Safe Speed Forums

How do 'speed camera economics' really work? There seem to be so many ways of looking at it! I'm most interested in the highest level - the 'cost to society' level.

Department for Transport spins it as 'road safety for free' - or 'speeders pay'. In a way it's true because speed camera cash hasn't come from general taxation.

However, those £60 fines are taken out of the wider economy - anyone who has paid one has £60 less to spend in Dixons.

I usually view speed camera economics as a public money bonfire. Whatever the means of extraction, public money spent is essentially wasted on useless (actually far worse than useless) toys.

But most of the 'bonfired' money does return to recirculate in the economy as camera partnership staff spend their wages, and as camera manufacturers and installers generate profits and buy supplies.

What's the 'proper' view? Do we need to look at 'added value'?

Is there a standard way of unravelling these sorts of economic questions?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I don't know if there is a standard way of pricing this up, but I bet the true cost is substantially higher than £60 a throw. Some proportion of cases will go to court, I don't know how much it costs to run a court but I would guess many hundreds of pounds an hour. People with point on their license may end up paying a lot more than £60 extra insurance. Once totting up occurs and people get banned the impact amps up sharply - being without private transport makes you far less valuable to society, and may mean you can't keep your current job. The consequences for people who lose their jobs may be huge and last for years.

The argument about putting the money back into circulation is one I don't buy. If that argument worked, logically we should be stealing money out of people's bank accounts and spending it for them. Oh hang on, that's the government's job.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

Oh God Paul, your question really opens a can of worms going back decades doesn't it?......


How long have you got?....



Of course I know that you already know, the politics, the pressure groups, the greenies, the PC brigade........etc

Now I know that "this" may be controversial.......but! (please DON'T mis-understand). Mrs Thatcher once said: "The polluter must pay" ..

I am now politically neutral, because I can't see the difference between any of them. But! .....the polluter in this case............is the speeder!

The speed camera is a direct result of that handed down dogma......and no-one is going to change it. They're ALL the ruddy same I'm afraid.

Automatic survailence is ultimately cheaper than XXXXXX number of Policemen, Cars, support etc.


I DON'T agree with it, but! What can I do?





PS....sorry for my long absence........

I think there are a number of issues at stake here.

I At the end of the day the economy all about the flow of money, money needs to move and preferably into the uk rather than out.

What would I do with my £60 if it wasn't going to a fine? would I spend it...if so surely a good thing as it would then flow through the econmony creating wealth. If I was to simply hoard it would that be better for the economy than paying the fine? my fine goes to pay the wages of SCP satff who in term spend them and thus the cycle is continued. If my insurance goes up then so what I'm paying insurance rather than spending it on beer but the money still goes round.

I think it's like my old hobby horse the VED. I absolutely believe that I could abolish VED at a stroke, put a levy on fuel and create tax that needed no processing and could not be avoided. But what would the cost of that be? redundancies at DVLA, post office closures, baliffs out of work, etc etc.

Gordon Brown has grown the economy by following this model and expanding the public sector thus stimulating the money go round.

I say balls to that personally but it is his approach.

With respect to the 'polluter pays' I tend to agree with this. Essentially If I make a mess I should pay to clear it up, if I want something then I should pay for it.

But of course this all falls on it's face because when I 'speed' I'm not 'polluting'.

On the plus side the government gain the fine and the increased insurance premium and reduced expenditure on roads due to slower cars.
On the minus side cars and vans are slower doing thier work and produce less. People are less likly to buy an exotic car which is usualy imported. Most of the fine money spent goes back into the uk economy in wages and home manufactured signs.

Miffed employees produce less, refuse to drive around earning money. Money is wasted on service inditries like solicitors and expert witneses rather than buying goods from dixons.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Has anyone read 'freakonomics'?