Go Safe: What cost?

Citizen_Cutback

In 2013 it is estimated that An Garda Síochána paid the Go Safe Consortium approximately €2200 per hour per van for speed enforcement/survey on Irish roads or €16.6m for a contracted 7,475 hours:

http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2012/report/en/Chapter08.pdf

If there is a monetary surplus earned from fines above the cost of the outsourced Go Safe service it is returned by the Gardai to the exchequer. However, if there is a shortfall it has to be met from fixed charges that the Gardai earn from their own speed detection activities and other fixed charge offences that relate to not displaying a valid insurance disk, parking/driving in prohibited areas etc...

Would it not be better if the Gardai were equipped to run the equivalent of the Go Safe service itself?

A point will be reached where the returns generated by Go Safe vans will be reduced to a level that the Gardai will have to find more ways to collect fixed penalties from road users. Is this not an apalling vista?

I note that the economic libertarian Liz O'Donnell is the new chair of the RSA which is based in Ballina, deep in Enda Kenny's backyard. On August 1st penalty points were increased for 9 different offences including from 2 to 3 points for speeding. Things can only get worse! Nice one Leo:cool:
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Licensed%20Drivers/Penalty%20Points%20Increased%20at%201%20August%202014.pdf

At least there are no penalty points yet for driving too slow so perhaps it would be advisable for all drivers who wish to avoid penalty points for speeding to stay at or below 3rd gear.

Rightwing

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

In 2013 it is estimated that An Garda Síochána paid the Go Safe Consortium approximately €2200 per hour per van for speed enforcement/survey on Irish roads or €16.6m for a contracted 7,475 hours:

http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2012/report/en/Chapter08.pdf

If there is a monetary surplus earned from fines above the cost of the outsourced Go Safe service it is returned by the Gardai to the exchequer. However, if there is a shortfall it has to be met from fixed charges that the Gardai earn from their own speed detection activities and other fixed charge offences that relate to not displaying a valid insurance disk, parking/driving in prohibited areas etc...

Would it not be better if the Gardai were equipped to run the equivalent of the Go Safe service itself?

A point will be reached where the returns generated by Go Safe vans will be reduced to a level that the Gardai will have to find more ways to collect fixed penalties from road users. Is this not an apalling vista?

I note that the economic libertarian Liz O'Donnell is the new chair of the RSA which is based in Ballina, deep in Enda Kenny's backyard. On August 1st penalty points were increased for 9 different offences including from 2 to 3 points for speeding. Things can only get worse! Nice one Leo:cool:
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Licensed%20Drivers/Penalty%20Points%20Increased%20at%201%20August%202014.pdf

At least there are no penalty points yet for driving too slow so perhaps it would be advisable for all drivers who wish to avoid penalty points for speeding to stay at or below 3rd gear.

Certainly not. Haven't we enough controversy about penalty points? :rolleyes:

The figure is too, almost anyone could do the job. Gardai should be on the beat and protecting people, not sitting on their fat arses in a van.

NIMAN

Shocking cost, especially considering they are always located at the same spots, and you can learn where to slow down to avoid points.

Where I live people drive slowly on 2 stretches of roads and outside of these speed up as they would normally do. How thats changing peoples habits I don't know?

For me they are sevring no purpose unless they move about randomly.

whippet

NIMAN wrote: »

Shocking cost, especially considering they are always located at the same spots, and you can learn where to slow down to avoid points.

Where I live people drive slowly on 2 stretches of roads and outside of these speed up as they would normally do. How thats changing peoples habits I don't know?

For me they are sevring no purpose unless they move about randomly.

So you can see that in the areas where they operate you and other users are slowing down ... That was the purpose. They were to be positioned in places where there were historic accidents and deaths.

You can argue about the specific locations .. But the fact that people actually slow down at these locations means that the vans are doing what they were intended to do.

antoobrien

whippet wrote: »

So you can see that in the areas where they operate you and other users are slowing down ... That was the purpose. They were to be positioned in places where there were historic accidents and deaths.

Except they are not being used that way, I have seen them miles from the locations of the fatal accidents that supposedly marked out those roads as target areas.

Revenue generation, pure and simple.

whippet

antoobrien wrote: »

Except they are not being used that way, I have seen them miles from the locations of the fatal accidents that supposedly marked out those roads as target areas.

Revenue generation, pure and simple.

I would totally agree .. the locations are the problem. The concept works, but until it is operated properly it won't serve the purpose it is supposed to.

Just like a lot of things in this country ... the idea is right, but the execution is way off mark ... Irish Water, great idea to encourage water conservation and responsible usage of a natural resource .. but through official stupidity we now have a flat rate that does not serve the intended purpose.

antoobrien

whippet wrote: »

The concept works, but until it is operated properly it won't serve the purpose it is supposed to.

Just like a lot of things in this country ... the idea is right, but the execution is way off mark ... Irish Water, great idea to encourage water conservation and responsible usage of a natural resource .. but through official stupidity we now have a flat rate that does not serve the intended purpose.

The concept fails if it does not change overall behaviour, which this concept fails to do. Slowing down going around a certain corner then speeding up again less than 1km later is failure, not matter what way we try to cut it.

The proof is in the road death statistics, they're on their way up again from historical lows that appear to have had more to do with fewer people on the road and adverse weather conditions than policing.

whippet

antoobrien wrote: »

o. Slowing down going around a certain corner then speeding up again less than 1km later is failure, .

not necessarily failure .. if you can reduce speed at accident blackspots that is success

NIMAN

whippet wrote: »

So you can see that in the areas where they operate you and other users are slowing down ... That was the purpose. They were to be positioned in places where there were historic accidents and deaths.

You can argue about the specific locations .. But the fact that people actually slow down at these locations means that the vans are doing what they were intended to do.

But is there any point sitting in the same spots all the time? That only means people keep to the speed limit on those stretches, and they know they can speed with impunity elsewhere.

Surely if they were placed randomly they would have a better overall effect on peoples speed?

The_Captain

whippet wrote: »

not necessarily failure .. if you can reduce speed at accident blackspots that is success

You could re-introduce static cameras at these spots for a fraction of the price and the same effectiveness

nice_guy80

so many locations in the midlands where the vans are placed on straight stretches of road that have been upgraded (but in the past were windy and so accidents happened)
yet the bad section of road further along, nor the schools along the road don't get a speed camera!

NewApproach

If you actually read the report, it says that it is 7,475 hours per month, i.e. a total of 89,700.

So €185 per hour, which is fine imo.

BaronVon

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

In 2013 it is estimated that An Garda Síochána paid the Go Safe Consortium approximately €2200 per hour per van for speed enforcement/survey on Irish roads or €16.6m for a contracted 7,475 hours:

Would it not be better if the Gardai were equipped to run the equivalent of the Go Safe service itself?

I would suggest that money would be far better spent on Garda activities. €16.6m would buy an awful lot of patrol cars, or plenty of overtime hours. One of my main issues with speed cameras is that drivers aren't stopped there and then, and made aware of their driving/breath tested etc, there's no intervention, which i think there should be.

braddun

I park white van ,near where I live,i laugh as people slam on the breaks, when they see it,its stopped speeding

around my area

BaronVon

Among the estimates contained in the reports were that
 the system would cost in the region of €4.4 million per annum for approximately
3,000 hours of safety camera detection a month

e GoSafe Consortium to provide 7,475 hours of
speed enforcement or speed surveying each month.......

......The cost of the operation of the GoSafe system inclusive of VAT was €0.2 million in
2010, €15.8 million in 2011 and €15.6 million in 2012. The estimated cost for 2013 is
€16.6 million.

So we're paying about 50% more for the service than was originally budgeted for, typical!

cerastes

NIMAN wrote: »

Shocking cost, especially considering they are always located at the same spots, and you can learn where to slow down to avoid points.

Where I live people drive slowly on 2 stretches of roads and outside of these speed up as they would normally do. How thats changing peoples habits I don't know?

For me they are sevring no purpose unless they move about randomly.

They are serving even less of a purpose if they cant do it all the time, ie on the move in both directions.

whippet wrote: »

not necessarily failure .. if you can reduce speed at accident blackspots that is success

Cant see how that is isnt a failure, it may even just shift the blackspot as people know they can speed elsewhere.

infacteh wrote: »

I would suggest that money would be far better spent on Garda activities. €16.6m would buy an awful lot of patrol cars, or plenty of overtime hours. One of my main issues with speed cameras is that drivers aren't stopped there and then, and made aware of their driving/breath tested etc, there's no intervention, which i think there should be.

You couldnt be garaunteed it would go towards speed checks/monitoring speeding etc.

braddun wrote: »

I park white van ,near where I live,i laugh as people slam on the breaks, when they see it,its stopped speeding

around my area

Sounds dangerous in a way, I suppose if it stops them speeding, maybe put a darker patch on one of the back windows to make it more convincing.
I suppose its more to do with driver habits, but its dangerous when people do the slamming on the breaks, I think speed vans encourage that hazard. That and they are usually parked in the same places which never usually seem to be a problem, westwards on the N4 after the M50, I actually think it would be better on the other side, as people do go faster than the limit and even try prevent you from merging from the Fonthill rd end, on ramp.
Ive seen some ridiculous over/under taking by cars speeding in towards town/or to take the M50 north bound exit.
Meaning a speed van would be needed further back to encourage people to slow down there.
A fixed camera might discourage it completely as people would know its always there.

quadrifoglio verde

What should happen with the vans is that instead of using precious Garda resources to catch people for not having taxed there cars, the anpr should be used to run a background check to see if the car is taxed. If it's not taxed, a letter with a fine is sent, of the fine isn't paid the sheriff comes a calling.

Go safe is working if it's costing the state money. It's not meant to be a revenue raising exercise. Now, it shouldn't be in certain areas marked by speed cam signs, it should be everywhere. One day the van could be on the dublin road out of celbridge, the next day it could be on the road between hazel hatch and peamount hospital.

But then that would make sense.

cerastes

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

What should happen with the vans is that instead of using precious Garda resources to catch people for not having taxed there cars, the anpr should be used to run a background check to see if the car is taxed. If it's not taxed, a letter with a fine is sent, of the fine isn't paid the sheriff comes a calling.

Go safe is working if it's costing the state money. It's not meant to be a revenue raising exercise. Now, it shouldn't be in certain areas marked by speed cam signs, it should be everywhere. One day the van could be on the dublin road out of celbridge, the next day it could be on the road between hazel hatch and peamount hospital.

But then that would make sense.

Why should go safe be checking for tax if its speed they are checking for?
If its not meant to be a revenue raising exercise?
There may be other complications in that.

quadrifoglio verde

cerastes wrote: »

Why should go safe be checking for tax if its speed they are checking for?
If its not meant to be a revenue raising exercise?
There may be other complications in that.

Why should the guards valuable time be spent doing Garda checkpoints when anpr could be.
My point re not meant to be revenue raising was in relation to them not catching enough speeding for the thing to break even, that was the goal though, to reduce speed in certain areas.

cerastes

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Why should the guards valuable time be spent doing Garda checkpoints when anpr could be.
My point re not meant to be revenue raising was in relation to them not catching enough speeding for the thing to break even, that was the goal though, to reduce speed in certain areas.

Who else would do Garda checkpoints? you previously stated go safe should be for checking motor tax and said at the same time that it isnt a revenue generating operation?

Id suggest some other system along the lines motor tax on fuel, except for the reason Im against adding costs or penalties on to anything is they are generally implemented either with the view they are for a certain time or for a certain cost (think USC), they then become permanent and/or increase with no say from the public and they just end up being poured into the public finances black hole and fund huge inefficiency's in the state. So we'd probably have go safe doing ANPR and speed checks and the hard pressed public/ordinary motorist with motor tax in its current form, then an extra tax on fuel and no control over it increasing.

I agree garda time shouldnt be wasted doing tax checks, but I think there must be a better way to collect motor tax and deter evaders, than hand it to a private company.
ANPR could be checking tax from Garda vehicles anyway, possibly, but there is the cost implication and then them having other jobs to do that are more of a priority or they'd never get anywhere.

I might agree with it under certain circumstances, ie go safe doing it, but then their use as a safety mechanism to prevent speeding would be seen as a revenue collection exercise.
Certainly it wouldnt take much effort to get some fixed cameras in certain places where there is high volume and a real need to reduce speed, like where I mentioned as people bombing down the N4 coming towards the M50 are dangerous and the speed is appropriate there as it should allow people to cross safely to the south bound exit without having other drivers approaching at light speed.

I think also some speed limit signs are placed in stupid places, ie right on top of a junction where you should be paying attention to other traffic/pedestrians, and repeater signs are too small to be seen at a distance or where they are obscured.

Some better harmonisation/standardisation of speed limits in the country.

Also at junctions, roundabouts/slip lanes in particular, where signs that obscure oncoming traffic or view of the road should all have rules about placement including overuse of signs and poles where poles already exist.

And lastly for the moment, reduce the disparity in motor tax (and I dont mean increase newer post 07 tax), especially when they purported reasosn are carbon dioxide emissions.

After they sort that and other issues and Im getting a reasonable return/value/safe place to drive, I'd consider them having a revenue generating exercise and only then when their fee is agreed and the lions share of profits pays for the safety end of things or contributes more to it, not simply to go into the hands of the owners of a private company at the expense yet again of motorists/tax payers/the public.

Id also expect if the Gardai arent doing motor tax checks their resources are actually allocated somewhere else useful to the public.

Citizen_Cutback

NewApproach wrote: »

If you actually read the report, it says that it is 7,475 hours per month, i.e. a total of 89,700.

So €185 per hour, which is fine imo.

Thanks for the correction. I am unable to edit the original message so I hope this clarification will suffice.

Some more calculations (please cross-check:D):

Allowing for 364 operational days per year this implies that Go Safe vans are in situ 246 hour per day roadside.

If each van operator puts in an 8 hour shift this would imply that a minimum of 30 van operators are on duty in any one day.

If we account for travel to/from the depot, setup time etc... the likelyhood is that we are talking about closer to 40 operators employed per day.

Also allowing for holidays, sick leave and 7 day working weeks would imply a need closer to 80 van operators. I am sure somebody knows how to calculate a resaonably accurately estimate of how many personnel are required to provide the service.

There is also the question of how many vans are needed to provide the service.

Are the vans deployed continuously over 24 hours or is their operation proportional to traffic movement etc..?

My own observations would lead me to conclude that the vans are not doing the hours contracted for.

Receipts collected in 2012 from fixed charge notices issued on foot of detections by
the GoSafe safety cameras amounted to €4.6 million. As a result, there was a
shortfall of €11 million relative to the cost of the service. An Garda Síochána financed
the shortfall through the retention of receipts from fixed charge notices issued on foot
of other enforcement activities such as intercepts and Garda camera vans.

Revenue gathered in 2012 was €51 per contracted hour so it is no surprise to see that there was a shortfall of €11 million in relation to fines earned as a result of Go Safe that year. I expect that this level of fine collection will be substantially improved in 2014 as a result of ongoing enquiries and not only at the behest of Whistleblowers.

...and as we now know any surplus above contracted costs is returned to the Exchequer :mad: