Speed Cameras Are For Raising Revenue

LostinBlanch

Well at least according to the a partner in Teletraffic who supply speed cameras to the UK and Ireland. Spotted this on the politics forum today but thought it was relevant to here. Anyway the quotes are from an article in the English Daily Mail.

Tele-Traffic's business is not limited to the UK. Ireland has bought more than 400 laser cameras from their company - and over there, the government is quite open about using cameras to raise revenue.

Mr Ricketts said the Irish government had made an election promise to reduce stamp duty and had made it clear they would make up the lost revenue from speeding fines.

'We have produced for them a new system to make up that revenue,' Mr Ricketts said. 'So they are going the opposite way to the UK Government. They are actually openly promoting speed enforcement as their revenue raiser.'

So how can this square with the governments statements that they are only there to help reduce road fatalities. Which is something that everyone agrees with, but I don't agree with extra stealth tax. How come this hasn't got any airplay over here?

ongarite

See this link http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/16/uk-drivers-change-lanes-to-outsmart-specs-speeding-cameras/
The system has a major flaw. If these cameras are on dual-carriage ways or motorways,all one has to do is change lane and the camera wont be able to get the average speed as you will not be in the same lane.

PeakOutput

ongarite wrote:

See this link http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/16/uk-drivers-change-lanes-to-outsmart-specs-speeding-cameras/
The system has a major flaw. If these cameras are on dual-carriage ways or motorways,all one has to do is change lane and the camera wont be able to get the average speed as you will not be in the same lane.

thats hardly the point

and they are their to catch people who are breaking the law regardless of wheather you agree with said law or not raising extra revenue and reducing stamping duty happens to be a pleasant side effect to this.

if you dont want to pay the "stealth tax"(get real) then dont break the law it has to be the easiest way to get out "tax" ever

and yes im sure i do speed but i dont bitch if/when i get caught or how/where

maidhc

Daily Mail wrote:

Mr Ricketts said the Irish government had made an election promise to reduce stamp duty and had made it clear they would make up the lost revenue from speeding fines.

Did they? I think this is just sales talk (lies) tbh.

LostinBlanch

PeakOutput wrote:

thats hardly the point

and they are their to catch people who are breaking the law regardless of wheather you agree with said law or not raising extra revenue and reducing stamping duty happens to be a pleasant side effect to this.

if you dont want to pay the "stealth tax"(get real) then dont break the law it has to be the easiest way to get out "tax" ever

and yes im sure i do speed but i dont bitch if/when i get caught or how/where

I don't think that you quite understand what I'm getting at here. I have no problem with speed cameras being used to reduce road fatalities. But I do have a problem with them being introduced purely as a revenue raising mechanism, hence my stealth tax comment. If they are introducing it as another revenue raiser then let them come out and explicitly say so, rather than becoming another defacto tax. [If I wanted to be smart here I could equally tell you to get real, but I won't]

Like you, I'm sure I go above the speed limit sometimes, I'm talking about a few km above the limit momentarily until I notice and then reduce my speed. I'm not a boy racer who gets his jollies from going around at 200kmph, just someone who wants to get to where he's going. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people on this board are similar to me in this respect.

Also, if as Ongarite says one way to avoid fines and penalty points is to have people change lanes at speed, thereby increasing the likelihood of accidents (and fatalities), this would come under unforeseen consequences where the introduction of the cameras could actually have the opposite effect to it's original intent. It doens't even matter if this is true, all it takes is for enough people to believe it, anf they will change their behaviour accordingly.

Was it the head of the Durham police who decided not to introduce speed cameras but to have more mobile patrols and it has fewer road fatalities than other areas in the UK that rely on them?

PeakOutput

ok but dose it matter why they are introducing the cameras

people need to stop speeding ......the more cameras the better end of story

you can say that any sort of fine is simply to raise revenue(and as far as i know all/most fines go to the public coffers) and therefore a tax it just sounds to me like another way to justify it when you get caught "ah sure its only another bleeding tax"

and feel free to tell me to get real im a smart alek person( its jsut the mood im in right now) wont hold it against you for being one too

maidhc

PeakOutput wrote:

people need to stop speeding ......the more cameras the better end of story

So long as they are in a sensible place where excessive speed is known to be a safety issue. Catching people doing 110km/h on the N8 dual carriageway, or 90km/h on what was the N8 up to last week is a pointless excercise, and really no more than a tax.

PeakOutput

maidhc wrote:

So long as they are in a sensible place where excessive speed is known to be a safety issue. Catching people doing 110km/h on the N8 dual carriageway, or 90km/h on what was the N8 up to last week is a pointless excercise, and really no more than a tax.

its a decent point and would annoy me im sure but i dont see what all the fuss is about you are still breaking the law why shouldnt you be punished its a question you dont see answered that often when things like this are discussed

if they are getting as many speed cameras as it say they should be able to put them on all the black spots with more than enough left over for the motorways,the chances of them being able to process data from 400 cameras is another matter (not gna happen any time soon) but one id say they havnt thought about before making the purchase

maybe im selfish but even if it is a tax i think its a much fairer one then charging whatever ridicolous rate it is for stamp duty or vat on any number of things that a re nescarry for life

Stky10

If they were really serious about cutting fatalities on the roads, they'd have the most road checks on the roads during the most dangerous hours for road user fatalities (ie 9pm to 9am at weekends). They don't.

Fair enough, if things were done equally in all areas of the country, and the cameras weren't used on roads where silly low speed limits occur (ie 50 kmph on straight dualcarriageways while you can do 100 kmph on twisty countryroads) they might be accepted. I doubt it will though. Like at the moment where you're more likely to be caught towards the end of the month as each station tries to hit its quota, and in certain spots (well known to locals) where they know its like shooting fish in a barrel so that they can get their quota and head back to the station.

This morning for instance on a single lane (in each direction) road, ahead of me were two cars, a transit van and a lorry. In front of the lorry was a traffic corp van. The traffic corp van decides to do a u-turn on this long straight stretch of road, and nearly gets knocked out of it by the avensis in front of me as it overtakes the car in front of it, the transit van, and the lorry in one go. Did the traffic corp van turn around and go after the avensis?. Did it hell. They'd probably just been radioed that the tea was ready and the jammy doughnuts had arrived.

Without getting too deep into politics, I think if the placement of the camerias is too evidently done just to catch people out rather than prevent speeding in known dangerous areas, and as a result the level of fines goes through the roof, and you see grannys being put off the roads, or mothers being unable to drop their kids to school because of this you'll see a huge backlash against it. Although going by the political poll results at the weekend, and how obviously we've turned into a nation of sheep, you can never be certain of anything anymore.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

maidhc wrote:

So long as they are in a sensible place where excessive speed is known to be a safety issue. Catching people doing 110km/h on the N8 dual carriageway, or 90km/h on what was the N8 up to last week is a pointless excercise, and really no more than a tax.

agreed, its not going to bring down road fatalities

Jumpy

Well generally they need to be seen. It is far too dangerous for them to catch people on the back roads and they wont ever have a straight line of sight.
It is the same in every country, unless the camera is fixed in a resisdential area, the only place you are going to get done is on the main roads.

Bear in mind the speed limit is still in force on a main road, just because they provide a good road for you doesnt mean you can drive like a tool.
If someone loses all their points, it doesnt point to a "revenue gaining execise" it points to the fact that they have a single digit IQ. If you want to get somewhere in time... leave earlier.

egan007

SHhhhhhhhhhhhh

Everyone do the Irish thing - Moan about it online Then Shut the Fup up and do nothing about it, then vote the guys back in that put them there

Bend over

Next

Jumpy

egan007 wrote:

SHhhhhhhhhhhhh

Everyone do the Irish thing - Moan about it online Then Shut the Fup up and do nothing about it, then vote the guys back in that put them there

Bend over

Next

Best....post......ever.

Vegeta

egan007 wrote:

SHhhhhhhhhhhhh

Everyone do the Irish thing - Moan about it online Then Shut the Fup up and do nothing about it, then vote the guys back in that put them there

Bend over

Next

Sums us up perfectly

kippy

Okay,
What's the point of this post?
Speeding cameras are used to increase revenue-no **** sherlock.
They are also pretty handy in ensuring people keep to the speed limit.
Simple rule, if you dont want to help increase revenue to the government, dont speed-I dont think its rocket science.
They help keep people within the law since people dont appear to have the responsibility to do this themselves.
If the governement think there are enough idiots out there to get caught on the cameras I have no real gripe with them being used to increase revenue. Punishing the speeders-nothing wrong with that.
I am sure the money gained goes back into the state coffers anyway.

Johnny Storm

Stky10 wrote:

....This morning for instance on a single lane (in each direction) road, ahead of me were two cars, a transit van and a lorry. In front of the lorry was a traffic corp van. The traffic corp van decides to do a u-turn on this long straight stretch of road, and nearly gets knocked out of it by the avensis in front of me as it overtakes the car in front of it, the transit van, and the lorry in one go. Did the traffic corp van turn around and go after the avensis?. Did it hell. They'd probably just been radioed that the tea was ready and the jammy doughnuts had arrived.
....

I'm a middle aged adult. I'm not anti-police. I have to say that I am seriously losing what respect I had for cops when I see their all-too-often terrible road behaviour. IMHO this will eventually come back and bite the cops in the ass.

gyppo

Every week on this forum someone posts a thread about speed traps. This week its that speed traps are there primarily as a revenue collection function, the inferral being that road safety comes secondary in importance.

To those that believe that this is a revenue generating exercise, and object to paying another 'stealth tax' , the answer is very clear - dont break any speed limits and you don't have to pay.

As other posters have already said, the fact that revenue is generated by punishing those who speed is a bonus.
399 road deaths in 2005 at an estimated cost of €2million per fatality (see http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1493832&issue_id=13182 ) - you could round it off at €.8billion pa.

Anyone know how much revenue was generated by speeding fines in 2005? - I'd be very suprised if it were anywhere near 800 million euro.

So, ask yourselves the question again - are speed traps to collect revenue or reduce road fatalities?

Jimmy the cat

Both points of view are valid
1. If you don't want to pay, don't speed
2. Speed traps primary objective is revenue generation and less speeding is a bonus

Have you ever seen a speed trap late at night on a road where accidents are common?
No, you see them on dual carriageways during the day, when the traffic volume is highest..... more money to be made.
The bulk of accidents happen late at night and not on dual carriageways or motorways.

kippy

The bulk of accidents happen late at night and not on dual carriageways or motorways.

Agreed,
Perhaps the reason for this is the speed checks on these dual carriageways and the lack of such on these secondary roads??
Perhaps more should be on secondary roads, perhaps the laws should be enforced harder on these secondary roads, perhaps limits should be changed on these roads?
Either way, Speed cameras ANYWHERE are not a bad thing in any way and those that have something against them have something against the enforcement of the laws of this country.
If you dont want to get caught dont speed.
EDIT
Just to bring up a point I have made countless times before.
Road safety is something each and every one of us is responsible for. The government, police can only do some much. If we dont drive safely and with some common sense no amount of speed cameras etc will cut down the carnage.
Kippy

mickoneill30

If they want to generate revenue how about just driving in to the city every morning. Every day I see geniuses zooming up bus lanes, zoom past me while I'm waiting to turn right or left and then turn on the magic indicator to try and get in ahead of the queue. It must be really satisfying being a traffic cop, I'd love to hope out and give those muppets a ticket whenever I see examples of dangerous, inconsiderate driving. I spend about an hour going into the city each morning and I see about 5 examples of dangerous driving each time.

I don't see much speeding at that time though. If we could hit jogging speed I'd be happy

PeakOutput

mickoneill30 wrote:

If they want to generate revenue how about just driving in to the city every morning. Every day

why dont they just do both substituting one with the other isnt the answer we will just get moaners complaining about getting a ticket for driving in the bus lane then

iv never been done for speeding but i have been done for driving in a buslane at 17.50 on a saturday (the garda in question told me to pull in but i "misunderstood" her and pulled back into the line of traffic so didnt get a fine or anything like that)

basically the argument is that because it is "wrong" for them to "tax" us in this way it dosnt matter that what we are doing is wrong in the first place

2wrongs and all that jazz

mickoneill30

kippy wrote:

Agreed,
Perhaps the reason for this is the speed checks on these dual carriageways and the lack of such on these secondary roads??
Perhaps more should be on secondary roads, perhaps the laws should be enforced harder on these secondary roads, perhaps limits should be changed on these roads?

On Newstalk this morning some guy was being interviewed about that point. The new cameras they're deploying are going to be deployed to red spots (I think that's the term he used). That is places that they've seen that there have been more accidents at. He did say that most of the new ones weren't going on dual carriageways or motorways.

I'm of the opinion anyway that if you're thick enough to get caught speeding then don't grumble when you have to pay the fine. I've been caught a few times myself. Nobody to blame but myself. If the speed limit on a road is a stupid limit then that's not the fault of the camera and you should be blaming whoever sets the limits, not those that enforce them.

_Kaiser_

mickoneill30 wrote:

On Newstalk this morning some guy was being interviewed about that point. The new cameras they're deploying are going to be deployed to red spots (I think that's the term he used). That is places that they've seen that there have been more accidents at. He did say that most of the new ones weren't going on dual carriageways or motorways.

The Sunday Business Post's transport guy was on George Hook tonight and said that the latest survey in the UK by police found that only 5% of the accidents they surveyed were caused purely by "excessive speed". The other 95% were a result of "driver error" (poor observation, lapses in attention, backing into someone in car parks etc).

He believed that the problem is the Dept went in with a "one size fits all" approach when we switchd from mph to km - the result being that you have HQDC limited to 50/60kph and twisty, narrow N-roads at 100kph :rolleyes:

He waits also calling for better road quality/maintenance and better driver education and I have to say, he made a lot of sense. These 2 factors are more likely to reduce road deaths and accidents than more speed cameras... but this being Ireland, we'll get the much easier cop-out "looks like we're doing something but really all we're doing is collecting even more money" solution.

Seth Brundle

Firstly, I have to wonder about the claims by the new private operators who say that they are discussing potential locations with gardai and that these cameras will be placed in accident blackspots and not on really motorways/DCs. Does this mean that they plan on placing traps in similar places to those the gardai currently use or that they will use new locations, thus proving that the gardai's current locations are wrong and not based on safety (as we already know!)!

Secondly, I drive frequently over the limit. Not by much but still over the limit. I would consider myself to be quite observant and aware of other road users, etc. - this may be why I have still never recieved any points. I don't want to have to turn my driving style into one where Im focused on the speedo and not on the road. I noticed that when heading up to Belfast recently and as I passed the SPECS system my driving style changed (as did most others) as we spent most of our time concentrating on whether or not we were building an average speed limit of over 60mph. This was not safe driving and while may sound good ("we caught X people speeding") could lead to other accidents.

gyppo

Jimmy the cat wrote:

Have you ever seen a speed trap late at night on a road where accidents are common?
No, you see them on dual carriageways during the day, when the traffic volume is highest..... more money to be made.
The bulk of accidents happen late at night and not on dual carriageways or motorways.

No, I've never seen a speed trap late at night either on roads where accidents are common. I would imagine there would be serious safety implications setting up a speed trap and stopping offenders on a bad road when the light is bad.
Yes, you do see them on dual carraigeways in the middle of the day. The rationale is that those who speed on good roads also speed on bad roads.

Its not very long ago that the penalty points system was introduced. For the first 5/6 weeks, road fatalities, and hospital admissions resulting from road accidents were reduced significantly.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1101464&issue_id=10237

However, we're now back to square one, as people decide they know better than everyone else, and drive at the speed they want.

The government also needs to sort out the ridiculous speed limits on secondary roads.