Private Speed Cameras...Some Good News

Seth Brundle

Hang on!
70million per annum @ €80 per fine = 875,000 fines
Presumably most speeding instances will still go unnoticed.
So, to me, the current policy is this: "lets install 600 speed cameras in the full knowledge that they will not work"
Is there actually a belief then that this will have a positive impact?

niceirishfella

From the release; Well-placed sources said the companies involved were taking it that the contract for privatised speed cameras had been abandoned.


I'd say these companies we mightely pissed off to get this news. They probably saw it like this -

* buy a high roof lwb tranny,stick the camera in the back, pay some muppet to man or woman it all day long clicking away and shooting fish in a barrel on the motorways of Ireland where shag all road traffic incidents take place and email in the pics to the pigs and whack out the nice juicy invoices and be sure to get paid prompty from the state cofferrs*

It was going to be money for old fooking rope!
It seems there is a god after all.

D_murph

niceirishfella wrote: »

From the release; Well-placed sources said the companies involved were taking it that the contract for privatised speed cameras had been abandoned.


I'd say these companies we mightely pissed off to get this news. They probably saw it like this -

* buy a high roof lwb tranny,stick the camera in the back, pay some muppet to man or woman it all day long clicking away and shooting fish in a barrel on the motorways of Ireland where shag all road traffic incidents take place and email in the pics to the pigs and whack out the nice juicy invoices and be sure to get paid prompty from the state cofferrs*

It was going to be money for old fooking rope!
It seems there is a god after all.

im sure theyre gutted now that the dream is over :rolleyes:

my heart bleeds for them, now theyll have to go away and get a real job instead

Niall1234

This is just one example where the motor lobby has to be more prominent in Ireland.

I don't know anyone who is pro speed cameras. Yet the government were thinking of installing them.

Aren't the government supposed to represent the peoples views ?

galwaytt

TFFT - camera's have no benefit to road safety - they just encourage 'accordian' driving - just ask the dutch.

They don't do anything for fatalaties, either - ask the UK. Speaking of which, now that the Home Office no longer allows the local authorities to keep a % of the camera fine income - guess what? - no more new cameras ! Woo Hoo. Just goes to show......it's all about the money.

If they were honest about it, they'd just invest in proper traffic Garda, and I don't mean covert, either. The more over the better, and not necessarily hanging around dual carriageways/N roads/motorways, either.........

Camera's don't detect drunk driving, dangerous driving, uninsured driving, and just plain goddamn awful driving. Those groups are where the accidents and fatalaities are............

And I still wouldn't trust any govt dept when in comes to scheme pricing. Multiply any budget by at least.........10? then you'll be closer to the real figure. PPars, eVoting machines, Blood Transfusion Board software..........the list goes on.........

jimmycrackcorm

Fey! wrote: »

How would it cost €25M to set up 600 cameras? That's €41,666 per camera. I thought that the cost of these was around €10,000 each, which would be €6M. Add to that salaries for 6 people to service and look after the machines, and 4 people in an office issuing fines, and that's another half a million. Another euro per fine sent out (paper, envelope, ink, and stamp) for 875,000 fines, which is €875,000, and another million for replacement cameras for the vandalised ones. Another €200,000 for 8 vans assuming purchase rather than hire), about €10,000 for insurance, and €500,000 for "miscellaneous", which would include office rent, computers, printers, fax, phone, etc.

That's €9,085,000 including the €6.2M for initial equipment, which has a running cost of €2,885,000 per annum. With an income of €80 per fine, and 875,000, that's €70M income. Operating company take 20%, that gives them €14M, running a pre tax profit of €11,115,000, and leaving the state with €56M. At 20% to the private company, they'd need 180,312.5 speeders per annum just to cover costs (not including the €6.2M initial capital investment), giving the state €11,540,000 per annum.

Does any of that make sense; I've just confused myself...

A fair proportion of the 600 cameras were due to be mobile units requireing staff, vehicles and running costs.

ballooba

D_murph wrote: »

i didnt think of that actually but it makes sense too unfortunately.

i reckon it looks bad politically as well so i guess saving lives comes third :rolleyes:

The only reason it looks bad politically is because the government puts so much focus on it. There are far more people dying from suicide than on our roads. Nobody shouts about that though.

A more likely secondary motivation is that businesses give huge money to the road safety lobby to campaign for better infrastructure. I would be willing to bet that the AA gets the bulk of it's money from corporate members.

Panda Moanium

galwaytt wrote: »

TFFT - camera's have no benefit to road safety - they just encourage 'accordian' driving - just ask the dutch.

They don't do anything for fatalaties, either - ask the UK. Speaking of which, now that the Home Office no longer allows the local authorities to keep a % of the camera fine income - guess what? - no more new cameras ! Woo Hoo. Just goes to show......it's all about the money.

If they were honest about it, they'd just invest in proper traffic Garda, and I don't mean covert, either. The more over the better, and not necessarily hanging around dual carriageways/N roads/motorways, either.........

Camera's don't detect drunk driving, dangerous driving, uninsured driving, and just plain goddamn awful driving. Those groups are where the accidents and fatalaities are............

And I still wouldn't trust any govt dept when in comes to scheme pricing. Multiply any budget by at least.........10? then you'll be closer to the real figure. PPars, eVoting machines, Blood Transfusion Board software..........the list goes on.........

Well said. The problem with speed cameras is that they can't apply any logic to a situation. Either you are speeding or you are not. No consideration of any other factors come into it.

One recent example, I was driving on a motorway at the speed-limit, cruise control on. I had pulled out to the overtaking lane to overtake another vehicle when, as I was almost alongside, I noticed that he in turn was catching up rapidly on a slower car in front of him. Rather than keep at my current speed and force him to brake I accelerated momentarily to get past so that he could move out to the outside lane. In doing so I probably was doing about 140 kmh for a couple of seconds before I returned to the speed limit. Now the thing was just as all this was happening we passed a parked Garda patrol car. Nothing happened, he would have seen the situation for what it was, no problems. If however, that Garda car had been a speed camera.....well I'd have two points on my licence by now....

_Kaiser_

ballooba wrote: »

You know that the only reason road safety is an issue is because it costs so much? It's not because of the loss of the actual people. It's because it's an expensive way to die.

That's it exactly. I was listening to the discussion on this last night on Newstalk, and they reckon that it costs the state around €2m per fatality - as mentioned already by myself an others, the only thing that is being considered here is the cost/revenue angle and of course, how it'll impact the upcoming local elections.

De Hipster

ballooba wrote: »

The only reason it looks bad politically is because the government puts so much focus on it. There are far more people dying from suicide than on our roads. Nobody shouts about that though.

It wouldn't surprise me to imagine the current government having paid a firm of consultants to survey how it might be possible to generate additional TAX revenue from suicide or potential suicide canditates...:rolleyes:

Fey!

Did anyone hear the FG politician on the radio last night claiming that 1 in 4 road deaths were directly attributable to speeding? And insisting that the speed camera should go ahead. He also seemed to be saying that the government hadn't scrapped the scheme; that they had just pushed it back a bit again.

ballooba

Fey! wrote: »

Did anyone hear the FG politician on the radio last night claiming that 1 in 4 road deaths were directly attributable to speeding? And insisting that the speed camera should go ahead. He also seemed to be saying that the government hadn't scrapped the scheme; that they had just pushed it back a bit again.

Which politician was this? Which program? I'm not denying it btw.

The official government line is that it's 'shelved' not 'scrapped'. Just like the eVoting machines stored around the country.;)

E92

What eejit in Fine Gael said that?

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

What eejit in Fine Gael said that?

Does it matter. You may as well ask which lunatic in the asylum...

Fey!

Unfortunately I wasn't paying enough attention to get the guys name, and it may have been an IRN report; I was channel hopping at the time. Sorry. The only reason it stuck in my head was the 1 in 4 comment; I wondered where he got his facts and figures.

Rovi

E92 wrote: »

What eejit in Fine Gael said that?

Probably Shane McEntee (LINKY):

13
Feb 2008
Govt inaction on speed cameras costing lives- McEntee

Fine Gael National Press Office Press Release

..................................................................

Leinster House Contact:Shane McEntee TD Dublin 2 Kerry Graye Road Safety Ireland 01-6183379

Wednesday 13th February 2008

Govt inaction on speed cameras costing lives- McEntee

Contract must be signed for speed cameras

Fine Gael's Spokesman on Road Safety, Shane McEntee TD said today (Wednesday) that Government inaction on life saving speed cameras is costing many lives. The tendering process for the roll out of speed cameras has been completed but the Government refuses to sign contracts.

"The cameras would cost in the region of €50 million, but they would bring in an estimated €70 million in revenue. The Government has no problem wasting taxpayers' money on the continued storage of e-voting machines, the PPARS fiasco and bloated bureaucracy in the health service, but for some reason, refuses to move on this vitally important issue.

"The Road Safety Authority, in its report 'Collision Facts 2006' stated that speeding was a main contributory factor in 26% of single vehicle fatal collisions.

"International experience has shown the positive effect that speed cameras have made in reducing road deaths. The French Government estimated that 75% of the reduction of road deaths there was attributed to the introduction of speed cameras. Sweden reported a 21% drop in fatal crashes, while in Denmark a 24% drop was recorded.

"Speed cameras have been proven as a significant deterrent to dangerous speeding. But despite numerous promises spanning ten years, they are still not in place in Ireland.

- They were first promised in 1998 (as part of the 1998 to 2002 Road Safety Strategy) and were supposed to be in place by 2000;
- In 2003 the National Roads Authority commissioned a study on speed cameras but no subsequent action was taken;
- In 2004, Fianna Fáil and the PDs again promised to prioritise speed cameras in the 2004-2006 road safety strategy, with a deadline for the end of 2006;
- In 2005 the Government published another report on speed cameras but again no action was taken;
- In 2007, having missed the 2006 deadline, then Transport Minister Martin Cullen announced they would be in place by summer 2007;
- 2008 - still no date for their implementation;

"The death toll on our roads this year stands at 38 which is higher than this time last year. Speeding is still widespread and is one of the most common reasons for accruing penalty points. Over 450,000 penalty point notices had been issued for speeding up to the end of last December.

"I'm astonished the Government refuses to move on this issue, when lives are at stake. This initiative has been on the starting blocks for ten years. Why are the road users of Ireland still waiting?"

ballooba

maidhc wrote: »

Does it matter. You may as well ask which lunatic in the asylum...

By asylum you mean the Dail I presume. Not Fine Gael.;)

Donie came out with a few howlers last week for Fianna Fail.

While I don't agree with Shane's policies on this issue, his statistic with regard to Single Vehicle Collisions are accurate. I would be of the opinion that it is misleading to present this statistic in isolation because the overall figure is much lower.

Fey!

I think that the use of point-to-point cameras (don't know the correct name for them) is the way forward.

you pass the first camera as you enter a stretch of road, and it records the time and your reg number. A couple of miles down the road you pass a second camera, which also records the time and your reg number. A computer then calculates the time it took you to drive down this known length stretch of road, and from that calculates your average speed. If it's above the limit for the road, then you get a fine in the post.

Unlike traditional speed cameras, these can be used on bad stretches of roads (handheld speed guns can't be used on very twisty stretches of roads).

Rovi

Fey! wrote: »

I think that the use of point-to-point cameras (don't know the correct name for them) is the way forward.

SPECS Speed Cameras?

Fey! wrote: »

you pass the first camera as you enter a stretch of road, and it records the time and your reg number. A couple of miles down the road you pass a second camera, which also records the time and your reg number. A computer then calculates the time it took you to drive down this known length stretch of road, and from that calculates your average speed. If it's above the limit for the road, then you get a fine in the post.

Unlike traditional speed cameras, these can be used on bad stretches of roads (handheld speed guns can't be used on very twisty stretches of roads).

That's all fine and dandy on roads with sensible speed limits, but I'd be of the opinion that they'd have little or no work to do on much of our regional road network with its current 80Km/h limit.
Trying to hold an average speed of over 80Km/h on many of the back roads around here would very quickly lead to tears.

Marcus.Aurelius

Great news, delighted to hear it. Greedy FF bastards just wanted to up the statistics for fines issued, nothing at all to do with road safety.

Fantastic bit of news for the overtaxed motorists!

E92

Speed cameras be they SPECS, Gatsos or whatever are a curse on society that are designed to make Governments be seen to be doing something about road safety but in reality are revenue tools for a Government.

If the Government were serious about road safety, they'd have more Gardas about enforcing ALL the rules of the road, not just the ones that can unambiguously make the people that pay their wages richer i.e. speeding.

yayamark

To the poster above i do drive##If people slowed down they'd be no need for these cameras.

But people will allways complain:(

Keith C

Slightly off topic, but was the NCT not brought in cause "unsafe" cars were contributory to road deaths??

NCT hasnt reduced road deaths, just burnt a hole in peoples pockets......

D_murph

yayamark wrote: »

To the poster above i do drive##If people slowed down they'd be no need for these cameras.

But people will allways complain:(

yayamark wrote: »

This is bad news a lot of lives could have been saved with these cameras.

Now people are not going to slow down which means more accidents and unnecessary road deaths.

Oh no surprise really with this government.

youre the only one thats complaining about this actually, everyone else is happy that this infestation of revenue machines will not be happening on our roads.

it also proves just what a load of BS they are also spouting when they say that they are focusing on road safety with speedtraps. the same ones that are on the safest roads in the country most of the time engaged in a turkey-shoot.

the money wasnt going to come in on this one, plain and simple and they tried to deny that as well :rolleyes:

eringobragh

No need for the camera's anyway, I find Irish drivers to be the slowest drivers in the world TBH.

Obviously Mary Murphy doing 54k in a 50 on the way to buy a pint of milk won't to be taught a lesson now.:rolleyes: Shame

eringobragh

Keith C wrote: »

NCT hasnt reduced road deaths, just burnt a hole in peoples pockets......

x2 How does high emissions make your car any less safer....unless you had your mouth on the exhaust pipe

Victor

stevec wrote: »

If they expected to take in 70m (or even 20m) in fines, they are just saying that they expect drivers to keep on speeding and paying fines!!

All these schemes tak in a lot of money at the start and that drops substantially when people start obeying the speed limits.

TJJP

Fey! wrote: »

How would it cost €25M to set up 600 cameras?

As I read it I thought it was:

The Garda estimated the costs in March 2007 at €25 million annually.

However, based on the specification of the Working Group on Speed Cameras, published in 2005, the industry said the cost would be closer to €50 million - still within the €70 million a year in revenue the working group estimated the speed cameras would raise.

I reckon you could get a lot more well equiped Gardai on the road for that kind of cash. Some well put together cars like the Jags, Volvo's or BMWs such as they have in the UK, on mobile patrol rather than sitting on the side of the M4/M7, would probably much more good for road safety here.

E92

TJJP wrote: »

I reckon you could get a lot more well equiped Gardai on the road for that kind of cash. Some well put together cars like the Jags, Volvo's or BMWs such as they have in the UK, on mobile patrol rather than sitting on the side of the M4/M7, would probably much more good for road safety here.

Why do they need Jags or BMWs? If they need something with a bit of power, there are loads of much cheaper cars that would easily offer the same levels of power as these big expensive cars?

A Skoda Octavia vRS has 200 bhp, and only about 55% of the price of even the cheapest 5 series(which has 177 bhp), if they need something with power I don't see what a 5 series would do that an Octavia vRS wouldn't in terms of being able to catch criminals(which is my understanding why they're moving to these bigger, more polluting and faster cars). We're talking about value for taxpayers' money here, not oh we'll get them a BMW because it has a much nicer badge or because when we're arresting people, we wouldn't want to be cramping their style in a "mere" Skoda, and all the other things like ride comfort, noise etc might make a car better, but at the end of the day these cars are being bought to catch criminals cause the current Garda fleet can't keep up with a lot of criminals these days, so none of the usual criteria that apply matters, all a Garda car needs to be able to do is be reliable, and be able to go fast when required at the best value for the taxpayer.

Niall1234

Too much emphasis is put on speeding in road safety iniatives. Why ?

Because it is by far the most easily enforceable rule of the road. Its easy to plod speed cameras everywhere and rake in money.

On the other hand, failing to indicate, dangerous driving at junction etc are a lot harder to enforce.