably be quotas, commission and lads every 50 metres on the M50 catching punter after punter 'cos his kids want a new pair of runners and the 6 speeder bonus will cover them.:mad:

MrP